tameelf Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 what is that post u just copied? i never wrote that. ever. remove it now coz it aint my post or i'll have some legal person deal with it. post anything i do post vinny but dont make posts up you snide shite. REMOVE IT NOW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 what is that post u just copied? i never wrote that. ever. remove it now coz it aint my post or i'll have some legal person deal with it. post anything i do post vinny but dont make posts up you snide shite. REMOVE IT NOW Do you really believe that I'm honestly trying to dupe people into thinking that you originally wrote that? This might come as a sock to your paranoid little branium, but I'm mocking you, because you're a fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tameelf Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 exactly. ill mock u real life. remove it now. do not mis qoute me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 exactly. ill mock u real life. remove it now. do not mis qoute me I think you'll find that what I did was parody you; misquoting you would have involved subtly altering your original post and then using it to substantiate a claim. Don't overestimate yourself, you're nowhere near important enough to warrant misquoting. Here's my disclaimer: The quote included in the post tameelf refers to was intended entirely as a parody and was written entirely by myself. He is in no way responsible for the said quote. Make no mistake though, he is an oaf. As for you'll "mock me real life", is that some kind of threat? Oh NOES! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tameelf Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Makes Big Brother look like Mastermind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 remove it now coz it aint my post or i'll have some legal person deal with it We should definitely have an award for most ridiculous bout of internet lawyering in the annual poll this year. PS. You are a fucking retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 i smell and my mother dresses me funny Oh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Lonan3 - As far as I am concerned you are close to the heart of the argument here - a trust in science and technology. My point is that you still use detergents, food dyes Only where they're unavoidable which is, I admit, far too often. and who knows, use pills to make your sex life safe Without going into details - no! - hey you raised it not me! I think you should have thought about it a little more before expressing yourself in that way! And DDT, thalidomide etc are still used in more appropriate situations today. We've learned about these dangers and changed/adapted. How did we do that - via science. The ozone hole is closing - we saw a problem and used our technological know how to phase out CFCs. That was extremely controversial at the time - I can remember programs very similar to the Channel 4 documentary saying we were taking away the third world's ability to refigerate cheaply by abolishing the production of these chemicals - guess what the world has found technical solutions to these problems (and limited smuggling/treaty breaking has filled the gap - I am a realist!). The point there, I'd contend, is that it was done by compelling manufacturers to behave more responsibly. It was, in general terms, done without adding to the financial burden of the average person. Will the science of global warming change in the future? - definitely. Will our understanding of this issues improve? - ditto. Both points accepted without reservation. Should we wait until then before doing anything about global warming? In my mind NO - the consensus of the science is now so overwhelming that policy makers cannot ignore it. I definitely see the arrow of causality going in that direction - a scientific worry, growing to a serious concern which forces policy makers to take the concerns seriously. Many sceptics put the causality the other way round - quite why they think it is like this, and why they think scientists would fabricate/distort their research I don't understand. I don't feel the measures we are taking now are irreversiable - if we find a way of scrupping carbon out of aircraft emissions, making flying carbon neutral through technology - then the taxes should be reversed. Currently this isn't technically possible - so there should be a mechanism to attempt to decrease their carbon emissions - ie changing the cost of flying. So my view - I don't think the scientists are lying to me. I do think there is a problem; though I understand the full consequences are not fully known. I do think we should do something about it, but if the science changes we can change/reverese what we have done previously. I am not of the opinion that scientists are lying to me. What makes me a doubter is that interpretation of data is not always either consistent or correct - there have been many examples of that in the past and will be, no doubt, in the future.I do feel, however, that politicians are currently leaping on the green bandwagon even though, in most cases, they have no greater understanding of the issues than I do. The media, of course, love scare stories (and, no, I'm not insisting that they're untrue - just that media reports of them are designed to sell newspapers/products rather than genuinely inform in many cases). Therefore, regardless of whether the situation is as reported or not, we have a combination of the media using it as a selling point and politicians using it as a vote harvester. Surprisingly(?) perhaps, this does not fill me with confidence. I'm reasonably concerned that we will NOT be able to reverse the problems quickly enough and sea level changes etc will bring misery to millions if not billions of people - mainly the worlds poorest. But apart from needing a stronger roof - I doubt if I will be materially affected by the changes: cos I live in the developed world and so have the resources to adapt. Yes, I am concerned about the same things - and I'm also concerned that many third world countries which have resources that would once have been seen as beneficial for development - especially coal reserves - are now being told that such resouces cannot be used and that their future development will be dependant on the generosity of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 remove it now coz it aint my post or i'll have some legal person deal with it We should definitely have an award for most ridiculous bout of internet lawyering in the annual poll this year. PS. You are a fucking retard. This is a truly great thread. That is three awards it is up for now!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 ..ok back to the thread Todays independant reported on their investigation into the Swindle documentary. Apparently one of the graphs central to the argument that this is an observable repeat of the 1920-1940's warming wasn't accurate, most crucially it was missing the data from the 80's to date, despite those dates being o the axis. The difference between the swindles chart and the real one is significant, as it shows how much more warming there's been compared to earlier in the century. The quote from Durkin on the graphs "The original data was very wiggley-lined, and we wanted the simplest line we could find".... Interestingly the graphs were quoted as being from Nasa, but it turns out they weren't at all but from a 1998 publication by a very dubious outfit The Oragon Institute of Science and Medicine, and are not global temperatures, but the northern hemisphere only. It's worth clicking that link, and finding out more about the type of scientist the are prepared to bet our future on. The author isn't a climatologist, hasn't had any climate papers peer reviewed. It doesn't stop there, the other key point, the solar activity vs temp graph was based on 16 year old data. The up to date data shows no corralation between temperature and solar activity. Great science... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 The Indy Article Slim was referring to can be found here: I think! As has been said multiple times - this documentary was a polemic and distorting - it did not report science, but misused it for its own purposes. A Channel 4 documentary that claimed global warming is a swindle was itself flawed with major errors which seriously undermine the programme's credibility, according to an investigation by The Independent. The Great Global Warming Swindle, was based on graphs that were distorted, mislabelled or just plain wrong. The graphs were nevertheless used to attack the credibility and honesty of climate scientists. graphs used out-of-date information or data that was shown some years ago to be wrong. Channel 4 yesterday distanced itself from the programme. The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention. Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity. Mr Durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which were first published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available - but again the corrected version would not have supported his argument. Mr Durkin also used a schematic graph of temperatures over the past 1,000 years that was at least 16 years old, which gave the impression that today's temperatures are cooler than during the medieval warm period. If he had used a more recent, and widely available, composite graph it would have shown average temperatures far exceed the past 1,000 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 China But surely you know by now such a report is all part of the "government conspiracy" and that the "culltists" have been programmed to accept this that rather than think for themselves and ignore the evidence. Also I am sure it will be ponted out that The Independent investigation did not address all the points raised in the programme or others that were not raised but can readily be found at "puttogetherinourbedroomonthebackofafagpacket.com and well dumbocracy is bad you know The Indy Article Slim was referring to can be found here: I think! As has been said multiple times - this documentary was a polemic and distorting - it did not report science, but misused it for its own purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 it wuz de jewz i now it tru dey run de knewspappers. ..apparently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Okay, so we're supposed to go around putting lights off, recycling everything we don't want and generally being environmentally conscious - but in the meantime, the government who are telling us about our responsibilities to the future of the planet are...... The new target for 2020 is "26%-32%". That's not a target; it's a whole shooting range. It means the legal target is really 26%, well below the level required to get the government on track towards its 2050 goal. As usual, shipping and international aviation are left out. The excuse that they are not considered in international agreements wears ever thinner. The government still insists it won't set annual carbon budgets: they will cover five-year periods. This means if one administration fails to meet its five-year target, it's likely to be the next government that gets taken to court. Worse still is the proposal to permit the government to make its cuts by buying carbon credits overseas. The global trade in hot air has helped to vitiate the Kyoto protocol. It will do the same for this bill. Two government departments are actively undermining everything this bill seeks to achieve. One of them is the Department for Transport. It's not just that it is building 4,000 kilometres of new trunk roads and telling the airports to produce "master plans" for a doubling of capacity. It has also sought to frustrate any effort to quantify the impact of its policies. The identity of the other offending department is more surprising. In December Ruth Kelly, secretary of state for communities and local government, announced that by 2016 every new home should be "zero-carbon". Since then she and her deputies have done their best to make sure it won't happen. Her planning statement on climate change banned local councils from setting higher energy efficiency standards for homes than national building regulations require. This means they are not allowed to implement Kelly's own code for sustainable homes, which was meant to blaze the trail for her 2016 target. SOURCE: GUARDIAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.