Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
Snoggledog said:
Question for Turbobloke....
Irrespective of any political motivation / influences, I'm interested in knowing if you feel that we (Homo Sapiens) have any effect on the environment in which we live.
That's a vacantly silly (and no doubt a very poor attempt at a loaded) question.Irrespective of any political motivation / influences, I'm interested in knowing if you feel that we (Homo Sapiens) have any effect on the environment in which we live.
No sane person could think otherwise (that we obviously have some effect).
Mr GrimNasty said:
Snoggledog said:
Question for Turbobloke....
Irrespective of any political motivation / influences, I'm interested in knowing if you feel that we (Homo Sapiens) have any effect on the environment in which we live.
That's a vacantly silly (and no doubt a very poor attempt at a loaded) question.Irrespective of any political motivation / influences, I'm interested in knowing if you feel that we (Homo Sapiens) have any effect on the environment in which we live.
No sane person could think otherwise (that we obviously have some effect).
Snoggledog said:
Question for Turbobloke....
Irrespective of any political motivation / influences, I'm interested in knowing if you feel that we (Homo Sapiens) have any effect on the environment in which we live.
Off the top of my head - we destroy vast amounts of land digging for the minerals for solar panels. We then poison the local wildlife too, just to make sure.Irrespective of any political motivation / influences, I'm interested in knowing if you feel that we (Homo Sapiens) have any effect on the environment in which we live.
Then put up windfarms that kill many birds including endangered species.
The CO2 our activities produce make diddley-squat difference to the environment if that's what you were asking. 'Proper' pollution and land use change obviously do make a difference.
The inference you always get from the AGW crowd is that anyone who is sceptical is somehow anti-environment. I want clean air and water and lots of cuddly animals as much as anyone.
The inference you always get from the AGW crowd is that anyone who is sceptical is somehow anti-environment. I want clean air and water and lots of cuddly animals as much as anyone.
Edited by rovermorris999 on Sunday 20th July 16:09
Snoggledog said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Snoggledog said:
Question for Turbobloke....
Irrespective of any political motivation / influences, I'm interested in knowing if you feel that we (Homo Sapiens) have any effect on the environment in which we live.
That's a vacantly silly (and no doubt a very poor attempt at a loaded) question.Irrespective of any political motivation / influences, I'm interested in knowing if you feel that we (Homo Sapiens) have any effect on the environment in which we live.
No sane person could think otherwise (that we obviously have some effect).
Andy Zarse said:
Snoggledog said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Snoggledog said:
Question for Turbobloke....
Irrespective of any political motivation / influences, I'm interested in knowing if you feel that we (Homo Sapiens) have any effect on the environment in which we live.
That's a vacantly silly (and no doubt a very poor attempt at a loaded) question.Irrespective of any political motivation / influences, I'm interested in knowing if you feel that we (Homo Sapiens) have any effect on the environment in which we live.
No sane person could think otherwise (that we obviously have some effect).
Mankind has an effect on local climate for sure, urban heat islands and land use changes for example, but these are not the same thing as the impact that carbon dioxide isn't having on global climate.
Other than that we're fully paid up members of the biosphere and like every other organism we adapt and survive, or not. Adapting to the choice between heating and eating is proving to be a lethal challenge for too many pensioners each winter - their environment could do with some affordable local warming.
chris watton said:
I had always thought (foolishly, it seems..) that we (Homo-Sapiens) were/are as much part of the environment in which we live than anything else on the planet.
Or are we not?
We are, but out approach to biosphere existence can be a bit different.Or are we not?
Movement:
Ant
Human
Shelter:
Bird
Human
Reproduction:
Frog
Human
Environ mentalist
turbobloke said:
Andy Zarse said:
Snoggledog said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Snoggledog said:
Question for Turbobloke....
Irrespective of any political motivation / influences, I'm interested in knowing if you feel that we (Homo Sapiens) have any effect on the environment in which we live.
That's a vacantly silly (and no doubt a very poor attempt at a loaded) question.Irrespective of any political motivation / influences, I'm interested in knowing if you feel that we (Homo Sapiens) have any effect on the environment in which we live.
No sane person could think otherwise (that we obviously have some effect).
Mankind has an effect on local climate for sure, urban heat islands and land use changes for example, but these are not the same thing as the impact that carbon dioxide isn't having on global climate.
Other than that we're fully paid up members of the biosphere and like every other organism we adapt and survive, or not. Adapting to the choice between heating and eating is proving to be a lethal challenge for too many pensioners each winter - their environment could do with some affordable local warming.
Snoggledog said:
Thank you. That was the answer I was hoping for. At least you took the trouble to provide your insight rather than resorting to derisory comments.
You're welcome. Like others posting in the climate threads I would be very pleased to see politicians addressing genuine environmental concerns with the resources being wasted on the climate hoax.
mybrainhurts said:
...splinters in todger...not nice.
