'Climategate' takes a new turn ...
07 December 2009, 11:15 AM
#31
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Yorks.
Posts: 4,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the only thing that would make Brown smile convincingly would be to attach the corners of his mouth to his cheekbones with two self-tapping screws.
07 December 2009, 11:18 AM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave's points about average temperatures is quite right of course, and they have conveniently forgotten to mention that NASA explained that the air temperatures that they were listing was higher than it should be because the balloons which suspended the measuring gear were being warmed by the sun's radiation which affected the readings given by the equipment.
The biggest indication of the big con of course is the fiddling of the figures which was demonstrated by those leaked emails. Difficult to explain all that away as hard as they try!
I am the first to agree that we should conserve the Earth's resources and use what we have available sensibly and without unecessary waste or destruction.
Fiddling the figures by the authorities for their own convenience is beyond the pale.
Les
Last edited by Leslie; 07 December 2009 at 11:19 AM.
07 December 2009, 01:48 PM
#33
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
no, no, no - you are quite clearly wrong
The "impartial" (you make it what it is) BBC have produced a neat little article proving completely and absolutely that all "sceptics" are totally mistaken!
See "The arguments made by climate change sceptics"
It is so good to know that the science is settled - move along now, there is nothing to see (but give us loads of your money first).
mb
no, no, no - you are quite clearly wrong
The "impartial" (you make it what it is) BBC have produced a neat little article proving completely and absolutely that all "sceptics" are totally mistaken!
See "The arguments made by climate change sceptics"
It is so good to know that the science is settled - move along now, there is nothing to see (but give us loads of your money first).
mb
Furthermore, while the UK Met Office regards 1998 as the hottest year yet, Nasa thinks it was 2005 (they use the same data but interpret it differently).
. Oh you couldn't make it up! (except, sadly, they have
)Geezer
07 December 2009, 05:30 PM
#34
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What?, you mean, hey, no, really, eh?, er, like, so the Earth might have other factors to influence things, like, maybe, huge oceans that can absorb CO2, or maybe something called "plants" that eat CO2 and turn it into, er wood and oxygen, oh, and perhaps clouds that form when things get hotter and help reflect sunlight back into space, and perhaps the Earth isn't covered in a layer of plastic and maybe it isn't experiencing 80% CO2 levels that are likely to be present in the experiment and...
Ah, i see what you mean - science has been so dumbed down that "students" no longer question what they see presented by that magical picture box in the corner
Trubble is, kids believe what they are told, and now will forever fear the smelly sooty CO2 monster in the sky
mb
Ah, i see what you mean - science has been so dumbed down that "students" no longer question what they see presented by that magical picture box in the corner
Trubble is, kids believe what they are told, and now will forever fear the smelly sooty CO2 monster in the sky
mb
07 December 2009, 06:23 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's heart breaking in a way watching it go on, I know you are only taught the facts available at the current time, but they are not even taught the flip side of the coin, the fact, that it is on conjecture.
08 December 2009, 09:38 AM
#36
Scooby Regular
They aren't even being taught the facts, the whole CC/GW issue is based on theory and speculation. Computer models have predicted this forecast of doom for us all, but history, geology and true science, performed by those with less of a vested interest seem to disprove much of the speculation.
08 December 2009, 02:13 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, that's just it. You do NOT have to be a climate *expert* to be able to spot the scam. Apart from the obvious political signs, such as taxing us to death(!), you just need some very basic maths. If you know what an average is (take a series of numbers, add them up and divide by the number of numbers) then you've got it sussed.
Go on from there and try to determine how they would determine an *average* temperature for the earth. Right, so we would have to have lots of weather stations (or whatever you want to call them) that take the temperature at various times of the day and night. You would then need to take the temperature at the exact same time every time. Then you could add them all up and divide by the number of thermometers. But how would you account for the fact that the stations were at different altitudes, different latitudes? How many would you need? How many times would you need to take the temperature? What about faults in the equipment? And the equipment would have to be identical to be sure of *precision* (precision - will give the same reading with identical inputs. Not the same as accuracy - where the reading will be the *actual* reading).
When you did come up with an *average* temperature, how would you then decide on what was an *optimal* *average* temperature????
