[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]I love the way the socialistas are now claiming Russia was not communist but capitalist/fascist like the west. You were wrong about communism, you lost the war and you are now hanging your flags onto climatism. All very sad and very wrong again, but hey, when that is proved wrong and Rupert and ruprella have moved on from climate change to another worthy cause I am sure you will say the climate change protesters were really fascists and capitalists anyway. You lot make me laugh. I was a socialist when I was at school, being working class and going to a posh boys grammar, but I grew up on my own, without parents support and realised you get what you deserve in life. Who was it that said anyone who was not a socialist as a young man was without heart and a man who was still a socialist later in life was a fool? (I'm sure someone can give the correct quote) it rings as true today. The rag tag on the heath will disperse back to their parents estates and start to realise they are wrong and think about their future, some will not grow up and keep the red flag flying on internet forums, whilst living in the socialist utopia of their minds.
Thank you for the detailed scientific breakdown as to why climate change and global warming is all a fallacy.
Apparently it's because young people tend to be somewhat more progressive in their youth...
In the real world there is enough evidence that global warming is a reality, all backed up with peer approval from other scientists for it not to be in dispute, that and what we need to do about GW is what should be undee debate, not falling back on inarticulate rants about the people who are protesting about it and trying to raise consciousness. Congrats on making it to a grammar school though...
Peer review by ÜEA is like asking combat18 to review the policies of Adolf Hitler to see if they were correct. It will all come out in the wash, like Russia paying CND I suppose, but I doubt it will stop any immature minds from moving forward, again!
Anyway, I still prefer to call it global warming, can't for the life of me think why they have dropped this title. I am sure that renowned scientist and failed politician al gore is correct though.
Can I also ask the experts, how big is the hole in the ozone layer as I seem to remember that was going to be the death of us not long ago! Seems to of disappeared from conversation lately.
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]Peer review by ÜEA is like asking combat18 to review the policies of Adolf Hitler to see if they were correct. It will all come out in the wash, like Russia paying CND I suppose, but I doubt it will stop any immature minds from moving forward, again!
Anyway, I still prefer to call it global warming, can't for the life of me think why they have dropped this title. I am sure that renowned scientist and failed politician al gore is correct though.
Climate change is the global word to describe both the processes and consequences of global warming, I'd expect a noted expert on climate change such as yourself to understand that - it is pretty basic...
If you have evidence that the peer review process is corrupted you should share your findings with the likes of Exxon-Mobil and not us, you'll qualify for a large chunk of the billions they spend annually in denying that Climate Change is happening. Now I'm not sure why they have to buy up scientists and politicians, not to mention journalists to do this, especially if there's no such thing as climate change, perhaps it's because they want to carry on polluting the planet while raking in a few more billions...
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]Peer review by ÜEA is like asking combat18 to review the policies of Adolf Hitler to see if they were correct. It will all come out in the wash, like Russia paying CND I suppose, but I doubt it will stop any immature minds from moving forward, again!
Anyway, I still prefer to call it global warming, can't for the life of me think why they have dropped this title. I am sure that renowned scientist and failed politician al gore is correct though.
I think they've dropped Global Warming because there is a misconception that the consequences of us pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is that the world will as a whole just get warmer. Climate Change is a better description of what scientists have predicted to happen if we continue in the same vein - That is an erratic change in our climate that can augment itself in different ways e.g. extreme heat, extreme cold, extreme storms etc etc
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]I love the way the socialistas are now claiming Russia was not communist but capitalist/fascist like the west. You were wrong about communism, you lost the war and you are now hanging your flags onto climatism. All very sad and very wrong again, but hey, when that is proved wrong and Rupert and ruprella have moved on from climate change to another worthy cause I am sure you will say the climate change protesters were really fascists and capitalists anyway. You lot make me laugh. I was a socialist when I was at school, being working class and going to a posh boys grammar, but I grew up on my own, without parents support and realised you get what you deserve in life. Who was it that said anyone who was not a socialist as a young man was without heart and a man who was still a socialist later in life was a fool? (I'm sure someone can give the correct quote) it rings as true today. The rag tag on the heath will disperse back to their parents estates and start to realise they are wrong and think about their future, some will not grow up and keep the red flag flying on internet forums, whilst living in the socialist utopia of their minds.
The correct identification of the soviet bloc as State Capitalist is nothing new, people have said that since the '50s. Mis-labelling it as communist or socialist may not have been an international conspiracy, but it certainly served the purposes of those in power in both the east and the west. In the east they could never tell the truth about what it was because that would undermine the whole system. In the west they clung on to this lie precisly to discredit real socialism.
Not sure what you're getting on about re "the rag tag... will disperse back to their parents estate". What does this mean, is it that people with parents can't have opinions?
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]I was a socialist when I was at school, being working class and going to a posh boys grammar, but I grew up on my own, without parents support and realised you get what you deserve in life.
It sounds to me that you're more fortunate than a small minority of some of the people that I think you're refering to i.e. those rich kids, born with a silver spoon planted somewhere who just live off their parents - Thats not support in my eyes, that's just buying your kids - I dunno about your situation but my parents worked their bollocks off to give us what we wanted but more importantly they supported me emotionally - That's way harder. In that sense I think I'm a million times better off than the kids who have rich parents who couldn't give two hoots about them but give them cash.
Fast forward 50 years, grandchildren sitting on knee. 'Yes I was there, went to join in, did my bit to make sure you had a future. We knew how to do things in those days, we cared, not like the youngsters today.' Just really wish I could be around to see it, still at least I've got me Red Army pension to live on. Peace to all.
We are constantly being told that fossil fuels are running out and once they've gone they've gone.
As fossil fuels are deemed to be one of the greatest problems with regard to climate change, then surely the quicker we use them up the quicker the earths' atmosphere can start recovering.
Do your bit for Global Warming and go out and buy a gas guzzler tomorrow.
A number of scientists saying climate change is natural so there is peer review.
Cue sneering comments about the Daily Mail of the science world because if we can't blame man we can't justify punitive taxation and oppressive political control which is the real raison d'etre of many of the green lobby.
I love some of the bitter snide personal attack comments on here, being it on socialist fools. You know your utopia does not work and as much as you want to say collective farming and the like worked in Russia, it didn't, it wouldn't with or without the corrupt leaders. Human beings have a hireachy of wants and needs and the collective system will not meet those requirements. I think it was massow who identified them as home, family and safety or something similar, I am simplifying this for socialists that oddly enough never departed to any of the utopias before they collapsed under the weight of demands of the people. Capitalism has its problems, plenty of them, but it is a far better model than your mates in the east, cuba or one of the failed African models. Accept it and stop sniping at the model you live and bring your families up under instead of climbing the wall of the oppresor and fleeing to your land of milk and honey. No chip about my upbringing, I realised school was not for me and studied much better when I was away from the restrictions of the classroom.
There seems to be an assumption that the climate camp inhabitants are communists somewhere along the way here. Are the climate camp people a communist party, and anti capitalism or something? I am searching this thread for evidence that that has been said here, or in some way verified.
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]Can I also ask the experts, how big is the hole in the ozone layer as I seem to remember that was going to be the death of us not long ago! Seems to of disappeared from conversation lately.
Propellant changed in aerosols among other meassures. You know this; you and others are on a wind up.
So you really think that there is a massive worldwide conspiracy by governments/greenies to make you pay more tax and get the bus? Honestly, do you really?
Why would they want to do that?
There is evidence of 'astroturfing' by PR companies on behalf of oil industries (one example at random):
I await the evidence for the worldwide governmental/greenie conspiracy.
The second article proves nothing more than there are autocrats within the EU. That should be a surprise to no-one as such a huge political entity will always seek to justify it's own existence and monopolise power (and keep the gravy train a-running). The EU is inherently anti-democratic and is nothing more than a huge bureacracy - for all it's faults (and there are many) it has still accomplished some good things, however.
The first article documents a fringe meeting of conspiracy wingnuts. The headlines are the views of Lance Endersbee who publishes his research in non peer reviewed journals. Peer review consists of impartial reviewing by acknowledged experts in their field who can then spot any flaws in the data or arguments.
But you cite ÜEA as an impartial peer review body in another thread. How can they be impartial if their funding is based upon climate change being real? ÜEA have been at the forefront of scare stories on warming/change/ozone layer, so to call them impartial when if they were to say that it does not exist would lead to their funding stopping, as with any other publicly funded body, is stretching the truth a touch.
But you cite ÜEA as an impartial peer review body in another thread. How can they be impartial if their funding is based upon climate change being real? ÜEA have been at the forefront of scare stories on warming/change/ozone layer, so to call them impartial when if they were to say that it does not exist would lead to their funding stopping, as with any other publicly funded body, is stretching the truth a touch.
As experts in climate science they are likely to attract funding for research into, erm, climate science. Probably better than giving it to some geezer you met down the pub. They have examined the evidence and (like the vast majority of experts in their field) have decided anthropogenic climate change is real. As I have said, I would rather trust their opinion on the matter than the other armchair 'scientists' that peddle their (non peer-reviewed) theories on the web.
I see your point about it being in the interests of those researching something to confirm their own theories, but if you take that line, then surely all researchers everywhere must be biased as well? If that is the case then we should never believe anything, ever.
Plus, like I said before, do you think an international conspiracy on that scale is really possible? Honestly?
[cite]Posted By: bigstemarra[/cite]Plus, like I said before, do you think an international conspiracy on that scale is really possible? Honestly?
No, but it's a convenient peg to hang your hat on, whilst keeping quiet on the real issues like population control, poverty, food production, energy, disease and economic downturn.
We've had global warming since the last ice age and will probably have it again after the next ice age.
Comments
Thank you for the detailed scientific breakdown as to why climate change and global warming is all a fallacy.
Apparently it's because young people tend to be somewhat more progressive in their youth...
In the real world there is enough evidence that global warming is a reality, all backed up with peer approval from other scientists for it not to be in dispute, that and what we need to do about GW is what should be undee debate, not falling back on inarticulate rants about the people who are protesting about it and trying to raise consciousness. Congrats on making it to a grammar school though...
Anyway, I still prefer to call it global warming, can't for the life of me think why they have dropped this title. I am sure that renowned scientist and failed politician al gore is correct though.
Is that in the Glenn Hoddle sense?
Climate change is the global word to describe both the processes and consequences of global warming, I'd expect a noted expert on climate change such as yourself to understand that - it is pretty basic...
If you have evidence that the peer review process is corrupted you should share your findings with the likes of Exxon-Mobil and not us, you'll qualify for a large chunk of the billions they spend annually in denying that Climate Change is happening. Now I'm not sure why they have to buy up scientists and politicians, not to mention journalists to do this, especially if there's no such thing as climate change, perhaps it's because they want to carry on polluting the planet while raking in a few more billions...
I think they've dropped Global Warming because there is a misconception that the consequences of us pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is that the world will as a whole just get warmer. Climate Change is a better description of what scientists have predicted to happen if we continue in the same vein - That is an erratic change in our climate that can augment itself in different ways e.g. extreme heat, extreme cold, extreme storms etc etc
The correct identification of the soviet bloc as State Capitalist is nothing new, people have said that since the '50s. Mis-labelling it as communist or socialist may not have been an international conspiracy, but it certainly served the purposes of those in power in both the east and the west. In the east they could never tell the truth about what it was because that would undermine the whole system. In the west they clung on to this lie precisly to discredit real socialism.
Not sure what you're getting on about re "the rag tag... will disperse back to their parents estate". What does this mean, is it that people with parents can't have opinions?
It sounds to me that you're more fortunate than a small minority of some of the people that I think you're refering to i.e. those rich kids, born with a silver spoon planted somewhere who just live off their parents - Thats not support in my eyes, that's just buying your kids - I dunno about your situation but my parents worked their bollocks off to give us what we wanted but more importantly they supported me emotionally - That's way harder. In that sense I think I'm a million times better off than the kids who have rich parents who couldn't give two hoots about them but give them cash.
As fossil fuels are deemed to be one of the greatest problems with regard to climate change, then surely the quicker we use them up the quicker the earths' atmosphere can start recovering.
Do your bit for Global Warming and go out and buy a gas guzzler tomorrow.
A number of scientists saying climate change is natural so there is peer review.
Cue sneering comments about the Daily Mail of the science world because if we can't blame man we can't justify punitive taxation and oppressive political control which is the real raison d'etre of many of the green lobby.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/12/which-ones-democrat.html
An example of the democratic methods used to debate these and other issues.
Propellant changed in aerosols among other meassures. You know this; you and others are on a wind up.
Thank God I dumped that old refrigerator in the wildlife reserve.
Was it, where did you read that?
Why would they want to do that?
There is evidence of 'astroturfing' by PR companies on behalf of oil industries (one example at random):
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/sensitive_oil_industry_memo_lays_out_plan_for_astr.php?ref=fpa
I await the evidence for the worldwide governmental/greenie conspiracy.
The second article proves nothing more than there are autocrats within the EU. That should be a surprise to no-one as such a huge political entity will always seek to justify it's own existence and monopolise power (and keep the gravy train a-running). The EU is inherently anti-democratic and is nothing more than a huge bureacracy - for all it's faults (and there are many) it has still accomplished some good things, however.
The first article documents a fringe meeting of conspiracy wingnuts. The headlines are the views of Lance Endersbee who publishes his research in non peer reviewed journals. Peer review consists of impartial reviewing by acknowledged experts in their field who can then spot any flaws in the data or arguments.
Draw your own conclusions.
I see your point about it being in the interests of those researching something to confirm their own theories, but if you take that line, then surely all researchers everywhere must be biased as well? If that is the case then we should never believe anything, ever.
Plus, like I said before, do you think an international conspiracy on that scale is really possible? Honestly?
No, but it's a convenient peg to hang your hat on, whilst keeping quiet on the real issues like population control, poverty, food production, energy, disease and economic downturn.
We've had global warming since the last ice age and will probably have it again after the next ice age.
Anyone got any views on the NHS?
i don't think there is any evidence for this myth.
The Management are fine upstanding people from England and not Russia or Cuba.
Staff and patients are lazy freeloading scum akin to the climate change scum of the original post who probably go private anyway.
Wanna see a terminal moraine? ;-)
It's like reading a load of wannabe Rush Limbaugh's and Glenn Becks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html
To be honest Len I think that the eventual Polar expeditions drilling for Oil will kill them without Climate Change.