slinkydevil Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 ... it's all them gays and lezzers thats caused it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...1/nflood201.xml Take religion seriously. They're not all stupid you know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 I'd like to ask him why Gods wrath is only delivered to those living on flood plains with poor flood defence. Is it because gays don't like hills? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 If they're right, this 'God' of theirs must be a nasty, bad-tempered bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleEva Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 It isn't global warming that is causing the floods nor is it God's wrath....it is an accident of nature, pure and simple. I feel for those suffering through the floods and don't find anything funny about what they are going through but the "God's wrath" excuse really made me laugh. That Bishop has no idea how foolish this makes him look.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I really, really hope the Bishops house floods. He'd be really sought after for a second interview and an explanation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 I think it is because we haven't followed Jesus's example. After all he built his house on the rock, not the poorly drained flood plain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virginia P Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 It isn't global warming that is causing the floods nor is it God's wrath....it is an accident of nature, pure and simple. No it's not. It's the fault of Americans being too dumb to take action and join in with most of the rest of the world in recognising that climate change is man-made. And the rest of you, stop Bashing the Bishop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Just to be boring. THIS BBC ARTICLE makes fascinating reading on the subject of Global Warming. Armies of insects once crawled through lush forests in a region of Greenland now covered by more than 2000m of ice. DNA extracted from ice cores show that moths and butterflies were living in forests of spruce and pine in the area between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago. Writing in the journal Science, the researchers say they believe the DNAs are the oldest pure samples obtained. The ice cores also suggest that the ice sheet is more resistant to warming than previously thought, the scientists say. Studies suggest that even during the last interglacial (116,000-130,000 years ago), when temperatures were thought to be 5C warmer than today, the ice persevered, keeping the delicate samples entombed and free from contamination and decay. At the time the ice is estimated to have been between 1,000 and 1,500m thick. "If our data is correct, then this means that the southern Greenland ice cap is more stable than previously thought," said Professor Willerslev. "This may have implications for how the ice sheets respond to global warming." So, what then of the suggestions that a rise of just 3C would trigger the melting of the ice cap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
access55 Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Lazy quote..... "It isn't global warming that is causing the floods nor is it God's wrath....it is an accident of nature, pure and simple." accident of nature = oyxmoron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 They are going to great effort tomorrow to make the Global Warming concert 'carbon neutral'. I think they forgot though that if 1 billion people watch it for 5 hours that's say, 300,000,000(TVs)*0.4KW*5hrs = 600,000,000KW hrs or 600,000MW hours. Multiply that 0.687 and you get 412,000 metric tonnes of CO2. So they need to plant an extra (412000/0.65 = 650,000) trees if they really want to offset just the CO2 from the concert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Just to be boring. THIS BBC ARTICLE makes fascinating reading on the subject of Global Warming.So, what then of the suggestions that a rise of just 3C would trigger the melting of the ice cap? They're not suggesting the ice caps wont melt, just that they're more resilient to the effects of that melting. There's still an impact to any large scale melting. And even if that's wrong, there'll only be mass deaths from the crop failures and desertification and not flooding too, woohoo! Re: Live Earth, I think they considered if the environmental impact of the concert is greater than the long term goals of educating so many people and concluded it was worth it. I doubt such an event could be staged without a servere short term environmental impact. Al Gore has made similar comments about his own carbon footprint while he jets around preaching his message. I'd agree with him, he's significantly raised the profile, so his cost is worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Re: Live Earth, I think they considered if the environmental impact of the concert is greater than the long term goals of educating religeously converting so many people and concluded it was worth it. I doubt such an event could be staged without a servere short term environmental impact. Al Gore has made similar comments about his own carbon footprint while he jets around preaching his message. I'd agree with him, he's significantly raised the profile, so his cost is worth it. My point was: that it is NOT carbon neutral as being proclaimed. If they broadcast it around the world via radio stations it would be 90% more energy efficient. Also: fixed your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 My point was: that it is NOT carbon neutral as being proclaimed. If they broadcast it around the world via radio stations it would be 90% more energy efficient. Also: fixed your post. Has it been proclaimed carbon neutral? I wasn't aware it was. I know they're making great efforts to reduce the environmental impacts, I also know they're buying ofsetting, but I dont think at any point was it claimed to be carbon neutral. http://liveearth.org/?p=13 Your calculations fundamentally flawed anyway. That carbon from the TV's watching the show is only additional if those people are only turning on their telly because Live Earth is on. Realistically most of those tv's would have been on already watching some other shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 Your calculations fundamentally flawed anyway. That carbon from the TV's watching the show is only additional if those people are only turning on their telly because Live Earth is on. Realistically most of those tv's would have been on already watching some other shite. My calculation is fine - if you trust 'tree hugger' mathematics (which I don't). However, if they made the point of having it on the radio instead, and got people to switch off the TV - thus saving 90% emissions - they would perhaps make a difference and a point. You middle-class-pseudo-FOE types make me larff. 'Tax the poor' - just so you can feel a little less guilty taking the kids to school in a 4x4. What we really need is a culling and population control - otherwise - like a virus - humans will overrun and destroy the planet. Face it - the best thing you could do to reduce 'global warming' and your own 'emissions' is to top yourself. Anything other than population control is just delaying the inevitable. If we reduce our emissions by half and the population quadrouples in 100 years - what's the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 My calculation is fine - if you trust 'tree hugger' mathematics (which I don't). However, if they made the point of having it on the radio instead, and got people to switch off the TV - thus saving 90% emissions - they would perhaps make a difference and a point. So, you're wrong about them claiming carbon neutrality, you're wrong about the carbon imprint from the TV's (because those tv's would be on anyway), and it is on the radio (five different stations worldwide) AND internet streaming as well as the TV, so you're wrong about that too. Pretty obvious you're clueless on this subject, eh? Fact is though, this shows about raising public awareness, and the biggest audience to do that is the Telly. If it wasn't on the telly, people wouldn't turn the radio on, they'd just not bother. You middle-class-pseudo-FOE types make me larff. 'Tax the poor' - just so you can feel a little less guilty taking the kids to school in a 4x4. What we really need is a culling and population control - otherwise - like a virus - humans will overrun and destroy the planet. Face it - the best thing you could do to reduce 'global warming' and your own 'emissions' is to top yourself. Anything other than population control is just delaying the inevitable. If we reduce our emissions by half and the population quadrouples in 100 years - what's the point? That's a great solution Mr Hitler. Fortunately the climate models have shown we can sustain this population with a little effort, particularly around deforestation and fossile fuel usage so can potentially solve the issue without the mass murder you seem to be dreaming for. Agreed future population controls important, but we are where we are, that doesn't mean we rely on the death of millions to solve the problem when there are alternatives. If you can't see that that's a preferable solution, you're not worth talking to. Me, middle class with kids to scool in a 4x4? Haha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.