leeslover Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 I love it when people pretend they care about the planet turn out to want to carry on doing just the same personally, but want to price "normal" people out of the same activity. How ignorant is it ASKING to be priced out of something? Like your moral sense is so week that you need a politician to come and force you? Want to cut emissions, go to Bridlington for your holidays, simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futchers briefs Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 I love it when people pretend they care about the planet turn out to want to carry on doing just the same personally, but want to price "normal" people out of the same activity. How ignorant is it ASKING to be priced out of something? Like your moral sense is so week that you need a politician to come and force you? Want to cut emissions, go to Bridlington for your holidays, simple. Ed Zachary LL.....Though it does give the 'save the planet' crew a verbal moral standing to base their opinions on these topics, without really doing owt about it. as long as i get my holidays in Greece every year - keep emissions- they're the future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 I would be very interested in reading such a report... I would ask you to read the attached the following link and comment (without sarcasm): http://www.stopcambridgewindfarm.org.uk/do...l%20Warming.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futchers briefs Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 I would ask you to read the attached the following link and comment (without sarcasm): http://www.stopcambridgewindfarm.org.uk/do...l%20Warming.htm I Can't! A fine report Mike - Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 Tell me the world is sane. We pay tax. Part of it goes to the EU. The EU pays the farmer a subsidy to produce milk. The farmer produces milk. The EU then pays that farmer a subsidy to dispose of the milk. As a result the supply of milk is reduced and the price of a pint of the white stuff in the supermarket goes up. Brilliant. I've paid a chunk of my tax to ensure that I can pay more for goods in the supermarket. Genius! At least it keeps more cows in service, pumping out large quantities of greenhouse methane in to our fragile atmosphere. We put our newspapers in a special bag each week. The council collects them in a big CO2 producing truck and takes them to a storage depot. The storage depot then takes them to a ship. Which travels to China with the newspaper. Shipping, per mile, is the biggest producer of CO2. The Chinese then convert the paper to cardboard boxes. And send them back to us, by ship. It's all in the name of saving the planet. You only need to look at the big climate conference in Bali last year. 30,000+ people flown in to a place to natter about how nasty planes are destroying our planet. Draw your own conclusions! Remember David Cameron visiting that glacier a few years ago to highlight global warming? ... he actually chose one that was growing ffs and didn't realise that the reason for the melting was a little known phenomena called 'Summer'. For every retreating glacier on the planet there's another one expanding. Final part of rant - the ozone hole. How do we know it didn't exist before satellites took a look? I'm not advocating "crapping in my own back yard", but we are fed some nonsense by those who we are meant to trust to know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 Tell me the world is sane. We pay tax. Part of it goes to the EU. The EU pays the farmer a subsidy to produce milk. The farmer produces milk. The EU then pays that farmer a subsidy to dispose of the milk. As a result the supply of milk is reduced and the price of a pint of the white stuff in the supermarket goes up. Brilliant. I've paid a chunk of my tax to ensure that I can pay more for goods in the supermarket. Genius! At least it keeps more cows in service, pumping out large quantities of greenhouse methane in to our fragile atmosphere. We put our newspapers in a special bag each week. The council collects them in a big CO2 producing truck and takes them to a storage depot. The storage depot then takes them to a ship. Which travels to China with the newspaper. Shipping, per mile, is the biggest producer of CO2. The Chinese then convert the paper to cardboard boxes. And send them back to us, by ship. It's all in the name of saving the planet. You only need to look at the big climate conference in Bali last year. 30,000+ people flown in to a place to natter about how nasty planes are destroying our planet. Draw your own conclusions! Remember David Cameron visiting that glacier a few years ago to highlight global warming? ... he actually chose one that was growing ffs and didn't realise that the reason for the melting was a little known phenomena called 'Summer'. For every retreating glacier on the planet there's another one expanding. Final part of rant - the ozone hole. How do we know it didn't exist before satellites took a look? I'm not advocating "crapping in my own back yard", but we are fed some nonsense by those who we are meant to trust to know better. Yep we certainly are!!! The courts' ruled Al Gore's film as "factually wrong" on 16 "significant" points and yet this didn't stop this government making it compulsary viewing in schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 (edited) There is indeed claim and counter-claim on what is the cause of global-warming. One report by a world-wide, leading group of scientists that condemned Al Gore's error-ridden, pseudo Nobel prize-winning nonsense states that global-warming is 98-99% naturally occuring. What we get thrown at us are politicians spouting theories as facts. I think we need a live, televised debate so we can hear a balanced argument but that will never happen. I would be very interested in reading such a report... I would ask you to read the attached the following link and comment (without sarcasm): http://www.stopcambridgewindfarm.org.uk/do...l%20Warming.htm I thought you was going to show me a report from world wide group of scientist... David Bellamy is not a scientist....he is a tv presenter... I know that usually counts for a scientist these days but hey ho... Most of his credentials seem to be honorary ones.... And his position on climate change seems to change as the wind blows.... I should also admit that Al Gores report was factually wrong...in parts... EDIT: Found it... Just to back up that he isn't a REAL scientist... http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2005/Bellamy-...ence10may05.htm Edited December 8, 2008 by oafc0000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 I Can't! A fine report Mike - Thank you! A fine report? Or is it? http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2005/Bellamy-...ence10may05.htm This was published in a proper newspaper by the way ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 I thought you was going to show me a report from world wide group of scientist... David Bellamy is not a scientist....he is a tv presenter... I know that usually counts for a scientist these days but hey ho... Most of his credentials seem to be honorary ones.... And his position on climate change seems to change as the wind blows.... I should also admit that Al Gores report was factually wrong...in parts... EDIT: Found it... Just to back up that he isn't a REAL scientist... http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2005/Bellamy-...ence10may05.htm As I said before "claim & counter-claim". We have newspapers producing reports from either side. I would be very interested in a televised debate where both sides can argue their corners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 (edited) As I said before "claim & counter-claim". We have newspapers producing reports from either side. I would be very interested in a televised debate where both sides can argue their corners. We don't...... we actually have David Bellamy's source the World Glacier Monitoring Service going on record saying "This is complete bull:censored:" and that is there line to this day... Or it is the last time I check about a year ago when I had the same discussion on a different site.... Claim and counter claim.... More like lies and more lies... Also...futchers briefs...is a good example how some one will accept utter bollox if it conforms to what the want to believe.... Edited December 8, 2008 by oafc0000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 (edited) David Bellamy is not a scientist....he is a tv presenter... http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2005/Bellamy-...ence10may05.htm David Bellamy is clearly a scientist who has also presented on television. Long after he gained his significant scientific qualfiications. Unless you are going to tell me that a botanist is not a scientist. As a scientist, his theories and beliefs should be open to challenge. Moonbat's work for the Guardian is also wide open to challenge. Edited December 8, 2008 by opinions4u Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 We don't...... we actually have David Bellamy's source the World Glacier Monitoring Service going on record saying "This is complete bull:censored:" and that is there line to this day... Or it is the last time I check about a year ago when I had the same discussion on a different site.... Claim and counter claim.... More like lies and more lies... Also...futchers briefs...is a good example how some one will accept utter bollox if it conforms to what the want to believe.... Following your argument, then why is Al Gore's film being widely distributed in schools? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAV Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 Im not against cars, planes, trains, the space shuttle!! I just think we have to be more realistic about our use of them.. I'm glad i'm only taking one space shuttle flight this year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 Following your argument, then why is Al Gore's film being widely distributed in schools? While you correctly identitify 16 points that where wrong... There are many more points that are right... I dont support it being sent around schools... There is much better stuff out there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 Moonbat's work for the Guardian is also wide open to challenge. Something that isnt is the response from the World Glacier Monitoring Service .... That is nothing but fact.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 ...the ozone hole. How do we know it didn't exist before satellites took a look? You don't really mean that do you? Think about what you've said there, and transpose that model question to any discovery we've made since the year dot. It didn't exist because we couldn't see it? For Pete's sake... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 (edited) While you correctly identitify 16 points that where wrong... There are many more points that are right... I dont support it being sent around schools... There is much better stuff out there... Just been e-mailed an interesting link. Your comments, as always, are welcome. Apologies!!! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechn...s-to-blame.html Edited December 8, 2008 by mikejh45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 You don't really mean that do you? Think about what you've said there, and transpose that model question to any discovery we've made since the year dot. It didn't exist because we couldn't see it? For Pete's sake... It's perfectly well know that there was much more ozone there until very recently. Satellites weren't invented with ipods. The causation of the reduction is of course another matter. Bellamy is a loon who has taken on board some things he has read and accepted them as science. Gore is a loon who has been adopted by every loon on the other side to propagate their lunacy. The one undoubted truth is the point (not originally his own) Bellamy makes about the many trillions of dollars it will cost to implement the carbon emission reforms. This will reduce levels of income in countries which will be most affected by any climate change which may happen, however caused, and also slow down the development of technological alternatives which are ultimately the only hope for humanity, if the CO2 theories be correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 Just been e-mailed an interesting link. Your comments, as always, are welcome. Apologies!!! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechn...s-to-blame.html I love this theory that something is scientifically valid because it's been in a proper newspaper. Because they never talk :censored:e... You get people with diametrically opposed views published side by side in the top ranking academic journals, they are nothing but comment in the paper. And Monbiot... I've quite liked his anti-war/torture line, but the man is wired to the Moon as soon as the environment is mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 That's only effective so long as you are permanently increasing the amount of plankton (or trees, or whatever). Things die and rot and the process is reversed Yes, things die, that happens all the time, but lots of CO2 in the ocean + warmer temps = perfect conditions for photoplankton = more and more them = more and more oxygen = a balancing system built into the earth. Oil (=power). It's running out (the US want to keep their power). We need to switch (or the US will lose power). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 Re: the environment. There are a number of good messages on here both for and against the global warming argument. There are newspaper links who have further links to some august scientific body that backs up their argument. How is one to decide which is correct? Or is arguing/debating part of the fun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 Just been e-mailed an interesting link. Your comments, as always, are welcome. Apologies!!! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechn...s-to-blame.html You havent accepted your last pearl of wisdom was bollox...and now were moving on ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 You havent accepted your last pearl of wisdom was bollox...and now were moving on ? I didn't post it for me to say it was bollox or otherwise. It was, as I stated, sent to me by a friend. I threw it into the mix for comment from people who may or may not be better qualified than myself on this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Something that isnt is the response from the World Glacier Monitoring Service .... That is nothing but fact.... Would that be the service that is linked to the IPCC and monitors about 5% of the planet's glaciers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 You don't really mean that do you? Think about what you've said there, and transpose that model question to any discovery we've made since the year dot. It didn't exist because we couldn't see it? For Pete's sake... I think you've misunderstood the point made. We have an ozone hole above the Antarctic (and the Arctic, for that matter). Sometimes it is bigger, sometimes it is smaller. Sometimes the environmentalists get excited about it because they believe that it's caused by our lifestyles, CFC use etc etc. There is theory to support this. But we didn't know about the existence of the ozone hole until around 30 years ago (I stand to be corrected on this, but certainly not until relatively recently in the planet's history because satellites didn't exist). A key piece of data we don't have is what was the size of the ozone hole in 1950? Or 1850? Or 1066? Without this historical trending, we are not yet at a point where we can conclusively state cause and effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts