|
Originally Posted by alcazar
(Post 8020123)
But the government are having "An inconvenient truth" shown in secondary schools...............as part of the curriculum:(
Talk about brainwashing:mad: Alcazar :luxhello: |
From El Reg
Swindle received 265 complaints after being broadcast, although Channel 4 says calls to the station supporting the programme outnumbered those complaining by 6 to 1. mb |
The reason why people are sceptical about the whole climate change issue is the fact that government policy the world over basically says that it's perfectly ok to f*ck up the environment as long as you can afford to pay the tax for it.
|
I have just been reading the BBC's propaganda, oops, FRONT PAGE news, website to see what Dave Rado (as in, not an impartial journalist) wrote - and it stinks :mad:
When I sat down to watch the screening of Martin Durkin's The Great Global Warming Swindle on Channel 4 in March last year, I had no idea how much of an impact it would have on my life. Oh, and another "front page" article is about the people who have been nicked for not paying their licence fee - but with crap like the cLIEmate change stories, who would willingly pay it? :rolleyes: Biased Broadcasting Company mb |
Originally Posted by Abdabz
(Post 8020381)
Indeed. That is absolutely ridiculous. I am powerless to stop that from happening and can only rely on sound parenting to make sure my kids see both sides of the arguement and therefore can laugh so loud at Al Gores claims that they are removed from said lesson :wonder:
:luxhello: I agree. Although I would describe myself as being less sceptical than most on here, I do still believe that we are talking about scientific theories rather than scientific facts. To have the Al Gore movie shown in schools is wrong, because it is very possible that the theory the film is based upon is, at least in part, wrong. |
Originally Posted by boomer
(Post 8020437)
So I'm not at all surprised that lots of people were supporting it at the time. |
Originally Posted by MJW
(Post 8020471)
The reason why people are sceptical about the whole climate change issue is the fact that government policy the world over basically says that it's perfectly ok to f*ck up the environment as long as you can afford to pay the tax for it.
|
Originally Posted by boomer
(Post 8020565)
I have just been reading the BBC's propaganda, oops, FRONT PAGE news, website to see what Dave Rado (as in, not an impartial journalist) wrote - and it stinks :mad:
...plus pages more of pro "we are all doomed" crap - from the same (impartial) BBC that consigned Flash's signing away our rights to the european consti..., er, treat..., er, tidying-up-exercise to some hard-to-find sub-article. Oh, and another "front page" article is about the people who have been nicked for not paying their licence fee - but with crap like the cLIEmate change stories, who would willingly pay it? :rolleyes: Biased Broadcasting Company mb But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good old SN myth Oh btw they are about to discuss the GW Swindle on Newsnight, I'm sure it will be biased though:rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by Abdabz
(Post 8020024)
Ofcom ruled "Channel 4 did not fulfil obligations to be impartial and to reflect a range of views on controversial issues."
Which means that "An Inconvenient Truth" cannot be shown on tele in the UK because that one sided load of tripe also fails to be impartial... So, in that instance the ruling is a benefit, because it would be terrifying to think anyone could watch Al Gores pitiful attempt at a clamber back into politics as with substance... That said, he might end up as an advisor to Barack Obama, should he be elected, which is a truly terrifying thought... "But the main portion of the film, on climate science, did not breach these rules" says the report... No sh1t by the way... How can the science breach posibly have breached rules, when it is science? :rolleyes: As for Ofcom taking a side on the science of human input to climate change, that is an absolute disgrace :eek: "Ofcom's logic is that "the link between human activity and global warming... became settled before March 2007"." :eek: That is truly terrifying, that a regulator can be influenced to a political agenda and therefore potentially prevent factual counters to the ludicrous concept of humans contributing to climate change :eek: This alone takes news reporting on television to a whole new level, where the only way to stay on the side of the operator is to preach lies to scare current and future generations into thinking that putting your cardboard in a different coloured bin will make everything better... :nono: Next thing we know only the party in power will be allowed to broadcast PPB's... Madness :( |
Originally Posted by MJW
(Post 8020471)
The reason why people are sceptical about the whole climate change issue is the fact that government policy the world over basically says that it's perfectly ok to f*ck up the environment as long as you can afford to pay the tax for it.
