Jump to content

Climate change program on tonight


Guest optimistic nit
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest optimistic nit

i think the main important thing in this debate is that scientists who think it is our fault will agree that the sun could also be contributing to the climate change, whereas 'scientists' who seem determined to pin the cause on anything but man made causes will not even stoop to saying changing the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere makes a difference and continue with their relentless dogmatic conspiracy theories.

 

i'd like to ask sceptics another question. do you really think that pumping trillions of tonnes of CO2 into our atmosphere every year will have no effect on the climate whatsoever?

 

how anyone can say with 100% certainty that its not our falt is just beyond me. Even if solar flares are the main cause, i can catagorically say, as fact, not opinion, that there is absolutely no way anyone can say that with 100% certainty. People are looking for a way to peddle the blame onto something other than their doorstep and these scientists give them that. If they said "it is possible that we are not the sole cause of global warming, the main cause may well be the sun, and its role in climate change needs to be investigated more" i would applaud them, but they continue to spite this utter cockshite, state fact where there is none and continue with their propaganda war against climate change.

 

there is no conspiracy fuckwits, the conspiracy resides in the republican congress where climate change reserch under a republican government was cencored to make it look more vague than it actually was, and to downplay effects, where scientists in support of climate change were at risk of losing their jobs, and often did, where climate change scientists where and are continued to be silenced by an oppressive right wing regime.

 

as you can tell these people grate me somewhat. :knuppel2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is serious...The first sign is insurance companies changing their policies and adding caveats to cover all sorts of new climate driven risks. It will happen and within the next 10 years.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest optimistic nit

no way it can be stopped now imo. don't think it could have been stopped 20 years ago either. it takes too long for governments to fit in these kind of regulations.

 

 

in addition say that the sun was 100% the cause of climate change, if the world wanted to escape the hundereds of millions of deaths due to climate change, then they would need to reduce co2 concentrations even more than the current legislation. solar climate change can also be fought, but only by reducing CO2 concentrations even further than are needed to escape man made climate change.

in addition i'm sure i read somewhere that one aspect of the global warming that solar flares cause involves increasing the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere (very bad memory me, so this may well be complete bullshit).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Optomystyc Nyt rambles:

 

"i think the main important thing in this debate is that scientists who think it is our fault will agree that the sun could also be contributing to the climate change, whereas 'scientists' who seem determined to pin the cause on anything but man made causes will not even stoop to saying changing the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere makes a difference and continue with their relentless dogmatic conspiracy theories."

 

Scientists that believe mankind plays the most part in global warming are reasonable and can think of other contributory causes.

 

Scientists that don't believe mankind plays the most part in global warming are not scientists and they aren't reasonable. They also say mankind has zero effect on climate. They are dogmatic and conspiracy nuts.

 

I look forward to watching the program tonight to discover these conclusions and the evidence for them.

 

 

 

"i'd like to ask sceptics another question. do you really think that pumping trillions of tonnes of CO2 into our atmosphere every year will have no effect on the climate whatsoever?"

 

Where was the first question? I myself know that for every effect there is a cause, and mankind contributes.

 

"there is no conspiracy fuckwits, the conspiracy resides in the republican congress where climate change reserch under a republican government was cencored to make it look more vague than it actually was, and to downplay effects, where scientists in support of climate change were at risk of losing their jobs, and often did, where climate change scientists where and are continued to be silenced by an oppressive right wing regime."

 

The conspiracy is that climate research only takes place under the republican government where they can censor every dissenting voice.

 

Bush is to blame for everything isn't he...he's dumb but all powerful, a strange mix but maybe that is what it requires to succeed at being evil.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Invicta_Toon

 

i'd like to ask sceptics another question. do you really think that pumping trillions of tonnes of CO2 into our atmosphere every year will have no effect on the climate whatsoever?

 

 

it's ignorant statements like this that give succour to the alternate theories

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't get your hopes up for this show.

 

http://www.badscience.net/?p=381

 

So as I’m sure most of you know, tonight there is a documentary about how we don’t need to worry about global warming.

 

www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

 

There is good reason to think it might be bollocks:

 

It’s made by Martin Durkin. In 1997 he made a series called Against Nature for Channel 4. It targeted environmentalists, and presented them as ‘the new enemy of science’ and comparable to the Nazis. They were responsible for the deprivation and death of millions in the Third World.

 

As well as the normal objections to the content that you might have expected - and fair enough to have your opinion - there were much more serious problems. Channel Four eventually had to broadcast a prime-time apology. The Independent Television Commission ruled: “Comparison of the unedited and edited transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with [the environmentalists who contributed] had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them… as to the format, subject matter and purpose of these programs.” Etc.

 

Now, it seems slightly odd to me to get the same bloke to make the same documentary after that’s happened, whatever your feelings on global warming and mankind’s role in it, but there you go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Invicta_Toon

I wouldn't get your hopes up for this show.

 

http://www.badscience.net/?p=381

 

There is good reason to think it might be bollocks:

 

It’s made by Martin Durkin. In 1997 he made a series called Against Nature for Channel 4. It targeted environmentalists, and presented them as ‘the new enemy of science’ and comparable to the Nazis. They were responsible for the deprivation and death of millions in the Third World.

 

 

how's that then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest optimistic nit

 

i'd like to ask sceptics another question. do you really think that pumping trillions of tonnes of CO2 into our atmosphere every year will have no effect on the climate whatsoever?

 

 

it's ignorant statements like this that give succour to the alternate theories

 

i'm sorry? the statement is in no way ignorant. it logically follows that if climate change skeptics do not believe that humans are causing climate change then they do not believe that the CO2 that we release into the atmosphere has an affect on our climate. do you dissagree? if they do not believe we cause climate change then i for one would like to know what they think about the effects of the greenhouse gasses we pump into the atmosphere.

re rehhegal the first question is whether we are causing climate change.

 

also re rehhegal i of course don't believe that the republican us government is the only thing stopping the world from combatting climate change, i was however under the impression that most climate reserch has been undertaken in the us, am i wrong (i may have just missunderstood you)? i think major problems that need to be overcome are getting the newly expanding nations on board like china, and more use of greener energy i.e. solar panels and the lyke. i'm not sure how they would work here but nearer the equator. The world needs to work together on this.

 

i'd also prefer for invicta to not flex his substancial internet ego like that and not explain what he means. i'm sure it gives you a mental trip to take the moral highground but i'd rather you didn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Invicta_Toon

 

i'd like to ask sceptics another question. do you really think that pumping trillions of tonnes of CO2 into our atmosphere every year will have no effect on the climate whatsoever?

 

 

it's ignorant statements like this that give succour to the alternate theories

 

i'm sorry? the statement is in no way ignorant. it logically follows that if climate change skeptics do not believe that humans are causing climate change then they do not believe that the CO2 that we release into the atmosphere has an affect on our climate. do you dissagree? if they do not believe we cause climate change then i for one would like to know what they think about the effects of the greenhouse gasses we pump into the atmosphere.

re rehhegal the first question is whether we are causing climate change.

 

also re rehhegal i of course don't believe that the republican us government is the only thing stopping the world from combatting climate change, i was however under the impression that most climate reserch has been undertaken in the us, am i wrong (i may have just missunderstood you)? i think major problems that need to be overcome are getting the newly expanding nations on board like china, and more use of greener energy i.e. solar panels and the lyke. i'm not sure how they would work here but nearer the equator. The world needs to work together on this.

 

i'd also prefer for invicta to not flex his substancial internet ego like that and not explain what he means. i'm sure it gives you a mental trip to take the moral highground but i'd rather you didn't.

 

do you even have the basic grasp of physics? Do you have the first clue about the chemical composition of the Earth?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How good is climate science? I can't say I know the first thing about it, but is it grounded in real physics with actual equations?

 

All I see (in my mass-media based reading) is charts showing trends, I'm not sure how much I like that kind of wishy-washy geography as an evidence base.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Invicta_Toon

How good is climate science? I can't say I know the first thing about it, but is it grounded in real physics with actual equations?

 

All I see (in my mass-media based reading) is charts showing trends, I'm not sure how much I like that kind of wishy-washy geography as an evidence base.

 

earth murderer

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest optimistic nit

 

i'd like to ask sceptics another question. do you really think that pumping trillions of tonnes of CO2 into our atmosphere every year will have no effect on the climate whatsoever?

 

 

it's ignorant statements like this that give succour to the alternate theories

 

i'm sorry? the statement is in no way ignorant. it logically follows that if climate change skeptics do not believe that humans are causing climate change then they do not believe that the CO2 that we release into the atmosphere has an affect on our climate. do you dissagree? if they do not believe we cause climate change then i for one would like to know what they think about the effects of the greenhouse gasses we pump into the atmosphere.

re rehhegal the first question is whether we are causing climate change.

 

also re rehhegal i of course don't believe that the republican us government is the only thing stopping the world from combatting climate change, i was however under the impression that most climate reserch has been undertaken in the us, am i wrong (i may have just missunderstood you)? i think major problems that need to be overcome are getting the newly expanding nations on board like china, and more use of greener energy i.e. solar panels and the lyke. i'm not sure how they would work here but nearer the equator. The world needs to work together on this.

 

i'd also prefer for invicta to not flex his substancial internet ego like that and not explain what he means. i'm sure it gives you a mental trip to take the moral highground but i'd rather you didn't.

 

do you even have the basic grasp of physics? Do you have the first clue about the chemical composition of the Earth?

 

depends what you mean about a basic grasp of physics tbh. i don't have much of a clue on the chemical composition of the earth, but i do have fairly good knowladge on atmosphere chemistry, and i've read a lot about this subject. Do enlighten me mind. i don't pretend to know every single process involved in climate change, but i have a real problem with the way these scientists have gone about the issue. seen about 15mins so far, and its all been politics and no facts, all very biased politics as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Invicta_Toon

 

i'd like to ask sceptics another question. do you really think that pumping trillions of tonnes of CO2 into our atmosphere every year will have no effect on the climate whatsoever?

 

 

it's ignorant statements like this that give succour to the alternate theories

 

i'm sorry? the statement is in no way ignorant. it logically follows that if climate change skeptics do not believe that humans are causing climate change then they do not believe that the CO2 that we release into the atmosphere has an affect on our climate. do you dissagree? if they do not believe we cause climate change then i for one would like to know what they think about the effects of the greenhouse gasses we pump into the atmosphere.

re rehhegal the first question is whether we are causing climate change.

 

also re rehhegal i of course don't believe that the republican us government is the only thing stopping the world from combatting climate change, i was however under the impression that most climate reserch has been undertaken in the us, am i wrong (i may have just missunderstood you)? i think major problems that need to be overcome are getting the newly expanding nations on board like china, and more use of greener energy i.e. solar panels and the lyke. i'm not sure how they would work here but nearer the equator. The world needs to work together on this.

 

i'd also prefer for invicta to not flex his substancial internet ego like that and not explain what he means. i'm sure it gives you a mental trip to take the moral highground but i'd rather you didn't.

 

do you even have the basic grasp of physics? Do you have the first clue about the chemical composition of the Earth?

 

depends what you mean about a basic grasp of physics tbh. i don't have much of a clue on the chemical composition of the earth, but i do have fairly good knowladge on atmosphere chemistry, and i've read a lot about this subject. Do enlighten me mind. i don't pretend to know every single process involved in climate change, but i have a real problem with the way these scientists have gone about the issue. seen about 15mins so far, and its all been politics and no facts, all very biased politics as well.

 

because your original post was practically littered with 'facts' FFS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest optimistic nit

 

i'd like to ask sceptics another question. do you really think that pumping trillions of tonnes of CO2 into our atmosphere every year will have no effect on the climate whatsoever?

 

 

it's ignorant statements like this that give succour to the alternate theories

 

i'm sorry? the statement is in no way ignorant. it logically follows that if climate change skeptics do not believe that humans are causing climate change then they do not believe that the CO2 that we release into the atmosphere has an affect on our climate. do you dissagree? if they do not believe we cause climate change then i for one would like to know what they think about the effects of the greenhouse gasses we pump into the atmosphere.

re rehhegal the first question is whether we are causing climate change.

 

also re rehhegal i of course don't believe that the republican us government is the only thing stopping the world from combatting climate change, i was however under the impression that most climate reserch has been undertaken in the us, am i wrong (i may have just missunderstood you)? i think major problems that need to be overcome are getting the newly expanding nations on board like china, and more use of greener energy i.e. solar panels and the lyke. i'm not sure how they would work here but nearer the equator. The world needs to work together on this.

 

i'd also prefer for invicta to not flex his substancial internet ego like that and not explain what he means. i'm sure it gives you a mental trip to take the moral highground but i'd rather you didn't.

 

do you even have the basic grasp of physics? Do you have the first clue about the chemical composition of the Earth?

 

depends what you mean about a basic grasp of physics tbh. i don't have much of a clue on the chemical composition of the earth, but i do have fairly good knowladge on atmosphere chemistry, and i've read a lot about this subject. Do enlighten me mind. i don't pretend to know every single process involved in climate change, but i have a real problem with the way these scientists have gone about the issue. seen about 15mins so far, and its all been politics and no facts, all very biased politics as well.

 

because your original post was practically littered with 'facts' FFS

 

that was never the issue. i'm not here to attack the reserch that has been done on solar flares, becuase i have seen a bit of it and what i have seen is quite accurate, and i think it does have an impact on global warming, i'm notsure how much, but a significant one none the less. my gripe is how people attacking climate change have made this a debate about politics, not facts. i'm not attacking their facts or their opinions that climate change is affected by solar flares, so any facts i present would be irroneous, i'm attacking their methods. what i say has no bearing on how people think about climate change what they say does, and if they can't be 100% sure (which they can't) then they should be more careful.

 

i have however lost my temper, which was very immature of me, but i stand by my points.

 

(i also meant it by enlighten me vic. if you have a fairly good grasp of the composition of the earth and that effects what i have said then i'd like you to tell me. you also haven't told me what you meant by your first comment, and what you mean by a basic grasp of physics, if you have an opinion on this backed up by facts then i'd like you to share it lyke.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh that was a refreshing program. It actually did refresh my memory from years ago when I read about the myth of man and CO2 causing global warming.

 

It's a shame it took so long for this to come out in a TV programme, because it demonstrates more strikingly the evidence against the myth and the real cause of warming being the sun.

 

While most of it I knew before, especially the evidence illustrated in the graphs, what was quite funny was to find out that Maggie Thatcher had a role to play in spreading the myth, uniting with the Left who see her as an enemy :)

 

What is sad is the effect this is having on Africa, giving them solar panels and denying them to have their own period of industrialisation to develop into a better society.

 

Man made global warming is driven by politics and fear not science and reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Invicta_Toon

 

i'd like to ask sceptics another question. do you really think that pumping trillions of tonnes of CO2 into our atmosphere every year will have no effect on the climate whatsoever?

 

 

it's ignorant statements like this that give succour to the alternate theories

 

i'm sorry? the statement is in no way ignorant. it logically follows that if climate change skeptics do not believe that humans are causing climate change then they do not believe that the CO2 that we release into the atmosphere has an affect on our climate. do you dissagree? if they do not believe we cause climate change then i for one would like to know what they think about the effects of the greenhouse gasses we pump into the atmosphere.

re rehhegal the first question is whether we are causing climate change.

 

also re rehhegal i of course don't believe that the republican us government is the only thing stopping the world from combatting climate change, i was however under the impression that most climate reserch has been undertaken in the us, am i wrong (i may have just missunderstood you)? i think major problems that need to be overcome are getting the newly expanding nations on board like china, and more use of greener energy i.e. solar panels and the lyke. i'm not sure how they would work here but nearer the equator. The world needs to work together on this.

 

i'd also prefer for invicta to not flex his substancial internet ego like that and not explain what he means. i'm sure it gives you a mental trip to take the moral highground but i'd rather you didn't.

 

do you even have the basic grasp of physics? Do you have the first clue about the chemical composition of the Earth?

 

depends what you mean about a basic grasp of physics tbh. i don't have much of a clue on the chemical composition of the earth, but i do have fairly good knowladge on atmosphere chemistry, and i've read a lot about this subject. Do enlighten me mind. i don't pretend to know every single process involved in climate change, but i have a real problem with the way these scientists have gone about the issue. seen about 15mins so far, and its all been politics and no facts, all very biased politics as well.

 

because your original post was practically littered with 'facts' FFS

 

that was never the issue. i'm not here to attack the reserch that has been done on solar flares, becuase i have seen a bit of it and what i have seen is quite accurate, and i think it does have an impact on global warming, i'm notsure how much, but a significant one none the less. my gripe is how people attacking climate change have made this a debate about politics, not facts. i'm not attacking their facts or their opinions that climate change is affected by solar flares, so any facts i present would be irroneous, i'm attacking their methods. what i say has no bearing on how people think about climate change what they say does, and if they can't be 100% sure (which they can't) then they should be more careful.

 

i have however lost my temper, which was very immature of me, but i stand by my points.

 

(i also meant it by enlighten me vic. if you have a fairly good grasp of the composition of the earth and that effects what i have said then i'd like you to tell me. you also haven't told me what you meant by your first comment, and what you mean by a basic grasp of physics, if you have an opinion on this backed up by facts then i'd like you to share it lyke.

 

make your mind up. do you want to talk about facts or politics or facts or politics?

 

or are you just pissed and gearing up for a fruitful student career of thinking you know something about the world and the way it works?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest optimistic nit

probably :p.

i want to talk about the politics vic, or rather the politicisation of a scientific issue. as i've said before i have no problem with people who think that the sun has an impact on climate change, what i do have a problem with is the people (or anybody for that matter) who can say that they are 100% sure that we are not the cause of climate change. I read an article recently written by real scientists (not school boys) from lots of different countries that said that there is a 90% chance that global warming is caused by human activities (note not 100% chance). i cant see how someone can stand up in front of this evidence and say that they are 100% sure that climate change is not caused by human activities. CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas by absorbing solar radiation (if you want me to delve further i'll have to get some notes out from last year) this is, i think, indisputeable. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as risen by around 100ppm from around 350ppm to around 450ppm (or figures similar). this is an increase of nearly 20%. this combined with the point i mentioned above suggests that human activities increasing the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere could have an effect on the global climate. of course you may believe that the increase in co2 would not be enough to trigger global warming, but that surely would be no more than an opinion and not fact. surely it would be better to be safe than sorry, even if you don't believe in man made global warming.

i don't believe either that man made global warming is driven by politics, not science. in countries like america it pays to think that man made global warming is fantasy, but you will still find supporters of global warming there, and people who have lost their job because of it. vic you still haven't answered any of my questions, and i don't expect you too, and i also realise that i've contradicted myself completly in the first sentance to what follows. i reckon we should probably let this rest now, unless you do actually want a debate :p.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

probably :p.

i want to talk about the politics vic, or rather the politicisation of a scientific issue. as i've said before i have no problem with people who think that the sun has an impact on climate change, what i do have a problem with is the people (or anybody for that matter) who can say that they are 100% sure that we are not the cause of climate change. I read an article recently written by real scientists (not school boys) from lots of different countries that said that there is a 90% chance that global warming is caused by human activities (note not 100% chance). i cant see how someone can stand up in front of this evidence and say that they are 100% sure that climate change is not caused by human activities. CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas by absorbing solar radiation (if you want me to delve further i'll have to get some notes out from last year) this is, i think, indisputeable. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as risen by around 100ppm from around 350ppm to around 450ppm (or figures similar). this is an increase of nearly 20%. this combined with the point i mentioned above suggests that human activities increasing the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere could have an effect on the global climate. of course you may believe that the increase in co2 would not be enough to trigger global warming, but that surely would be no more than an opinion and not fact. surely it would be better to be safe than sorry, even if you don't believe in man made global warming.

i don't believe either that man made global warming is driven by politics, not science. in countries like america it pays to think that man made global warming is fantasy, but you will still find supporters of global warming there, and people who have lost their job because of it. vic you still haven't answered any of my questions, and i don't expect you too, and i also realise that i've contradicted myself completly in the first sentance to what follows. i reckon we should probably let this rest now, unless you do actually want a debate :p.

 

 

Nyt....Really we are the cause of climate change FACT. They know it, but they also know it's maybe too late.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest optimistic nit

i know their just on the WUM but i'm bored and feel like writing a few short essays :crazy2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Invicta_Toon

probably :p.

i want to talk about the politics vic, or rather the politicisation of a scientific issue. as i've said before i have no problem with people who think that the sun has an impact on climate change, what i do have a problem with is the people (or anybody for that matter) who can say that they are 100% sure that we are not the cause of climate change. I read an article recently written by real scientists (not school boys) from lots of different countries that said that there is a 90% chance that global warming is caused by human activities (note not 100% chance). i cant see how someone can stand up in front of this evidence and say that they are 100% sure that climate change is not caused by human activities. CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas by absorbing solar radiation (if you want me to delve further i'll have to get some notes out from last year) this is, i think, indisputeable. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as risen by around 100ppm from around 350ppm to around 450ppm (or figures similar). this is an increase of nearly 20%. this combined with the point i mentioned above suggests that human activities increasing the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere could have an effect on the global climate. of course you may believe that the increase in co2 would not be enough to trigger global warming, but that surely would be no more than an opinion and not fact. surely it would be better to be safe than sorry, even if you don't believe in man made global warming.

i don't believe either that man made global warming is driven by politics, not science. in countries like america it pays to think that man made global warming is fantasy, but you will still find supporters of global warming there, and people who have lost their job because of it. vic you still haven't answered any of my questions, and i don't expect you too, and i also realise that i've contradicted myself completly in the first sentance to what follows. i reckon we should probably let this rest now, unless you do actually want a debate :p.

 

 

I just love the way that because you heard of a program where you saw that there were a load of real scientists that said that we were to blame and you recall hearing of a figure which agrees with it so it's absolutely ludicrous that anyone could claim otherwise

 

I direct you to the single scientists in history that have at one time or another questioned the prevailing theories and been proven right, sometimes decades or centuries later

 

Making assertions on what are basically mathematical models of an order of complexity that is ludricrous and without parallel in any other field of science and decrying the counter points is just, well plain stupid

 

and the fact that you completely ignore that there is ALREADY more to gain politically and financially by supporting the hippies than questioning them is laughable

 

p.s. go Google carbon dioxide if you really need enlightening about the composition of the earth, it's not rocket science, only Earth science

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest optimistic nit

i love it how i was going to let this thread die and then you actually start to post something informative. the facts i produced weren't from a program they were from a combination of education and reading articles. i've never said it is ludicrous that you can say that humans are the main cause of climate change, i do however think its pretty crazy to claim we don't have an influence, and state that as 100%fact which these program makes have done, i've heard it (one of the main guys when asked whether we should conserve fuel just encase by paxman on newsnight replied "it might serve some benefits to conserve fuel for natural resorces" or words to that effect.

i'm not saying that because there are thousands of supporting scientists that, due to stregnth in numbers, climate change is a certainty. i'm saying that, due to overwhelming support, and in the face of so many processes that we don't really understand fully yet, neither side can claim they are right with 100% certainty.

i completly agree with your second statement, and thats why i have no objections to people claiming solar flares had an effect but theres a difference between what i describe and what certain people are saying.

 

"and the fact that you completely ignore that there is ALREADY more to gain politically and financially by supporting the hippies than questioning them is laughable"- i do generally feel this way, so if it is such a ludicrous position then i would like you to enlighten me. i do question however why, if it makes sense politically, so many countries are faltering to take notice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Invicta_Toon

lots of other countries are getting on with the real task of taking even more money and jobs out of the westrern world to give 2 fucks about the climate

 

if the UK DISSAPEARED it would take China just 1 year to make up for the lost carbon 'pollution'

 

local council climate change coordinators? carbon offsetting fund managers?

 

piss off and get a real jobs you parasites

Link to post
Share on other sites

lots of other countries are getting on with the real task of taking even more money and jobs out of the westrern world to give 2 fucks about the climate

 

if the UK DISSAPEARED it would take China just 1 year to make up for the lost carbon 'pollution'

 

local council climate change coordinators? carbon offsetting fund managers?

 

piss off and get a real jobs you parasites

 

:cheesy:

 

Wtf do they get upto?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest optimistic nit

completely agree about that mind. it needs to be tackled at larger scales globally, not just locally, but what do you really expect? i have no confidence in the governments of the world to tackle this problem effectively (its up to them to prove me wrong lyke).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...