Climate change

[Verbal]

So are the 'non-science' brigade on SWF being paid, or just "unwitting recruits of campaigns they have never heard of"?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/07/climate-change-denial-industry

 

The latter. No question!

[Master Bates]

Next 2 weeks are cold cold cold. Duvet fortnight me thinks.

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20091209/tuk-uk-braced-for-fortnight-of-wintry-we-45dbed5.html

[Joensuu]

Next 2 weeks are cold cold cold. Duvet fortnight me thinks.

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20091209/tuk-uk-braced-for-fortnight-of-wintry-we-45dbed5.html

 

I heard that too, apparent the bookies have slashed the odds against a white Christmas.

 

BTW, wrong thread MB?

[Master Bates]

I heard that too, apparent the bookies have slashed the odds against a white Christmas.

 

BTW, wrong thread MB?

 

Nah, climate change = weather. I couldn't be arsenaled looking for any other existing weather thread or starting a new one.

 

EDIT*

 

Meh, suppose I could have put it in the 'Rain' thread.

[Joensuu]

Next 2 weeks are cold cold cold. Duvet fortnight me thinks.

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20091209/tuk-uk-braced-for-fortnight-of-wintry-we-45dbed5.html

 

Nah, climate change = weather. I couldn't be arsenaled looking for any other existing weather thread or starting a new one.

 

EDIT*

 

Meh, suppose I could have put it in the 'Rain' thread.

 

You could be right. The cold snap or the rain could both be symptoms of climate change, but I'd guess they are little more than isolated weather.

 

Of course the fact that an unseasonal cold snap in December even makes the news, tells me how relatively warm we've all come to expect our December's to be... Now that's more indicative of climate change.

[sadoldgit]

I am 55 years old and in my relatively short life time I have seen a huge change in the climate/weather. The seasons have shifted and become more blurred. In fact we tend to have "weather" rather than seasons in many respects. I remember the infamous smogs in the 60s in which many people died. Thankfully those extremes have gone but we still breath in polluted air every day and they can't be good for us, let alone the planet.

 

For any species to survive they need a sustanable eco system. Whatever your views about global warming, mankind is overpopulating the planet to the point where, in the not too distant future, the planet will no longer be able to sustain such a high level of human existance.

 

The planet will die of natural causes eventually, but I don't think it is unreasonable to say that mankind is accelerating the process.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

I am 55 years old and in my relatively short life time I have seen a huge change in the climate/weather. The seasons have shifted and become more blurred. In fact we tend to have "weather" rather than seasons in many respects. I remember the infamous smogs in the 60s in which many people died. Thankfully those extremes have gone but we still breath in polluted air every day and they can't be good for us, let alone the planet.

 

For any species to survive they need a sustanable eco system. Whatever your views about global warming, mankind is overpopulating the planet to the point where, in the not too distant future, the planet will no longer be able to sustain such a high level of human existance.

 

The planet will die of natural causes eventually, but I don't think it is unreasonable to say that mankind is accelerating the process.

 

 

That's a cheery read for a Thursday morning!

 

But I agree with your sentiments 100%

[OldNick]

I am 55 years old and in my relatively short life time I have seen a huge change in the climate/weather. The seasons have shifted and become more blurred. In fact we tend to have "weather" rather than seasons in many respects. I remember the infamous smogs in the 60s in which many people died. Thankfully those extremes have gone but we still breath in polluted air every day and they can't be good for us, let alone the planet.

 

For any species to survive they need a sustanable eco system. Whatever your views about global warming, mankind is overpopulating the planet to the point where, in the not too distant future, the planet will no longer be able to sustain such a high level of human existance.

 

The planet will die of natural causes eventually, but I don't think it is unreasonable to say that mankind is accelerating the process.

that brings us to birth control, now there is something i can agree with.

[Master Bates]

I am 55 years old and in my relatively short life time I have seen a huge change in the climate/weather. The seasons have shifted and become more blurred. In fact we tend to have "weather" rather than seasons in many respects. I remember the infamous smogs in the 60s in which many people died. Thankfully those extremes have gone but we still breath in polluted air every day and they can't be good for us, let alone the planet.

 

For any species to survive they need a sustanable eco system. Whatever your views about global warming, mankind is overpopulating the planet to the point where, in the not too distant future, the planet will no longer be able to sustain such a high level of human existance.

 

The planet will die of natural causes eventually, but I don't think it is unreasonable to say that mankind is accelerating the process.

 

Good post.

 

We should adopt what they do in China/Japan where couples can only have 2 children per family.

[Joensuu]

Obviously 'growth in population' has a correlation with 'impact on climate'.

 

Many left-wingers argue that the richest 10% produce about 40% (or something) of the co2, and therefore it's not population that needs to be reduced/controlled, but consumption by the richest.

 

Many right-wingers argue that the earth's population is increasing rapidly, and any attempt to reduce the consumption of the richest will quickly be negated by the growing third-world population.

 

I'm somewhere between the two views. All countries should do everything they can to reduce their co2 emissions. Likewise all countries should be taking a serious look at their own population growth, and whether it is sustainable. If you take a country like Bangladesh and model a reduction in say food or oil you will quickly find starvation occurs.

 

So the question is how you tackle population growth. The obvious answer is to take a disgusting authoritarian approach like China's one child policy. This is an abhorrent solution, and should be avoided at all costs. Perhaps it would be better to encourage people in other ways, say tax incentives for fewer children? All I know is that if we do nothing, there will be a lot more mouths to feed, couple that with climate change, and you come to the only conclusion: a wrecked climate and mass starvation. I think we would all hate to see it happen, but I can't see any political policy being both acceptable and having a positive effect.

 

Is it better to enforce birth control, to prevent over-population and therefore eventual starvation? IMO definitely not, but it's certainly not a desirable choice. It would be mighty hypocritical (and racist) if birth control were enforced only in the developing world, before the richest nations have made any real concessions. Neither left-wing nor right-wing have got it right on this issue, they both need to soften their stances and meet in the middle.

[Whitey Grandad]

Good post.

 

We should adopt what they do in China/Japan where couples can only have 2 children per family.

In China it used to be only one child which meant no brothers, sisters, aunts or uncles for a generation.

[Special K]

I am 55 years old and in my relatively short life time I have seen a huge change in the climate/weather. The seasons have shifted and become more blurred. In fact we tend to have "weather" rather than seasons in many respects. I remember the infamous smogs in the 60s in which many people died. Thankfully those extremes have gone but we still breath in polluted air every day and they can't be good for us, let alone the planet.

 

For any species to survive they need a sustanable eco system. Whatever your views about global warming, mankind is overpopulating the planet to the point where, in the not too distant future, the planet will no longer be able to sustain such a high level of human existance.

 

The planet will die of natural causes eventually, but I don't think it is unreasonable to say that mankind is accelerating the process.

 

There have been many extinction events on this planet. This planet will not die imho, but the life forms that inhabit it will and will continue to do so whenever the planet wants it to happen. There will be pretty much bugger all we, or whatever occupies the planet can do about it when it happens.

 

However, this is not to cast doubt over either the causes of human accelerated climate change, which is pretty much indisputable, or the actions required by us to prevent what is seen as the consequence of it.

[Joensuu]

Hey... I think I'll do St George's job:

 

Here's a really top science person, who has must be right, and makes loads of sense, hope you agree with her, because yeeeha, I sure do. I can't wait to vote for her, because she's not a commie like O'bomb'a, shame she's female, because if I had my rootin' tootin' way she'd be bent over in my kitch'n (if ya, know what I mean ). Ha Ha, you commie tree huggers are so dumb.

Have a good day ya'll.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/09/sarah-palin-obama-boycott-copenhagen

[Sheaf Saint]

Hey... I think I'll do St George's job:

 

Here's a really top science person, who has must be right, and makes loads of sense, hope you agree with her, because yeeeha, I sure do. I can't wait to vote for her, because she's not a commie like O'bomb'a, shame she's female, because if I had my rootin' tootin' way she'd be bent over in my kitch'n (if ya, know what I mean ). Ha Ha, you commie tree huggers are so dumb.

Have a good day ya'll.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/09/sarah-palin-obama-boycott-copenhagen

 

Dear god, I cannot stand that woman. She proved what a small-minded idiot she is during last year's presidential election campaign, and she has done nothing to change my view on that since. What she is effectively saying here is that the world should ignore all scientific evidence pointing to MMCC just so that Americans can continue to enjoy cheap fuel. Really thinking long term there aren't you Sarah!

[dune]

Lord Lawson speaks a lot of sense...

 

 

As for that smug socialist Milliband - what an utter ****. The sooner we get these Labour mongs out the better.

[Joensuu]

Lord Lawson speaks a lot of sense...

 

 

As for that smug socialist Milliband - what an utter ****. The sooner we get these Labour mongs out the better.

 

 

I have to completely disagree. Milliband, much as I dislike him, comes across rather well. Certainly his points are coherent and make sense.

 

On the other hand Lord Lawson is such a buffoon! I mean, how can anyone say this sort of rubbish and expect to be taken seriously:

 

"Everybody knows that... well the climate change, of course, or global warming, to be more precise, appears not be be happening at the present time. There's been no... and this is accepted by all of the scientists although there is now doubt about the whole of the record, the whole of the science because of the, because of the errr problems er er arising from the emails traffic among the scientists at the climatic research centre"

Scientifically he is completely and totally wrong.

[Saint George]

Copenhagen climate summit, Carbon trading fraudsters in Europe pocket 5bn

 

“It is estimated that in some countries, up to 90pc of the whole market volume was caused by fraudulent activities,”

 

LOL One fraud and scam after another and still the dim and gullibal suck it up!....This is fasinating stuff.

 

 

PS my Climate Commies commant above should have read (nice one Dune)

[badgerx16]

Copenhagen climate summit, Carbon trading fraudsters in Europe pocket 5bn

 

“It is estimated that in some countries, up to 90pc of the whole market volume was caused by fraudulent activities,”

 

LOL One fraud and scam after another and still the dim and gullibal suck it up!....This is fasinating stuff.

 

 

PS my Climate Commies commant above should have read (nice one Dune)

G, all this proves is that where there is money available, there will always be some bent b'stard, in all probability a 'Casino Capitalist', willing to dip his ( or her ) snout in the trough. It does not serve to disprove any science, just to show the complete lack of morals that some people exhibit. IMHO, simply following America's lead in the 'gimme, gimme, gimme', 'grab all you can' stakes, and in the best tradition of the banking sector.

 

( And by the way, given your persistent poor spelling and grammar, I am more and more convinced you are really a skate on a wind-up ).

[Verbal]

Copenhagen climate summit, Carbon trading fraudsters in Europe pocket 5bn

 

“It is estimated that in some countries, up to 90pc of the whole market volume was caused by fraudulent activities,”

 

LOL One fraud and scam after another and still the dim and gullibal suck it up!....This is fasinating stuff.

 

 

PS my Climate Commies commant above should have read (nice one Dune)

 

I know this may confuse you and your mini-me, but this does not actually have anything whatsoever to do with atmospheric chemistry.

[norwaysaint]

After being blown out of the water on pretty much every subject, is misdirection all St George has left now?

 

Y'all, lol.

[Whitey Grandad]

I know this may confuse you and your mini-me, but this does not actually have anything whatsoever to do with atmospheric chemistry.

It just shows that you should never let economists any where near the real world because all they'll do is slap a tax on it.

[Minty]

It just shows that you should never let economists any where near the real world because all they'll do is slap a tax on it.

 

I would've agreed until I came across the New Economics Foundation.

 

They speak a lot of sense IMO:

 

http://www.neweconomics.org/

[Whitey Grandad]

I would've agreed until I came across the New Economics Foundation.

 

They speak a lot of sense IMO:

 

http://www.neweconomics.org/

Interesting. Is that why they're called 'New'?

[jeff leopard]

There was an interesting thing on radio 4 last night, here's the iplayer link - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p6t26/The_Report_10_12_2009/

 

It looked at what was actually said in those hacked emails from East Anglia Uni and found that, contrary to the Fox News take on it, this isn't the smoking gun that reveals climate change to be a nasty conspiracy by those evil commie tree-huggers, it doesn't even give the sceptics much to crow over apart from a few things -

 

Over a 1,000 emails were hacked, but only 20 or so contain anything contentious.

 

The Uni destroyed some raw data concerning climate change in the 80s due to lack of storage, in the scientific world, this is a big no-no.

 

The scientists do squabble amongst themselves and question each other's findings in the emails, surely perfectly natural behaviour for scientists.

 

Scientists, like a lot of very intelligent people, are capable of being outrageously stupid. Realising that any freedom of information requests would include personal emails, they emailed each other saying 'delete any emails you don't want seen by the outside world', instead of doing the rationale thing and communicating this via the phone or face to face. Imagine that your boss came in today and requested the last 100 emails you sent to be held up for public scrutiny, I'm sure most of us would have something to hide which wouldn't necessarily reveal us as frauds.

 

The scientific community which study climate change may well have been guilty of forming a cartel, basically getting all their colleges to sing from the same hymn-sheet. This is more evidence of the scientists getting very defensive and forming their wagons in a circle than constructing a conspiracy. Considering the attack they've been under from Bush's cronies and the right-wing media, these con-indated defensive tactics are hardly surprising.

 

And it goes on in this vein. The scientists which believe in climate change are not by any means perfect, mistakes have been made along the way and will be made again, no doubt. But nothing in these emails questions or challenges the basic principle that mankind is raising the earth's climate.

 

The reason the sceptics grabbed upon these emails is simply because they have nothing substantial to back up their argument.

[Minty]

Interesting. Is that why they're called 'New'?

 

Well, what's in a name? Compared to much conventional thinking I guess they are 'new' but the substance is more in their proposals and policies... real world solutions for real world problems IMO.

[Verbal]

I do wonder whether climate sceptics aren't their own worst enemies. Why do they all have to be such hopeless buffoons?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/11/monckton-calls-activists-hitler-youth

Edited 11 December, 2009 by Verbal

[Minty]

lol... substitute St George for Monckton, and me and a few others for the Wessel and co, and you almost have this thread!!!

[View From The Top]

The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism.

[Joensuu]

What a fool!

 

Think this bit is the funniest:

 

"Because of the biofuel scam, world food prices have doubled. That it because of the global warming scare, which you won't look at the science of. As a result of that, millions are dying in third world countries because food prices have doubled because of the biofuel scam, because of the global warming scare."

Doesn’t he realise that bio fuel is almost unilaterally discredited as a viable mechanism for preventing climate change. It is purely a mechanism that the wealthy are using to delay the onset of peak oil.

I for one hate the science of climate change being tarnished by association with biofuel. Whichever capitalist dreamt up the concept of linking fuel prices to food prices has blood on their hands.

 

Algae fuel production... now that should be taken more seriously...

[Saint George]

I see good 'ole Gordy's just given away yet another 1.5bn of your money...Man that's gunna hit those taxes a wee bit.....Wonder how much of that will end up in a little pile like this ......Dontcha just love these socialists and the way they give away other peep's money, just like it grew on green tree's.

 

LOL, wouldnt it be funny, if by 2020, the Climate Commies had got there way and had y'all back living a Victorian period life style.......Only to finaly realise it was all just a false alarm and hysterical over reaction and these guys were right all along

 

 

[View From The Top]

I'm glad our leader isn't a commie as SG proved with the American President, who he also proved couldn't be president as he wasn't born in the USofA.

 

Phew, he's really good at proving things is our aging old ships steward.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

I see good 'ole Gordy's just given away yet another 1.5bn of your money...Man that's gunna hit those taxes a wee bit.....Wonder how much of that will end up in a little pile like this ......Dontcha just love these socialists and the way they give away other peep's money, just like it grew on green tree's.

 

LOL, wouldnt it be funny, if by 2020, the Climate Commies had got there way and had y'all back living a Victorian period life style.......Only to finaly realise it was all just a false alarm and hysterical over reaction and these guys were right all along

 

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!

 

You're such a ****ing tool! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA

 

To have any real chance to combat the very real threat of climate change, developing nations need to cut their carbon footprint. It is unfair of us as 'developed' countries to ask them to do this themselves as we are the ones who have chucked the majority of the CO2 up in the air.

 

 

To quote Blackadder: "...and I hope your mother dies in a freak yachting accident."

[Aardvark]

I am 55 years old and in my relatively short life time I have seen a huge change in the climate/weather. The seasons have shifted and become more blurred. In fact we tend to have "weather" rather than seasons in many respects. I remember the infamous smogs in the 60s in which many people died. Thankfully those extremes have gone but we still breath in polluted air every day and they can't be good for us, let alone the planet.

 

For any species to survive they need a sustanable eco system. Whatever your views about global warming, mankind is overpopulating the planet to the point where, in the not too distant future, the planet will no longer be able to sustain such a high level of human existance.

 

The planet will die of natural causes eventually, but I don't think it is unreasonable to say that mankind is accelerating the process.

 

You Sir, are a liar. The "infamous smogs" you refer to were in the early 1950s. There were NONE in the 1960s. If you are indeed 55 then you were born in 1953 or 1954. You cannot POSSIBLY remember the "infamous smogs" You are either:

(a) Lying

(b) Mistaken about your age

© Referring to some weird sort of smog found in an entirely different planet that nobody has previously heard about

(d) OR I am wrong about the dates for the great smogs of London before the Clean Air Acts - please supply supporting evidence and I will gladly retract.

[saintkiptanui]

The weather happens in cycles, we are still in a mini ice age, we might get warmer soon but mother nature will sooner or later cool things down, the human race is not big enough to control the weather but if you want to jump on the warming bandwagon then tally ho.

[saintkiptanui]

I'm with Saint George on this one, Minty and his gaurdiolas can recylce all they want it ain't gonna make a bit of difference.

[Hamilton Saint]

You Sir, are a liar. The "infamous smogs" you refer to were in the early 1950s. There were NONE in the 1960s. If you are indeed 55 then you were born in 1953 or 1954. You cannot POSSIBLY remember the "infamous smogs" You are either:

(a) Lying

(b) Mistaken about your age

© Referring to some weird sort of smog found in an entirely different planet that nobody has previously heard about

(d) OR I am wrong about the dates for the great smogs of London before the Clean Air Acts - please supply supporting evidence and I will gladly retract.

 

No need to be so aggressive. He is mistaken about the dates, but there's no need to call him a liar - I don't think he intended to mislead.

 

[bTW, the very worst "killer smog" in the UK happened in London in early December of 1952.]

[Sheaf Saint]

LOL, wouldnt it be funny, if by 2020, the Climate Commies had got there way and had y'all back living a Victorian period life style.......Only to finaly realise it was all just a false alarm and hysterical over reaction and these guys were right all along

 

Once again, you give further proof, if any were needed, what a small-minded moron you are St G.

 

Firstly, none of the proposals I have seen or heard or read recently (and it's been hard to ignore lately due to the Copenhagen summit) involve the world having to go back to a victorian lifestyle. Quite the opposite in fact, most of the new green technology that is being proposed would in fact take the world forward rather than back. Nice try though.

 

Secondly, with regards to the Telegraph article, all it proves is that we have a a handful of scientists making claims about the climate, one of whom admits that his group has in the past received funding from ExxonMobil, without one single piece of evidence to back up their claims - not a single graph or explanation of where their data came from; not one report on their findings or published paper to indicate how they came to these conclusions - and you fall for it hook, line and sinker as if what they are stating is absolute fact that proves beyond any doubt that you are right, and those of us who are open-minded enough to accept the possibility of MMCC are utterly wrong.

 

Dear oh dear.

[Aardvark]

No need to be so aggressive. He is mistaken about the dates, but there's no need to call him a liar - I don't think he intended to mislead.

 

[bTW, the very worst "killer smog" in the UK happened in London in early December of 1952.]

 

Overly aggressive perhaps in which case I apologize, but you can't dismiss it as "mistaken about the dates". He is 55. The smogs had finished by the time he was born (or at best a toddler). He says that he "remembers" them - how can that be explained by being confused about the dates?:confused:

[Minty]

The weather happens in cycles, we are still in a mini ice age, we might get warmer soon but mother nature will sooner or later cool things down, the human race is not big enough to control the weather but if you want to jump on the warming bandwagon then tally ho.

 

Control, no, I agree. Influence however, I bed to differ. And I am under no illusions... the planet will do what it has to do. What we are talking about is the effect we are having on the planet such that it can continue, or otherwise, to support the human race. Mother Nature may well cool things down but not until after we're extinct.

 

This is about so much more than any one particular aspect, but ultimately it comes down to this for me: I want my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren to have a home that can sustain them and their children, and therefore believe it is only right that I moderate my activities so as not to deny them their opportunity to live.

 

I believe my activities do have an effect on the planet and it's resources, and whilst climate change can never be wholly proven one way or the other, the diminshing resources are clear for all to see, and I believe a precautionary principle should apply in all cases. To act in any other way, is IMO selfish, and I think would be arrogant to assume that my actions will not have any effect.

 

I'll happily debate it if there are specific reasons you feel we don't need to worry, but I have decided there's little point replying to or engaging with St George anymore as he clearly can't respect anyone elses point of view. I would also urge everyone else to either ignore him or at least leave the insults out now because it's not getting anyone anywhere, and I think most people have made up their mind.

[hypochondriac]

i see good 'ole gordy's just given away yet another 1.5bn of your money...man that's gunna hit those taxes a wee bit.....wonder how much of that will end up in a little pile like this ......dontcha just love these socialists and the way they give away other peep's money, just like it grew on green tree's.

 

Lol, wouldnt it be funny, if by 2020, the climate commies had got there way and had y'all back living a victorian period life style.......only to finaly realise it was all just a false alarm and hysterical over reaction and these guys were right all along

 

 

merry christmas y'all

 

who dat?

[Saint George]

Once again, you give further proof, if any were needed, what a small-minded moron you are St G.

 

Firstly, none of the proposals I have seen or heard or read recently (and it's been hard to ignore lately due to the Copenhagen summit) involve the world having to go back to a victorian lifestyle. Quite the opposite in fact, most of the new green technology that is being proposed would in fact take the world forward rather than back. Nice try though.

 

Secondly, with regards to the Telegraph article, all it proves is that we have a a handful of scientists making claims about the climate, one of whom admits that his group has in the past received funding from ExxonMobil, without one single piece of evidence to back up their claims - not a single graph or explanation of where their data came from; not one report on their findings or published paper to indicate how they came to these conclusions - and you fall for it hook, line and sinker as if what they are stating is absolute fact that proves beyond any doubt that you are right, and those of us who are open-minded enough to accept the possibility of MMCC are utterly wrong.

 

Dear oh dear.

 

Delusions like this are the very reason this whole scam has been able to get as far as it has

 

Of course no one's going to spell out the consequences of a '80%' reduction in Carbon production.......man, that would kill the current hysteria stone dead.....Nothing like being doused with a icy cold bucket of reality....The Climate Commies are relying on your very gullibility to get this thing through.

 

Calm down, take a deep breath and then think about how your going to reduce the UK's Carbon footprint by 80% within 40 years, with an ever increasing population and ever increasing dependency on energy

 

Think about the cost of not only achieving that goal without resorting to living in mud huts....But also add in the Billions of 'your' money that Gordy, and 'Call me Dave' and Co are going to send to developing nations so that they can produce all that Carbon in your name....

 

Actually it would be worse than the Victorian era...Think about living your life with your Personal Carbon Card....Every aspect of life controlled by 'Big Climate Brother' and the 'Office of Carbon Credits'....from the 0.8 Ltrs of water allocated to you each morning to clean your teeth....53 grams of Methane producing meat a week, along with your 22.3 weekly vehicle social mileage allocation....Imagine dealing with the 'Essential Travel' dep't. Trying to justify obtaining a 'permit' to go to watch Saints play away once a year And just think about rowing your hand cart the 22 miles to France for your anual nominated vacation! .......Good luck bruh......You're gunna need it

 

Here's another thought..

 

Humans would never be found guilty of AGW in any Court of Law in the civilized world.......In fact, it wouldn't even get that far....The Case would be kicked out as soon as the Judge saw the evidence ....And thats without looking at all the 'tampered' stuff.......I can hear it now.....Is 'THAT' all you GOT? LOL....Get the Hell outa my Court!......

 

This whole thing is nothing but a lefty power grab via a Stasi like kangaroo Court....

 

Given a fair shot, it should be possible for the science to esablish the truth over the next decade or so...Thats why the Climate Commies are trying to rush ya'll into iriversable commitment.....'before' you find out....But if you cant see it now, you prolly never will

 

Remember folks ...The opposite to Sceptical is Gullible

 

Who Dat!

[St Landrew]

Delusions like this are the very reason this whole scam has been able to get as far as it has

 

Of course no one's going to spell out the consequences of a '80%' reduction in Carbon production.......man, that would kill the current hysteria stone dead.....Nothing like being doused with a icy cold bucket of reality....The Climate Commies are relying on your very gullibility to get this thing through.

 

Calm down, take a deep breath and then think about how your going to reduce the UK's Carbon footprint by 80% within 40 years, with an ever increasing population and ever increasing dependency on energy

 

Think about the cost of not only achieving that goal without resorting to living in mud huts....But also add in the Billions of 'your' money that Gordy, and 'Call me Dave' and Co are going to send to developing nations so that they can produce all that Carbon in your name....

 

Actually it would be worse than the Victorian era...Think about living your life with your Personal Carbon Card....Every aspect of life controlled by 'Big Climate Brother' and the 'Office of Carbon Credits'....from the 0.8 Ltrs of water allocated to you each morning to clean your teeth....53 grams of Methane producing meat a week, along with your 22.3 weekly vehicle social mileage allocation....Imagine dealing with the 'Essential Travel' dep't. Trying to justify obtaining a 'permit' to go to watch Saints play away once a year And just think about rowing your hand cart the 22 miles to France for your anual nominated vacation! .......Good luck bruh......You're gunna need it

 

Here's another thought..

 

Humans would never be found guilty of AGW in any Court of Law in the civilized world.......In fact, it wouldn't even get that far....The Case would be kicked out as soon as the Judge saw the evidence ....And thats without looking at all the 'tampered' stuff.......I can hear it now.....Is 'THAT' all you GOT? LOL....Get the Hell outa my Court!......

 

This whole thing is nothing but a lefty power grab via a Stasi like kangaroo Court....

 

Given a fair shot, it should be possible for the science to esablish the truth over the next decade or so...Thats why the Climate Commies are trying to rush ya'll into iriversable commitment.....'before' you find out....But if you cant see it now, you prolly never will

 

Remember folks ...The opposite to Sceptical is Gullible

 

Who Dat!

 

You keep trotting out the same old argument StG, but you people in the USA consume far more resources per capita than any other nation. What you do [and yes, us in the UK too] is unsustainable. If you have children, you have a responsibility to consume less. It just so happens that you'll probably lower your carbon footprint in the process. Don't wait for technology to come to the rescue, because we're already in debt to our children. Don't be so sceptical that you have to be apologetic later.

[Saint George]

hmmm i see the nice Christmas carol i left for y'all isn't working.....Try this

 

Remeber Folks Don't Drive or Drive this holiday season...That Carbon usage will land you in Jail!

[Sheaf Saint]

So you will quite happily just (metaphorically anyway) stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LA-LA-LAAAA" will you St George? You'll just quite happily get on with your high-energy consuming lifestyle and to hell with anybody who dares to suggest that maybe it's not sustainable?

 

The point that I and many others have been trying to make throughout the course of this thread is that until we know for sure whether or not human activity is having a detrimental effect on the climate, we should exercise caution. But the mentality that you are advocating is that we should all just carry on the current unsustainable path of greed and consumerism in the hope that it will all work out OK in the end. It won't - I promise you that. If mankind continues with our current level of resource-consumption, then this world will cease to be habitable to the human race in the not-too-distant future, and our 'civilisation' (if yo can really call it that without questioning the wisdom of it) will crumble.

 

The biggest mistake you are consistently making is believing that everybody who believes in the possibility of MMCC is 100% behind the government initiatives regarding 'green tax', which I can assure you is not the case. But then I guess it is difficult for you, when you see the world in such black and white terms, to distinguish the many shades of grey in between.

 

We, that is the entire human race, have a responsibility to future generations to leave this planet in a better condition from how we found it. We owe it to our children, and their children, and their children to make sure that the world we are bringing them into is habitable. If that means making certain sacrifices in our current way of life then that is the way it has to be. That is how human beings lived for hundreds of thousands of years before capitalism created a 'ME! ME! ME!' mentality in the world's pouplation. The US is by far the worst country in the world for this attitude.

 

But hey, if you want to continue with your gung-ho, relentless energy consumption without the slightest regard for the world around you then I guess there is nothing that I or anybody else can say to make you see things differently. I take my leave of you now. Clearly this is a futile argument and as of this moment I am placing you on my ignore list so I can continue to appreciate this thread with people who are capable of actually debating the issues properly.

 

Have a nice christmas y'all.

[Hamilton Saint]

 

This whole thing is nothing but a lefty power grab via a Stasi like kangaroo Court....

 

Given a fair shot, it should be possible for the science to esablish the truth over the next decade or so...Thats why the Climate Commies are trying to rush ya'll into iriversable commitment.....'before' you find out....But if you cant see it now, you prolly never will

 

Remember folks ...The opposite to Sceptical is Gullible

 

Who Dat!

 

Good science is based on empirical evidence and rational thought. If you have a solid case to make, you don't need sarcasm, invective and a dismissive, c ocksure attitude.

 

I don't buy your arguments, and your tone and attitude are counter-productive.

[dune]

It's good to see Nick Griffin MEP talking sense on climate change.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks_lfGEUqmU

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1JLA4mpfN8

[Hamilton Saint]

It's good to see Nick Griffin MEP talking sense on climate change.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks_lfGEUqmU

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1JLA4mpfN8

 

Talking sense?

 

His statement at the EP was larded with the usual anti-leftist rhetoric and invective. His position seems to be, "My science and political opinions are reasonable and true; their science and opinions are conspiracies and lies".

 

Whether it's unnatural climate change or natural climate "fluctuations", the effects are going to be the same.

[aintforever]

Given a fair shot, it should be possible for the science to esablish the truth over the next decade or so...Thats why the Climate Commies are trying to rush ya'll into iriversable commitment.....'before' you find out....But if you cant see it now, you prolly never will

 

Who Dat!

 

How the hell is a commitment iriversable? If any government in the World could prove that man made climate change wasn't happening, they would do it in a shot.

 

It's not in any government interests to spend billions on new energy technologies, or hand over billions to the 3rd world to do the same. The governments of the west have spent the last decades desperately trying to prove the environmentalists wrong.

 

Even the national scientific bodies of China and India concur with the view that climate change is most likely man made - what the hell is their motivation?

[norwaysaint]

Here's a very good article, linking to many others, about why there are so many people who doubt man's effect on climate change, despite 97.4% of scientists agreeing with it. Ben Goldacre is somebody whose opinion I value, too.

 

http://www.badscience.net/2009/12/copenhagen-climate-change-blah-blah/#more-1429

[TopGun]

It's good to see Nick Griffin MEP talking sense on climate change.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks_lfGEUqmU

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1JLA4mpfN8

 

Not that I would urge people to go the BNP website but they claim to be a green party and seem to accept the need for renewable energy. The website is at contre temps to the messy ill-thought out comments made by Griffin.

 

This is of course no surprise.