Filled up with diesel today

[DrPhill]

Dr Phill - try the link above.

Did you mean http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index. ... b7df1a0b63? If so, did you even bother to read it? Did you bother to see who it was written by? Or did you just blindly pull it off some sceptics website?

If you had checked you would have found that it is written by the Republican Party. Follow the link to the online report.

Welcome to the EPW Republican Website

Unbiased? More independent than the world of climate scientists? All you do by quoting such biased political hoaxery is undermine your arguments.

 

[markturner]

You don't need to do better than that Cheshirechappy because you know you can't.
If that's all you have on the WORLDS climate scientists, it's pathetic.
Supply us with more proof/ examples please. Surely you have more? We are waiting.

I would respectfully suggest that you read up on the event. It explains much about the world's climate scientists - or at least, some very influential ones.

You need to read something other than the Mail and the Telegraph. These papers are written by clowns, for clowns.

Difficult for you I see, as you will no doubt dismiss anything you don't want to believe as part of an evil plot by avaricious scientists, but you could have a look at New Scientist or Scientific American and their websites.
A lot of people need to wake up and start taking notice of the world around them. And it's much more interesting than the rubbish media would have you believe.

Yet more naive simplistic twoddle....are you so blinkered by your ridiculous left wing views that you cant even accept that any one who does not subscribe to that opinion has no valid opinion. They are just "clowns"....a favourite trick of the left...if they cant smear people as "Racist" or "Facist", they try and make out they are stupid....simply not up there with their university intelligensia crowd.....Just the same as, I imagine, anyone who even questions mass uncontrolled immigration or the slow disintegration of this country's culture is a facist nazi monster.........The mail and the telegraph are not saying that global warming is not happening. they are just presenting other peoples interpretation of the facts. Myself, I am in no doubt that currently , the earths climate is warming ( You cant argue with the figures) and yes, we have played a large part in that in the last 50 years - and I am as right wing as they come. yet strangely, I think you will find I am not some kind of ignorant, uneducated, facist monster - I employ at least 7 muslims, even though I am against the march of Islam in the world and their oppressive religion, ( and any other fanatical extremist religious beliefs, christians included) 50% of my workforce are immigrants and yes, they all earn the same as my native english guys......I also drive a big 4 wheel drive car and own 2 petrol guzzling racing motorbikes - no one is going to stop me exercising my choice in that respect. I however drive perhaps only 3000 miles a year now and run my bikes infrequently. My work vehicles are dual fuel and we promote and install Eco building technology.....make of that what you will.

So don't bring that kind of nonsense to the table Jacob, this is not about politics, it's about the facts relating to global warming and whether fuel prices would affect this. Not about the political viewpoint of the papers that print it. left wing or right wing, it matters not when the sea level is rising...........

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Dr Phill - try the link above.

Did you mean http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index. ... b7df1a0b63? If so, did you even bother to read it? Did you bother to see who it was written by? Or did you just blindly pull it off some sceptics website?

If you had checked you would have found that it is written by the Republican Party. Follow the link to the online report.

Welcome to the EPW Republican Website

Unbiased? More independent than the world of climate scientists? All you do by quoting such biased political hoaxery is undermine your arguments.

If you don't like the conclusion, rubbish the source - a very 'anthropogenic global warming cabal' thing to do.

I'd strongly reccommend that you watch the link that Doorframe posted. It's one of the best summaries of the current position on climate science that I've seen.

 

[MIGNAL]

Is it really?

http://www.amos.org.au/documents/item/27

It's a bit involved. Pretty much debunks all of that documentary.
It comes in for a lot of flak if you care to do a bit of google searching. Not difficult to find.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

There's an awful lot of that going on.

As has been said previously, there are a lot of careers and funding riding on the continued political support for the position of anthropogenic global warming. Consequently, some of the protagonists are perhaps not being as honourable as they might otherwise be.

In a previous post, I said that 'belief' is far too prevalent in this debate. The AGW premise is predicated upon the theory that mankind's carbon dioxide emissions are accelerating global warming, probably catastrophically. Examination of Antarctic ice cores now shows that climate changes are not caused by atmospheric carbon dioxide - there is close correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and temperature, but carbon dioxide concentration increases lag temperature increases by about 800 years. So - carbon dioxide increases do not cause warming, they are an effect of it.

It's frightening how entrenched people become over this matter. Some have called AGW a religion - the followers of which will denounce any who care to question the 'concensus' as heretics. It should be about a calm, measured analysis of data, and assessment of whether or not verified data fits theories, followed by the modification or rejection of theories and the putting forward of new ones. Sadly, that seems to have been lost in the clamour.

I find the phrase, "the science is settled" in connection with this utterly baffling - the science is very far from being settled. There is clearly much that mankind does not understand about the climate and how it works.

I suppose time will tell. It usually does - though it may take a decade or so in this case.

 

[DrPhill]

OK. Let us have one simple question and one simple answer.

Do you agree that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists support the anthropogenic climate change theory?

 

[MIGNAL]

Overwhelming?

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

97% - Avalanche!!!!

 

[Lons]

Not what you think - my car is actually a diesel :wink:

I was very happy (not) to hand over £70 in the knowledge that I'm not actually paying the highest prices in the world after all, (ONLY 4TH HIGHEST). Ahead of us are Turkey - £1.44, Italy - £1.47 and Norway - £1.50 per litre.
it was also re-assuring to note that at least 10 countries are paying between 1p and 20p (state subsidised)

Oh happy days (hammer)

Bob

JEEEEZZZZZ!!!!!!

Ever wished you hadn't posted what was a very simple and straightforward fact? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Bob

 

[Jacob]

.....
I prefer to listen to the opinions of genuine experts who's grants are not dependent on the new 'industry' called man made global warming.

This is a great example.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZepVJ2XMi0

It blows the con trick out of existence.

Jacob, I suggest you give it a good viewing.

It's total nonsense. More weird sceptical propaganda flying in the face of masses of evidence.

 

[Jacob]

Jacob - the Telegraph and the Mail are written by clowns for clowns? That's curious! That's exactly the same as I think of the Grauniad, the Independent (the name itself actually being a joke) and the Observer.

Try New Scientist or Scientific American if you want to know about climate change. There is plenty of info about, at all levels, schoool kids learn about it - there is no excuse for ignorance

 

[Peter T]

Jacob - the Telegraph and the Mail are written by clowns for clowns? That's curious! That's exactly the same as I think of the Grauniad, the Independent (the name itself actually being a joke) and the Observer.

Try New Scientist or Scientific American if you want to know about climate change. There is plenty of info about, at all levels, schoool kids learn about it - there is no excuse for ignorance

Both these periodicals simply trot out, unquestioningly, the latest IPCC propaganda.

What's the point of reading that discredited nonsense?

 

[Jacob]

Jacob - the Telegraph and the Mail are written by clowns for clowns? That's curious! That's exactly the same as I think of the Grauniad, the Independent (the name itself actually being a joke) and the Observer.

Try New Scientist or Scientific American if you want to know about climate change. There is plenty of info about, at all levels, schoool kids learn about it - there is no excuse for ignorance

Both these periodicals simply trot out, unquestioningly, the latest IPCC propaganda.

What's the point of reading that discredited nonsense?

Which mag would you read to get at the truth then? Nothing springs to mind. The Watchtower? Viz?
How do you know that almost the whole scientific community and the serious magazines too, are conspiring together over a big con trick? What are your sources?
The craziest thing of all about this sort of nonsense is that if anybody could intelligently discredit the IPCC the whole world would be grateful and breathe a sigh of relief - and careers would be promoted, prizes given, etc etc. We could carry on burning oil and gas as if there was no tomorrow. Er, mind you, that's what we are doing!

 

[Phil Pascoe]

The three finest publications in Britain - The Times, Viz and Private Eye. :lol:

 

[Peter T]

Which mag would you read to get at the truth then? Nothing springs to mind. The Watchtower? Viz?
How do you know that almost the whole scientific community and the serious magazines too, are conspiring together over a big con trick? What are your sources?
The craziest thing of all about this sort of nonsense is that if anybody could intelligently discredit the IPCC the whole world would be grateful and breathe a sigh of relief - and careers would be promoted, prizes given, etc etc. We could carry on burning oil and gas as if there was no tomorrow. Er, mind you, that's what we are doing!

If I want to know what the IPCC are saying, I can read their web site. Why would I waste money on magazines?

I find it rather sad that you have to rely on journalists to tell you what to think. Are you incapable of forming your own opinions?

 

[DrPhill]

If I want to know what the IPCC are saying, I can read their web site. Why would I waste money on magazines?

Have you read it?

I find it rather sad that you have to rely on journalists to tell you what to think. Are you incapable of forming your own opinions?

So how did you reach your opinion? What sources did you use? What evidence convinced you? We are interested. Please share, if the evidence is convincing then we might even come to agree with you.

 

[Max Power]

GetTurner wrote
"the slow disintegration of this country's culture"
are you joking :shock:
Its happening at a faster pace than the grey squirrels took to oust the reds ( with remarkably similar results)

 

[Jacob]

...
I find it rather sad that you have to rely on journalists to tell you what to think. Are you incapable of forming your own opinions?

So your ideas just pop into your head from nowhere? :lol:

 

[fetteler]

When does opinion become fact? Well I dont know the exact point but I would suggest that when 97 percent of the scientists in the field agree on something, it stops being opinion and turns into fact.

Let's not forget that back in the day, commercial interests attempted to show that the science behind the smoking/lung cancer link was unsound. This delayed acceptence of the fact for a couple of decades and cost untold lives - it did however keep the gravy train running for a good while. Hurrah! #-o


Cheers,
Steve.