[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]"fear mongering right wing press" lol lol lol lol there we have it when all else fails the left wing no nothings blame someone else. Of course couldnt have been the Guardianistas kakin it again could it ? or the Browm/Blair/Herperson shit geting it wrong noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo it was the fault of the right wing press and the Daily mail. Get back behind your sofas -- first make sure they are a "fare trade" ones !
If they said "sorry we are talking our usual bollox, but dont we all agree that reducing waste, saving resourses, better distribution of wealth, better opertunitys for the have nots of the world is a good thing " then at least if would be honest and more justified.
But you do exactly the same from the right wing perspective GH, if anything whatsoever has the faintest hint of being what you percieve as left wing, you dismiss it out of hand straight away - "It's lefty therefore it's wrong" . The fact that you are coming across as a global warming sceptic, when your second paragraph indicates that you actually agree that it would be a good thing to take stock of what's going on, kind of illustrates what I am getting at.
That, and you do love a good cyber-row as much as I do... ;-)
Algrave i take your point but the main point being all left wing numpties are wrong about everything--- FACT.
There is a huge point within the climate mafia hog wash that i do agree with-- the impact that 3 billion humans have on the worlds resourses. That the dirt poor in the world need help. How can it be right that we in the developed world throw away food in such huge amounts that it could feed all the worlds poor ? it just cant be right.
What also isnt right is the "agenda setters" using climate change to PUNISH the developed world ----- please do tell me what impact 2 billion Chinese / Indians have on climate change and why "the world is doomed" merchants aint giving it to them ? Why aint they screaming about Polish power stations which use 90% coal ? why aint they saying anything about the effects of rice production and CO2 emmisions ? Why is it OK for the UKs population to explode?
So one thing we can all agree on is Nuclear power , its the way forward.
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]You forgot SARS and AIDS in your list. Don't shoot the messengers, but the one sided nature of the climate change is what bugs me, dissenters are shot down and called flat earthers, even scientists who dare question the findings are put upon for not toeing the party line. I don't claim to have any scientific knowledge, never have done, personally I am more agnostic than atheist, but it is the scientists and politicians that have been misleading people, not me.
I'm intrigued Steve what exactly is your point there. Do you rail against climate change simply because it's one sided? Ever wondered why it's one sided? Dissenters are often shot down because their claims are riddled with inaccuracies and half truths. Something being one sided doesn't automatically make it some conspiratorial establishment view. Evolution is one sided, gravity is one sided, and any dissenters to those theories will probably be shot down because the consensus is so strong. I'm not saying climate change is as yet as strong as the theory of evolution, but I've posted all the links on a previous page, and it is the huge majority. The point is that it's fallacy to use one-sided in such a way as to imply it thus must be an oppressive establishment view.
In terms of your 'party line', it's the classic case of mixing up politics and science. Yes, I'm sure in some instances politics has probably been used in unsavoury ways over the utilisation of climate change science (when hasn't politics used something if it could?).
But climate change itself is not a party line. Carbon credits, green taxes or whatever are party lines. But climate change itself is a scientific theory. You're confusing how the scientific knowledge is utitlised with the knowledge itself. By all means make political arguments why you don't agree with something like carbon credits, but to say that climate change doesn't exist you need scientific arguments.
Of course, no research is truly indepedent from all other influence, but when you compile all global research it'd be very hard to convince all scientists to lie wouldn't you agree? Even then, why would western economies encourage cimate change?
To say that fossil fuel chugging western economies are desperate to stunt economic growth by moving to a low-carbon economy and are planning a conspiracy to give money away to developing countries is ludicrous, and also incompatible with the other bizarre view that they're looking to get more tax money. So they're either wealth sharing socialists desperate to give their money away, or money hungry power mad tax men, desperate to squeeze money out of the population for themselves - which is it?
As we know though the real agenda is social control and oppression and "save the planet" is just a fluffy way of justifying it.
See the problem is Len, you remark 'as we know' as if it was the most obvious thing in the world and goes without saying.
