Having Just Watched The Film 'Dont Look...
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Global warming....
Not a man made phenomenon shocker!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2496902/Lord-N elson-and-Captain-Cooks-shiplogs-question-clim ate-change-theories.html
It's the Telegraph people, must be true! Will the ECO terrorists be convinced? I doubt it!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2496902/Lord-N elson-and-Captain-Cooks-shiplogs-question-clim ate-change-theories.html
It's the Telegraph people, must be true! Will the ECO terrorists be convinced? I doubt it!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
What a surprise.
A couple of months ago Dr Arthur Robinson of the University of Oregon announced that 31,000 scientists had signed an online petition challenging the �conventional� wisdom that man-made emissions were the principle cause of global warming.
This went largely unreported on both sides of the Atlantic because, of course, any dissent from the Great Global Warming Scam, or even any attempt to provoke a rational debate, is dismissed as heresy.
A couple of months ago Dr Arthur Robinson of the University of Oregon announced that 31,000 scientists had signed an online petition challenging the �conventional� wisdom that man-made emissions were the principle cause of global warming.
This went largely unreported on both sides of the Atlantic because, of course, any dissent from the Great Global Warming Scam, or even any attempt to provoke a rational debate, is dismissed as heresy.
The weather period (1730s) has long been known about. This is not new information.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j254vx8q26 w7gv42/
The naval records are interesting because they contain contemperanous accounts, but they are not revelatory or proof that the present global warming we are experiencing is not man made.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j254vx8q26 w7gv42/
The naval records are interesting because they contain contemperanous accounts, but they are not revelatory or proof that the present global warming we are experiencing is not man made.
Interesting scientist Dr Arthur Robinson.
As well as not believing in global warming, he does not believe in Darwin's theory of natural selection either.
He produces the Robinson Curriculum, which he describes as "Teach your children...to acquire superior knowledge as did many...in the days before socialism in education."
He co-works with his son, Noah.
The petition has been on-going since 1999. It includes such signatories as Mr Perry Mason and a Dr. Geri Halliwell.
As well as not believing in global warming, he does not believe in Darwin's theory of natural selection either.
He produces the Robinson Curriculum, which he describes as "Teach your children...to acquire superior knowledge as did many...in the days before socialism in education."
He co-works with his son, Noah.
The petition has been on-going since 1999. It includes such signatories as Mr Perry Mason and a Dr. Geri Halliwell.
-- answer removed --
I've never understood how the issue of global warming could be a scam.
Who would actually benefit? Recycling companies? Electric car companies?
It doesn't actually cost us anything to recycle and go green. Practically no effort at all.
So, given the choice of driving a dirty great big 4X4 and chucking all my rubbish in the same big or driving a more economical car and separating my recycling out - I'd go for the latter every time.
And say if it turns out that all the scientists are wrong?
What's the harm?
We have two choices...carry on as we are and keep our fingers crossed, or actively change our wasteful (western) ways and acknowledge that resources are finite.
Who would actually benefit? Recycling companies? Electric car companies?
It doesn't actually cost us anything to recycle and go green. Practically no effort at all.
So, given the choice of driving a dirty great big 4X4 and chucking all my rubbish in the same big or driving a more economical car and separating my recycling out - I'd go for the latter every time.
And say if it turns out that all the scientists are wrong?
What's the harm?
We have two choices...carry on as we are and keep our fingers crossed, or actively change our wasteful (western) ways and acknowledge that resources are finite.
I agree SP, I'm all for limiting emmissions and minmizing polution. As a general maxim recycling is good. The existance of global warming is pretty much unchallanged it's just the cause that is in dispute. I think it's natural planitary cycles where as at the moment it is fasionable to blame human activity. How mankind, with control of only 4% of the main culprit is culpable is never explained. I do think though in the politics of scientific world funding is only given out to the fashionable subjects and as such there is very little work going on in the area that might demonstrate mankind is in fact just another passenger.
-- answer removed --
our wasteful (western) ways and acknowledge that resources are finite.
I agree with everything you've said, but I take issue with the whole 'western ways are the most wasteful' implication here. It's true that the West is inexcusably bad, but we really can't ignore the level of pollution in the east.
An example? Take Lake Tai in East China. The water supply of literally millions of people was ruined by govt. negligence of the problem until it got too horrendous to notice (and it still rather oddly dubs it a natural disaster when it plainly isn't). The level of smog in Beijing also actively causes health problems among the workforce.
I agree with everything you've said, but I take issue with the whole 'western ways are the most wasteful' implication here. It's true that the West is inexcusably bad, but we really can't ignore the level of pollution in the east.
An example? Take Lake Tai in East China. The water supply of literally millions of people was ruined by govt. negligence of the problem until it got too horrendous to notice (and it still rather oddly dubs it a natural disaster when it plainly isn't). The level of smog in Beijing also actively causes health problems among the workforce.
I don't know if this makes me stupid or earth-is-flat gullible but...
My scientific knowledge is so limited that I'm prepared to acknowledge what the vast majority of respected scientists believe to be fact - that humans are a cause of global warming.
That actually puts me out because it means I feel bound to adjust my lifestyle so I produce less waste. Still, it's no biggie.
My ears prick up not when a woolly scientific 'fact' crops up but when, for example, the Met office disagrees with BP. Or Chinese government climate experts challenge those from the US. I want to see where the debate is shifting and why. Not indulge in entry-level pseudo-science. Because I don't have a great deal of scientific knowledge. And chances are, neither do you.
It seems to me that people with as little (or even less) scientific knowledge as/than me seem quite prepared to chuck around out-of-context tit bits that they come across because they're desperate for this all to be a myth. They don't believe because they don't want to believe. It's an inconvenient truth.
So we end up with debates that contain little or no meaningful science as two sides try to out-ignorant each other.
It'd be like two people who've never met me having a heated debate about what I had for my dinner.
My scientific knowledge is so limited that I'm prepared to acknowledge what the vast majority of respected scientists believe to be fact - that humans are a cause of global warming.
That actually puts me out because it means I feel bound to adjust my lifestyle so I produce less waste. Still, it's no biggie.
My ears prick up not when a woolly scientific 'fact' crops up but when, for example, the Met office disagrees with BP. Or Chinese government climate experts challenge those from the US. I want to see where the debate is shifting and why. Not indulge in entry-level pseudo-science. Because I don't have a great deal of scientific knowledge. And chances are, neither do you.
It seems to me that people with as little (or even less) scientific knowledge as/than me seem quite prepared to chuck around out-of-context tit bits that they come across because they're desperate for this all to be a myth. They don't believe because they don't want to believe. It's an inconvenient truth.
So we end up with debates that contain little or no meaningful science as two sides try to out-ignorant each other.
It'd be like two people who've never met me having a heated debate about what I had for my dinner.
Yes, I�m all for re-cycling (I was doing it long before it became fashionable and even longer before it became compulsory). I�m also in favour of trying to curb pollution where practical.
The scam, sp, comes in when governments, having exhausted all the conventional ways of raising taxes, use it as an excuse to raise even more revenue for them to waste. Their answer to pollution (and indeed to most other problems) is to tax almost everything that moves.
Who believes, for example, that leaving the lid to your dustbin open is a threat to the climate? The answer to this eco-crime? A fine of �110 � more than a shoplifter or drunken thug has taken off him.
Only when these sorts of �remedies� are curbed will I believe that there is not a confidence trick of the most gigantic proportions being perpetrated on a gullible public.
The scam, sp, comes in when governments, having exhausted all the conventional ways of raising taxes, use it as an excuse to raise even more revenue for them to waste. Their answer to pollution (and indeed to most other problems) is to tax almost everything that moves.
Who believes, for example, that leaving the lid to your dustbin open is a threat to the climate? The answer to this eco-crime? A fine of �110 � more than a shoplifter or drunken thug has taken off him.
Only when these sorts of �remedies� are curbed will I believe that there is not a confidence trick of the most gigantic proportions being perpetrated on a gullible public.
You've really got a bee in your bonnet about the dustbin fines.
I know you resent the law coming down on these middle-class transgressions when there are all these oiks disturbing the peace - but open bins attract rats and foxes and lead to rubbish being dragged around the place. Fines tend to be dished out when people have been given fair warning but go ahead and do it anyway.
Still, at least they're not hanging round outside KwikSave and playing that loud beat music.
I know you resent the law coming down on these middle-class transgressions when there are all these oiks disturbing the peace - but open bins attract rats and foxes and lead to rubbish being dragged around the place. Fines tend to be dished out when people have been given fair warning but go ahead and do it anyway.
Still, at least they're not hanging round outside KwikSave and playing that loud beat music.
New Judge
The �110 fines are not imposed to save the climate.
They were introduced to counter fly-tipping and littering. If your bin is open, then its contents are likely to be blown all over your local streets causing a mess which somebody else then has to go and pick up.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2493788 /The-110-fine-for-overfilling-your-bin.html
The �110 fines are not imposed to save the climate.
They were introduced to counter fly-tipping and littering. If your bin is open, then its contents are likely to be blown all over your local streets causing a mess which somebody else then has to go and pick up.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2493788 /The-110-fine-for-overfilling-your-bin.html
