egafd.com

[quote]I'm old enough to have watched the whole thing at the time. As I was watching it, I felt like I was 'having the wool pulled over my eyes', as I actually noticed then some of the many anomalies that were brought to our attention years later.[/quote]

Science changes all the time. Today's best theories may turn out to be nothing. Who disproves the theories science thinks up? Why science of course.

It really puzzles me when people say you shouldn't take any notice of scientists, and that sometimes they're proven wrong. They don't realise that the people who proved the scientists wrong were other scientists....................................yet we're not supposed to listen to them.

What to do?

wasn't suggesting you said solar power was the be all, just putting my thoughts on it.

I do think hydrogen is the way forward, you can also split water by ultrasonics - might be simpler than electrolysis, time will tell but we did used to run chemical reactions with ultrasonics at uni many years ago, i'm sure it's moved on since then.

I don't think nuclear is perfect but it's so much more efficient now, if we want to carry on using energy at the same levels then wind and wave will struggle to give the amounts, hydro is pretty poor enviromentally.

cold fusion would be the ideal, but i'm with you, so far away, if possible, as to be a non starter

every part of the moon conspiracy can be explained, I wouldn't waste time discussing it

A while back this guy invented a grid that fitted into the road or motorway so when traffic runs over it electricity was generated, and no you didnt get an electric shock but just imagine thousands of these throughout the road network, so the more journeys you took the more you helped save the planet, but i dont think it got of the starting block for safety reasons !confused!

eh?

I was saying there is no evidence for a conspiracy and all the conspiracy stuff is easily explained

I've joined this thread late, and haven't read much of it....I'll get through it.

However, isn't the whole premise of Global warming based on CO2 emissions- an educated suggestion that has been unchallenged since it's inception in the late 1600s??

Despite scant evidence, there surely has been global warming throughout Earth's history, with the development of the atmosphere and varying solar activity- WITHOUT modern-day man's in(out?)put??

Yes- Co2 levels and temperature go hand-in-hand; and CO2 levels are naturally present through various means.

But, in terms of a ratio of the volume CO2 output to the sheer volume of atmosphere itself present, isn't this akin to a "piss in the pacific" anyway??

Isn't it a simple equation through the photosynthesis of green plants:

CO2 -------> O2??

Grow more trees.

Stay with me on this, it's very rough science but is interesting none the less.

A can of Coke has 2.2 grams of C02 in it.

The UK population according to the CIA is 60,609,153.

So if we each drink just one can of Coke per day for one year we belch out 48 669 149.9 kg of C02 each year.

Now add all the others....and well, that's alot of fucking C02 belched out!!!!