Nick Griffin, speaks the truth for a change?

[semi-pro waster]

Rofllol never thaught id see the day ocuk agreed with the bnp

I'm not sure that you aren't still waiting for that day, some people on here agree with the BNP and have done for a good period of time but as far as I can tell the vast majority do not and for that I am grateful.

It's a piece of emotive rhetoric from Mr Griffin again, he's correct in saying that not everyone agrees on climate change but conversely I wasn't aware that we all had to so it becomes a moot point. I couldn't help smirking when he started talking about made up statistics considering the BNPs past history in bending and massaging the truth. And of course the conspiracy theories for the final third of his speech are always entertaining.

 

[Teki187]

Let's face it Teki, you couldn't care less about climate change, you just have a massive hard on for anything that you believe is a conspiracy. You spend your life on forums, digging for anything that could be construed as a conspiracy. You then switch your brain off and mindlessly believe any old garbage that's written on the net.

Quite the opposite, but if trying to degrade me makes you feel better, go right ahead

I have news for you, we all understand politicians don't tell the truth, companies are greedy, the media can be biased and money is a great motivator, it's been happening since Roman times. You just seem to take any of this common sense stuff and blow it out of all proportion because you're mentally ill.

If we know its true, why do people still think MSM is the best source for news? Why do people allow companies to be so greedy and why dont we start changing our political system?

On the subject of climate change, we get it, scientists on both sides have agendas for funding and aren't telling the unbiased truth. I ask you this, even if your "climategate overlord lizards" are telling lies, isn't it a good thing that we at least try and use renewable energy, no matter the motivation?

No idea were the lizards come from....

Anyway, I've never disputed using renewable energy is a bad thing, nor we shouldn't try to use it, i dispute the tax increases in the name of man made global warming, the blame shifting from the government from big industry to people who drive cars and have more then 2 lights on in there house.

In a previous thread i've said we contribute to CC, but no where near the levels were being told, should we stop land filling, rubbish burning and tree cutting, of course, but that isnt what people think of when they think climate change.

 

[stockhausen]

so sit here and pay tax for something that the government cannot prove?
nice.

Would you care to list the taxes that you think are justified simply on the basis of climate change?

It seems that many of the voices raised in objection to the idea of man-made climate change have no scientific basis for their objection and are opposed on the bass of one or more of:

• it's a scam to raise taxes
• it's a scam to impose a socialist world Government on us all (probably involving the Masons )
• I don't see why I should be forced give up wasting limited resources and driving a gas-guzzler

If you can't justify either of the 1st two arguments, you are a nutter and really should STFU; if you base your attitude on the 3rd argument, you might at least have the honesty to say so.


As to the petition involving the 30,000+ American "Scientists" (who may or may not know anything worthwhile about man's impact on climate change), it was started by a Christian Fundamentalist who also happens to believe in Creationism and I would dearly love to see evidence of the scientific rigour applied to the list of signatories.

 

[Teki187]

As to the petition involving the 30,000+ American "Scientists" (who may or may not know anything worthwhile about man's impact on climate change), it was started by a Christian Fundamentalist who also happens to believe in Creationism and I would dearly love to see evidence of the scientific rigour applied to the list of signatories.

Don't pigeon hole the anti IPCC scientists to the OIEM link, maybe try to come back with something to prove or discredit the people from the wiki link?

EDIT

Oh and the complete and utter irony of your sig, with the BBC as a source for an unbiased explanation of climate change.

 

[deuse]

There is no such thing as a man made climate change.
It's just another way to tax people.

In FL they say there is a naturally occurring 20-30 year climate cycles.
The new cycle started in 2008 and that's why there have been no major Hurricanes this year and as predicted more water spouts and cold days

 

[-|ScottFree|-]

You have to learn never to post anything here that is not politically correct and is not the voice of the Guardian.. you will be slaughtered. If you question our leaders or there policies on the grounds that there may be another agenda at play, a the picture of the man wearing the tin foil hat is posted followed closely by the word..

.. "Fail"..

Oh its all very original....

 

[stockhausen]

There is no such thing as a man made climate change. ...

Of course there isn't. Who needs science when there is such an wise, informed and unimpeachable source of information available on the Interweb.

Incidentally, how do you do with the National Lottery?

... It's just another way to tax people. ...

Quite so. That and a sinister attempt to establish a socialist world Government

 

[deuse]

Of course there isn't. Who needs science when there is such an wise, informed and unimpeachable source of information available on the Interweb.

Incidentally, how do you do with the National Lottery?


Quite so. That and a sinister attempt to establish a socialist world Government

They did use science it was studied over a 120 year period. Some people duh

 

[stockhausen]

... If you question our leaders, etc., etc., etc.

I don't think most people will object to questioning of our leaders, in fact they are more likely to welcome it.

However, if you choose to pose a question along the lines of "Is Jack Straw Leon Trotsky's love-child?" without offering some sort of justification for even considering the question, I think that you may be forced to rely exclusively on support from readers of the Daily Mail

 

[semi-pro waster]

There is no such thing as a man made climate change.
It's just another way to tax people.

In FL they say there is a naturally occurring 20-30 year climate cycles.
The new cycle started in 2008 and that's why there have been no major Hurricanes this year and as predicted more water spouts and cold days

I'm a long way from being an expert in this but my understanding is that other scientists disagree, what makes the scientists you agree with more strictly correct than the ones you disagree with, except that they've got your agreement?

They did use science it was studied over a 120 year period. Some people duh

Is 120 years a long enough time frame to be statistically valid? Was that period chosen because it coincided with a particular event, not the industrial revolution obviously since that was already a good few decades old at that point but something else perhaps? Because it was a selection that offered them enough data? Because it was simply an arbitrary point? Because it fitted with the conclusion they wished to draw from it? Ok the last one's a bit cynical but the rest are valid questions.

 

[deuse]

Snip

Take a look yourself.

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070709_florida.pdf

And you would know that the Gulf Stream has on climate is found in Europe. Since it flows into the North Atlantic Current, it too is warmed.

It is believed that it helps keep places like Ireland and England much warmer than they would otherwise be at such a high latitude.

It's like in 2004 the Gulf of Mexico was 94f and when that warm water when into the stream it heated all the way up to scotland.

Could the Gulf streams be melting of glaciers and there by destroying itself? I think so.

 

[Sankari]

But you mention nothing of the Wiki link?

Expected better from you.

Your Wiki link is hardly worth responding to. It's a mixed list of scientists who have made statements contradicting the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming. It is not a list of scientists who reject global warming altogether, nor does it constitute proof that AGW is wrong. It is also a very short list indeed.

What does it prove? It proves that scientific opposition to AGW is so small as to be virtually non-existent.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Take a look yourself.

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070709_florida.pdf

Thanks for the link, it is interesting but I'd hesitate to base an assertion that climate change is not occurring on such a localised study. Nor would I be entirely certain that an argument which is effectively "we've been ok so far" counts as conclusive proof that we will remain so in the future. They may be right in their assertions but I'm not prepared to commit myself yet based on that - incidentally I didn't see anything obvious to explain why they picked the dates they did.

And you would know that the Gulf Stream has on climate is found in Europe. Since it flows into the North Atlantic Current, it too is warmed.

It is believed that it helps keep places like Ireland and England much warmer than they would otherwise be at such a high latitude.

It's like in 2004 the Gulf of Mexico was 94f and when that warm water when into the stream it heated all the way up to scotland.

Could the Gulf streams be melting of glaciers and there by destroying itself? I think so.

I am at least vaguely aware of what the Gulf Stream does but I'm also aware that there are arguments that it is cooling and in a relatively short period of time (at least on a geological scale) that it will stop heating our shores. As I say I don't know huge amounts about climate change theories but I would suggest that they're quite possibly complicated enough that a simplistic analysis such as we are able to do is unlikely to grasp the whole truth of the situation so making confident predictions based on such conflicting evidence seems a trifle foolhardy.

 

[iNPUt]

Bring on the snow..

 

[deuse]

I am at least vaguely aware of what the Gulf Stream does but I'm also aware that there are arguments that it is cooling and in a relatively short period of time (at least on a geological scale) that it will stop heating our shores. As I say I don't know huge amounts about climate change theories but I would suggest that they're quite possibly complicated enough that a simplistic analysis such as we are able to do is unlikely to grasp the whole truth of the situation so making confident predictions based on such conflicting evidence seems a trifle foolhardy.

"The mass of freshwater released into the ocean disturbed the Gulf Stream, which keeps Britain and the rest of western Europe from freezing in winter."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/g...-could-freeze-as-the-world-warms-1107851.html

Like I say the Gulf stream melts the ice over Hundreds maybe thousands of years
a lot of euro is kept warmer then it should.
But then the fresh cold water from the ice closes off the gulf stream and sends them parts of euro and the ice caps back to -0 temps.

Then we are back to loads of snow like in the 60s and then we will have people bitching they can't get to work

 

[steve-h]

Wow I am sceptical, but Jesus that guy is fruit cake.

Nate

You say that... but it's been used as a HUGE money maker, as well as to tax us all

personally I don't have a clue what is fact or not... most of us are in the same position.

 

[Neverwhere]

*sigh* IF YOU DO NOT BELEIVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE... so be it.

whether you believe in it or not is TOTALLY irrelevant. Logic dictates so for the following reason.


Scenario 1:
climate change is real, we act to prevent it, it costs us a small fortune, but our way of life is maintained and our continuence as a civilised species assured.

Scenario 2:
Climate change is not real, we act to prevent it, it costs us a small fortune, our economies will recover from it over the next few decades, we all go on our merry way.

Scenario 3: Climate change is real, we do not spend anything, we do not prevent it. mass extinctions of species, global weather patterns distorted, temperatures increase, crops fail, mass migrations due to famins, entire cultures destroyed, biodiversity shattered, eco systems collapse, civilisation as you or I know it today, ends.

Logic dictates that whether you believe or not. scenario 1, & 2, are THE ONLY OPTIONS barring a sudden complete universal understanding of all global sciences, which will not happen in the time scales given for climate change.


only an idiot would do nothing.

 

[-|ScottFree|-]

Scenario 4: With the taxation and charges heavily levied on whatever we do that may be deemed anti green. The money from that tax should be aimed wholely and solely on reducing the price of green goods. So what they take with one hand they give back with the other. Thus encouraging eveyone to make the changes, instead of using that money for other failing policies such as the war on this and the war on that.

 

[Tefal]

*sigh* IF YOU DO NOT BELEIVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE... so be it.

whether you believe in it or not is TOTALLY irrelevant. Logic dictates so for the following reason.


Scenario 1:
climate change is real, we act to prevent it, it costs us a small fortune, but our way of life is maintained and our continuence as a civilised species assured.

Scenario 2:
Climate change is not real, we act to prevent it, it costs us a small fortune, our economies will recover from it over the next few decades, we all go on our merry way.

Scenario 3: Climate change is real, we do not spend anything, we do not prevent it. mass extinctions of species, global weather patterns distorted, temperatures increase, crops fail, mass migrations due to famins, entire cultures destroyed, biodiversity shattered, eco systems collapse, civilisation as you or I know it today, ends.

Logic dictates that whether you believe or not. scenario 1, & 2, are THE ONLY OPTIONS barring a sudden complete universal understanding of all global sciences, which will not happen in the time scales given for climate change.


only an idiot would do nothing.

You are operating under the delusion that we can stop it.


The climate will change with or without our help, we can only speed it up marginally, or slow it marginally.


So your ideal scenario of

Scenario 1:
climate change is real, we act to prevent it, it costs us a small fortune, but our way of life is maintained and our continuence as a civilised species assured.

should read

climate change is real, we act to prevent it, it costs us a small fortune, but our way of life is maintained and our continuence as a civilised species assured. and a few decades later mass extinctions of species, global weather patterns distorted, temperatures increase, crops fail, mass migrations due to famins, entire cultures destroyed, biodiversity shattered, eco systems collapse, civilisation as you or I know it today, ends because we where unprepared.


Good luck with that one.



You should be proposing that we develop technologies, and manufacture defences for when the inevitable happens.

 

[vidda]

Quite a good PDF to read, if not a bit long: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/i...n-Caught Green-Handed Climategate Scandal.pdf