Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
forget global warming
global weirding is on its way
.
.
http://www.guardian.c...ooding-droughts-fires
.
.
weirding makes more sense
.
.
http://www.guardian.c...ooding-droughts-fires
.
.
weirding makes more sense
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by DrFilth. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
One thing is certain. The actions we are taking are derisery and cannot change our destiny one jot. It is obvious to many scientists that weather patterns are in an unstable state, whether they remain like this is uncertain but we should prepare for the worst. That means more flooding from rivers and extra rainfall. Higher tides coupled with unfavourable wind patterns can see the return of the 1953 floods with the loss of many lives.
We could sit back and do nothing or we could plan for these eventualities. That means plowing more money and resources and getting our defences up to scratch. In Cockermouth bridges were washed away and we had to turn to the Army to provide a footbridge for local residents.
As troop numbers will be reducing in Afghanistan there is no reason why the Army can't be put to good use at home by making this country more secure. Charity should begin at home!
We could sit back and do nothing or we could plan for these eventualities. That means plowing more money and resources and getting our defences up to scratch. In Cockermouth bridges were washed away and we had to turn to the Army to provide a footbridge for local residents.
As troop numbers will be reducing in Afghanistan there is no reason why the Army can't be put to good use at home by making this country more secure. Charity should begin at home!
The problem is your liberal Guardianistas all sit in their coffe shops in Islington like king Canute.
True the planet is warming, but the cause is undoutedly more natural. Volcano's emit Co2 for a start. The planet is not stable, never has been, never will be. As you say we should concentrate on defences and one good way is to stop pandering to the global warming nuts and squandering money on something that will not work.
True the planet is warming, but the cause is undoutedly more natural. Volcano's emit Co2 for a start. The planet is not stable, never has been, never will be. As you say we should concentrate on defences and one good way is to stop pandering to the global warming nuts and squandering money on something that will not work.
Yes. His and quite a few million other of us “heretics” AP.
I’m afraid I’ve now adopted the same attitude with Climate Change (previously known as Global Warming) fanatics as they have been demonstrating towards non-believers for some time now. That is, I care not for their opinion any more than they care for mine.
I’m afraid the time has come to point out to them that anybody who is arrogant enough to believe they can influence the climate deserves as much credibility as courtiers of King Knud warranted when they believed he could halt the tide.
Messing about with windmills (which cost a fortune, don’t work when the wind is too light and which have to be switched off when the wind is too strong) and telling people they must use unsuitable light bulbs which don’t work properly and make some people ill is peeing in the wind. Meantime, nothing is said to shopkeepers who leave their doors wide open in the dead of the winter, thus heating the street nicely, and China is opening a new coal fired power station every ten days.
Time to give it a rest, I fancy. We climate change atheists should now be left alone. We’ve done our bit and the busybodies should turn their attention elsewhere for a while.
I’m afraid I’ve now adopted the same attitude with Climate Change (previously known as Global Warming) fanatics as they have been demonstrating towards non-believers for some time now. That is, I care not for their opinion any more than they care for mine.
I’m afraid the time has come to point out to them that anybody who is arrogant enough to believe they can influence the climate deserves as much credibility as courtiers of King Knud warranted when they believed he could halt the tide.
Messing about with windmills (which cost a fortune, don’t work when the wind is too light and which have to be switched off when the wind is too strong) and telling people they must use unsuitable light bulbs which don’t work properly and make some people ill is peeing in the wind. Meantime, nothing is said to shopkeepers who leave their doors wide open in the dead of the winter, thus heating the street nicely, and China is opening a new coal fired power station every ten days.
Time to give it a rest, I fancy. We climate change atheists should now be left alone. We’ve done our bit and the busybodies should turn their attention elsewhere for a while.
I’m afraid it now is a question of believers and non-believers, AP. Those with the aggressive self-opinion are most usually found among the “believers”. We heretics are not really interested one way or the other. We just want to be left alone without being told to abandon the suitable facilities that we already have whilst being forced, unnecessarily, to adopt and pay over the odds for unsuitable replacements.
Usually when confronted with an opinion with which I disagree I simply ignore the holder of that opinion and get on with my life. But this is different. So all-pervading is this nonsense that it is encroaching on just about every aspect of our lives from turning on a light bulb through using a plastic bag up to having the temerity to go on holiday by air. It is totally unnecessary, will not achieve its stated objectives and is seriously threatening the energy security and economy of this country.
When confronted with such a threat it is not surprising that aggressive self-opinion begins to emerge from the other camp. I just hope that the “movers and shakers” who are now beginning to wake up to this ludicrous folly can form a decent opposition before the lights go out and we have to count what little money we have left whilst sitting in the cold and dark.
Usually when confronted with an opinion with which I disagree I simply ignore the holder of that opinion and get on with my life. But this is different. So all-pervading is this nonsense that it is encroaching on just about every aspect of our lives from turning on a light bulb through using a plastic bag up to having the temerity to go on holiday by air. It is totally unnecessary, will not achieve its stated objectives and is seriously threatening the energy security and economy of this country.
When confronted with such a threat it is not surprising that aggressive self-opinion begins to emerge from the other camp. I just hope that the “movers and shakers” who are now beginning to wake up to this ludicrous folly can form a decent opposition before the lights go out and we have to count what little money we have left whilst sitting in the cold and dark.
I see your point new judge, and I am sceptical, the thing is the argument for the acceptance of climate change is based largely on science. The opinion of scientists who know a hell of a lot more about the situation than I do.
My concern is that it may well be politically motivated, although I don't know to what goal.
With that, I do tend to believe that we have had some input (although I think the situation the article is talking about is more likely due principally to natural events) and that if it's simply ignored it could lead to bigger problems, although I don't believe avidly enough to make wholesale changes to my life.
My concern is that it may well be politically motivated, although I don't know to what goal.
With that, I do tend to believe that we have had some input (although I think the situation the article is talking about is more likely due principally to natural events) and that if it's simply ignored it could lead to bigger problems, although I don't believe avidly enough to make wholesale changes to my life.
I disagree with you NJ - there is valid evidence for both sides of the argument afaic and referring to people who don't believe as "movers and shakers" and "heretics" is manipulative IMO. What gives you the right to state *as fact* your opinion that it is "ludicrous folly" ?
I have noticed a tendency with the small handful of dictatorial dogmatic types that lurk here to play the passive aggressive card when rounded upon for their intolerant rantings. This "movers and shakers" label reminds me of their plaintive "worm has turned" cries when anyone disagrees with them and their constant accusations of having their opinions stifled.
I'm suspicious that you use your decidedly officious looking avatar and name here in order to 'dictate' what is -at the end of the day- *only* your opinion and your slightly defensive response saying that you choose not to "confront" an opposing opinion only reinforces that.
I’m afraid it now is a question of believers and non-believers, AP. Those with the aggressive self-opinion are most usually found among the “believers”. We heretics are not really interested one way or the other. We just want to be left alone without being told to abandon the suitable facilities that we already have whilst being forced, unnecessarily, to adopt and pay over the odds for unsuitable replacements.
Usually when confronted with an opinion with which I disagree I simply ignore the holder of that opinion and get on with my life. But this is different. So all-pervading is this nonsense that it is encroaching on just about every aspect of our lives from turning on a light bulb through using a plastic bag up to having the temerity to go on holiday by air. It is totally unnecessary, will not achieve its stated objectives and is seriously threatening the energy security and economy of this country.
When confronted with such a
I have noticed a tendency with the small handful of dictatorial dogmatic types that lurk here to play the passive aggressive card when rounded upon for their intolerant rantings. This "movers and shakers" label reminds me of their plaintive "worm has turned" cries when anyone disagrees with them and their constant accusations of having their opinions stifled.
I'm suspicious that you use your decidedly officious looking avatar and name here in order to 'dictate' what is -at the end of the day- *only* your opinion and your slightly defensive response saying that you choose not to "confront" an opposing opinion only reinforces that.
