Earnie's Hummer

[sheded 0]

But personally, I''ll listen to the respectable scientists with no political agenda and make my own judgements accordingly   John

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yus John ,  aint no scientists with political agendas   ..... they are above such things  , right ?    like  Russia  got most of their nuclear  knowledge  from western scientists  !   take your rose coloured specs off  John   , your besotted  with the idea that  " scientists "  are always right  ,  when all the evidence is that they that,often as not ,  get it all completely wrong  ( bird flu ? ) .

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 I also don''t believe that human''s have the mental capacity to comprehend such a massive global issue,...... John

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well .... you said it !   scientists aint human ..... I always suspected this   [:D]

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you all like the Norfolk Broads? The beauty, the nature, the tourism it brings?  Well, folks, I''m afraid to say that if we do nothing about climate change then our sea levels could rise by more than just a few metres... and can anyone think of a flat area of land surrounded by sea...?  John

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first thing most  " scientists " do when they get a bee in their bonnets  is put a scare into the public !  ( bird flu ? )  , then extract  squillions of pounds from the taxpayers  , so that they can " save "  us all from a fate worse than death ,  then , when it all goes tits up ,and it usually does !    you don`t not hear  a squeak  from them , not a bleddy word !  ever hear of one of them admit they got it wrong ?  they would sooner slash their wrists !!  

As for  the sea rising  by more than a few METRES !!    I do hope you will   give this another look ?     surely you mean centimetres ? 

Bring on global warming !  sh*t ... lets all get a bleeding tan  [:D]

 

 

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Cluck "]

Shall we discuss Trident next?      [;)]

[/quote]

Sorry but I couldn''t resist this. Slightly off topic I know, but so has most of the rest of this thread!. I''ll assume that you''re in favour of the renewal of Trident, apologies if my hunch is incorrect? If so, I''ve got two questions for you.

1) Great Britain is the USA''s closest ally and it is widely reported that they may be preparing to launch strikes on Iran. Bearing this in mind how can we expect Iran to shut down their nuclear facilities when we are in the process of renewing our own?

2) I get the impression that you are of the opinion that global warming is a scare tactic to extract more money from the British taxpayer. Yet you are willing for billions of pounds of taxpayers money to be wasted on a system that will never ever be used. Why is this?

 

[Canary02 0]

[quote user="Evil Monkey"]Oh, and CO2... I know where you live, and I''m coming to trade your punk ass for some trees...[;)]
[/quote]

I''ve got wood.

[Evil Monkey 52]

[quote user="sheded"]

As for  the sea rising  by more than a few METRES !!    I do hope you will   give this another look ?     surely you mean centimetres ?

[/quote]

Sorry mate, I was right the first time.  Of course no one is entirely sure of exactly how much it would rise, but the theories are in metres and not centimetres.  (And why do you call me John?)

I''ll say no more and let the debate rage on, but I think some people might be interested in the below graphs.  They''re not very good quality, but the first shows a number of things, the important ones being the red line (global temperature) and the blue line (atmospheric CO2 levels), showing over some 400 000 years before present, from left to right.  Someone said there was no correlation...?



The second is simply atmospheric CO2 levels over the same period.  The natural fluctuations are there for all to see, no one denies that nature plays its part.  But check out the left side of the graph, which is the present day... look at the rise in CO2 levels, the enlarged section being levels since the Industrial Revolution.  Check out how sharp that rise is, over some 100 years - from a maximum of about 300ppm in the past to almost 400ppm in a significantly tiny timescale.



Just something to ponder...

[jetstream 0]

Many of the sceptical voices (ie Cluck) seem to be repeating, almost word for word, the arguments put forward by Michael Crichton in his pseudo-scientific book about the ''conspiracy'' of Global Warming ("State of Fear", a polemic dressed up as fiction)That''s fine if you want to trust a science fiction writer over a scientist but I''d suggest that Google does have a lot to offer in finding scientists willing to point out the flaws in the arguments - including those cited in Mr Crichton''s book as being supposedly sceptical about global warming/climate change.I take Cluck''s point about the ''politicisation of science'' and knowing which projects are likely to attract funding. However, you could argue that the self-same scientists could earn themselves a lot more by taking the oil company money to ''disprove'' the theories.

[percyvarco 0]

Why is it that if you disagree with the theories of this thread you are a "googleist" and are only looking for flaws, but if you are in uni then you must be right?

Sorry, but being green is trendy at th emoment and there are too many passengers on the bandwagon who do not really know why they are there apart from it looks good.

I recently offered my council a large ammount of free recyclable material but they did not want it as they said it would cost too much to collect. This is an environmental issue fact, not theory based and cash caused them to ignore it.

I am conscious that we cannot keep trashing the planet but we cannot do it on our own. I assume, EM, that you are off to China after you graduate where the polution they produce wipes out all our efforts in a day.

p.s. whats the carbon footprint of tonights game with the floodlights and all that power consumption?

 

[Cluck 0]

[quote user="jetstream"]Many of the sceptical voices (ie Cluck) seem to be repeating, almost word for word, the arguments put forward by Michael Crichton in his pseudo-scientific book about the ''conspiracy'' of Global Warming ("State of Fear", a polemic dressed up as fiction)

That''s fine if you want to trust a science fiction writer over a scientist but I''d suggest that Google does have a lot to offer in finding scientists willing to point out the flaws in the arguments - including those cited in Mr Crichton''s book as being supposedly sceptical about global warming/climate change.

I take Cluck''s point about the ''politicisation of science'' and knowing which projects are likely to attract funding. However, you could argue that the self-same scientists could earn themselves a lot more by taking the oil company money to ''disprove'' the theories.
[/quote]

I can assure you that I have never read the book in question (why does an individual view have to be gleaned rather than personally devised?)...and my only insight into the Channel 4 documentary was what was discussed on Newsnight last night. I base my thoughts on the many things I have read/heard over the years...and by judging just how crazy the world has become in it''s race to become "greener" than their neighbour.

Global warming is happening....but the science is badly flawed and we are now caught up in a one way thought pattern which clearly blames human activity. Nature has always played tricks on the planet...and always will...but it seems that by not accepting that this is the likely cause....all and sundry can set about making money out of what they claim will "save the planet" and "protect our children". It''s pure and unadulterated commercialism feeding on fear and ignorance.

As for Trident....unfortunately we are obliged to renew our nuclear systems due to a NATO agreement. This precludes all other European nations (except France) from arming themselves....with the UK being the major military force in the region. Whether we like it or not...nuclear weapons are a deterrent to attack by rogue states...so we must have them. I would prefer a European controlled system to avoid getting entangled with the crazy American war marchine again....but as usual with these things...we''ll get what we are given whether we choose to or not. Unilateral disarmament is sadly an idealistic dream....as the other players would not comply, leaving us vulnerable to attack. So yes....you are right.....we do need Trident even if we never plan to use it.

[In Dubious Battle 0]

having read peoples views on this subject i have come to the conclusion that i should be very scared! i guess because i tend to assosiate myself with the more sane members of our society i kinda assumed everybody was in general agreement that climate change was man made and is a real problem and we need to take drastic action to sort it asap. The idea that there are people out there who somehow dispute scientific fact absolutly astounds me. I don''t have the advanced knowledge on climate change that some of you clearly have, but when 90% of the worlds scientists warn of the consequences of doing nothing i tend to think it''s a good idea to listen to them.

[Magicmol 0]

I can honestly say that I''m open minded to both arguments but I''d like to ask a couple of questions based on my limited knowledge of the subject. Firstly the first graph shown doesn''t seem to show a sharper rise in tempratures than in the other global cycles (I assume that is because of the time scales shown and that the rise just recently has been sharper) - is that correct? Secondly I heard that temperatures dropped during the industrial age but didn''t actually start rising again until the depression following this - is this true? and if so how is this explained?Like I said I am completely open minded so if someone can clear them points up it would be appreciated. i like to try and do my bit for the environment ie recycling, cycling to work etcBrings me back to the 4x4''s - I think they are fine for farmers or people that truly need them but for city use they are unacceptable. It is proven that if you are hit by a 4x4 you are more likely to be killed or seriously injured than by being hit by a car due to the impact points - also very scary whilst on your bike and being given no room as people overtake you.

[Holtys revenge 0]

what colour was the Hummer?

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Say Hello To The Angels"]having read peoples views on this subject i have come to the conclusion that i should be very scared! i guess because i tend to assosiate myself with the more sane members of our society i kinda assumed everybody was in general agreement that climate change was man made and is a real problem and we need to take drastic action to sort it asap. The idea that there are people out there who somehow dispute scientific fact absolutly astounds me.

I don''t have the advanced knowledge on climate change that some of you clearly have, but when 90% of the worlds scientists warn of the consequences of doing nothing i tend to think it''s a good idea to listen to them.
[/quote]

Don''t be too scared SHTTA, I''ve got a feeling that the differences in opinion on this matter a purely generational. I appreciate I''m making a fairly sweeping statement here but in my experience the majority of people who disagree that climate change is man made are middle aged men. They also like to brag about how ''un-PC'' they are because it somehow makes them feel a bit rebellious. I guess that disagreeing with the mainstream opinion on matters such as this is their last little attempt at rebelling against the system. It''s all quite sweet really, but ultimately it will do no good as so many of their views are from another age.

Personally I think everybody''s entitled to their opinion and if that opinion is that man is playing no part in the increased temperature of our planet then fine. While everybody else is doing their bit let these dinosaurs prop up the bar in their local pub spouting nonsense about how ''this country''s going to the dogs'', ''political correctness gone mad'' etc. BUT if the seas do rise to the levels predicted, they should be moved out of their comfy homes and into a tent on Yarmouth beach!

[jetstream 0]

Fair enough Cluck, you may not have read the Crichton book but trust me when I say that your argument is very similar to his (eg about the West wanting to stop the Third World developing, climates of fear after the end of the Cold War etc). All I was saying was that there are plenty of scientists out there who disagree with Crichton''s view, some of them even have their papers/research cited in the book in order to ''prove'' his theory.

 

You say you have ''gleaned'' information about the subject from reading the papers etc but a lot of Crichton''s arguments crop up in the press (and the C4 documentary appears to use similar arguments - I didn''t see it either but I''ve read various things about it) so it''s possible you would have picked up the arguments by osmosis. Whatever. That''s fine, you are entitled to your opinion, of course. Scientists can - and do - get things wrong, obviously. It''s just that when 95% of the scientists in the world are saying one thing, based on years and years of data and research you have to be pretty sure of yourself to say they are ALL wrong, based on what you''ve gleaned from the press and media over the years.

 

Oh, and I think we should scrap Trident submarines - save ourselves £20bn or so. It''s not unilateral disarmament as such as we''d still have nuclear warheads based on land for the ''deterrent'' factor (if one agrees with that idea).

Hey hum, 4-4-2 tonight I reckon. Will you be there?

 

 

 

[Evil Monkey 52]

[quote user="Magicmol"]Firstly the first graph shown doesn''t seem to show a sharper rise in tempratures than in the other global cycles (I assume that is because of the time scales shown and that the rise just recently has been sharper) - is that correct? Secondly I heard that temperatures dropped during the industrial age but didn''t actually start rising again until the depression following this - is this true? and if so how is this explained?[/quote]Hi MagicMol... I think the graph showing the correlation between temperature and CO2 levels simply doesn''t go high enough to show the rise - it seems to limit itself to just under 300ppm, if the scale were to be larger it would be on there.  I assume that the data for this one was to show the data before the rise, to reinforce the argument that atmospheric CO2 levels are related to global temperature.With regards to the second point, I''ll admit that I don''t know of a dip in temperature in during the industrial age, but with these processes there is generally a lag-time, so I presume it''s to do with that.I have a better chart given to me by one of my lecturers (and this guy scared the sh*t out of even me, someone who''s looked at the problem for years with interest) but it''s on paper so I got those ones off Wikipedia to illustrate my point a bit better.  The general idea is exactly the same, though.Interestingly, the validity of these "hockey-stick" graphs, as they''re called (due to the shape caused by the sudden, sharp ride), was disputed at length for a few years, but mainly by one American senator who wished the science to be debunked.  That''s right, a politician... I think people''s distrust of politicians is somehow seeping into a distrust of scientists, which is wrong.  Science and politics shouldn''t mix, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many scientists in the field.I''m open to other opinions, naturally, but what''s puzzling me is that some people are making wild claims about "30 year cycles" and telling us the temperature will actually drop... and saying this without any scientific basis other than their own opinion, or something they heard once.  They then go on to say that the science of climate change, and the theories about it being down to Human intervention, are purely speculative... the arrogance and hypocrisy in that is simply astounding, though not surprising.Oh, and Michael Crichton is a tw*t, and I hope the mods let me get away with that one because it''s true.  In State of Fear he likens climate science to Eugenics, surely the most bizarre and irrelevant analogy possible!  He has his own political agenda and is using his "abilities" to get his word out.  Fine, naturally, but only if you back it up with facts... Crichton''s book reminds me of one of Smudger''s posts about the board... [;)]

[Magicmol 0]

Thanks for that evil monkey - I had assumed that there would be a lag factor it just seemed a bit coincidental that it dropped in the industrial age to then go up again in the depression - also apparently there was a much sharper rise in temperatures in the first part of the century before the huge increase in CO2 as apposed to in the latter part of the century. These figures however I''m sure can be manipulated to show the own persons side of the argument.The other graph you had seems very interesting (I assume there was a report with it) - is there anyway to get it into a computer form so I might be able to take a look.I must admit I like Michael Crichton as a writer and I have read State of Fear (I thought it was quite interesting). I however would never base views on that despite him quoting reference to research and I would be very surprised and disappointed if others based there views on it too.

[Evil Monkey 52]

[quote user="Magicmol"]Thanks for that evil monkey - I had assumed that there would be a lag factor it just seemed a bit coincidental that it dropped in the industrial age to then go up again in the depression - also apparently there was a much sharper rise in temperatures in the first part of the century before the huge increase in CO2 as apposed to in the latter part of the century. These figures however I''m sure can be manipulated to show the own persons side of the argument.The other graph you had seems very interesting (I assume there was a report with it) - is there anyway to get it into a computer form so I might be able to take a look.I must admit I like Michael Crichton as a writer and I have read State of Fear (I thought it was quite interesting). I however would never base views on that despite him quoting reference to research and I would be very surprised and disappointed if others based there views on it too.[/quote]It may seem like a populist thing, but I''d seriously recommend Al Gore''s An Inconvenient Truth to anyone wishing to learn more about Climate Change, the evidence for it and the impact it will have on our planet (using real science, not speculation).  There''s a version of the graphs above on that as well, and Al Gore illustrates the point of the sharp rise by having to get on a small lift to be able to reach the current peaks... It may even turn around a few of the sceptics...Al Gore is one politician I think we can trust... it was always a travesty that he didn''t get elected as President, as he was simply the best man for the job - he just lacked a little on charisma and charm is all. 

[Alex Harvey-Jones 0]

[quote user="doherty out for revenge"]what colour was the Hummer?[/quote] Black!

[Cluck 0]

[quote user="Shack Attack"]

[quote user="Say Hello To The Angels"]having read peoples views on this subject i have come to the conclusion that i should be very scared! i guess because i tend to assosiate myself with the more sane members of our society i kinda assumed everybody was in general agreement that climate change was man made and is a real problem and we need to take drastic action to sort it asap. The idea that there are people out there who somehow dispute scientific fact absolutly astounds me.

I don''t have the advanced knowledge on climate change that some of you clearly have, but when 90% of the worlds scientists warn of the consequences of doing nothing i tend to think it''s a good idea to listen to them.
[/quote]

Don''t be too scared SHTTA, I''ve got a feeling that the differences in opinion on this matter a purely generational. I appreciate I''m making a fairly sweeping statement here but in my experience the majority of people who disagree that climate change is man made are middle aged men. They also like to brag about how ''un-PC'' they are because it somehow makes them feel a bit rebellious. I guess that disagreeing with the mainstream opinion on matters such as this is their last little attempt at rebelling against the system. It''s all quite sweet really, but ultimately it will do no good as so many of their views are from another age.

Personally I think everybody''s entitled to their opinion and if that opinion is that man is playing no part in the increased temperature of our planet then fine. While everybody else is doing their bit let these dinosaurs prop up the bar in their local pub spouting nonsense about how ''this country''s going to the dogs'', ''political correctness gone mad'' etc. BUT if the seas do rise to the levels predicted, they should be moved out of their comfy homes and into a tent on Yarmouth beach!

[/quote]

Both sweeping and inaccurate. What age do you assume these "great" scientists to be then Shack? 18 or 20? Bilge.....Most of them are a damn sight older than me...so age is a daft yardstick....and I''m surprised at the naivity of your rant.

In all... a badly veiled and childish retort I fear from someone, somewhat out of their depth.....simply looking to knock those who won''t play ball with the kiddies.

Better a dinosaur than an amoeba Shack...........

 

 

 

[Canary Wundaboy 1,358]

Who cares what car Earnie drives?It''s his choice, I dont see you running down to every solicitors/accountants/corporate building to demonstrate against their ownerships of various BMWs/Mercs/Audis?It''s only becuase he is a footballer and you people need to moan about a member of the team for SOMETHING.Personally, I own a 50cc moped and will shortly be upgrading to a 125cc motorcyle.Why, the environment?No, becuase I cant afford to have a car, and as a student I have plenty more worries than the anvironment, like how Im going to afford to EAT for the next week.

[macdougalls perm 0]

Cluck wrote "Better a dinosaur than an amoeba Shack..........."

I don''t know, Cluck, I think that you combine both beautifully[;)][:D].

[Jerzy Krukowski 5]

[quote user="Say Hello To The Angels"]having read peoples views on this subject i have come to the conclusion that i should be very scared! i guess because i tend to assosiate myself with the more sane members of our society i kinda assumed everybody was in general agreement that climate change was man made and is a real problem and we need to take drastic action to sort it asap. The idea that there are people out there who somehow dispute scientific fact absolutly astounds me. I don''t have the advanced knowledge on climate change that some of you clearly have, but when 90% of the worlds scientists warn of the consequences of doing nothing i tend to think it''s a good idea to listen to them. [/quote]Absolutely. This thread is just unbelievable and deeply sad. So all scientists are idiots, hmm. Are you for real? know a lot about science do you? This research you talk of about Aspartine, who do you think might done this research? Not some muppet who things that global warming is funny cos we''ll get a tan, hur hur, or is being made up by scientists with a political agenda that''s for sure. Thank god there are people who might do something useful if and when bird flu or global warming does cause major problems, who do you think they''ll be, err scientists per chance?Some of you are just parodies of yourself. You''re always talking of sheep but you spout the tedious, right-wing, uninformed rantings of the  mass ranks of Daily mail readers as if you wrote them. Disagree with any of the following? Gay couples should not be able to adopt? Women shouldn''t get the same prize money at tennis? Corporal punishemnt didn''t do me any harm and should be brought back in schools (along with national service), Capital punishment? Grey slip on shoes? No, really? Perhaps you should have gone to university, you might have learn''t something and become a better person.The fact is that the overwhelming evidence, collected, collated and investigated by people who actually know something about the subject suggests that humans are a major cause of global warming. If you choose to do nothing (or worse, claim it''s some kind of left-wing/green conspiracy) then you''re just selfish old g*ts who''re deciding that their own pleasure is more important than the vast majority of the world''s population who don''t and won''t have it so easy. Well done, be proud of yourselves. Great result tonight, Hucks, fast track to sainthood.....................

[YankeeCanary 0]

Could not resist weighing in with my two cents worth on the younger environmental supporters here. If I were you ( and I really mean if I were you ), I would spend more time carving out ways to ensure that a percentage of your  disposable income is funneled into investment for the future of you and your present or future family. The threat you face on that front given the debt-carrying attitude of so many in today''s world poses a far greater threat to you than anything the scientists will be able to conjure up from Mother Nature. As you learn to apply yourselves in the right way on that front then you can ( even concurrently ) start to worry about the environment. Mock my input, if you will, but the day will arrive when you will wish that was the approach taken. By the way, I would ensure part of that investment is surely funneled into energy stocks.

A footnote to Shack Attack: We are not hypocritical in the West ( and it''s not just the wish of Western society ) to expect Iran to curb their nuclear ambitions. While Iran continues to foster weekly gatherings of their young people by the thousands to incite suicide missions then civilised countries everywhere will, at the very least, be apprehensive at permitting such a country to pursue such ambitions. 

Now, about Eanie''s Hummer......

 

[Magicmol 0]

I had heard that his data was slightly flawed in the sense that at least one of his graphs showed climate change rising slightly ahead of CO2 emissions implying that it was the raise in temperatures that was causing the increase in CO2 as apposed to the other way around.To be honest though at the end of the day anyone can make the data support there own view points so unless you can find the true information I think only the future is really going to show the truth. I just wish people would be completely honest and worry about the planet rather than the green stuff - too much in this world revolves around money at the end of the day.

[In Dubious Battle 0]

[quote user="Cluck "]

Both sweeping and inaccurate. What age do you assume these "great" scientists to be then Shack? 18 or 20? Bilge.....Most of them are a damn sight older than me...so age is a daft yardstick....and I''m surprised at the naivity of your rant.

In all... a badly veiled and childish retort I fear from someone, somewhat out of their depth.....simply looking to knock those who won''t play ball with the kiddies.

Better a dinosaur than an amoeba Shack...........

[/quote]

I think you''ve got the wrong end of the stick, i don''t think shack meant all older people ''don''t believe'' in man made climate change just that those that don''t tend to be the older generations. Whereas most younger people have similar opinions to us there are a few who would side with you. This is applicable accross a variety of issues for example i don''t know anybody my age (mid 20''s) with racist views whereas i know planty of older people who have racist attitudes. I think that younger people are more receptive to change and to new ideas whereas most (not all) of the older generations are stuck in thier ways and are unable to accept change.Climate change is happening and you can bury your head in the sand if you like and pretend everything is rosy because you''ll probably be long gone before the worst effects are felt, but as i said before i tend to think it''s a good idea to listen to the smart men in the white suits who know 100 times more about this than any of us. And just one more thing scientists are not politicians they do not have agendas they work in facts and truths, whereas politicians work with lies & spin.

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Cluck "][quote user="Shack Attack"]

[quote user="Say Hello To The Angels"]having read peoples views on this subject i have come to the conclusion that i should be very scared! i guess because i tend to assosiate myself with the more sane members of our society i kinda assumed everybody was in general agreement that climate change was man made and is a real problem and we need to take drastic action to sort it asap. The idea that there are people out there who somehow dispute scientific fact absolutly astounds me.

I don''t have the advanced knowledge on climate change that some of you clearly have, but when 90% of the worlds scientists warn of the consequences of doing nothing i tend to think it''s a good idea to listen to them.
[/quote]

Don''t be too scared SHTTA, I''ve got a feeling that the differences in opinion on this matter a purely generational. I appreciate I''m making a fairly sweeping statement here but in my experience the majority of people who disagree that climate change is man made are middle aged men. They also like to brag about how ''un-PC'' they are because it somehow makes them feel a bit rebellious. I guess that disagreeing with the mainstream opinion on matters such as this is their last little attempt at rebelling against the system. It''s all quite sweet really, but ultimately it will do no good as so many of their views are from another age.

Personally I think everybody''s entitled to their opinion and if that opinion is that man is playing no part in the increased temperature of our planet then fine. While everybody else is doing their bit let these dinosaurs prop up the bar in their local pub spouting nonsense about how ''this country''s going to the dogs'', ''political correctness gone mad'' etc. BUT if the seas do rise to the levels predicted, they should be moved out of their comfy homes and into a tent on Yarmouth beach!

[/quote]

Both sweeping and inaccurate. What age do you assume these "great" scientists to be then Shack? 18 or 20? Bilge.....Most of them are a damn sight older than me...so age is a daft yardstick....and I''m surprised at the naivity of your rant.

In all... a badly veiled and childish retort I fear from someone, somewhat out of their depth.....simply looking to knock those who won''t play ball with the kiddies.

Better a dinosaur than an amoeba Shack...........

[/quote]

Sorry Cluck, I didn''t think such a ''sweeping generalisation'' would hit such a raw nerve.

Although this is a subject that interests me greatly I''ll admit that there''e an awful lot I don''t know about it, but I''m willing to learn from people who are studying the subject, scientists and whatever I can find on the internet. If you think that makes me ''out of my depth'' I think that says more about you than it does about me.

Better an open book than a closed one gathering dust on a shelf Cluck...............

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="SPat"]
Absolutely. This thread is just unbelievable and deeply sad. So all scientists are idiots, hmm. Are you for real? know a lot about science do you? This research you talk of about Aspartine, who do you think might done this research? Not some muppet who things that global warming is funny cos we''ll get a tan, hur hur, or is being made up by scientists with a political agenda that''s for sure. Thank god there are people who might do something useful if and when bird flu or global warming does cause major problems, who do you think they''ll be, err scientists per chance?

Some of you are just parodies of yourself. You''re always talking of sheep but you spout the tedious, right-wing, uninformed rantings of the  mass ranks of Daily mail readers as if you wrote them. Disagree with any of the following? Gay couples should not be able to adopt? Women shouldn''t get the same prize money at tennis? Corporal punishemnt didn''t do me any harm and should be brought back in schools (along with national service), Capital punishment? Grey slip on shoes? No, really? Perhaps you should have gone to university, you might have learn''t something and become a better person.

The fact is that the overwhelming evidence, collected, collated and investigated by people who actually know something about the subject suggests that humans are a major cause of global warming. If you choose to do nothing (or worse, claim it''s some kind of left-wing/green conspiracy) then you''re just selfish old g*ts who''re deciding that their own pleasure is more important than the vast majority of the world''s population who don''t and won''t have it so easy. Well done, be proud of yourselves.

Great result tonight, Hucks, fast track to sainthood.....................
[/quote]

Cheers SPat this is sort of the point I was trying to make earlier, albeit a lot less eloquently.

Stand by to be described as ''childish'' and ''out of your depth''!

[percyvarco 0]

another only those that have gone to uni know anything load of tosh.

If you could take a moment and step off the banwagon and consider other viewpoints then you may just understand that whilst reading these notes ther does not seem to be anybody who disagrees that climate change is happening. Its so sad that the whole thing is being hijacked as a tax raising glory hunting soundbite by polititions who continually enjoy a complete hypocritical lifestyle.

I agree, great game last night but also good carbon footprint with the floodlights and I never saw a single environmentalist protesting. Would that game have been played during the afternoon so that the lights were not needed? I think not as the crowd would not be able to attend. Sadly economies drive environmental damage, look at China.

Who says that Earnies Hummer isn''t converted to run on other fuel as Arnies is in California

p.s. I pumped up my tyres this morning and disagree with grey slip on shoes, didn''t go to uni, run my own business but obviously know jack sh!t when it comes to matters of the day.

 

[sheded 0]

Absolutely. This thread is just unbelievable and deeply sad. So all scientists are idiots, hmm. Are you for real? know a lot about science do you? This research you talk of about Aspartine, who do you think might done this research? Not some muppet who things that global warming is funny cos we''ll get a tan, hur hur, or is being made up by scientists with a political agenda that''s for sure. Thank god there are people who might do something useful if and when bird flu or global warming does cause major problems, who do you think they''ll be, err scientists per chance?  Spat

--------------------------------------------------------------

I`ll reply to this part of your post  , as its obviously directed at me ...

Its ASPARTAME  , not  Aspartine !   not a good beginning  if you want to be the sharpest knife in the drawer  LOL

I never said ALL scientists are idiots !  cut and paste where I actually said that eh ?

As for bird flu  ( jaysus, give me strength )  ,  3 years ago   the entire nation was warned by the government  ( on the advice of scientists )   that we were about to  succumb to a pandemic  of  mutated bird flu  , millions dying  ,  millions spent on protective clothing for the  " chosen " ones to survive ,  millions spent on a , near useless, vaccine ,  isolation  of entire  towns " stricken " by the virus , orders to shoot escapees from these towns .......  all this based on the opinion of a group of scientists  who  thought that the   flu  " might "  mutate  to a human  attack form  !   .......... might ?  ...... kriste  !  scientists are supposed  to  KNOW   about these matters  , not bleeding  GUESS  !!  ......... can you imagine what was going through peoples minds when the government  started broadcasting  this message of doom ?   no ? thought not !

 

 

[In Dubious Battle 0]

[quote user="percyvarco"]

another only those that have gone to uni know anything load of tosh.

 

[/quote]

i''m gonna listen a lot more closely to somebody studying in that field at uni than i am to a lay man giving his opinion based on something he saw on TV. And thats directed at nobody in particular just an observation.

[Cluck 0]

[quote user="Say Hello To The Angels"][quote user="percyvarco"]

another only those that have gone to uni know anything load of tosh.

 

[/quote]


i''m gonna listen a lot more closely to somebody studying in that field at uni than i am to a lay man giving his opinion based on something he saw on TV. And thats directed at nobody in particular just an observation.
[/quote]

SHTTA...Remember the "weapons of mass destruction" fabrication of not so many years ago? This like the environmental circus is just another propaganda exercise to fool the masses....and it is going on all the time. I suggest that far from being a "closed book" as we get older...we call on past experiences to form our own judgement...whereas a student (or recent graduate) on the education conveyor belt is conditioned to absorb the ideas of others.

Life is the only university in town...and where we ultimately discover what survival and reality is all about. It''s painful at times and confusing at best....but where we all grow as individuals and widen our thoughts. Of course you''ll disagree...but then how many old Communists are now avid Capitalists? How many former CND members are now calling for Trident? How many "marriages for life" are now divorce statistics? We change as we age....and the same will happen to you.

That''s life....but not as we know it Jim.                  [:)]

 

 

 

[7rew 0]

One thing i''m amazed by is that the main book against climate change is by the same guy that worte Jurrasic Park (and its sequels) and people believe his science.Its about as plausable as not believing in the Holocaust, and siteing a Dan Brown book saying it was all a catholic conspiracy.  (he hasn''t written one of these, yet)