70 replies · 1,939 views
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8313672.stm
Gordon-every word I speak is a lie-Brown says it's true.
Apparently it all starts in 51 days, be intersting to see how this pans out (after all, they're usually a lot more sheepish about any kind of verifiable prediction these days, since all the stuff about London being underwater by 2005 turned out to be shite).
Steve - when Bangor becomes Northern Ireland's version of Atlantis and you're dying of skin cancer after a particularly sunny fishing trip, I won't be the only one pointing and laughing.
Clayhead Liberation Faction wrote: Steve - when Bangor becomes Northern Ireland's version of Atlantis and you're dying of skin cancer after a particularly sunny fishing trip, I won't be the only one pointing and laughing.
If it happens I will expect nothing less mate.
You're an intelligent sort of chap, with some experience of accademia (from the shady fringes natch), wrap your eyes round this story that popped up on El-Reg the other day.....
Global Warming, as scientific as god
And consider this......
Statement A: You are a climate scientist who is paid to study global warming. Statement B: If there is no such thing, you're on the dole. Query: Your results indicate it's all balls, how do you proceed?
Show me ONE accurate prediction made 5 or 10 years ago (or even 11 years ago when global temp peaked).
Please note, in all matters I refer to Global Warming, the man made monster as opposed to any of the normal climatic changes that occur.......y'know, the way there were vineyards in STOKE hundreds of years before Al Gore OR four-by-bores.
PS: Ozone depletion is an entirely separate issue....though that's turned out rather less apocalyptic too.
Clayhead Liberation Faction wrote: Steve - when Bangor becomes Northern Ireland's version of Atlantis and you're dying of skin cancer after a particularly sunny fishing trip, I won't be the only one pointing and laughing.
A fradders special. Sorry Steve 
Chrissy wrote: stop calling climate change global warming and you'll see it makes a lot more sense :P
Double think.
The name changed when they realised that "global warming" was a measurable thing for anyone to see it wasn't going on.
Besides.....as long as there are icecaps, we're still in an ice age, Earth is NOT meant to have them, but oh no, because the monkeys seen them when they were kids, they have to stay forever.
Anyone willing to post one solid prediction? (either current or past)....if it's science, it'll be full of testable, verifiable predictions, because that's how science works. Without such solid, testable, verifiable predictions, it makes as much sense as killing a queer for christ.
Dropping a ball of mass M from height H results in it attaining velocity V. That's science. Debating the number of angels that can dance on a pin head, or the number of polar bears who can look cute and helpless on small icebergs=wooleythink. [1]
Nobody read the article about the IPCC faking it's results then, oh well.
[1]Note to anyone upset by polar bears clinging to icebergs......they can SWIM.
Doctor? wrote:
Note to anyone upset by polar bears clinging to icebergs......they can SWIM.
And they often get all the way to Iceland, so they are bloody good swimmers
can someone tell me how the fuck you start a thread,im a bit illiterate when it comes to computers
chelsea wrote: can someone tell me how the fuck you start a thread,im a bit illiterate when it comes to computers
On the forum page, near the top right of the page, under the banner and advert, you'll see two buttons, one for starting a thread: 
and one for starting a poll: 
That'll be £40
Jed Stephens wrote:
chelsea wrote: can someone tell me how the fuck you start a thread,im a bit illiterate when it comes to computers
On the forum page, near the top right of the page, under the banner and advert, you'll see two buttons, one for starting a thread:
That'll be £40
I'd say that the standard £40 fee should be waived in light of some excellent and utterly gratuitous use of foul language in an early post.
Fradders,you're only saying that because it suits.
You owe the swearbox more 40 spots than any cunt.FACT.
And Cambo is absolutely right on this one.
Global warming,climate change...we can't help it.It's just the way it is.
Burn everything to keep warm.That's how we roll...
It's fuck all to do with us.Miniscule.
Blame it on the sunshine,moonlight...or the boogie.
Nah,it's the sun innit?! Always the sun..Study the bitch.You know it,I know it..
My Mum is a bit old fashioned, but a very sensible, erudite woman. I remember her saying to me when explaining "ice ages" when I was at school, around seven years old (okay, that's 35 years ago) that we, "are coming to the end of the last ice age, so in fifty or sixty years time, there won't be much ice on the planet."
She also explained the cyclical nature of weather patterns, global warming and cooling and told me how often it all happens, etc.
She may not be a genius, but I'd say:
Mum 1 - 0 "Scientists"
However, my Mum did recently point out that the end of an ice age also affects the coastlines of continents and that there's bound to be both flooding and erosion...
Anyone got a finger they'd like to stick in a dyke? 
Chris Nash wrote:
Mum 1 - 0 "Scientists"
Nepotism.
Still,SHE'S RIGHT Y'KNOW!
Just as many scientists agree with your old dear as don't.. They just say it in hushed tones.That's where we are at...Peer pressure,job security,all them factors.
Fact is,ultimately,the sun governs our world.
For our part... Burn everything and eat all the animals we farm,plant a few trees,that's all we can do..That's how we'll do our bit..It really has a pissy effect what we do.Enjoy!
eskamiya wrote: I blame the gays.
You knows it. Stephen Gately was going to unveil the truth about the global Queer-Jewish conspiracy to drown all us straight gentile infidels by melting all the ice with their bloody nancy-boy hairdryers. But they bumped him off, just like they did with Lee Harvey Oswald.
That beach ball at the Sunderland-Liverpool game? That was them, too. They'll be trying to covertly assassinate Cheryl Cole next, thus plummeting the entire known universe into chaos, disorder and moral anarchy.
Mark my fucking words.
Doctor? wrote:
Chrissy wrote: stop calling climate change global warming and you'll see it makes a lot more sense :P
Double think.
The name changed when they realised that "global warming" was a measurable thing for anyone to see it wasn't going on.
Besides.....as long as there are icecaps, we're still in an ice age, Earth is NOT meant to have them, but oh no, because the monkeys seen them when they were kids, they have to stay forever.
Anyone willing to post one solid prediction? (either current or past)....if it's science, it'll be full of testable, verifiable predictions, because that's how science works. Without such solid, testable, verifiable predictions, it makes as much sense as killing a queer for christ.
Dropping a ball of mass M from height H results in it attaining velocity V. That's science. Debating the number of angels that can dance on a pin head, or the number of polar bears who can look cute and helpless on small icebergs=wooleythink. [1]
Nobody read the article about the IPCC faking it's results then, oh well.
[1]Note to anyone upset by polar bears clinging to icebergs......they can SWIM.
You have many things wrong with what you are talking about Cambo. First we are NOT in an ice age. We are in an interglacial period, a warm period between glaciations (ice ages) and not just recently, all of human kind has only been around during this interglacial period (the Little Ice Age and the Younger Dryas events were point specific).
The other misunderstanding is that climate is not a simple experiment like dropping a lead ball and timing it. There are so many factors (cycles) taking effect that Chaos theory begins to have a large effect on the science. We can not make good predictions, simply because there is far too much data to collect and that could change by the slightest movement in one of the cycles, let alone many of them. We simply aren't that smart.
There is plenty of good science to back up the history of climate of the Earth, and plenty to back up the current direction, but prediction is far out of our grasp at this point.
I think the most unfortunate thing about climate science is that the science is quite sound and spot on, the scientists working on this are damn good at what they do. However, you have all of these nutter spokespeople running around yelling out complete drivel and gibberish. It seems everyone thinks they are climate experts, simply cause they read an article and watched a movie. It really ruins the credibility.
If you cannot predict and test, it's not science. That's a matter of the basic definition of the term. Also a matter of basic definition is that an ice age is any period when there is persistent ice at the poles.
What about Mr Gore's graph....why did he lie about it and say that it clearly showed that temp followed CO2 concentration.....when the reverse is in fact the case.....shows the level of human curiosity these days.....he stands showing the graph, talking shite about it and nobody points out it's backwards. It's another fairly basic fact about reality that cause always precedes effect, so if temp moves them CO2 moves.... Oh never mind.
And why do the IPCC feel the need to conceal and fake data if it's all irefutable scince? Ask the people of Hiroshima if Einstein faked his equations 
Then how about Chaos Theory Mr. Campbell?
We can test and predict each cycle, and each can completely proven, however we can not understand how each one interacts. One slight movement in one cycle throws all the others into a completely different speed.
Just because the Greeks couldn't understand retrograde, doesn't mean Astronomy isn't a science.
Chaos Theory also says that my last fart is as likely to cause a global climate disaster as the minute percentage of the Earth's CO2 that monkey activity produces.
The Greeks could still predict planetary positions!
Besides nobody genuinely believes this shit. NOT ONE CUNT, if they did, they would save the thousands of tons of CO2 they emit by killing themselves and leaving the world in peace for the rest of us.
If cars and not solar radiation (after all, man's devices are WAY more important than mere stars) are the cause, why does Mars' temperature track ours so closely.
I hated science at school. It was just a geeky pseuds version of conkers, only less fun.
Nothing's changed.
Clayhead Liberation Faction wrote: I hated science at school. It was just a geeky pseuds version of conkers, only less fun.
Nothing's changed.
and you couldn't "accidentally" twat someone on the knuckles
You obviously weren't paying enough attention.
Leave me alone with your PC for 3 minutes and we'll see who can do geeky knuckle smashing :D
Besides, the point of this thread, which we've lost, is that if Gordo told me about gravity I'd try and float out a window, seriously if GW is not-bullshit it'll be the first thing out of Brown's gob that hasn't passed through a bovine digestive tract first.
Surely it is entirely feasible that contemporary 'global warming'/'climate change' is the result of both cyclical environmental shifts AND the intervention of industrial pollution. This either/or thing is for gayers.
After all, if you and your opponent both soaked your conkers in vinegar you might end up with a stalemate, eh?
Clayhead Liberation Faction wrote: Surely it is entirely feasible that contemporary 'global warming'/'climate change' is the result of both cyclical environmental shifts AND the intervention of industrial pollution. This either/or thing is for gayers.
After all, if you and your opponent both soaked your conkers in vinegar you might end up with a stalemate, eh?
I thought you were band from taking photos of children?
Clayhead Liberation Faction wrote: Surely it is entirely feasible that contemporary 'global warming'/'climate change' is the result of both cyclical environmental shifts AND the intervention of industrial pollution. This either/or thing is for gayers.
After all, if you and your opponent both soaked your conkers in vinegar you might end up with a stalemate, eh?
You are of course quite correct, it is possible, but then, what causes my ravings (aside from the obvious) is the blind, insane devotion to a VERY shakey idea, blinding people to many more tangable and proven environmental fuckups, and it's basis as an excuse for some truly hopeless and/or evil political manouvres.
What annoys me most is the shitty fucking "humans are amazing and all powerful" wank that it implies. Anything between totally covered in ice, and almost entirely desert is well within normal parameters, but as soon as it varies from the values it's had during media history (after all, even within written history there have been relative extremes at both ends)....it's a catastrophe. Only two things are surely more retarded and arrogant than thinking the climate has to be just as we're used to it are...... 1. That the only possible explanation is the mighty monkey, and 2. That the monkey can sort it all out (and by putting things in different coloured bins at that).
Humans are cunts.
Clayhead Liberation Faction wrote: Nah, just banned from playing conkers with them. And fucking them in the mouth.
Martin, you truly are the only man I could sit round with in a group of drinking mates, and not come away looking like the most offensive cunt on Earth. Well.....there would be an even chance at any rate.
you should replace Frankie Boyle on mock the week
Clayhead Liberation Faction wrote: Nah, just banned from playing conkers with them. And fucking them in the mouth.
Steve that should be too not to.
I'm in total agreement with you on this btw, the publicity stunt of the under water cabinet meeting was complete bollocks too, the dead sea is one of the lowest surface points on earth, closely followed by liverpool!! yet the sea is reducing not causing a flood.
In fairness, it IS landlocked, so no indicator of global sea level. My ability to fish from the same rocks I did 25 years ago is a bit of a giveaway though.
I see where you're coming from about the casual megalomania of the species, Steve, but having invented things like nuclear weapons, global capitalism, motor racing, golf and the vaginal deodorant I think that your anti-humanism* might be better directed at said species' capacity for self-destruction rather than its collective ego.
(* - I'm sure Douglas Adams would approve)
As for your other point, I'd actually like to fuck Frankie Boyle in the mouth until he chokes on his own blood for all the rude things he's repeatedly said about Dundee. Really, if you're going to take the piss out of Scottish towns then you should really aim your bile at Edinburgh. Full of twats, it is. Or Aberdeen, which is full of smack-addled sheep-shaggers, natch. And, er, 'oil riggers'.
Can I tell my story about me and Frankie Boyle's public-speaking team at this juncture? It's been at least 3 months since I last mentioned it.
GlasVegas wrote: Can I tell my story about me and Frankie Boyle's public-speaking team at this juncture? It's been at least 3 months since I last mentioned it.
Only if you're prepared to have Fradders fuck you in the mouth, he seems to want to do that to everyone today.
RM wrote: Yeah but Fradders is from Stoke where Global Boning began!
Quite right. Stoke is the place where everything began, it being the Primordial Swamp. Bit of a balls-up in a Darwinist sense as we still haven't worked out that mouth-fucking will not propagate the species.
But, y'know, we might be simple but we're happy.
Doctor? wrote: Chaos Theory also says that my last fart is as likely to cause a global climate disaster as the minute percentage of the Earth's CO2 that monkey activity produces.
The Greeks could still predict planetary positions!
Not really, they had a damn hard time trying to do it until Ptolemy came around, and even his model was a little off.
Besides nobody genuinely believes this shit. NOT ONE CUNT, if they did, they would save the thousands of tons of CO2 they emit by killing themselves and leaving the world in peace for the rest of us.
If cars and not solar radiation (after all, man's devices are WAY more important than mere stars) are the cause, why does Mars' temperature track ours so closely.
Earth has MANY cycles that we are all trying to compute together for instance:
Carbon cycle nitrogen (mainly concerning methane) cycle ocean currents eccentricity cycle (Malankovitch cycles) precession cycles plankton/algae/diatom/foraminifera levels albido ice/glacier levels volcanic activity rain levels tectonics (if more limestone is lifted up to weather) sunspot cycle
and this is just a drop in the bucket, there are many more factors to consider. The issue is that each of these cycles and issues are complex even when pulled away separately to study, throw in how they react to each other is extremely complicated.To understand this you either need a super huge computer, or you simplify the model so you can get a quicker reading. Our computers cannot handle the data at the moment, so they simplify the data focusing on only a few factors.
Granted, Gore's movie is a scare tactic (that everyone but me applauds). And yes there are a crap load of charlatans claiming they understand everything about "global warming".
The fact is, its not that we are so powerful to change a climate, its that we are replacing ancient CO2 back into the atmosphere, and we aren't acclimatized to it. Life will probably go on, but we won't be a factor in it.
Not only that, but your idea on science is a bit naive. To thhink that scientists can predict things constantly is completely off mark. That is why NOTHING in science is a fact, its all a theory.
As Einstein stated: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Irregardless of exaggerations/misunderstandings about climate change, there are almost 7 billion people and growing, all wanting energy and needing food and water to live. Humans will use fossil fuels until it becomes economically unfeasible or fight for it, humans will use up available minerals, natural habitats will be corrupted and bio-diversity will be reduced drastically for millions of years. Too many people for resources, with or without these token carbon reducing BS measures. Society will crash. The answer is that 90% of humanity must go gay.
Poovery and infertility is certainly what other species do when overpopulation threatens.
Perhaps that's what all the focus on Co2 is about.....nobody wants to tackle the real problem (too many fuckin monkeys), because big biz runs the world and wants us to keep breeding more consumers.
If we killed 5 billion people, there would be no need to the Toyota Pious!
And if life goes on without us, fair enough....last in first out, the Earth will do just fine.
It scares the piss out of me that people no longer understand that true science must invlove repeatable experiments which confirm theories. Many of the things our lives depend on are still considered theories, but only because we do not believe our understanding of them is perfect.....as I often mention to godtards when they mumble "evolution's just a theory" while their priest/minister/pastor mouthrapes them for jesus.....Gravity is a theory, go jump off a building and float! Gravity may be a theory, but I can tell you how long it will take a 1KG mass to hit the ground from 30m, that's why it's science and not religion.
Still no explanation as to why gore never mentioned the reversing of the graph, or why the IPCC, the people who's "wisdom" everyone is following hide their data and manipulate results. No scientist (OK, maybe those on the Manhattan project) ever hides their raw data, they spread it all over because if they are right, they will be glad to be proved so, and if they are wrong, they will be glad that the understanding of their subject has moved forward, because that's how science works.
Essentially the GW brigade are the same as those cultists who predict the world will end on Tuesday, then on Wednesday, they say they had a vision that said NEXT Tuesday, and so on ad infinitum. Eg....London to be underwater by 2005.....2005 rolls around and it becomes London to be underwater by 2025. I mean apparently the sea level has risen 5cm since 2004 based on what they were saying then...can anyone who lives in a coastal area comment on this please, because maybe the water lays low in Bangor, y'know because all that stuff about water flowing is just a theory. Of course they have a harder job....sensible cult nutters predict dates so far in the future, they'll be dead when proved as assholes. GW cultists can't do that....everything has to be next week or nobody will be scared enough to fund them.
Doctor? wrote: Poovery and infertility is certainly what other species do when overpopulation threatens.
Perhaps that's what all the focus on Co2 is about.....nobody wants to tackle the real problem (too many fuckin monkeys), because big biz runs the world and wants us to keep breeding more consumers.
Umm...are you still in the sixth form?
I've not managed to come up with a better explanation as to why population vanished from the agenda, when it does seem to be the root of all evil since I was in 6th form.
Have you watched any global news channels in recent years Steve?
Catastrophic floods (I do hear there have been some even in the UK -gasp-).
Desertification explanding.
Droughts and crop failures.
The Greenland icesheet melting; sea levels rising.
Species disappearing.
To say climate change ain't happening is fruitytooty.
UpDownTurnAround wrote: Have you watched any global news channels in recent years Steve?
Catastrophic floods (I do hear there have been some even in the UK -gasp-).
Desertification explanding.
Droughts and crop failures.
The Greenland icesheet melting; sea levels rising.
Species disappearing.
To say climate change ain't happening is fruitytooty.
in other words the same shit that's been happening for millions of years
Jed Stephens wrote:
UpDownTurnAround wrote: Have you watched any global news channels in recent years Steve?
Catastrophic floods (I do hear there have been some even in the UK -gasp-).
Desertification explanding.
Droughts and crop failures.
The Greenland icesheet melting; sea levels rising.
Species disappearing.
To say climate change ain't happening is fruitytooty.
in other words the same shit that's been happening for millions of years
You're such a fucking spastic Jed, don't you know the world stayed exactly the same for billions of years right up until the invention of the land rover, which caused ALL the above!!!! ;)
Like I keep saying, vineyards in Lancs.
EDIT: if you want evidence of media bullshitting.....how come nobody ever mentions the massive floods on Engerland's east coast in the 50's and 60's now? Actually, one of the most annoying things ever, is that BBC show Coast.....they constantly mention things about how the sea used to be 20 miles further inland somewhere, or 5 miles further out somewhere else, and keep re-iterating that "Coast IS change", then 2 mins later they start on about how we have to protect this or that stretch of coast or it will be lost forever.....not a hint of irony in the delivery either, they obviously can't even see their own doublethink.
Doctor? wrote:
EDIT: if you want evidence of media bullshitting.....how come nobody ever mentions the massive floods on Engerland's east coast in the 50's and 60's now?
cuz dat wuz cauzed by da aliens...
Doctor? wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8313672.stm
Gordon-every word I speak is a lie-Brown says it's true.
Apparently it all starts in 51 days, be intersting to see how this pans out (after all, they're usually a lot more sheepish about any kind of verifiable prediction these days, since all the stuff about London being underwater by 2005 turned out to be shite).
agreed . it's a big con to keep people in research grants. read Jamaes Lovelock's book "Gaia " about how the "mother" Earth heals itself (yeah a bit hippy-drippy Micheal Jackson ) but convincing and written in 1979. here's what happens:
Doctor? wrote:
It scares the piss out of me that people no longer understand that true science must invlove repeatable experiments which confirm theories. Many of the things our lives depend on are still considered theories, but only because we do not believe our understanding of them is perfect.....as I often mention to godtards when they mumble "evolution's just a theory" while their priest/minister/pastor mouthrapes them for jesus.....Gravity is a theory, go jump off a building and float! Gravity may be a theory, but I can tell you how long it will take a 1KG mass to hit the ground from 30m, that's why it's science and not religion.
Still no explanation as to why gore never mentioned the reversing of the graph, or why the IPCC, the people who's "wisdom" everyone is following hide their data and manipulate results. No scientist (OK, maybe those on the Manhattan project) ever hides their raw data, they spread it all over because if they are right, they will be glad to be proved so, and if they are wrong, they will be glad that the understanding of their subject has moved forward, because that's how science works.
Your are right, wrong, and a bit naive all at the same time.
Right - Yes, science is based on repeatable experiments. The proof is in the data, per se.
Wrong - Much of Geology is not repeatable (we can mimic results in lab rooms), the problem is it takes far too much time (deep time) and is on such a grand scale that we can not feasibly repeat, lets say, the Little Ice Age. Everything that lead to the Little Ice Age won't align again like it did at that exact moment. No ice age is the same, and none will ever repeat themselves... its simply not possible. This being the case, most of geology is historical, reading and trying to understand the physical of today. So while you might have an issue with it because it is not "repeatable" it can be verified all over the world, many times over, and there are many ways to verify theories. Simply, it works different than physics, chemistry, or biology.
Naive - Science has always been a handmaiden. It has never been on its own. Before it was headed by priests, currently the scientists doing the main studies are paid by the government and big business. They search were it is economically viable, and also try to ensure their results match the data they are looking for. Even Uni scientists are funded by grants, some have free play, but many do not. Not all data is skew free.
and I DO NOT BACK GORE'S MOVIE!!!!!!!!! While much of the science he gives is true, he selectively forgot to talk about the whole spectrum of glaciation through time. His is more shock-treatment... possibly its what many in the world need, but its not entirely correct.
I take it back. Science is not like conkers. It's like two boys comparing their willies and arguing whether one is a fraction larger than the other. This then descends into a pube-counting competition.....
Freud said some pertinent (and often quite witty) things about people predisposed towards anally retentive behaviour. But, of course, psychoanalysis is scientifically unverifiable so what the fuck did he know?
Doctor? wrote:
You're such a fucking spastic Jed.
Thanks Steve.
By the way, I burnt my toast this morning, does that effect my carbon footprint?
OK, Edel, go read the article that is linked near the start of the link I posted. It's one of the worst bludgeonings of the scientific method since monn conspriacists.
See, I'm not saying there's no chance we're having an effect (in fact we certainly are in areas other than CO2), I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't take better care of this rock. What I am saying is that this blind, idiotic, and no matter what you say, unproven obsession with carbon has no benefit that a calmer, more rational approach would not share, but carries some rather nasty costs, for example.....
Edel, thank you for explaining so beautifully and succintly why it's so totally impossible to make accurate scientific predictions where geology and atmosperic dynamics are concerned. Can you now please explain why the enviro-mentalists make such predictions on a daily basis and why governments are making policy based on these predictions.
Martin, Freud, the mainly discredited old pervert, was mainly responsible for the school of belief that men make rockets and planes and racing cars as expressions of their penis. As a test of his reliabilty, I offer the following for your consideration. Can you imagine the sound of a Grand Prix, if all 22 cars were designed based on cunts [1]. Or indeed the flight dynamics of a minge inspired airliner.
[1]some would say they're already BUILT AROUND cunts.
Doctor? wrote: OK, Edel, go read the article that is linked near the start of the link I posted. It's one of the worst bludgeonings of the scientific method since monn conspriacists.
See, I'm not saying there's no chance we're having an effect (in fact we certainly are in areas other than CO2), I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't take better care of this rock. What I am saying is that this blind, idiotic, and no matter what you say, unproven obsession with carbon has no benefit that a calmer, more rational approach would not share, but carries some rather nasty costs, for example.....
- Society so obsessed with the "pollutant" CO2 (obviously never heard the term "carbon based lifeforms", we're MADE from fscking CO2), that other much more worrying things get less attention, even from enviro-mentalists.....let's see, off the top of my head....errmm...genuinely toxic pollution, the worlds decaying bioweapons dumps (the US's is in a fucking terrifying condition, I have therefor elected never to consider Russia's lest I never sleep again), what to do when the oil's gone, and a hundred other issues, once hot on the lips of everyone from bearded celery smoking loons to boffins, are now footnotes, if that, to the mighty carbon question.
- All sorts of nasty, repressive shite is and has been snuck in to our legal system, and there is so SO much worse to come.
- The effect on developing countries.....it's OK for us in the west who are rolling in cash to go on pumping out carbon by the gigaton so people can have their wifi toasters and facebook compatible lcd tampons. But johnny negro, who want's power for the ludicrous and selfish reasons feeding his family and helping his country stand on it's own two feet..well he has to do it all with cowshit generators and wind turbines and if he IS allowed to build a real powerstation, it has to have so many environmental enhancments (the ones western industry claims they can't use cos they're too expensive), that they'd have to sell the entire nation (and possibly it's population) just to cover the interest payments.
- The people who whine the most are ALWAYS, without fail, the W O R S T offenders.....witness the "climate camp" (even the retarded name makes me want to kick someone) at Heathrow.....how many cunts came down in 4x4's? Actually that lot were mainly rich cunts who don't mind restricting air travel as they'll always be able to afford it, and wont have to share the terminal with the oiks anymore. Look at Gore, using a jet to drag like 6 people round the world, to preach prudence in energy usage.
- There's money to be made. Have you heard of carbon credits? It's where you give money to someone to "offest" your "carbon footprint" (again, urge to hurt is building). Of course, there are no guidelines at all or laws saying this money has to be used to DO anything. Al Gore pays millions in carbon credits, presumably to offset his J E T, oddly though, the company he pays it to, is owned by a Mr A.Gore.
- festering cunt pustules
Edel, thank you for explaining so beautifully and succintly why it's so totally impossible to make accurate scientific predictions where geology and atmosperic dynamics are concerned. Can you now please explain why the enviro-mentalists make such predictions on a daily basis and why governments are making policy based on these predictions.
Martin, Freud, the mainly discredited old pervert, was mainly responsible for the school of belief that men make rockets and planes and racing cars as expressions of their penis. As a test of his reliabilty, I offer the following for your consideration. Can you imagine the sound of a Grand Prix, if all 22 cars were designed based on cunts [1]. Or indeed the flight dynamics of a minge inspired airliner.
[1]some would say they're already BUILT AROUND cunts.
You're a right angry little fucker arn't you
Tanner #1 wrote:
Doctor? wrote: OK, Edel, go read the article that is linked near the start of the link I posted. It's one of the worst bludgeonings of the scientific method since monn conspriacists.
See, I'm not saying there's no chance we're having an effect (in fact we certainly are in areas other than CO2), I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't take better care of this rock. What I am saying is that this blind, idiotic, and no matter what you say, unproven obsession with carbon has no benefit that a calmer, more rational approach would not share, but carries some rather nasty costs, for example.....
- Society so obsessed with the "pollutant" CO2 (obviously never heard the term "carbon based lifeforms", we're MADE from fscking CO2), that other much more worrying things get less attention, even from enviro-mentalists.....let's see, off the top of my head....errmm...genuinely toxic pollution, the worlds decaying bioweapons dumps (the US's is in a fucking terrifying condition, I have therefor elected never to consider Russia's lest I never sleep again), what to do when the oil's gone, and a hundred other issues, once hot on the lips of everyone from bearded celery smoking loons to boffins, are now footnotes, if that, to the mighty carbon question.
- All sorts of nasty, repressive shite is and has been snuck in to our legal system, and there is so SO much worse to come.
- The effect on developing countries.....it's OK for us in the west who are rolling in cash to go on pumping out carbon by the gigaton so people can have their wifi toasters and facebook compatible lcd tampons. But johnny negro, who want's power for the ludicrous and selfish reasons feeding his family and helping his country stand on it's own two feet..well he has to do it all with cowshit generators and wind turbines and if he IS allowed to build a real powerstation, it has to have so many environmental enhancments (the ones western industry claims they can't use cos they're too expensive), that they'd have to sell the entire nation (and possibly it's population) just to cover the interest payments.
- The people who whine the most are ALWAYS, without fail, the W O R S T offenders.....witness the "climate camp" (even the retarded name makes me want to kick someone) at Heathrow.....how many cunts came down in 4x4's? Actually that lot were mainly rich cunts who don't mind restricting air travel as they'll always be able to afford it, and wont have to share the terminal with the oiks anymore. Look at Gore, using a jet to drag like 6 people round the world, to preach prudence in energy usage.
- There's money to be made. Have you heard of carbon credits? It's where you give money to someone to "offest" your "carbon footprint" (again, urge to hurt is building). Of course, there are no guidelines at all or laws saying this money has to be used to DO anything. Al Gore pays millions in carbon credits, presumably to offset his J E T, oddly though, the company he pays it to, is owned by a Mr A.Gore.
- festering cunt pustules
Edel, thank you for explaining so beautifully and succintly why it's so totally impossible to make accurate scientific predictions where geology and atmosperic dynamics are concerned. Can you now please explain why the enviro-mentalists make such predictions on a daily basis and why governments are making policy based on these predictions.
Martin, Freud, the mainly discredited old pervert, was mainly responsible for the school of belief that men make rockets and planes and racing cars as expressions of their penis. As a test of his reliabilty, I offer the following for your consideration. Can you imagine the sound of a Grand Prix, if all 22 cars were designed based on cunts [1]. Or indeed the flight dynamics of a minge inspired airliner.
[1]some would say they're already BUILT AROUND cunts.
You're a right angry little fucker arn't you
Post of the week, well done, ask Nick for your £40.00
You're confusing anger with gobshitery, and a passion for hyperbole. Besides, anyone disagreeing with this stuff has to yell to be heard over the mooing and bleating of the carbon cultists.
Fucker? probably. Little? anything but, I'm a superbly fat cunt actually.
EDIT: I'm offended, I present a masterpiece of biblical proportions, he wees on it, and HE gets POTW? Ref Er Fucking Ree!!!!!!! ;)
Doctor? wrote: You're confusing anger with gobshitery, and a passion for hyperbole. Besides, anyone disagreeing with this stuff has to yell to be heard over the mooing and bleating of the carbon cultists.
Fucker? probably. Little? anything but, I'm a superbly fat cunt actually.
EDIT: I'm offended, I present a masterpiece of biblical proportions, he wees on it, and HE gets POTW? Ref Er Fucking Ree!!!!!!! ;)
But you write epics all the time, his was a superb one line retort.
Jed Stephens wrote:
Doctor? wrote: You're confusing anger with gobshitery, and a passion for hyperbole. Besides, anyone disagreeing with this stuff has to yell to be heard over the mooing and bleating of the carbon cultists.
Fucker? probably. Little? anything but, I'm a superbly fat cunt actually.
EDIT: I'm offended, I present a masterpiece of biblical proportions, he wees on it, and HE gets POTW? Ref Er Fucking Ree!!!!!!! ;)
But you write epics all the time, his was a superb one line retort.
I dunno, I thought it was a bit weak, more vaginal references would have helped, and the use of a single swearword only, was a risk which I feel did not pay off.
You know I posted that myself dontcha?
Apart from willfully misrepresenting poor old Sigmund and his theories in the most obvious manner possible, I would offer in response my full agreement that Freud did indeed make some extremely grandiose claims based on extremely spurious evidence. All of which sounds uncannily* like the machinations of the supposedly objective and 'truth-seeking' scientific method.
Go figure.
[* - crap psychoanalytic in-joke]
Doctor? wrote: You're confusing anger with gobshitery, and a passion for hyperbole. Besides, anyone disagreeing with this stuff has to yell to be heard over the mooing and bleating of the carbon cultists.
Fucker? probably. Little? anything but, I'm a superbly fat cunt actually.
EDIT: I'm offended, I present a masterpiece of biblical proportions, he wees on it, and HE gets POTW? Ref Er Fucking Ree!!!!!!! ;)
The public have spoken
Finally read the article... and you are right, he is a right fucker isn't he?
More droughts, more floods, and yet everyone is starved for water? I'm sure it makes sense in his own mind.
But I do agree, just the name Friends of the Earth makes me want to hurl my burnt toast all over a bunny. Enviro wackos are annoying and love to drum up a beat of craziness... too bad they don't let the science speak for itself, rather than these loonies...
Oh, balls, that's not even the article I meant, sorry, I forgot I post it later in the raving. If that one annoyed you.....this will make your blood boil, this is the one with the twisting of science. The article linked is some comments on the original run of the story (which make for impressive reading themselves), but in the first paragraph it links to a blog detailing what the original story was in all it's vile glory.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/16/briffa_yamal_mailbag/
It's stuff like this that make gibberish scare tactics like Gordo's all the more revolting. Ah well, at least he gave me a date to start asking questions.....50 days and it's all too late, you heard the man.
Something I wonder... How come the Global Warming Threat groups never say much about deforestation? Deforestation has been a constant associated with human civilization. Trees hold carbon, and absorb carbon. Deforestation has been theorized with some climate changes in the past by some. And it is thought cutting down forests may alter weather patterns, hell the science is no worse than the other stuff.
Not part of their agenda I suppose. Why not try to save some forest from civilization, and try to keep the integrity of rivers and lakes? Wouldn't this at least be something more substantial to start with than this political counting carbon emissions bullshit? But they are encouraging growing crops for fuel, which cuts down more forests and needs more irrigation and more fertilizer gets in rivers and lakes.
Possibly it's because mature trees process much less CO2 than growing ones (after all mature ones use carbon to make foods etc, but growing ones need it to make new tissue). So, while slash and burn land clearance style deforestation is downright bad, the now more common approach of managed forrest, chopping down then replanting, actually increases carbon processing by at least an order of magnitude.
Good thoughts, but carbon in live or recently dead trees are all part of the current carbon cycle, its not dangerous to us, its replacing carbon that has been buried for millions of years that we aren't acclimatized to.
I saw a recent enviro wacko trying to explain that landfills were evil because of the methane and carbon they released... same issue she was dead wrong.
What is bad about deforestation is the ecosystems that will be destroyed, taking forever to rebuild, an the remaining 15% of oxegen is produced by rain forests (plankton, foramiforas, diatoms etc. create the majority of it).
"Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir!"
Seems like an excellent chap.
Beats teaching lies.
Creativity etc cannot be taught, only nurtured.
Doctor? wrote: Seems like an excellent chap.
Beats teaching lies.
Creativity etc cannot be taught, only nurtured.
The quote is from Dickens; the picture is of an icon from 'Grange Hill'. He was a bastard.
A little culture can go a long way, Steve!
Clayhead Liberation Faction wrote:
Doctor? wrote: Seems like an excellent chap.
Beats teaching lies.
Creativity etc cannot be taught, only nurtured.
The quote is from Dickens; the picture is of an icon from 'Grange Hill'. He was a bastard.
A little culture can go a long way, Steve!
Did recognise Mr Bronson actually.