In terms of measurement issues, go to Home to see how many, many stations actually give *dubious* values. Also, these are just the US ones, which are meant to be the most extensive and best maintained in the world. Oh, and how about temperatures over the oceans? Oh well .....
So, how do you come up with an *average* temperature? Maybe you can BUT you then have the fact that the majority of temperature measurements are highly dubious. So, you can't ..... end of.
And have a read of American Thinker: Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline for a discussion of how a lot of the IPCC's temperature *reconstructions* are just a load of hot air ....
Don't be conned by the so-called experts that say that unless you have a gazillion PhDs in *climate science* you know nothing. Their arguments are based on premises that are easy to demolish.
Dave
Go on from there and try to determine how they would determine an *average* temperature for the earth. Right, so we would have to have lots of weather stations (or whatever you want to call them) that take the temperature at various times of the day and night. You would then need to take the temperature at the exact same time every time. Then you could add them all up and divide by the number of thermometers. But how would you account for the fact that the stations were at different altitudes, different latitudes? How many would you need? How many times would you need to take the temperature? What about faults in the equipment? And the equipment would have to be identical to be sure of *precision* (precision - will give the same reading with identical inputs. Not the same as accuracy - where the reading will be the *actual* reading).
When you did come up with an *average* temperature, how would you then decide on what was an *optimal* *average* temperature????
In terms of measurement issues, go to Home to see how many, many stations actually give *dubious* values. Also, these are just the US ones, which are meant to be the most extensive and best maintained in the world. Oh, and how about temperatures over the oceans? Oh well .....
So, how do you come up with an *average* temperature? Maybe you can BUT you then have the fact that the majority of temperature measurements are highly dubious. So, you can't ..... end of.
And have a read of American Thinker: Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline for a discussion of how a lot of the IPCC's temperature *reconstructions* are just a load of hot air ....
Don't be conned by the so-called experts that say that unless you have a gazillion PhDs in *climate science* you know nothing. Their arguments are based on premises that are easy to demolish.
Dave
Are you seriously suggesting that you, and you alone have the discovered something that 1000's of scientists have not? Do you think they haven't considered this issue. To say so would imply that you think that the whole scientific community are just lying to you and me.
It's like the whole 'the climate is always changing' argument; *** me I never realised that
, I do hope the scientist knew this when they were building their modelsI presume your fairly absolutist position on this doesn't allow for the human impact on the climate AT ALL. Strangely not even the most ardent (and qualified) opponents of the percieved wisdom come close to your complete dismissal of the notion and certainly don't then venture off into conspiracy theories.
Now of course there remains much uncertainty here, and the debate amongst the pro AGW scientist is lively and ongoing, but it's about the EXTENT of the problem and what can we actually do about it. This is where the real nuanced debate is afterall, and there is legitimately a wide range of opinions here ranging from the impact of man is very small to substantial, from the likely impact will be 10ft rise in sea level to a very small rise etc etc.
I must say though I do find the arrogance of politicians quite amusing, I mean in abstract the thought of world leaders all meeting up in an attempt to change the climate is quite funny.
However to deny this issue in it's entirety is arrgoant, dangerous and actually intellectually dubious
Last edited by Martin2005; 08 December 2009 at 02:15 PM.
08 December 2009, 02:21 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon that if the energy invested in proving this is all a conspiracy was put to other uses, we could have built another hundred pyramids by now. Staggering.
Governments are going to control emissions. Can't see the problem myself.
People are being asked to adjust their energy usage patterns. Also can't see the problem.
But no. Let's focus on exposing those lying ba$tards, let's PROVE to them the maths don't add up, let's fight the fight on the street for our right to burn tyres.
C'mon....
Governments are going to control emissions. Can't see the problem myself.
People are being asked to adjust their energy usage patterns. Also can't see the problem.
But no. Let's focus on exposing those lying ba$tards, let's PROVE to them the maths don't add up, let's fight the fight on the street for our right to burn tyres.
C'mon....
08 December 2009, 03:31 PM
#39
That's not the issue. The issue is that the likely outcome of COP15 conference is that people are going to be taxed to high heaven and have an economy based on "carbon trading" in the developed world where a few people make huge sums of money while the third world will have their growth restricted. And this is all because of unproven claims that climate change is caused soley by humans.
Last edited by jonc; 08 December 2009 at 03:33 PM.
08 December 2009, 03:38 PM
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Man has **** ALL to do with it!
BUT assume it is getting warmer? What are we going to do about it? WHY is the world going to come to an end? Why are we suddenly going to be getting hurricanes in the Thames, etc etc? I mean, when it was warmer, the Vikings managed to row/sail to Greenland. Maybe it wasn't such violent weather after all. They are cr*p at predicting the weather more than a couple of days in advance, why the h3ll should we believe them when they say they know what will happen in 10, 20, 100 years time? I say bring on some warm weather 'cos it's been effin cr*p all year so far. Maybe that would usher in Billy Liar's 'continental cafe culture' that was supposedly the reason for 24 hour drinking!
I read somewhere that if the money spent on Kyoto were spent elsewhere they could supply fresh, clean drinking water to EVERYBODY on earth. Guess how many people that would save? Guess what though, it's all going on 'carbon credits' and the rest. Guess how many lives that saves? [Hint: sweet fa about sums it up!]. Why can't the money be spent on mitigating the supposed effects of GW if everybody is so convinced they're going to happen? What about building sea defences around those places most at risk? What about ensuring water supplies to those that will become arrid? But no, they want to tax the cr*p out of us.
Oh look .... Copenhagen, Cap and Trade, and Political Hubris - WSJ.com
"... Much of the momentum for Copenhagen is now driven by the alternative fuels industry and its investors, who stand to lose vast sums unless governments artificially raise the price of carbon. These include our friends at Kleiner Perkins, the ecoventure capital fund that includes Al Gore as a partner. And of course that part of the political class congenitally eager to redistribute taxpayer monies also wants to dispense "carbon credits" to friends and political donors ..."
Good lord. Al Gore's name is mentioned as someone who could benefit if 'renewables' become the only game in town. Could this be the same Al Gore who invented the internet? The ex-Vice President? Say it ain't so! But he's a hero ......
And oh look ... EU Referendum: Double your money! the solution to AGW, carbon credits, is the reason 1700 people have lost their jobs in the UK. You couldn't make this cr*p up!
Get a grip Martin, read some facts and not the Sun's take on things, though Page 3 is usually fairly 'informative' ....
Dave
08 December 2009, 03:49 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's not the issue. The issue is that the likely outcome of COP15 conference is that people are going to be taxed to high heaven and have an economy based on "carbon trading" in the developed world where a few people make huge sums of money while the third world will have their growth restricted. And this is all because of unproven claims that climate change is caused soley by humans.
With which particular low-tax alternative do you take particular issue, Jon? Some of them? All of them, just on principle? Why are third world countries attending this conference? To see how badly they'll be shafted?
I just don't get the almost myopic opposition to all this from some quarters...
08 December 2009, 04:49 PM
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
"... The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.
The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals ..."
What a surprise!
Guess what as well, let's follow some more money .... Fausty's Libertarian Blog: The Carbon Credit scam: How it works
"... The bank owns a 10 percent stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange, where the carbon credits will be traded. Moreover, Goldman owns a minority stake in Blue Source LLC, a Utahbased firm that sells carbon credits of the type that will be in great demand if the bill passes. Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, who is intimately involved with the planning of cap-and-trade, started up a company called Generation Investment Management with three former bigwigs from Goldman Sachs Asset Management, David Blood, Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris. Their business? Investing in carbon offsets. There's also a $500 million Green Growth Fund set up by a Goldmanite to invest in greentech … the list goes on and on. Goldman is ahead of the headlines again, just waiting for someone to make it rain in the right spot. Will this market be bigger than the energyfutures market?
"Oh, it'll dwarf it," says a former staffer on the House energy committee. ..."
And look, there's Al Gore again! It can't be the internets founder, though, can it? Maybe it's the guy who thinks the earth's temperature is millions of degrees just a mile or two under the surface? Or maybe it's his uncle ..... ?
Wake up and smell the coffee those of you who think that AGW is true and that Copenhagen is happening to save the planet!
Dave
08 December 2009, 05:39 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Far Corfe
Posts: 3,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not suggesting that the worlds weather or temperatures are not changing but as far as being man induced I'm not convinced at all, if indeed we are buggering the planet then I would love to be convinced. Surely if there really was an issue we would all have been lectured by HMG on the issues, we would have seen irrefutable evidence. TV documentary after documentary. I cant believe that with the world being doomed we havent had any good evidence. Seems to me that there is just as good data for and against. It all smacks of a damn fine reason to tax every one to the hilt without complaint.
I honestly believe that the Government will introduce a law to criminalise being a climate change sceptic or speaking out against it.
I honestly believe that the Government will introduce a law to criminalise being a climate change sceptic or speaking out against it.
08 December 2009, 06:17 PM
#44
08 December 2009, 06:50 PM
#45
They can now read about how badly they shafted in the Danish Text!!
Genius!
08 December 2009, 07:55 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wondered when the *trend* would come into it. Can't you see? There is no trend because we can't feckin' measure it! All we can say is that thousands of years ago the UK was covered in ice. We're warmer than that now we can assume! A couple of thousand years ago Greenland was, well, green, because it was warmer than now. And grapes grew in Newcastle. Then the Thames started to freeze over in the winter but, since the 1600s it's becoming warmer.
Man has **** ALL to do with it!
BUT assume it is getting warmer? What are we going to do about it? WHY is the world going to come to an end? Why are we suddenly going to be getting hurricanes in the Thames, etc etc? I mean, when it was warmer, the Vikings managed to row/sail to Greenland. Maybe it wasn't such violent weather after all. They are cr*p at predicting the weather more than a couple of days in advance, why the h3ll should we believe them when they say they know what will happen in 10, 20, 100 years time? I say bring on some warm weather 'cos it's been effin cr*p all year so far. Maybe that would usher in Billy Liar's 'continental cafe culture' that was supposedly the reason for 24 hour drinking!
I read somewhere that if the money spent on Kyoto were spent elsewhere they could supply fresh, clean drinking water to EVERYBODY on earth. Guess how many people that would save? Guess what though, it's all going on 'carbon credits' and the rest. Guess how many lives that saves? [Hint: sweet fa about sums it up!]. Why can't the money be spent on mitigating the supposed effects of GW if everybody is so convinced they're going to happen? What about building sea defences around those places most at risk? What about ensuring water supplies to those that will become arrid? But no, they want to tax the cr*p out of us.
Oh look .... Copenhagen, Cap and Trade, and Political Hubris - WSJ.com
"... Much of the momentum for Copenhagen is now driven by the alternative fuels industry and its investors, who stand to lose vast sums unless governments artificially raise the price of carbon. These include our friends at Kleiner Perkins, the ecoventure capital fund that includes Al Gore as a partner. And of course that part of the political class congenitally eager to redistribute taxpayer monies also wants to dispense "carbon credits" to friends and political donors ..."
Good lord. Al Gore's name is mentioned as someone who could benefit if 'renewables' become the only game in town. Could this be the same Al Gore who invented the internet? The ex-Vice President? Say it ain't so! But he's a hero ......
And oh look ... EU Referendum: Double your money! the solution to AGW, carbon credits, is the reason 1700 people have lost their jobs in the UK. You couldn't make this cr*p up!
Get a grip Martin, read some facts and not the Sun's take on things, though Page 3 is usually fairly 'informative' ....
Dave
Man has **** ALL to do with it!
BUT assume it is getting warmer? What are we going to do about it? WHY is the world going to come to an end? Why are we suddenly going to be getting hurricanes in the Thames, etc etc? I mean, when it was warmer, the Vikings managed to row/sail to Greenland. Maybe it wasn't such violent weather after all. They are cr*p at predicting the weather more than a couple of days in advance, why the h3ll should we believe them when they say they know what will happen in 10, 20, 100 years time? I say bring on some warm weather 'cos it's been effin cr*p all year so far. Maybe that would usher in Billy Liar's 'continental cafe culture' that was supposedly the reason for 24 hour drinking!
I read somewhere that if the money spent on Kyoto were spent elsewhere they could supply fresh, clean drinking water to EVERYBODY on earth. Guess how many people that would save? Guess what though, it's all going on 'carbon credits' and the rest. Guess how many lives that saves? [Hint: sweet fa about sums it up!]. Why can't the money be spent on mitigating the supposed effects of GW if everybody is so convinced they're going to happen? What about building sea defences around those places most at risk? What about ensuring water supplies to those that will become arrid? But no, they want to tax the cr*p out of us.
