Nothing but the climate change summit on the news at the moment. We are killing our planet dont you know? Air travel is the worst polluter as far as travel is concerned. Those planes pump out more CO2 than a medium sized country.

So, imagine my surprise when I found this buried in the news:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=asrL1R02pAFI

;D ;D ;D ;D

wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 11:50:

Nothing but the climate change summit on the news at the moment. We are killing our planet dont you know? Air travel is the worst polluter as far as travel is concerned. Those planes pump out more CO2 than a medium sized country. So, imagine my surprise when I found this buried in the news: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=asrL1R02pAFI ;D ;D ;D ;D

No its not. Its one of the greenest way to travel if you look at emissions per mile given.

Its all a load of a bollox anyway, the figures this whole climate change policy was based on, were fiddled.

Money Money Money that's all they care about >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

tunnie wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 12:12:

wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 11:50: Nothing but the climate change summit on the news at the moment. We are killing our planet dont you know? Air travel is the worst polluter as far as travel is concerned. Those planes pump out more CO2 than a medium sized country. So, imagine my surprise when I found this buried in the news: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=asrL1R02pAFI ;D ;D ;D ;D No its not. Its one of the greenest way to travel if you look at emissions per mile given. Its all a load of a bollox anyway, the figures this whole climate change policy was based on, were fiddled.

Not quite Mr Tunnie......some mischievous little rascals....are trying to sabotage the conference....with one or two pieces of deliberately misunderstood data.
There is over thirty years of collected data ......which seems to suggest that global warming is real and unimagined. :y :y

Back in the middle ages, Greenland was not snow covered.  Was it all those eskimos driving around in their Chelsea Tractors in the 1st millenium that caused the global warming that allowed them to live there?

And the last ice age? Was that caused by all those Boeing 747s flying around 15000 years ago?

The earth heats and cools in cycles. Whether Man has added to that is unclear and definately unproven. Needs further study.

Opti wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 13:00:

tunnie wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 12:12: wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 11:50: Nothing but the climate change summit on the news at the moment. We are killing our planet dont you know? Air travel is the worst polluter as far as travel is concerned. Those planes pump out more CO2 than a medium sized country. So, imagine my surprise when I found this buried in the news: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=asrL1R02pAFI ;D ;D ;D ;D No its not. Its one of the greenest way to travel if you look at emissions per mile given. Its all a load of a bollox anyway, the figures this whole climate change policy was based on, were fiddled. Not quite Mr Tunnie......some mischievous little rascals....are trying to sabotage the conference....with one or two pieces of deliberately misunderstood data. There is over thirty years of collected data ......which seems to suggest that global warming is real and unimagined. :y :y

Which sort of ignores the previous umpteen hundreds ???

My simple question to all these Climate Change protaganists ...... 

Please explain to me why, if Greenland was named because it was green and fertile and the Romans used to grow vines in York to make wine..... you can say that the climate is warmer NOW than it was THEN ... as Greenland is covered in ice and vines won't grow in York ....... ???

The planet warms and cools over many hundreds and thousands of years, comparing today to 30/50/100 years ago is pointless and we just don't have the data of 4000 years back.

So Climate Change bloke ... "it must be warmer as the Thames used to freeze and now it doesn't"

Non-climate change bloke .... "Vines grew in York"

You choose your stand and argue accordingly .. while most folks just accept that the main thrust behind the whole argument is MONEY

wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 11:50:

Nothing but the climate change summit on the news at the moment. We are killing our planet dont you know? Air travel is the worst polluter as far as travel is concerned. Those planes pump out more CO2 than a medium sized country. So, imagine my surprise when I found this buried in the news: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=asrL1R02pAFI ;D ;D ;D ;D

That's not true!  ;D I just watched the news and there was a story about some person trying to get pink banned for girls!  This is really important guys.  Please sign up.

Talking of News.  The stories reported on tv news programmes and text have become uniform across all channels I watch.  Little wonder that teletext is pulling out this month (linkaroony).

One of the worst contributers to global warming is cows farting.What is being done to alter this?  oh yes,money isn't being made from a solution to this problem so lets not publicise it.

Paul Macartney says that we should cut down on the meat to save on cow f@rts. China's goal is to reduce it's emissions by 40% by 2050......per capita.

Both of these actions fail to take into account the growth in population. A 40% per capita reduction wont even keep up with the growing population and, Mr Macartney, it doesn't matter if we cut down on meat, because there is a constantly growing number of mouths to feed.

The only solution is to start killing people, lots of them. :y

wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 14:02:

Paul Macartney says that we should cut down on the meat to save on cow f@rts. China's goal is to reduce it's emissions by 40% by 2050......per capita. Both of these actions fail to take into account the growth in population. A 40% per capita reduction wont even keep up with the growing population and, Mr Macartney, it doesn't matter if we cut down on meat, because there is a constantly growing number of mouths to feed. The only solution is to start killing people, lots of them. :y

Can we start with all those that drive in the middle or outside lane at less than 70 when the left lane is empty?

I think the UK needs a 3rd runway if it is to remain a major economic player.

Omegadoha, Desert Member wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 14:12:

I think the UK needs a 3rd runway if it is to remain a major economic player.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D We are skint. It's like a third world country in most big cities. Gated communities wont be long coming.

Omegadoha, Desert Member wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 14:12:

I think the UK needs a 3rd runway if it is to remain a major economic player.

Isn't that what the outside lane should be used for?

wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 14:02:

Paul Macartney says that we should cut down on the meat to save on cow f@rts. China's goal is to reduce it's emissions by 40% by 2050......per capita. Both of these actions fail to take into account the growth in population. A 40% per capita reduction wont even keep up with the growing population and, Mr Macartney, it doesn't matter if we cut down on meat, because there is a constantly growing number of mouths to feed. The only solution is to start killing people, lots of them. :y

Bankers should be the first to go.....I mean ...it's not as if anybody likes them. ::) :y

wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 14:13:

Omegadoha, Desert Member wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 14:12: I think the UK needs a 3rd runway if it is to remain a major economic player. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D We are skint. It's like a third world country in most big cities. Gated communities wont be long coming.

In that case we make out we're loaded and a major UK player.  ;D

Opti wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 14:15:

wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 14:02: Paul Macartney says that we should cut down on the meat to save on cow f@rts. China's goal is to reduce it's emissions by 40% by 2050......per capita. Both of these actions fail to take into account the growth in population. A 40% per capita reduction wont even keep up with the growing population and, Mr Macartney, it doesn't matter if we cut down on meat, because there is a constantly growing number of mouths to feed. The only solution is to start killing people, lots of them. :y Bankers should be the first to go.....I mean ...it's not as if anybody likes them. ::) :y

Quite right. But not my local barclays please. It's very convenient for me. ;D

wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 14:17:

Opti wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 14:15: wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 14:02: Paul Macartney says that we should cut down on the meat to save on cow f@rts. China's goal is to reduce it's emissions by 40% by 2050......per capita. Both of these actions fail to take into account the growth in population. A 40% per capita reduction wont even keep up with the growing population and, Mr Macartney, it doesn't matter if we cut down on meat, because there is a constantly growing number of mouths to feed. The only solution is to start killing people, lots of them. :y Bankers should be the first to go.....I mean ...it's not as if anybody likes them. ::) :y Quite right. But not my local barclays please. It's very convenient for me. ;D

That's fine......just as long as the rest of them are exterminated.... :y :y

just read that about the climate change bloke quoting that the thames used to freeze yes that true but only becasue that thames had to flow throw smaller gaps between the bridges and therefore would slow the water down now days it moves to fast to freeze. what a loads of bull all the climate change. The saying is true the bigger the lie the more the people believe it.

well ive heard that al gore isnt going to be there, i wonder if its because of this! ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxuS67UOs0A
[my appologies if this has been shown before]

Entwood wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 13:09:

Opti wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 13:00: tunnie wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 12:12: wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 11:50: Nothing but the climate change summit on the news at the moment. We are killing our planet dont you know? Air travel is the worst polluter as far as travel is concerned. Those planes pump out more CO2 than a medium sized country. So, imagine my surprise when I found this buried in the news: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=asrL1R02pAFI ;D ;D ;D ;D No its not. Its one of the greenest way to travel if you look at emissions per mile given. Its all a load of a bollox anyway, the figures this whole climate change policy was based on, were fiddled. Not quite Mr Tunnie......some mischievous little rascals....are trying to sabotage the conference....with one or two pieces of deliberately misunderstood data. There is over thirty years of collected data ......which seems to suggest that global warming is real and unimagined. :y :y Which sort of ignores the previous umpteen hundreds ??? My simple question to all these Climate Change protaganists ......  Please explain to me why, if Greenland was named because it was green and fertile and the Romans used to grow vines in York to make wine..... you can say that the climate is warmer NOW than it was THEN ... as Greenland is covered in ice and vines won't grow in York ....... ??? The planet warms and cools over many hundreds and thousands of years, comparing today to 30/50/100 years ago is pointless and we just don't have the data of 4000 years back. So Climate Change bloke ... "it must be warmer as the Thames used to freeze and now it doesn't" Non-climate change bloke .... "Vines grew in York" You choose your stand and argue accordingly .. while most folks just accept that the main thrust behind the whole argument is MONEY

My grape-vine is growing very happily and I'm nearly 300 miles further north than York.
My roses have just finishing blooming and were into winter now :o

wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 11:50:

So, imagine my surprise when I found this buried in the news: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=asrL1R02pAFI ;D ;D ;D ;D

Imagine the surprise of a few prominent figures when more than one e-mail was leaked last week showing that global warming/climate change/whatever bullshit name it is currently known by is NOT man made at all  ;)

Opti wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 14:15:

wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 14:02: Paul Macartney says that we should cut down on the meat to save on cow f@rts. China's goal is to reduce it's emissions by 40% by 2050......per capita. Both of these actions fail to take into account the growth in population. A 40% per capita reduction wont even keep up with the growing population and, Mr Macartney, it doesn't matter if we cut down on meat, because there is a constantly growing number of mouths to feed. The only solution is to start killing people, lots of them. :y Socialists and their politics of envy should be the first to go.....I mean ...it's not as if anybody likes them. ::) :y

Well said that man. :y :y ;D

I'm one of those who thinks there probably is truth in the reports of man threatening the future by upsetting the delicate balance of nature.  However, I am increasingly concerned at scientists using/allowing/condoning CGI etc. to make their presumptions look real.

We had the dinosaurs re-enacted some time back now and I've just watched 'Life' which has some delightful photography in it.  But the greatest effort was put into a fraudulent sequence showing plants growing in accelerated action.  Now I say fraudulent but the technique used was featured at the end for all to see but I just wonder who thought it necessary to pull that stroke?  My feeling is that they went too far and combining that with the commentary throughout the programme 'explaining' what was going on, my confidence in scientific reporting is ebbing away.

Chris_H wrote on 07. Dec 2009 at 22:27:

I'm one of those who thinks there probably is truth in the reports of man threatening the future by upsetting the delicate balance of nature.  However, I am increasingly concerned at scientists using/allowing/condoning CGI etc. to make their presumptions look real. We had the dinosaurs re-enacted some time back now and I've just watched 'Life' which has some delightful photography in it.  But the greatest effort was put into a fraudulent sequence showing plants growing in accelerated action.  Now I say fraudulent but the technique used was featured at the end for all to see but I just wonder who thought it necessary to pull that stroke?  My feeling is that they went too far and combining that with the commentary throughout the programme 'explaining' what was going on, my confidence in scientific reporting is ebbing away.

Whatever makes you think that the scientists don't know everything?

Oh, maybe this gem from an email between two climate scientists makes your point:


Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know feck-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know feck-all).

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=356&filename=1062592331.txt

("u"s changed to "e"s to bypass word filter)

;) ;D

Important: Not for Banjax or Optimist  ;) ;)

++++++++

Big Oil Behind Copenhagen Climate Scam

The big irony behind top globalists descending on Copenhagen in luxury private jets and stretch limos is not just the fact that their own behavior completely contradicts their self-righteous hyperbole about CO2 emissions, but that their propaganda is vehemently supported by the very same big oil interests they accuse climate skeptics of pandering to.

"According to Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson, the cap and trade nightmare being primed for passage in the Senate doesn’t go far enough – Tillerson wants a direct tax on carbon dioxide emissions..."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/big-oil-behind-copenhagen-climate-scam.html

Should I laugh or cry?  ;) ;D

Oh, and I should add (from the same link):

"...At the confab, European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger and chairman of British Petroleum Peter Sutherland, gave a speech to his elitist cohorts in which he issued a “Universal battle cry arose for the world to address “global warming” with a single voice.”

Echoing this sentiment was General Lord Guthrie, director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, member of the House of Lords and former chief of the Defense Staff in London, who urged the Trilateral power-brokers to “Address the global climate crisis with a single voice, and impose rules that apply worldwide.” Rules that no doubt will benefit the Rothschild family empire due to their personal ownership of a huge chunk of the carbon trading market."

:o :o

Watch this!:

http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/12/lord-monckton-on-climate-change-and.html

Right on, my Lord!  :y :y :y :y :y :y

What can we do? Folk expect to be able to wander around the house in winter in a t shirt with the heating on full bore.
   Bankers deserve a high salary if successful but should have no bonus taxed or otherwise & neither should anyone else. Just do your job properly if you hold your hand out each week/month for your money. Otherwise don't complain or call our bluff & move abroad...cause a recession elsewhere.
    Regarding "all i hear on the news" I'm sick & tired of hearing droning drawn out dabates on war. No matter where or why it is all BBC TV & Radio are obsessed with it? You can't get through a single day without someone droning on yet again. Yes i sympathise with the serving troops & thier families but wish the media would stop inflicting it on the rest of us. Sorry but it's relentless.