Global warming really is happening... (well, duh!)

[Guided Missile]

As for your updated graphs, if I was to submit an assignment with a 'line of best fit' (Ha!) that was as far off as yours, my tutor would return it to me and order me to do it again.

Pity your remedial English tutor doesn't mark the IPCC's assignments. They'd be as f***ed as you are in your course.

[buctootim]

It all looks very professional and credible, excellent. I didn't know you still smoked.

[Sheaf Saint]

Pity your remedial English tutor doesn't mark the IPCC's assignments. They'd be as f***ed as you are in your course.

 

If you can't debate reasonably and can't address the questions I raise then you simply resort to sneering and childish insults. Do you actually realise what a pathetic excuse for a human being that makes you look?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

http://order-order.com/2014/01/10/guy-news-special-al-gores-ice-crap-prediction/

[Polaroid Saint]

I despair I really do. I post a reasoned and considered comment. Over long and boring, admittedly, but full of stuff to rip apart or nod sagely too. Either way!

 

One normally reliable poster (GM) keeps on posting what I can only assume are efforts to provide some sort 'balance' (because without the other comments they would just seem unhinged) I guess the anarchic side coming through!?

 

And then this lazy ****wit of a link gets posted. Sergei - you have successfully 'trolled' me on this one, well done! Unless you really believe that link, in which case I feel sorry for you and your feeble little mind. I suspect you have trouble eating etc. So I'll be kind and not be rude to the less fortunate anymore.

 

Again, I am using a mobile device so can't immediately tell what forum I am on. Must be the Muppet Show. Without the jokes.

[Guided Missile]

As I was working on my computer until late, last night, I thought I should inform those interested, about what I discovered while running a complex, bit-mapped, global climate simulation program. The results of my research will have a devastating effect on the way we view the future of the human race.

 

Unless we take heed of the predicted outcome of my extensive work, the human race will be overrun by wave upon wave of alien life forms, which are bent on our destruction and no weapons currently in our possession will prevent total destruction. We need to develop means of defending ourselves as it is apparent from my research that there is a greater than 99% chance of our world being overrun in hours.

Edited 12 January, 2014 by Guided Missile
Please ignore this post. My wife reminded me I was playing Space Invaders.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I despair I really do. I post a reasoned and considered comment. Over long and boring, admittedly, but full of stuff to rip apart or nod sagely too. Either way!

 

One normally reliable poster (GM) keeps on posting what I can only assume are efforts to provide some sort 'balance' (because without the other comments they would just seem unhinged) I guess the anarchic side coming through!?

 

And then this lazy ****wit of a link gets posted. Sergei - you have successfully 'trolled' me on this one, well done! Unless you really believe that link, in which case I feel sorry for you and your feeble little mind. I suspect you have trouble eating etc. So I'll be kind and not be rude to the less fortunate anymore.

 

Again, I am using a mobile device so can't immediately tell what forum I am on. Must be the Muppet Show. Without the jokes.

 

Polaroid link;There are two sides to the debate I am open minded but worry that people are fanatical without a healthy dose of scepticism. That video was posted not to troll but for people to comment on.

Edited 12 January, 2014 by Sergei Gotsmanov

[aintforever]

Polaroid link;There are two sides to the debate I am open minded but worry that people are fanatical without a healthy dose of scepticism. That video was posted not to troll but for people to comment on.

 

I think we can safely say that politicians cannot predict the future, neither can scientists no matter how good their computer models. Doesn't mean that climate change is not happening though. If you have an open mind probably best read the science.

 

There is no serious scientific debate about wether man is influencing the climate any more (despite the fools on here), the only debate is:

 

a. By how much

b. What will happen

c. What can/should we do about it

Edited 12 January, 2014 by aintforever

[Guided Missile]

Great article from Matt Ridley on the damage computer modelling, in the hands of politically motivated Greens has done, here , in todays Times.

 

A green idea based on a false premise, the one-child policy was the result of mathematical modelling

As China’s one-child policy comes officially to an end, it is time to write the epitaph on this horrible experiment — part of the blame for which lies, surprisingly, in the West and with green, rather than red, philosophy. The policy has left China with a demographic headache: in the mid-2020s its workforce will plummet by 10 million a year, while the number of the elderly rises at a similar rate.

