Channel 4 rapped over 'great Global Warming Swindle'

Climate Expert

Pighead wrote: »

Listen pal, it's time to suck it up and admit the good doctor outfoxed and outsmarted you. You engaged in a battle with bollocko and came out 2nd best. No shame in that but what there is shame in is your refusal to admit defeat.

You're like a bold dog who ****s out his dinner on the carpet in front of his owner and then denies it was him. Which is apt seeing as your username is an anagram of Excrete Rectal Pet Mix.

Now apologise to the doctor and on your way. Shoo.

How did I come out second best? I made a typo, he pointed it out in an unfunny way and incorrect way. I corrected him. He thought I didn't notice and claimed victory. I then claimed victory as its a well known fact that people who point out typos automatically lose and are known as losers.
Its also a well known fact that very few people enjoy your forced attempts at humour.

No need to get tetchy. You did ask me to.

And I showed you how you were wrong.

seamus

leninbenjamin wrote: »

secondly, on the 'happier' bit, i thought the evidence pointed to lesser developed countries actually being happier.

Yeah, we had great craic in the 80's didn't we? That was fun and games.

I love how this crap gets bent to whatever bull the media are trying to push. Before it was, "Ah shure, when we were all on the breadline and one salary paying a mortgage and eating the same thing five times a week, wasn't life simpler and great craic all the same".

Now that we're heading for a "recession", all we hear is "Oh no, we're all going to go back to the time when we were all on the breadline and one salary struggling to pay a mortgage and eating the same thing five times a week!".

All these "happiness index"'s and the like are a big pile of bull****. It is impossible to rate "happiness", because happiness is relative. You can ask someone who lives in a mud hut and ****s in the ground whether or not he's happy and he'll probably say "yes". That's because he's never known anything else.

Adam

Wait a second. Shouldn't the thread title say "raped"?!

dr.bollocko

Climate Expert wrote: »

And I showed you how you were wrong.

You clearly did.
Good lad.

Pighead wrote:

Which is apt seeing as your username is an anagram of Excrete Rectal Pet Mix.

Also noticed another anagram.
Crap text. Me lie.

Seems an apt review of your input so far mr. Expert.
On with you now.

monkeyfudge

Climate Expert wrote: »

And I showed you how you were wrong.

Oh dear lord. I can't watch this go on any more. It's painful.

You spelled the word 'environmentalist' wrong! Your attempt at humour only works when you spell the word wrong though... I really don't think you can claim any sort of victory.

Seifer

Climate Expert wrote:

How did I come out second best? I made a typo, he pointed it out in an unfunny way and incorrect way.

You didn't make a typo. Why would you ask people to take away "enviro" if you didn't think the spelling was enviromentalist?

Climate Expert

Well your name could be Dr. Bollocks!!!

Burn!!

Adam

Climate Expert wrote: »

Well your name could be Dr. Bollocks!!!

Burn!!

Eh, no.

dr.bollocko

Climate Expert wrote: »

Well your name could be Dr. Bollocks!!!

Burn!!

Jesus he's right.

Terry

Climate Expert wrote: »

Well your name could be Dr. Bollocks!!!

Burn!!

Just leave it now.

Climate Expert

Mirror wrote: »

Eh, no.

Why begin your sentences with 'eh' you moron?

Terry

Climate Expert wrote: »

Why begin your sentences with 'eh' you moron?

Banned for personal abuse.

Adam

Reported.

monkeyfudge

If Climate Expert is wrong about his spelling of the word 'environmentalist' and darkman2 is wrong about the Ofcom report... well.. hey... maybe they could be wrong about other things too.

turf

darkman2 wrote: »

Loads of people including eminent scientists brought a complanit against the programme which was, thankfully, not upheld.



I have studied weather and climate for a long time. It is a hobby of mine. C02 (that you always hear about) has never, and will never be a driver of climate. You are all being fed a pup. The world has cooled since 2001. You wont hear about that though! You also wont hear that Artic ice is well advanced on last year. You wont hear anything against 'Global Warming' in the mainstream media. You are being fed an excuse for tax increases and something that is driven fundamentaly by hard core environmentalists. I am very happy this facist attempt to censor the other factual side of this argument has failed. Every 'scientist' that believes in 'Global Warming' is compromised......they are paid to believe it. If they dont they lose their job. This is a massive con job these people are engaged in and I hope you all realise that.

this is the first persuasive post that its not real.. links or it didnt happen tho?

gerky

eh Terry hate to be the bearer of bad news but.....

Climate Change is the Major Problem Facing the World
by David Attenborough


I was sceptical about climate change. I was cautious about crying wolf. I am always cautious about crying wolf. I think conservationists have to be careful in saying things are catastrophic when, in fact, they are less than catastrophic.

I have seen my job at the BBC as a presenter to produce programmes about natural history, just as the Natural History Museum would be interested in showing a range of birds of paradise - that's the sort of thing I've been doing. And in almost every big series I've made, the most recent one being Planet Earth, I've ended up by talking about the future, and possible dangers. But, with climate change, I was sceptical. That is true.

Also, I'm not a chemist or a climatologist or a meteorologist; it isn't for me to suddenly stand up and say I have decided the climate is changing. That's not my expertise. The television gives you an unfair and unjustified prominence but just because your face is on the telly doesn't mean you're an expert on meteorology.

But I'm no longer sceptical. Now I do not have any doubt at all. I think climate change is the major challenge facing the world. I have waited until the proof was conclusive that it was humanity changing the climate. The thing that really convinced me was the graphs connecting the increase of carbon dioxide in the environment and the rise in temperature, with the growth of human population and industrialisation. The coincidence of the curves made it perfectly clear we have left the period of natural climatic oscillation behind and have begun on a steep curve, in terms of temperature rise, beyond anything in terms of increases that we have seen over many thousands of years.

People say, everything will be all right in the end. But it's not the case. We may be facing major disasters on a global scale.

I have seen the ice melting. I have been to parts of Patagonia and heard people say: "That's where the glacier was 10 years ago - and that's where it is today." The most dramatic evidence I have seen was New Orleans, after Hurricane Katrina. Was that climate-change induced, out of the ordinary? Certainly so. Everyone who does any cooking knows that if you want to increase a chemical reaction, you put it on the stove and heat it up. If you increase the temperature of the oceans, above which there are swirling currents of air, you will increase the energy in the air currents. It's not a mystery.

So it's true to say these programmes about climate change are different, in that previously I have made programmes about natural history, and now you could say I have an engaged stance. The first is about the fact that there is climate change and that it is human-induced. I'm well aware that people say it's all a fuss about nothing, and even if it is getting warmer, it's nothing to do with us. So I'm glad that the BBC wanted some clear statement of the evidence as to why these two things are the case.

The second programme says, these are some of the changes that are now almost inevitable, these are the sorts of things that the nations of the world have to do, to forestall the worst. Will they do it? Who knows? And many people feel helpless.

Yet the fact of the matter is, I was brought up as boy during the war and, during the war, we actually regarded it as immoral, wrong, to leave food on your plate, you needed to eat what was on your plate because we didn't have enough. I feel in the same way that it is wrong to waste energy now, and if that sort of sea change in moral attitude were to spread amongst the world's population, it would make a difference.

During the past 50 years, I have been lucky enough to spend my time travelling around the world looking at its wonders and its splendours. I have seen many changes, some good many bad.

But it's only in the past decade that I have come to think about the question of whether or not what I, or anybody else, has been doing, could have contributed to the change in the climate of the planet that is undoubtedly taking place. When I was a boy in the 1930s, the carbon dioxide level was still below 300 parts per million. This year, it reached 382, the highest figure for hundreds of thousands of years.

I'm 80 now. It's not that I think, like any old man, that change is wrong. I recognise that the world has always changed. I know that. But the point is, it's changing more extremely and swiftly than at any time in the past several million years. And one of the things I don't want to do is to look at my grandchildren and hear them say: "Grandfather, you knew it was happening - and you did nothing."

As told to Michael McCarthy

5starpool

It was quite hard to read that article when I couldn't stop myself doing it in a David Attenborough voice. It took much longer than it would have using my own in head voice.

Quazzie

5starpool wrote: »

It was quite hard to read that article when I couldn't stop myself doing it in a David Attenborough voice. It took much longer than it would have using my own in head voice.

I think it speaks volumes that you have more than one in head voice!!

Marcus.Aurelius

As attenborough says, he is neither a climatologist or biologist or chemist, so I don't have much respect for his rantings on scientific debate.

I think the whole climate change lie is a handy smokescreen for tax increases with the current economic climate. Any IPCC report I''ve read is always deliberately tilted to their own policies.

Science should not have policies. It should not be funded solely by governments with vested interests. I think the climate change theory is bull.

djpbarry

Marcus.Aurelius wrote: »

I think the whole climate change lie is a handy smokescreen for tax increases with the current economic climate.

That old chestnut; which taxes are you referring to?

Marcus.Aurelius wrote: »

Any IPCC report I''ve read is always deliberately tilted to their own policies.

Which policies are these?

Marcus.Aurelius wrote: »

Science should not have policies. It should not be funded solely by governments with vested interests.

It isn't. Figures are here.

dr.bollocko

Wow a link to another post where other peoples quotes have been taken out of context by yourself. That's a winning argument right there buddy!

Hobart

djpbarry wrote: »

That old chestnut; which taxes are you referring to?

Are you saying that there are no "green" taxes? What about the recent introduction of WEEE charges, on electrical equipment? Are airlines not going to be penalised pretty soon for their emissions? How come cars are now taxed on the basis of their emissions? All a coincidence?

I'm absolutely no expert on the environment, but wasn't most of Gore's theories disproved when taken in isolation? I've never actually seen his documentary, but I do remember seeing a clip were he compared temperatures on a huge graph, on a huge screen, and his findings were found to be some way out, if memory serves me right.

bill_ashmount

darkman2 wrote: »

The world has cooled since 2001. You wont hear about that though!

In fairness it was hardly been hushed up, I've heard plenty about it and I don't give a toss either way.

ninebeanrows

Darkman you are abit of a conspiracy theorist!

With this and the Lisbon treaty and some other stuff!

You've got extreme and outlandish views:D

I disagree very much so here

Terry

gerky wrote: »

eh Terry hate to be the bearer of bad news but.....

Everyone knows that Mick McCarthy is full of crap.

djpbarry

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Wow a link to another post where other peoples quotes have been taken out of context by yourself.

Have they indeed :rolleyes:. Tell you what, I'll copy and paste the relevant bit here, just for you:

"Take the UK for example; in 2006, just 11% of research & development was directly funded by the government. Even taking into consideration semi-state higher education councils and research councils, government funding was involved in less than one third of all R&D in the UK that year (source). If anything, the level of R&D funding provided by the British government, when expressed as a percentage of total R&D funding in the UK, is actually declining year-on-year. The British government provided (in real terms) approximately the same level of funding for R&D in 2006 as it did in 1996. However, funding from the private sector increased by just under 58% over the same 10-year period."

Hobart wrote: »

What about the recent introduction of WEEE charges, on electrical equipment?

That's not exactly a tax; the scheme enables consumers to deposit their old appliances when purchasing new ones on a like for like basis.

Hobart wrote: »

Are airlines not going to be penalised pretty soon for their emissions?

I don't know - it's possible. I think it's far more likely that jet fuel will be taxed at some point in the near future. Personally, I think it's crazy that the stuff is tax-free.

Hobart wrote: »

How come cars are now taxed on the basis of their emissions?

It is expected that the changes to VRT will be budget neutral; some people will pay more, others will pay less.

The point is that Marcus.Aurelius referred to "tax increases", which is rather misleading.

Hobart wrote: »

I'm absolutely no expert on the environment, but wasn't most of Gore's theories disproved when taken in isolation?

I don't know, where they?

dr.bollocko

djpbarry wrote: »

Have they indeed :rolleyes:. Tell you what, I'll copy and paste the relevant bit here, just for you:

"Take the UK for example; in 2006, just 11% of research & development was directly funded by the government. Even taking into consideration semi-state higher education councils and research councils, government funding was involved in less than one third of all R&D in the UK that year (source). If anything, the level of R&D funding provided by the British government, when expressed as a percentage of total R&D funding in the UK, is actually declining year-on-year. The British government provided (in real terms) approximately the same level of funding for R&D in 2006 as it did in 1996. However, funding from the private sector increased by just under 58% over the same 10-year period."

I saw yer figures. I didn't, however, see your point.
And those rolleyes smileys are carbon emitting, I wouldn't use those if I were you.

So its not evil public money... It's actually evil private money that is funding the spurious nonsense of climate change.
Is it climate change we are calling it?
Cos it was changing a lot when I was a young fella, and we had global cooling back then.
Im just wondering. Cos the ole global warming seems to be responsible for : colder temps. Warmer temps. Rain. Drought. Increase in storms. Well. Lets see. It seems to be some sort of diabolical weather device conspiring to make the weather rather similar to what it always was.
That is what you're saying isn't it?

Hobart

That's not exactly a tax; the scheme enables consumers to deposit their old appliances when purchasing new ones on a like for like basis.

Lol. Electrical appliances are more expensive because of this directive. the directive, if memory serves me correctly, was to enable the environmentally sound disposal of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment. It's a tax.

I don't know - it's possible. I think it's far more likely that jet fuel will be taxed at some point in the near future. Personally, I think it's crazy that the stuff is tax-free.

Possible? Obviously Ryanair, Aer Lingus, The EU and the recent Oireachtas Committee on Transport, need to have a word with you. Was this levy not recently rubber stamped by the EU?

It is expected that the changes to VRT will be budget neutral; some people will pay more, others will pay less.

"It is expected" ...is it?

The point is that Marcus.Aurelius referred to "tax increases", which is rather misleading.

the point is, and I could spend ages googling through sites to come up with examples, that I have demonstrated above that the person, be they buying a bulb or flying to the UK, is being hit hard in the pocket because of this environmental scaremongering.

I don't know, where they?

Yes, they were.

djpbarry

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I saw yer figures. I didn't, however, see your point.

My point is the majority of scientists are not government-funded. It was a response to a claim from Marcus.Aurelius that “science” should not be “funded solely by governments with vested interests.”

Hobart wrote: »

Electrical appliances are more expensive because of this directive. the directive, if memory serves me correctly, was to enable the environmentally sound disposal of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment. It's a tax.

I’d call it a disposal charge, but anyway, it recently saved me having to hire a mini-skip, which would have set me back at least €100.

Hobart wrote: »

Possible? Obviously Ryanair, Aer Lingus, The EU and the recent Oireachtas Committee on Transport, need to have a word with you. Was this levy not recently rubber stamped by the EU?

Is this the scheme you are referring to?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jul/21/theairlineindustry.travelleisure?gusrc=rss&feed=environment

It would appear it has a long way to go before it comes into effect.

Hobart wrote: »

"It is expected" ...is it?

Eh, yeah, it is. Do you know something I don’t? Do tell.

Hobart wrote: »

the point is, and I could spend ages googling through sites to come up with examples, that I have demonstrated above that the person, be they buying a bulb or flying to the UK, is being hit hard in the pocket because of this environmental scaremongering.

Well, I’m going to have to disagree with you on that, seeing as how all this "scaremongering" has so far SAVED me money.

Of course, the increased cost of flying has absolutely nothing to do with the price of oil hitting an all-time high. Nope, it’s all down to those pesky environmentalists.

Hobart wrote: »

Yes, they were.

I’m not sure what Al Gore has to do with my points (I never mentioned the guy), but anyway; do you have a source to back up your claim?

dr.bollocko

I said:

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I saw yer figures. I didn't, however, see your point.
So its not evil public money... It's actually evil private money that is funding the spurious nonsense of climate change.

Then you said:

djpbarry wrote:

My point is the majority of scientists are not government-funded. It was a response to a claim from Marcus.Aurelius that “science” should not be “funded solely by governments with vested interests.”

So. You didn't even read poor me's little post to its finish.
You, sir, are a cherrypicker of quotes and I would like no further part in you picking my cherry.
And I still don't see what point you are trying to make with those statistics.

Please feel free to misleadingly quote this post sentence by sentence to argue against points that I wasn't in fact making again though. It seems like it's giving you a good laugh.

Punchbowl

Terry wrote: »

Banned for personal abuse.

Very unfair, considering he was being rounded on by all and sundry.. Perhaps good moderation should of meant jumping in a little earlier and advising the masses to cool their jets slightly...

djpbarry

dr.bollocko wrote: »

So. You didn't even read poor me's little post to its finish.

Oh, I'm sorry. Did you want me to respond to all this bollocks:

dr.bollocko wrote: »

So its not evil public money... It's actually evil private money that is funding the spurious nonsense of climate change.
Is it climate change we are calling it?

Yes.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Cos it was changing a lot when I was a young fella, and we had global cooling back then.
Im just wondering. Cos the ole global warming seems to be responsible for : colder temps. Warmer temps. Rain. Drought. Increase in storms. Well. Lets see. It seems to be some sort of diabolical weather device conspiring to make the weather rather similar to what it always was.
That is what you're saying isn't it?

No.

Happy now? :rolleyes:

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I still don't see what point you are trying to make with those statistics.

I don't really care - I've made it as simple as I can.

Tar.Aldarion

dr.bollocko wrote: »

And I still don't see what point you are trying to make with those statistics.

Somebody said, scientists should not be funded by governments alone. He said they are not, here are the figures. What is the problem?

dr.bollocko

No. What you have done, my good man, is condescend to others without offering any salient argument yourself for us to counter-argue.
What you have done, sir, is misquote others in one sentence barrages out of context in order to continually move the goalposts on an argument you have contributed nothing to by not actually producing one single point to prove your premise. These, sir, with respect, are fallacies that prevent someone having any kind of argument against your witless insulting pompous posting.
Again, with respect.

dr.bollocko

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

Somebody said, scientists should not be funded by governments alone. He said they are not, here are the figures. What is the problem?

Hey Tar. My point is that the statistics have the potential to be skewed regardless of their origins. The money, and where it has gone dont seem to have anything to do with the argument in question. The understanding of why the statistics keep being posted eludes me as they are pointless except to the response of the original question. So why they are being posted in reference to a question I didnt ask is confusing me.

Tar.Aldarion

That's true, they served their purpose. Unless you see who is funding what individually they don't hold too much weight.

Dudess

LOL at the way those here who claim they don't believe in global warming always get so angry and abusive and take it so personally when people dispute them.

I suppose denial does have that effect...

Mossy Monk

Global Warming

heh.

dr.bollocko

Dudess wrote: »

LOL at the way those here who claim they don't believe in global warming always get so angry and abusive and take it so personally when people dispute them.

I suppose denial does have that effect...

I apologise most profusely dear dudess if I have come across as anything other than gentlemanly in this thread. And while our views on climate change (Its not called global warming anymore because its not getting warmer anymore) may diverge in a yellow wood, please remember that I took the road less travelled by, and that has made all the difference.;)

Terry

Dudess wrote: »

LOL at the way those here who claim they don't believe in global warming always get so angry and abusive and take it so personally when people dispute them.

I suppose denial does have that effect...

I don't believe in it.
I think it's a load of crap.

If someone can prove it is happening, then I'll buy into it.
As for now, we have been told since the 80's that by now there would be huge differences in the climate of this planet.
This hasn't happened.

I'm calling bull**** on the whole thing.

It's about as believable as America's war on terror.

Terry

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I apologise most profusely dear dudess if I have come across as anything other than gentlemanly in this thread. And while our views on climate change (Its not called global warming anymore because its not getting warmer anymore) may diverge in a yellow wood, please remember that I took the road less travelled by, and that has made all the difference.;)

That's my favourite poem.
Let's have sex.

Dennis the Stone

Punchbowl wrote: »

Very unfair, considering he was being rounded on by all and sundry.. Perhaps good moderation should of meant jumping in a little earlier and advising the masses to cool their jets slightly...

I don't think it was unfair, he had already called someone a slowcoach when he was clearly the slowcoach. That whole exchange was embarrassing.

Terry

Also, I only banned him for two days.
This thread will still be active when the ban is up.

dr.bollocko

Terry wrote: »

That's my favourite poem.
Let's have sex.

Can I be the big spoon?
It's cold.

thelordofcheese

Terry wrote: »

I don't believe in it.
I think it's a load of crap.

If someone can prove it is happening, then I'll buy into it.
As for now, we have been told since the 80's that by now there would be huge differences in the climate of this planet.
This hasn't happened.

I'm calling bull**** on the whole thing.

It's about as believable as America's war on terror.

Since the IPPC sugested that anthropogenic global warming was 90% probable, i've kind of discarded most my scepticism. It's a source that i trust and 90% is about as exact as it comes.

The real debate is if we're making the situation worse (and as i said, i believe we are) then can we realistically do anything to reverse the damage we've caused (also, yes in my opinion).

dfx-

Dudess wrote: »

LOL at the way those here who claim they don't believe in global warming always get so angry and abusive and take it so personally when people dispute them.

Dispute them? It's utter nonsense to think Climate Change isn't occurring caused in part by chemicals which humans are adding to. There is nothing to dispute:eek:

Dudess

Well "argue against their stance" so.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I apologise most profusely dear dudess if I have come across as anything other than gentlemanly in this thread. And while our views on climate change (Its not called global warming anymore because its not getting warmer anymore) may diverge in a yellow wood, please remember that I took the road less travelled by, and that has made all the difference.;)

Terry wrote: »

I don't believe in it.
I think it's a load of crap.

If someone can prove it is happening, then I'll buy into it.
As for now, we have been told since the 80's that by now there would be huge differences in the climate of this planet.
This hasn't happened.

I'm calling bull**** on the whole thing.

It's about as believable as America's war on terror.

I'm not talking about those who simply don't believe in climate change/global warming, I'm talking about those (I don't think I have to give any names) who take this stance and get aggressive and abusive with those who don't. And take it really personally.

dr.bollocko: rawk awnnnnnnn!!! (any luck with the forum?)

djpbarry

dr.bollocko wrote: »

The money, and where it has gone dont seem to have anything to do with the argument in question.

FFS :rolleyes:.

Look, it was said that scientists are all government funded. I provided a link to an old post of mine with figures on R&D funding (which clearly shows that most scientists are NOT government funded) rather than clogging up this thread with more stats. You took exception to the post in question, essentially saying that it did not constitute an argument (which it clearly did).

dr.bollocko wrote: »

The understanding of why the statistics keep being posted eludes me as they are pointless except to the response of the original question.

Which is probably why I only intended to post the stats in response to the original point made by Marcus.Aurelius, until you objected.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

So why they are being posted in reference to a question I didnt ask is confusing me.

I'm sorry, WHAT? I'm not allowed to post anything unless it's a direct response to one of your questions? Someone made a point, I countered, you objected, I clarified and now you’re still objecting; I really don’t see what your problem is.

Terry wrote: »

If someone can prove it is happening, then I'll buy into it.

And what would constitute proof, may I ask?

darkman2

Current Artic Ice extent is well ahead ahead of last year by a couple of million square kilometers


http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png


Whether this extra ice developes into multi year ice remains to be seen but quite clearly the fact speaks for itself.

Terry

djpbarry wrote: »

And what would constitute proof, may I ask?

Massive storms.
The Netherlands, London and other low lying areas being submerged.
Tropical weather in Ireland.
Arctic weather in Ireland.
Tropical diseases.

These were all things which were promised back in the 80's and I have yet to see any of them manifest themselves.