|
turbobloke
55,474 posts
129 months
|
deeps said: Hi TB, I tried emailing you earlier on the old address but it was returned unsent, any chance you could email me please  OK
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,474 posts
129 months
|
Hi deeps, check your mail again, the package has been delivered
|
|
|
mybrainhurts
71,603 posts
124 months
|
|
|
deeps
4,212 posts
110 months
|
Lol MBH Thanks TB, I remembered that as soon as you mentioned it, some good stuff on that old thread.
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,474 posts
129 months
|
deeps said: Thanks TB, I remembered that as soon as you mentioned it, some good stuff on that old thread. The second message with some lowdown on the site itself might be very revealing to disciples of warmistry, though as they don't believe data or sound science but do believe a pile of junk for various personal reasons, it's probably futile resistance at Borg levels.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
perdu
3,247 posts
68 months
|
Because she is/was/probablywon'tbeagain political I thought this was the right place for a little bit of Widdicombe
From today's Express
GEORGE Osborne is reputed to be asking for huge cuts in government aid for wind farms.
That is the best environmental news for years and indicative of good sense still lurking beneath the green obsession.
These wretched turbines are ugly and ineffective and have been imposed on the British countryside not on the grounds of energy efficiency but out of a doctrinaire approach to environmental issues and a wholesale swallowing of some of the wilder claims of an increasingly discredited global warming lobby.
Now the Chancellor, who clearly lacks neither courage nor common sense, should go one stage further and begin reducing the millions pumped into the global warming research establishments in some of our universities and elsewhere.
There have been a few brave scientific voices raised in question of some of the claims made but so long as academics risk prejudicing huge quantities of funding their natural reaction will be to defend the status quo.
These wretched turbines are ugly and ineffective and have been imposed on the British countryside not on the grounds of energy efficiency but out of a doctrinaire approach to environmental issues and a wholesale swallowing of some of the wilder claims of an increasingly discredited global warming lobby.
Now the Chancellor, who clearly lacks neither courage nor common sense, should go one stage further and begin reducing the millions pumped into the global warming research establishments in some of our universities and elsewhere.
There have been a few brave scientific voices raised in question of some of the claims made but so long as academics risk prejudicing huge quantities of funding their natural reaction will be to defend the status quo.
I had the cocklew of my doodah thoroughly warmed over butter pikelets and coffee this morning reading that
Cracks appear even if so far just a "ex-member" of the buggerupocracy...
|
|
|
deeps
4,212 posts
110 months
|
That's good to read, so good it was worth reading twice 
|
|
|
deeps
4,212 posts
110 months
|
I live in Somerset and listen to BBC Points West sometimes to catch the local news after the 6pm news. I've noticed that the presenter hands over to the weatherman at the end of the show with always a comment about "isn't it extreme weather" / "We had June in March" / "it's been floods in May, drought in March, whatever next?" / "well the weather's topsy turvy, what's in store for tomorrow" etc, every evening there's a comment implying that the weather/climate is behaving abnormally.
I think I prefered it when they called a spade a spade and actually stated that any weather event was due to man made climate change, as nonsensical as that was. Now the very absence of the words "climate change" are like the elephant in the room. You know that everything they're saying is meant to imply "climate change" but they never actually say the words.
The BBC's policy changed from mentioning climate change in every other breath a year or so ago, to implying climate change in every other breath now. I can only think that due to all the complaints they actually realsised that the public was sick and tired of hearing about it, and so adopted the subliminal bombardment policy, quite a clever move.
Does anyone know what I'm talking about lol? Does it happen on other local BBC shows?
|
|
|
deeps
4,212 posts
110 months
|
TB, I emailed you again earlier
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,474 posts
129 months
|
deeps said: Does anyone know what I'm talking about lol? Does it happen on other local BBC shows? They just can't help themselves. Anybody would think their pensions depended on it. deeps said: TB, I emailed you again earlier Sorted!
|
|
|
nelly1
4,914 posts
100 months
|
deeps said: The BBC's policy changed from mentioning climate change in every other breath a year or so ago, to implying climate change in every other breath now. I can only think that due to all the complaints they actually realsised that the public was sick and tired of hearing about it, and so adopted the subliminal bombardment policy, quite a clever move. Don't worry - here's Richard Black... to redress the balance
|
|
|
With these feet
3,707 posts
84 months
|
nelly1 said: "Green decline may bring irreversible change" - as in "No money in the pension fund for me"....
|
|
|
Apache
38,242 posts
153 months
|
nelly1 said: "With forests and fish stocks declining, rising water demand rising and lack of action on climate change, humanity's path is anything but sustainable, the UN warns." It takes nanoseconds to find the fatal flaw in Richard Blacks argument, he tries to tie all of these valid and, indeed, worrying issues together with CO2, you simply cannot lump subjects such as water demand in with MMGW (even if it did exist, and to debate at Richard Blacks level one has to) I am seriously beginning to liken Richard Black to George Monbiot, Al Gore and 'Dr' Pachauri as his desire to become a shining beacon for the anti MMGW movement outstrips any desire to do what is actually best for the environment.....in fact all of them have helped damage our planet to an extent only matched by their relative wealth made on the back of doing so
|
|
|
Lost_BMW
10,611 posts
45 months
|
nelly1 said: ""GEO-5 reminds world leaders and nations meeting at Rio+20 why a decisive and defining transition towards a low-carbon, resource-efficient, job-generating 'green economy' is urgently needed,"from a moron to oxymoron?
|
|
|
kerplunk
2,942 posts
75 months
|
Apache said: nelly1 said: "With forests and fish stocks declining, rising water demand rising and lack of action on climate change, humanity's path is anything but sustainable, the UN warns." It takes nanoseconds to find the fatal flaw in Richard Blacks argument, he tries to tie all of these valid and, indeed, worrying issues together with CO2, you simply cannot lump subjects such as water demand in with MMGW (even if it did exist, and to debate at Richard Blacks level one has to) I am seriously beginning to liken Richard Black to George Monbiot, Al Gore and 'Dr' Pachauri as his desire to become a shining beacon for the anti MMGW movement outstrips any desire to do what is actually best for the environment.....in fact all of them have helped damage our planet to an extent only matched by their relative wealth made on the back of doing so Where does he tie everything to CO2/climate change exactly? Not in the sentence you quoted, or anywhere else in the article that I can see.
|
|
|
Diderot
2,583 posts
61 months
|
kerplunk said: Where does he tie everything to CO2 exactly?
Not in the sentence you quoted, or anywhere else in the article that I can see. Climate change = CO2 CO2 = Climate Change.
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,474 posts
129 months
|
Following Diderot's lead: With my comments in brackets the Richard Black article said: fossil fuels (their use generates scented oxygen)
low-carbon (not the same carbon as in carbon dioxide)
tackling climate change (not involving carbon)
greenhouse gas emissions (must refer to the ethene from ripening tomatoes)
etc We didn't need to wait long to see what was involved. Richard Black article said: models Also there just had to be an unwarranted 'unprecedented' and of course there was, not to mention the subtle irony of 'too little data'. Ho Ho Ho So much hype, so little sound science.
|
|
|
nelly1
4,914 posts
100 months
|
kerplunk said: Where does he tie everything to CO2 exactly?
Not in the sentence you quoted, or anywhere else in the article that I can see. These bits? Article said: Little or no progress was noted for 24, including tackling climate change, while clear deterioration was found in eight, including the parlous state of coral reefs around the world.
For the remainder, there was too little data to draw firm conclusions.
This is despite more than 700 international agreements designed to tackle specific aspects of environmental decline, and agreements on alleviating poverty and malnutrition such as the Millennium Development Goals.
Among the report's "low-lights" are:
air pollution indoors and outdoors is probably causing more than six million premature deaths each year
greenhouse gas emissions are on track to warm the world by at least 3C on average by 2100
most river basins contain places where drinking water standards are below World Health Organization standards
only 1.6% of the world's oceans are protected. It's taken as Gospel by people like Black that only 'we' can 'tackle' climate change as 'we' are the cause of it all in the first place, and things like 'the parlous state of coral reefs around the world' are of course our fault too by boiling the oceans and turning the water into concentrated acid. Things like poverty, malnutrition and genuine environmental problems such as deforestation should be tackled as quickly as possible, but the amount of money and effort wasted trying to 'tackle climate change' only deflects valuable resources in the wrong direction IMO.
|
|
|
kerplunk
2,942 posts
75 months
|
Diderot said: Climate change = CO2 CO2 = Climate Change. he doesn't tie everything to 'climate change' either. (edited post to include climate change)
|
|
|
kerplunk
2,942 posts
75 months
|
nelly1 said: kerplunk said: Where does he tie everything to CO2 exactly?
Not in the sentence you quoted, or anywhere else in the article that I can see. These bits? nope.
|
|