Unfortunately a Guardianista, tofu-eating, gooner-loving socialist such as myself does need it saying so please oblige if you would be so kind. Can you flesh out the 'government want to encourage climate change' in more economic and political detail, and give me the practicalities of it?
soo what was the £150 billion dollars being asked for from the developed world to the developing world then ? this was a sticking point in Copenhagan , and to quote one african "scientist" " the west caused climate change it is only fare they pay for it" or the fact that that it was China pulling strings behind this conferance to deflect ANY critisims from itself onto the USA. Must be true that Obama said it !
Strange how a week after Copenhagan it was anounced that China has now over taken the USA as the Worlds biggest poluter.
There isnt a party line ? so your telling me that the Labour party dosnt have a party line on the distribution of wealth ?
I'd like to coment on this subject but after more than a few pints of Hobgoblin this lunch time (its now 3.20 pm so guess how many I've had) I now realise we're doomed.
It wont matter who does what or dosent, its too late. You right wing flesh eating oil burning nazis have screwed the planet for me and my off spring.
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]soo what was the £150 billion dollars being asked for from the developed world to the developing world then ? this was a sticking point in Copenhagan , and to quote one african "scientist" " the west caused climate change it is only fare they pay for it" or the fact that that it was China pulling strings behind this conferance to deflect ANY critisims from itself onto the USA. Must be true that Obama said it !
Strange how a week after Copenhagan it was anounced that China has now over taken the USA as the Worlds biggest poluter.
There isnt a party line ? so your telling me that the Labour party dosnt have a party line on the distribution of wealth ?
Sorry GH, I'm not following you. I indeed mentioned that the West are having to give money to developing countries, and used it as evidence against the idea that global warming is a western conspiracy. To gain what? The ability to give 150 billion away? Yes, that would be a great incentive to concoct a global conspiracy.
I have no idea what your last line means. I didn't say there were no party lines. I said that climate change science isn't a party line, it's a scientific theory, and shouldn't be confused with party lines. Party lines are in how the science is utitlised, not the science itself.
Then I said this was unless you believed politicians so powerful and scientists so corrupt that they could create a giant global lie based on a party lines devised by politicians.
Then, if this was somehow ridiculously the case, I explored the concept of why politicians would want to create climate change, and found no logic at all.
As we know though the real agenda is social control and oppression and "save the planet" is just a fluffy way of justifying it.
See the problem is Len, you remark 'as we know' as if it was the most obvious thing in the world and goes without saying.
Unfortunately a Guardianista, tofu-eating, gooner-loving socialist such as myself does need it saying so please oblige if you would be so kind. Can you flesh out the 'government want to encourage climate change' in more economic and political detail, and give me the practicalities of it?
Have not time to speak at length at present but in a nutshell increased taxation on petrol, air fares etc in the name of cutting carbon emissions restricts freedom of movement for the masses whilst lining the pockets of the privileged elite like Mr RK Pachauri via his various dubious enterprises as has been well documented recently.
I would post a link (s) but it would almost certainly be dismissed as right wing propaganda by some on here so seems a waste of my time. I am not sure whether or not the Guardian has commented on the dubious behaviour of Mr Paichauri.
There may not be many "warmist" scientists lying but the minority that are do seem to be in a position to influence policymakers. Michael Mann's discredited hockey stick being an example off the top of my head.
Restricting the movement of the masses by making it unaffordable is both oppressive and a form of social control.
As we know though the real agenda is social control and oppression and "save the planet" is just a fluffy way of justifying it.
.......
Utter scaremongering, bed-wetting bullshit. Don't you even bother to think that what you've just written might come across as being laughably stupid?
I'll happily change my stance on global warming when the science proves that there is little or no meaningful link between human activity and global warming and not because someone who knows that the scientific argument has been lost starts up another irrelevant argument about "social control" and parrots out whatever meme is doing the rounds in the Daily Mail.
In the meantime the "social control" you write of is being perpetrated by the big oil companies, I'm sure it's pure coincidence that they fund a motley collection of journalists, political parties and astroturf groups which all purely coincidentally deny the case for AGW. It's probably coincidental that any error made by climate change researchers is seized on as evidence that the whole thing is a fraud yet you completely deny the many mistakes made by those who deny AGW.
[cite]Posted By: dansmudge[/cite]In case anyone is interested, a new series of Charlie Brooker's Newswipe started the other night on BBC4, you can watch it on the BBCi Player.
He does a nice job of explaining why it's in the media's interest to keep us all in perpetual fear.
Well worth a watch.
Agree. Very good as always. If only Charlie was running the country :-)
[cite]Posted By: Chaz Hill[/cite]Len is your basic point that you don't like paying so much for your petrol (ie the so called Labour "stealth" tax)?
If so don't see Mr Cameron/ Wee Georgie & co saying they are going to reduce tax on fuel if elected.
Absolutely right that Cameron etc will do nothing.
Much of the discretion of the UK Government to act in this area has been ceded to the EU. New Labour and Blue Labour are both pro EU so will not do anything to change that situation.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]As we know though the real agenda is social control and oppression and "save the planet" is just a fluffy way of justifying it.
.......
Utter scaremongering, bed-wetting bullshit. Don't you even bother to think that what you've just written might come across as being laughably stupid?
I'll happily change my stance on global warming when the science proves that there is little or no meaningful link between human activity and global warming and not because someone who knows that the scientific argument has been lost starts up another irrelevant argument about "social control" and parrots out whatever meme is doing the rounds in the Daily Mail.
In the meantime the "social control" you write of is being perpetrated by the big oil companies, I'm sure it's pure coincidence that they fund a motley collection of journalists, political parties and astroturf groups which all purely coincidentally deny the case for AGW. It's probably coincidental that any error made by climate change researchers is seized on as evidence that the whole thing is a fraud yet you completely deny the many mistakes made by those who deny AGW.
Does your buddy Michael Caine read the Daily Mail?:-)
It's a pub in Brighton. She's in the Lib Dems (was Mayor of a town outside Brighton for a while) but organises all the climate change riots in her spare time. Crazy Lib Dem types, eh? She just got divorced and I'm planning to make a move on her soon.
Well done to the science literate on here. However, you cannot reason with those who have no concept of what reason is - don't waste your time or it will drive you insane.
I have been comparing the posts here with my checklist, and guess what?
I promised myself I wouldn't get drawn back into this thread but there is somthing which is really troubling me about it. Maybe it's time for a quick quiz, that might help me get things straight? Okay here goes, let see if anyone else can get it, what have the following got in common?
Cape Town
Moscow
Germany
Argentina
Eastern Europe
Iceland
Papua New Guinea
yes well done to the science literate i mean heaven forbid that a major sceptic has a dipolma from the OU in Third World Developement and Environment lived in the third world for 3 years and has ran a huge project re the year 2000 bollox. Still cant possibly be right as im not a guardianista.
[cite]Posted By: Bournemouth Addick[/cite]I promised myself I wouldn't get drawn back into this thread but there is somthing which is really troubling me about it. Maybe it's time for a quick quiz, that might help me get things straight? Okay here goes, let see if anyone else can get it, what have the following got in common?
Cape Town
Moscow
Germany
Argentina
Eastern Europe
Iceland
Papua New Guinea
Next season's pick up points for The Valley Express?
GH, I am sure that you can speak about many things with authority, but I was talking about science literacy.
Diploma in 3rd World & Environment - a humanities qualification, I would imagine. Year 2000 project - IT presumably? Living in the 3rd World - erm...means you know about stuff like that, but what's it got to do with science?
I'm sure that the above qualify to talk with expertise on many things, but that was not what I was referring to, as you know. To be scientifically literate, you have to study science. That's just how it is. Some of those on here clearly have and can understand the issues in a scientific context, others simply do not have the background to relate to that. We all choose a walk of life. Some of us chose science, others did something else. That's fine. But what we are debating here is science. I wouldn't presume to tell a lawyer about the law or an accountant how to balance the books and I would not expect them to give two shits what my opinion might be. So, how come everyone is a science expert on here?
And I am no Guardianista, far from it. As far as I can make out, the left lost its way years ago and now appears to have disappeared up its own arse. Perhaps the same void that politics in general appears to have been sucked into.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]"Those "social control" conspirators at NASA have just published data showing the last decade to be the warmest on record.
[cite]Posted By: Bournemouth Addick[/cite]I promised myself I wouldn't get drawn back into this thread but there is somthing which is really troubling me about it. Maybe it's time for a quick quiz, that might help me get things straight? Okay here goes, let see if anyone else can get it, what have the following got in common?
Cape Town
Moscow
Germany
Argentina
Eastern Europe
Iceland
Papua New Guinea
Comments
But you do exactly the same from the right wing perspective GH, if anything whatsoever has the faintest hint of being what you percieve as left wing, you dismiss it out of hand straight away - "It's lefty therefore it's wrong" . The fact that you are coming across as a global warming sceptic, when your second paragraph indicates that you actually agree that it would be a good thing to take stock of what's going on, kind of illustrates what I am getting at.
That, and you do love a good cyber-row as much as I do... ;-)
There is a huge point within the climate mafia hog wash that i do agree with-- the impact that 3 billion humans have on the worlds resourses. That the dirt poor in the world need help. How can it be right that we in the developed world throw away food in such huge amounts that it could feed all the worlds poor ? it just cant be right.
What also isnt right is the "agenda setters" using climate change to PUNISH the developed world ----- please do tell me what impact 2 billion Chinese / Indians have on climate change and why "the world is doomed" merchants aint giving it to them ? Why aint they screaming about Polish power stations which use 90% coal ? why aint they saying anything about the effects of rice production and CO2 emmisions ? Why is it OK for the UKs population to explode?
So one thing we can all agree on is Nuclear power , its the way forward.
No argument on that one from me GH.
I'm intrigued Steve what exactly is your point there. Do you rail against climate change simply because it's one sided? Ever wondered why it's one sided? Dissenters are often shot down because their claims are riddled with inaccuracies and half truths. Something being one sided doesn't automatically make it some conspiratorial establishment view. Evolution is one sided, gravity is one sided, and any dissenters to those theories will probably be shot down because the consensus is so strong. I'm not saying climate change is as yet as strong as the theory of evolution, but I've posted all the links on a previous page, and it is the huge majority. The point is that it's fallacy to use one-sided in such a way as to imply it thus must be an oppressive establishment view.
In terms of your 'party line', it's the classic case of mixing up politics and science. Yes, I'm sure in some instances politics has probably been used in unsavoury ways over the utilisation of climate change science (when hasn't politics used something if it could?).
But climate change itself is not a party line. Carbon credits, green taxes or whatever are party lines. But climate change itself is a scientific theory. You're confusing how the scientific knowledge is utitlised with the knowledge itself. By all means make political arguments why you don't agree with something like carbon credits, but to say that climate change doesn't exist you need scientific arguments.
Of course, no research is truly indepedent from all other influence, but when you compile all global research it'd be very hard to convince all scientists to lie wouldn't you agree? Even then, why would western economies encourage cimate change?
To say that fossil fuel chugging western economies are desperate to stunt economic growth by moving to a low-carbon economy and are planning a conspiracy to give money away to developing countries is ludicrous, and also incompatible with the other bizarre view that they're looking to get more tax money. So they're either wealth sharing socialists desperate to give their money away, or money hungry power mad tax men, desperate to squeeze money out of the population for themselves - which is it?
See the problem is Len, you remark 'as we know' as if it was the most obvious thing in the world and goes without saying.
Unfortunately a Guardianista, tofu-eating, gooner-loving socialist such as myself does need it saying so please oblige if you would be so kind. Can you flesh out the 'government want to encourage climate change' in more economic and political detail, and give me the practicalities of it?
Strange how a week after Copenhagan it was anounced that China has now over taken the USA as the Worlds biggest poluter.
There isnt a party line ? so your telling me that the Labour party dosnt have a party line on the distribution of wealth ?
It wont matter who does what or dosent, its too late. You right wing flesh eating oil burning nazis have screwed the planet for me and my off spring.
Sorry GH, I'm not following you. I indeed mentioned that the West are having to give money to developing countries, and used it as evidence against the idea that global warming is a western conspiracy. To gain what? The ability to give 150 billion away? Yes, that would be a great incentive to concoct a global conspiracy.
