http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfo ... 261287.stm

Was it legal for the protesters and the camera crews to be in the grounds of his home without permission?

And, in all seriousness, I wonder what the legal amount of force he could have used on them is...I'd have fcuking hit them with whatever it was

What a poorly thought-out plan! Clarkson lives on a good few acres of land, probably has plants...horse manure works great as fertiliser - they have probably done him a favour.

His roses will come up lovely next year.

I'll imagine he'll say something similar in his weekly column. Something along the lines of 'I was out on holiday, realised I forgot to order some fertiliser and thankfully some kind souls donated some. I'm sure to win the Chelsea flower show this year!".

TBH Clarkson isn't actively denying 'climate change'. He just doesn't believe the entire thing is down to humans. I believe we do have an impact on the environment, but I believe the environment has a bigger impact on itself.

They (presumably scientists) say that if the timeline for planet Earth's existence is condensed to six days, then:
Monday 00:00-23:59 - Earth is formed
Tuesday 12:00 - first single-celled organism forms
Wednesday, Thurs, Friday - life develops
Saturday 16:00 - we finally get dinosaurs
Saturday 21:00 - extinction of dinosaurs
Sunday 23:57 - the first humans appear
Sunday 23:59:59.75* - Jesus is crucified
Sunday 23:59:59.975** - the Industrial Revolution
Sunday 23:59:59:99*** - a nuclear bomb

Putting things into perspective, are humans really having that much of an impact on planet Earth? From the Industrial Revolution to now is 0.025 seconds. 25 milliseconds. A human blink lasts longer at 400 milliseconds. Imagine that. Six days and suddenly 'climate change' is something that has happened in less than the blink of an eye.

This is why I think that whatever humans are doing is purely a tiny, almost indetectable hiccup in the grand scheme of things.





*quarter of a second to midnight
**one fortieth of a second to midnight
***one hundredth of second to midnight

The problem isn't as bad with cars as it is with livestock

They generate more greenhouse gasses than cars do combined

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003959.html

Drive a mustang, eat a burger!

The problem with the oil fueled society is more to do with consuming a finite resource at a staggering rate.

The oil burned in one year took the entire planet about 500 years to make, and we've pretty much leveled most of the forests that would eventually create coal.

Burning oil is worse than burning art. Art doesn't really matter, but oil is what we use to make many medicines, plastics, fertilisers and hi-tech goods. Every 50 miles you drive, you're burning enough raw material to medicate the whole of Africa for a day. That's you personally denying an entire country medical aid. That's 10 million children potentially dying for you to drive an hour.

If we just used fossils for making important stuff instead of simply burning it, then we'd have enough to last millions of years.

And it pisses off art students if you burn their work

I agree with not wasting fossil fuels, my car will happily run on vege oil from a chippy or other similar plant based oils, if the gov reduced the tax i'd do that.... it's still cheaper to buy 'the real thing' (diesel) though

That's just evidence that the government are more interested in raising tax than saving the world. It's beyond ironic that the "green" fuel tax is applied to alternatives.

However, there's really not that much chip oil in the country. I doubt it could ever feed more than a fraction of 1% of our motoring requirements; let alone total energy usage.

Growing oil crops purely for fuel actually uses more energy than it creates, but that does not mean we shouldn't recycle stuff such as manure. Farming and the food industry create a lot of waste which can be used as fuel for different things. Doesn't Clarkson have a traction engine? I bet that could run on dried horse [LIFTED].

There has ALWAYS been climate change. Some changes have been more dramatic than others.

True, but we are accelerating the problem - overcrowding, raising herd animals in huge quantities (cows, sheep etc.), whose populations wouldn't have risen so dramatically without our help, industrialisation, transport...

We might not be the cause of global warming, but we are certainly contributing to accelerating the effects.

To me, it is irrelevant whether we are responsible or not. We should be looking at slowing down the effects as much as possible, whilst looking at ways to combat it or developing clean technologies that will help us live through the excessive heat (and probable ice age thereafter)...

The "its going to happen anyway, so why should I care?" attitude isn't going to help future generations.

As Im not going to be procreating thats something I really dont have to worry about (in a totally selfish..screw the world viewpoint).
The less people on this planet the better

Ok, this is going to sound incredibly callous, but it's not without merit - those 10 million children dying for every hour I drive...
If we accept that human existence causes Bad Things to happen to the climate, surely the fewer people on the planet, the better, given that we already can't feed or medicate everyone.

I'm not saying that oil isn't a valuable resource that needs to be used wisely, but I am suggesting that if you accept that humans make the planet cry then fewer humans equate to a happier ecosystem. The biggest impact you'll have on climate change is not having children and reducing the population.

As far as slowing down the effects, I'd far rather we spent our time looking at ways to cope with what's coming.

I have quite complex beliefs about this climate change thing.

Firstly, I believe that our impact on the planet, in terms of the lifetime of the planet is teensy, barely enough to even register, yes we have certainly done a good job of using the finite resources, but this planet was fine without us before, it'll be fine many, many years after we're extinct. The people shouting about climate change and the "environmental impact of human beings" only care about one thing, human beings. These people are banging on about what we're going to do for resources in future years, how the human race will sustain itself if oceans rise and puddles boil, they don't actually seem to care about the planet, only the outcome for the human race.

I say [LIFTED] 'em, the chances are, we as a population will not be able to sustain ourselves on this planet indefinitely, sooner or later we will be wiped out by something catastrophic and the earth will carry on towards it's final doom for many more years without the existence of us.

The second thing is that the facts are not bieng published accurately, the people who want to tax us, charge us ridiculous prices for things which have an 'impact' on the environment are publishing only what they want to be heard. I spent a very enjoyable afternoon reading through Scientific journals about how one end of the earth may well be melting, we're overdue for a pole-switch anyway, but the other ends ice is thickening and growing. Yes there may be an influx of fresh water into the salt water environment and it may cause amazing devastation to fish and wildlife, but that kind of thing has been happening on this planet for thousands of years, and will carry on happening for thousands of years after we're all dust.

Nobody really seems to give a damn about the actual planet, only the human races ability to survive whatever happens.

I recycle, for whatever good it does, and I don't go out of my way to make things unpleasant in my surroundings, however, I also drive 75 miles each way to work daily, and there's nothing I can do about that at the moment. I am already being charged through the nose for petrol, road tax, servicing, MOT and regular running costs, so I refuse to be made to feel bad about it. I don't believe for one second that turning all my lights off for an hour, once a year will actually make the slightest difference, it's just another type of "fear" that's been generated to keep the eyes of the population firmly where the PTB want them, a brand of "Razzle Dazzle" which is just another in a great long line of that type of thing.

Yes, we will eventually be forced to come up with alternative ways of doing things, that can only be a good thing. However, as with the coal production, when things run out, we will be forced to come up with new "greener" *shudder* alternatives, but not because it's the right thing to do, only because there's no other choice. Personally I'm quite sure that leaving GW Bush in charge would have been the best method of population control the world has ever seen, he'd eventually have come up with ways to go to war with just about everyone which would have wiped out a large portion of the child-bearing-aged citizens of many countries.

I firmly believe that the only way the human race will learn, is by being taught the ultimate lesson, and while we still have governments riding high on a dose of tax and subsidy, it's not going to happen. We've got too used to having things as they are, and people are stupid. I for one will be quite happy if during my lifetime, we're forced to go back to small-holding and fend for ourselves, but I'm pretty sure the planet won't care one way or the other.

+1

Well said, both the Prof and Zippy.

In this country trespass isn't actually a crime.