Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Nickbat on 27 November 2009, 10:33:38
-
You may be forgiven for thinking that the "Climategate" scandal had died down, as very little is appearing in the mainstream media (I wonder why? ::) ::)).
In fact, the reverse is true. Here are a few snippets to show that the topic is still very much alive. :y
It seems that someone has been cooking the NZ temperature data as well. That someone is Dr. Jim Salinger, considered one of the country's top scientists, who began the graph in the 1980s when he was at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/26/lawrence-solomon-new-zealand-s-climategate.aspx
Hide the decline! The Climategate leak now provides the data which was deliberately dropped in order to hide an inferred decline from paleoclimate (tree ring) studies.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/mcintyre-data-from-the-hide-the-decline/
On Russia's RT TV:
'Case for climate fears is blown to smithereens...whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and UN conference should be closed'
UK astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, of the long range solar forecast group Weather Action, declared that the ClimateGate revelations have rendered man-made global warming fears “false.”
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4476
As I said above, little is being aired in the MSM (mainstream media), but that has not gone unnoticed:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/11/crumbling.html
"Climategate" gets 8.8million returns on a Google search. :o
This will not die down. ;)
-
I thought this was about someones climate control issues. :D
-
I thought this was about someones climate control issues. :D
Me, too-as it happens ;D
-
I thought this was about someones climate control issues. :D
It is! "They" want to use bogus climate fears to control us! ;) ;D ;D
I've amended the thread title so there is further misunderstanding. :y :y
-
The news arrived here and even on local newspapers..
but interesting to see the tv channels refuse to mention about it >:(
-
well here is another bit of scandal for you nickbat :y
http://news.aol.co.uk/environment-news/climate-money-unaccounted-for/article/20091125010403749323695
-
well here is another bit of scandal for you nickbat :y
http://news.aol.co.uk/environment-news/climate-money-unaccounted-for/article/20091125010403749323695
Thanks! :y
Quote:
The EU said the money was collected in "bilateral and multilateral deals", but was unable to provide data to back up the claim.
Rotten to the core. >:( >:(
-
The news arrived here and even on local newspapers..
but interesting to see the tv channels refuse to mention about it >:(
If there were such a thing as a responsible journalist, I would expect them to beetle off and try to determine the truth before spouting conflicting news. Hopefully, that's what they're doing.
Climate is so unpredictable that it is VERY difficult to determine if things are getting out of control without waiting for them to get out of control.
The last thing that is needed (no pun intended) is for conjectures to be passed-off as facts - by any party.
It seems very likely to me that mankind is already pushing the feedback mechanisms of nature far too hard and that something needs to be done to rein that in. The prospect is for newly emerging economies to escalate what the West has done in the way of example. Not a happy prospect and one that is hard to counter without just looking like spoilsports.
-
The news arrived here and even on local newspapers..
but interesting to see the tv channels refuse to mention about it >:(
If there were such a thing as a responsible journalist, I would expect them to beetle off and try to determine the truth before spouting conflicting news. Hopefully, that's what they're doing.
Climate is so unpredictable that it is VERY difficult to determine if things are getting out of control without waiting for them to get out of control.
The last thing that is needed (no pun intended) is for conjectures to be passed-off as facts - by any party.
It seems very likely to me that mankind is already pushing the feedback mechanisms of nature far too hard and that something needs to be done to rein that in. The prospect is for newly emerging economies to escalate what the West has done in the way of example. Not a happy prospect and one that is hard to counter without just looking like spoilsports.
No one is denying that we should look after the environment but the science should be open, subject to scrutiny, and above all else, non-political.
What this scandal shows is that the science has become deeply corrupted. :(
Plus, I don't agree with the positive feedback theory. If it existed, any warming there may have been in the past would not take a 10-year holiday. ;)
Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html
-
I wouldn't mind being told that I had to cut back on the amount of energy I used because it was a finite resource and would not last for ever.
But I do object to being kept in the dark as to the real reasons behind all this. Surely governments must realise that with todays newsgathering technology and computer hacking skills, there is no way they can avoid a debate.
-
I wouldn't mind being told that I had to cut back on the amount of energy I used because it was a finite resource and would not last for ever.
But I do object to being kept in the dark as to the real reasons behind all this. Surely governments must realise that with todays newsgathering technology and computer hacking skills, there is no way they can avoid a debate.
Spot on, that man! :y :y
-
sorry Nickbat who's this "they" that are in on this huge secret conspiracy - am I part of it? and if not why aren't I....or am I and I've been sent to run interference......but why would I tell you that?......maybe that's exactly what "they" want you to think....they want you to believe I'm not in on it all.....or maybe I'm double-bluffing you...or triple bluffing....maybe Optimist knows the truth.....maybe I do....or is it the sinister "Copenhagen Agreement" brrrrrrr
...........trust no one............
for my money the "they" you speak of are perhaps an advanced alien race? :o
have a good weekend buddy ;D
-
sorry Nickbat who's this "they" that are in on this huge secret conspiracy - am I part of it? and if not why aren't I....or am I and I've been sent to run interference......but why would I tell you that?......maybe that's exactly what "they" want you to think....they want you to believe I'm not in on it all.....or maybe I'm double-bluffing you...or triple bluffing....maybe Optimist knows the truth.....maybe I do....or is it the sinister "Copenhagen Agreement" brrrrrrr
...........trust no one............
for my money the "they" you speak of are perhaps an advanced alien race? :o
have a good weekend buddy ;D
Not worth replying to this really.
"They" refers to anyone you want really. Radical envrionmentalists, politicised scientists, the IPCC. They all run with the same agenda:
1. The West and its capitalism are evil
2. The West's wealth should be transferred to developing countries
3. The West should give up its standards of living
4. The West's population should be reduced
etc, etc.
You choose. ;)
Cut down some more forests for biofuels and wood-burning power stations. Let's have another few thousand windfarms. Care for the environment? Nah, doesn't enter into it, really. >:( >:(
-
A good read, here:
IPCC Expert Reviewer Vincent Gray — whose 1,898 comments critical of the 2007 report were ignored — recently found that proof of the fraud was public for years.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/vincent-gray-on-climategate-there-was-proof-of-fraud-all-along-pjm-exclusive/
:y :y
-
I thought this was about someones climate control issues. :D
It is! "They" want to use bogus climate fears to control us! ;) ;D ;D
Very good ;D ;D
-
What I find interesting about Climate Change is that those "in the know" are doing exactly the same thing and saying the same thing as religious nuts down throughout the history of mankind.
Repent! Change your ways! Or thou art doomed! and the skies will fall down upon ye! :P :P
In reality the scientists who have changed the world in the past were self funded and independent. That is the only way to do true science.
Well finally they've been cought red handed and I'm delighted :)
Just looking at sky news now ad there're reporting on the muppets version of Bohemian Rhapsody :-/
At least if this comes out properly can we please change the types of car ads on the telly ::)
I dont want these gay, eurotrash, hippy treehugger, little girls barbie accessory piece of crap car ads :P
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N89vmob3f7k[/media]
Now this is what I want 8-)
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7IhExZpiUc[/media]
-
A climate change expert endorsed Tesco's position on reducing plastic bags after his institute received a £25million donation, it has been revealed.
Professor Mohan Munasinghe claimed the supermarket's policy of rewarding customers who reuse bags with ClubCard points was 'more effective' than charging.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231481/Climate-change-expert-says-Tesco-plastic-bag-policy-success-years-supermarket-makes-25m-donation-university.html
Money talks! ;)
-
sorry Nickbat who's this "they" that are in on this huge secret conspiracy - am I part of it? and if not why aren't I....or am I and I've been sent to run interference......but why would I tell you that?......maybe that's exactly what "they" want you to think....they want you to believe I'm not in on it all.....or maybe I'm double-bluffing you...or triple bluffing....maybe Optimist knows the truth.....maybe I do....or is it the sinister "Copenhagen Agreement" brrrrrrr
...........trust no one............
for my money the "they" you speak of are perhaps an advanced alien race? :o
have a good weekend buddy ;D
I have to say that I'm very disappointed by this contribution bj, I hope that my faith in your pragmatism hasn't been misplaced? :-/ :-/
-
sorry Nickbat who's this "they" that are in on this huge secret conspiracy - am I part of it? and if not why aren't I....or am I and I've been sent to run interference......but why would I tell you that?......maybe that's exactly what "they" want you to think....they want you to believe I'm not in on it all.....or maybe I'm double-bluffing you...or triple bluffing....maybe Optimist knows the truth.....maybe I do....or is it the sinister "Copenhagen Agreement" brrrrrrr
...........trust no one............
for my money the "they" you speak of are perhaps an advanced alien race? :o
have a good weekend buddy ;D
I have to say that I'm very disappointed by this contribution bj, I hope that my faith in your pragmatism hasn't been misplaced? :-/ :-/
Not entirely unexpected though.
-
It's getting interesting!
5 Australian front-bench MPs have resigned rather than back this carbon tax crap
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018003/climategate-five-aussie-mps-lead-the-way-by-resigning-in-disgust-over-carbon-tax/
-
It's getting interesting!
5 Australian front-bench MPs have resigned rather than back this carbon tax crap
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018003/climategate-five-aussie-mps-lead-the-way-by-resigning-in-disgust-over-carbon-tax/
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TylvUGJIi_w&feature=related[/media]
-
sorry Nickbat who's this "they" that are in on this huge secret conspiracy - am I part of it? and if not why aren't I....or am I and I've been sent to run interference......but why would I tell you that?......maybe that's exactly what "they" want you to think....they want you to believe I'm not in on it all.....or maybe I'm double-bluffing you...or triple bluffing....maybe Optimist knows the truth.....maybe I do....or is it the sinister "Copenhagen Agreement" brrrrrrr
...........trust no one............
for my money the "they" you speak of are perhaps an advanced alien race? :o
have a good weekend buddy ;D
I have to say that I'm very disappointed by this contribution bj, I hope that my faith in your pragmatism hasn't been misplaced? :-/ :-/
Not entirely unexpected though.
All those on the side of AGW right now are breaking out in a sweat and getting very defensive.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHATItyOsdY[/media]
-
I watched a very informative BBC2 investigation into President Obama's aims on cutting US emissions and his attendance at the Copenhagen Conference. Watch it in full to get the full flavour of the situation!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p69np/This_World_20092010_Can_Obama_Save_the_Planet/
Somehow I think the battle has only just started............!!!!!
;) ;) ;)
-
I watched a very informative BBC2 investigation into President Obama's aims on cutting US emissions and his attendance at the Copenhagen Conference. Watch it in full to get the full flavour of the situation!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p69np/This_World_20092010_Can_Obama_Save_the_Planet/
Somehow I think the battle has only just started............!!!!!
;) ;) ;)
Only availbale in the UK :-/ Can you give give me the gist of it ;D ;D
-
I watched a very informative BBC2 investigation into President Obama's aims on cutting US emissions and his attendance at the Copenhagen Conference. Watch it in full to get the full flavour of the situation!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p69np/This_World_20092010_Can_Obama_Save_the_Planet/
Somehow I think the battle has only just started............!!!!!
;) ;) ;)
Only availbale in the UK :-/ Can you give give me the gist of it ;D ;D
Basically it explains how much of the American population are unconvinced by the global warming argument, with major industry (coal in particular) joining them in not agreeing with Obama's aims and wanting to carry on as before. It shows how Obama has one hell of a fight on to convince his fellow Americans that global warming is really a concern, let alone for them! Copenhagen will produce very little if the US fail to contribute as their President wants, and politically he looks like losing this one!;) ;) ;)
-
I watched a very informative BBC2 investigation into President Obama's aims on cutting US emissions and his attendance at the Copenhagen Conference. Watch it in full to get the full flavour of the situation!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p69np/This_World_20092010_Can_Obama_Save_the_Planet/
Somehow I think the battle has only just started............!!!!!
;) ;) ;)
Only availbale in the UK :-/ Can you give give me the gist of it ;D ;D
Basically it explains how much of the American population are unconvinced by the global warming argument, with major industry (coal in particular) joining them in not agreeing with Obama's aims and wanting to carry on as before. It shows how Obama has one hell of a fight on to convince his fellow Americans that global warming is really a concern, let alone for them! Copenhagen will produce very little if the US fail to contribute as their President wants, and politically he looks like losing this one!;) ;) ;)
An impossibility now if this becomes widespread knowledge. ;)
However I doubt much would have come from Copenhagen even without this "climategate", strange to say but in this sense I hope our politicians are just as greedy and deaf as always, only looking after their own countries economies and not bothering about such a trivial issue as "climate change" :P
Edit: Me fail english? That umpossible!
-
I watched a very informative BBC2 investigation into President Obama's aims on cutting US emissions and his attendance at the Copenhagen Conference. Watch it in full to get the full flavour of the situation!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p69np/This_World_20092010_Can_Obama_Save_the_Planet/
Somehow I think the battle has only just started............!!!!!
;) ;) ;)
Only availbale in the UK :-/ Can you give give me the gist of it ;D ;D
Basically it explains how much of the American population are unconvinced by the global warming argument, with major industry (coal in particular) joining them in not agreeing with Obama's aims and wanting to carry on as before. It shows how Obama has one hell of a fight on to convince his fellow Americans that global warming is really a concern, let alone for them! Copenhagen will produce very little if the US fail to contribute as their President wants, and politically he looks like losing this one!;) ;) ;)
The BBC at its worst. Towing the party line: good bloke Obama against naughty Big Coal. >:(
Sorry, but this is pure propaganda, IMHO. :(
I'm surprised you rate it so much, Lizzie. :o :o
-
[The upcoming UN climate conference in Copenhagen] “is about raw politics, not about the politics of science"...."It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science. It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production - just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive."
Mike Hulme, Tyndal Centre, UEA. In November 2009, Hulme was listed as “the 10th most cited author in the world in the field of climate change, between 1999 and 2009".
