to be honest , i challenge ANYONE to prove that our cars have ANYTHING to do with damage to the enviroment (PROVE) they cannot.....

if we all stopped driving today, FOREVER, China's growing economy would wipe out our CO2 emmisions savings in 80 days..... don't even get me started on India and America...

AND thats subscribing to the fact that you actually BELIEVE man made CO2 makes ANY difference to the enviroment or global warming (which I don't) ...

remember our goverment brainwashing our children by sending "enviromental" packs to EVERY school to be shown.... that included Al Gore's "an inconvienient truth" and a father , who holds the same beliefs as I , took it to court, and the judge stated that there were SO many scientific errors, that were NOT proved, and NOT facts, that were POLITICAL only, that they cannot now show the film by LAW unless there are cetain disclaimers stated first, saying that this is NOT educational fact, and, well, basically fiction...

one thing NOT included in the press reports I read , is that STUPID graph he shows, where he states CO2 and global warming in that graph, and he says "look , you can see the graph, CO2 in the atmosphere, and global warming , following exactly....., and the relationship is complicated.."

the complication he doesn't mention is that the CO2 goes up BECAUSE the temperature of the planet is going up , NOT the other way around...... the planets temperature raises, then, 700 YEARS later the CO2 levels go up.......

f***ing liers.

as with the EU referandum, when Labour LIED that we would get a say, i.e. a vote (when they were being voted in ten years ago) then toatally did the other thing,and DENIED us a vote, and did what they liked, we have not been lied to by a goverment EVER, as bad as it is now.....

*rant over.... takes his drunkeness, and goes to bed.....

to be honest , i challenge ANYONE to prove that our cars have ANYTHING to do with damage to the enviroment (PROVE) they cannot.....

if we all stopped driving today, FOREVER, China's growing economy would wipe out our CO2 emmisions savings in 80 days..... don't even get me started on India and America...

AND thats subscribing to the fact that you actually BELIEVE man made CO2 makes ANY difference to the enviroment or global warming (which I don't) ...

remember our goverment brainwashing our children by sending "enviromental" packs to EVERY school to be shown.... that included Al Gore's "an inconvienient truth" and a father , who holds the same beliefs as I , took it to court, and the judge stated that there were SO many scientific errors, that were NOT proved, and NOT facts, that were POLITICAL only, that they cannot now show the film by LAW unless there are cetain disclaimers stated first, saying that this is NOT educational fact, and, well, basically fiction...

one thing NOT included in the press reports I read , is that STUPID graph he shows, where he states CO2 and global warming in that graph, and he says "look , you can see the graph, CO2 in the atmosphere, and global warming , following exactly....., and the relationship is complicated.."

the complication he doesn't mention is that the CO2 goes up BECAUSE the temperature of the planet is going up , NOT the other way around...... the planets temperature raises, then, 700 YEARS later the CO2 levels go up.......

f***ing liers.

as with the EU referandum, when Labour LIED that we would get a say, i.e. a vote (when they were being voted in ten years ago) then toatally did the other thing,and DENIED us a vote, and did what they liked, we have not been lied to by a goverment EVER, as bad as it is now.....

*rant over.... takes his drunkeness, and goes to bed.....

Well said Sir

the complication he doesn't mention is that the CO2 goes up BECAUSE the temperature of the planet is going up , NOT the other way around......

There are other related and equally feasible patterns out there...see attached graph for evidence...

Rob.

There are other related and equally feasible patterns out there...see attached graph for evidence...

Rob.

Ah , another pastafarian

Ah , another pastafarian

I believe I picked it up 3rd or 4th hand - no idea of its origins, but I thought it summed up a lot of statistically-derived conclusions rather neatly...

Rob.

It's from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Hmm. A few ranters on the internet, or the vast majority of the scientific community who've actually done the research. I wonder who is more likely to be right.

Hmm. A few ranters on the internet, or the vast majority of the scientific community who've actually done the research. I wonder who is more likely to be right.

vast majororitory of people who have a vested interest in making us believe it, vested interest, i.e money. Its all driven by money. Anything stated by one scientist to support the "BELIEF" that man made CO2 effect global warming, can be disproved by another scientist saying the opposite, but they have the smaller voice because there is no money in it , and no political reason....

If I was a civil servant, SORRY, scientist, on the international panel for Global warming research, and my next grant included me keeping up the good work, and saying anything against such results would see me shouted down and discredited, then I would support the goverments view too.......

edit: oh, and PMSL at robmower and Dr Zoidberg's posts :rofl:

vast majororitory of people who have a vested interest in making us believe it, vested interest, i.e money. Its all driven by money. Anything stated by one scientist to support the "BELIEF" that man made CO2 effect global warming, can be disproved by another scientist saying the opposite, but they have the smaller voice because there is no money in it , and no political reason....

If I was a civil servant, SORRY, scientist, on the international panel for Global warming research, and my next grant included me keeping up the good work, and saying anything against such results would see me shouted down and discredited, then I would support the goverments view too.......

So your position requires a total and utter disregard for how the scientific community actually works. Interesting. Might I ask what your scientific background is?

So your position requires a total and utter disregard for how the scientific community actually works. Interesting. Might I ask what your scientific background is?

I'm sorry... I have no idea what you're talking about....... something is obviously implied, but I guess I'm too thick to understand what it is.... (Or, in your opinion, quite obviously ignorant, as you also randomly accused the original poster of being without any evedance...)

my scientific background, (and what gives you the right to be so sanctamonious? what background do you have?) I'm university educated in the sciences,an intelligent person, take an amatuer interest, and look at BOTH sides of an argument, and form my own opionion (as I'm sure you do) and you know what my opinion is... I've seen (and examined in detail) many goverment paid for investigations into global warming, and they simply don't cover all the possible causes (such as sun activity ect) they take the evidence they find, and turn it to the results the require, there are many things they simply don't take into account....

FOR EXAMPLE:

in al gores "propaganda film" (proven by a judge recently, as politically motivated, with serious scientific flaws) he states the dissapearing ice on top of africa's kilimanjaro as proof that man made CO2 is causing global warming (most "green" activist people do, its a bastian of their arguments.......)

what he doesn't state is that the ice has been reducing since the beginng of people actually recording it, since WAY before mans efforts increased the CO2 levels... in atual FACT since the atmospheric CO2 levels were at some of the lowest they've ever been.... whatever is causing needs to be investigated , sure, but there is NO PROOF that it's man made CO2 thats doing it, its been happening at the same rate, since way before we increased CO2 in the atmosphere..

I have also examined many studies (much less published of course) that state man made CO2 has absolutely NO effect on global warming.... why from your condescending attitude/viewpoint should I believe you and not those scientific papers?

(personally I think you're part of the flat earth sociaty that also believed the dissapearing ozone layer in the 80's was going to kill us too) funny I haven't got skin cancer yet.....

how about giving me some evidence to change my mind eh? instead of making snyde comments, give me a balanced argument, that driving my car actually IS effecting the enviroment.... , I'm open minded, and quite happy for you to convince me.... (rather than just make offhanded comments, from an implied posiotion that you know everything and I know nothing.)

however, if you believe man made CO2 effects global warming, then shouldn't your efforts (and our goverments) be spent doing something about things that actually have an impact on CO2 levels, like the fact that China is opening about 5 coal fired power stations a week..... , or the fact that cows produce more greenhose gasses than our cars, or the fact that the BIGGEST greenhouse gas is water vapour, what you going to do about that ? cover the seas?!

My original post states that even if you believe that man made CO2 effects global warming, (which I'm quite happy for you to belive, without giving you smary abuse... but you dont seem to be happy for me to have MY opinion, and seem to imply that I'm an uneducated fool... ) our cars still don't make a difference in the big scheme of things, which IS PROOF that the taxation is just about money, and nothing to do with saving the planet..... (£400 to tax a range rover?! has it slowed sales ? NO. will it stop rich people buying range rovers? NO. if they can afoord £60k for a range rover, they'll pay £400 a year to tax it...... our stupid goverment gives the toyota pius exemtion from congestion charge, and low tax, but even toyota will admit that from maufacture to disposal/recycling, its more damaging to the enviroment than a V8 jeep wrangler)

personally I'm happy that its warming up (al gore's predictions of rising sea levels, and the failure of the gulf stream, were also proved wrong in court, and should be completely discounted) maybe we'll get back to the days when we could have decent vinyards in this country... wasn't that long ago you know.... remember how "Vine street" in london got its name?!? ... hhmmmmm :confused:

Just a couple of quickies;

1) We still have great vineyards in England, making some excellent wine.

2) You've clearly made your mind up to believe what you want to believe, so there's no point me trying.

3) Look at skin cancer rates down under before and after the hole appeared in the ozone layer.

4) Writing PROOF in capitals doesn't make it so. Just makes it clear you're more interested in RANTING than in a considered approach to the SUBJECT.

Good for you that you've swallowed the right wing uber-capitalist line though. Burn a few hippies for me.

The best option for a boycott is to ONLY buy fuel from fuelling stations IMO.

Their profits are in the sundry items such as drinks, crisps etc etc.

Besides, help support your local newsagents from the big corps drowning our neighbourhoods in Local's and Express' !!!

The best option for a boycott is to ONLY buy fuel from fuelling stations IMO.

So you're boycotting supermarkets which can already afford to discount fuel? :confused:

Chris

So you're boycotting supermarkets which can already afford to discount fuel? :confused:

Chris

I dont use supermarket fuel

Ahem.

Having read back through my posts I can see that they were somewhat abrasive. I woudl therefore like to apologise to Sharkrider if he felt my approach was rude.

I would, however, point out that the Tories have just published an environmental paper, and they agree that CO2 is a factor in climate change (I don't think anyone's said that it's the only factor, just an important one). You can bet that if there was good evidence against it they'd have used that to gain political mileage. Actually, the paper is full of jabs at Labour in terms of policy and so on, but they agree on the basic science.

