Flat Earth Society?

[Bill]

I don?t know about anyone here but I found our leaders comments this weekend about people who question the science behind global warming a little cynical. He may be the leader of a political party but he has no right to accuse the majority of the population of belonging to the flat earth society.

 

The use of this sort of language indicates to me a degree of frustrated, given that the government has completely failed to convince the people to accept the argument that we are the cause of the warming. At least he stopped short (unlike many others, including some here,) of branding people ?deniers? with its obvious association to holocaust deniers.

 

He should take note that in the past; people accepted the theory of a flat earth, not because they were thick but because of the lack of any other evidence to the contrary. In this day and age however, we have masses of information available to us and are able to weigh the facts and figures and draw our own conclusions.

 

Mr Brown should withdraw his comments and apologize to the public.

 

Bill

[Paul Kennedy]

 

Mr Brown should withdraw his comments and apologize to the public.

 

Bill

 

I think you might find that hell will freeze over before he does that Bill.

[Bazj]

I think you might find that hell will freeze over before he {brown}does that Bill.

 

..and no doubt we will be blamed for that too and the government will tax us because of it!!

[Davy51]

My personal view is that we are possibly entering a natural change in climate in which case there is very little the great ,the good & Bono can do about it in regards to blaming the world's population for a man made catastrophe in waiting.If ,however ,the problem is self inflicted then i don't believe any government really has the will or resources to tackle a problem with measures that could damage its own economy & the political aspirations of politicians.Human nature after all dictates that our species has a self seeking "i'm alright Jack" attitude & view on other matters.I also believe that if we are already past the point of no return there is no point in worrying ...apart from retiring too late to live the life of Riley before the Big Bad Wolf gets me.

[observer]

Just about sums it up Wavy: whether it's human activity or cyclical climate change; we should be concentrating on the adapting to the changes and mitigating their effects. If they really want to look at causation, perhaps they need to invest in family planning? They've now come up with the idea of paying rain forest nations NOT to cut their trees down (REDD), thus saying to them, you stay in a third world stage of development while we carry on as usual; now how arrogant is that? IF we need more trees, get planting them here.

[safeway56]

The East Anglia debacle has more or less finished the debate...it's over..Global Warming is a myth yet the powers that be are having their expensive summit next week as if the scandal hasn't erupted. The East Anglian scoundrels may not be alone in the heady world of scientific research who knows how many more are involved in their statistical shenanigans, manipulating, ommitting and destroying data ? Don't forget it's a megabucks industry with many snouts in the trough all over the world.

[asperity]

They are planting trees. The trouble is they're made of steel and concrete and have propellor blades on top. This con trick called renewable energy would be a joke if it wasn't so sick

[safeway56]

The huge wind turbines despoiling the land are but a fop for the Green Meanies, to shut them up. They are almost totally useless and generate just about enough power to light a fag. It's time to face down the crusties in the Green movement. They are planning a march of thousands in Copenhagen at the summit next week and most of them make their contribution to the environment by not having a wash..it takes energy to heat water and we don't want that do we ?

[Bill]

Trouble is there?s snouts in troughs on both sides of the debate but even if it?s argued that they just cancel each other out, it not exactly sound science and it?s no basis for making radical long term commitments that would impact on all our lives.

 

If all scientists were to agree that global warming is a natural and uncontrollable phenomenon but with a probability of some contribution by man then they?d have a much stronger point to argue. Then with the consensus of the population we could work on measures to deal with the changes to prevent unnecessary suffering that any warming might bring.

 

Course if that failed, we could all just paint our faces blue and wave placards at passing motorists as a solution.

 

Bill

[Lt Kije]

the majority of the population

 

I question this in your first post Bill

 

I might be in the minority on this site, but I do think I am in the majority in the UK and the World.

[LymmParent]

Global warming is a fact. The argument is whether we did it or it's a natural cycle. Of course, everyone is arguing about that and wants to be right. So there's bugger all being done but a lot of shouting.

 

If we did it, we need to implement measures to save energy and stop fouling the place, cut our CO2 and stop overexploiting resources and wasting stuff to try and reverse the effect so we can survive longterm.

 

If we didn't, we still need to live with the effects, so we need to implement measures to save energy, stop fouling the place, cut our CO2 and stop overexploiting resources and wasting stuff so we can manage to survive untl the cycle turns again.

 

Spot the difference, Gentlemen? It doesn't matter which of you is right, every person has a responsibility to stop being wasteful and selfish.

[Bill]

Lt Kije

 

Whether your in a minority or not is actually debatable.

 

The problem is that this is a complex problem made up of a whole raft of questions but advocates on both sides seem obsessed with a yes no answers and often word the questions in such a way as to give statistical weight to their cause.

 

Manipulating the questions to achieve the desired results may well result in headline grabbing ?facts? but has no place in this debate. A blatant example of this appeared in the Times a few weeks back where statistics were given claiming to be those in ?denial? of global warming when the actual question was ?do you believe man is responsible for global warming??

 

Ask me if black is white and I?ll give you a one word answer. Ask me to give a one word answer on this subject and I can?t.

 

Bill

[Bill]

Lymm Parent said

 

The argument is whether we did it or it's a natural cycle. Of course, everyone is arguing about that and wants to be right. So there's bugger all being done but a lot of shouting.

 

That pretty much sums up the current situation but you can?t just dismiss the need to be right / wrong issue because the government needs to be seen as being right if it?s to have a mandate to make changes that may radically alter our lives.

 

My personal opinion is that that the climate is changing but the current plans for dealing with it based solely on CO2 emissions may prove to be more harmful to us as a nation than the warming itself.

 

If we are to accept the consensus scientific view is that global temperature will/may continue to rise for the next fifty years then surly we should be looking first and foremost to develop plans to deal with the effects that we know for certain will occur.

 

The uncertainty factor i.e. the amount of human contribution to global warming can and should be addressed but we need to allow time for new technologies to evolve. As a country we should be seizing the initiative in this area rather than get carried away with a panic driven global meltdown mentality that has no better solution than shut everything down.

 

Rant over!

 

Bill

[observer]

Western Governments are imploring their populations to "make sacrifices" "to save the planet" - but what practical measures are Governments taking to reduce "waste"; if for no other reason that waste is an inefficient use of resources. What have they actually done:- to reduce energy consumption whilst keeping old folk warm, by providing free home insullation to every home; reduce excess packaging at source by regulation or taxes; reducing de-forestation by a tax on timber imports; encouraging home based food supply, thus saving on transport pollution and cost; increasing tax on aviation fuel etc etc. What have they done to begin preparing for the now unremedial change in weather patterns: like flood control schemes; not building on the flood plains but at higher elevations; providing water catchment and energy storage through hydro-electric schemes and tidal barriers, rather than these pathetic wind farms. And the big unanswered question - what are they doing about over-population - aside from inviting the world to come to the UK. How on earth are we to take the issue seriously, when clearly, by their lack of deeds, this Government is not prepared to deal with the problems of waste and weather in a pragmatic and tangible way.

[Lt Kije]

What government Obs is going to put in legislation such as tax on aviation fuel that is likely to get them no votes at any election.

 

It could be argued that a tax on aviation fuel would affect the poor more as they would not be able to do there one week in Benidorm, but the rich would still be able to afford to travel.

 

Get real Obs stop making excuses for doing nothing yourself

[LymmParent]

Lymm Parent said

 

The argument is whether we did it or it's a natural cycle. Of course, everyone is arguing about that and wants to be right. So there's bugger all being done but a lot of shouting.

 

That pretty much sums up the current situation but you can?t just dismiss the need to be right / wrong issue because the government needs to be seen as being right if it?s to have a mandate to make changes that may radically alter our lives.

 

 

Bill

 

Why? Why can't the Governments all say "We don't actually know for sure whether we've contributed to global warming, but if we have, we need to take these actions to remedy the situation and if we haven't then these actions are necessary to make sure we can survive the conditions we are expecting." Why do they have to be right? Why do they ALWAYS have to play God instead of admitting their humanity and prioritise being RIGHT at the expense of being USEFUL?

[observer]

Kyje, I've gotten very real - I'm allowing gullible idiots like you to "make the sacrifices" - while I'll carry on as usual. Interestingly, there was a Tony Robinson prog on CH4 tonight about the history of climate changes - which perhaps gives a sense of perspective about this current frenzy. In the 4.5 billion year history of the Earth, vast swings in climate have been caused through volcanic action, tetonic movements and the relationship to the Sun. Indeed, the early Homo-Sapiens in Africa were almost wiped out by an Ice Age over 200,000 years ago, which reduced an estimated population from 100,000 to 10,000; causing severe drought and desert conditions in Africa. But then, about 160,000 years ago "GLOBAL WARMING" saved our species, with a 10degree temperature rise within a decade, and the retreat of the glaciers northward and the retreat of the desert in Africa with the increases in rainfall - which facilitated the global trek of humanity to every corner of the planet. Around 120,000 years ago we suffered another ice age, which the prog suggests finally wiped out the Neaderthals in Europe, but which modern humans survived due to their capacity to adapt to change. The Heinrick effect, of such climatic variation is estimated to occur every 40,000 years - so irrespective of all the hand wringing in Copenhagen - the world's climate will change, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it - other than ADAPT to such changes.

[Bazj]

which the prog suggests finally wiped out the Neaderthals in Europe

 

errrr no it didn't. It left some on the banks of the Mersey. You can see them all; knuckles dragging along in the mud as they go to sign on, their baseball caps at a jaunty angle and their tracky bottoms tucked into there Henri Lloyd socks!!

[observer]

nice one Baz, that's my theory too - there must have been some interaction between the two species, which accounts for the modern phenomena of the Neanderthal gene?!

[Bazj]

......and the rest vote Lib Dem

[observer]

Can't be many of them then!

[LymmParent]

Kyje, I've gotten very real - I'm allowing gullible idiots like you to "make the sacrifices" - while I'll carry on as usual. Interestingly, there was a Tony Robinson prog on CH4 tonight about the history of climate changes - which perhaps gives a sense of perspective about this current frenzy. In the 4.5 billion year history of the Earth, vast swings in climate have been caused through volcanic action, tetonic movements and the relationship to the Sun. Indeed, the early Homo-Sapiens in Africa were almost wiped out by an Ice Age over 200,000 years ago, which reduced an estimated population from 100,000 to 10,000; causing severe drought and desert conditions in Africa. But then, about 160,000 years ago "GLOBAL WARMING" saved our species, with a 10degree temperature rise within a decade, and the retreat of the glaciers northward and the retreat of the desert in Africa with the increases in rainfall - which facilitated the global trek of humanity to every corner of the planet. Around 120,000 years ago we suffered another ice age, which the prog suggests finally wiped out the Neaderthals in Europe, but which modern humans survived due to their capacity to adapt to change. The Heinrick effect, of such climatic variation is estimated to occur every 40,000 years - so irrespective of all the hand wringing in Copenhagen - the world's climate will change, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it - other than ADAPT to such changes.

 

You saw all this? Or is this another load of guesswork from our scientists, secure in the knowledge that one of Bill's ancestors is not going to pop up with his diary for that year and contradict them on the details?

[observer]

As I said; it was a prog on CH4 tonight, presented by Tony Robinson - presumably backed up by scientific research - but if he's wrong, complain to CH4, not me. He also did a series on the history of the Earth too.

[LymmParent]

Deary me, Obs - if it's on the telly it must be true? It's a theory, and next week someone looking to get a bigger research grant will have a new and contradictory theory, which will be presented to you by Anne Robinson because obviously anyone called Robinson has your support!

[observer]

It may be on TV, it may be theory (alas based on scientific evidence) - but it remains information - with a lot more logical basis that believing someone "can rise from the dead".