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/a-climate-scientist-on-climate-skeptics/#more-11377
When even top scientists are beginning to say that the science has become too politicised, we need to sit uop and take note..Puts that BBC documentary that Lizzie mentioned into its proper perspective, methinks. ;)
-
And another scientist speaks out:
These same scientists threatened my job as a scientist with the US Geological Survey because I tried to publish a study showing with higher confidence that global temperature changes were completely natural caused solely by Earth’s physical processes. Additionally, these same scientists would not even discuss or refute the science and facts presented. Instead, they took two days to personally attack me and my family.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/4566/
>:( >:(
-
I watched a very informative BBC2 investigation into President Obama's aims on cutting US emissions and his attendance at the Copenhagen Conference. Watch it in full to get the full flavour of the situation!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p69np/This_World_20092010_Can_Obama_Save_the_Planet/
Somehow I think the battle has only just started............!!!!!
;) ;) ;)
Only availbale in the UK :-/ Can you give give me the gist of it ;D ;D
Basically it explains how much of the American population are unconvinced by the global warming argument, with major industry (coal in particular) joining them in not agreeing with Obama's aims and wanting to carry on as before. It shows how Obama has one hell of a fight on to convince his fellow Americans that global warming is really a concern, let alone for them! Copenhagen will produce very little if the US fail to contribute as their President wants, and politically he looks like losing this one!;) ;) ;)
....as time passes it seems that Barak Obama mirrors our former dear leader's propensity to talk a good talk but rather stumble on the uneven ground of practical real world politics.
-
Clarkson on Jonathon Ross ATM, the audiance and Ross laughing at the prospect that AGW might be wrong :( :( >:( >:(
-
Clarkson on Jonathon Ross ATM, the audiance and Ross laughing at the prospect that AGW might be wrong :( :( >:( >:(
I caught the tail end of it. Clarkson is savvy. Ross is not. The audience? Given the lack of mainstream media coverage, they'll believe anything. (They probably know more about X-Factor than CO2). ::) ::)
-
So simple
We need some CO2 - however plants breath CO2.
So plant a lot of trees
Energy consumption is the real enemy - don't waste energy consumption trying to lower CO2 outputs, just make everything use as little energy as practically possible.
Build those nuclear power stations.
Pour vast amounts of money into fusion research.
Investigate wave power agin - no Severn barrage - will be an environmental disaster.
Encourage motorcycle usage.
-
Clarkson on Jonathon Ross ATM, the audiance and Ross laughing at the prospect that AGW might be wrong :( :( >:( >:(
I caught the tail end of it. Clarkson is savvy. Ross is not. The audience? Given the lack of mainstream media coverage, they'll believe anything. (They probably know more about X-Factor than CO2). ::) ::)
Ross and the BBC - need anything more be said?
Who can justify watching this tripe masquerading as entertainment?
What a waste of bloody space!
Bah!!
-
I watched a very informative BBC2 investigation into President Obama's aims on cutting US emissions and his attendance at the Copenhagen Conference. Watch it in full to get the full flavour of the situation!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p69np/This_World_20092010_Can_Obama_Save_the_Planet/
Somehow I think the battle has only just started............!!!!!
;) ;) ;)
Only availbale in the UK :-/ Can you give give me the gist of it ;D ;D
Basically it explains how much of the American population are unconvinced by the global warming argument, with major industry (coal in particular) joining them in not agreeing with Obama's aims and wanting to carry on as before. It shows how Obama has one hell of a fight on to convince his fellow Americans that global warming is really a concern, let alone for them! Copenhagen will produce very little if the US fail to contribute as their President wants, and politically he looks like losing this one!;) ;) ;)
The BBC at its worst. Towing the party line: good bloke Obama against naughty Big Coal. >:(
Sorry, but this is pure propaganda, IMHO. :(
I'm surprised you rate it so much, Lizzie. :o :o
Did I say that Nick????!!! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
No, I just presented the situation as it is, from a neutral propective neither on one side or the other! ;) ;)
This reaction is one reason why I don't often comment on this issue on the OOF as it seem you get castigated for expressing an opinion that is contary to some very entrenched beliefs on here as Banjax has found amongst others!! ::) ::) ::) >:( >:(
Lighten up, and lets listen to ALL sides of a debate! ;) ;) ;) ;)
Nick, as you know I respect your views and personal detirmination on this subject, but you are in danger of over cooking this. I certainly am not one to say "yes" to everything that is said just to please certain people, as history has proved that can be a highly dangerous stance to take! ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
I watched a very informative BBC2 investigation into President Obama's aims on cutting US emissions and his attendance at the Copenhagen Conference. Watch it in full to get the full flavour of the situation!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p69np/This_World_20092010_Can_Obama_Save_the_Planet/
Somehow I think the battle has only just started............!!!!!
;) ;) ;)
Only availbale in the UK :-/ Can you give give me the gist of it ;D ;D
Basically it explains how much of the American population are unconvinced by the global warming argument, with major industry (coal in particular) joining them in not agreeing with Obama's aims and wanting to carry on as before. It shows how Obama has one hell of a fight on to convince his fellow Americans that global warming is really a concern, let alone for them! Copenhagen will produce very little if the US fail to contribute as their President wants, and politically he looks like losing this one!;) ;) ;)
The BBC at its worst. Towing the party line: good bloke Obama against naughty Big Coal. >:(
Sorry, but this is pure propaganda, IMHO. :(
I'm surprised you rate it so much, Lizzie. :o :o
Did I say that Nick????!!! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
No, I just presented the situation as it is, from a neutral propective neither on one side or the other! ;) ;)
This reaction is one reason why I don't often comment on this issue on the OOF as it seem you get castigated for expressing an opinion that is contary to some very entrenched beliefs on here as Banjax has found amongst others!! ::) ::) ::) >:( >:(
Lighten up, and lets listen to ALL sides of a debate! ;) ;) ;) ;)
Nick, as you know I respect your views and personal detirmination on this subject, but you are in danger of over cooking this. I certainly am not one to say "yes" to everything that is said just to please certain people, as history has proved that can be a highly dangerous stance to take! ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
I've spent ages and ages researching both sides of the debate and I have come to the conclusion that AGW is a scam. Job done, as far as I'm concerned.
If I was of the view that 2 + 2 is indisputably 4, why should I carry on listening to those who continue to claim the answer is 5? ::) ::)
-
Did I say that Nick????!!! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
No, I just presented the situation as it is, from a neutral propective neither on one side or the other! ;) ;)
This reaction is one reason why I don't often comment on this issue on the OOF as it seem you get castigated for expressing an opinion that is contary to some very entrenched beliefs on here as Banjax has found amongst others!! ::) ::) ::) >:( >:(
Lighten up, and lets listen to ALL sides of a debate! ;) ;) ;) ;)
Nick, as you know I respect your views and personal detirmination on this subject, but you are in danger of over cooking this. I certainly am not one to say "yes" to everything that is said just to please certain people, as history has proved that can be a highly dangerous stance to take! ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
lets listen to ALL sides of a debate
...trouble is Ms Z as far as AGW is concerned not many who support the notion were prepared to listen, with any degree of seriousness, to any views expressed here other than those agreeing with their own and bj was, to my great dismay, at the forefront of that vanguard.
