FabSwingers.com
 

Quick Links

Search forum subjects:
 

Forums

» The Lounge
» Swingers Chat
» Virus
» Swinging Support and ...
» Swinging Club Discuss...
» Introductions
» Stories and Fantasies
» Fabswingers.com site ...
» Site help
» Chat room feedback/di...
» Mobile Web App feedba...
» Swinging Club/Event a...
» Meet Requests and Par...
» UK
» Ireland
» France
» Spain
» Politics
» USA
» Canada
» Australia
» New Zealand
» London
» Scotland
» Wales
» World Wide
» Bikers
» Camping
» Games

FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Climate change???

Climate change???

Jump to: Newest in thread

 

By *xodussx OP   Man  over a year ago

sheffield

We were told 13 years ago that Snowfalls are a thing of the past.

Guess what? Snow is still here

The experts went from global warming to climate change

Do you really trust all the so called research on climate?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I think they got it completely wrong. The governments of the time took the advice of a few scientists without really doing their own research. Now that we have been extorniatly taxed for the last decade or so they can hardly say they were wrong and pay us back can they.

There is lots of evidence to prove global warming is a complete myth.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *xodussx OP   Man  over a year ago

sheffield

Does that mean we all could claim for some compensation????

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

My gran was born 85 years ago today and it snowed heavy that day 85 years ago so climate change is bollocks !!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *kywatcherMan  over a year ago

Southwick

Weather and climate are two different phenomenon.

One is long-term and the other is.....

The scientific evidence is that the world does go through long-term climate change....ie ice-age etc.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Does that mean we all could claim for some compensation????"

I wouldn't hold your breath.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ce WingerMan  over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ

Climate change has been occurring for millennia, and will continue until the sun becomes a red giant and melts us all.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *dwalu2Couple  over a year ago

Bristol

The first and second posts in this thread nicely sum up the lack of understanding that typifies people who are climate change deniers.

An opinion that disregards the facts in favour of 'man in the pub logic' is rarely worth expressing.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *inkyScot22Man  over a year ago

Anniesland

It's the common misconception that 'global warming' actually means warmer weather, when in fact it means wetter weather as the poles heat up and freeze less every winter, causing a rise in sea levels and more energy for tropical storm, the actual temperature doesn't go up much but all it takes is more time at 1C than at -1C and the ice caps are gone...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Climate change has been occurring for millennia, and will continue until the sun becomes a red giant and melts us all. "

I thought the theory was that the sun would burn out and everyone would freeze to death.

I suppose it depends on what scientist you listen to. Same as the global warming brigade. It's just a pity the government decided to listen to the wrong ones this time.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *xodussx OP   Man  over a year ago

sheffield


"Does that mean we all could claim for some compensation????

I wouldn't hold your breath. "

It seem like those in power are still making the same mistake trying to sell us some green energy that cost our skin rather than going for the shale gas

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"The first and second posts in this thread nicely sum up the lack of understanding that typifies people who are climate change deniers.

An opinion that disregards the facts in favour of 'man in the pub logic' is rarely worth expressing."

I love the phrase. "Climate change deniers"

Its like climate change is the new religion and anyone who opposes that point of view is a blasphemer.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *xodussx OP   Man  over a year ago

sheffield


"The first and second posts in this thread nicely sum up the lack of understanding that typifies people who are climate change deniers.

An opinion that disregards the facts in favour of 'man in the pub logic' is rarely worth expressing."

Explain please

Someone non expert like me would love to know more

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *or Fox SakeCouple  over a year ago

Thornaby


"The first and second posts in this thread nicely sum up the lack of understanding that typifies people who are climate change deniers.

An opinion that disregards the facts in favour of 'man in the pub logic' is rarely worth expressing."

Nail hit on the head

Climate change is a scientific fact

We have burnt in 200 years energy created by several million years of sunshine, the earth is a zero sum planet, all that energy is affecting the atmosphere.

Denying it is basically subscribing to a conspiracy theory put up by right wing nut jobs.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"The first and second posts in this thread nicely sum up the lack of understanding that typifies people who are climate change deniers.

An opinion that disregards the facts in favour of 'man in the pub logic' is rarely worth expressing.

Nail hit on the head

Climate change is a scientific fact

We have burnt in 200 years energy created by several million years of sunshine, the earth is a zero sum planet, all that energy is affecting the atmosphere.

Denying it is basically subscribing to a conspiracy theory put up by right wing nut jobs.

"

I also love the tag that if you are sceptical about global warming you are labelled right wing.

It's like you are saying "how dare you oppose us you fascists "

Have the global warming brigade really been brainwashed that much that they think everyone who opposes them is evil ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

all we will see is more chaotic weather...its just gonna be a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I'm of the belief that the west will possibly iceage, and there is an effort to build infrastructures in other warmer climates..

I doubt it'd be an iceage like any other...with our cities,electricity and ingenuity who knows eh?

did anyone remember the russian plans for a giant mirror in space pointed at siberia?... dunno if it was true or not

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ornyHorwichCpl aka HHCCouple  over a year ago

horwich

"Global warming"

+

"Climate change"

x

£££££££££££'s research

-

Natural earth cycle

=

Nice little tax earner !

Simple maths really !!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *or Fox SakeCouple  over a year ago

Thornaby


"The first and second posts in this thread nicely sum up the lack of understanding that typifies people who are climate change deniers.

An opinion that disregards the facts in favour of 'man in the pub logic' is rarely worth expressing.

Nail hit on the head

Climate change is a scientific fact

We have burnt in 200 years energy created by several million years of sunshine, the earth is a zero sum planet, all that energy is affecting the atmosphere.

Denying it is basically subscribing to a conspiracy theory put up by right wing nut jobs.

I also love the tag that if you are sceptical about global warming you are labelled right wing.

It's like you are saying "how dare you oppose us you fascists "

Have the global warming brigade really been brainwashed that much that they think everyone who opposes them is evil ? "

No but I do think that f**king up the environment by dumping large amounts of hydro carbon fumes in it is stupid, like freally really stupid.

The home of the climate change deniers is the US, lead by the Tea Party, if you want to align yourself with that bunch of nutters, well, get on with it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

i think climate change is real but its a natural cycle

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

The weather and the climate are cyclical. They were before we were here and will be long after we've gone.

Whether or not the human race is accelerating it us hard to tell. There's not much first hand data from the last major climate change.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *xodussx OP   Man  over a year ago

sheffield

Tea party????

Ok

Let bring back the subject home

Should we, in the name of climate change refuse to explore cheaper energy option bearing in mind that we are almost running out of gas but are seating on a massive reserve of shale gas?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Well the truth is humans are screwing up the climate but I do wonder if the ecowarriors like to over exaggerate to try and frighten people into becoming greener.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ce WingerMan  over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ


"Climate change has been occurring for millennia, and will continue until the sun becomes a red giant and melts us all.

I thought the theory was that the sun would burn out and everyone would freeze to death. "

When the sun reaches the end of it's life it will expand, vapourising most of the solar system before dying out and becoming a red dwarf

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Well the truth is humans are screwing up the climate but I do wonder if the ecowarriors like to over exaggerate to try and frighten people into becoming greener. "

But others think climate change is a natural occurrence. Who's truth should I listen to ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *inkyScot22Man  over a year ago

Anniesland


"Tea party????

Ok

Let bring back the subject home

Should we, in the name of climate change refuse to explore cheaper energy option bearing in mind that we are almost running out of gas but are seating on a massive reserve of shale gas?"

We are also sitting on one some of the highest levels of accessible Green Energy in Europe in addition to being a member of the research division for the world's first commercial fusion reactor (~2027 - ITER project)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Well the truth is humans are screwing up the climate but I do wonder if the ecowarriors like to over exaggerate to try and frighten people into becoming greener.

But others think climate change is a natural occurrence. Who's truth should I listen to ? "

it is natural, and its also subject to change with our daily living

pollution,cities,our bodies,cows farting

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Read the latest research. Then draw your own conclusion. Everybody politicizes and spins things so they can get money, usually for research grants or so they can tax you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Climate change is happening. It is a natural thing 85% of the existence of this planet it has had no ice caps. They are there due to us being at the end of a weird phenomenon called ice age.

Pollution may or may not change the timing by a decade or two. But won't cause it or stop it.

That being said there is no reason not to try to find clean energy for an expanding population. The reality nobody seems to want to admit is we have a growing population and shrinking resources.

It's going to get wetter more unpredictable and maybe a little warmer. But not catastrophic in our lifetime.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *Ryan-Man  over a year ago

In Your Bush


"Climate change has been occurring for millennia, and will continue until the sun becomes a red giant and melts us all.

I thought the theory was that the sun would burn out and everyone would freeze to death.

When the sun reaches the end of it's life it will expand, vapourising most of the solar system before dying out and becoming a red dwarf "

That will probably be Red Dwarf 11. Doubt Craig Charles will still be in it though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Climate change is happening. It is a natural thing 85% of the existence of this planet it has had no ice caps. They are there due to us being at the end of a weird phenomenon called ice age.

Pollution may or may not change the timing by a decade or two. But won't cause it or stop it.

That being said there is no reason not to try to find clean energy for an expanding population. The reality nobody seems to want to admit is we have a growing population and shrinking resources.

It's going to get wetter more unpredictable and maybe a little warmer. But not catastrophic in our lifetime. "

I disgaree I watched the day after tomorrow..based on a true story last year

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *he Happy ManMan  over a year ago

Merseyside


"We were told 13 years ago that Snowfalls are a thing of the past.

Guess what? Snow is still here

The experts went from global warming to climate change

Do you really trust all the so called research on climate?

"

It's a hoax. 30,000 USA scientists got together and tried to sue Al Gore for his global warming lies. They are going to use global warming as the excuse to bring a load of carbon usage based taxes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Climate change is happening. It is a natural thing 85% of the existence of this planet it has had no ice caps. They are there due to us being at the end of a weird phenomenon called ice age.

Pollution may or may not change the timing by a decade or two. But won't cause it or stop it.

That being said there is no reason not to try to find clean energy for an expanding population. The reality nobody seems to want to admit is we have a growing population and shrinking resources.

It's going to get wetter more unpredictable and maybe a little warmer. But not catastrophic in our lifetime.

I disgaree I watched the day after tomorrow..based on a true story last year"

I watched the day after tomorrow yesterday and today I'm confused.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ce WingerMan  over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ


"That will probably be Red Dwarf 11. Doubt Craig Charles will still be in it though. "

Aw shurruppp Smeghead

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"

I watched the day after tomorrow yesterday and today I'm confused. "

Just wait until tomorrow and you will be more confused

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *xodussx OP   Man  over a year ago

sheffield


"(~2027 - ITER project)"

International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor?????

How far has that been????

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Climate change is happening. It is a natural thing 85% of the existence of this planet it has had no ice caps. They are there due to us being at the end of a weird phenomenon called ice age.

Pollution may or may not change the timing by a decade or two. But won't cause it or stop it.

That being said there is no reason not to try to find clean energy for an expanding population. The reality nobody seems to want to admit is we have a growing population and shrinking resources.

It's going to get wetter more unpredictable and maybe a little warmer. But not catastrophic in our lifetime.

I disgaree I watched the day after tomorrow..based on a true story last year

I watched the day after tomorrow yesterday and today I'm confused. "

watch it today, then u'll get it!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"

I watched the day after tomorrow yesterday and today I'm confused.

Just wait until tomorrow and you will be more confused "

watch 2012..u'll see they covered that story up..why did u think they stopped all international flights?..most of america was destroyed..the hollywood stars u see today are not full of plastic surgery..most are either crap looking robots or computer generated..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *Ryan-Man  over a year ago

In Your Bush


"That will probably be Red Dwarf 11. Doubt Craig Charles will still be in it though.

Aw shurruppp Smeghead "

How rude

Now kindly cluck off, before I extract your giblets, and shove a large seasoned onion between the lips you never kiss with.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *icketysplitsWoman  over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

Climate and weather are not the same.

To change the current weather so that we have a warmer Easter I suggest everyone on Britain spins in an anti-clockwise direction to counteract the High that is spinning clockwise and bringing us this cold wind and weather.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *xodussx OP   Man  over a year ago

sheffield


"Climate and weather are not the same.

To change the current weather so that we have a warmer Easter I suggest everyone on Britain spins in an anti-clockwise direction to counteract the High that is spinning clockwise and bringing us this cold wind and weather."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Shocking ignorance above!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *xodussx OP   Man  over a year ago

sheffield


"Shocking ignorance above!"

Try to read the humour in her post rather than going all critical

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Shocking ignorance above!"

I think _icketysplits explained it quite well.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Shocking ignorance above!

Try to read the humour in her post rather than going all critical"

I didn't mean lickety. Of course she was just being funny! It's the serious uninformed (daily mail readers') posts that bother me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *xodussx OP   Man  over a year ago

sheffield


"Shocking ignorance above!

Try to read the humour in her post rather than going all critical

I didn't mean lickety. Of course she was just being funny! It's the serious uninformed (daily mail readers') posts that bother me."

whats wrong with being a daily mail readers????

At least it is still some reading...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

And here I thought it was me just being a weather jinx as since I've moved here about 3 years ago the weather has done all sorts of silly stuff!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Its all hit and miss here in uk . Why we go over seas for sun .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Its all hit and miss here in uk . Why we go over seas for sun ."

Jo it's called global climate change for a reason.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

[quote all we will see is more chaotic weather...its just gonna be a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.]

Did someone mention chaos .............. please note this has nothing to do with me !!!!!!!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 26/03/13 14:59:31]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Shocking ignorance above!

Try to read the humour in her post rather than going all critical

I didn't mean lickety. Of course she was just being funny! It's the serious uninformed (daily mail readers') posts that bother me."

Because someone has a different point of view why does that make them uninformed ?

For daring to have an opposing opinion on the speculation that there may be global warming it has been suggested I am a right wing nut job, someone who makes their mind up from listening to someone in a pub , a Dailey Mail reader and my favourite a denier.

The global warming brigade sound like an intolerant lot that doesn't want to listen to anyone else's opinions on the matter and like to hurl insults at anyone daring to oppose their believes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

OK new tactic, stuff the investigation into CO2 output, I think I will apply for a government grant to track down Minx's involvement with getting the planet all hot and bothered

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

And I don't read the Dailey Mail.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"And I don't read the Dailey Mail. "

Nope, spelling like that makes you a Gradian reader

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *Ryan-Man  over a year ago

In Your Bush


"

For daring to have an opposing opinion on the speculation that there may be global warming it has been suggested I am a right wing nut job, someone who makes their mind up from listening to someone in a pub , a Dailey Mail reader and my favourite a denier. "

Looking at your avatar I would hazard a guess at 40 denier

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *xodussx OP   Man  over a year ago

sheffield


".

Looking at your avatar I would hazard a guess at 40 denier"
...Nice arse

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 26/03/13 15:03:38]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

One massive volcanic event will stop them moaning about climate change. As that can change the climate and weather near enough instantly

its amazing how many large and super volcanoes are over due eruptions. So climate change doesn't bother me. We are just in a warm part of a cycle. It wouldn't take much to plummet us back to an ice age.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Shocking ignorance above!

Try to read the humour in her post rather than going all critical

I didn't mean lickety. Of course she was just being funny! It's the serious uninformed (daily mail readers') posts that bother me.

Because someone has a different point of view why does that make them uninformed ?

For daring to have an opposing opinion on the speculation that there may be global warming it has been suggested I am a right wing nut job, someone who makes their mind up from listening to someone in a pub , a Dailey Mail reader and my favourite a denier.

The global warming brigade sound like an intolerant lot that doesn't want to listen to anyone else's opinions on the matter and like to hurl insults at anyone daring to oppose their believes. "

Ad Hominem its called. Its easier to start an argument on a personal basis than have an discussion about something they can't prove either way. It's crass and irrelevant.

Creationists are very fond of it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"And I don't read the Dailey Mail.

Nope, spelling like that makes you a Gradian reader "

Well played. I'll blame the predictive text but you all know its because I'm really a uninformed nut job.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *dwalu2Couple  over a year ago

Bristol


"Shocking ignorance above!

Try to read the humour in her post rather than going all critical

I didn't mean lickety. Of course she was just being funny! It's the serious uninformed (daily mail readers') posts that bother me.

Because someone has a different point of view why does that make them uninformed ?

For daring to have an opposing opinion on the speculation that there may be global warming it has been suggested I am a right wing nut job, someone who makes their mind up from listening to someone in a pub , a Dailey Mail reader and my favourite a denier.

The global warming brigade sound like an intolerant lot that doesn't want to listen to anyone else's opinions on the matter and like to hurl insults at anyone daring to oppose their believes. "

The problem is, you don't have an opposing opinion. You aren't being daring, or challenging. You are just taking a counter argument because you are either unwilling or unable to comprehend the science that proves both climate change is a very real problem for the planet, and that it is being influenced by man.

Sorry, but you can't have it any other way. There is no science, and no scientists, that dispute this. That is why it is a consensus of opinion. If you think there is or there are, once again it simply displays your ignorance, purposeful or not.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"We were told 13 years ago that Snowfalls are a thing of the past.

Guess what? Snow is still here

The experts went from global warming to climate change

Do you really trust all the so called research on climate?

It's a hoax. 30,000 USA scientists got together and tried to sue Al Gore for his global warming lies. They are going to use global warming as the excuse to bring a load of carbon usage based taxes. "

Al Gore is a phoney.

About 20% of your fuel bill is green tax already and that is about rocket. Lots of people making lots of money from green technologies that are not fit for purpose.

As someone has said, we have limited resources and need to use them wisely.

Also worth noting that the last time we had weather like we currently have, including a rise in average temperature, was when Henry 8th was king.... and I don't think he drove a polluting 4x4

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

honestly i dont know how people cannot see it on a small scale, get a few bodies in a room? what happens?...think of the same thing and apply it to the planet(the stuff produced doesnt drift off into space ffs)+ so

more people

more heat sources

more pollutions

all swirling around trying to be recycled by the earth itself

I suppose its easier believing in God than Gaia for some people...strange that eh?

perhaps we will go too far and fuck things up...the earth will most likely mop up the mess afterwards, blink and forget

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I hope the climate changes soon brrr

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I hope the climate changes soon brrr "

its catch 22..

nice big hard nipples

or women wearing less clothes..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I hope the climate changes soon brrr

its catch 22..

nice big hard nipples

or women wearing less clothes.."

that's simple..

no clothes

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Shocking ignorance above!

Try to read the humour in her post rather than going all critical

I didn't mean lickety. Of course she was just being funny! It's the serious uninformed (daily mail readers') posts that bother me.

Because someone has a different point of view why does that make them uninformed ?

For daring to have an opposing opinion on the speculation that there may be global warming it has been suggested I am a right wing nut job, someone who makes their mind up from listening to someone in a pub , a Dailey Mail reader and my favourite a denier.

The global warming brigade sound like an intolerant lot that doesn't want to listen to anyone else's opinions on the matter and like to hurl insults at anyone daring to oppose their believes.

The problem is, you don't have an opposing opinion. You aren't being daring, or challenging. You are just taking a counter argument because you are either unwilling or unable to comprehend the science that proves both climate change is a very real problem for the planet, and that it is being influenced by man.

Sorry, but you can't have it any other way. There is no science, and no scientists, that dispute this. That is why it is a consensus of opinion. If you think there is or there are, once again it simply displays your ignorance, purposeful or not."

Just a quick google search will give you a whole host of scientists that dispute it. It is not a consensus of opinion at all, I am not even alone on this thread in being sceptical.

You seem to be very blinkered in your believes and unwilling to listen to any opposing views.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"OK new tactic, stuff the investigation into CO2 output, I think I will apply for a government grant to track down Minx's involvement with getting the planet all hot and bothered "

now let me see ............. how did that happen ....... oh yeah I remember something about .................oh wot was it ........... its gone all cloudy and foggy again

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"OK new tactic, stuff the investigation into CO2 output, I think I will apply for a government grant to track down Minx's involvement with getting the planet all hot and bothered "

now let me see ............. how did that happen ....... oh yeah I remember something about .................oh wot was it ........... its gone all cloudy and foggy again

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Well with all this wind and hot air blasting about in here I'm going to stick up some wind turbines............. Maybe I should wait for the not in my back yard folk to stick the 2p worth in

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ce WingerMan  over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ

What happens on earth stays on earth (except the odd golf ball) but we have been using fossil fuels for only a limited time in the evolution of our existence on this planet. Long buried Methane is surfacing again and so it will continue in a never ending cycle

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"its gone all cloudy and foggy again "

See she is at it again... nobody is fooled for one moment by those fluttering eyelashes, in fact they are item 1 on my grant application

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Well with all this wind and hot air blasting about in here I'm going to stick up some wind turbines............. Maybe I should wait for the not in my back yard folk to stick the 2p worth in "

I think the going rate is a little more than 2p Swingles

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I'm more bothered about an unnecessary high speed train track ripping thru our green and pleasant land to be honest, just so people can get to and from London quicker from about 5 places they are going to blight 100,000's of people's lives, gee thanks David!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"its gone all cloudy and foggy again

See she is at it again... nobody is fooled for one moment by those fluttering eyelashes, in fact they are item 1 on my grant application "

ure not having my fluttering eyelashes, their mine I tell u ........ mine !!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Also worth noting that the last time we had weather like we currently have, including a rise in average temperature, was when Henry 8th was king.... and I don't think he drove a polluting 4x4

"

No, but his horse had serious gas issues

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I think they got it completely wrong. The governments of the time took the advice of a few scientists without really doing their own research. Now that we have been extorniatly taxed for the last decade or so they can hardly say they were wrong and pay us back can they.

There is lots of evidence to prove global warming is a complete myth. "

Global warming is not the myth, the earth has been hearing up and cooling down since its existence. We are in a process of heating up again.

The so called greenhouse effect however, is what is now in question!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *dwalu2Couple  over a year ago

Bristol


"Shocking ignorance above!

Try to read the humour in her post rather than going all critical

I didn't mean lickety. Of course she was just being funny! It's the serious uninformed (daily mail readers') posts that bother me.

Because someone has a different point of view why does that make them uninformed ?

For daring to have an opposing opinion on the speculation that there may be global warming it has been suggested I am a right wing nut job, someone who makes their mind up from listening to someone in a pub , a Dailey Mail reader and my favourite a denier.

The global warming brigade sound like an intolerant lot that doesn't want to listen to anyone else's opinions on the matter and like to hurl insults at anyone daring to oppose their believes.

