BoxRec

Wales wrote:We're all being mis-led? There is no global warming?

Quick ring the G8, give them the names of said fabled journals so they too can eff their carbon footprint off. Knew it was a bad idea, Obama and Brown reading the sun for their info on global warming.

no i said not given the whole story, dont twist my words. i said the news doesnt give the wholes story which is true they give you the most shocking facts or the most calming

Long story short version we shouldnt care about it?

Wales wrote:Long story short version we shouldnt care about it?

i dont but the problem is only about a 10th as bad as its being made out to be but its a small problem owrry if you like

your stats or the journals ?

V8 not G8!

Wales wrote:your stats or the journals ?

thats what a few journals have said but there isnt a quantifiable way to measure the damage so you can set an experiment up to say what you want it to say- that last bit is easy to do (speaking as a scientist)

banjo wrote:V8 not G8!

Indeed lets have V8's like on top gear powering rocking chairs and blenders

You're a scientist?

Wales wrote:You're a scientist?

a degree is forensics and foundation degree level in chemistry and genetics

Im assuming the foundations were done as part of your forensic degree.

I have an ant farm

sg1985 wrote:

Adamj1987 wrote:

Wales wrote:You're a scientist?

a degree is forensics and foundation degree level in chemistry and genetics

I don't think that makes you a scientist. I have two gcse's in science does that make me a scientist?

have you ever processed your own experiments after deciding your own research project where you do it yourselft, set the scientific permaiter of an experiment, and see if it proves or disprove wht you expect to find? no because you dont do that in school

Wales wrote:Im assuming the foundations were done as part of your forensic degree.

I have an ant farm, does that qualify me?

yes and then no to the secodn 1

Adamj1987 wrote: have you ever processed your own experiments after deciding your own research project where you do it yourselft, set the scientific permaiter of an experiment, and see if it proves or disprove wht you expect to find? no because you dont do that in school

Surely you need more than a foundation degree in a subject, which was actually part of a wider degree, to qualify yourself as a scientist?

sg1985 wrote:I wish I did more myself with the regards to climate change, we recycle pretty much everything, but we take it to the recycling place in a car so it defeats the object a little bit. I would get rid of the car and get a bike but I'm a lazy bastard and I hate cyclists.

We get (plastic) boxes now to put tin in, boxes to put paper in, boxes to put glass in. Bin men collect them on the round one week, then your wheelie bins the next week. Used to fill a wheelie bin a week, now we recycle its a wheelie bin every 2 weeks.

Wales wrote:

Adamj1987 wrote: have you ever processed your own experiments after deciding your own research project where you do it yourselft, set the scientific permaiter of an experiment, and see if it proves or disprove wht you expect to find? no because you dont do that in school

Surely you need more than a foundation degree in a subject, which was actually part of a wider degree, to qualify yourself as a scientist?

6 years of it should be enough i think

Adamj1987 wrote:

Wales wrote:

Adamj1987 wrote: have you ever processed your own experiments after deciding your own research project where you do it yourselft, set the scientific permaiter of an experiment, and see if it proves or disprove wht you expect to find? no because you dont do that in school

Surely you need more than a foundation degree in a subject, which was actually part of a wider degree, to qualify yourself as a scientist?

6 years of it should be enough i think

You went to Uni at 16 to study a 6 year science degree ?
Thats me assuming 1987 is your year of birth.

Wales wrote:
You went to Uni at 16 to study a 6 year science degree ?
Thats me assuming 1987 is your year of birth.

no ive been doing all 3 since then just the 4 years at uni

The title of the thread is spot on - what more can be said!!!

Adamj1987 wrote: I have to agree,
the carbon footprint is all very well and good but even if every house in the UK managed to get neutral the damage countries like russia, china and america do each day will be the equivilent of what we save its stupid.

I am always tickled when things like Climate Change and racism get discussed on here, but unfortunately such discussion does lead to ridicolous comments like this.

Adam, you are casting yourself as some kind of expert - but then bring out the blame 'Russia and China' argument, (although I will give you the States).

I thought an educated person such as yourself would understand that when comparing pollution, you need to look at it per head. Russian and China aren't even in the top 30 nations:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_p ... per-capita

There are some carbon intensity statistics based on GDP that paint Russia and China in a worse light, but these are widely perceived as being unfair as these nations sell things at a much lower cost.

Personally, I think China do OK. They produce most of the stuff the rest of the world consumes and have only just overtaken the amount of the pollution emitted by the USA - despite the fact their population is four times larger!

Interesting (and very surprising) reading that malestrom...

Luxumburg tied second!! Also, blows the whole "I'll start when Russia and china do" thing out the water...

Adam, you are casting yourself as some kind of expert - but then bring out the blame 'Russia and China' argument, (although I will give you the States).

i never said i was i just said i did some research and that it was easy to make experiments prove what you want them to prove.

I thought an educated person such as yourself would understand that when comparing pollution, you need to look at it per head. Russian and China aren't even in the top 30 nations:

thats 1 way of putting a spin on it. per head is 1 way to look at it a culminative total is the way i look at it

That was my last reply on the argument. I dont do carbon neutral and think its a waste of time and i've said why there is no need for me to keep repeating myself and im out laters

Adamj1987 wrote:per head is 1 way to look at it a culminative total is the way i look at it

But surely you understand culmative total isnt the correct way to look at pollution levels, how would China ever get less than Luxemburg? They wouldnt. Your argument is flawed.

I removed the restrictor from my motorbike exhaust so it afterburns any excess emissions so I've done my bit

Wales wrote:

Adamj1987 wrote:per head is 1 way to look at it a culminative total is the way i look at it

But surely you understand culmative total isnt the correct way to look at pollution levels, how would China ever get less than Luxemburg? They wouldnt. Your argument is flawed.

No, i'm with Adam. Let the US, Russia and China reduce their emissions to the same cumulative total as the UK then we can talk about reducing ours.

sums it up...

With california having a bigger running budget than the nation of Italy, I feel we're going to have one helluva wait.