No wonder the Chinese have done the sensible thing and kicked the West's carbon policy into touch and embarked on the construction of coal fired power plants to continue to lift, 500 million of their population out of poverty. Meanwhile, the French and Chinese are building us nuclear power plants because our well meaning NGO lefties thought nuclear power was evil. Same has happened to GMO's and it will happen to fracking.

 

These anarchists will not rest until we are back to the dark ages....

[badgerx16]

....and it will happen to fracking.

Quite right too.

 

These anarchists will not rest until we are back to the dark ages....

Unlike the Tory, middle-englander NIMBYs who oppose wind farms and other renewable energy schemes because they spoil the view.

[Guided Missile]

Quite right too.

...so nuclear power generation is OK, now?

[Polaroid Saint]

China's Policy was NOT the result of "computer modeling'. That is, simply put, a lie.

 

(I don't like liars, no matter how 'funny' or 'clever' they think they are being. Lying hurts people; maybe not straight away but somewhere down the line.) Let's be fair and say you are just repeating someone else's mistaken inference.

 

Either way GM, you may do well to heed the advice that; it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

[buctootim]

'Matt Ridley' - actually Viscount Ridley of Blagton Hall - has been banging the same drum for decades - a totally 'free' market, no government regulation, especially financial and environmental regulation. He was architect of the Northern Rock fiasco - where he was the Chairman. Ridley is a totally busted flush with no credibility whatsoever, its like being lectured on good business practice by Fred Goodwin who ruined RBS.

 

The Man who wants to Northern Rock the Planet

 

Matt Ridley’s irrational theories remain unchanged by his own disastrous experiment. Brass neck doesn’t begin to describe it. Matt Ridley used to make his living partly by writing state-bashing columns in the Daily Telegraph. The government, he complained, is “a self-seeking flea on the backs of the more productive people of this world … governments do not run countries, they parasitise them.”(1) Taxes, bail-outs, regulations, subsidies, intervention of any kind, he argued, are an unwarranted restraint on market freedom.

 

Then he became chairman of Northern Rock, where he was able to put his free market principles into practice. Under his chairmanship, the bank pursued what the Treasury select committee later described as a “high-risk, reckless business strategy”(2). It was able to do so because the government agency which oversees the banks “systematically failed in its regulatory duty”(3).

 

On 16th August 2007, Dr Ridley rang an agent of the detested state to explore the possibility of a bail-out. The self-seeking fleas agreed to his request, and in September the government opened a support facility for the floundering bank. The taxpayer eventually bailed out Northern Rock to the tune of £27bn.

 

When news of the crisis leaked, it caused the first run on a bank in this country since 1878. The parasitic state had to intervene a second time: the run was halted only when the government guaranteed the depositors’ money. Eventually the government was obliged to nationalise the bank. Investors, knowing that their money would now be safe as it was protected by the state, began to return.

http://www.monbiot.com/2010/06/01/the-man-who-wants-to-northern-rock-the-planet/

 

Northern Rock chairman quits after criticism from lawmakers

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/business/worldbusiness/19iht-rock.4.7965470.html?_r=0

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7052828.stm

Edited 13 January, 2014 by buctootim

[badgerx16]

...so nuclear power generation is OK, now?

 

Nuclear power generation does not cause the direct environmental damage that fracking does. It is, unfortunately, a necessary stop gap as successive Governments have failed to drive the renewable agenda.

[Whitey Grandad]

Nuclear power generation does not cause the direct environmental damage that fracking does. It is, unfortunately, a necessary stop gap as successive Governments have failed to drive the renewable agenda.

 

Isn't tracking better than burning coal?

[badgerx16]

Isn't fracking better than burning coal?