-
what the hell is all this about
-
Never mind ignoring it, but is it possible that the bbc could have known about it for a while in a complete cover up :o
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230943/Climate-change-scandal-BBC-expert-sent-cover-emails-month-public.html
I wonder what would have happened if the "news" media we are stuck with today had they encountered Woodward and Bernstein for their act of publishing lies about nice Mr. Nixon ::)
-
Never mind ignoring it, but is it possible that the bbc could have known about it for a while in a complete cover up :o
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230943/Climate-change-scandal-BBC-expert-sent-cover-emails-month-public.html
I wonder what would have happened if the "news" media we are stuck with today had they encountered Woodward and Bernstein for their act of publishing lies about nice Mr. Nixon ::)
Little Paul's BBC career is over I fear. He's my local weatherman and I shall miss him badly. ;D
-
I watched a very informative BBC2 investigation into President Obama's aims on cutting US emissions and his attendance at the Copenhagen Conference. Watch it in full to get the full flavour of the situation!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p69np/This_World_20092010_Can_Obama_Save_the_Planet/
Somehow I think the battle has only just started............!!!!!
;) ;) ;)
Only availbale in the UK :-/ Can you give give me the gist of it ;D ;D
Basically it explains how much of the American population are unconvinced by the global warming argument, with major industry (coal in particular) joining them in not agreeing with Obama's aims and wanting to carry on as before. It shows how Obama has one hell of a fight on to convince his fellow Americans that global warming is really a concern, let alone for them! Copenhagen will produce very little if the US fail to contribute as their President wants, and politically he looks like losing this one!;) ;) ;)
The BBC at its worst. Towing the party line: good bloke Obama against naughty Big Coal. >:(
Sorry, but this is pure propaganda, IMHO. :(
I'm surprised you rate it so much, Lizzie. :o :o
Did I say that Nick????!!! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
No, I just presented the situation as it is, from a neutral propective neither on one side or the other! ;) ;)
This reaction is one reason why I don't often comment on this issue on the OOF as it seem you get castigated for expressing an opinion that is contary to some very entrenched beliefs on here as Banjax has found amongst others!! ::) ::) ::) >:( >:(
Lighten up, and lets listen to ALL sides of a debate! ;) ;) ;) ;)
Nick, as you know I respect your views and personal detirmination on this subject, but you are in danger of over cooking this. I certainly am not one to say "yes" to everything that is said just to please certain people, as history has proved that can be a highly dangerous stance to take! ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
I've spent ages and ages researching both sides of the debate and I have come to the conclusion that AGW is a scam. Job done, as far as I'm concerned.
If I was of the view that 2 + 2 is indisputably 4, why should I carry on listening to those who continue to claim the answer is 5? ::) ::)
I believe that my views on global warming are well documented on this forum......that it is real and unimagined.....and caused by modern man.
...........but I also freely admit .......that I could be wrong.....
.....Nickbat......... you seem 100% convinced that you are right......this concerns me ......as it can lead to apathy......a "we can do anything to the environment attitude"....because we know that the whole thing is a scam......and idiots like bannjaxx and Optimist are simply too thick to understand. :y :y :y
-
I watched a very informative BBC2 investigation into President Obama's aims on cutting US emissions and his attendance at the Copenhagen Conference. Watch it in full to get the full flavour of the situation!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p69np/This_World_20092010_Can_Obama_Save_the_Planet/
Somehow I think the battle has only just started............!!!!!
;) ;) ;)
Only availbale in the UK :-/ Can you give give me the gist of it ;D ;D
Basically it explains how much of the American population are unconvinced by the global warming argument, with major industry (coal in particular) joining them in not agreeing with Obama's aims and wanting to carry on as before. It shows how Obama has one hell of a fight on to convince his fellow Americans that global warming is really a concern, let alone for them! Copenhagen will produce very little if the US fail to contribute as their President wants, and politically he looks like losing this one!;) ;) ;)
The BBC at its worst. Towing the party line: good bloke Obama against naughty Big Coal. >:(
Sorry, but this is pure propaganda, IMHO. :(
I'm surprised you rate it so much, Lizzie. :o :o
Did I say that Nick????!!! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
No, I just presented the situation as it is, from a neutral propective neither on one side or the other! ;) ;)
This reaction is one reason why I don't often comment on this issue on the OOF as it seem you get castigated for expressing an opinion that is contary to some very entrenched beliefs on here as Banjax has found amongst others!! ::) ::) ::) >:( >:(
Lighten up, and lets listen to ALL sides of a debate! ;) ;) ;) ;)
Nick, as you know I respect your views and personal detirmination on this subject, but you are in danger of over cooking this. I certainly am not one to say "yes" to everything that is said just to please certain people, as history has proved that can be a highly dangerous stance to take! ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
I've spent ages and ages researching both sides of the debate and I have come to the conclusion that AGW is a scam. Job done, as far as I'm concerned.
If I was of the view that 2 + 2 is indisputably 4, why should I carry on listening to those who continue to claim the answer is 5? ::) ::)
I believe that my views on global warming are well documented on this forum......that it is real and unimagined.....and caused by modern man.
...........but I also freely admit .......that I could be wrong.....
.....Nickbat......... you seem 100% convinced that you are right......this concerns me ......as it can lead to apathy......a "we can do anything to the environment attitude"....because we know that the whole thing is a scam......and idiots like bannjaxx and Optimist are simply too thick to understand. :y :y :y
I have NEVER EVER expressed such views. My concern is that, specifically, the theory of CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming is a scam.
I have said countless times that I am of the David Bellamy school of environmentalism. The trillions that have been spent on this farce could have been better directed at provided clean drinking water for the millions of kids that die unnecessarily each year from preventable water-borne diseases, and protecting and enhancing the planet's biosphere.
Sometimes you make me quite cross, for you attempt to tarnish me as an insensitive, money grabbing capitalist that cares not one hoot about the environment.
As usual, you are mistaken. >:( >:(
-
I believe that my views on global warming are well documented on this forum......that it is real and unimagined.....and caused by modern man.
...........but I also freely admit .......that I could be wrong.....
.....Nickbat......... you seem 100% convinced that you are right......this concerns me ......as it can lead to apathy......a "we can do anything to the environment attitude"....because we know that the whole thing is a scam......and idiots like bannjaxx and Optimist are simply too thick to understand. :y :y :y
....welcome words indeed Opti :y
-
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
FFS! >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
FFS! >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
It's currently 3 mins past 12 on the 29th. Please leave the refresh button alone ;D
-
well ive just heard that nick griffin has been invited to go to copenhagen, im trying to work out what the ploy is there as his views on it are not what the powers that be want to hear. :-/ :-/
-
well ive just heard that nick griffin has been invited to go to copenhagen, im trying to work out what the ploy is there as his views on it are not what the powers that be want to hear. :-/ :-/
To give the nay sayers a bad name :-/ :-/
-
well ive just heard that nick griffin has been invited to go to copenhagen, im trying to work out what the ploy is there as his views on it are not what the powers that be want to hear. :-/ :-/
Yes, it's true. It's not surprising really. Much as I am against the BNP's general political stance, they (and UKIP) are the only parties who feel they are not shackled by the mainstream media's denial and are prepared to speak up. On this issue, alone, they are correct in their views.
Ironically, the Left's refusal to truly engage this issue will leave an open-goal for the extremist parties to gather strength. (I was going to say far-Right, but I see the BNP as far Left....sort of National Socialist if you get my drift ;) )
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/nick-griffin-bnp-copenhagen-summit
-
Mind you, while you have nutcases like this around, the extremists will always score points:
"Western lifestyle unsustainable, says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri"
"Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world's leading climate scientist has told the Observer.
Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warned that western society must undergo a radical value shift if the worst effects of climate change were to be avoided. A new value system of "sustainable consumption" was now urgently required, he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warning-copenhagen
I should point out that Pachauri is NOT a scientist or, indeed, any kind of expert.
Observer LIES again. >:( >:( >:(
-
Mind you, while you have nutcases like this around, the extremists will always score points:
"Western lifestyle unsustainable, says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri"
"Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world's leading climate scientist has told the Observer.
Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warned that western society must undergo a radical value shift if the worst effects of climate change were to be avoided. A new value system of "sustainable consumption" was now urgently required, he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warning-copenhagen
I should point out that Pachauri is NOT a scientist or, indeed, any kind of expert.
Observer LIES again. >:( >:( >:(
But Nick he IS a very academically and professionally qualified individual who can glean and understand factual and theoretical concepts:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/bios/pachauri.htm
Don't just try and discredit people because they put forward arguments that do not suit your particular beliefs ;) ;)
-
Mind you, while you have nutcases like this around, the extremists will always score points:
"Western lifestyle unsustainable, says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri"
"Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world's leading climate scientist has told the Observer.
Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warned that western society must undergo a radical value shift if the worst effects of climate change were to be avoided. A new value system of "sustainable consumption" was now urgently required, he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warning-copenhagen
I should point out that Pachauri is NOT a scientist or, indeed, any kind of expert.
Observer LIES again. >:( >:( >:(
One can agree with the sustainable consumption arguement without subscribing to the climate change theory. Resources are finite.
-
Mind you, while you have nutcases like this around, the extremists will always score points:
"Western lifestyle unsustainable, says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri"
"Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world's leading climate scientist has told the Observer.
Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warned that western society must undergo a radical value shift if the worst effects of climate change were to be avoided. A new value system of "sustainable consumption" was now urgently required, he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warning-copenhagen
I should point out that Pachauri is NOT a scientist or, indeed, any kind of expert.
Observer LIES again. >:( >:( >:(
But Nick he IS a very academically and professionally qualified individual who can glean and understand factual and theoretical concepts:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/bios/pachauri.htm
Don't just try and discredit people because they put forward arguments that do not suit your particular beliefs ;) ;)
...providing that the information he is assessing has a scientific and factual provenance of course Ms Z ;) ;)
Furthermore, many academics with whom I am acquainted would never present themselves as being expert in a field removed from their own discipline.
This reliance on the uttering of 'experts' is subjective to say the least and is notional, in terms of its efficacy, on the relative ignorance – or otherwise - of the audience to whom the message is being delivered.
-
Mind you, while you have nutcases like this around, the extremists will always score points:
"Western lifestyle unsustainable, says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri"
"Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world's leading climate scientist has told the Observer.
Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warned that western society must undergo a radical value shift if the worst effects of climate change were to be avoided. A new value system of "sustainable consumption" was now urgently required, he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warning-copenhagen
I should point out that Pachauri is NOT a scientist or, indeed, any kind of expert.
Observer LIES again. >:( >:( >:(
But Nick he IS a very academically and professionally qualified individual who can glean and understand factual and theoretical concepts:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/bios/pachauri.htm
Don't just try and discredit people because they put forward arguments that do not suit your particular beliefs ;) ;)
...providing that the information he is assessing has a scientific and factual provenance of course Ms Z ;) ;)
Furthermore, many academics with whom I am acquainted would never present themselves as being expert in a field removed from their own discipline.
This reliance on the uttering of 'experts' is subjective to say the least and is notional, in terms of its efficacy, on the relative ignorance – or otherwise - of the audience to whom the message is being delivered.
On this very subject Zulu: On newsnight on Friday, Paxo was asking the minister for energy how he appeared to be so well up on the construction of power stations when just two years ago he was in the education dept. The minister grinned like an idiot and insisted he knew all there was to know. Yeah. ;D
-
Mind you, while you have nutcases like this around, the extremists will always score points:
"Western lifestyle unsustainable, says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri"
"Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world's leading climate scientist has told the Observer.
Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warned that western society must undergo a radical value shift if the worst effects of climate change were to be avoided. A new value system of "sustainable consumption" was now urgently required, he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warning-copenhagen
I should point out that Pachauri is NOT a scientist or, indeed, any kind of expert.
Observer LIES again. >:( >:( >:(
One can agree with the sustainable consumption arguement without subscribing to the climate change theory. Resources are finite.
I'm inclined to agree ST.
The waste of whatever remaining resources present, in my view, a much greater threat than alleged AGW, :y :y
-
Mind you, while you have nutcases like this around, the extremists will always score points:
"Western lifestyle unsustainable, says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri"
"Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world's leading climate scientist has told the Observer.
Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warned that western society must undergo a radical value shift if the worst effects of climate change were to be avoided. A new value system of "sustainable consumption" was now urgently required, he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warning-copenhagen
I should point out that Pachauri is NOT a scientist or, indeed, any kind of expert.
Observer LIES again. >:( >:( >:(
But Nick he IS a very academically and professionally qualified individual who can glean and understand factual and theoretical concepts:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/bios/pachauri.htm
Don't just try and discredit people because they put forward arguments that do not suit your particular beliefs ;) ;)
...providing that the information he is assessing has a scientific and factual provenance of course Ms Z ;) ;)
Furthermore, many academics with whom I am acquainted would never present themselves as being expert in a field removed from their own discipline.
This reliance on the uttering of 'experts' is subjective to say the least and is notional, in terms of its efficacy, on the relative ignorance – or otherwise - of the audience to whom the message is being delivered.
On this very subject Zulu: On newsnight on Friday, Paxo was asking the minister for energy how he appeared to be so well up on the construction of power stations when just two years ago he was in the education dept. The minister grinned like an idiot and insisted he knew all there was to know. Yeah. ;D
This is the danger when individuals present themselves as being expert in a particular matter when plainly they're not.
We of course are expected to accept the consequenses of any decision made on foot of their assessment without questioning the validitity of the information these people use to form legislation - that can't be right.
-
just found this,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231788/U-turn-climate-change-cover-university-says-publish-leaked-email-data.html
are these the figures that were apparently deleted?, & they have had plenty of time since the email scandal to "massage" these before issueing them. >:(
-
I watched a very informative BBC2 investigation into President Obama's aims on cutting US emissions and his attendance at the Copenhagen Conference. Watch it in full to get the full flavour of the situation!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p69np/This_World_20092010_Can_Obama_Save_the_Planet/
Somehow I think the battle has only just started............!!!!!
