Tide is Turning on Manmade Climate Change

KingCondanomation

KingCondanomation

New member
I was quite surprised to hear that the new environment minister in the UK (which quite possibly is the country that has done the most to combat CO2 emissions) is a strong sceptic and does not believe that manmade climate change is possible.


"Spending billions on trying to reduce carbon emissions is one giant con that is depriving third world countries of vital funds to tackle famine, HIV and other diseases, Sammy Wilson said.

The DUP minister has been heavily criticised by environmentalists for claiming that ongoing climatic shifts are down to nature and not mankind.

But while acknowledging his views on global warming may not be popular, the East Antrim MP said he was not prepared to be bullied by eco fundamentalists.

“I’ll not be stopped saying what I believe needs to be said about climate change,” he said.

most of the people who shout about climate change have not read one article about it

“I think in 20 years’ time we will look back at this whole climate change debate and ask ourselves how on earth were we ever conned into spending the billions of pounds which are going into this without any kind of rigorous examination of the background, the science, the implications of it all. Because there is now a degree of hysteria about it, fairly unformed hysteria I’ve got to say as well.

“I mean I get it in the Assembly all the time and most of the people who shout about climate change have not read one article about climate change, not read one book about climate change, if you asked them to explain how they believe there’s a connection between CO2 emission and the effects which they claim there’s going to be, if you ask them to explain the thought process or the modelling that is required and the assumptions behind that and how tenuous all the connections are, they wouldn’t have a clue.

“They simply get letters about it from all these lobby groups, it’s popular and therefore they go along with the flow — and that would be ok if there were no implications for it, but the implications are immense.”

He said while people in the western world were facing spiralling fuel bills as a result of efforts to cut CO2, the implications in poorer countries were graver.

“What are the problems that face us either locally and internationally. Are those not the things we should be concentrating on?” he asked.

“HIV, lack of clean water, which kills millions of people in third world countries, lack of education.

“A fraction of the money we are currently spending on climate change could actually eradicate those three problems alone, a fraction of it.

“I think as a society we sometimes need to get some of these things in perspective and when I listen to some of the rubbish that is spoken by some of my colleagues in the Assembly it amuses me at times and other times it angers me.”
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...manmade-climate-change-is-a-con-14123972.html
 
uscitizen said:
This from the poster that said a little mercury does not hurt you.
Click to expand...

I don't understand some people's obsessive need to hate anyone who accepts the scientific community's consensus on this. This is not skepticism, not at all. This is a determined effort to reject even the possibility that the conclusion is correct. On this board it's Dano and Tinfoil who have this disturbed fixation on this. I think it has to do with hating liberals, but I'm not sure.

What I always wonder is, if the scientific community in general is correct, and we decide not to do anything anyway, 20 years from now when the shit starts to hit the fan, who do we see about that?

Can we see Dano and Tinfoil and throw them into the rising oceans? Or is it just going to be, oh well, too bad, so sad?
 
Last edited:
uscitizen said:
This from the poster that said a little mercury does not hurt you.
Click to expand...

A little uranium dust, mercury or even arsenic would not hurt you, depending on the quantity. That is a scientific fact.
Our bodies can handle amounts of iron, potassium and zinc but obviously too much would not be good. It's the same with the preceding elements just in even smaller, tracer amounts.
If you don't believe me, ask a chemistry professor, I have.
 
Darla, science is not a democracy. Concensus doesn't matter. Before the truth was out, the concensus was that the world was flat. Think for yourself and look into it. And look into the political and disparate nature of the solutions offered, such as, the western economies get suppressed, while china can do whatever it wants.

The lopsidedness of this solution should tip you off as to it's agenda.
 
"He said while people in the western world were facing spiralling fuel bills as a result of efforts to cut CO2, the implications in poorer countries were graver. "

Oh...is that why fuel bills are spiralling? Poor l'il OPEC; I guess I misplaced the blame.

Wake up. Accelerating the transition to renewable domestic sources of energy is good for our economy & our security. I would say most on both the right & left agree with that at this point, since it was a focus of both campaigns this past year.

As usual, you're just a dinosaur - way behind the times, and still making an argument that no one even cares about anymore.
 
Democrats are Opec's best friend.
And while right on almost all social issues they have the opec card misplayed.
If we utilized our own resources we wouldn't be stuck under Bush's boyfrieds towel.
 
Darla said:
I don't understand some people's obsessive need to hate anyone who accepts the scientific community's consensus on this. This is not skepticism, not at all. This is a determined effort to reject even the possibility that the conclusion is correct. On this board it's Dano and Tinfoil who have this disturbed fixation on this. I think it has to do with hating liberals, but I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
You realize that the sceptic I posted IS a Liberal right? You did read the article did you not, you do realize who is in power in Britain now, no? You did see what he'd rather do with the money, yes?

And you call me ignorant...

Darla said:
What I always wonder is, if the scientific community in general is correct, and we decide not to do anything anyway, 20 years from now when the shit starts to hit the fan, who do we see about that?

Can we see Dano and Tinfoil and throw them into the rising oceans? Or is it just going to be, oh well, too bad, so sad?
Click to expand...
You do not base good legislation on hypotheticals - that's what got us into the Iraq war. And if your decision on this lies in the scientific community, what do you think of the trend we are seeing where the number of climate sceptic scientists is INCREASING?
http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=108866
 
KingCondanomation said:
A little uranium dust, mercury or even arsenic would not hurt you, depending on the quantity. That is a scientific fact.
Our bodies can handle amounts of iron, potassium and zinc but obviously too much would not be good. It's the same with the preceding elements just in even smaller, tracer amounts.
If you don't believe me, ask a chemistry professor, I have.
Click to expand...

amazing how you embrace the scientific "facts" that you agree with and diss the rest.

even trace amounts of the heavy metals might cause damage, but just not kill you or disable you.
go snort some uranium dust. Enjoy :clink:

but do not breathe any second hand cigarette smoke for sure.
 
Onceler said:
"He said while people in the western world were facing spiralling fuel bills as a result of efforts to cut CO2, the implications in poorer countries were graver. "

Oh...is that why fuel bills are spiralling? Poor l'il OPEC; I guess I misplaced the blame.

Wake up. Accelerating the transition to renewable domestic sources of energy is good for our economy & our security. I would say most on both the right & left agree with that at this point, since it was a focus of both campaigns this past year.

As usual, you're just a dinosaur - way behind the times, and still making an argument that no one even cares about anymore.
Click to expand...


It is true that republicans are now on board with this mountain of lies. That should tell you something right there.
 
With Detroit failing and a variety of other verticals diminishing, more economists are starting to cite green energy as the next potential boom, a la the internet, to bring the U.S. economy back to life.

How can you continue to make this tired argument? It's amazing to me that someone would still argue against accelerating the transition to clean domestic energy. There are no good reasons not to. You're just too invested at this point....
 
Onceler said:
"He said while people in the western world were facing spiralling fuel bills as a result of efforts to cut CO2, the implications in poorer countries were graver. "

Oh...is that why fuel bills are spiralling? Poor l'il OPEC; I guess I misplaced the blame.
Click to expand...
I agree with you somewhat here, most of the cost for the high price of oil (and the fall of it too) was with speculation in the market based on expected demand.
Nevertheless fuel bills are partially up due to green taxes and regulations that do boost the cost of oil based products.

Onceler said:
Wake up. Accelerating the transition to renewable domestic sources of energy is good for our economy & our security. I would say most on both the right & left agree with that at this point, since it was a focus of both campaigns this past year.

As usual, you're just a dinosaur - way behind the times, and still making an argument that no one even cares about anymore.
Click to expand...
Rich countries can afford to off on half-cocked schemes which they think are better for all. Yet during a downturn less people are as willing to combat climate change - they know damn well it is more expensive and thus not overall good for themselves and implicitly, the economy.
 
I was pushing hybrid battery makers and solar cells 3 yrs ago when most on the board would only quiver that recession was coming.
 
There are enough reasons to limit or end our use of fossil fuels even without global warming.

If it does in the end turn out that science reverses itself on the C02 effects on climate then no harm done huh?

I just dont get the insane level of refusal to accept the prevailing idea on this subject?
 
"Rich countries can afford to off on half-cocked schemes which they think are better for all. Yet during a downturn less people are as willing to combat climate change - they know damn well it is more expensive and thus not overall good for themselves and implicitly, the economy. "

That's just your usual pennywise/pound foolish thing. There is no economic argument to make on this that could make a case that it's better to send $700 billion abroad for foreign oil, which the cost is manipulated on out of our control, instead of keeping it domestic & creating new jobs with green industry here.

Like I said, you're too invested. There is no logic to what you're arguing.
 
The idea that a little uranium or mercury won't hurt you is very misleading.

Even trace amounts of both can do serious harm. One of the worst things about many pollutants is that they do not leave the body, and so tiny trace amounts build into amounts which do harm or kill. Mercury is one of those. Its also one of the few that jump the placental barrier, which is why it has caused so many birth defects over the years.
 
Topspin said:
I was pushing hybrid battery makers and solar cells 3 yrs ago when most on the board would only quiver that recession was coming.
Click to expand...

HUH? three years ago you said the economy was rosy and no problems on the horizon. I was about the only one who was talking of the coming crash.
heck one year ago you denied a recession.
the parking lots are full :clink:

Idjit!
 
That's just your usual pennywise/pound foolish thing. There is no economic argument to make on this that could make a case that it's better to send $700 billion abroad for foreign oil, which the cost is manipulated on out of our control, instead of keeping it domestic & creating new jobs with green industry here.

\ How the fuck is it ok to do it now LORAX???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top