Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
climate change phenomenon
The biggest reason why I wont agree with this climate change phenomenon is "they kept us in the dark", and didn't tell us what they intended to do...So we could see for ourselves. That in itself causes suspicion . Then you ask yourself, why etc.... If you can argue all these points away, you're a better spin doctor than I am.... Please pass this on.... I am open to convincing arguments, but not the crap without being properly informed... I think thats reasonable. CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY Story Image Climate change campaigners: 100 reasons why climate change is natural and not man-made HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made: 1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity. 2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. 3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels. 4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. 5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high. 6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. 7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends. 8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited. 9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming 10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years. 11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago 12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds 13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”. 14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions 15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity” 16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming. 17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood. 18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control 19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it. 20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates 21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. 22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades 23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries 24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder 25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research 26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles 27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets. 28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population 29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago 30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles 31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming 32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures 33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere 34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere 35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything 36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes 37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases” 38) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC 39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally 40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms 41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful 42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical 43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests 44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years 45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution 46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations 47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all. 48) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change 49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions. 50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report. 51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required. 52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates” 53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans. 54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics. Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot 55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers. 56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting. 57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.” 58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country. 59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”, but we are continuing along the same lines. 60) The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth. 61) The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years. 62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed. 63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural. 64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn. 65) The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive. 66) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth’s temperature. 67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”. 68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events. 69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years – so it expects global warming to resume swiftly. 70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.” 71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure. 72) The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all. 73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead. 74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions. 75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes. 76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years. 77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism. 78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years. 79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun). 80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns. 81) The UK’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data. 82) Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money – under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year. 83) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors. 84) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes. 85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change. 86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures – in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water. 87) The Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times. 88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. 89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life. 90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. 91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. 92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent). 93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen. 94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal. 95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic. 96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters. 97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon. 98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said: “We – along with many of our fellow citizens – are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.” 99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” 100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.” CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL................ 17.12.09, 12:28am Regarding this article, I say "FOLLOW THE MONEY". These Climate Change Guru's are predisposed to promote "Global Warming", in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. They depend upon massive government and private grants to fund their "research" and to live comfortable lives. Who amongst us would not be tempted to promote such drivel if we thought "it might be a good idea anyway....even if we ARE fudging the data!" Would we REALLY say that Global Warming is not man-made if it meant we would lose our income? Where would we go? What would we do? Certainly not me. We need to stop acting like sheep and start doing some critical thinking. It is obvious to me that there will ALWAYS be climate change.....but to the extent we can affect it......it would be like peeing in the ocean and expecting it to change the water level. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
climate change phenomenon
Jonno wrote:
The biggest reason why I wont agree with this climate change phenomenon is "they kept us in the dark", and didn't tell us what they intended to do...So we could see for ourselves. That in itself causes suspicion . Then you ask yourself, why etc.... If you can argue all these points away, you're a better spin doctor than I am.... Please pass this on.... I am open to convincing arguments, but not the crap without being properly informed... I think thats reasonable. Tell me did you check out any one of these assertions or did you just spam them on without another thought? How is that "being open to convincing arguments"? If you did verify any one of them that deals with science (since the slurs and conspiracies are unverifiable) tell us which one and present the evidence. Make a "convincing argument" so that we are "properly informed", I am not asking for a tract covering all 100 just one to do with actual science. And by the by who wrote this? Do you think it would be fair to acknowledge them? .... snip 100 units of propaganda ..... CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY Story Image Regarding this article, I say "FOLLOW THE MONEY". These Climate Change Guru's are predisposed to promote "Global Warming", in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. They depend upon massive government and private grants to fund their "research" and to live comfortable lives. Yes yes it's all a great global conspiracy. I don't suppose you have any evidence? What you completely fail to grasp is that if it was all fake any scientists who could produce the evidence of the faking would become instant celebrities and have gained enormous career prestige. But no you prefer to assume that around the world none of them will break ranks and take that prize. You don't understand science or scientists one bit. Scientists rarely get rich, they live to learn and to understand, to be the best in their field and beat the other guy to it and if necessary to prove the other bloke is an idiot. Any conspiracy involving academic fraud on this scale would leak like a sieve. Or is it that the blokes in the black cars with radios in their ears have the dissenters all locked up in gitmo bay? Who amongst us would not be tempted to promote such drivel if we thought "it might be a good idea anyway....even if we ARE fudging the data!" Show me evidence of data fudging that has any real impact on the situation. Would we REALLY say that Global Warming is not man-made if it meant we would lose our income? Where would we go? What would we do? Certainly not me. We need to stop acting like sheep and start doing some critical thinking. Absolbloodylutely! It is time for you to lead the way. What critical thinking did you apply to the above list? It is obvious to me that there will ALWAYS be climate change.....but to the extent we can affect it......it would be like peeing in the ocean and expecting it to change the water level. One more unsupported assertion. David |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
climate change phenomenon
On 21/12/2009 4:38 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonno wrote: The biggest reason why I wont agree with this climate change phenomenon is "they kept us in the dark", and didn't tell us what they intended to do...So we could see for ourselves. That in itself causes suspicion . Then you ask yourself, why etc.... If you can argue all these points away, you're a better spin doctor than I am.... Please pass this on.... I am open to convincing arguments, but not the crap without being properly informed... I think thats reasonable. Tell me did you check out any one of these assertions or did you just spam them on without another thought? How is that "being open to convincing arguments"? If you did verify any one of them that deals with science (since the slurs and conspiracies are unverifiable) tell us which one and present the evidence. Make a "convincing argument" so that we are "properly informed", I am not asking for a tract covering all 100 just one to do with actual science. And by the by who wrote this? Do you think it would be fair to acknowledge them? ... snip 100 units of propaganda ..... CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY Story Image Regarding this article, I say "FOLLOW THE MONEY". These Climate Change Guru's are predisposed to promote "Global Warming", in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. They depend upon massive government and private grants to fund their "research" and to live comfortable lives. Yes yes it's all a great global conspiracy. I don't suppose you have any evidence? What you completely fail to grasp is that if it was all fake any scientists who could produce the evidence of the faking would become instant celebrities and have gained enormous career prestige. But no you prefer to assume that around the world none of them will break ranks and take that prize. You don't understand science or scientists one bit. Scientists rarely get rich, they live to learn and to understand, to be the best in their field and beat the other guy to it and if necessary to prove the other bloke is an idiot. Any conspiracy involving academic fraud on this scale would leak like a sieve. Or is it that the blokes in the black cars with radios in their ears have the dissenters all locked up in gitmo bay? Who amongst us would not be tempted to promote such drivel if we thought "it might be a good idea anyway....even if we ARE fudging the data!" Show me evidence of data fudging that has any real impact on the situation. Would we REALLY say that Global Warming is not man-made if it meant we would lose our income? Where would we go? What would we do? Certainly not me. We need to stop acting like sheep and start doing some critical thinking. Absolbloodylutely! It is time for you to lead the way. What critical thinking did you apply to the above list? It is obvious to me that there will ALWAYS be climate change.....but to the extent we can affect it......it would be like peeing in the ocean and expecting it to change the water level. One more unsupported assertion. David David, I guess if you peed in the ocean, you would affect the water level. I am afraid the rest of your arguments hold up like this as well. Youre a manipulator. Like the rest of your stuff, you have nothing but hot air. There will be climate change, but I will no longer support the life style of those idiots who jet over far and sunder, and say the sky is falling. Its strange how all this idea came about shorly after major world financial crisis. It would have something to do with US running out of cash would it? I have yet to see climate staying the same. So what if you say the world is flat. I say heretics like you are old hat. Try changing some. It may make a difference instead of following scheming people who hold shares in oil and coal corps. It may make a man out of you. Happy new year. Its certainly been a happy result for me this year.. Must be someone is seeing this scam for what it is. But it aint you.... Damn those Russians eh? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
climate change phenomenon
Jonno wrote:
On 21/12/2009 4:38 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote: Jonno wrote: The biggest reason why I wont agree with this climate change phenomenon is "they kept us in the dark", and didn't tell us what they intended to do...So we could see for ourselves. That in itself causes suspicion . Then you ask yourself, why etc.... If you can argue all these points away, you're a better spin doctor than I am.... Please pass this on.... I am open to convincing arguments, but not the crap without being properly informed... I think thats reasonable. Tell me did you check out any one of these assertions or did you just spam them on without another thought? How is that "being open to convincing arguments"? If you did verify any one of them that deals with science (since the slurs and conspiracies are unverifiable) tell us which one and present the evidence. Make a "convincing argument" so that we are "properly informed", I am not asking for a tract covering all 100 just one to do with actual science. And by the by who wrote this? Do you think it would be fair to acknowledge them? ... snip 100 units of propaganda ..... CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY Story Image Regarding this article, I say "FOLLOW THE MONEY". These Climate Change Guru's are predisposed to promote "Global Warming", in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. They depend upon massive government and private grants to fund their "research" and to live comfortable lives. Yes yes it's all a great global conspiracy. I don't suppose you have any evidence? What you completely fail to grasp is that if it was all fake any scientists who could produce the evidence of the faking would become instant celebrities and have gained enormous career prestige. But no you prefer to assume that around the world none of them will break ranks and take that prize. You don't understand science or scientists one bit. Scientists rarely get rich, they live to learn and to understand, to be the best in their field and beat the other guy to it and if necessary to prove the other bloke is an idiot. Any conspiracy involving academic fraud on this scale would leak like a sieve. Or is it that the blokes in the black cars with radios in their ears have the dissenters all locked up in gitmo bay? Who amongst us would not be tempted to promote such drivel if we thought "it might be a good idea anyway....even if we ARE fudging the data!" Show me evidence of data fudging that has any real impact on the situation. Would we REALLY say that Global Warming is not man-made if it meant we would lose our income? Where would we go? What would we do? Certainly not me. We need to stop acting like sheep and start doing some critical thinking. Absolbloodylutely! It is time for you to lead the way. What critical thinking did you apply to the above list? It is obvious to me that there will ALWAYS be climate change.....but to the extent we can affect it......it would be like peeing in the ocean and expecting it to change the water level. One more unsupported assertion. David David, I guess if you peed in the ocean, you would affect the water level. I am afraid the rest of your arguments hold up like this as well. Youre a manipulator. Like the rest of your stuff, you have nothing but hot air. Please tell everybody how I have manipulated you or admit that all you have is empty accusations. Speaking of hot air, did you notice my repeated requests for you to justify one thing you posted? I didn't notice the reply to that. There will be climate change, but I will no longer support the life style of those idiots who jet over far and sunder, and say the sky is falling. Its strange how all this idea came about shorly after major world financial crisis. It would have something to do with US running out of cash would it? Well no it wouldn't but if you feel that you can justify the allegation go right ahead. Otherwise it is just another pointless slur. I have yet to see climate staying the same. So what if you say the world is flat. I say heretics like you are old hat. Try changing some. It may make a difference instead of following scheming people who hold shares in oil and coal corps. It may make a man out of you. This is the most ludicrous and baseless thing you have typed yet. Why on earth would I be beating on climate change denial if I was following people making money out of fossil fuel? Happy new year. Its certainly been a happy result for me this year.. Must be someone is seeing this scam for what it is. But it aint you.... Damn those Russians eh? Now you are just making things up. Go to bed and post when you are sober. David |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
climate change phenomenon
On 21/12/2009 10:42 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonno wrote: On 21/12/2009 4:38 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote: Jonno wrote: The biggest reason why I wont agree with this climate change phenomenon is "they kept us in the dark", and didn't tell us what they intended to do...So we could see for ourselves. That in itself causes suspicion . Then you ask yourself, why etc.... If you can argue all these points away, you're a better spin doctor than I am.... Please pass this on.... I am open to convincing arguments, but not the crap without being properly informed... I think thats reasonable. Tell me did you check out any one of these assertions or did you just spam them on without another thought? How is that "being open to convincing arguments"? If you did verify any one of them that deals with science (since the slurs and conspiracies are unverifiable) tell us which one and present the evidence. Make a "convincing argument" so that we are "properly informed", I am not asking for a tract covering all 100 just one to do with actual science. And by the by who wrote this? Do you think it would be fair to acknowledge them? ... snip 100 units of propaganda ..... CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY Story Image Regarding this article, I say "FOLLOW THE MONEY". These Climate Change Guru's are predisposed to promote "Global Warming", in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. They depend upon massive government and private grants to fund their "research" and to live comfortable lives. Yes yes it's all a great global conspiracy. I don't suppose you have any evidence? What you completely fail to grasp is that if it was all fake any scientists who could produce the evidence of the faking would become instant celebrities and have gained enormous career prestige. But no you prefer to assume that around the world none of them will break ranks and take that prize. You don't understand science or scientists one bit. Scientists rarely get rich, they live to learn and to understand, to be the best in their field and beat the other guy to it and if necessary to prove the other bloke is an idiot. Any conspiracy involving academic fraud on this scale would leak like a sieve. Or is it that the blokes in the black cars with radios in their ears have the dissenters all locked up in gitmo bay? Who amongst us would not be tempted to promote such drivel if we thought "it might be a good idea anyway....even if we ARE fudging the data!" Show me evidence of data fudging that has any real impact on the situation. Would we REALLY say that Global Warming is not man-made if it meant we would lose our income? Where would we go? What would we do? Certainly not me. We need to stop acting like sheep and start doing some critical thinking. Absolbloodylutely! It is time for you to lead the way. What critical thinking did you apply to the above list? It is obvious to me that there will ALWAYS be climate change.....but to the extent we can affect it......it would be like peeing in the ocean and expecting it to change the water level. One more unsupported assertion. David David, I guess if you peed in the ocean, you would affect the water level. I am afraid the rest of your arguments hold up like this as well. Youre a manipulator. Like the rest of your stuff, you have nothing but hot air. Please tell everybody how I have manipulated you or admit that all you have is empty accusations. Speaking of hot air, did you notice my repeated requests for you to justify one thing you posted? I didn't notice the reply to that. There will be climate change, but I will no longer support the life style of those idiots who jet over far and sunder, and say the sky is falling. Its strange how all this idea came about shorly after major world financial crisis. It would have something to do with US running out of cash would it? Well no it wouldn't but if you feel that you can justify the allegation go right ahead. Otherwise it is just another pointless slur. I have yet to see climate staying the same. So what if you say the world is flat. I say heretics like you are old hat. Try changing some. It may make a difference instead of following scheming people who hold shares in oil and coal corps. It may make a man out of you. This is the most ludicrous and baseless thing you have typed yet. Why on earth would I be beating on climate change denial if I was following people making money out of fossil fuel? Because you dont check all the facts. Only the ones you want to see. Those Corps are about compensation for finding alternatives fuels and handouts. Perhaps you have you head so far in other places that you haven't used that intelligence to understand what they are proposing. Happy new year. Its certainly been a happy result for me this year.. Must be someone is seeing this scam for what it is. But it aint you.... Damn those Russians eh? Now you are just making things up. Go to bed and post when you are sober. You are making things up. Youre simply annoyed. Illigitimate claims that I drink have been grossly over estimated. At least when I do, I pay for my own, and not the public purse. We cant agree on this, if others cant, who have claims to being smarter. So dont act like you are intelligent. its not intelligent to do so in this kind of situation, no one wins. We are at at a stalemate if the others are. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
climate change phenomenon
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
... It is time for you to lead the way. What critical thinking did you apply to the above list? well, THAT'S a redundant question! :-) still, because there won't be an answer, i'll chime in: none!! i read through the list carefully, because it's fascinating like joh-speak is fascinating - the sum total is lots of words, but nothing actually said. consider the following: " 95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic." hee hee hee hee...! we're all australians here, so we actually know for a stony cold fact what happened there, and the truth is just camoflaged by the joh-speak - it's not that the statement is literally untrue (except describing ets legislation as a "pledge", which is, of course, ridiculous; and to clarify that while the ets had mass support amongst the public, its mass support did not include quite enough members of the federal senate due to party-line voting, and where it lacked support with either the senate or the public, it was in many cases due to it not being firm enough, rather than that it was rejected outright by deniers). many of the 100 non-points in the list are extremely similar in this way. (or just useless statements to form a magical total of 100). a more committed denier could have cobbled together a more persuasive list of 10 & left it at that - but amongst their ranks, overstatement seems to have become the order of the day, which then, by extension, blows the credibility of all of them by association. which i personally find a shame, because it can be a bit of a worry sometimes if literally everyone agrees about something - there is nothing bad about some robust debate, provided it is for good purpose (not just for the fun of arguing). still, with climate change denialism, a united front is probably not an option, some still deny outright (in the face of all evidence, refer to the list) and others are smart enough not to deny the obvious, but quibble about the cause, minor details, and so forth. what is also fascinating (besides the joh-speak) is why any denier actually _would_; it simply makes no sense. a handful are involved with the fossil fuel industries, but the majority aren't (indeed, overall, the fossil fuel industries are seemingly _not_ staffed by deniers!!) the evidence has been published for anyone to see if they so wish, and as you say, if even one denier could make his case he'd be a megastar overnight. people don't accept the probably reality of human-induced climate change because it benefits them, they accept it despite the fact that it doesn't (overall). which causes me to wonder what's going on inside the brains of deniers, and it only gets back to one thing, magical thinking (a neurological phenomenon normally associated with the under-6 set). yet, none of us would want such a thing to be true, it's just one of those things that must be accepted as highly probable. that we must ditch dependence on fossil fuel isn't even one of those things where one has the luxury of an opinion based on ideology, it's just a fact that everyone is aware of now; that it must happen some time between sooner and later, so why maintain the line that human-induced climate change is simply not true and is, in fact, a _conspiracy_ titter! i saw ian plimer on the telly the other week. it was one of those interviews that was just so embarrassing to watch that i could barely stand it (i find it horrible to watch someone making an awful fool of themselves, although there are crueller people who find it funny). considering how very few actual names are given in the list, the fact that ian plimer's is, and knowing what we know about his ghastly flirtings with fame, makes me wonder. i am not acquainted with most of the others. if this handful of names comprises the cutting-edge of climate change denialism in 2009 (if some of them have not indeed simply been quoted out of original context & aren't deniers at all), what hope have they at all? if one relies on the scrapings from teh bottom of the climate science barrel, how can they hope to make their case coherently, never mind "win"? if they did "win", what would they have won?! what is the prize here for them, exactly?? and is it a better prize than the majority's prize, which would be political, social, nutritional (etc etc) stability, and a lack of damage, and, eventually, a measurable improvement? i want to know what the denier's prize actually is - because best i can work out they don't have one. it seems counterintuitive to argue & fight against an idea that's well-established, to tire and humiliate oneself, to lose the respect of others, and so forth, in a fight where one side does not seem to have a prize in mind, and if there is a prize it would seem to be one they simply can't win. if some huffy & self-serving notion, such as "pride" is the prize they're fighting for, should they not demonstrate slightly more now in order to have enough left to have proven, later, that they "won"? the other thing i want to know is where all these people were 25 years ago when the subject was first brought up for debate in the public domain. denialism only got groovy this year, but the horse had already bolted years ago. does one fight harder & more desperately if one knows the fight is effectively already over & has been for years?? _that's_ counterintuitive _too_. intriguing, it is, viewed from any angle. if there is an exodus from teh sock drawer overnight & matching influx to this group, is it our fault for feeding the troll? :-) kylie |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
climate change phenomenon
0tterbot wrote:
if there is an exodus from teh sock drawer overnight & matching influx to this group, is it our fault for feeding the troll? :-) kylie I was starting to wonder if Jonno's second name was Loki. David |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
climate change phenomenon
"0tterbot" wrote in message
(snip) that we must ditch dependence on fossil fuel isn't even one of those things where one has the luxury of an opinion based on ideology, it's just a fact that everyone is aware of now; that it must happen some time between sooner and later, so why maintain the line that human-induced climate change is simply not true and is, in fact, a _conspiracy_ titter! I've long wondered about both peak oil and climate change and whether there is a difference in attitudes to both of those things between country and city dwellers and I've finally come down on the side of a distinct difference. City dwellers tend to witter on about it and say all the right things, but don't seem to understand how it applies to them and their profligate ways. I suspect that only when the water stops flowing out of thier taps or they can't get fuel for their fourbies that they might eventually realise what it really means. (rant mode off) i saw ian plimer on the telly the other week. it was one of those interviews that was just so embarrassing to watch God wasn't it appalling! And to think that Abbott is quoting him as a credible scientist on the subject of climate change! No wonder Abbott got shot down in flames for giving out the wrong information about the Hadley Institute's findings if he was relying on Plimer. I read the revues of Plimer's book after that interview and one scientist who knows him well because he's at the same uni, made the comment at the end that Plimer's book was like the Von Danikan books. i want to know what the denier's prize actually is - Follow the money is usually the first way of finding out the 'prize'. Plimer is a Director of a number of mining companies. I wonder if any of those Directorships would involve coal mining companies? because best i can work out they don't have one. it seems counterintuitive to argue & fight against an idea that's well-established, to tire and humiliate oneself, to lose the respect of others, and so forth, in a fight where one side does not seem to have a prize in mind, and if there is a prize it would seem to be one they simply can't win. if some huffy & self-serving notion, such as "pride" is the prize they're fighting for, should they not demonstrate slightly more now in order to have enough left to have proven, later, that they "won"? Bugger 'pride'. I'd lay pounds to peanuts that money is involved in one way or another. That could be direct employment in a position of some sort which atracts remuneration or, in the case of politicians, contributions to campaign fundings or a multiplicity of other ways to grease palms. the other thing i want to know is where all these people were 25 years ago when the subject was first brought up for debate in the public domain. denialism only got groovy this year, but the horse had already bolted years ago. does one fight harder & more desperately if one knows the fight is effectively already over & has been for years?? _that's_ counterintuitive _too_. intriguing, it is, viewed from any angle. if there is an exodus from teh sock drawer overnight & matching influx to this group, is it our fault for feeding the troll? Well he's already done at least one addy amendment because he's escaped from my killfile to post in the last couple of days. I'll be surprised if there aren't more add socks. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
climate change phenomenon
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
. au... I've long wondered about both peak oil and climate change and whether there is a difference in attitudes to both of those things between country and city dwellers and I've finally come down on the side of a distinct difference. City dwellers tend to witter on about it and say all the right things, but don't seem to understand how it applies to them and their profligate ways. I suspect that only when the water stops flowing out of thier taps or they can't get fuel for their fourbies that they might eventually realise what it really means. (rant mode off) hm, sort of. but sort of not. i do think that dislocation from the natural world does not help people to see things clearly & the relationships between them, but i'm also mindful that i completely changed teh way i live whilst still a city dweller - many city dwellers have, and do. just as they have no real idea what we are doing, we don't necessarily keep in touch with what they are doing either. plus, i'm sure we both know rural dwellers whose behaviour is as bizarre, wasteful, and counter-intuitive as the behaviour of a cubbie living in a mcmansion in kellyville. (unfortunately). in many ways issues like these don't really have a country/city divide, because there are people in both situations who just aren't seeing or accepting or caring about things that are going on. i'm not sure the mindset is locality-based. i'd also say, however, that as far as i'm aware (& happy to be corrected if i've got it wrong) that the proportion of rural-dwelling outright deniers is far larger, even though you would expect the reverse!! i offer you the national party as but one example - i've never voted national because i completely disapprove of their unholy alliance, but used to feel they played an important role. lately, they've degenerated into a pack of troglodyte rabble who should be entirely ashamed of letting their constituents down so relentlessly and for so long. even in 2009, the barnaby joyces are saying "you shouldn't plant trees on arable land - they just use all the water & stop the grass from growing" which is the biggest crock of shit imaginable!!!! i find this simply unbelievable when it's been shown repeatedly that the right kind of tree, & enough of them, will not only help counter wind and erosion, but also spread fertility, break up monoculture, and keep the surrounding grass green & their zone more fertile. i can accept the nats might not have much brains, but have they no eyes either? farming is of necessity going through some big changes, i don't think that living in 1956 is going to help anyone, particularly their own constituents. my own rant mode off ;-) i saw ian plimer on the telly the other week. it was one of those interviews that was just so embarrassing to watch God wasn't it appalling! And to think that Abbott is quoting him as a credible scientist on the subject of climate change! No wonder Abbott got shot down in flames for giving out the wrong information about the Hadley Institute's findings if he was relying on Plimer. abbott has himself in a bit of a bind, though; and not only abbott but alby schultz (whose missive in the goulburn paper yesterday was similarly embarrassing) and a whole clot of others in the party - the bind being that on the one hand they are coming up with every reason that current climate change is not anthropogenic, but _also_ claiming that their climate change policies will be better than labor's. clearly, if it's not anthropogenic, no need to do anything as there is nothing we could do. if it is, we need to do things! but walking on both sides of the fence is clearly not tenable, and cannot possibly make for any sort of proper policy. i think kevin rudd's a lame control freak who rarely actually _does_ anything, but at least he's not promoting a mixed message. i can't imagine i'm the only person who views the libs' bizarre mixed message with one eyebrow raised. it's my position their party is likely to split completely over this. I read the revues of Plimer's book after that interview and one scientist who knows him well because he's at the same uni, made the comment at the end that Plimer's book was like the Von Danikan books. i want to know what the denier's prize actually is - Follow the money is usually the first way of finding out the 'prize'. Plimer is a Director of a number of mining companies. I wonder if any of those Directorships would involve coal mining companies? because best i can work out they don't have one. it seems counterintuitive to argue & fight against an idea that's well-established, to tire and humiliate oneself, to lose the respect of others, and so forth, in a fight where one side does not seem to have a prize in mind, and if there is a prize it would seem to be one they simply can't win. if some huffy & self-serving notion, such as "pride" is the prize they're fighting for, should they not demonstrate slightly more now in order to have enough left to have proven, later, that they "won"? Bugger 'pride'. I'd lay pounds to peanuts that money is involved in one way or another. That could be direct employment in a position of some sort which atracts remuneration or, in the case of politicians, contributions to campaign fundings or a multiplicity of other ways to grease palms. you would think so, but deniers say the massive worldwide "conspiracy" is all about money, so... um.... actually it's far more likely the famous deniers are about money - but what of the obscure, suburban deniers? (just living on easter island in their minds, is my guess). the other thing i want to know is where all these people were 25 years ago when the subject was first brought up for debate in the public domain. denialism only got groovy this year, but the horse had already bolted years ago. does one fight harder & more desperately if one knows the fight is effectively already over & has been for years?? _that's_ counterintuitive _too_. intriguing, it is, viewed from any angle. if there is an exodus from teh sock drawer overnight & matching influx to this group, is it our fault for feeding the troll? Well he's already done at least one addy amendment because he's escaped from my killfile to post in the last couple of days. I'll be surprised if there aren't more add socks. it's the weather for thongs, that's what i say :-) kylie |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
climate change phenomenon
"0tterbot" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message I've long wondered about both peak oil and climate change and whether there is a difference in attitudes to both of those things between country and city dwellers and I've finally come down on the side of a distinct difference. City dwellers tend to witter on about it and say all the right things, but don't seem to understand how it applies to them and their profligate ways. I suspect that only when the water stops flowing out of thier taps or they can't get fuel for their fourbies that they might eventually realise what it really means. (rant mode off) hm, sort of. but sort of not. i do think that dislocation from the natural world does not help people to see things clearly & the relationships between them, but i'm also mindful that i completely changed teh way i live whilst still a city dweller - many city dwellers have, and do. just as they have no real idea what we are doing, we don't necessarily keep in touch with what they are doing either. plus, i'm sure we both know rural dwellers whose behaviour is as bizarre, wasteful, and counter-intuitive as the behaviour of a cubbie living in a mcmansion in kellyville. (unfortunately). Before I wrote my rant yesterday, I was trying to think of one rural dweller (and by that I mean provide their own water) who was a real wastrel. I couldn't think of one. But I'm sure there are some. in many ways issues like these don't really have a country/city divide, because there are people in both situations who just aren't seeing or accepting or caring about things that are going on. i'm not sure the mindset is locality-based. i'd also say, however, that as far as i'm aware (& happy to be corrected if i've got it wrong) that the proportion of rural-dwelling outright deniers is far larger, even though you would expect the reverse!! I'd quibble on that one. i offer you the national party as but one example - i've never voted national because i completely disapprove of their unholy alliance, but used to feel they played an important role. lately, I think that they think they play an important role but I reckon they're as effective and useful as tits on a bull. Gotta go, someone else needs the 'puter. Merry Xmas Kylie and to all other regualrs of the ng. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
climate change phenomenon
On 24/12/2009 3:34 PM, FarmI wrote:
wrote in message "FarmI"ask@itshall be given wrote in message I've long wondered about both peak oil and climate change and whether there is a difference in attitudes to both of those things between country and city dwellers and I've finally come down on the side of a distinct difference. City dwellers tend to witter on about it and say all the right things, but don't seem to understand how it applies to them and their profligate ways. I suspect that only when the water stops flowing out of thier taps or they can't get fuel for their fourbies that they might eventually realise what it really means. (rant mode off) hm, sort of. but sort of not. i do think that dislocation from the natural world does not help people to see things clearly& the relationships between them, but i'm also mindful that i completely changed teh way i live whilst still a city dweller - many city dwellers have, and do. just as they have no real idea what we are doing, we don't necessarily keep in touch with what they are doing either. plus, i'm sure we both know rural dwellers whose behaviour is as bizarre, wasteful, and counter-intuitive as the behaviour of a cubbie living in a mcmansion in kellyville. (unfortunately). Before I wrote my rant yesterday, I was trying to think of one rural dweller (and by that I mean provide their own water) who was a real wastrel. I couldn't think of one. But I'm sure there are some. in many ways issues like these don't really have a country/city divide, because there are people in both situations who just aren't seeing or accepting or caring about things that are going on. i'm not sure the mindset is locality-based. i'd also say, however, that as far as i'm aware (& happy to be corrected if i've got it wrong) that the proportion of rural-dwelling outright deniers is far larger, even though you would expect the reverse!! I'd quibble on that one. i offer you the national party as but one example - i've never voted national because i completely disapprove of their unholy alliance, but used to feel they played an important role. lately, I think that they think they play an important role but I reckon they're as effective and useful as tits on a bull. Gotta go, someone else needs the 'puter. Yup youre right. I do Extremely cold weather across northern Europe has left scores of people dead and caused widespread transport chaos. Temperatures as low as minus 22 degrees Celsius have led to the deaths of 122 people in Poland, with the main river, the Vistula, now frozen over and causing fears of flooding. In the Swiss Alps, avalanches have killed at least seven people, while in western France, 14 regions have been hit by heavy snow. Severe weather warnings are still in place across the UK, which is in the grip of its longest cold snap in 30 years. Merry Xmas Kylie and to all other regualrs of the ng. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
climate change phenomenon
On 7/01/2010 1:17 PM, Jonno wrote:
On 24/12/2009 3:34 PM, FarmI wrote: wrote in message "FarmI"ask@itshall be given wrote in message I've long wondered about both peak oil and climate change and whether there is a difference in attitudes to both of those things between country and city dwellers and I've finally come down on the side of a distinct difference. City dwellers tend to witter on about it and say all the right things, but don't seem to understand how it applies to them and their profligate ways. I suspect that only when the water stops flowing out of thier taps or they can't get fuel for their fourbies that they might eventually realise what it really means. (rant mode off) hm, sort of. but sort of not. i do think that dislocation from the natural world does not help people to see things clearly& the relationships between them, but i'm also mindful that i completely changed teh way i live whilst still a city dweller - many city dwellers have, and do. just as they have no real idea what we are doing, we don't necessarily keep in touch with what they are doing either. plus, i'm sure we both know rural dwellers whose behaviour is as bizarre, wasteful, and counter-intuitive as the behaviour of a cubbie living in a mcmansion in kellyville. (unfortunately). Before I wrote my rant yesterday, I was trying to think of one rural dweller (and by that I mean provide their own water) who was a real wastrel. I couldn't think of one. But I'm sure there are some. in many ways issues like these don't really have a country/city divide, because there are people in both situations who just aren't seeing or accepting or caring about things that are going on. i'm not sure the mindset is locality-based. i'd also say, however, that as far as i'm aware (& happy to be corrected if i've got it wrong) that the proportion of rural-dwelling outright deniers is far larger, even though you would expect the reverse!! I'd quibble on that one. i offer you the national party as but one example - i've never voted national because i completely disapprove of their unholy alliance, but used to feel they played an important role. lately, I think that they think they play an important role but I reckon they're as effective and useful as tits on a bull. Gotta go, someone else needs the 'puter. Yup youre right. I do Extremely cold weather across northern Europe has left scores of people dead and caused widespread transport chaos. Temperatures as low as minus 22 degrees Celsius have led to the deaths of 122 people in Poland, with the main river, the Vistula, now frozen over and causing fears of flooding. In the Swiss Alps, avalanches have killed at least seven people, while in western France, 14 regions have been hit by heavy snow. Severe weather warnings are still in place across the UK, which is in the grip of its longest cold snap in 30 years. You hafta admit, this makes all you sophisticated know it all "prove it to me types" stop drinking and start asking " what is happening" I'll tell you" the sky is fallin" Merry Xmas Kylie and to all other regualrs of the ng. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Climate Change: The return of Swampy........ | United Kingdom | |||
Climate Change: The return of Swampy........ | United Kingdom | |||
'DEALING WITH PEAK OIL AND CLIMATE CHANGE' IN LONDON | Permaculture | |||
Wasps are responsible for climate change! | United Kingdom | |||
Global Warming "The debate on whether climate change is occurring has ended." | alt.forestry |