Oh look .... Copenhagen, Cap and Trade, and Political Hubris - WSJ.com
"... Much of the momentum for Copenhagen is now driven by the alternative fuels industry and its investors, who stand to lose vast sums unless governments artificially raise the price of carbon. These include our friends at Kleiner Perkins, the ecoventure capital fund that includes Al Gore as a partner. And of course that part of the political class congenitally eager to redistribute taxpayer monies also wants to dispense "carbon credits" to friends and political donors ..."
Good lord. Al Gore's name is mentioned as someone who could benefit if 'renewables' become the only game in town. Could this be the same Al Gore who invented the internet? The ex-Vice President? Say it ain't so! But he's a hero ......
And oh look ... EU Referendum: Double your money! the solution to AGW, carbon credits, is the reason 1700 people have lost their jobs in the UK. You couldn't make this cr*p up!
Get a grip Martin, read some facts and not the Sun's take on things, though Page 3 is usually fairly 'informative' ....
Dave
?PS I would of thought that the Murdoch press was the climate sceptic rag of choice
08 December 2009, 08:18 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
You still cannot explain the conspiracy can you, no matter how much you blather on there is no logic to your tax based conspiracy, which then begs the obvious question, 'if that bit of your argument doesn't add up, then what does'?
PS I would of thought that the Murdoch press was the climate sceptic rag of choice
?PS I would of thought that the Murdoch press was the climate sceptic rag of choice
The one that tells us CO2 is 'dangerous' because some people have grouped together to scare the 'sheep' to death by saying it is? Have you seen the video which opened proceedings in Copenhagen in the other thread? Absolutely farcical...
"hmm, I wonder what we can use to emotionally affect people in order for them to take in everything we say?"...
"I know, we'll make it look like CO2 is going to kill all the children... the poor children."
08 December 2009, 08:30 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08 December 2009, 08:36 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What logic should he be using? The one that tells us CO2 is 'dangerous' because some people have grouped together to scare the 'sheep' to death by saying it is?
Have you seen the video which opened proceedings in Copenhagen in the other thread? Absolutely farcical...
"hmm, I wonder what we can use to emotionally affect people in order for them to take in everything we say?"...
"I know, we'll make it look like CO2 is going to kill all the children... the poor children."
The one that tells us CO2 is 'dangerous' because some people have grouped together to scare the 'sheep' to death by saying it is? Have you seen the video which opened proceedings in Copenhagen in the other thread? Absolutely farcical...
"hmm, I wonder what we can use to emotionally affect people in order for them to take in everything we say?"...
"I know, we'll make it look like CO2 is going to kill all the children... the poor children."
Last edited by Martin2005; 08 December 2009 at 08:40 PM.
08 December 2009, 09:03 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave i have to hand it to you, you put in an inordinate amount of effort trying to convince those of us who don't want to listen that this is a scam. You're certainly dedicated
But i hope that, for your sake;
a) you're in P.R. And if you're not, why not
and
b) you're actually right!!
I mean, digging out reference after reference after reference that supports your entrenched view, well it's ok as far as it goes, but what if, by some horrible twist of fate, we really are contributing to the change in climate? Jeez, can you imagine? All that time you've spent on it? When you could have been doing something else. Doesn't bear thinking about really!
But i hope that, for your sake;
a) you're in P.R. And if you're not, why not
andb) you're actually right!!
I mean, digging out reference after reference after reference that supports your entrenched view, well it's ok as far as it goes, but what if, by some horrible twist of fate, we really are contributing to the change in climate? Jeez, can you imagine? All that time you've spent on it? When you could have been doing something else. Doesn't bear thinking about really!
08 December 2009, 09:08 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the principle of levying so called green tax based on unproven studies on us either directly through the things we buy/consume or through businesses that eventually gets passed down to the consumer with a hike in the price of the product/service. Should there be an annual emissions tax and a duty on all use of a mobile phone, be it texting, voice or surfing, as the radiation emitted by these devices bacause they *may cause* brain tumours and would be a huge burden on the NHS. A "brain tumour tax" to help save the NHS, like the duty charged on tobacco and alcohol, except there is unequivital proof that these items do cause lung cancer and liver disease.
Jon i get what you're saying. But, even though it's unproven to your satisfaction, my point remains; which tax efficient or "green" alternative do you especially resent? Or is it just that you feel your freedom of choice has been restricted? How long do we have to wait, how many studies have to be conducted before it's "ok" to green tax for you? And if those studies prove we should be limiting whatever activity it is, won't it all be a bit late by then when we could start changing our patterns of behaviour...today, for example?
08 December 2009, 09:17 PM
#53
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mb
08 December 2009, 09:18 PM
#54
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave i have to hand it to you, you put in an inordinate amount of effort trying to convince those of us who don't want to listen that this is a scam. You're certainly dedicated
But i hope that, for your sake;
a) you're in P.R. And if you're not, why not and
b) you're actually right!!
I mean, digging out reference after reference after reference that supports your entrenched view, well it's ok as far as it goes, but what if, by some horrible twist of fate, we really are contributing to the change in climate? Jeez, can you imagine? All that time you've spent on it? When you could have been doing something else. Doesn't bear thinking about really!
But i hope that, for your sake;
a) you're in P.R. And if you're not, why not
andb) you're actually right!!
I mean, digging out reference after reference after reference that supports your entrenched view, well it's ok as far as it goes, but what if, by some horrible twist of fate, we really are contributing to the change in climate? Jeez, can you imagine? All that time you've spent on it? When you could have been doing something else. Doesn't bear thinking about really!
Unfortunately, the effort and money involved in that particular adventure is far greater........
Geezer
08 December 2009, 09:37 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Copenhagen has nothing to do with saving the planet and everything to do with finalising the carbon credits trading regime, thereby making some millionaires billionaires and billionaires even richer.
It's a scam.
With one nod, our Govt could put into motion a process that would save millions of tonnes of Co2 every year. But they won't. Why? Politics and no money in it for them.
It's a scam.
With one nod, our Govt could put into motion a process that would save millions of tonnes of Co2 every year. But they won't. Why? Politics and no money in it for them.
08 December 2009, 09:42 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Copenhagen has nothing to do with saving the planet and everything to do with finalising the carbon credits trading regime, thereby making some millionaires billionaires and billionaires even richer.
It's a scam.
With one nod, our Govt could put into motion a process that would save millions of tonnes of Co2 every year. But they won't. Why? Politics and no money in it for them.
It's a scam.
With one nod, our Govt could put into motion a process that would save millions of tonnes of Co2 every year. But they won't. Why? Politics and no money in it for them.
What measure could the gov take save millions of tonnes of Co2?
When you say there is no money in it for them, what do you mean, are you suggesting this is about the personal wealth of politicians, if so that's one hell of a claim?
08 December 2009, 09:48 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08 December 2009, 09:56 PM
#58
Why can't they just ********** like everyone else?
ps. sorry if this is a reiteration of anyone else's previous posts.
I have taken a leaf out of your book and not bothered to read through the thread before posting.
Last edited by cster; 08 December 2009 at 10:07 PM.
08 December 2009, 10:11 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I be really basic and say that I didn't get the kids little swimming pool out last summer (much to their disappointment) as the weather was so cr@p. I also didn't get it out this summer as I thought they might drown - given the rain and that it might also overflow!!! I have also just sold my lovely hybrid Scott cycle and bought a jetski to head down the floods to work!
How can I be convinced of global warming when my world gets worse - I'm actually up for some!
How can I be convinced of global warming when my world gets worse - I'm actually up for some!
08 December 2009, 10:12 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He could be referring to that vicarious pleasure so beloved of our government- taxing the **** out of everyone and then wasting the money on what one assumes are deluded attempts of self agrandisment.
Why can't they just ********** like everyone else?
ps. sorry if this is a reiteration of anyone else's previous posts.
I have taken a leaf out of your book and not bothered to read through the thread before posting.
Why can't they just ********** like everyone else?
ps. sorry if this is a reiteration of anyone else's previous posts.
I have taken a leaf out of your book and not bothered to read through the thread before posting.
Oh and I have read all the way through this thread and cannot find the 'smoking gun' for either sides argument? If it's all about raising taxes then someone need to explain to a thicko like me; why go to all this trouble, surely there are far simpler was of do this?
So less of the rudness please