I’m afraid it now is a question of believers and non-believers, AP. Those with the aggressive self-opinion are most usually found among the “believers”. We heretics are not really interested one way or the other. We just want to be left alone without being told to abandon the suitable facilities that we already have whilst being forced, unnecessarily, to adopt and pay over the odds for unsuitable replacements.
Usually when confronted with an opinion with which I disagree I simply ignore the holder of that opinion and get on with my life. But this is different. So all-pervading is this nonsense that it is encroaching on just about every aspect of our lives from turning on a light bulb through using a plastic bag up to having the temerity to go on holiday by air. It is totally unnecessary, will not achieve its stated objectives and is seriously threatening the energy security and economy of this country.
When confronted with such a
"The opinion of scientists who know a hell of a lot more about the situation than I do. "
of whom many also have a vested interest..their research is funded by others that also have a vested intersest ie governments who need their reports to keep putting so called green taxes on us.
a lot of these "scientists" would be more than happy to produce reports saying the planet is cooling if thats what is needed to keep them in research funds.
A lot of research data is produced and massaged to show whatever results the holder of the vested party wants.
this planet has cooled and heated to what we would call extremes millions of times in its 4.6 billion year history its all part of the dynamics of the planet.
whats going to happen when we enter the next ice age ? according to the experts its around every 100,000 years and were heading for the next one rapidly.
This country not that long ago was covered in tropical forest and surrounded by tropically warm seas, we didnt cause those temperatures because we werent around, it happens naturally always has, always will no matter what we do, we may hasten it a bit but we sure as hell cant stop it.
but its a another great scam for foisting taxes on us
of whom many also have a vested interest..their research is funded by others that also have a vested intersest ie governments who need their reports to keep putting so called green taxes on us.
a lot of these "scientists" would be more than happy to produce reports saying the planet is cooling if thats what is needed to keep them in research funds.
A lot of research data is produced and massaged to show whatever results the holder of the vested party wants.
this planet has cooled and heated to what we would call extremes millions of times in its 4.6 billion year history its all part of the dynamics of the planet.
whats going to happen when we enter the next ice age ? according to the experts its around every 100,000 years and were heading for the next one rapidly.
This country not that long ago was covered in tropical forest and surrounded by tropically warm seas, we didnt cause those temperatures because we werent around, it happens naturally always has, always will no matter what we do, we may hasten it a bit but we sure as hell cant stop it.
but its a another great scam for foisting taxes on us
that's exactly why I've said I'm still largely sceptical baz. I would have thought, though, that more than a handful of scientists have countered the claims. Surely not everyone would be singing from the same hymn sheet if there were no foundation to it.
I'm basically saying I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were a massive conspiracy, but I'm not going pinning my colours to that flag (if that's even a saying!? I can't think of it!).
I'm basically saying I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were a massive conspiracy, but I'm not going pinning my colours to that flag (if that's even a saying!? I can't think of it!).
Seems to me Government scientists have little incentive to support an erroneous hypothesis since eventually it'd be discovered and they would become disgraced and unemployable. What odds to them is getting funding for one project or another? It's not like a commercial enterprise that relies on being believed to stay in profit. Seem convincing to me that he trend is upwards, just a debate on cause, which given it seems to have shot up since the industrial age looks rather likely to be down to human activity. Suspicion is that there was enough natural feedback in the system to remain fairly stable, until something tipped the scales and produced a tendency to rise.
"Government scientists have little incentive to support an erroneous hypothesis"
by the time its proven one way or another beyond any doubt, most of them will have departed their jobs and probably this mortal coil !
most reasearch can be weighted in favour of a desired outcome without lying or falsehoods, statistics and graphs are as good as paint and brushes to an artist...in the right hands they can both portray any picture thats wanted.
by the time its proven one way or another beyond any doubt, most of them will have departed their jobs and probably this mortal coil !
most reasearch can be weighted in favour of a desired outcome without lying or falsehoods, statistics and graphs are as good as paint and brushes to an artist...in the right hands they can both portray any picture thats wanted.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Society & Culture11 mins ago
Body & Soul22 mins ago
Crosswords28 mins ago