Here in Australia, the lastest Govn't policy is to highly tax domestic consumers of power, gas and fuel while big businesses, like aluminium smelters and coal fired power stations get "exemptions" or "free carbon credits". So yes, it's all about saving the planet - NOT! |
Originally Posted by Martin2005
(Post 8019597)
I know there was plenty of debate on this at the time, and as predicted by some, it appears that this was just a propaganda piece. I also understand similar accusations have been made about the Al Gore documentary, which begs the question....
When can we have a proper and balanced and national debate on this complex, controversial and potentially huge issue? BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Climate documentary 'broke rules' |
revelation
[QUOTE=Martin2005;8019674]
Originally Posted by chris1scouser
(Post 8019652)
The sun governs the temperature of the earth.
Thanks for that revelation matey:lol1: |
The main issue is not climate change but managing our resources. I honestly believe that climate change is a myth that is suported because every environmental scientist out there knows that we are wasteing our resources.
Ultimately we have to live in a way that helps us to maintain a balance with the planet and not strip it of all that is there. Oil reliance needs to change and the longer and smoother we start that change the better. Our government needs to stop using this Myth as a tax excuse and start be honest about the real issues of resource management and also accept that industry and the cheap petrol nations around the world can have far more impact on climate change than taxing us. |
[quote=chris1scouser;8020870]
Originally Posted by Martin2005
(Post 8019674)
i was stating a fact, not trying to educate children. matey is that what you wash behind your ears with? |
Well this sums it up ... THE COMMUNITIES LIVING IN FEAR OF GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS - The Daily Mash
"THE COMMUNITIES LIVING IN FEAR OF GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS MORE than half of all communities in Britain are being terrorised by gangs of global warming scientists, it was claimed last night. Research shows gangs are assaulting people in broad daylight if they cite references suggesting climate change may be caused by factors unrelated to human activity. PE teacher Bill McKay, 44, from Sudbury, was attacked in the car park of his local pub after he was overheard telling friends how much he enjoyed Top Gear. He said: "They told me my contention was erroneous and suggested I was being paid lots of money by General Motors. And then one of them kneed me squarely in the balls." He added: "A couple of weeks later that George Monbiot came up to me and said that if I didn't stop going on about the prevalence of volcanic emissions in the upper atmosphere he'd give me a peer-reviewed kicking. "I have no idea what he's talking about." The Department of the Environment has refused to recognise the problem of global warming violence and stressed the research has already been dismissed by some of the most respected global warming gang leaders in the country. A spokesman said: "Look, would you just piss off and leave me alone alright? "If they know I've been talking to you they'll tie me to the back of their Lexus and drag me to an REM concert." ". Dave |
As you suspected Martin, the Newsnight programme did indeed seem very biased coupled with a most irritating female presenter who in common with most "investigative" reporters did her best to interrupt the Channel 4 man every time he tried to make a valid point and she was favouring the ex government scientist who was allegedly misquoted. I did not see the film myself incidentally so I cannot comment on it.
I wonder if all the fuss about this, and I agree that it is wrong to misquote people of course, has further strengthened the opinions of those who are convinced that the change in the Earth's climate is due to global warming as such when we have not had any for some ten years now! Les |
fact and obvious.
[QUOTE=Martin2005;8021117]
Originally Posted by chris1scouser
(Post 8020870)
A fact, or the bleeding obvious?;) convection from our planets core has an effect also, OBVIOUSLY, i let you off with that one seeing as were back to school. have a nice day:thumb: |
fact and obvious.
[QUOTE=Martin2005;8021117]
Originally Posted by chris1scouser
(Post 8020870)
A fact, or the bleeding obvious?;) convection from our planets core has an effect also, OBVIOUSLY, i let you off with that one seeing as we're back to school. have a nice day:thumb: |
Originally Posted by MJW
(Post 8020471)
The reason why people are sceptical about the whole climate change issue is the fact that government policy the world over basically says that it's perfectly ok to f*ck up the environment as long as you can afford to pay the tax for it.