Think about it. All governments know that environmentalism loses elections. That they are still pursuing it suggests strongly that it's important enough to risk their majority on.

As for the Gore film, I've not seen it, but my understanding of the recent judgement was that the judge felt that there were 9 comments that were of a subjective rather than objective nature. One was about a correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures where Gore used the word "exact" when the judge felt that "close" would have been more correct. Certainly the Nobel Prize panel felt the film was fair and based on good evidence.

I dont use supermarket fuel

Now I'm even more confused! You said that the best option was to boycott fuel not bought from fuelling stations because fuelling stations make all their profit on the stuff sold in the shop.

Yet, my point was that boycotting somewhere like Tesco fuel courts is not going to make a big difference in the scheme of things because they can just put up the price of a loaf of bread, etc to swallow the lost income from fuel.

So ultimately the best-option boycott is not going to lower fuel prices AND is going to put up the price of groceries, so we'll all be worse off? :confused:

Chris

You can bet that if there was good evidence against it they'd have used that to gain political mileage.

I tend to take the more cynical view (based on shifts in taxation over the last few years) that no party will make statements that suggest global warming (and indeed cooling) is actually a natural and ongoing process and the fuss over 'carbon' isn't quite as clear cut as people would like to make out. Sticking the word 'green' in front of the word 'tax' has become a way to grab even more money with little justification of positive effect for the environment, and even allows the party to take some sort of moral high ground in the process. I can't remember the last time a political party threw away a tax that hadn't run its course anyway..

Ahem.

Having read back through my posts I can see that they were somewhat abrasive. I woudl therefore like to apologise to Sharkrider if he felt my approach was rude.

I would, however, point out that the Tories have just published an environmental paper, and they agree that CO2 is a factor in climate change (I don't think anyone's said that it's the only factor, just an important one). You can bet that if there was good evidence against it they'd have used that to gain political mileage. Actually, the paper is full of jabs at Labour in terms of policy and so on, but they agree on the basic science.

Think about it. All governments know that environmentalism loses elections. That they are still pursuing it suggests strongly that it's important enough to risk their majority on.

As for the Gore film, I've not seen it, but my understanding of the recent judgement was that the judge felt that there were 9 comments that were of a subjective rather than objective nature. One was about a correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures where Gore used the word "exact" when the judge felt that "close" would have been more correct. Certainly the Nobel Prize panel felt the film was fair and based on good evidence.

the reason I rant is that I do believe its all political...... (I shall try to rant less here)

surely the nobel peace price would be better given to someone trying to stop all the slaughter in africas civil wars for example, that would be worthy of the nobel peace prize... not give it to someone who is making a political film to promote himself, because he wants to be US president.....

as for the film, you should watch it, then watch channel fours film, that discounts everything it says.... ("the great global warming swindle") just to give balance.... i believe this film should be shown alongside the al-gore film in schools, not just one side of the story.... (again, our goverment brainwashing our children)

the video can be found here (give yourselves 75 minute to watch it....)

its so contraversial, that youtube has removed the video..... some pressure eh?!

The Great Global Warming Swindle

and , you know.... we should all be allowed our opinions..... doesn't matter what they are

The thing I don't get...might just be me...but if you were one of the leaders of a "developed", affluent, influential country, and you truely believed the world was hanging in the precipice due to CO2 causing climate change, wouldn't you be doing more?

That is, the conversation would be like this:

PM: "People, we need to get these cars off the road, we're doomed if we don't."

People: "Oh yeah, what about liberty, etc. etc.?"

PM: "Look - undisputable proof here - it's a fact."

People: "Cripes - well, let's do something about it then."

Followed by mass abandonment of CO2-emitting lifestyles.

That way something would actually be happening about sorting the problem, rather than just an increase in VED on 4x4s, which, if CC is true, will still leave us all f**ked.

I suspect this is the main reason for my cynicism.

Rob.

surely the nobel peace price would be better given to someone trying to stop all the slaughter in africas civil wars for example, that would be worthy of the nobel peace prize... not give it to someone who is making a political film to promote himself, because he wants to be US president.....

Gore's said many times that he's not running for president. He's left it too late anyway. I don't think it was ever his intention.

as for the film, you should watch it, then watch channel fours film, that discounts everything it says.... ("the great global warming swindle") just to give balance.... i believe this film should be shown alongside the al-gore film in schools, not just one side of the story.... (again, our goverment brainwashing our children)

TGGWS has been extensively debunked. A goodly number of the scientists interviewed have complained that their answers have been taken out of context and used to suggest things that they do not believe. Same thing happened with that "The Skeptical Environmentalist" book - someone set out to make a name for themselves by having a go at well established scientific evidence, and because a lot of people don't want to believe that their lifestyle is damaging the planet they latch onto anyone telling them they're a-ok.