;) ;) ;)
Only availbale in the UK :-/ Can you give give me the gist of it ;D ;D
Basically it explains how much of the American population are unconvinced by the global warming argument, with major industry (coal in particular) joining them in not agreeing with Obama's aims and wanting to carry on as before. It shows how Obama has one hell of a fight on to convince his fellow Americans that global warming is really a concern, let alone for them! Copenhagen will produce very little if the US fail to contribute as their President wants, and politically he looks like losing this one!;) ;) ;)
The BBC at its worst. Towing the party line: good bloke Obama against naughty Big Coal. >:(
Sorry, but this is pure propaganda, IMHO. :(
I'm surprised you rate it so much, Lizzie. :o :o
Did I say that Nick????!!! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
No, I just presented the situation as it is, from a neutral propective neither on one side or the other! ;) ;)
This reaction is one reason why I don't often comment on this issue on the OOF as it seem you get castigated for expressing an opinion that is contary to some very entrenched beliefs on here as Banjax has found amongst others!! ::) ::) ::) >:( >:(
Lighten up, and lets listen to ALL sides of a debate! ;) ;) ;) ;)
Nick, as you know I respect your views and personal detirmination on this subject, but you are in danger of over cooking this. I certainly am not one to say "yes" to everything that is said just to please certain people, as history has proved that can be a highly dangerous stance to take! ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
I've spent ages and ages researching both sides of the debate and I have come to the conclusion that AGW is a scam. Job done, as far as I'm concerned.
If I was of the view that 2 + 2 is indisputably 4, why should I carry on listening to those who continue to claim the answer is 5? ::) ::)
I believe that my views on global warming are well documented on this forum......that it is real and unimagined.....and caused by modern man.
...........but I also freely admit .......that I could be wrong.....
.....Nickbat......... you seem 100% convinced that you are right......this concerns me ......as it can lead to apathy......a "we can do anything to the environment attitude"....because we know that the whole thing is a scam......and idiots like bannjaxx and Optimist are simply too thick to understand. :y :y :y
I have NEVER EVER expressed such views. My concern is that, specifically, the theory of CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming is a scam.
I have said countless times that I am of the David Bellamy school of environmentalism. The trillions that have been spent on this farce could have been better directed at provided clean drinking water for the millions of kids that die unnecessarily each year from preventable water-borne diseases, and protecting and enhancing the planet's biosphere.
Sometimes you make me quite cross, for you attempt to tarnish me as an insensitive, money grabbing capitalist that cares not one hoot about the environment.
As usual, you are mistaken. >:( >:(
Often .....and very cross.....is perhaps more factually accurate Nick....... ::) ::) ;).......but then ....that is because I tend to disagree with much of what you say... ::) ::) ;)
-
Mind you, while you have nutcases like this around, the extremists will always score points:
"Western lifestyle unsustainable, says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri"
.
Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warned that western society must undergo a radical value shift if the worst effects of climate change were to be avoided. A new value system of "sustainable Pachaurt, the ch now urgently required, he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warning-copenhagen
I should point out that Pachauri is NOT a scientist or, indeed, any kind of expert.
Observer LIES again. >:( >:( >:(
But Nick he IS a very academically and professionally qualified individual who can glean and understand factual and theoretNOT[/cepts:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/bios/pachauri.htm
Don't just try and discredit people because they put forward arguments that do not suit your particular beliefs ;) ;)
...providing that the information he is assessing has a scientific and factual provenance of course Ms Z ;) ;)
Furthermore, many academics with whom I am acquainted would never present themselves as being expert in a field removed from their own discipline.
This reliance on the uttering of 'experts' is subjective to say the least and is notional, in terms of its efficacy, on the relative ignorance – or otherwise - of the audience to whom the message is being delivered.
Have you fully read his history Zulu? Does his experience, training, and association with many highly qualified individuals on the subject of the environment not count for anything?
There are times when individuals have to assess the facts accumulated over a period of time. Pachauri has been part of this process since the 1980s, so sorry but I consider him and many others far more qualified to comment on this subject than anyone else on this Forum.
My position on this subject is one of a neutral interested (as everyone should be) party, continually assessing and just listening to the many varied arguments. To cliam one 'side' or the other has all the answers on this very complicated issue and the other argument is talking rubbish bordering on a conspiracy against Western Liberal ideals is not only stupid but could well be disasterous.
So the polarization of one side of the argument that I have seen developing on here, with the 'rubbishing' of any conterary view, and the people expressing it, I consider most unhelpful and dare I say, arrogant in the extreme.
-
Mind you, while you have nutcases like this around, the extremists will always score points:
"Western lifestyle unsustainable, says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri"
"Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world's leading climate scientist has told the Observer.
Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warned that western society must undergo a radical value shift if the worst effects of climate change were to be avoided. A new value system of "sustainable consumption" was now urgently required, he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warning-copenhagen
I should point out that Pachauri is NOT a scientist or, indeed, any kind of expert.
Observer LIES again. >:( >:( >:(
Western Lifestyle IS unsustainable. "Westerners" are consumers par excellence. Who can blame them . Most spend a totally miserable 9 to 9 type existence and when not working are stuck intraffic jams etc.
So when they have a treat like staying in a hotel they leave the lights on when they go out, turn the heating up, have endless deep baths or whatever takes their fancy. It doesn't matter as it is included in the price. Of course this sums up some peoples attitude to the earths resources.
And my favourite - water. North Europeans like tomatoes at any time of the year even though they probably end up throwing some of them out. They are grown in southern Europe in absolutely vast ecologically unsound poly green houses that are fed by ever deeper wells sucking vast amounts of water out of the ground making other wells run dry and rivers to dry up. Whatever happened to people eating seasonal veg!! Maybe tomatoes should be taxed out of season?
V
-
Mind you, while you have nutcases like this around, the extremists will always score points:
"Western lifestyle unsustainable, says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri"
"Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world's leading climate scientist has told the Observer.
Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warned that western society must undergo a radical value shift if the worst effects of climate change were to be avoided. A new value system of "sustainable consumption" was now urgently required, he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warning-copenhagen
I should point out that Pachauri is NOT a scientist or, indeed, any kind of expert.
Observer LIES again. >:( >:( >:(
Western Lifestyle IS unsustainable. "Westerners" are consumers par excellence. Who can blame them . Most spend a totally miserable 9 to 9 type existence and when not working are stuck intraffic jams etc.
So when they have a treat like staying in a hotel they leave the lights on when they go out, turn the heating up, have endless deep baths or whatever takes their fancy. It doesn't matter as it is included in the price. Of course this sums up some peoples attitude to the earths resources.
And my favourite - water. North Europeans like tomatoes at any time of the year even though they probably end up throwing some of them out. They are grown in southern Europe in absolutely vast ecologically unsound poly green houses that are fed by ever deeper wells sucking vast amounts of water out of the ground making other wells run dry and rivers to dry up. Whatever happened to people eating seasonal veg!! Maybe tomatoes should be taxed out of season?
V
This is the very valid other side of the argument Varche :y :y :y :y
It has nothing to do with a political conspiracy, but a very REAL threat to human survivability :y :y
-
I repeat that Pachauri is NOT a "leading scientist" as the Guardian puts it. The IPCC is a politically-motivated organisation, the Chapter 4 reports of which have largley influenced by input from the same people at the Hadley Centre who are at the centre of this controversy.
My beef about this is that all this talk about "a very REAL threat to human survivability" is largely tosh. It is alarmist talk with little basis in fact, IMHO.
Of course, resources are finite and societies will need to adapt and new technology will reduce our consumption and provide an even better environment.
The economies and lifestyles of the West will undergo a transition, but it is crucial that such a transition is gradual and measured. It is equally crucial that any decisions taken are sensible, apolitical, and based on real, open, science. Slamming the West's economies into the wall while spouting hackneyed Chicken Little phrases is not the way. I prefer a mature approach.
Remember that oil and coal will be with us for some time yet until portable personal nuclear units become the norm in mid-century (I expect). Also remember that the world uses just one cubic mile of oil per year and the entire population of the globe could live in the state of Texas at a density of Manhattan.
I am optimistic for the future, provided that politics is returned to the people and the western economies are allowed to survive and thrive. :y
And as for Spanish tomatoes - they are foul. ;) ;) ;D
-
Have you fully read his history Zulu? Does his experience, training, and association with many highly qualified individuals on the subject of the environment not count for anything?
There are times when individuals have to assess the facts accumulated over a period of time. Pachauri has been part of this process since the 1980s, so sorry but I consider him and many others far more qualified to comment on this subject than anyone else on this Forum.
My position on this subject is one of a neutral interested (as everyone should be) party, continually assessing and just listening to the many varied arguments. To cliam one 'side' or the other has all the answers on this very complicated issue and the other argument is talking rubbish bordering on a conspiracy against Western Liberal ideals is not only stupid but could well be disasterous.
So the polarization of one side of the argument that I have seen developing on here, with the 'rubbishing' of any conterary view, and the people expressing it, I consider most unhelpful and dare I say, arrogant in the extreme.
Have you fully read his history Zulu? Does his experience, training, and association with many highly qualified individuals on the subject of the environment not count for anything?
I have indeed Ms Z and very impressive it seems however how does this relate to the undoubted warming being firmly placed at the collective feet of recent human activity to the apparent exclusion of everything else?
so sorry but I consider him and many others far more qualified to comment on this subject than anyone else on this Forum.
I'm gratified that you are able to accept his analysis with such conviction. I would rather be more discerning when trying to establish whether or not Dr. P is well enough placed in terms of definitive science regarding the AGW aspect of global warming.
To cliam one 'side' or the other has all the answers on this very complicated issue and the other argument is talking rubbish
...are you suggesting that I have adopted this position? (I haven't by the way)
conspiracy against Western Liberal ideals is not only stupid but could well be disasterous.
In the light of the following I would disagree with you;
Pachauri caused controversy last year by advocating, in an interview with the Observer, that people should eat less meat because of the levels of carbon emissions associated with rearing livestock. He is scheduled to deliver a keynote speech at the opening session of the Copenhagen summit
[b]He said that he also believed car use would have to be "curbed": "I think we can certainly use pricing to regulate the use of private vehicles." He added he was a supporter of former London mayor Ken Livingstone's plan to increase the congestion charge to £25 for the most polluting vehicles. The proposal was dropped by Boris Johnson and the charge currently stands at £8. Pachauri also denounced the practice in some restaurants of providing iced water to customers who had not ordered it. "It is just an enormous amount of waste that we don't even think about," he said.
Ultimately, Pachauri said the value shift that was needed would take a generation to take hold. "I think the section of society that will make it happen is essentially young people. I think they will be far more sensitive than adults, who have been corrupted by the ways we have been following for years now[/b]."
source: Western lifestyle unsustainable, says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warning-copenhagen
Will you be prepared to make sacrifices in your lifestyle on the basis of what Dr. P asserts? Those will be fundamental changes by the way, what you eat, what you discard, how you travel, how much energy you use and so on?
I consider most unhelpful and dare I say, arrogant in the extreme
I would be most unhappy if you considered my contributions here to be arrogant, however I do note with some dismay that the treatment of those who seek greater information on this very important matter seems to border on the arrogant and dismissive for having the temerity to question 'settled science' when it seems everything but.
-
Mind you, while you have nutcases like this around, the extremists will always score points:
"Western lifestyle unsustainable, says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri"
"Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world's leading climate scientist has told the Observer.
Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warned that western society must undergo a radical value shift if the worst effects of climate change were to be avoided. A new value system of "sustainable consumption" was now urgently required, he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warning-copenhagen
I should point out that Pachauri is NOT a scientist or, indeed, any kind of expert.
Observer LIES again. >:( >:( >:(
Western Lifestyle IS unsustainable. "Westerners" are consumers par excellence. Who can blame them . Most spend a totally miserable 9 to 9 type existence and when not working are stuck intraffic jams etc.
So when they have a treat like staying in a hotel they leave the lights on when they go out, turn the heating up, have endless deep baths or whatever takes their fancy. It doesn't matter as it is included in the price. Of course this sums up some peoples attitude to the earths resources.
And my favourite - water. North Europeans like tomatoes at any time of the year even though they probably end up throwing some of them out. They are grown in southern Europe in absolutely vast ecologically unsound poly green houses that are fed by ever deeper wells sucking vast amounts of water out of the ground making other wells run dry and rivers to dry up. Whatever happened to people eating seasonal veg!! Maybe tomatoes should be taxed out of season?
V
They are grown in southern Europe in absolutely vast ecologically unsound poly green houses that are fed by ever deeper wells sucking vast amounts of water out of the ground making other wells run dry and rivers to dry up.
...the easiest way to deal with that surely is for the southern Europeans to stop growing them. - no?
-
Have you fully read his history Zulu? Does his experience, training, and association with many highly qualified individuals on the subject of the environment not count for anything?
There are times when individuals have to assess the facts accumulated over a period of time. Pachauri has been part of this process since the 1980s, so sorry but I consider him and many others far more qualified to comment on this subject than anyone else on this Forum.
My position on this subject is one of a neutral interested (as everyone should be) party, continually assessing and just listening to the many varied arguments. To cliam one 'side' or the other has all the answers on this very complicated issue and the other argument is talking rubbish bordering on a conspiracy against Western Liberal ideals is not only stupid but could well be disasterous.
So the polarization of one side of the argument that I have seen developing on here, with the 'rubbishing' of any conterary view, and the people expressing it, I consider most unhelpful and dare I say, arrogant in the extreme.
Have you fully read his history Zulu? Does his experience, training, and association with many highly qualified individuals on the subject of the environment not count for anything?
I have indeed Ms Z and very impressive it seems however how does this relate to the undoubted warming being firmly placed at the collective feet of recent human activity to the apparent exclusion of everything else?
so sorry but I consider him and many others far more qualified to comment on this subject than anyone else on this Forum.
I'm gratified that you are able to accept his analysis with such conviction. I would rather be more discerning when trying to establish whether or not Dr. P is well enough placed in terms of definitive science regarding the AGW aspect of global warming.
To cliam one 'side' or the other has all the answers on this very complicated issue and the other argument is talking rubbish
...are you suggesting that I have adopted this position? (I haven't by the way)
conspiracy against Western Liberal ideals is not only stupid but could well be disasterous.
In the light of the following I would disagree with you;
Pachauri caused controversy last year by advocating, in an interview with the Observer, that people should eat less meat because of the levels of carbon emissions associated with rearing livestock. He is scheduled to deliver a keynote speech at the opening session of the Copenhagen summit
[b]He said that he also believed car use would have to be "curbed": "I think we can certainly use pricing to regulate the use of private vehicles." He added he was a supporter of former London mayor Ken Livingstone's plan to increase the congestion charge to £25 for the most polluting vehicles. The proposal was dropped by Boris Johnson and the charge currently stands at £8. Pachauri also denounced the practice in some restaurants of providing iced water to customers who had not ordered it. "It is just an enormous amount of waste that we don't even think about," he said.
Ultimately, Pachauri said the value shift that was needed would take a generation to take hold. "I think the section of society that will make it happen is essentially young people. I think they will be far more sensitive than adults, who have been corrupted by the ways we have been following for years now[/b]."
source: Western lifestyle unsustainable, says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warning-copenhagen
Will you be prepared to make sacrifices in your lifestyle on the basis of what Dr. P asserts? Those will be fundamental changes by the way, what you eat, what you discard, how you travel, how much energy you use and so on?
I consider most unhelpful and dare I say, arrogant in the extreme
I would be most unhappy if you considered my contributions here to be arrogant, however I do note with some dismay that the treatment of those who seek greater information on this very important matter seems to border on the arrogant and dismissive for having the temerity to question 'settled science' when it seems everything but.
You Zulu are doing exactly what I am very concerned about, and taking observational comments personally, then clearly criticising any perceived attempt to support 'settled science' (a contridiction in terms in anycase) becuase the argument does not clearly support the authors aims. In fact, I repeat yet again, that I am completely neutral on this particular issue as neither 'side' has yet to satisfactorily prove their case.
If Nick wants to publish such far fetched assertions as this, as he did to Banjax on page 1 of this post:
[size=20]"[/size]"They" refers to anyone you want really. Radical envrionmentalists, politicised scientists, the IPCC. They all run with the same agenda:
1. The West and its capitalism are evil
2. The West's wealth should be transferred to developing countries
3. The West should give up its standards of living
4. The West's population should be reduced
etc, etc.
You choose ;)[size=20]"[/size]
then that is up to him, but it weakens his argument to one of a pre-conceived political judgement that is his view of what is transpiring, regardless of fact.
In view of the entrenched views, biased very much on the notion that all the top politicians of the world are being fooled by the vast majority of leading scientific brain power, and anyone who agrees is being conned, then I will not contribute any more to this debate as it is going nowhere. ::) ::) ::)
-
I ran out of the word allowance on the previous post, so:
As I have stated before Nick, if you feel so strongly aboutthis issue, and I really do admire your conviction, then take it into the wider political world. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) :y :y
-
You Zulu are doing exactly what I am very concerned about, and taking observational comments personally, then clearly criticising any perceived attempt to support 'settled science' (a contridiction in terms in anycase) becuase the argument does not clearly support the authors aims. In fact, I repeat yet again, that I am completely neutral on this particular issue as neither 'side' has yet to satisfactorily prove their case.
If Nick wants to publish such far fetched assertions as this, as he did to Banjax on page 1 of this post:
[size=20]"[/size]"They" refers to anyone you want really. Radical envrionmentalists, politicised scientists, the IPCC. They all run with the same agenda:
1. The West and its capitalism are evil
2. The West's wealth should be transferred to developing countries
3. The West should give up its standards of living
4. The West's population should be reduced
etc, etc.
You choose ;)[size=20]"[/size]
then that is up to him, but it weakens his argument to one of a pre-conceived political judgement that is his view of what is transpiring, regardless of fact.
In view of the entrenched views, biased very much on the notion that all the top politicians of the world are being fooled by the vast majority of leading scientific brain power
taking observational comments personally, then clearly criticising any perceived attempt to support 'settled science' (a contridiction in terms in anycase
...far from taking your comments personally Ms Z and thank you for your concern, I was merely concerned that you regarded my contributions as being arrogant. I’m well enough equipped to accept any criticism that’s directed towards me without animosity or hurt so I consider this to be a non-issue.
The contradiction of 'settled science' can be placed firmly in the mouth of the individual who uttered it - former Vice President A Gore, a leading proponent of AGW.
In terms of the controversial nature of this matter and your suggestion that Nick takes it to a wider political audience, does that men we have no right to debate the issue here?
The fundamental proposals for behavioural change in terms of the desire to stave off global warming will have far reaching consequences for each and every member of this forum and as such I thing think that at the very least, a debate should be conducted here on such a relevant matter.
I would also assert that the justifiable questioning of these issues is far removed from critisim in terms of my intent.
-
I believe that Zulu ....Lizzie....and myself...have strong opinions regarding the reality or unreality of global warming.....as to whether it is science fact or science fiction.
But.....I have said repeatedly......I could be wrong.
But Nickbat concerns me........because he seems to have closed his mind to any possibility that perhaps he may be incorrect with his findings.
I believe his view to be .......that he is categorically right......and anyone who disagrees with him is simply wrong.....
Nickbat is fully entitled to his viewpoint however.Only time will tell if he is correct. :y :y :y
-
I believe that Zulu, Lizzie and myself have strong opinions regarding the reality or unreality of global warming, as to whether it is science fact or science fiction.
But I have said repeatedly, I could be wrong.
But Nickbat concerns me because he seems to have closed his mind to any possibility that perhaps he may be incorrect with his findings.
I believe his view to be that he is categorically right and anyone who disagrees with him is simply wrong.Nickbat is fully entitled to his viewpoint however.Only time will tell if he is correct. :y :y :y
That's better.
-
This thread has become way too political and putting the actual science debate to the side :(
Is this some evidence of making up numbers that are put together in a very sloppy manner? ::)
Can these scientists travel through time? :o
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxuS67UOs0A[/media]
This isn't my video so ignore the farmer accent.
Having a look at the graph at about 2:30.
Look closely and on his own graph, the Co2 change is slighty after the change in temperature.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWRqQ_iI7qQ&feature=related[/media]
I also see that "climate scientist" Phil Jones has stepped down.
http://www.examiner.com/x-28168-Hillsborough-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m12d1-UK-Scientist-steps-down-during-Climategate-investigation
-
And now he wants $1,200 for a handshake.
http://www.visitcopenhagen.com/composite-4994.htm
I think I'll just give him the finger for free.