When I first saw that pic two thoughts occurred: won't somebody think of the tree; and I hope the woodpecker is at home.Snoggledog said:
Thank you. That was the answer I was hoping for. At least you took the trouble to provide your insight rather than resorting to derisory comments.
Perhaps if you asked an intelligently posed question with clear scope and open intent in the first place, you wouldn't get the derision your question deserved. Eh!turbobloke said:
Mankind has an effect on local climate for sure, urban heat islands and land use changes for example, but these are not the same thing as the impact that carbon dioxide isn't having on global climate.
Other than that we're fully paid up members of the biosphere and like every other organism we adapt and survive, or not. Adapting to the choice between heating and eating is proving to be a lethal challenge for too many pensioners each winter - their environment could do with some affordable local warming.
So not unlike say termites or ants or bees etcOther than that we're fully paid up members of the biosphere and like every other organism we adapt and survive, or not. Adapting to the choice between heating and eating is proving to be a lethal challenge for too many pensioners each winter - their environment could do with some affordable local warming.
voyds9 said:
turbobloke said:
Mankind has an effect on local climate for sure, urban heat islands and land use changes for example, but these are not the same thing as the impact that carbon dioxide isn't having on global climate.
Other than that we're fully paid up members of the biosphere and like every other organism we adapt and survive, or not. Adapting to the choice between heating and eating is proving to be a lethal challenge for too many pensioners each winter - their environment could do with some affordable local warming.
So not unlike say termites or ants or bees etcOther than that we're fully paid up members of the biosphere and like every other organism we adapt and survive, or not. Adapting to the choice between heating and eating is proving to be a lethal challenge for too many pensioners each winter - their environment could do with some affordable local warming.
Here's one of the peachy lines in idiocy that arise in that context: "The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans" and another "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" The former is due to Dr Reed Noss and the latter to Maurice Strong of the UN.
mybrainhurts said:
FiF said:
Cracking piece in the Telegraph from Owen Paterson on how he was proud to have stood up to the 'Green Blob.'
Paterson said:
I received more death threats in a few months at Defra than I ever did as secretary of state for Northern Ireland. My home address was circulated worldwide with an incitement to trash it; I was burnt in effigy by Greenpeace as I was recovering from an operation to save my eyesight. But I did not set out to be popular with lobbyists and I never forgot that they were not the people I was elected to serve.
Holy strewth..!That's a bloody disgrace. I wouldn't do it to Al Gore. Well, maybe I would....
The comments though. What an unpleasant crowd the Guardian readers seem to be. No mention or censure of the death threats though. Must be standard operating procedure for that crowd.
FiF said:
mybrainhurts said:
FiF said:
Cracking piece in the Telegraph from Owen Paterson on how he was proud to have stood up to the 'Green Blob.'
Paterson said:
I received more death threats in a few months at Defra than I ever did as secretary of state for Northern Ireland. My home address was circulated worldwide with an incitement to trash it; I was burnt in effigy by Greenpeace as I was recovering from an operation to save my eyesight. But I did not set out to be popular with lobbyists and I never forgot that they were not the people I was elected to serve.
Holy strewth..!That's a bloody disgrace....
The comments though. What an unpleasant crowd the Guardian readers seem to be. No mention or censure of the death threats though. Must be standard operating procedure for that crowd.
Mr GrimNasty said:
Snoggledog said:
Thank you. That was the answer I was hoping for. At least you took the trouble to provide your insight rather than resorting to derisory comments.
Perhaps if you asked an intelligently posed question with clear scope and open intent in the first place, you wouldn't get the derision your question deserved. Eh!Im sure I plucked this link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10978678/...
which is Owen Patterson's little column in the Telegraph, from this thread but I can't find it! Anywho, reading that he sounds like a thoroughly sane and logical chap.
Clearly then, he was working in the wrong place. No room for such people in government, bu hopefully Truss is just as sensible.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10978678/...
which is Owen Patterson's little column in the Telegraph, from this thread but I can't find it! Anywho, reading that he sounds like a thoroughly sane and logical chap.
Clearly then, he was working in the wrong place. No room for such people in government, bu hopefully Truss is just as sensible.
absolute proof there are academics suppressing knowledge in the climate science community http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/20/behind-the-sks-... nice to know robert way and his professors knew mann,s work was garbage and did nothing to halt its promotion ,an utter disgrace. robert way does come out of it better than some,as he at least appears to be practising science.
next time anyone refers you to sks ,just refer them to the above. there will be a few more interesting pieces on this in the near future as i believe brandon shollenberger has the entire contents of their secret forum on his site now.
next time anyone refers you to sks ,just refer them to the above. there will be a few more interesting pieces on this in the near future as i believe brandon shollenberger has the entire contents of their secret forum on his site now.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff