Greybeard Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Pretty sterile argument really. Tony Blair believes we are responsible and for us that is all that matters. In today's draft Climate Change Bill it is revealed that the govt. will give ministers 'wide enabling powers' allowing them to introduce measures to meet their target reductions in CO2 emissions. As far as the UK is concerned the war on GW is taking on the dimensions of the war on terror...stand by for some draconian 'thou shallt nots' coupled to lucrative penalties and a raft of new taxes that will drive industry and commerce into the arms of countries which don't give a damn about the climate. Like JoeP I'm not totally convinced by the 'man-made' arguments and every escalation of the political hysteria surrounding GW makes me wonder if there is a more important agenda than saving the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 your grossly oversimplifying the issue. the planet would warm and cool without us so no we are not causing global warming. we may however be contributing to the speed the planet is warming. i refuse to believe that mankind is bigger and more powerful than the global ecosystem. at best we can contribute and alter we can't possibly control the weather and behaviour of the climate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormy Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Hmm to all these people who are convinced that we are "Responsible" for global warming, why dont you do your bit and not encourage people to join debates like these, hence using their computers less and ergo using less energy. Oh the irony. Every little helps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonjoe Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 What do you mean I've voted already on this??? Is this by any chance how you manage to get your desired result? JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingmaker2 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 A report published today by the Independent investigating "The Great Global Warming Swindle" claims the programme " riddled with distortions and errors" Here is an extract: "Martin Durkin, who wrote and directed the film, admitted yesterday that one of the graphs contained serious errors but he said they were corrected in time for the second transmission of the programme following inquiries by The Independent." However, further inquiries revealed that the C4 graph was based on a diagram in another paper produced as part of a "petition project" by the same group of climate sceptics. This diagram was itself based on long out-of-date information on terrestrial temperatures compiled by Nasa scientists. However, crucially, the axis along the bottom of the graph has been distorted in the C4 version of the graph, which made it look like the information was up-to-date when in fact the data ended in the early 1980s. Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said. Full article here: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BasilRathbon Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 A report published today by the Independent investigating "The Great Global Warming Swindle" claims the programme " riddled with distortions and errors" Here is an extract: "Martin Durkin, who wrote and directed the film, admitted yesterday that one of the graphs contained serious errors but he said they were corrected in time for the second transmission of the programme following inquiries by The Independent." However, further inquiries revealed that the C4 graph was based on a diagram in another paper produced as part of a "petition project" by the same group of climate sceptics. This diagram was itself based on long out-of-date information on terrestrial temperatures compiled by Nasa scientists. However, crucially, the axis along the bottom of the graph has been distorted in the C4 version of the graph, which made it look like the information was up-to-date when in fact the data ended in the early 1980s. Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said. Full article here: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece Take a day off, mate - you're obsessed! Why did this documentary upset you so much that you've made about 100 posts condemning it? Does your livelihood depend on the myth of manmade global warming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingmaker2 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Take a day off, mate - you're obsessed! Why did this documentary upset you so much that you've made about 100 posts condemning it? Does your livelihood depend on the myth of manmade global warming? Why don't you just read the article, those articles that were posted by me were posted on the days the articles came out! If these news reports didn't come out I wouldn't be posting them would I? Maybe you should take the day off? Not my fault if you don't like what you read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BasilRathbon Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Why don't you just read the article, those articles that were posted by me were posted on the days the articles came out! If these news reports didn't come out I wouldn't be posting them would I? Maybe you should take the day off? Not my fault if you don't like what you read. It's not that I don't like your sources, I simply don't trust them. One of your links was to some green business site whose members are dependent on the global warming myth for their business, now you're suggesting I read the Independent, a newspaper whose every front page is some hysterical nonsense about climate change. You may be gullible enough to take them at face value; I would question not just what they're saying but also their ulterior motive for doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingmaker2 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 It's not that I don't like your sources, I simply don't trust them. One of your links was to some green business site whose members are dependent on the global warming myth for their business, now you're suggesting I read the Independent, a newspaper whose every front page is some hysterical nonsense about climate change. You may be gullible enough to take them at face value; I would question not just what they're saying but also their ulterior motive for doing so. But facts speak for themselves, even Durkin admits there were serious errors in the graph he used. I've been called many things before but gullible certaintly isn't one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTYKE Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 One thing for sure is that ch 4 would obtain max revenue advert-wise - confident, as they surely were, of high veiwing figures. The millions of detractors would'nt be able to resist a show that debunks climate change. (I guess humans are not too good at accepting responcibility for their **** ups). We ALL would love to believe that this trend is just a cyclic event, that may or may not bump off a few seals. Time will tell - though "I told you sos'" will ring hollow indeed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.