 

Ultimately fracking is just another short term option - hydrocarbon fuels are getting harder and harder to extract, and whichever you choose they all contribute to carbon emissions. Fracking releases only a percentage of the theoretical 'reservoir' of gas, ( some estimates reckon as little as 10% of the theoretical volume ), and the more it is studied in the States, the more damaging it appears to be - to the extent that, for instance, Dallas has banned it ( http://rt.com/usa/dallas-passes-fracking-restrictions-178/ , http://keeptapwatersafe.org/global-bans-on-fracking/ ). In Europe, the process is banned in France and effectively so in Germany ( in terms of shale gas extraction ), but then again Denmark, Holland, and Poland use it.

[Whitey Grandad]

Ultimately fracking is just another short term option - hydrocarbon fuels are getting harder and harder to extract, and whichever you choose they all contribute to carbon emissions. Fracking releases only a percentage of the theoretical 'reservoir' of gas, ( some estimates reckon as little as 10% of the theoretical volume ), and the more it is studied in the States, the more damaging it appears to be - to the extent that, for instance, Dallas has banned it ( http://rt.com/usa/dallas-passes-fracking-restrictions-178/ , http://keeptapwatersafe.org/global-bans-on-fracking/ ). In Europe, the process is banned in France and effectively so in Germany ( in terms of shale gas extraction ), but then again Denmark, Holland, and Poland use it.

 

If we replaced all the oil that we use with fracked hydrocarbons the atmospheric CO2 would soon fall back to much lower levels.

[badgerx16]

If we replaced all the oil that we use with fracked hydrocarbons the atmospheric CO2 would soon fall back to much lower levels.

 

How do you reckon that to be the case ? Natural gas combustion produces less, ( about 25% less than petroleum; http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11 ), but it's still well over 100 pounds of CO2 per million Btu.

Edited 13 January, 2014 by badgerx16

[Whitey Grandad]

How do you reckon that to be the case ? Natural gas combustion produces less, ( about 25% less than petroleum; http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11 ), but it's still well over 100 pounds of CO2 per million Btu.

 

OOps, I meant to put coal instead of oil. I blame predictive text on my ipad, even if it was my fault. Even so, 25% less than oil is a very big saving. What's the difference between the carbon sinks and sources these days? I seem to remember several years ago it was only a few percent. Anyway, CO2 is not the most important greejhouse gas.

[badgerx16]

What's the difference between the carbon sinks and sources these days? .....

 

Depends on how much more of the rainforests is chopped down, and how much more pollution we stick in the oceans.

 

Anyway, CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas.

 

True - ironically methane is quite 'important'.

[buctootim]

The trouble with fracking is the unknowns. People are naturally nervous about injecting chemicals contaminating water supplies, and about subsidence in areas previously mined. Shale gas is certainly better for the climate than coal, but whether or not better in other dimensions remains to be seen. Also experience in the US has shown its not that cheap. Pumping water, sand and release agents a long way underground for not that much gas may well not be economic in many places.

[buctootim]

Anyway, CO2 is not the most important greejhouse gas.

 

But it is the most persistent. Methane breaks down after about 20 years.

[Whitey Grandad]

True - ironically methane is quite 'important'.

 

And water vapour.

[Guided Missile]

China's Policy was NOT the result of "computer modeling'. That is, simply put, a lie.

 

(I don't like liars, no matter how 'funny' or 'clever' they think they are being. Lying hurts people; maybe not straight away but somewhere down the line.) Let's be fair and say you are just repeating someone else's mistaken inference.

 

Either way GM, you may do well to heed the advice that; it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

Obviously you didn't read the article online or in print. Educate yourself, on me:

 

Susan Greenhalgh, a professor of anthropology at Harvard, has uncovered the tale. In 1978, on his first visit to the West, Song Jian, a mathematician employed in calculating the trajectories of missiles, sat down for a beer with a Dutch professor, Geert Jan Olsder, at the Seventh Triennnial World Congress of the International Federation of Automatic Control in Helsinki to discuss “control theory”. Olsder told Song about the book The Limits to Growth, published by a fashionable think-tank called the Club of Rome, which had forecast the imminent collapse of civilisation under the pressure of expanding population and shrinking resources.What caught Song’s attention was the mathematical modelling of population that Olsder did, and on which The Limits to Growth was based. He was unaware that the naive extrapolation embraced by the Club of Rome, and produced by what they called “the computer”, had been greeted with scepticism in the West. Excited at the idea that mathematical models could be used to predict population as well as ballistic missiles, Song went back to China and started publishing the pessimistic prognostications of The Limits to Growth, along with demands that something must be done to slow the birthrate.

He also fell under the spell of the Club of Rome’s patron saint, Parson Malthus, the population pessimist of 1798. “When I was thinking about this, I took Malthus’s book to research the study of population,” said Song in a recent interview. Malthus, remember, thought we should be cruel to be kind to the poor, lest they have too many babies: we should “facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavouring to impede” hunger, war and disease, he wrote. He urged that we “court the return of the plague” and “particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations”.

It turns out that Malthus was exactly wrong about that. The best way to cut population growth is not to ensure that babies die, but to stop babies dying: then people plan smaller families. Even China’s birthrate had halved in the seven years before Song had his epiphany, thanks to improved public health, and it would have fallen even faster in the next decade as China began to grow economically. But Song wanted to put his “control theory” into action and set about persuading those in power to put him in charge. By the end of 1979 he had won the ear of Deng Xiaoping and, with the help of mathematical bamboozling, had vanquished his opponents.

General Qian Xinzhong, appointed to act on Song’s ideas, commanded the sterilisation of all women with two or more children, the insertion of IUDs into all women with one child (removal of the device being a crime), the banning of births to women younger than 23 and the mandatory abortion of all unauthorised pregnancies right up to the eighth month.

 

Additionally, read this obscene article from a rag you may have more sympathy with and realise the evil planned in the name of "global warming", by a bunch of left wing idiots we are blessed with in this country. Oh, and count the number of white babies in the photo accompanying the article. I'll be holding a quiz later...

Edited 13 January, 2014 by Guided Missile
Racist rag proof...

[badgerx16]

..... the evil planned in the name of "global warming", by a bunch of left wing idiots we are blessed with in this country. ....

 

I take it you include the current Government in that ?

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ipcc-report-key-points-and-questions/ipcc-report-key-points-and-questions#are-humans-responsible

 

"It is extremely likely that human activity is the dominant influence on climate change over the last 50 years and is responsible for more than half of the observed global temperature rise."

[Minty]

Surely GM has to be a WUM... even the main board, with its tantrums, bedwetters and knee-jerkers doesn't see this level of utter disregard and abuse for others with different views.

[Guided Missile]

I take it you include the current Government in that ?

I was thinking of David Attenborough, actually. The IPCC are a bunch of idiots, but not necessarily left-wing and have not promoted population control, the last time I read any of their myths. You really need to read my posts more carefully. You might learn something...

[Polaroid Saint]

So you think China's One Child Policy stems entirely from a conversation over a beer with a Dutch Statistician in 1978?

 

Really? Honestly? Think about that in the context of Chinese history. It does make you look rather foolish.

 

You also assume that I read the Guardian and then call it a 'rag'. This betrays a lack of an open attitude or approach to researching this or any other argument. Which is a real shame as I can see there is wit and intelligence in there somewhere, if only you weren't so desperate to prove a point (any point!).

 

In response to that particular article and the efforts of the PopOffset scheme you may be surprised (but please don't let it depolarise your world view!) that I too think it is an Obscene idea.

I think 'obscene' is the right word for the policy being discussed in the article. However, please note it is Population Matters that are promoting this, not the Guardian...

 

...as, if you had 'read the article online or in print,' would be clear. 'Educate yourself, on me;'

 

"But other thinkers, such as the Guardian columnist George Monbiot, say global population increase pales into insignificance when compared with the effect of increased consumption and economic growth."

[Guided Missile]

Surely GM has to be a WUM... even the main board, with its tantrums, bedwetters and knee-jerkers doesn't see this level of utter disregard and abuse for others with different views.

 

Boo hoo...

 

 

Calls to a U.K. bullying helpline have almost doubled in a year.

[Minty]

Are you capable of holding a decent conversation GM? As Polaroid says, there is clearly some wit and intelligence in there, so why not engage it in a constructive way?

[Guided Missile]

So you think China's One Child Policy stems entirely from a conversation over a beer with a Dutch Statistician in 1978?

 

Really? Honestly? Think about that in the context of Chinese history. It does make you look rather foolish.

 

You also assume that I read the Guardian and then call it a 'rag'. This betrays a lack of an open attitude or approach to researching this or any other argument. Which is a real shame as I can see there is wit and intelligence in there somewhere, if only you weren't so desperate to prove a point (any point!).

 

In response to that particular article and the efforts of the PopOffset scheme you may be surprised (but please don't let it depolarise your world view!) that I too think it is an Obscene idea.

I think 'obscene' is the right word for the policy being discussed in the article. However, please note it is Population Matters that are promoting this, not the Guardian...

 

...as, if you had 'read the article online or in print,' would be clear. 'Educate yourself, on me;'

 

"But other thinkers, such as the Guardian columnist George Monbiot, say global population increase pales into insignificance when compared with the effect of increased consumption and economic growth."

I must be foolish, because I haven't got a clue what your point is and have a real problem following your strange posts. I think I'll leave it there...

[Guided Missile]

Are you capable of holding a decent conversation GM? As Polaroid says, there is clearly some wit and intelligence in there, so why not engage it in a constructive way?

I've got an idea, Minty. You engage with Polaroid. I find it impossible to follow what he is posting and what his point is...

[Minty]

I've got an idea, Minty. You engage with Polaroid. I find it impossible to follow what he is posting and what his point is...

 

I could engage with Polaroid, but I actually agree with a lot of his points and questions, so it wouldn't add much to the discussion to reply with 'I agree' or 'Me too'.

 

Here's another idea... why not ask him to clarify the bits you don't get, respond to the bits you do, and see how the discussion pans out? Why be so continually evasive?

[Guided Missile]

My source regarding China's population control policy, based on the same type of failed computer modelling followed by the Club of Rome, who predicted in 1972 that oil would run out in 1992 and more latterly by the IPCC, who predicted the Himalayan Glaciers would melt by 2035:

Just One Child

 

Author:Professor Susan Greenhalgh

 

China's one-child rule is unassailably one of the most controversial social policies of all time. In the first book of its kind, Susan Greenhalgh draws on twenty years of research into China's population politics to explain how the leaders of a nation of one billion decided to limit all couples to one child. Focusing on the historic period 1978-80, when China was just reentering the global capitalist system after decades of self-imposed isolation, Greenhalgh documents the extraordinary manner in which a handful of leading aerospace engineers hijacked the population policymaking process and formulated a strategy that treated people like missiles. "Just One Child" situates these science- and policy-making practices in their broader contexts - the scientization and statisticalization of sociopolitical life - and provides the most detailed and incisive account yet of the origins of the one-child policy.

 

 

Just One Child was awarded the 2010 Joseph Levenson Prize of the Association for Asian Studies, the 2010 Rachel Carson Prize of the Society for the Social Study of Science, and Honorable Mentions in the 2010 Senior Book Prize of the American Ethnological Society and the 2009 Gregory Bateson Book Prize of the Society for Cultural Anthropology.

 

Still, what do I know. I'm a fool.

[buctootim]

Additionally, read this obscene article from a rag you may have more sympathy with and realise the evil planned in the name of "global warming", by a bunch of left wing idiots we are blessed with in this country. Oh, and count the number of white babies in the photo accompanying the article. I'll be holding a quiz later...

 

You're such a twonk, but luckily very easy to debunk. I would say 'try harder', but I really do think these are your best efforts.

 

Crispin Tickell was appointed Ambassador to Mexico and Ambassador to the UN by that well known lefty Margaret Thatcher. David Attenborough has never shown any political affiliation, although he did once advise Anthony Eden the conservative PM. You're making the elemental mistake of confusing him with his Labour leaning brother. They may be idiots for this idea, but lefty doesnt come into it.

[Guided Missile]

I could engage with Polaroid, but I actually agree with a lot of his points and questions, so it wouldn't add much to the discussion to reply with 'I agree' or 'Me too'.

 

Here's another idea... why not ask him to clarify the bits you don't get, respond to the bits you do, and see how the discussion pans out? Why be so continually evasive?

I think his points, with which you appear to agree are that population control is obscene, China's policy was not formulated by a Chinese aerospace statistician, I'm a fool and he is clever.

 

I see no evidence for the above, but respect yours and his right to be ignorant and wrong. These facts help make my posts look clever and witty, like roses in a pile of horse manure...

[Minty]

OK, I give up. You aren't stupid and you clearly enjoy this constant attempt to wind-up and provoke responses. It's a shame, it's an interesting topic but how would anything progress if we all had the same attitude as you?

[buctootim]

Surely GM has to be a WUM... even the main board, with its tantrums, bedwetters and knee-jerkers doesn't see this level of utter disregard and abuse for others with different views.

 

No he's a total one in real life too. He wants total freedom to sell whatever formulation of weedkiller he chooses using whatever doses and ingredients he chooses. He wants us out of the EU and for tax to be reduced, but for subsidies for farmers to buy weedkiller and paid from tax to go up (although of course that in no way makes him dependent on the state) . He's one of those twonks, like Viscount Ridley, who thinks everything should be deregulated, especially environmental and employment protection - but, like Ridley, too dogma driven and frankly too blinkered to see what the consequences of his actions would be - essentially getting his ass sued off into bankruptcy.

Edited 13 January, 2014 by buctootim

[Guided Missile]

You're such a twonk, but luckily very easy to debunk. I would say 'try harder', but I really do think these are your best efforts.

Rather than stoop to your never ending ad hominem method of debating, I will clarify my feelings about David Attenborough. He works for a left wing organisation, perpetuating the same claptrap regarding AGW that you have swallowed hook line and sinker and is a misanthropic dinosaur with bizarre views on our race. It is no surprise that David Bellamy never gets asked to make programs for the BBC anymore. He doesn't fit the agenda...David Attenborough? Establishment and soon to be replaced by Bitterne's own Chris Packham, who would probably also like to cull a few Africans, just so he could carbon offset the business class flights, he will get the license payer to fund, to film exotic animals having sex and killing each other...

[Guided Missile]

It's a shame, it's an interesting topic but how would anything progress if we all had the same attitude as you?

I think you mean, how we we make any progress if we all had the same opinion as me...

[badgerx16]

Still, what do I know. I'm a fool.

 

Many a true word......

[buctootim]

Rather than stoop to your never ending ad hominem method of debating.

 

 

Boo hoo...

 

 

Calls to a U.K. bullying helpline have almost doubled in a year.

[Polaroid Saint]

I must be foolish, because I haven't got a clue what your point is and have a real problem following your strange posts. I think I'll leave it there...

 

I wonder what it is you find so strange about my posts?

 

Is it that I don't try to point score and instead have attempted to engage you in the argument?

 

Is that I don't conform to your antiquated and antagonistic view of the world?

 

Is that I have pointed out your mistakes calmly and clearly in a way you find impossible to argue with?

 

What exactly is it?

 

Would you rather I took your method of insulting other posters and trotting out the same biased old non-stories every time (whilst simultaneously chastising others for doing the same)?

 

I have been pretty consistent too - maybe you find it hard to follow posts that don't jump randomly around or clutch at straws like yours do? (For example; you brought up China's One Child Policy - why? It has nothing to do with the OP, and you are clearly unfamiliar with it's history).

 

I have given you plenty of chances to either put down the shovel and climb out of that hole, or else hit me (metaphorically) over the head with the same shovel! Yet you seem, unwillingly, or incapable, of doing either.

 

Shame as the conversation about Climate Change is an important one and we *could* all learn a lot from debating our ideas and challenging each others preconceptions.

[Guided Missile]

I wonder what it is you find so strange about my posts?

 

Is it that I don't try to point score and instead have attempted to engage you in the argument?

 

Is that I don't conform to your antiquated and antagonistic view of the world?

 

Is that I have pointed out your mistakes calmly and clearly in a way you find impossible to argue with?

 

What exactly is it?

 

Would you rather I took your method of insulting other posters and trotting out the same biased old non-stories every time (whilst simultaneously chastising others for doing the same)?

 

I have been pretty consistent too - maybe you find it hard to follow posts that don't jump randomly around or clutch at straws like yours do? (For example; you brought up China's One Child Policy - why? It has nothing to do with the OP, and you are clearly unfamiliar with it's history).

 

I have given you plenty of chances to either put down the shovel and climb out of that hole, or else hit me (metaphorically) over the head with the same shovel! Yet you seem, unwillingly, or incapable, of doing either.

 

Shame as the conversation about Climate Change is an important one and we *could* all learn a lot from debating our ideas and challenging each others preconceptions.

Nope, missed your point entirely and I'm slightly unsettled by your total lack of any ability to communicate facts....

 

Have a nice day...

[Polaroid Saint]

Awww, issy wissy GMy Wemmy finding the concepts too hard to grasp?

Ooh diddums, does Polaroid need to speak slower?

Did poor GMy not get a good education when he was little?

Or was it no friends growing up that has made poor GMy Wemmy so antisocial?

Does GMy Wemmy need help with understanding conversational English?

Has little GMy Wemmy not spoken to an intelligent adult before?

Maybe his 'targets' are always 'lesser' than him? Bless him.

Is GMy running out of diatribes and resorting to name calling again?

Awh, poor little fella needs some TLC maybe?

GMy Wemmy got so far out of his depth that he couldn't see the argument Polaroid was making!?

Is that better GM, can you understand the above? I tried to use words you might understand and a child-like voice to make it even easier for you.

[aintforever]

When people start banging on about politics in a science debate you know they are talking agenda driven bullsh!te. Left wing, right wing, it makes no difference, the conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems all share more or less the same views on climate change.

[Halo Stickman]

Chris Packham, who would probably also like to cull a few Africans...

 

“Optimum Population Trust (Opt) stresses that birth control will be provided only to those who have no access to it, and only unwanted births would be avoided. Opt estimates that 80 million pregnancies each year are unwanted.” - Guardian

 

Not really a cull, is it?

[Guided Missile]

“Optimum Population Trust (Opt) stresses that birth control will be provided only to those who have no access to it, and only unwanted births would be avoided. Opt estimates that 80 million pregnancies each year are unwanted.” - Guardian

 

Not really a cull, is it?

This is a dangerous and obnoxious organisation. It is a very small step from its stated aims of government influence over personal fertility, which is bad enough, to that of immigration control and eugenics. It's political offshoot in Australia, the Stable Population Party (SPP), is already aligning with anti-immigration political figures.

 

No wonder Friends of the Earth and the Green Party won't have anything to do with this awful charity.

 

As far as Chris Packham, what an absolute sh!te he is, as this quote shows:

 

The presenter of the BBC’s Springwatch and Autumnwatch said the single most damaging threat to wildlife is the growth of the human population.“The human population is sowing the seeds of a mass extinction event,” he said. “The fact is there is not enough space.” Echoing the words of Sir David Attenborough, he called for governments around the world to start “regulating the population”. “The excessive demands of the growing population is having a disastrous effect on biodiversity. There are too many of us taking too much too quickly,” he said. “We need to do something about it.””

 

Governments around the world should start “regulating the population”??? How the f*** have we got to this point, where people are even debating this....?

[badgerx16]

Governments around the world should start “regulating the population”??? How the f*** have we got to this point, where people are even debating this....?

 

Because it's relevant ? If the population of the 3rd world become as consumer obsessed as the 'civilsed' countries, all sorts of resources will be in short supply, China has already distorted minerals and metals markets. Demand for better diet, ( or in some cases a simple demand for food of any sort ), will drive the human population increasingly to encroach into 'wild' areas - after all isn't that what's driving jungle deforestation ? So on one level Packham is correct.

[Halo Stickman]

Chris Packham, who would probably also like to cull a few Africans...

 

Cull – to reduce the population by selective slaughter.