Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Evil Monkey

Earnie's Hummer

Recommended Posts

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

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. 

[/quote]

Mmm, are you not the tiniest bit sceptical about that information YC. Didn''t the White House and the Murdoch run media feed us similar information in the build up to the invasion of Iraq? IMHO we''ll see an increase in this kind of information being released over the next 6-12 months as Bush attempts to convince the American public that invading Iran is in their best interests.

Oh, and how will arming ourselves with nuclear weapons stop an Iranian hopping over the border and blowing himself up at an Iraqi mosque?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

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. 

[/quote]

Mmm, are you not the tiniest bit sceptical about that information YC. Didn''t the White House and the Murdoch run media feed us similar information in the build up to the invasion of Iraq? IMHO we''ll see an increase in this kind of information being released over the next 6-12 months as Bush attempts to convince the American public that invading Iran is in their best interests.

Oh, and how will arming ourselves with nuclear weapons stop an Iranian hopping over the border and blowing himself up at an Iraqi mosque?

[/quote]

You are twisting the point I made, which was simply a response to your questioning of how we can expect Iran to cease their nuclear activity when we are renewing our own. I simply gave you the answer. Sceptical? Not for one cotton-picking minute. We can all see on a daily basis who are strapping bombs on their bodies and walking into the midst of innocent civilians and exploding them. To your latest question, you cannot stop such individuals with nuclear weapons. None of us are happy that powerful weapons exist but, in the wrong hands, it could be the end of the world as we know it. Do you think the leaders of the most powerful countries in the world are not aware of this? That is behind the pressure being applied through the United Nations, as difficult a process as that may be politically. 

The evidence is well documented in broad documentaries and books as far as what is taking place in Iran for those that care to study the matter. Further, the Iranians do not attempt to mask the situation. University campuses and other meeting places invite input along the lines I have indicated. We would all do well to keep our collective eyes on the real ball and the perils that could ensue should nuclear weapons get into the wrong hands. 

And now, back to Earnie''s Hummer....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Canary Wundaboy"]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.[/quote]I''m sorry, I thought this was a football message board and that the main website has news articles related to Norwich City Football Club and it''s players? The only reason I mentioned Earnie was because it was mentioned in an article that he has a Hummer, and I thought it was ironic considering the club has been making noise about being green.  I don''t seem to remember slagging off Earnie as a person or NCFC in general... I''m not one of the "we''re all doomed" brigade, thank you, a quick perusal of my posts should back that up...And in response to YC, I must say I''m slightly puzzled by your post... I don''t really see how my financial planning and management is at all relevant, and I must say I''m slightly disturbed that you''ve been snooping through my accounts and personal information... because that''s how you know all about me and know that I''m not already worrying about this, isn''t it? Or are you just using a stereotypical view of a student to form an opinion and back up the Yanks'' own environmental policy? Just wondering...Cluck, since you''re still involved in this thread, maybe we could have your views on the graphs I posted to explain to you and a few others how carbon levels and temperature are linked, and how natural cycles have been overtaken due to Human impact.  I took the trouble to post them for you, a response would be nice... [;)]Have to say I agree with Shack and SHTTA in that those of an older generation are naturally more resistant to new ideas, mainly because they think that their opinions formed over many years are correct.  This is normal, and I''m sure most of us will reach that stage, but what Shack has been trying to say is that those of us, say in our mid-twenties, as I am, are more open to new ideas.  I don''t think this idea is groundbreaking psychology, it''s normal.  I doubt there''s any graphs on the matter though, so no point flogging this dead horse...Oh, and Sheded, I''d be interested to hear why you believe the views of the scientists studying the Aspartame problem more than you believe others studying climate change or potential medical problems?Right, I should shut up now, I''ve said I will many times before, but I seem to be "doing a lee oliver"... [:P]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[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 - you listen , you digest, you make comparison with other situations and you make up your own mind. Just don''t go through life believing all you are told, sometimes learned opinion changes as history shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to say I agree with Shack and SHTTA in that those of an older generation are naturally more resistant to new ideas, mainly because they think that their opinions formed over many years are correct.  This is normal, and I''m sure most of us will reach that stage, but what Shack has been trying to say is that those of us, say in our mid-twenties, as I am, are more open to new ideas.  I don''t think this idea is groundbreaking psychology, it''s normal.  I doubt there''s any graphs on the matter though, so no point flogging this dead horse...

Oh, and Sheded, I''d be interested to hear why you believe the views of the scientists studying the Aspartame problem more than you believe others studying climate change or potential medical problems? EM

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

But ...... aren`t the Dons  you worship  as icons of  the "troof "   already well into middle age and beyond ?  bit paradoxical eh ?

Why would I believe  the views of scientists  involved in the study of medical problems ( specifically with Aspartame )   above  those scientists  who think they have the answer to global warming  , you ask ?