The problem is, you don't have an opposing opinion. You aren't being daring, or challenging. You are just taking a counter argument because you are either unwilling or unable to comprehend the science that proves both climate change is a very real problem for the planet, and that it is being influenced by man.

Sorry, but you can't have it any other way. There is no science, and no scientists, that dispute this. That is why it is a consensus of opinion. If you think there is or there are, once again it simply displays your ignorance, purposeful or not.

Just a quick google search will give you a whole host of scientists that dispute it. It is not a consensus of opinion at all, I am not even alone on this thread in being sceptical.

You seem to be very blinkered in your believes and unwilling to listen to any opposing views. "

No, a quick Google search will give you the results that you think prove that it's not a consensus, that's all.

You need to do more than simply look at the links. If you read them, and read about the people who dispute the science, you will find that these scientists and their opinions are either discredited, or they are not actually scientists qualified to dispute the evidence.

Being skeptical from a position of ignorance is not actually being a skeptic, you know.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"It's the common misconception that 'global warming' actually means warmer weather, when in fact it means wetter weather as the poles heat up and freeze less every winter, causing a rise in sea levels and more energy for tropical storm, the actual temperature doesn't go up much but all it takes is more time at 1C than at -1C and the ice caps are gone..."

Go to the top of the class!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ce WingerMan  over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ

Wait until someone mentions the Atlantic Conveyor

*runs & hides*

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *inkyScot22Man  over a year ago

Anniesland

Someone convinced me to sum up the argument (that's what I get for going to the pub for lunch with workmates)... In essence the public perception of the global warming debate is the 'Scientists' vs the 'Global Warming Deniers' when, in fact, it's actually the 'Journalist' vs the 'Global Warming Deniers'... the Scientists are actually the ones who hold the position that no matter who's fault it is we have to do something about it anyway... but that's not how to sell more papers...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 26/03/13 15:58:09]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *leasureDomeMan  over a year ago

all over the place


"We were told 13 years ago that Snowfalls are a thing of the past.

Guess what? Snow is still here

The experts went from global warming to climate change

Do you really trust all the so called research on climate?

"

I have thought for a long time its just and excuse to get us all to cut back on fossil fuels as they are running out.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Shocking ignorance above!

Try to read the humour in her post rather than going all critical

I didn't mean lickety. Of course she was just being funny! It's the serious uninformed (daily mail readers') posts that bother me.

Because someone has a different point of view why does that make them uninformed ?

For daring to have an opposing opinion on the speculation that there may be global warming it has been suggested I am a right wing nut job, someone who makes their mind up from listening to someone in a pub , a Dailey Mail reader and my favourite a denier.

The global warming brigade sound like an intolerant lot that doesn't want to listen to anyone else's opinions on the matter and like to hurl insults at anyone daring to oppose their believes.

The problem is, you don't have an opposing opinion. You aren't being daring, or challenging. You are just taking a counter argument because you are either unwilling or unable to comprehend the science that proves both climate change is a very real problem for the planet, and that it is being influenced by man.

Sorry, but you can't have it any other way. There is no science, and no scientists, that dispute this. That is why it is a consensus of opinion. If you think there is or there are, once again it simply displays your ignorance, purposeful or not.

Just a quick google search will give you a whole host of scientists that dispute it. It is not a consensus of opinion at all, I am not even alone on this thread in being sceptical.

You seem to be very blinkered in your believes and unwilling to listen to any opposing views.

No, a quick Google search will give you the results that you think prove that it's not a consensus, that's all.

You need to do more than simply look at the links. If you read them, and read about the people who dispute the science, you will find that these scientists and their opinions are either discredited, or they are not actually scientists qualified to dispute the evidence.

Being skeptical from a position of ignorance is not actually being a skeptic, you know."

does being discredited and being proved to

be wrong mean the same thing now?

all they've had is doubt cast on their

theories.that's no proof of anything either way.And doubt exists in both camps.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Shocking ignorance above!

Try to read the humour in her post rather than going all critical

I didn't mean lickety. Of course she was just being funny! It's the serious uninformed (daily mail readers') posts that bother me.

Because someone has a different point of view why does that make them uninformed ?

For daring to have an opposing opinion on the speculation that there may be global warming it has been suggested I am a right wing nut job, someone who makes their mind up from listening to someone in a pub , a Dailey Mail reader and my favourite a denier.

The global warming brigade sound like an intolerant lot that doesn't want to listen to anyone else's opinions on the matter and like to hurl insults at anyone daring to oppose their believes.

The problem is, you don't have an opposing opinion. You aren't being daring, or challenging. You are just taking a counter argument because you are either unwilling or unable to comprehend the science that proves both climate change is a very real problem for the planet, and that it is being influenced by man.

Sorry, but you can't have it any other way. There is no science, and no scientists, that dispute this. That is why it is a consensus of opinion. If you think there is or there are, once again it simply displays your ignorance, purposeful or not.

Just a quick google search will give you a whole host of scientists that dispute it. It is not a consensus of opinion at all, I am not even alone on this thread in being sceptical.

You seem to be very blinkered in your believes and unwilling to listen to any opposing views.

No, a quick Google search will give you the results that you think prove that it's not a consensus, that's all.

You need to do more than simply look at the links. If you read them, and read about the people who dispute the science, you will find that these scientists and their opinions are either discredited, or they are not actually scientists qualified to dispute the evidence.

Being skeptical from a position of ignorance is not actually being a skeptic, you know."

Why is my position the one of ignorance ? just because I have an opposing point of view doesn't make me ignorant.

It may mean I have read both sides of the argument and have reached my own conclusion instead of blindly following one believe and not listening to other people's thoughts

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *dwalu2Couple  over a year ago

Bristol


"Shocking ignorance above!

Try to read the humour in her post rather than going all critical

I didn't mean lickety. Of course she was just being funny! It's the serious uninformed (daily mail readers') posts that bother me.

Because someone has a different point of view why does that make them uninformed ?

For daring to have an opposing opinion on the speculation that there may be global warming it has been suggested I am a right wing nut job, someone who makes their mind up from listening to someone in a pub , a Dailey Mail reader and my favourite a denier.

The global warming brigade sound like an intolerant lot that doesn't want to listen to anyone else's opinions on the matter and like to hurl insults at anyone daring to oppose their believes.

The problem is, you don't have an opposing opinion. You aren't being daring, or challenging. You are just taking a counter argument because you are either unwilling or unable to comprehend the science that proves both climate change is a very real problem for the planet, and that it is being influenced by man.

Sorry, but you can't have it any other way. There is no science, and no scientists, that dispute this. That is why it is a consensus of opinion. If you think there is or there are, once again it simply displays your ignorance, purposeful or not.

Just a quick google search will give you a whole host of scientists that dispute it. It is not a consensus of opinion at all, I am not even alone on this thread in being sceptical.

You seem to be very blinkered in your believes and unwilling to listen to any opposing views.

No, a quick Google search will give you the results that you think prove that it's not a consensus, that's all.

You need to do more than simply look at the links. If you read them, and read about the people who dispute the science, you will find that these scientists and their opinions are either discredited, or they are not actually scientists qualified to dispute the evidence.

Being skeptical from a position of ignorance is not actually being a skeptic, you know.

does being discredited and being proved to

be wrong mean the same thing now?

all they've had is doubt cast on their

theories.that's no proof of anything either way.And doubt exists in both camps."

Being discredited means that have been proved to be wrong, yes.

And no, doubt does not exist in 'both' camps. There is the science camp, which is a view proven through consistent examination of the available data which leads to the consensus, and there are people who promote a 'counter' view with no evidence to support it.

People who are ignorant of the science think that doubt exists on this issue, but that is not the same thing.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Right, time for the argument ender.

Pro-climate change means we all go green. Recycle lots, use renewable energy, stop polluting as much generally and if global warming turns out to be a myth then the worse we've done is make a cleaner greener planet for the future.

If you assume climate change is bollocks and just burn everything you can get out of the ground, rape all the natural resources and generally be capitalist bastards with no regard for anything but making cash, and it turns out you're wrong. Then you've just fucked up the planet.

Those are the choices. Wether you know the facts or not. There's no "But"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *dwalu2Couple  over a year ago

Bristol


"Shocking ignorance above!

Try to read the humour in her post rather than going all critical

I didn't mean lickety. Of course she was just being funny! It's the serious uninformed (daily mail readers') posts that bother me.

Because someone has a different point of view why does that make them uninformed ?

For daring to have an opposing opinion on the speculation that there may be global warming it has been suggested I am a right wing nut job, someone who makes their mind up from listening to someone in a pub , a Dailey Mail reader and my favourite a denier.

The global warming brigade sound like an intolerant lot that doesn't want to listen to anyone else's opinions on the matter and like to hurl insults at anyone daring to oppose their believes.

The problem is, you don't have an opposing opinion. You aren't being daring, or challenging. You are just taking a counter argument because you are either unwilling or unable to comprehend the science that proves both climate change is a very real problem for the planet, and that it is being influenced by man.

Sorry, but you can't have it any other way. There is no science, and no scientists, that dispute this. That is why it is a consensus of opinion. If you think there is or there are, once again it simply displays your ignorance, purposeful or not.

Just a quick google search will give you a whole host of scientists that dispute it. It is not a consensus of opinion at all, I am not even alone on this thread in being sceptical.

You seem to be very blinkered in your believes and unwilling to listen to any opposing views.

No, a quick Google search will give you the results that you think prove that it's not a consensus, that's all.

You need to do more than simply look at the links. If you read them, and read about the people who dispute the science, you will find that these scientists and their opinions are either discredited, or they are not actually scientists qualified to dispute the evidence.

Being skeptical from a position of ignorance is not actually being a skeptic, you know.

Why is my position the one of ignorance ? just because I have an opposing point of view doesn't make me ignorant.

It may mean I have read both sides of the argument and have reached my own conclusion instead of blindly following one believe and not listening to other people's thoughts"

It clearly doesn't mean that though, does it? Your posts illustrate quite clearly where you stand - and why.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

discredit

tr.v. dis·cred·it·ed, dis·cred·it·ing, dis·cred·its

1. To damage in reputation; disgrace.

2. To cause to be doubted or distrusted.

3. To refuse to believe.

n.

1. Loss of or damage to one's reputation.

2. Lack or loss of trust or belief; doubt.

3. Something damaging to one's reputation or stature.

Nothing about proof there. Doubt yes. Proof no

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Shocking ignorance above!

Try to read the humour in her post rather than going all critical

I didn't mean lickety. Of course she was just being funny! It's the serious uninformed (daily mail readers') posts that bother me.

Because someone has a different point of view why does that make them uninformed ?

For daring to have an opposing opinion on the speculation that there may be global warming it has been suggested I am a right wing nut job, someone who makes their mind up from listening to someone in a pub , a Dailey Mail reader and my favourite a denier.

The global warming brigade sound like an intolerant lot that doesn't want to listen to anyone else's opinions on the matter and like to hurl insults at anyone daring to oppose their believes.

The problem is, you don't have an opposing opinion. You aren't being daring, or challenging. You are just taking a counter argument because you are either unwilling or unable to comprehend the science that proves both climate change is a very real problem for the planet, and that it is being influenced by man.

Sorry, but you can't have it any other way. There is no science, and no scientists, that dispute this. That is why it is a consensus of opinion. If you think there is or there are, once again it simply displays your ignorance, purposeful or not.

Just a quick google search will give you a whole host of scientists that dispute it. It is not a consensus of opinion at all, I am not even alone on this thread in being sceptical.

You seem to be very blinkered in your believes and unwilling to listen to any opposing views.

No, a quick Google search will give you the results that you think prove that it's not a consensus, that's all.

You need to do more than simply look at the links. If you read them, and read about the people who dispute the science, you will find that these scientists and their opinions are either discredited, or they are not actually scientists qualified to dispute the evidence.

Being skeptical from a position of ignorance is not actually being a skeptic, you know.

does being discredited and being proved to

be wrong mean the same thing now?

all they've had is doubt cast on their

theories.that's no proof of anything either way.And doubt exists in both camps.

Being discredited means that have been proved to be wrong, yes.

And no, doubt does not exist in 'both' camps. There is the science camp, which is a view proven through consistent examination of the available data which leads to the consensus, and there are people who promote a 'counter' view with no evidence to support it.

People who are ignorant of the science think that doubt exists on this issue, but that is not the same thing."

You are very fervent in your believes but I think it is clouding your judgement somewhat. With the opinion I am right and everyone else is ignorant you will not learn anything.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *dwalu2Couple  over a year ago

Bristol


"discredit

tr.v. dis·cred·it·ed, dis·cred·it·ing, dis·cred·its

1. To damage in reputation; disgrace.

2. To cause to be doubted or distrusted.

3. To refuse to believe.

n.

1. Loss of or damage to one's reputation.

2. Lack or loss of trust or belief; doubt.

3. Something damaging to one's reputation or stature.

Nothing about proof there. Doubt yes. Proof no"

Of course, being proved to be wrong could result in any or all of those things, so your point is moot.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

It's a very strange phenomenon when so many believe something because the papers tell them so. Scientists have often complained over the last few decades, that money is not available to research anything that goes against the fossil fuel / greenhouse effect philosophy. But of course they are just nut jobs, as they don't have a grant and are not part of an established research facility

Whilst at the same time so many completely ignore the Oxygen v Carbon battles that have raged on this planet for aeons and decide it's all down to underarm deodorant we used between 1973 and 1977 when we realised our mistake!

Bottom line is global warming is happening, it's been happening for about 110,000 years since the Pleistocene age. though that may be wrong cos apparently God only made this place 6,000 years ago.

It's a sign of human arrogance that we have decided it's our fault, and even more arrogance that we are researching how to stop it.

One day I hope that the government and other funding agencies stop pouring money into generating panic, and instead figures out how subsequent generations can live on a planet with more water and less ice, or alternatively more ice and less water.

Very little has arrived or left this place since it got here possibly about 4 billion years back only the balance shifts and we either learn to shift with it or start being the fossil fuel for the next attempt.

And apart from all that Minx'y did it, those fluttering eyelashes are fooling nobody.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"discredit

tr.v. dis·cred·it·ed, dis·cred·it·ing, dis·cred·its

1. To damage in reputation; disgrace.

2. To cause to be doubted or distrusted.

3. To refuse to believe.

n.

1. Loss of or damage to one's reputation.

2. Lack or loss of trust or belief; doubt.

3. Something damaging to one's reputation or stature.

Nothing about proof there. Doubt yes. Proof no

Of course, being proved to be wrong could result in any or all of those things, so your point is moot."

yeah but it's handy if the proof is supplied first. that's hard irrefutable proof. got any of that?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *dwalu2Couple  over a year ago

Bristol


"Shocking ignorance above!

Try to read the humour in her post rather than going all critical

I didn't mean lickety. Of course she was just being funny! It's the serious uninformed (daily mail readers') posts that bother me.

Because someone has a different point of view why does that make them uninformed ?

For daring to have an opposing opinion on the speculation that there may be global warming it has been suggested I am a right wing nut job, someone who makes their mind up from listening to someone in a pub , a Dailey Mail reader and my favourite a denier.

The global warming brigade sound like an intolerant lot that doesn't want to listen to anyone else's opinions on the matter and like to hurl insults at anyone daring to oppose their believes.

The problem is, you don't have an opposing opinion. You aren't being daring, or challenging. You are just taking a counter argument because you are either unwilling or unable to comprehend the science that proves both climate change is a very real problem for the planet, and that it is being influenced by man.

Sorry, but you can't have it any other way. There is no science, and no scientists, that dispute this. That is why it is a consensus of opinion. If you think there is or there are, once again it simply displays your ignorance, purposeful or not.

Just a quick google search will give you a whole host of scientists that dispute it. It is not a consensus of opinion at all, I am not even alone on this thread in being sceptical.

You seem to be very blinkered in your believes and unwilling to listen to any opposing views.

No, a quick Google search will give you the results that you think prove that it's not a consensus, that's all.

You need to do more than simply look at the links. If you read them, and read about the people who dispute the science, you will find that these scientists and their opinions are either discredited, or they are not actually scientists qualified to dispute the evidence.

Being skeptical from a position of ignorance is not actually being a skeptic, you know.

does being discredited and being proved to

be wrong mean the same thing now?

all they've had is doubt cast on their

theories.that's no proof of anything either way.And doubt exists in both camps.

Being discredited means that have been proved to be wrong, yes.

And no, doubt does not exist in 'both' camps. There is the science camp, which is a view proven through consistent examination of the available data which leads to the consensus, and there are people who promote a 'counter' view with no evidence to support it.

People who are ignorant of the science think that doubt exists on this issue, but that is not the same thing.

You are very fervent in your believes but I think it is clouding your judgement somewhat. With the opinion I am right and everyone else is ignorant you will not learn anything. "

Facts are different from beliefs. Recognising them, and observing when someone else does not, does not make one either a fervent believer, or clouded in judgement...merely informed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Ok climate change is a left wing conspiracy so lets do nothing ..a tactic primarily espoused in america. Are you all prepared to gamble with the lives of your children and grand children by sticking your heads in the sand

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I'm entirely solar...I get the rise everymorning

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Ok climate change is a left wing conspiracy so lets do nothing ..a tactic primarily espoused in america. Are you all prepared to gamble with the lives of your children and grand children by sticking your heads in the sand"

There are other choices, accept change and develop working cleaner technologies, may be better for future generations than trying to press pause on evolution.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *dwalu2Couple  over a year ago

Bristol


"discredit

tr.v. dis·cred·it·ed, dis·cred·it·ing, dis·cred·its

1. To damage in reputation; disgrace.

2. To cause to be doubted or distrusted.

3. To refuse to believe.

n.

1. Loss of or damage to one's reputation.

2. Lack or loss of trust or belief; doubt.

3. Something damaging to one's reputation or stature.

Nothing about proof there. Doubt yes. Proof no

Of course, being proved to be wrong could result in any or all of those things, so your point is moot.

yeah but it's handy if the proof is supplied first. that's hard irrefutable proof. got any of that?"

Pick a climate change 'scientist' who disputes the science, then go to Google...you'll find all the proof you need, as hard and irrefutable as you like.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Ok climate change is a left wing conspiracy so lets do nothing ..a tactic primarily espoused in america. Are you all prepared to gamble with the lives of your children and grand children by sticking your heads in the sand"

Al Gore is left wing????

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"It's a very strange phenomenon when so many believe something because the papers tell them so. Scientists have often complained over the last few decades, that money is not available to research anything that goes against the fossil fuel / greenhouse effect philosophy. But of course they are just nut jobs, as they don't have a grant and are not part of an established research facility

Whilst at the same time so many completely ignore the Oxygen v Carbon battles that have raged on this planet for aeons and decide it's all down to underarm deodorant we used between 1973 and 1977 when we realised our mistake!

Bottom line is global warming is happening, it's been happening for about 110,000 years since the Pleistocene age. though that may be wrong cos apparently God only made this place 6,000 years ago.

It's a sign of human arrogance that we have decided it's our fault, and even more arrogance that we are researching how to stop it.

One day I hope that the government and other funding agencies stop pouring money into generating panic, and instead figures out how subsequent generations can live on a planet with more water and less ice, or alternatively more ice and less water.

Very little has arrived or left this place since it got here possibly about 4 billion years back only the balance shifts and we either learn to shift with it or start being the fossil fuel for the next attempt.

And apart from all that Minx'y did it, those fluttering eyelashes are fooling nobody."

oiiiiii I am not 4 billion years old ..... ancient yes... that old no

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I think they got it completely wrong. The governments of the time took the advice of a few scientists without really doing their own research. Now that we have been extorniatly taxed for the last decade or so they can hardly say they were wrong and pay us back can they.

There is lots of evidence to prove global warming is a complete myth. "
like a rise in the earths temperature over the last few decades ...some myth...by the same token evolution is a myth

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Climate change is an unavoidable, NATURAL occurance.

Any one who says otherwise is an idiot. Any scientist in the world (if they believe in "global warming" or not) and anyone with half a brain cant dispute that.

What scientists disagree with, is the effect that humans are having on the environment and the rate and type of climate change.

The planet is over due a cooling period, and yet we are seeing a sharp increase in temperatures on average, across the globe.

The phrase "global warming" should not be taken literally.

This thread is a complete joke and a worrying reflection of the general publics dangerous attitude to the problems of climate change.

The planet IS changing, and we may or may not be to blame for that, its irrelevant. What we should be doing is investing everything we have into preparing for the huge changes we will see over the next few centuries, if we want to continue this standard of living.

If anyone wants to dispute climate change, go ahead-because you'll be wrong.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"discredit

tr.v. dis·cred·it·ed, dis·cred·it·ing, dis·cred·its

1. To damage in reputation; disgrace.

2. To cause to be doubted or distrusted.

3. To refuse to believe.

n.

1. Loss of or damage to one's reputation.

2. Lack or loss of trust or belief; doubt.

3. Something damaging to one's reputation or stature.

Nothing about proof there. Doubt yes. Proof no

Of course, being proved to be wrong could result in any or all of those things, so your point is moot.

yeah but it's handy if the proof is supplied first. that's hard irrefutable proof. got any of that?

Pick a climate change 'scientist' who disputes the science, then go to Google...you'll find all the proof you need, as hard and irrefutable as you like."

but do you agree being discredited by scientists who already believe its happening isn't the same as being proven to be wrong?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Shocking ignorance above!

Try to read the humour in her post rather than going all critical

I didn't mean lickety. Of course she was just being funny! It's the serious uninformed (daily mail readers') posts that bother me.

Because someone has a different point of view why does that make them uninformed ?

For daring to have an opposing opinion on the speculation that there may be global warming it has been suggested I am a right wing nut job, someone who makes their mind up from listening to someone in a pub , a Dailey Mail reader and my favourite a denier.

The global warming brigade sound like an intolerant lot that doesn't want to listen to anyone else's opinions on the matter and like to hurl insults at anyone daring to oppose their believes.

The problem is, you don't have an opposing opinion. You aren't being daring, or challenging. You are just taking a counter argument because you are either unwilling or unable to comprehend the science that proves both climate change is a very real problem for the planet, and that it is being influenced by man.

Sorry, but you can't have it any other way. There is no science, and no scientists, that dispute this. That is why it is a consensus of opinion. If you think there is or there are, once again it simply displays your ignorance, purposeful or not.

Just a quick google search will give you a whole host of scientists that dispute it. It is not a consensus of opinion at all, I am not even alone on this thread in being sceptical.

You seem to be very blinkered in your believes and unwilling to listen to any opposing views.

No, a quick Google search will give you the results that you think prove that it's not a consensus, that's all.

You need to do more than simply look at the links. If you read them, and read about the people who dispute the science, you will find that these scientists and their opinions are either discredited, or they are not actually scientists qualified to dispute the evidence.

Being skeptical from a position of ignorance is not actually being a skeptic, you know.

does being discredited and being proved to

be wrong mean the same thing now?

all they've had is doubt cast on their

theories.that's no proof of anything either way.And doubt exists in both camps.

Being discredited means that have been proved to be wrong, yes.

And no, doubt does not exist in 'both' camps. There is the science camp, which is a view proven through consistent examination of the available data which leads to the consensus, and there are people who promote a 'counter' view with no evidence to support it.

People who are ignorant of the science think that doubt exists on this issue, but that is not the same thing.

You are very fervent in your believes but I think it is clouding your judgement somewhat. With the opinion I am right and everyone else is ignorant you will not learn anything.

Facts are different from beliefs. Recognising them, and observing when someone else does not, does not make one either a fervent believer, or clouded in judgement...merely informed."

So every "denier" is I'll informed and ignorant ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Climate change is an unavoidable, NATURAL occurance.

Any one who says otherwise is an idiot. Any scientist in the world (if they believe in "global warming" or not) and anyone with half a brain cant dispute that.

What scientists disagree with, is the effect that humans are having on the environment and the rate and type of climate change.

The planet is over due a cooling period, and yet we are seeing a sharp increase in temperatures on average, across the globe.

The phrase "global warming" should not be taken literally.

This thread is a complete joke and a worrying reflection of the general publics dangerous attitude to the problems of climate change.

The planet IS changing, and we may or may not be to blame for that, its irrelevant. What we should be doing is investing everything we have into preparing for the huge changes we will see over the next few centuries, if we want to continue this standard of living.

If anyone wants to dispute climate change, go ahead-because you'll be wrong."

exactly right, invest in solutions instead of blame.

Oblique reference to OP It's still bloody cold outside..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *dwalu2Couple  over a year ago

Bristol


"Shocking ignorance above!

Try to read the humour in her post rather than going all critical

I didn't mean lickety. Of course she was just being funny! It's the serious uninformed (daily mail readers') posts that bother me.

Because someone has a different point of view why does that make them uninformed ?

For daring to have an opposing opinion on the speculation that there may be global warming it has been suggested I am a right wing nut job, someone who makes their mind up from listening to someone in a pub , a Dailey Mail reader and my favourite a denier.

The global warming brigade sound like an intolerant lot that doesn't want to listen to anyone else's opinions on the matter and like to hurl insults at anyone daring to oppose their believes.

The problem is, you don't have an opposing opinion. You aren't being daring, or challenging. You are just taking a counter argument because you are either unwilling or unable to comprehend the science that proves both climate change is a very real problem for the planet, and that it is being influenced by man.

Sorry, but you can't have it any other way. There is no science, and no scientists, that dispute this. That is why it is a consensus of opinion. If you think there is or there are, once again it simply displays your ignorance, purposeful or not.

Just a quick google search will give you a whole host of scientists that dispute it. It is not a consensus of opinion at all, I am not even alone on this thread in being sceptical.

You seem to be very blinkered in your believes and unwilling to listen to any opposing views.

No, a quick Google search will give you the results that you think prove that it's not a consensus, that's all.

You need to do more than simply look at the links. If you read them, and read about the people who dispute the science, you will find that these scientists and their opinions are either discredited, or they are not actually scientists qualified to dispute the evidence.

Being skeptical from a position of ignorance is not actually being a skeptic, you know.

does being discredited and being proved to

be wrong mean the same thing now?

all they've had is doubt cast on their

theories.that's no proof of anything either way.And doubt exists in both camps.

Being discredited means that have been proved to be wrong, yes.

And no, doubt does not exist in 'both' camps. There is the science camp, which is a view proven through consistent examination of the available data which leads to the consensus, and there are people who promote a 'counter' view with no evidence to support it.

People who are ignorant of the science think that doubt exists on this issue, but that is not the same thing.

You are very fervent in your believes but I think it is clouding your judgement somewhat. With the opinion I am right and everyone else is ignorant you will not learn anything.

Facts are different from beliefs. Recognising them, and observing when someone else does not, does not make one either a fervent believer, or clouded in judgement...merely informed.

So every "denier" is I'll informed and ignorant ? "

Yes, every 'denier' is ill-informed, and ignorant.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

One volcano (A natural occurring feat of nature) would burn as much fossil fuel as we have since the beginning of the industrial revolution within a week. Every fuel we concoct is made up of resources that would be here anyway and would have at one time been burning along with the earth and its core.

Dont believe the hype, culture of fear designed to mitigate taxation and rocket fuel prices, fuel capitalist consumerism through products to reduce or socially constructed 'Carbon Foot-print' Global climate change has been in cycle for millennia.... Xtra

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *dwalu2Couple  over a year ago

Bristol


"discredit

tr.v. dis·cred·it·ed, dis·cred·it·ing, dis·cred·its

1. To damage in reputation; disgrace.

2. To cause to be doubted or distrusted.

3. To refuse to believe.

n.

1. Loss of or damage to one's reputation.

2. Lack or loss of trust or belief; doubt.

3. Something damaging to one's reputation or stature.

Nothing about proof there. Doubt yes. Proof no

Of course, being proved to be wrong could result in any or all of those things, so your point is moot.

yeah but it's handy if the proof is supplied first. that's hard irrefutable proof. got any of that?

Pick a climate change 'scientist' who disputes the science, then go to Google...you'll find all the proof you need, as hard and irrefutable as you like.

but do you agree being discredited by scientists who already believe its happening isn't the same as being proven to be wrong?"

Not discredited by scientists, discredited by science. It's quite different.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *Ryan-Man  over a year ago

In Your Bush


"Right, time for the argument ender."

Jodie you fibbed

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"One volcano (A natural occurring feat of nature) would burn as much fossil fuel as we have since the beginning of the industrial revolution within a week. Every fuel we concoct is made up of resources that would be here anyway and would have at one time been burning along with the earth and its core.

Dont believe the hype, culture of fear designed to mitigate taxation and rocket fuel prices, fuel capitalist consumerism through products to reduce or socially constructed 'Carbon Foot-print' Global climate change has been in cycle for millennia.... Xtra "

Youre forgetting that the fuels we use, are being used, whereas without us they would be still sitting in the ground.

Burning them off, for example is turning them into something is massive quantities that they wouldnt be, naturally and upsetting a very precise balance.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Shocking ignorance above!

Try to read the humour in her post rather than going all critical

I didn't mean lickety. Of course she was just being funny! It's the serious uninformed (daily mail readers') posts that bother me.

Because someone has a different point of view why does that make them uninformed ?

For daring to have an opposing opinion on the speculation that there may be global warming it has been suggested I am a right wing nut job, someone who makes their mind up from listening to someone in a pub , a Dailey Mail reader and my favourite a denier.

The global warming brigade sound like an intolerant lot that doesn't want to listen to anyone else's opinions on the matter and like to hurl insults at anyone daring to oppose their believes.

The problem is, you don't have an opposing opinion. You aren't being daring, or challenging. You are just taking a counter argument because you are either unwilling or unable to comprehend the science that proves both climate change is a very real problem for the planet, and that it is being influenced by man.

Sorry, but you can't have it any other way. There is no science, and no scientists, that dispute this. That is why it is a consensus of opinion. If you think there is or there are, once again it simply displays your ignorance, purposeful or not.

Just a quick google search will give you a whole host of scientists that dispute it. It is not a consensus of opinion at all, I am not even alone on this thread in being sceptical.

You seem to be very blinkered in your believes and unwilling to listen to any opposing views.

No, a quick Google search will give you the results that you think prove that it's not a consensus, that's all.

You need to do more than simply look at the links. If you read them, and read about the people who dispute the science, you will find that these scientists and their opinions are either discredited, or they are not actually scientists qualified to dispute the evidence.

Being skeptical from a position of ignorance is not actually being a skeptic, you know.

does being discredited and being proved to

be wrong mean the same thing now?

all they've had is doubt cast on their

theories.that's no proof of anything either way.And doubt exists in both camps.

Being discredited means that have been proved to be wrong, yes.

And no, doubt does not exist in 'both' camps. There is the science camp, which is a view proven through consistent examination of the available data which leads to the consensus, and there are people who promote a 'counter' view with no evidence to support it.

People who are ignorant of the science think that doubt exists on this issue, but that is not the same thing.

You are very fervent in your believes but I think it is clouding your judgement somewhat. With the opinion I am right and everyone else is ignorant you will not learn anything.

Facts are different from beliefs. Recognising them, and observing when someone else does not, does not make one either a fervent believer, or clouded in judgement...merely informed.

So every "denier" is I'll informed and ignorant ?

Yes, every 'denier' is ill-informed, and ignorant."

How very blinkered if you. The prophet Al Gore ( peace be upon him) will be very proud of you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

well i dunno..perhaps i talk shit...again, as some have said they expect some big changes over the next X amount of years..

Ive already said I think they have really started doing calculations to address the issue, namely that of moving resources around the world..which includes building infrastructure to third world countries..however while trying to maintain global dominance, 'we' wouldnt just hand over our technology (a reason why we dont want some countries/regimes doing more nuclear research)(perhaps thats a defensive mechanism or indeed that we know of the dangers to well).

conspiracy or not..I dont think they are sitting on their arses with no contingency plans on the inevitable changes.

a simple fact really...if one half of the world suddenly became uninhabitable, we all know for certain..not every person could be allowed to migrate to safer zones,...animals trapped in small confines with no resources end up dying or eating eachother...we really arent that different.Everyone knows that...whether we hate to admit it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *dwalu2Couple  over a year ago

Bristol


"Climate change is an unavoidable, NATURAL occurance.

Any one who says otherwise is an idiot. Any scientist in the world (if they believe in "global warming" or not) and anyone with half a brain cant dispute that.

What scientists disagree with, is the effect that humans are having on the environment and the rate and type of climate change.

The planet is over due a cooling period, and yet we are seeing a sharp increase in temperatures on average, across the globe.

The phrase "global warming" should not be taken literally.

This thread is a complete joke and a worrying reflection of the general publics dangerous attitude to the problems of climate change.

The planet IS changing, and we may or may not be to blame for that, its irrelevant. What we should be doing is investing everything we have into preparing for the huge changes we will see over the next few centuries, if we want to continue this standard of living.

If anyone wants to dispute climate change, go ahead-because you'll be wrong."

Once again, scientists do not dispute the effect that humans are having. The scientific consensus is that climate change in the 20th century can be attributed in part to human activity. They do not discount natural forces, but the evidence suggests that it is extremely unlikely that the climate change is due to external forces alone.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Shocking ignorance above!

Try to read the humour in her post rather than going all critical

I didn't mean lickety. Of course she was just being funny! It's the serious uninformed (daily mail readers') posts that bother me.

Because someone has a different point of view why does that make them uninformed ?

For daring to have an opposing opinion on the speculation that there may be global warming it has been suggested I am a right wing nut job, someone who makes their mind up from listening to someone in a pub , a Dailey Mail reader and my favourite a denier.

The global warming brigade sound like an intolerant lot that doesn't want to listen to anyone else's opinions on the matter and like to hurl insults at anyone daring to oppose their believes.

The problem is, you don't have an opposing opinion. You aren't being daring, or challenging. You are just taking a counter argument because you are either unwilling or unable to comprehend the science that proves both climate change is a very real problem for the planet, and that it is being influenced by man.

Sorry, but you can't have it any other way. There is no science, and no scientists, that dispute this. That is why it is a consensus of opinion. If you think there is or there are, once again it simply displays your ignorance, purposeful or not.

Just a quick google search will give you a whole host of scientists that dispute it. It is not a consensus of opinion at all, I am not even alone on this thread in being sceptical.

You seem to be very blinkered in your believes and unwilling to listen to any opposing views.

No, a quick Google search will give you the results that you think prove that it's not a consensus, that's all.

You need to do more than simply look at the links. If you read them, and read about the people who dispute the science, you will find that these scientists and their opinions are either discredited, or they are not actually scientists qualified to dispute the evidence.

Being skeptical from a position of ignorance is not actually being a skeptic, you know.

does being discredited and being proved to

be wrong mean the same thing now?

all they've had is doubt cast on their

theories.that's no proof of anything either way.And doubt exists in both camps.

Being discredited means that have been proved to be wrong, yes.

And no, doubt does not exist in 'both' camps. There is the science camp, which is a view proven through consistent examination of the available data which leads to the consensus, and there are people who promote a 'counter' view with no evidence to support it.

People who are ignorant of the science think that doubt exists on this issue, but that is not the same thing.

You are very fervent in your believes but I think it is clouding your judgement somewhat. With the opinion I am right and everyone else is ignorant you will not learn anything.

Facts are different from beliefs. Recognising them, and observing when someone else does not, does not make one either a fervent believer, or clouded in judgement...merely informed.

So every "denier" is I'll informed and ignorant ?

Yes, every 'denier' is ill-informed, and ignorant.

How very blinkered if you. The prophet Al Gore ( peace be upon him) will be very proud of you. "

Anyone who denies climate is wrong, simple as that. Now, anyone who thinks that global warming is horse crap, but recognises climate change as fact, i have more time for.

If you think that the people who belive in climate change are all Al Gore fans, more research is needed.

Its fine to have an opinion as long as its based on facts.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Climate change is an unavoidable, NATURAL occurance.

Any one who says otherwise is an idiot. Any scientist in the world (if they believe in "global warming" or not) and anyone with half a brain cant dispute that.

What scientists disagree with, is the effect that humans are having on the environment and the rate and type of climate change.

The planet is over due a cooling period, and yet we are seeing a sharp increase in temperatures on average, across the globe.

The phrase "global warming" should not be taken literally.

This thread is a complete joke and a worrying reflection of the general publics dangerous attitude to the problems of climate change.

The planet IS changing, and we may or may not be to blame for that, its irrelevant. What we should be doing is investing everything we have into preparing for the huge changes we will see over the next few centuries, if we want to continue this standard of living.

If anyone wants to dispute climate change, go ahead-because you'll be wrong.

Once again, scientists do not dispute the effect that humans are having. The scientific consensus is that climate change in the 20th century can be attributed in part to human activity. They do not discount natural forces, but the evidence suggests that it is extremely unlikely that the climate change is due to external forces alone."

The evidence suggests ,do not discount, it is extremely unlikely , not irrefutable then ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Look at the last ice age, it's been warming up ever since natural progression, until the next rock that hits us and then causes a ice age! Until then we can be tax to death to Pay for the government hanger on's. the government can't manage the country how the hell can they manage the climate !!!! We all wellcom £475 tax for a large family car don't we?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Shocking ignorance above!

Try to read the humour in her post rather than going all critical

I didn't mean lickety. Of course she was just being funny! It's the serious uninformed (daily mail readers') posts that bother me.

Because someone has a different point of view why does that make them uninformed ?

For daring to have an opposing opinion on the speculation that there may be global warming it has been suggested I am a right wing nut job, someone who makes their mind up from listening to someone in a pub , a Dailey Mail reader and my favourite a denier.

The global warming brigade sound like an intolerant lot that doesn't want to listen to anyone else's opinions on the matter and like to hurl insults at anyone daring to oppose their believes.

The problem is, you don't have an opposing opinion. You aren't being daring, or challenging. You are just taking a counter argument because you are either unwilling or unable to comprehend the science that proves both climate change is a very real problem for the planet, and that it is being influenced by man.

Sorry, but you can't have it any other way. There is no science, and no scientists, that dispute this. That is why it is a consensus of opinion. If you think there is or there are, once again it simply displays your ignorance, purposeful or not.

Just a quick google search will give you a whole host of scientists that dispute it. It is not a consensus of opinion at all, I am not even alone on this thread in being sceptical.

You seem to be very blinkered in your believes and unwilling to listen to any opposing views.

No, a quick Google search will give you the results that you think prove that it's not a consensus, that's all.

You need to do more than simply look at the links. If you read them, and read about the people who dispute the science, you will find that these scientists and their opinions are either discredited, or they are not actually scientists qualified to dispute the evidence.

Being skeptical from a position of ignorance is not actually being a skeptic, you know.

does being discredited and being proved to

be wrong mean the same thing now?

all they've had is doubt cast on their

theories.that's no proof of anything either way.And doubt exists in both camps.

Being discredited means that have been proved to be wrong, yes.

And no, doubt does not exist in 'both' camps. There is the science camp, which is a view proven through consistent examination of the available data which leads to the consensus, and there are people who promote a 'counter' view with no evidence to support it.

People who are ignorant of the science think that doubt exists on this issue, but that is not the same thing.

You are very fervent in your believes but I think it is clouding your judgement somewhat. With the opinion I am right and everyone else is ignorant you will not learn anything.

Facts are different from beliefs. Recognising them, and observing when someone else does not, does not make one either a fervent believer, or clouded in judgement...merely informed.

So every "denier" is I'll informed and ignorant ?

Yes, every 'denier' is ill-informed, and ignorant.

How very blinkered if you. The prophet Al Gore ( peace be upon him) will be very proud of you.

Anyone who denies climate is wrong, simple as that. Now, anyone who thinks that global warming is horse crap, but recognises climate change as fact, i have more time for.

If you think that the people who belive in climate change are all Al Gore fans, more research is needed.

Its fine to have an opinion as long as its based on facts."

A light hearted attempt at humour but as one famous scientist said humour is illogical.

Of course I believe in climate change , it's what causes it is what is up for discussion , or not if the zealots have their way.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"One volcano (A natural occurring feat of nature) would burn as much fossil fuel as we have since the beginning of the industrial revolution within a week. Every fuel we concoct is made up of resources that would be here anyway and would have at one time been burning along with the earth and its core.

Dont believe the hype, culture of fear designed to mitigate taxation and rocket fuel prices, fuel capitalist consumerism through products to reduce or socially constructed 'Carbon Foot-print' Global climate change has been in cycle for millennia.... Xtra

Youre forgetting that the fuels we use, are being used, whereas without us they would be still sitting in the ground.

Burning them off, for example is turning them into something is massive quantities that they wouldnt be, naturally and upsetting a very precise balance."

Agreed- But are we not natural beings of the earth to this 'Balance' and regardless of industrialisation would be burning fuels for our survival. I dont dispute our influence, only the scale at which it is being disputed. So its all fine and part of the natural 'Balance' if a Volcano erupts ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Climate change is an unavoidable, NATURAL occurance.

Any one who says otherwise is an idiot. Any scientist in the world (if they believe in "global warming" or not) and anyone with half a brain cant dispute that.

What scientists disagree with, is the effect that humans are having on the environment and the rate and type of climate change.

The planet is over due a cooling period, and yet we are seeing a sharp increase in temperatures on average, across the globe.

The phrase "global warming" should not be taken literally.

This thread is a complete joke and a worrying reflection of the general publics dangerous attitude to the problems of climate change.

The planet IS changing, and we may or may not be to blame for that, its irrelevant. What we should be doing is investing everything we have into preparing for the huge changes we will see over the next few centuries, if we want to continue this standard of living.

If anyone wants to dispute climate change, go ahead-because you'll be wrong.

Once again, scientists do not dispute the effect that humans are having. The scientific consensus is that climate change in the 20th century can be attributed in part to human activity. They do not discount natural forces, but the evidence suggests that it is extremely unlikely that the climate change is due to external forces alone.

The evidence suggests ,do not discount, it is extremely unlikely , not irrefutable then ? "

In Quaternary sciences, it is thought that the current warming spike in our interglacial period can be attributed to human influences.

If we looked back in geological history and saw this kind of spike we would never assume it was natural-not over such a short space of time.

Scientists acknowledge that it is possible the current warming trend is natural, but that is only because they are open minded and consider all the options.

Its incredibly unlikely that at what should be the end of an inter-glacial period, an average increase appears.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *dwalu2Couple  over a year ago

Bristol


"Climate change is an unavoidable, NATURAL occurance.

Any one who says otherwise is an idiot. Any scientist in the world (if they believe in "global warming" or not) and anyone with half a brain cant dispute that.

What scientists disagree with, is the effect that humans are having on the environment and the rate and type of climate change.

The planet is over due a cooling period, and yet we are seeing a sharp increase in temperatures on average, across the globe.

The phrase "global warming" should not be taken literally.

This thread is a complete joke and a worrying reflection of the general publics dangerous attitude to the problems of climate change.

The planet IS changing, and we may or may not be to blame for that, its irrelevant. What we should be doing is investing everything we have into preparing for the huge changes we will see over the next few centuries, if we want to continue this standard of living.

If anyone wants to dispute climate change, go ahead-because you'll be wrong.

Once again, scientists do not dispute the effect that humans are having. The scientific consensus is that climate change in the 20th century can be attributed in part to human activity. They do not discount natural forces, but the evidence suggests that it is extremely unlikely that the climate change is due to external forces alone.

The evidence suggests ,do not discount, it is extremely unlikely , not irrefutable then ? "

No scientist would ever say something is irrefutable, as that would be unscientific. Scientific methodology always allows for new data or examination techniques to affect conclusions...this is why creationists get so mixed up between scientific theory and scientific fact.

Extremely unlikely is as close to irrefutable as you can get though, yes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"One volcano (A natural occurring feat of nature) would burn as much fossil fuel as we have since the beginning of the industrial revolution within a week. Every fuel we concoct is made up of resources that would be here anyway and would have at one time been burning along with the earth and its core.

Dont believe the hype, culture of fear designed to mitigate taxation and rocket fuel prices, fuel capitalist consumerism through products to reduce or socially constructed 'Carbon Foot-print' Global climate change has been in cycle for millennia.... Xtra

Youre forgetting that the fuels we use, are being used, whereas without us they would be still sitting in the ground.

Burning them off, for example is turning them into something is massive quantities that they wouldnt be, naturally and upsetting a very precise balance.

Agreed- But are we not natural beings of the earth to this 'Balance' and regardless of industrialisation would be burning fuels for our survival. I dont dispute our influence, only the scale at which it is being disputed. So its all fine and part of the natural 'Balance' if a Volcano erupts ? "

It would still disrupt things if a volcano erupts, and yes, we would still be burning fuels if we hadnt industrialised. BUT thousands of years ago we were living a more sustainable existance. Things were being used up and absorbed at a sustainable rate, unlike today.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Anyone think that my dissertation supervisor will be a little shocked if i quote "fabswingers" as a source of public research?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Anyone think that my dissertation supervisor will be a little shocked if i quote "fabswingers" as a source of public research? "
it certainly would spice up te conversation!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

sorta reverse thinking: watching the possibly sensationalist programme "aftermath population zero",

we only actually have to look at our impact on the earths environment from that to show us that we already have both a positive influence and a negative influence as we speak.

we impact the world by existing as we do

and itd continue probably after a few hundred thousand years, even if we left tomorrow

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Climate change is an unavoidable, NATURAL occurance.

Any one who says otherwise is an idiot. Any scientist in the world (if they believe in "global warming" or not) and anyone with half a brain cant dispute that.

What scientists disagree with, is the effect that humans are having on the environment and the rate and type of climate change.

The planet is over due a cooling period, and yet we are seeing a sharp increase in temperatures on average, across the globe.

The phrase "global warming" should not be taken literally.

This thread is a complete joke and a worrying reflection of the general publics dangerous attitude to the problems of climate change.

The planet IS changing, and we may or may not be to blame for that, its irrelevant. What we should be doing is investing everything we have into preparing for the huge changes we will see over the next few centuries, if we want to continue this standard of living.

If anyone wants to dispute climate change, go ahead-because you'll be wrong.

Once again, scientists do not dispute the effect that humans are having. The scientific consensus is that climate change in the 20th century can be attributed in part to human activity. They do not discount natural forces, but the evidence suggests that it is extremely unlikely that the climate change is due to external forces alone.

The evidence suggests ,do not discount, it is extremely unlikely , not irrefutable then ?

No scientist would ever say something is irrefutable, as that would be unscientific. Scientific methodology always allows for new data or examination techniques to affect conclusions...this is why creationists get so mixed up between scientific theory and scientific fact.

Extremely unlikely is as close to irrefutable as you can get though, yes."

So the scientists who take the opposing view are not irrefutably wrong ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Wait until someone mentions the Atlantic Conveyor

*runs & hides* "

What has the sinking of our Logistic Support Ship in the Falklands Conflict got to do with global warming?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Anyone think that my dissertation supervisor will be a little shocked if i quote "fabswingers" as a source of public research? "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *dwalu2Couple  over a year ago

Bristol


"Climate change is an unavoidable, NATURAL occurance.

Any one who says otherwise is an idiot. Any scientist in the world (if they believe in "global warming" or not) and anyone with half a brain cant dispute that.

What scientists disagree with, is the effect that humans are having on the environment and the rate and type of climate change.

The planet is over due a cooling period, and yet we are seeing a sharp increase in temperatures on average, across the globe.

The phrase "global warming" should not be taken literally.

This thread is a complete joke and a worrying reflection of the general publics dangerous attitude to the problems of climate change.

The planet IS changing, and we may or may not be to blame for that, its irrelevant. What we should be doing is investing everything we have into preparing for the huge changes we will see over the next few centuries, if we want to continue this standard of living.

If anyone wants to dispute climate change, go ahead-because you'll be wrong.

Once again, scientists do not dispute the effect that humans are having. The scientific consensus is that climate change in the 20th century can be attributed in part to human activity. They do not discount natural forces, but the evidence suggests that it is extremely unlikely that the climate change is due to external forces alone.

The evidence suggests ,do not discount, it is extremely unlikely , not irrefutable then ?

No scientist would ever say something is irrefutable, as that would be unscientific. Scientific methodology always allows for new data or examination techniques to affect conclusions...this is why creationists get so mixed up between scientific theory and scientific fact.

Extremely unlikely is as close to irrefutable as you can get though, yes.

So the scientists who take the opposing view are not irrefutably wrong ? "

That is not what this post means, no.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *UNKIEMan  over a year ago

south east


"

its amazing how many large and super volcanoes are over due eruptions. So climate change doesn't bother me. We are just in a warm part of a cycle. It wouldn't take much to plummet us back to an ice age.

"

Warm part of a cycle!!! Warm part!!!!...have you been outside ....ITS FECKING BALTIC

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

think theyre off googlingfactfinding........

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Anyone think that my dissertation supervisor will be a little shocked if i quote "fabswingers" as a source of public research? "

So your doing a dissertation (Nicely plugged) and good luck, their fun.....Back to Global from perspective of Gov and all the 'Hype'.

Truth is we needn't even burn Oil any more, we have the technology and means to reduce our carbon foot-print radically- Capitalisms and economics require oil as the Global system has been founded on this black Gold- so what is all this taxation and culture of fear really about , our climate- or Economics ?

Discuss !?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Anyone think that my dissertation supervisor will be a little shocked if i quote "fabswingers" as a source of public research?

So your doing a dissertation (Nicely plugged) and good luck, their fun.....Back to Global from perspective of Gov and all the 'Hype'.

Truth is we needn't even burn Oil any more, we have the technology and means to reduce our carbon foot-print radically- Capitalisms and economics require oil as the Global system has been founded on this black Gold- so what is all this taxation and culture of fear really about , our climate- or Economics ?

Discuss !? "

Hmmm solar panels...? save the environment..?..Hmmm...MONEY BACK!?!!!!!! ..I'm in...wait...its not on anymore?...fuck that, the world can burn!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Anyone think that my dissertation supervisor will be a little shocked if i quote "fabswingers" as a source of public research?

So your doing a dissertation (Nicely plugged) and good luck, their fun.....Back to Global from perspective of Gov and all the 'Hype'.

Truth is we needn't even burn Oil any more, we have the technology and means to reduce our carbon foot-print radically- Capitalisms and economics require oil as the Global system has been founded on this black Gold- so what is all this taxation and culture of fear really about , our climate- or Economics ?

Discuss !? "

Why would you need to plug a dissertation....? What would i possibly have to promote??

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Not "Solar Panels" maybe wind farms, and the fact that generators could be run on sunflower oil as many diesel engines have this capability, then there is 'Potential energy ' and many more sustainable options - BUT you have to think MUCH bigger scale than covering all the roofs with solar panels...

"Let the world burn !" - Insightful !

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 26/03/13 18:16:26]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Anyone think that my dissertation supervisor will be a little shocked if i quote "fabswingers" as a source of public research?

So your doing a dissertation (Nicely plugged) and good luck, their fun.....Back to Global from perspective of Gov and all the 'Hype'.

Truth is we needn't even burn Oil any more, we have the technology and means to reduce our carbon foot-print radically- Capitalisms and economics require oil as the Global system has been founded on this black Gold- so what is all this taxation and culture of fear really about , our climate- or Economics ?

Discuss !?

Why would you need to plug a dissertation....? What would i possibly have to promote??"

It wasn't said vindictively, but many do in forums to assert their Educational status as a form of superiority - Not that I am accusing you of this.......I just come here to fuck

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"We were told 13 years ago that Snowfalls are a thing of the past.

Guess what? Snow is still here

The experts went from global warming to climate change

Do you really trust all the so called research on climate?

"

This weather is due to global warming. In order for the temperature to raise it first must fall. A few hundred years ago we had a mini ice age, it lasted a few years between 5 and 10 I think, can't remember now. The river Thames froze and people ice skated on it?! But at the end of this period the general temperature globaly raised by 2 to 3 degrees. I studied geography, not claiming to know it all by any stretch. . But it was predicted that it would happen again. We learnt loads about the weather. I clearly shouldve paid more attention, spent more time studying instead of drinking and getting stoned?! Lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 26/03/13 18:26:59]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

The human race has out evolved it's self and now we are making ourselves extinct. Same as dinosaurs did?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"We were told 13 years ago that Snowfalls are a thing of the past.

Guess what? Snow is still here

The experts went from global warming to climate change

Do you really trust all the so called research on climate?

This weather is due to global warming. In order for the temperature to raise it first must fall. A few hundred years ago we had a mini ice age, it lasted a few years between 5 and 10 I think, can't remember now. The river Thames froze and people ice skated on it?! But at the end of this period the general temperature globaly raised by 2 to 3 degrees. I studied geography, not claiming to know it all by any stretch. . But it was predicted that it would happen again. We learnt loads about the weather. I clearly shouldve paid more attention, spent more time studying instead of drinking and getting stoned?! Lol "

funny...I heard they called u PlainJane Squarebrain at school..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"The human race has out evolved it's self and now we are making ourselves extinct. Same as dinosaurs did? "

If so all the more reason to all fuck like Rabbits, we have to fight this threat

and "Getting pissed and stoned" at Uni- such a waste- but - Wicked fun

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I was the best joint roller there!! Lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I was the best joint roller there!! Lol"

Only because I was studying at Cardiff !

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I was the best joint roller there!! Lol"

Did you get a certificate for that ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I was the best joint roller there!! Lol

Only because I was studying at Cardiff ! "

Pmsl

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I was the best joint roller there!! Lol

Only because I was studying at Cardiff ! "

Pmsl

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I was the best joint roller there!! Lol

Did you get a certificate for that ?"

I did- its called a CRB

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"The human race has out evolved it's self and now we are making ourselves extinct. Same as dinosaurs did? "

with the upcoming ice age, scientist perfect some ultra-super cooled computer systems..machine gradually become self aware, building vast armies amongst the icy ruins of the western world..they are peaceful for a time until us humans attempt to enslave them

think I'll make a fiilm about that...with legomen

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"The human race has out evolved it's self and now we are making ourselves extinct. Same as dinosaurs did?

with the upcoming ice age, scientist perfect some ultra-super cooled computer systems..machine gradually become self aware, building vast armies amongst the icy ruins of the western world..they are peaceful for a time until us humans attempt to enslave them

think I'll make a fiilm about that...with legomen"

I meant colonies..not armies..that comes late

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"We were told 13 years ago that Snowfalls are a thing of the past.

Guess what? Snow is still here

The experts went from global warming to climate change

Do you really trust all the so called research on climate?

This weather is due to global warming. In order for the temperature to raise it first must fall. A few hundred years ago we had a mini ice age, it lasted a few years between 5 and 10 I think, can't remember now. The river Thames froze and people ice skated on it?! But at the end of this period the general temperature globaly raised by 2 to 3 degrees. I studied geography, not claiming to know it all by any stretch. . But it was predicted that it would happen again. We learnt loads about the weather. I clearly shouldve paid more attention, spent more time studying instead of drinking and getting stoned?! Lol "

I think im going to cry. This forum is actually making me reconsider my future in teaching.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"We were told 13 years ago that Snowfalls are a thing of the past.

Guess what? Snow is still here

The experts went from global warming to climate change

Do you really trust all the so called research on climate?

This weather is due to global warming. In order for the temperature to raise it first must fall. A few hundred years ago we had a mini ice age, it lasted a few years between 5 and 10 I think, can't remember now. The river Thames froze and people ice skated on it?! But at the end of this period the general temperature globaly raised by 2 to 3 degrees. I studied geography, not claiming to know it all by any stretch. . But it was predicted that it would happen again. We learnt loads about the weather. I clearly shouldve paid more attention, spent more time studying instead of drinking and getting stoned?! Lol

I think im going to cry. This forum is actually making me reconsider my future in teaching. "

I felt like weeping earlier on as well.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"

I think im going to cry. This forum is actually making me reconsider my future in teaching. "

It was a very long time ago, I know it was a little vague. As a teacher this should inspire you. I remembered that useless shit for all these years despite the fact that until now on a swingers forum it has served me no use whatsoever. Despite the odds being stacked against him hugely, my teacher obviously did a pretty good job. And I hated geography.

Just think one day someone you have taught may be sat where I am bigging you up for being a fab teacher.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

C'mon it was quite informative in a vague way.

Well I've inspired Mr fuck to make a film using lego men actors.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"C'mon it was quite informative in a vague way.

Well I've inspired Mr fuck to make a film using lego men actors. "

looking for a scenic backdrop for a small erupting volcano as the legomen traverse the lanscape

can u squirt food dye from ur pie?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"

can u squirt food dye from ur pie?"

Mr fuck it's a good thing you have a great arse. Because you're sooo wrong?! Pmsl.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"

can u squirt food dye from ur pie?

Mr fuck it's a good thing you have a great arse. Because you're sooo wrong?! Pmsl. "

some say tarrantino's sick!xxx

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *icecouple561Couple  over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

Well I certainly wished the climate would change this afternoon when I was handcuffed to a tree with very little on in the middle of the forest

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Well I certainly wished the climate would change this afternoon when I was handcuffed to a tree with very little on in the middle of the forest "

what about the Mrs?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *icecouple561Couple  over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex


"Well I certainly wished the climate would change this afternoon when I was handcuffed to a tree with very little on in the middle of the forest

what about the Mrs?"

that's who this is

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *icecouple561Couple  over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex


"Well I certainly wished the climate would change this afternoon when I was handcuffed to a tree with very little on in the middle of the forest

what about the Mrs?

that's who this is "

Or am I being really thick and missing a joke....wouldn't be the first time

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *Ryan-Man  over a year ago

In Your Bush


"Well I certainly wished the climate would change this afternoon when I was handcuffed to a tree with very little on in the middle of the forest

what about the Mrs?

that's who this is

Or am I being really thick and missing a joke....wouldn't be the first time "

Yup lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *icecouple561Couple  over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex


"Well I certainly wished the climate would change this afternoon when I was handcuffed to a tree with very little on in the middle of the forest

what about the Mrs?

that's who this is

Or am I being really thick and missing a joke....wouldn't be the first time

Yup lol "

o dear my bad lol.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Well I certainly wished the climate would change this afternoon when I was handcuffed to a tree with very little on in the middle of the forest

what about the Mrs?

that's who this is

Or am I being really thick and missing a joke....wouldn't be the first time

Yup lol

o dear my bad lol."

lol..I fabbed the pics after I made the joke too lolol xxx niceone hahaha xxxx

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *icecouple561Couple  over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex


"Well I certainly wished the climate would change this afternoon when I was handcuffed to a tree with very little on in the middle of the forest

what about the Mrs?

that's who this is

Or am I being really thick and missing a joke....wouldn't be the first time

Yup lol

o dear my bad lol.

lol..I fabbed the pics after I made the joke too lolol xxx niceone hahaha xxxx"

Lol well that's my sophisticated woman of the world reputation gone! Oh wait I didn't have that reputation in the first place

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *xodussx OP   Man  over a year ago

sheffield

Things learn here....

Thanks all of you

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I can't be Arsed to contribute to the climate change debate. I typed for 10 mins on my phone n lost it all grr

People don't, though, seem to know how the sun works so here goes.......

The sun is driven by fusion (the joining together) of hydrogen atoms to create helium and huge quantities of energy (mostly heat, the light of the sun that we see comes from the surface of the sun).

The sun was born when the gravity of all the hydrogen in it shrank the sun into a small enough volume with enough pressure to cause hydrogen atoms to fuse together. This created lots of heat which expanded the matter until the suns volume reached a stable equilibrium.

Eventually (after another 4 billion years or so) the sun will start to run out of hydrogen and the fusion reaction will fail, causing gravity to shrink the core again. Eventually the pressure will be great enough to allow helium atoms to fuse together which will stop the core from shrinking.

The outer layers will, however, still have significant quantities of hydrogen and those layers will continue to expand (gravity won't change but the outer layers will not contract like the inner core) this will cause the outer core and the coronosphere to grow outward and the stars.diameter will rapidly (over the course of a few million years).

Now in this relatively less dense cloud of hydrogen the temperature will be much lower, causing the light given off to change from the bright white/yellow we know to a dull red colour (hence the name red giant)

the diameter of the sun won't extend much past mercuries orbital path but that proximity will bake the other inner planets dry.

Interestingly enough, though, the sun emits 1% more energy ever 50 million years or so. This is a cumulative and therefore exponential rate. It's expected that after a billion years or so the earth will already be far to hot to sustain complex life forms (like amoebas) and so only bacteria and other very simple life forms will be able to survive. Even they will have been gone for 2 billion years by the time the sun enters it's middle years as a red giant.

The red giant stage us expected to last for around 10 billion years, longer than the main stage, at which time all of the outer layers will have boiled away and what will be left is the core, still getting smaller and smaller, denser and denser until it reaches the point where there is nothing it can fuse about the carbon level) where it will simply stop, cooling slowly in the darkness, not massive enough go explode in a nova and nowhere near massive enough to become a black hole, a fate reserved for only the biggest but shortest lived stars in the universe......

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Things learn here....

Thanks all of you"

Yes, thanks, I've leant something too. Some very knowledgeable ppl here!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"We were told 13 years ago that Snowfalls are a thing of the past.

Guess what? Snow is still here

The experts went from global warming to climate change

Do you really trust all the so called research on climate?

"

Something has changed for sure but it's got fuck all to do with modern man and the way we live. The Earth's rotation fluctuates on it's axis between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees, an currently it is tilted at roughly 23.1 degrees - halfway through it's cycle and on a downward trend. When it is as it highest tilt we have severe weather but other factors have to be taken into consideration such as the elliptical nature of the planet's orbit, it's eccentricity and it's precession. The full cycle of the Earth's movement on it's axis and orbit takes tens of thousands of years to complete (an example of this can be found in biblical times when thousands of Jews evaded the Romans at the top of Mount Masada for three years and survived by growing their own food, yet today that area is a desert).

I believe the weather we are experiencing now represents a subtle shift in the Earth's orbit and axis and we're in for good summers and bad winters for the foreseeable future.

I could be full of shit though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

So after hours of debate what am I to believe.

On the one hand the "deniers" have put a well balanced argument about climate change being a natural phenomena and not caused by the human race.

On the other hand the climate change caused by humans camp have led an angry campaign with name calling and accusations of ignorance.

I still have an open mind about it but I think I am still a "denier". Mostly in part because of Wishys argument because his wife has a lovely arse and I can't take my eyes of it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *xodussx OP   Man  over a year ago

sheffield


"So after hours of debate what am I to believe.

On the one hand the "deniers" have put a well balanced argument about climate change being a natural phenomena and not caused by the human race.

On the other hand the climate change caused by humans camp have led an angry campaign with name calling and accusations of ignorance.

I still have an open mind about it but I think I am still a "denier". Mostly in part because of Wishys argument because his wife has a lovely arse and I can't take my eyes of it. "

But Ju arse is one of the best on this site

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"So after hours of debate what am I to believe.

On the one hand the "deniers" have put a well balanced argument about climate change being a natural phenomena and not caused by the human race.

On the other hand the climate change caused by humans camp have led an angry campaign with name calling and accusations of ignorance.

I still have an open mind about it but I think I am still a "denier". Mostly in part because of Wishys argument because his wife has a lovely arse and I can't take my eyes of it.

But Ju arse is one of the best on this site"

Thank you.

And after a lot of hot air has been spouted we are now talking about arses.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ornyHorwichCpl aka HHCCouple  over a year ago

horwich

Well the tree huggers can go knit a hemp vest....I'm off to put some more coal on the fire !! Brrrr !

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otlovefun42Couple  over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

Am I a denier? I suppose the following will make me one in the eyes of the "we're all doomed warmists" but here goes.

The climate is changing (oh so I'm not really a denier then) but maybe as a lot of historical events suggest it's not as man made as we are led to believe (ok so I am a denier again)

What really gets up my nose is that in Britain and many other western countries we are quite prepared not only to sacrifice our economy's but our general well being in a modern society on the altar of global warming/climate change/call it what you will.

Considering it is supposed to be a global problem think about this, A small island in the north Atlantic closes two coal fired power stations that it can ill afford to lose and plans to tax the rest into oblivion (to save the planet of course). The same island is sat on top of a huge amount of natural gas but will argue for years about the rights and wrongs of exploiting it. At the same time it pours massive amounts of subsidy into producing "green energy" that isn't really that green (considering that a windmill creates more carbon in its manufacture than it ever saves in its working life) Not satisfied with that, the very same small island taxes air travel at the highest rate in the world on the assumption that a few less holidays to Benidorm will save the planet.

This may come as news to some of the warmists, but guess what? China and India are on the very same planet as the afore mentioned small island. Between them they will build around 500 (yes five hundred) new coal fired power stations in the next decade, and even the Germans have 20 new ones planned. Does anyone really think that closing 2 in Britain will even put a dent in that?

So while all the high moral minded westerners are crunching their bowl of muesli by candle light and complaining that grannie is freezing to death Mr Woo and co will have all the power he needs to post on forums like these.

Oh and don't blame me when the lights go out.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Wishy , may I ask which pub you learned your theory in ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ornyHorwichCpl aka HHCCouple  over a year ago

horwich


"Am I a denier? I suppose the following will make me one in the eyes of the "we're all doomed warmists" but here goes.

The climate is changing (oh so I'm not really a denier then) but maybe as a lot of historical events suggest it's not as man made as we are led to believe (ok so I am a denier again)

What really gets up my nose is that in Britain and many other western countries we are quite prepared not only to sacrifice our economy's but our general well being in a modern society on the altar of global warming/climate change/call it what you will.

Considering it is supposed to be a global problem think about this, A small island in the north Atlantic closes two coal fired power stations that it can ill afford to lose and plans to tax the rest into oblivion (to save the planet of course). The same island is sat on top of a huge amount of natural gas but will argue for years about the rights and wrongs of exploiting it. At the same time it pours massive amounts of subsidy into producing "green energy" that isn't really that green (considering that a windmill creates more carbon in its manufacture than it ever saves in its working life) Not satisfied with that, the very same small island taxes air travel at the highest rate in the world on the assumption that a few less holidays to Benidorm will save the planet.

This may come as news to some of the warmists, but guess what? China and India are on the very same planet as the afore mentioned small island. Between them they will build around 500 (yes five hundred) new coal fired power stations in the next decade, and even the Germans have 20 new ones planned. Does anyone really think that closing 2 in Britain will even put a dent in that?

So while all the high moral minded westerners are crunching their bowl of muesli by candle light and complaining that grannie is freezing to death Mr Woo and co will have all the power he needs to post on forums like these.

Oh and don't blame me when the lights go out.

"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

  

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

just made my own climate/weather model..

as i stirred milk into my coffee..amazing..its actually quite accurate

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

4 great reasons to join:

Free to use, not just free to join. Free cams, pics, search, mails.

We show small ads so you don't have to pay.

Run by swingers, for swingers, for free.

Only takes a minute or two to get started.

Join today

Copyright © 2006-2024 Fabulous Entertainment | Link to us | @fabswingers on twitter | Sexual Health | Safer Meets
Terms | Privacy Policy | FAQ | 2257 Exemption Statement | Report Content | Glossary | Contact | Mobile Web App

0.2499

0