I have no idea what your last line means. I didn't say there were no party lines. I said that climate change science isn't a party line, it's a scientific theory, and shouldn't be confused with party lines. Party lines are in how the science is utitlised, not the science itself.
Then I said this was unless you believed politicians so powerful and scientists so corrupt that they could create a giant global lie based on a party lines devised by politicians.
Then, if this was somehow ridiculously the case, I explored the concept of why politicians would want to create climate change, and found no logic at all.
Have not time to speak at length at present but in a nutshell increased taxation on petrol, air fares etc in the name of cutting carbon emissions restricts freedom of movement for the masses whilst lining the pockets of the privileged elite like Mr RK Pachauri via his various dubious enterprises as has been well documented recently.
I would post a link (s) but it would almost certainly be dismissed as right wing propaganda by some on here so seems a waste of my time. I am not sure whether or not the Guardian has commented on the dubious behaviour of Mr Paichauri.
There may not be many "warmist" scientists lying but the minority that are do seem to be in a position to influence policymakers. Michael Mann's discredited hockey stick being an example off the top of my head.
Restricting the movement of the masses by making it unaffordable is both oppressive and a form of social control.
Hence my assertion.
.......
Utter scaremongering, bed-wetting bullshit. Don't you even bother to think that what you've just written might come across as being laughably stupid?
I'll happily change my stance on global warming when the science proves that there is little or no meaningful link between human activity and global warming and not because someone who knows that the scientific argument has been lost starts up another irrelevant argument about "social control" and parrots out whatever meme is doing the rounds in the Daily Mail.
In the meantime the "social control" you write of is being perpetrated by the big oil companies, I'm sure it's pure coincidence that they fund a motley collection of journalists, political parties and astroturf groups which all purely coincidentally deny the case for AGW. It's probably coincidental that any error made by climate change researchers is seized on as evidence that the whole thing is a fraud yet you completely deny the many mistakes made by those who deny AGW.
If so don't see Mr Cameron/ Wee Georgie & co saying they are going to reduce tax on fuel if elected.
He does a nice job of explaining why it's in the media's interest to keep us all in perpetual fear.
Well worth a watch.
Agree. Very good as always. If only Charlie was running the country :-)
Absolutely right that Cameron etc will do nothing.
Much of the discretion of the UK Government to act in this area has been ceded to the EU. New Labour and Blue Labour are both pro EU so will not do anything to change that situation.
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=85
Does your buddy Michael Caine read the Daily Mail?:-)
LOL - Best post on the thread
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html?hp
Well done to the science literate on here. However, you cannot reason with those who have no concept of what reason is - don't waste your time or it will drive you insane.
I have been comparing the posts here with my checklist, and guess what?
http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/05/28/the-skeptics-checklist-of-internet-woo/
:) You gotta laugh, or else you'll cry.
Good luck Floydandharvey btw. Operation jubblies is go!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html?hp "
The reasons behind that may not be down to AGW.....
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Cape Town
Moscow
Germany
Argentina
Eastern Europe
Iceland
Papua New Guinea
Next season's pick up points for The Valley Express?
Diploma in 3rd World & Environment - a humanities qualification, I would imagine.
Year 2000 project - IT presumably?
Living in the 3rd World - erm...means you know about stuff like that, but what's it got to do with science?
I'm sure that the above qualify to talk with expertise on many things, but that was not what I was referring to, as you know. To be scientifically literate, you have to study science. That's just how it is. Some of those on here clearly have and can understand the issues in a scientific context, others simply do not have the background to relate to that. We all choose a walk of life. Some of us chose science, others did something else. That's fine. But what we are debating here is science. I wouldn't presume to tell a lawyer about the law or an accountant how to balance the books and I would not expect them to give two shits what my opinion might be. So, how come everyone is a science expert on here?
And I am no Guardianista, far from it. As far as I can make out, the left lost its way years ago and now appears to have disappeared up its own arse. Perhaps the same void that politics in general appears to have been sucked into.
All had nice weather this month?