In a nutshell. But how do you forcibly remove choice from people once the option has been invented? We woke up to environmental concerns 50 years too late in my opinion... |
Trouble is, its one rule for them and something quite different for us.
How can he justify spending £0.5million on hiring a luxury aircraft to go to Hokkaido and to cross the Atlantic twice with all the CO2 that produced, and little things like great big fuel burners as personal transport, all the lights and computers left on in Gov't.buildings all night etc with all their extra luxuries and future proof pensions and obscene tax free expenses while we are expected to pay through the nose largely to keep them in clover. They are just not worth it anyway. Les |
Is it worth watching then?
I recorded it when it was first on and it's sat unwatched on the Topfield since then as I've never found the time to watch it. |
sure its worth watching - there are fundamental issues raised that remain unanswered by the pro brigade. For example - all the "modelling" (and I use the word loosely) predicts that warming will occur midway up the atmosphere. However the actual results observed indicate that warming (up to 10 years ago that is) is at the Earths surface. This indicates a completely different pathway to the ones used in the models and destroys any "credibility" (again used loosely) assigned to the models. And yet we are told that the models are good! The evidence clearly does not bear this out. How can anyone continue to support the predictions of these models, and yet that is exactly what the Government would have us believe.
|
Originally Posted by TelBoy
(Post 8021487)
In a nutshell. But how do you forcibly remove choice from people once the option has been invented? We woke up to environmental concerns 50 years too late in my opinion...
|
Originally Posted by TelBoy
(Post 8021487)
In a nutshell. But how do you forcibly remove choice from people once the option has been invented? We woke up to environmental concerns 50 years too late in my opinion...
Humankind's reap now, pay later attitude through the centuries is not something that is going to be overcome at the end of the day. That is, of course, on the arguably fairly far fetched assumption that we, the human race, are responsible for anything more than wasting the natural resources of this planet gifted to us by God, evolution or ET (depending on your outlook) |
Originally Posted by warrenm2
(Post 8021625)
sure its worth watching - there are fundamental issues raised that remain unanswered by the pro brigade. For example - all the "modelling" (and I use the word loosely) predicts that warming will occur midway up the atmosphere. However the actual results observed indicate that warming (up to 10 years ago that is) is at the Earths surface. This indicates a completely different pathway to the ones used in the models and destroys any "credibility" (again used loosely) assigned to the models. And yet we are told that the models are good! The evidence clearly does not bear this out. How can anyone continue to support the predictions of these models, and yet that is exactly what the Government would have us believe.
Whilst the findings can easily be questioned, I think it's a bit of an over-simplification to suggest that 20,000 scientist across the globe are all working to the same climate model or models. |
Originally Posted by MJW
(Post 8021634)
I don't think its a case of removing choice from people, more like giving them more choice. How come there are only four alternative fuel cars available to buy ? (G-Wizz, Toyota Prius, Honda Civic Hybrid, Lexus LS400h) And 3 of those use petrol as well ! You'd think if it really was society's use of the car that was the biggest threat to the environment then all car manufacturers would have alternative fuel models in their model ranges - but they don't.
|
|
Originally Posted by Martin2005
(Post 8020622)
That would be the same BBC that spent most of this decade in a state of open warfare with No.10?
BBC Bias and BBC Biased
Originally Posted by Martin2005
(Post 8020622)
But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good old SN myth
mb |
BTW if you google BBC bias you get about a million returns, with claims from just about every interest group (some opposing each other) saying that the Beeb are biased against them...work that one out!:) BTW if you want to see real editorial bias, tune into Fox News!! |
It seems that you couldn't be bothered to follow any of the suggested links, so you still have your fingers stuck in your ears :rolleyes:
The BBC most certainly wasn't "in a state of open warfare with No.10"!!! mb |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:04 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands