Car bosses and the green debate

Pedro - you pick your debates as you see them. But if you're going to do more than sit on the fence, make sure you have some weapons. Stating one of the worlds leading deforestation experts "doesn't sound difinitive" adds nothing. It's backed up with the facts of NASA satellites - a seperate, completely independant confirmation of Dr Graingers work. Yes it does make me angry. The amount of people walking round like zombies with vacuous climate propoganda in their heads drives me nuts. I'd like to shake the lot of them to wake up at what's happening - political manipulation. Hash Brown is laughing all the way to the bank with truck loads of 'green money' from your wallet and ruining everybodies standards of living. Look at the Ethanol farce.

Pedro - in order for you or the global warming (GW) crew to have an argument, you require some good maths and good science to help your theory stand up. What GW advocates haven't got is either. Take the time to take a close look sometime. Your argument to date is a banal opinion - Dr Grainger according to you "Doesn't sound definitive". Pretty pathetic you 2nd guessing one of the worlds leadin scientists that's spent 3 years studying the facts. Dr Grainger is doing the maths of forestation AND deforestation. All you know, and have heard about is half the truth, about what man is cutting down. The maths show Earth has added 100 million hectres of forest across the planet (and NASA satillite data backs up the greening of the planet). So yet another GW fabrication debunked. But you treat the facts with disdain and doubt. Based on lame half truths - a remarkably similar 'position' to the GW crew!! I'd address your other banal opinions but there isn't space here to demonstrate what a casually arrogant and ignorant attitude you have to this subject. And it's 19,000 scientists that signed the Oregon Petition. The GW 'consensus' is yet another dedunked fairy tale and doesn't even merit the 'half-truth' tag that is about the best most GW pinheads can achieve.

Biram - I'm sorry but once again I'm going to accuse you of swallowing kindergarden crap! The BBC News article is laughable. Sometimes simple statistics are the best but when they 'omit' huge facts that matter in the equation its face. The global population issue for example versus land mass available to grow food. If you include mans capacity to improve productivity per acre year on year you quickly see food production will exceed (as it has done for 99 out of every 100yrs) demand. Then water resources. Well the satellite photo of Las Vegas tripling its population in 20yrs (in a desert) yet still watering itself and its lawns without problems turns the argument to farce (ditto Dubai to Alice Springs). Industrialised man solves these problems and doesn't put down roots where he can't feed or water himself. The problem is poverty in the Third World and not affording the industry to solve water problems. And if as you say you "read every word of CAR" you'd have read Mark Waltons column (Page 45-6) in Junes issue revealing what a farce our carbon targets are "like bailing out the Titanic with a teaspoon". Final nail in your coffin. We are NOT deforesting. NASA satellites report the Earth is greening, Americas frests by a 50% increase over the last 10yrs. And Dr Alan Grainger, from Leeds University and one of the world's leading experts on tropical deforestation claims we look at losses but don't look at new forests growing. His study of the UN's own statistics of the past 40yrs shows an increase in forest of 100M hectres between 1980 and 2000. Link. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080107181343.htm