Guest pelmetman Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Tonight BBC2 I see the BBC have brought out the big guns to pedal the goverments line on global warming *-) In their attempt at balance they show the believers in high tech studios, and the sceptics in coffee shops *-) Quite what its got to do with AIDS, GM crops, is beyond me 8-)....I can only assume they are trying to associate climate change nonbelievers with every other looney! Personally I think the enviroment is changing............but it has allways changed :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Collings Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I have difficulty with the concept of man made global warning until someone explains to me which industrial revolution caused the end of the last ice age about 10-15 thousand years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 George Collings - 2011-01-24 10:23 PM I have difficulty with the concept of man made global warning until someone explains to me which industrial revolution caused the end of the last ice age about 10-15 thousand years ago. Although the climate has been warming since the year dot, they claim that the current rate of warming is a lot faster than it used to be. ...and our government think that it's the British motorist who is responsible. (I assume that motorists in the USA don't cause any climate change and that is why their fuel is so cheap). ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Terminology, and understanding, of these phenomina may be helped by a thorough perusal of this: http://tinyurl.com/y5gdabLet me know when you've read and absorbed it all. I'm off to bed! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Thanks for the link Brian – but please be aware that Wikipedia is banned in Schools and colleges now because of the ease that those with a bias can manipulate the content. On the Global warming front – the administrators in Wikipedia have at long last taken action against a truly awful person in my view who not only manipulated the facts but also ran a hate campaign against anyone who challenged him. http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=11266 And yes the BBC is incredibly biased in my view, mainly because their researchers when seeking “background” or “facts” look no further than the Guardian. Nothing against the Guardian – but I read it AND the Telegraph and the Mail and all the others, with the knowledge of their respective bias. It seems the BBC take the Guardian as their only reference source. Perhaps that is because all the BBC jobs are advertised in the Guardian and nowhere else? As for Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption/Weather – I agree with previous posters – it has happened before and I doubt that anyone thinks that mans activities have no effect on the planet. But what is wrong is the scary scenarios dressed up as fact. As soon as anyone sceptical of the spin the hype and the dodgy dossiers dares to say anything the proponents of catastrophic Global warming screech that you are a "Denier" with all the Holocaust denial connotations. The Climategate emails underlined just how dodgy the whole scam is. Even the Science and Technology Committee in the House of Commons has said as much:- http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/inquiries/100831-new-inquiry---reviews-into-crus-e-mails/ So coverage from the media seem typical of the individual organisation:- Times Higher Education The University of East Anglia’s Climategate inquiries were not sufficiently transparent and failed to properly investigate some key issues, the Commons Science and Technology Committee has concluded. Nature A UK parliamentary report on the so-called ‘Climategate’ email theft has expressed “some reservations” about two independent inquiries into the incident. However, the House of Commons science select committee says it is now time to implement the inquiries’ recommendations and move on. Express TWO inquiries into claims that scientists manipulated data about global warming were yesterday condemned by MPs as ineffective and too secretive. BBC (Richard Black) Inquiries into issues raised by 2009's climate e-mail hack did have flaws, a committee of MPs concludes. But despite questions over remits and omissions, they say it is time to make the changes needed and move on. GWPF (Press Release) The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) remains deeply concerned about the failure by academic and parliamentary inquires to fully and independently investigate the ‘Climategate’ affair. But even here we have certain individuals trying to put a lid on what was really found. Graham Stringer MP put forward this paragraph for inclusion but it was voted out by Tories Stephen Mosley and Stephen Metcalfe and the Labour MP, Gregg McClymont. Here is the paragraph Graham stringer MP wanted included in the report despite opposition – but he did manage to get it in as an addendum notation:- "There are proposals to increase worldwide taxation by up to a trillion dollars on the basis of climate science predictions. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held. The release of the e-mails from CRU at the University of East Anglia and the accusations that followed demanded independent and objective scrutiny by independent panels. This has not happened. The composition of the two panels has been criticised for having members who were over identified with the views of CRU. Lord Oxburgh as President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewable appeared to have a conflict of interest. Lord Oxburgh himself was aware that this might lead to criticism. Similarly Professor Boulton as an ex colleague of CRU seemed wholly inappropriate to be a member of the Russell panel. No reputable scientist who was critical of CRU’s work was on the panel, and prominent and distinguished critics were not interviewed. The Oxburgh panel did not do as our predecessor committee had been promised, investigate the science, but only looked at the integrity of the researchers. With the exception of Professor Kelly’s notes other notes taken by members of the panel have not been published. This leaves a question mark against whether CRU science is reliable. The Oxburgh panel also did not look at CRU’s controversial work on the IPPC which is what has attracted most [serious] allegations. Russell did not investigate the deletion of e-mails. We are now left after three investigations without a clear understanding of whether or not the CRU science is compromised." .................................. Serious stuff from Graham Stringer - well said that man. :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J9withdogs Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 George Collings - 2011-01-24 10:23 PM I have difficulty with the concept of man made global warning until someone explains to me which industrial revolution caused the end of the last ice age about 10-15 thousand years ago. ..but wasn't that down to the little green men from Mars? It's about as believable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 J9withdogs - 2011-01-25 9:40 AM George Collings - 2011-01-24 10:23 PM I have difficulty with the concept of man made global warning until someone explains to me which industrial revolution caused the end of the last ice age about 10-15 thousand years ago. ..but wasn't that down to the little green men from Mars? It's about as believable! No Janine - that ice-age was ended with the invention of matches. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porky Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Interesting how strong views can be held on a complex scientific subject without all the facts and the intelligence to interpret them. So surely with something as important we should take the cautious route and assume we are contributing and try to do something about it. There are even people out there who deny smoking kills (and maims). Blinkered arrogance is not a helpful trait in mankind.*-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Porky - 2011-01-25 12:18 PM Interesting how strong views can be held on a complex scientific subject without all the facts and the intelligence to interpret them. So surely with something as important we should take the cautious route and assume we are contributing and try to do something about it. There are even people out there who deny smoking kills (and maims). Blinkered arrogance is not a helpful trait in mankind.*-) Ah yes, but you are now entering the territory of "belief" - where man's inhumanity to man knows almost no bounds. Belief requires no facts, that is why it is so dangerous, and is presumably why historically, believers have either denied inconvenient facts, or killed, or otherwise silenced, those who have advanced them. Duck!! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I do not doubt that something should be done to mitigate the bad things we are doing to the planet. BUT! – what we do has to be the correct thing. For example – so we in the West want to assuage our guilt for driving cars etc. so we get them to run of bio diesel because this is better for the planet. Or is it? – because now huge tracks of forest in the world have been and are being cleared so that palm oil plants can be grown to provide the biomass for the bio diesel. This is crazy as the agriculture of the region becomes skewed away from food to a crop that has no use locally. Similarly those who state that “something must be done” about CO2 are so focussed on this trace gas essentially for plant photosynthesis have, in my view such tunnel vision, that they want us to waste more and more money on a problem that is not as great as their predictions using deeply flawed computer models predict. The dodgy science identified by the Climategate emails and the clear disquiet of people like Graham Stringer MP who sets out what seems to be a “move along – nothing to see here” cover up extremely well, leads me to want a damn sight more than “Lets play safe and throw £Billions at a problem that is only identified by some very dodgy science indeed. Personally I WANT my tax £ to be used to save the planet – what I don’t want my tax £ to be paid to charlatans who churn out yet more dodgy dossiers (remember Phoney Cares WMD dossiers!) to push an ideology and to beggar our economy whilst at the same time doing nothing to help the poor of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Interestingly - Peter Sissons has his autobiography out now and it is being serialised in the Daily Mail. This bit covers the attitude of the BBC to Global Warming and is quite informative - also goes on to cover the Health and Safety culture of the BBC - the bit about the dangers of filming in Gravesend I found very funny! B-) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 If you can get past the sometimes confusing presenter and the acronyms this has some interest I believe. http://www.accuweather.com/video/756131056001/bastardi-a-la-nina-that-is-k.asp If I understand it correctly it is saying that whatever is happening is not something that we have any ability to control or have any input into. Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 CliveH - 2011-01-25 4:44 PM Interestingly - Peter Sissons has his autobiography out now and it is being serialised in the Daily Mail. This bit covers the attitude of the BBC to Global Warming and is quite informative - also goes on to cover the Health and Safety culture of the BBC - the bit about the dangers of filming in Gravesend I found very funny! B-) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html Peter Sissons is spot on about the BBC left leaning agenda *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I'm not worried about climate change and I'm not bothered about the future I'm more concerned about keeping warm today. What do these two faced climate change eejits do when it gets cold? turn up their heating and jump into their nice warm comfortable cars. They all go on about the damage cars do to the environment, what do they want? a return to the hoss and cart? then they would start moaning about the hoss muck in the streets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Climate change is the new religion, only the believers will be saved, the rest of us heretics will be doomed to hotter dryer summers :D...............with a bit of luck (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 pelmetman - 2011-01-25 7:07 PM CliveH - 2011-01-25 4:44 PM Interestingly - Peter Sissons has his autobiography out now and it is being serialised in the Daily Mail. This bit covers the attitude of the BBC to Global Warming and is quite informative - also goes on to cover the Health and Safety culture of the BBC - the bit about the dangers of filming in Gravesend I found very funny! B-) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html Peter Sissons is spot on about the BBC left leaning agenda *-) Well for a bit of balance at least they employ Nick Robinson, former President of Oxford University Conservative Association and one time chairman of the Young Conservatives, as a leading political editor. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 malc d - 2011-01-26 1:47 PM Well for a bit of balance at least they employ Nick Robinson, former President of Oxford University Conservative Association and one time chairman of the Young Conservatives, as a leading political editor. ;-) One man out of 1000's, how did he manage to slip through the net :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 pelmetman - 2011-01-26 3:50 PM malc d - 2011-01-26 1:47 PM Well for a bit of balance at least they employ Nick Robinson, former President of Oxford University Conservative Association and one time chairman of the Young Conservatives, as a leading political editor. ;-) One man out of 1000's, how did he manage to slip through the net :D One man may be, but he is one of their main political 'voices' on radio and TV. ( They haven't got 1000's of those ). :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 malc d - 2011-01-26 4:11 PM One man may be, but he is one of their main political 'voices' on radio and TV. ( They haven't got 1000's of those ). :-| Ah,.......... but he's Oxbridge so he can get away with anything :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robkilby Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 pelmetman - 2011-01-26 10:33 AM Climate change is the new religion, only the believers will be saved, the rest of us heretics will be doomed to hotter dryer summers :D...............with a bit of luck (lol) How could this work ? Surely the issue is that climate change affects us all. How could " believers " be saved ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 robkilby - 2011-01-26 7:09 PM How could this work ? Surely the issue is that climate change affects us all. How could " believers " be saved ? As in religion people believe in heaven and hell :D So the climate change priests think the human race is capable of changing its ways from using the devils blood (Oil) >:-) by threatening us with their vision of hell.....Dry summers etc etc, but when they found out we where all looking forward to a Dry Hot Summer! they changed their message by including every other weather related incident to their mantra. But in the mean time our politicians and others have seen the light 8-) in the potential tax utopia of this religion, they can charge us for our salvation >:-( >:-( >:-( >:-( >:-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Nuclear power is here and it is here to stay, nuclear power is the only way to go despite what all the doom and gloom herberts have to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robkilby Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 pelmetman - 2011-01-26 7:40 PM robkilby - 2011-01-26 7:09 PM How could this work ? Surely the issue is that climate change affects us all. How could " believers " be saved ? As in religion people believe in heaven and hell :D So the climate change priests think the human race is capable of changing its ways from using the devils blood (Oil) >:-) by threatening us with their vision of hell.....Dry summers etc etc, but when they found out we where all looking forward to a Dry Hot Summer! they changed their message by including every other weather related incident to their mantra. But in the mean time our politicians and others have seen the light 8-) in the potential tax utopia of this religion, they can charge us for our salvation >:-( >:-( >:-( >:-( >:-( But...you said only the believers would be saved ?? How can this be ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 robkilby - 2011-01-26 8:35 PM But...you said only the believers would be saved ?? How can this be ? Because like every other religion the believers think they will be saved :D Where as I expect to end up in the compost heap of humanity (Buried or BBQ is the current choice, I prefer BBQ using charcol just annoy the gas BBQ'rs !), which means I will be stardust in the end :-> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flicka Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 (Knight of the Road)What do these two faced climate change eejits do when it gets cold? turn up their heating and jump into their nice warm comfortable cars. To go to the Airport so they can fly off around the World to the all the Climate Change Conferences, whilst staying in Air Conditioned Suites.They all go on about the damage cars do to the environment, what do they want? a return to the hoss and cart? then they would start moaning about the hoss muck in the streets.That’s cos Hoss Muck produces Methane, another Climate Change Gas *-) :-S ? The emotions worked in preview ?Ah!!!!!! noticed the Enable Emotions box had switched off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.