Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Fortunately we have less than a year to not save Ed Davey's pointless political career.
What humiliatingly low percentage are the LibDims polling these days? Hopefully it'll be even less in his constituency.
Well, in the last two by-elections. They sadly [snigger] polled less than 2%.What humiliatingly low percentage are the LibDims polling these days? Hopefully it'll be even less in his constituency.
There are rumours that they have come up with a master plan. They will merge with the Monster Raving Looney party. They will be known as the Monster Raving Looney Liberal Democrats.
So, no change from the present!
don4l said:
turbobloke said:
Fortunately we have less than a year to not save Ed Davey's pointless political career.
What humiliatingly low percentage are the LibDims polling these days? Hopefully it'll be even less in his constituency.
Well, in the last two by-elections. They sadly [snigger] polled less than 2%.What humiliatingly low percentage are the LibDims polling these days? Hopefully it'll be even less in his constituency.
There are rumours that they have come up with a master plan. They will merge with the Monster Raving Looney party. They will be known as the Monster Raving Looney Liberal Democrats.
So, no change from the present!
But wait - that's unfair to tbe MRLP! With the loonies married to monster raving loonies they might offer better policies as a unit due to monster influence, it could hardly be worse than what the LibDims are up to at the mo
turbobloke said:
Fortunately we have less than a year to not save Ed Davey's pointless political career.
I will be delighted if he doesn't get elected. I'd be even more delighted if he ended up jobless and on welfare. Sadly I assume he will have his snout in some "green" company trough for a fortune that as with most MPs they could not achieve otherwise.Jasandjules said:
turbobloke said:
Fortunately we have less than a year to not save Ed Davey's pointless political career.
I will be delighted if he doesn't get elected. I'd be even more delighted if he ended up jobless and on welfare. Sadly I assume he will have his snout in some "green" company trough for a fortune that as with most MPs they could not achieve otherwise.don4l said:
If enough people vote for UKIP, then all these "green snouts in the trough" type of jobs will disappear.
I think this is already happening. Just watch Camercon and the Tory scumbags backtracking on anything and everything to buy themselves more time in power. Anything UKIP stand for they will decide they are keen on too - less green s***e and suddenly more immigration talk too.. don4l said:
Jasandjules said:
turbobloke said:
Fortunately we have less than a year to not save Ed Davey's pointless political career.
I will be delighted if he doesn't get elected. I'd be even more delighted if he ended up jobless and on welfare. Sadly I assume he will have his snout in some "green" company trough for a fortune that as with most MPs they could not achieve otherwise.dickymint said:
don4l said:
Jasandjules said:
turbobloke said:
Fortunately we have less than a year to not save Ed Davey's pointless political career.
I will be delighted if he doesn't get elected. I'd be even more delighted if he ended up jobless and on welfare. Sadly I assume he will have his snout in some "green" company trough for a fortune that as with most MPs they could not achieve otherwise.On the subject of global warming, I would guess that 30% of people realise that it is a crock of s
t. 40% are just not interested, and maybe 30% are gullible and ignorant enough to believe that there is a problem.I believe that the Climate Change Act is doing far more harm than uncontrolled immigration, but this is very difficult to explain too Joe Public.
WHO Forecast Exaggerates Climate Deaths
New paper faults World Health Organisation's wilful exaggeration
A new briefing paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation examines the World Health Organisation’s recent report on climate change and finds that its estimates of future mortality from global warming are grossly exaggerated.
The WHO report predicted that climate change would bring about 250,000 extra deaths annually between 2030 and 2050, but relied upon absurd assumptions to reach this conclusion. For example, the report assumes that the people affected by climate change will forgo commonsense steps to protect themselves, including several that are already in the works in some developing countries.
The briefing paper author Dr Indur Goklany said:
“The idea that people would not, for example, react to higher sea levels by building higher sea defences or even moving away from the coast is preposterous, so for the WHO to suggest such a high death toll from climate change completely misleads the public.”
And as Dr Goklany goes on to explain, the WHO’s results use climate model results that apparently overstate the warming trend three-fold compared to observations despite using 27% less greenhouse gas forcing.
The WHO also assumes that higher carbon dioxide levels will have no beneficial effects on crop yields, despite scientific studies having confirmed that this is precisely what will happen in a wide range of crop species.
“Because of its wilful exaggerations,” says Goklany, “the WHO study risks scaring people into taking ill-considered costly actions to limit greenhouse gases rather than focusing on higher priority global health issues such as hunger, malaria and diarrhoeal diseases, which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost”.
Dr Indur Goklany is an independent scholar and author. He was a member of the U.S. delegation that established the IPCC and helped develop its First Assessment Report. He subsequently served as an IPCC reviewer.
New paper faults World Health Organisation's wilful exaggeration
A new briefing paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation examines the World Health Organisation’s recent report on climate change and finds that its estimates of future mortality from global warming are grossly exaggerated.
The WHO report predicted that climate change would bring about 250,000 extra deaths annually between 2030 and 2050, but relied upon absurd assumptions to reach this conclusion. For example, the report assumes that the people affected by climate change will forgo commonsense steps to protect themselves, including several that are already in the works in some developing countries.
The briefing paper author Dr Indur Goklany said:
“The idea that people would not, for example, react to higher sea levels by building higher sea defences or even moving away from the coast is preposterous, so for the WHO to suggest such a high death toll from climate change completely misleads the public.”
And as Dr Goklany goes on to explain, the WHO’s results use climate model results that apparently overstate the warming trend three-fold compared to observations despite using 27% less greenhouse gas forcing.
The WHO also assumes that higher carbon dioxide levels will have no beneficial effects on crop yields, despite scientific studies having confirmed that this is precisely what will happen in a wide range of crop species.
“Because of its wilful exaggerations,” says Goklany, “the WHO study risks scaring people into taking ill-considered costly actions to limit greenhouse gases rather than focusing on higher priority global health issues such as hunger, malaria and diarrhoeal diseases, which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost”.
Dr Indur Goklany is an independent scholar and author. He was a member of the U.S. delegation that established the IPCC and helped develop its First Assessment Report. He subsequently served as an IPCC reviewer.
turbobloke said:
WHO Forecast Exaggerates Climate Deaths
New paper faults World Health Organisation's wilful exaggeration
.....
“Because of its wilful exaggerations,” says Goklany, “the WHO study risks scaring people into taking ill-considered costly actions to limit greenhouse gases rather than focusing on higher priority global health issues such as hunger, malaria and diarrhoeal diseases, which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost”.
Dr Indur Goklany is an independent scholar and author. He was a member of the U.S. delegation that established the IPCC and helped develop its First Assessment Report. He subsequently served as an IPCC reviewer.
Well yes, but ....New paper faults World Health Organisation's wilful exaggeration
.....
“Because of its wilful exaggerations,” says Goklany, “the WHO study risks scaring people into taking ill-considered costly actions to limit greenhouse gases rather than focusing on higher priority global health issues such as hunger, malaria and diarrhoeal diseases, which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost”.
Dr Indur Goklany is an independent scholar and author. He was a member of the U.S. delegation that established the IPCC and helped develop its First Assessment Report. He subsequently served as an IPCC reviewer.
The World Health people may well be party to various political projects that might, for the sake of discussion, eliminate some of the mitigating action that people would take naturally to lessen any perceived threat. So you want to move away from potential flooding? Nope, can't do that. Our numbers would work out wrong and we will not allow that to happen.
CO2 improving the potential for crop growth? Nice try but that could easily be blocked on the grounds of public health "risk".
If they know what is planned (in principle) they may well have factored that in to their conclusions.
If that is not the case then one has to question their ability and their current role as the global competence on such matters.
Andy Zarse said:
LongQ said:
CO2 improving the potential for crop growth? Nice try but that could easily be blocked on the grounds of public health "risk".
Triffids? 
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
turbobloke said:
Andy Zarse said:
LongQ said:
CO2 improving the potential for crop growth? Nice try but that could easily be blocked on the grounds of public health "risk".
Triffids? http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Andy Zarse said:
turbobloke said:
Andy Zarse said:
LongQ said:
CO2 improving the potential for crop growth? Nice try but that could easily be blocked on the grounds of public health "risk".
Triffids? http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Andy Zarse said:
LongQ said:
CO2 improving the potential for crop growth? Nice try but that could easily be blocked on the grounds of public health "risk".
Triffids? Flesh eating plant
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff