I believe generally global warming as its known is mainly mother nature doing her thing although clearly humans are not helping. The statistics can be twisted to suit any viewpoint, in my view it is as much about big businesses trying to make money by exaggerating the problem. As for the carbon footprint its a load of twaddle. The folk that take recycling serious are being conned as most councils dump it all on one landfill site

Source for this information?

There has always been climate change and there will always be climate change and this is due to many natural factors such as position of the earth relative to the sun, the earths tilt, our position in the universe etc etc I could write pages of natural causes and variations.

However, most mainstream scientists (not the fringe loonies on both sides of the debate) agree that when you analise the trends of natural change there is an anomaly. They suggest that this anomaly is the difference made by the activities of man.

Some agree, some don't but having done lots of research on this I'm in the camp that agrees. Man has affected climate change.

This is quite interesting
[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/[/url

I am not disputing mas has not contributed to climate change but am saying it will or would have happened albeit at a slower pace.

The oil companies are over inflating petrol prices etc and increase profits so they can invest in greener projects, this is all just a way to try justify them ripping folk off. Lets assume we all use electric car energy in the future the oil companies will not survive in my view which is why I believe they are mainly posturing.

I just wish that polititians would stop pussyfooting around this issue.

The reason we have this problem is because the world has far too many people and not enough resources.

The only way we're ever going sort climate change out is to get a worldwide agreement on curbing population growth, which globally is expected to 9 billion by 2050.

This may sound drastic but I'd start by sterilising women after they have a second child.

You would have to do the same to a man as well.

Good point.

How do you know this?

I would suggest it is quite possible to feed the population of this planet.

The technology exists for it to happen.

[size=200=greenGREED![/size ensures it wont happen.

You wouldn't because funnily enough only women can have kids.

Food is only one example of a resource.

What about more finite resources like Oil and Gas?

What about us tearing this planet apart for Wood, Stone, and Metals.

Not to mention more and more farming land in developing nations being used to produce bio fuel for developed nations instead of food for themselves.

As I said, we are the problem because there are far too many of us, although that said I do agree with you on the greed part.

Yes, but without men it would currently be tricky (though seemingly not impossible) to create them in the first place!

You have a very good point, but its no good controling population if we don't also change our behaviour.

Its interesting that "big business" including oil companies, not only denied climate change existed but "paid" scientists to say so.

Its even more interesting that now they have been backed into a corner they try to gain favour by developing Bio fuels and probably making a lot of money out of doing so. If they could get away with charging 50p or even a pound more per litre of petrol they would do. As someone has said, some businesses are just greedy and appear to feel very little moral obligation (until they are exposed).

If every woman in the world only gave birth to 2 kids the world's population would eventually fall (unless infant mortality rates were zero).

The only part men are involved with is sleeping with a woman and getting her pregnant (and hopefully doing the honourable thing and looking after her and the kids which we all know some bast*rds don't do).

Even if some men were complete ars*holes and had 10 kids to 5 different women all it wouldn't contribute to an overall population growth. Which is why Men wouldn't need the snip.

Attitudes do need to change.

As individuals we have an awful lot more power than we think we have in order to change things.

Stealth Comic I agree with your idea that as individuals we have power but not as much as would change things dramatically.

When you see these protesters at for example the present summit or g20 the idiots with only violence in mind undermine the rest to the point of being sterile.

Dont get me wrong, because more than a number of women around my area of Huddy have had my 2 (which thankfully I never did) and a few others as well!

I think for some the trouble is it comes back to the only way to get cheap accomodation from the council nowadays is if you produce kids, so youngsters will get pregnant for that reason alone. Fine if they stopped at one, but how often do they?

So dont get me wrong, I like the idea of sterilisation after so many kids, just think men might think about the matter of putting 'buns in ovens' more if they were only allowed so many as well!

Give all teenagers till at least 18 chastity belts

You need to smell the [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IBRbzf3Fwscoffee[/url

Old Skool Hip Hop, Quality.

Change can be more subtle than protesting.

If a large corporation uses unethical practices, don't buy their products or use their services. If enough people agree and it hurts their bottom line they'll either stop or go under.

A lot of it is down to apathy. The one that springs to mind is the old "why should I bother putting energy saving bulbs in when China's opening a new coal power station every month.?"

A single individual can only make a small change, but if many individuals all make the same small change it can make a massive change.

It's what free market economics and democracy are all about, we've just got to use it properly.

Time to get my patio heater

Energy saving bulbs? I like the idea, but they don't give out much light...
I think that mankind has made the natural process of global climate change happen a lot quicker than it would left to it's own devices.
I dunno about forced sterilisation, either. How do you square that one away in countries where there is a high infant mortality rate - and they need family members to scratch even a very basic living from the land?

I am no rep for any company but if you want some tips on energy efficient lamps here you go: -

1. Avoid LED's they are 3-5 years away for home lighting. If you do buy some try and find out at what ambient temperature they should run as overheating the junction kills the lamp life. So that magic quoted 50,000 could be as little as 1,000 hours if they get too hot in a ceiling void or wall void. Generally the dicroic replacements and linear fluorescent replacements are rubbish and a waste of money.

2. If you are buying a linear fluorescent fittings, make sure it is a high frequency T5 (T16) lamp, i.e. 5/8ths of and inch or 16mm. Don't use T8's and don't use switch start control gear.

3. If you are buying a compact fluorescent then go for teh sylvania mini lynx lamps. They have instant on at ~80% output and only take 2 mins to get to 100% output. Also check for the colour temperature of the light. A tungsten has a colour temperature of ~3000K so if you get a compact flurescent at 3000K and it sits in a lamp shade you won't have a clue it's a compact fluorescent. If you want daylight vlue then look for lamps at 5000K and above. Phillips do one at 17,000K as a linear fluorescent.

4. Avoid cheap chinese lamps, they don't have the colour rendering of good quality lamps, i.e. you can look too red or too blue as the lamps do not emit all colours of the spectrum. Stick to Sylvania / Osram.

5. If you are buying compact fluorescent for outside, avoid GE as they don;t start well in cold conditions, go for the Osram lamps they start quickly even in cold weather.

6. Compact fluorescent are as good and indeed better than tungsten in respect of brightness, just be sure to get the right lamp. i.e. 100W tungsten is a 20W compact fluorescent.

7. Don't buy one large 500W halogen flood light or one large 55W Fluorescent flood light, instead buy more lights with lower outputs. i.e. Put the light where it is needed as it is more efficient than throwing it down the whole length of your garden. If the light is going up into the sky then consider the fact you are paying for the electricity and not getting the benefit.

8. If you want a dimmable fluorescent go for the Varialight ones, they have a smooth appearance, good colour at all levels (slightly pink at low level), and work off your average rotary dimmer. (N.B. not all rotary dimmers work so check out the website).

9. If you have QR111 50W tungsten shop lights running off a 12V transformer, then change them to the 230V AR111 from Megaman. It is an 11W compact fluorescnt and gives out the same light as the 50W, also you can take out the 12V transformer which is causing it's own loses in your electricl supply. Most luminaires that take a QR111 Tungsten will take an AR111 but again check the web.

10. Turn the damn things off if you don't need them, make them last longer and reduce your bills.

My view is that the earth is hotting up and the CIBSE weather data shows that as fact. Whos to blame does not really matter as we need to do something whether that is to reduce our CO2's or adapt to the new weather patterns or both. For me, wasting raw materials and giving united utilites money because I left my lights on and my tv on standby makes no sense, so I will be energy efficient as it saves me money.

Hope things work out tomorrow and looking forward to the StH clash.

Yer what he said.