Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2

[Mr GrimNasty]

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.

No sane person could think otherwise (that we obviously have some effect).

[Snoggledog]

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.

No sane person could think otherwise (that we obviously have some effect).

Now now. It's not a loaded question. It's very very clear. And no, it's not a silly question. It's a very pertinent question. As to sanity, there are a number of people I've come across who firmly believe that we have zero to negligible impact upon the environment around us.

[Jasandjules]

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.

Then put up windfarms that kill many birds including endangered species.

[rovermorris999]

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.

Edited by rovermorris999 on Sunday 20th July 16:09

[Andy Zarse]

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.

No sane person could think otherwise (that we obviously have some effect).

Now now. It's not a loaded question. It's very very clear. And no, it's not a silly question. It's a very pertinent question.

Correct, it's not a loaded question. It's far too stupid for that. However, I've not the faintest idea what it might be pertinent to?

[turbobloke]

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.

No sane person could think otherwise (that we obviously have some effect).

Now now. It's not a loaded question. It's very very clear. And no, it's not a silly question. It's a very pertinent question.

Correct, it's not a loaded question. It's far too stupid for that. However, I've not the faintest idea what it might be pertinent to?

Nor have I, in a thread concerning political exploitation of the non-effects of carbon dioxide emissions in terms of manmadeup global warming, or indeed any overall warming which we've not seen for nearly 18 years.

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]

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?

[turbobloke]

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.

Movement:

Ant


Human


Shelter:

Bird


Human


Reproduction:

Frog


Human


Environ mentalist

[mybrainhurts]

...splinters in todger...not nice.

[Snoggledog]

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.

No sane person could think otherwise (that we obviously have some effect).

Now now. It's not a loaded question. It's very very clear. And no, it's not a silly question. It's a very pertinent question.

Correct, it's not a loaded question. It's far too stupid for that. However, I've not the faintest idea what it might be pertinent to?

Nor have I, in a thread concerning political exploitation of the non-effects of carbon dioxide emissions in terms of manmadeup global warming, or indeed any overall warming which we've not seen for nearly 18 years.

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.

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.

[turbobloke]

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.

[Mr GrimNasty]

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!

[voyds9]

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 etc

[turbobloke]

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 etc

Kingdom, phylum (etc) to species apart, the point is that all living things in the biosphere are adapting to survive, otherwise they hit the buffers of a natural endpoint of evolution known as extinction. What intelligence there is, can be used in that quest. We're no different, though some zealots like to set us apart for some contrived reason in order to justify the unjustifiable policies they want to see implemented.

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.

[FiF]

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 Guardian is reporting the Telegraph article in that incestuous way the media operates today.

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.

[turbobloke]

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 Guardian is reporting the Telegraph article in that incestuous way the media operates today.

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.

Absolutely, it's standard. You don't need to be a Cabinet member or MP to learn that lesson.

[Snoggledog]

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!

Sigh.. Did you take the trouble to read the whole thing in its entirety? Please humour me and re-read the whole thing. The intent will soon become clear.

[Otispunkmeyer]

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.

[Andy Zarse]

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.

Fair enough!




But I still don't think it was a terribly well worded question...

[wc98]

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.