In a word  , its far simpler to work out the ramifications  of using a chemical like aspartyl-phenylalanine-1-methyl ester  { aspartame )  , than it is  to give any credible  causes of global warming !     before I go on  , I got to say that there are " scientists "  who are paid by the big drug and chemical companies , and those that aint !   its " those that aint "  that I would tend to believe .... and its not just scientists either !  many  other organisations  have been  concerned about this chemical  being used in our food and drink  .....     here`s the name of a company that needs a lot of study  when it comes to profit v morals .... Monsanto !

You might see where I`m coming from now ?   while the eggheads are squabbling about who is right about global warming  , there`s millions of kids (and adults ! )  guzzling down   drinks containing aspartame , a known carcinogen , a known  cause of brain damage ..... and many other  problems .   
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="percyvarco"]

SHTTA - you listen , you digest, you make comparison with other situations and you make up your own mind. Just don''t go through life believing all you are told, sometimes learned opinion changes as history shows.

[/quote]I agree with you entirely, Percy.  I''ve listened, I''ve digested, made comparisons and done my own private studies on the matter on top of University.  My mind is very much my own and I hope that everyone else is... my views on climate change don''t mean that I''ve simply believed everything some lecturer has told, I''ve made my own mind up... unfortunately for us all, the evidence is overwhelming... I''d love it if it were just spin and progaganda, but it ain''t I''m afraid... it''s very real...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Cluck "]

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.                  [:)][/quote]

You make some valid points and i accept that you cannot learn everything there is to know about life academically with age can come greater wisdom (not in everybodys case though),  but  my experience of university ( i dropped out though) is that you are given a multitude of different ideas on any given subject and it is left to you to make your mind, degree''s are not taught in the same way as gcse''s or a level''s you are constantly required to question what is put in front of you. And then if your smart enough to go on and do a phd as my girlfriend is you will be forming it entirely with your own ideas.I truely hope there is never a time when i think that capitalism & nuclear missiles are a good idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just realised, like Canary 02 earlier in the thread had to defend, that my name contains greenhouse gasses...

For this, you all have my sincere and heartfelt apologies.

Do not worry though. The Government are set to introduce a new fiscal policy aimed directly at my wallet to ensure my usage on this board is limited to one half-heated point per week. (It''s a tough target for various reasons...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Evil Monkey"][quote user="Canary Wundaboy"]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.

[/quote]

I''m sorry, I thought this was a football message board and that the main website has news articles related to Norwich City Football Club and it''s players? The only reason I mentioned Earnie was because it was mentioned in an article that he has a Hummer, and I thought it was ironic considering the club has been making noise about being green.  I don''t seem to remember slagging off Earnie as a person or NCFC in general... I''m not one of the "we''re all doomed" brigade, thank you, a quick perusal of my posts should back that up...

And in response to YC, I must say I''m slightly puzzled by your post... I don''t really see how my financial planning and management is at all relevant, and I must say I''m slightly disturbed that you''ve been snooping through my accounts and personal information... because that''s how you know all about me and know that I''m not already worrying about this, isn''t it? Or are you just using a stereotypical view of a student to form an opinion and back up the Yanks'' own environmental policy? Just wondering...

Cluck, since you''re still involved in this thread, maybe we could have your views on the graphs I posted to explain to you and a few others how carbon levels and temperature are linked, and how natural cycles have been overtaken due to Human impact.  I took the trouble to post them for you, a response would be nice... [;)]

Have to say I agree with Shack and SHTTA in that those of an older generation are naturally more resistant to new ideas, mainly because they think that their opinions formed over many years are correct.  This is normal, and I''m sure most of us will reach that stage, but what Shack has been trying to say is that those of us, say in our mid-twenties, as I am, are more open to new ideas.  I don''t think this idea is groundbreaking psychology, it''s normal.  I doubt there''s any graphs on the matter though, so no point flogging this dead horse...

Oh, and Sheded, I''d be interested to hear why you believe the views of the scientists studying the Aspartame problem more than you believe others studying climate change or potential medical problems?

Right, I should shut up now, I''ve said I will many times before, but I seem to be "doing a lee oliver"... [:P]
[/quote]

First point...as most of the said "scientists" who are currently obsessed with the human caused global warming myth are older than 50...surely the same rule must apply in that they too are "stuck in their ways" ? You can''t have it both ways. Young people are the most valuable resource on the planet as I have said before...principally because they bring with them new ideas. History clearly proves that global warming is not a new phenomenon...and this should be the starting point for any theory on the matter. Natural cause scenarios with no possible preventative method will make no-body any money....a but a scam where there may just be an answer given expensive research, will.  There sadly lies the answer to why the green circus is out of control and the masses are being hoodwinked.

Thanks for the graphs...but the statistics only show that carbondioxide is linked to warming...not the cause. The sun is the source of heat for this planet....and carbondioxide is a bi-product of that heat....not the other way round. If we accept the sun as the source...then nothing much can be done to stop it. If however we accept that human emissions are the source....then humans themselves can make large sums of money exploiting it. It''s only  natural that it would happen...and good luck to them...but I don''t buy it I''m afraid.

I have no problem with "students" generally...but as in my day they campaign and protest about issues they later come to adopt as the norm. This is why I state that life itself is the only university in town worth attending....and the said university establishments are there to start the ball rolling. I''ve a couple of genuinely academic pals who are literally as daft as a brush away from their pet subjects....and this is why I value common sense above all things as a way to solve life''s problems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Question for the sceptics - Even if you doubt the existence of man made CO2 causing global warming do you not think that it would be a good idea to try and do all we can to cut carbon emmisions just in case your wrong? That way is surely a win win situation whereas doing nothing and gambling  on the fact your all right is foolish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree SHTTTA, I''ve never quite understood why reducing your electricity/petrol use (and thereby saving yourself money), or changing your behaviour slightly to avoid ''green taxes'' (and thereby save yourself money) is such a major problem for some. If you judge these things purely on an economic level then you are saving yourself money and/or avoiding a tax you do not agree with - surely, that''s a win-win situation too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

You are twisting the point I made, which was simply a response to your questioning of how we can expect Iran to cease their nuclear activity when we are renewing our own. I simply gave you the answer. Sceptical? Not for one cotton-picking minute. We can all see on a daily basis who are strapping bombs on their bodies and walking into the midst of innocent civilians and exploding them.

[/quote]

Fair enough YC, I just hope that we both don''t end up regretting your lack of sceptisism when body bags filled with American and British soldiers start being flown back from Iran. Both our governments lied to us in order to invade Iraq, can''t you see the same thing happening again?

I still think it''s hugely hypocritical to bang on about the dangers of Iran''s continuing nuclear activity whilst renewing our own nuclear submarines. We''re not at school here, "You''ve been very good today Tony here''s a special Trident sweet......Oi Ahmadinejad, put that warhead down!". Who decides who the rogue states are? There are a fair few people around the world who might think that the leaders of our countries are a damn sight more dangerous than our Iranian freind.

The main argument put forward by people in favour of renewing our nuclear weapons is that they are a deterrent, but who are they there to deter? No nation that currently has nukes is pointing them at us and if you''re going to argue that "we never know who might get them in the future" then you might as well put some money aside for sail boats and bows and arrows in case the oil runs out!

Oh, and of course there''s the small matter that ''allegedly'' we are unable to fire our nuclear weapons unless we get permission from the US.

Now, has Earnie traded that Hummer in for a bicycle yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Cluck "]

First point...as most of the said "scientists" who are currently obsessed with the human caused global warming myth are older than 50...surely the same rule must apply in that they too are "stuck in their ways" ? You can''t have it both ways.

[/quote]

How long have they been working on this ''myth'' though Cluck? They may be 50 now but for all you know they could have started their research twenty years ago. Let''s face it global warming isn''t quite the ''trendy fad'' that you like to suggest it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Alex Harvey-Jones"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]

Recycling is all well and good but the damages has been done im afraid.. being "kind" to the environment is going to make little difference now.

the atmosphere has had a battering since the industrial revolution... and possibly longer. enjoy it whilst we are all still alive, and when we are dead.. who cares! we certainly wont be grumbling about the heat will we?

jas :)

[/quote] A lot of damage has been done but it''s not too late to slow down future damage - we have the opportunity to make considerable difference. Saying we''ve gone too far is a myth -  that''s a cop out because people aren''t preapred to change their lifestyle to do much about it! We might not be grumbling about the heat but I don''t personally like the thought of my kids (if I have any) suffering or the thought of Norwich being drowned and lost to rising sea levels irrespective of whether I''m alive to see it or not.

No offence but it''s attitudes like yours that mean little is being done in the world to help and has meant that we have caused far more damage than is necessary and continue to do so!

[/quote]

i do recycle (or at least would if City Care actually bothered to empty my recycling box! thats twice on the spin they havent done it now.. im going to complain!) but i just feel im on a hiding to nothing...

jas :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I take your point on the age thing, Cluck, and apologise for my own stereotyping there.  I think as a generalisation it''s probably about right, but in reality there are people stuck in their ways across all age groups, as well as those who are open to new ideas.On the subject of the evidence for Human impact, it looks like you''re using a rather basic knowledge of the carbon cycle there.  I''d be happy to explain it to you in more detail, but I''m now off to work so maybe someone else can step in, at least with a Wiki link or something.  If your views on Climate Change, etc, are based on a misunderstanding that''s rather disappointing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Shack Attack"]

Fair enough YC, I just hope that we both don''t end up regretting your lack of sceptisism when body bags filled with American and British soldiers start being flown back from Iran. Both our governments lied to us in order to invade Iraq, can''t you see the same thing happening again?

I still think it''s hugely hypocritical to bang on about the dangers of Iran''s continuing nuclear activity whilst renewing our own nuclear submarines. We''re not at school here, "You''ve been very good today Tony here''s a special Trident sweet......Oi Ahmadinejad, put that warhead down!". Who decides who the rogue states are? There are a fair few people around the world who might think that the leaders of our countries are a damn sight more dangerous than our Iranian freind.

The main argument put forward by people in favour of renewing our nuclear weapons is that they are a deterrent, but who are they there to deter? No nation that currently has nukes is pointing them at us and if you''re going to argue that "we never know who might get them in the future" then you might as well put some money aside for sail boats and bows and arrows in case the oil runs out!

Oh, and of course there''s the small matter that ''allegedly'' we are unable to fire our nuclear weapons unless we get permission from the US.

Now, has Earnie traded that Hummer in for a bicycle yet?

[/quote]Have to say i agree with the above 100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EM

I find this whole thread interesting and am not yet convinced by either side of the argument. I must admit, and I''m a little ashamed to say, I spend more time worrying about whether Norwich will win on Saturday or what will win the Gold Cup than I do about serious issues like this.

My age has  made me a bit cynical about being able to do anything about it either way. Which brings me to your point about older people being perhaps more set in their ways. I can understand why you may think that but I don''t agree. I think there are free thinkers of all ages. I have often wondered if its down to peoples upbringing. Many people go through their lives not ever questioning the opinions and values they were taught by their parents or in some cases tutors (school or otherwise). We all know people like that from all age groups. They steadfastly refuse to question anything new or different from what they have always been taught to believe. There are just as many people from all age groups who are happy to question and make their own minds up independently from pre-conceived beliefs. From what I can learn from this thread, you and cluck are both free thinkers who have come to different conclusions. I don''t think that has anything to do with your respective ages.

I often see it as an advantage now that I was so thick as a kid that I never took anything in. (Some people would say I still am!) [;)]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

EM

I find this whole thread interesting and am not yet convinced by either side of the argument. I must admit, and I''m a little ashamed to say, I spend more time worrying about whether Norwich will win on Saturday or what will win the Gold Cup than I do about serious issues like this.

My age has  made me a bit cynical about being able to do anything about it either way. Which brings me to your point about older people being perhaps more set in their ways. I can understand why you may think that but I don''t agree. I think there are free thinkers of all ages. I have often wondered if its down to peoples upbringing. Many people go through their lives not ever questioning the opinions and values they were taught by their parents or in some cases tutors (school or otherwise). We all know people like that from all age groups. They steadfastly refuse to question anything new or different from what they have always been taught to believe. There are just as many people from all age groups who are happy to question and make their own minds up independently from pre-conceived beliefs. From what I can learn from this thread, you and cluck are both free thinkers who have come to different conclusions. I don''t think that has anything to do with your respective ages.

I often see it as an advantage now that I was so thick as a kid that I never took anything in. (Some people would say I still am!) [;)]

 

[/quote]

You get a full gob kiss with partial tongues for that post Nutty....and I guess it doesn''t matter how long we discuss the issue....it will all boil down to history as to which argument is ultimately right. Either way I''m sure I''ll be ashes floating down the Wensum by then...unless my sons show final defiance and dump me in Ipswich!

They wouldn''t do that though would they?         [:^)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''ll say no more on the age matter, as I''ve already conceded and apologised for that one. I have, however, just finished reading an excellent article in New Scientist entitled "are you fit to call yourself an expert?"  The article discusses the nature of scientific controversies, covering three aspects: live controversies, in which the science is still being debated and studied (ie, GM crops), closed controversies, in which the science is now well-established and mostly accepted - and here it uses the example of climate change with the main opposition being George Bush (or the general public, it seems) - and finally non-controversies, in which the science is sound but there is controversy for other reasons, such as politics or religion, the example here being Stem Cell research in the US.I can''t provide a link to the website, because it''s telling me my subscription has lapsed (even though they''re still sending me the magazines), but the general conclusion is that in order to prevent these controversies, and cut the risk of technological populism in which the general public can make scientific assumptions that are taken to be real (as in the MMR vaccine and Autism case), science must be transparent, with regular public consultations in its early stages.  Allowing the public to see an unbiased and unaltered view of the science must surely allow people to make their own minds up, free from political or religious involvement.  This can only be a good thing.In the case of the Climate Change debate, there are unfortunately so many parties out there with their own agendas, using the same scientific research to draw their own conclusions, which is fine until those conclusions are reported as "scientific knowledge" and the media and politicians begin to use it for their own ends.  This is what has happened in this case.  I would personally say that Climate Change is a "non-controversy", in that the science is now accepted, but the conclusions are being clouded by other agendas.This seems to apply to both extreme sides of the debate.  On the one hand, you have Greenpeace telling you that you''re a bad man for driving your car to work and that we''re all doomed to die.  On the other, you have Exxon-Mobile telling us that nothing is happening and the science is all fraud.  Somewhere in between you have politicians, religious leaders, the media and even the general public, all out to put their own spin on things.  What people need to do is simply look at the science with an objective and common sense view, which is what I''d like to think I have done here.  I''ve studied the facts, looked at the established science, put the two together and formed a conclusion which I feel fits with the general scientific consensus on Climate Change.I''ve mentioned University a lot, but that''s not through some wish to go out and protest on the streets - far from it, in fact.  I''ve never been to a protest in my life, even the big Trident one here in Manchester back in September, because I feel that such protests fail to take into account all sides of the argument and do not promote healthy debate.  Hence my opposition to the Delia protests.  There''s a People and Planet Society here at MMU, which is very active in its eco-friendly activities, but I''m not a member as I don''t wish my view to be skewed by those with extreme views, as there will naturally be.As a budding author, I''m now wondering whether I would have the knowledge and the talent to be able to produce a semi-fictional work which tackles the Climate Change debate and, hopefully, educates those who know little of the facts, but doing so without any agenda other than education, and maybe even entertainment.  It would be an interesting project, I feel, but would take some time so don''t expect me to win the Booker Prize just yet... [;)] Just thought it might be a fun way of tackling the subject without overwhelming people with science...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Evil Monkey"]I''ll say no more on the age matter, as I''ve already conceded and apologised for that one.
 
I have, however, just finished reading an excellent article in New Scientist entitled "are you fit to call yourself an expert?"  The article discusses the nature of scientific controversies, covering three aspects: live controversies, in which the science is still being debated and studied (ie, GM crops), closed controversies, in which the science is now well-established and mostly accepted - and here it uses the example of climate change with the main opposition being George Bush (or the general public, it seems) - and finally non-controversies, in which the science is sound but there is controversy for other reasons, such as politics or religion, the example here being Stem Cell research in the US.

I can''t provide a link to the website, because it''s telling me my subscription has lapsed (even though they''re still sending me the magazines), but the general conclusion is that in order to prevent these controversies, and cut the risk of technological populism in which the general public can make scientific assumptions that are taken to be real (as in the MMR vaccine and Autism case), science must be transparent, with regular public consultations in its early stages.  Allowing the public to see an unbiased and unaltered view of the science must surely allow people to make their own minds up, free from political or religious involvement.  This can only be a good thing.

In the case of the Climate Change debate, there are unfortunately so many parties out there with their own agendas, using the same scientific research to draw their own conclusions, which is fine until those conclusions are reported as "scientific knowledge" and the media and politicians begin to use it for their own ends.  This is what has happened in this case.  I would personally say that Climate Change is a "non-controversy", in that the science is now accepted, but the conclusions are being clouded by other agendas.

This seems to apply to both extreme sides of the debate.  On the one hand, you have Greenpeace telling you that you''re a bad man for driving your car to work and that we''re all doomed to die.  On the other, you have Exxon-Mobile telling us that nothing is happening and the science is all fraud.  Somewhere in between you have politicians, religious leaders, the media and even the general public, all out to put their own spin on things.  What people need to do is simply look at the science with an objective and common sense view, which is what I''d like to think I have done here.  I''ve studied the facts, looked at the established science, put the two together and formed a conclusion which I feel fits with the general scientific consensus on Climate Change.

I''ve mentioned University a lot, but that''s not through some wish to go out and protest on the streets - far from it, in fact.  I''ve never been to a protest in my life, even the big Trident one here in Manchester back in September, because I feel that such protests fail to take into account all sides of the argument and do not promote healthy debate.  Hence my opposition to the Delia protests.  There''s a People and Planet Society here at MMU, which is very active in its eco-friendly activities, but I''m not a member as I don''t wish my view to be skewed by those with extreme views, as there will naturally be.

As a budding author, I''m now wondering whether I would have the knowledge and the talent to be able to produce a semi-fictional work which tackles the Climate Change debate and, hopefully, educates those who know little of the facts, but doing so without any agenda other than education, and maybe even entertainment.  It would be an interesting project, I feel, but would take some time so don''t expect me to win the Booker Prize just yet... [;)] Just thought it might be a fun way of tackling the subject without overwhelming people with science...
[/quote]

Top post EM....and if you need any hard facts on the whole "climate change" issue I''ll be happy to help.     [:)]

Only jesting...and as with all subjects it is healthy to have a variety of viewpoints in order to discover the truth. I for one do not like one opinion to dominate any matter....and that I feel is what is happening now. It''s a gravy train for tens of thousands of people in 2007 and it will be hard to discover the truth amongst so much bias. We should all step back and let the boffins come up with concrete facts one way or another so that we can cut through the theories and find out where this is all going....but with such speculation...can we trust them?

The MMR scare says much about "panic" journalism and was literally based on one man''s theory and research. Now lots of kids are suffering through their parents "fear" of damaging their child. Equally mothers/fathers are sent to prison based on "expert" evidence (cot death syndrome) which has been shown to be wholly incorrect....so this is why I say we should not be blinded by speculative science....because very often it is proved to be completely wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, Climate Change science is no longer "speculative", but is all too real.  I''m talking of the basic principles, which includes the fact that the Greenhouse Effect, a natural phenomenon, has been overloaded by Human inputs of greenhouses gases.Without going into too much detail, the Carbon Cycle is exactly as it suggests - a circle of inputs and outputs balancing up naturally.  Oceans and Biota naturally give off Carbon Dioxide, however at the same time they all take in carbon.  The inputs and outputs balance naturally and the Carbon Cycle has been sustained for millions of years without problems.  Then the industrial revolution comes along and we begin to burn coal and oil - huge reservoirs of carbon.  This carbon has only one place to go - up and into the atmosphere.  Whereas the natural systems take in as much carbon as they generally release, the carbon being released from the burning of the bare bones of the planet is not being sequestered into carbon sinks.  Thus the levels of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere increases, and as we saw in those previous graphs, this leads to the increase of global temperatures.In terms of the Human inputs, it really is that simple.  Yes the natural world does emit carbon, but the important thing is that the Human inputs collapse the natural cycle.Hope this clarifies things for people...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Evil Monkey"]Unfortunately, Climate Change science is no longer "speculative", but is all too real.  I''m talking of the basic principles, which includes the fact that the Greenhouse Effect, a natural phenomenon, has been overloaded by Human inputs of greenhouses gases.

Without going into too much detail, the Carbon Cycle is exactly as it suggests - a circle of inputs and outputs balancing up naturally.  Oceans and Biota naturally give off Carbon Dioxide, however at the same time they all take in carbon.  The inputs and outputs balance naturally and the Carbon Cycle has been sustained for millions of years without problems.  Then the industrial revolution comes along and we begin to burn coal and oil - huge reservoirs of carbon.  This carbon has only one place to go - up and into the atmosphere.  Whereas the natural systems take in as much carbon as they generally release, the carbon being released from the burning of the bare bones of the planet is not being sequestered into carbon sinks.  Thus the levels of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere increases, and as we saw in those previous graphs, this leads to the increase of global temperatures.

In terms of the Human inputs, it really is that simple.  Yes the natural world does emit carbon, but the important thing is that the Human inputs collapse the natural cycle.

Hope this clarifies things for people...
[/quote]

Now you''ve spoilt it all by going all "student-y" on us.

It''s just nature at work...nothing more. What we need is more coal fired power stations and a decent volcano to get the carbon up into the atmosphere to help bind the water particles together....thus forming the clouds needed to help block solar penetration.

I''ve just lit a nice smokey coal fire to do my bit anyway.....[Y]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many folk would be up in arms if a mobile phone mast was erected close to their homes.........yet, quite happily continued to use their mobiles?

It''s all about hypocrisy..........

Politics and the people involved in it all........do it all the time.

Shall we all return to the iron-age and live off the land - and not from Tesco''s?

How many of you walk/cycle to work?

Is the electrickery powering your t''internet pooter, supplied by either solar panels or a wind turbine fitted to your roof?

Does your whole world collapse when there''s a power cut, and, are you at a loss till the power returns?

Shall I go on?

I seem to remember, a substantial amount of our present Government. (I use the word loosely) being advocates of "Nuclear Power? No thanks!" and were also ''fully fudged'' members of CND in the eighties.

"Don''t do as we do, do as we say!" Say those, that certainly know what''s bestest and gooderest for us all........

etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck Evil Monkey on your budding aspirations. You''ve done a commendable job of presenting your views on environmental issues on this thread.

In the spirit of clarification, however, and to assist you as you pursue facts in  your career objective, allow me to clarify your conclusion on an earlier post on this thread; "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." There are many objective observers on this side of the water, Republicans and Democrats who would take issue with your view. As compared with the rhetoric spouted by the liberal media at the time that the election was stolen, when cooler heads prevailed, they realised the election was there for the taking. Many Democrats have long since held the view that Gore lost them the 2000 election. The fact is he could not even win in his own home state of Tennessee in that election ( the first candidate for President to face such embarrassment since George McGovern in 1972 ). The Tennessee voters felt Al Gore was sadly lacking in character and integrity. I won''t say anymore than that, except to say, if you wish, you could look it up. Of course, you may claim he has long been a champion on environmental issues. That''s one thing. You leaped outside of that particular boundary however. He did not even get the Democratic nod because he was the best candiddate for the Democrats. The Clinton''s were controlling the purse strings ( still are ) and it was in their best interest to NOT have a fresh Democratic candidate in 2000 who might have grown in stature and made for greater difficulty on a future Hilary crowning.  

On the lighter side, the following bulletin sheet is to be found in many parts of Tennessee as to the creed of how the  "simple folks" there like to be seen by others and Mr. Gore failed to impress them on at least three of these ( I won''t say which ones ) and a couple of other significant ones too that received much coverage;

Tennessee Ten Commandments 
 
(1) Just one God.
(2) Honor yer Ma &Pa.
(3) No tellin'' tales or gossipin''.
(4) Git yourself to Sunday meetin''
(5) Put nothin'' before God.
(6) No foolin'' around with another fellow''s gal.
(7) No killin.''
(8) Watch yer mouth.
(9) Don''t take what ain''t yers.
(10) Don''t be hankerin'' for yer buddy''s stuff.
 
Now that''s kinda plain an'' simple, don''t ya think?

Y''all have a nice day.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I drive a Honda Accord with leather seats.

Now is that (a) environmentally irresponsible, (b) cruel to animals and/or (c) just downright unpatriotic?

Help!

OTBC

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, since everybody else is joining in with this thread I thought I ought to.

One thing I haven''t seen and would be interested in is information regarding the de-forestation effects and whether they might have a serious influence on carbon in the atmosphere.    The Brazilian rainforests (the "lungs of the world") have been hugely decimated over the last few decades, my understanding is that trees take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen - does that taking in of CO2 reduce atmospheric carbon levels ? I''m not scientifically minded enough to know the answer myself. 

Just a footnote too, it is "ExxonMobil", not "ExxonMobile" - I don''t think my bosses would ever consider holding a debate/argument on these issues with people who can''t get the name of the biggest oil company in the world correct !!

Mark .Y.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mark .Y."]

OK, since everybody else is joining in with this thread I thought I ought to.

One thing I haven''t seen and would be interested in is information regarding the de-forestation effects and whether they might have a serious influence on carbon in the atmosphere.    The Brazilian rainforests (the "lungs of the world") have been hugely decimated over the last few decades, my understanding is that trees take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen - does that taking in of CO2 reduce atmospheric carbon levels ? I''m not scientifically minded enough to know the answer myself. 

Just a footnote too, it is "ExxonMobil", not "ExxonMobile" - I don''t think my bosses would ever consider holding a debate/argument on these issues with people who can''t get the name of the biggest oil company in the world correct !!

Mark .Y.

[/quote]I''m sure they''d be able to live with one letter extra, Mark [;)]Regarding the rainforests, you''re right in that trees do take in Carbon Dioxide and give out Oxygen, however they also give out CO2 at night when they take in Oxygen - the natural cycle or removal and emission in equal measure.  The destruction of the Rainforests has obvious effects in that there are less trees and plants to take in the atmospheric CO2, another reason why levels are rising (and is where Carbon Offsetting projects come from).  I have no actual data on this issue, but would be an interesting one to see.I admire Cluck''s ability to remain stubbornly opposed to the science of this, it''s his prerogative after all.  Hopefully you''ll live long enough to issue me an apology. [;)]  What I would say is beware of anyone who dresses up their opinions as fact without any evidence to back that up.  You can mock me all you like, Cluck, but at least I''ve come up with some levels of science and evidence to back it up, not just speculation and personal opinion.Yankee, the Gore debate is one I don''t know enough about, I just thought he was the best man for the job at the time and that had little to do with environmental factors, I just don''t like the Bushes (how ironic, eh?).  He certainly lacked the charm and charisma of Dubya which I guess was a major part of his downfall...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Evil Monkey"][quote user="Mark .Y."]

OK, since everybody else is joining in with this thread I thought I ought to.

One thing I haven''t seen and would be interested in is information regarding the de-forestation effects and whether they might have a serious influence on carbon in the atmosphere.    The Brazilian rainforests (the "lungs of the world") have been hugely decimated over the last few decades, my understanding is that trees take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen - does that taking in of CO2 reduce atmospheric carbon levels ? I''m not scientifically minded enough to know the answer myself. 

Just a footnote too, it is "ExxonMobil", not "ExxonMobile" - I don''t think my bosses would ever consider holding a debate/argument on these issues with people who can''t get the name of the biggest oil company in the world correct !!

Mark .Y.

[/quote]

I''m sure they''d be able to live with one letter extra, Mark [;)]

Regarding the rainforests, you''re right in that trees do take in Carbon Dioxide and give out Oxygen, however they also give out CO2 at night when they take in Oxygen - the natural cycle or removal and emission in equal measure.  The destruction of the Rainforests has obvious effects in that there are less trees and plants to take in the atmospheric CO2, another reason why levels are rising (and is where Carbon Offsetting projects come from).  I have no actual data on this issue, but would be an interesting one to see.

I admire Cluck''s ability to remain stubbornly opposed to the science of this, it''s his prerogative after all.  Hopefully you''ll live long enough to issue me an apology. [;)]  What I would say is beware of anyone who dresses up their opinions as fact without any evidence to back that up.  You can mock me all you like, Cluck, but at least I''ve come up with some levels of science and evidence to back it up, not just speculation and personal opinion.

Yankee, the Gore debate is one I don''t know enough about, I just thought he was the best man for the job at the time and that had little to do with environmental factors, I just don''t like the Bushes (how ironic, eh?).  He certainly lacked the charm and charisma of Dubya which I guess was a major part of his downfall...
[/quote]

 

Thanks EM.................. although I don''t think I really quite understand. I''m not sure if you are saying trees do have a lowering (and therefore positive) effect on the CO2 level in the atmosphere or whether you are saying they are neutral. I''m sure you can put it in plainer English for simpletons like myself !!!

(PS I do actually work for ExxonMobil so I think my bosses would NOT be happy with the extra letter !!)

 

Mark .Y.

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just found this on the Beeb website, very interesting and highlights the dangers of organisations with agendas making sweeping statements without evidence...

Caution urged on climate ''risks''

By Pallab Ghosh

Science correspondent, BBC News

An aircraft flies in front of the sun

Both scientists believe that man''s activities are causing global warming


Two leading UK climate researchers have criticised those among

their peers who they say are "overplaying" the global warming message.

Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal

Meteorological Society figures, are voicing their concern at a

conference in Oxford.

They say some researchers make claims about possible future impacts that cannot be justified by the science.

The pair believe this damages the credibility of all climate scientists.

They think catastrophism and the "Hollywoodisation" of weather and climate only work to create confusion in the public mind.

They argue for a more sober and reasoned explanation of the uncertainties about possible future changes in the Earth''s climate.

I''ve no doubt that global warming is occurring, but we don''t want to undermine that case by crying wolf


Professor Chris Collier

As an example, they point to a recent statement from one

of the foremost US science bodies - the American Association for the

Advancement of Science (AAAS).

The association released a strongly worded statement at

its last annual meeting in San Francisco in February which said: "As

expected, intensification of droughts, heatwaves, floods, wildfires,

and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable

ecosystems and societies.

"These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible."

According to Professors Hardaker and Collier, this may

well turn out to be true, but convincing evidence to back the claims

has not yet emerged.

"It''s certainly a very strong statement," Professor Collier told BBC News.

"I suspect it refers to evidence that hurricanes have

increased as a result of global warming; but to make the blanket

assumption that all extreme events are increasing is a bit too early

yet."

''Scientific basis''

A former president of the Royal Meteorological Society,

Professor Collier is concerned that the serious message about the real

risks posed by global warming could be undermined by making premature

claims.

"I think there is a good chance of that," he said. "We must guard against that - it would be very damaging.

"I''ve no doubt that global warming is occurring, but we don''t want to undermine that case by crying wolf."

This view is shared by Professor Hardaker, the society''s chief executive.

We feel that the recent consensus statement of the AAAS Board of Directors speaks for itself and stands on its own


AAAS

"Organisations have been guilty of overplaying the message," he says.

"There''s no evidence to show we''re all due for very

short-term devastating impacts as a result of global warming; so I

think these statements can be dangerous where you mix in the science

with unscientific assumptions."

The AAAS said it would not be commenting directly on the professors'' remarks.

"We feel that the recent consensus statement of the AAAS

Board of Directors speaks for itself and stands on its own," a

spokesperson explained.

"The AAAS Board statement references (at the end), the

scientific basis upon which the conclusions are based, including the

joint National Academies'' statement and the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change."

The ''right thing''

Professor Hardaker also believes that overblown

statements play into the hands of those who say that scientists are

wrong on climate change - that global warming is a myth.

"I think we do have to be careful as scientists not to

overstate the case because it does damage the credibility of the many

other things that we have greater certainty about," he said.

"We have to stick to what the science is telling us; and

I don''t think making that sound more sensational, or more sexy, because

it gets us more newspaper columns, is the right thing for us to be

doing.

"We have to let the science argument win out."

The pair have contributed to a pamphlet called Making

Sense of the Weather and Climate, which will be presented on Saturday

at the Garden Quadrangle Auditorium at St John''s College, Oxford.

The AAAS position on climate can be read on the organisation''s website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem that a lifetime of taking information on board in small doses and then coming to an overall conclusion does not outweigh the single track view of modern educators with a particular agenda to put across. That''s fine for those still in education and coming to terms with life...but it''s not until you move out into the wider world that you will come to question much of what you have been actually taught. That''s what happened to me....and the same will happen to you.

No doubt we can argue this point until the cows come home....but after so many "scares" and public paranoia have come and gone in my lifetime...I''ll stick to my original thought that this is just another puff of smoke. There are compelling arguments on both sides I''ll concede...but no certainty either way...so figures based on pure hypothesis remain speculation.

I''m not saying that recycling and conservation of the Worlds dwindling resources is a bad thing....but when it is hijacked by the "global warming" activists as part of an overall "save the world" campaign I switch off. The two are seperate issues...but it would seem for many they must go hand in hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...