British Expats

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)
-   The Barbie (https://britishexpats.com/forum/barbie-92/)
-   -   Global warming (https://britishexpats.com/forum/barbie-92/global-warming-642608/)

slapphead_otool Feb 1st 2010 1:30 pm

Re: Global warming
 

Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar (Post 8302989)
I didn't realise environmental groups made money out of protecting the environment?

WWF sides with Shell and Enron
4 August 1999
Amidst great controversy, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and (MBG) recently agreed to support a gas pipeline project proposed by Enron and Shell Eastern Bolivia.
..........
US-based WWF, WCS, MBG as well as Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza and the Museo Noel Koempff Mercado in Bolivia have agreed to administer a US$20 million conservation program funded by the project sponsors.
.............
Ironically, WWF initially drew attention to the problems created by the pipeline proposal in a voluminous response to the Enron-Shell consortium's environmental impact assessment (EIA) and supplementary environmental analysis (SEA). However, as part of the US$20 million agreement, WWF and the other groups accepted most of the project sponsors' proposed routing......


Thats how you get corporate donations.... :confused::confused::confused:

slapphead_otool Feb 1st 2010 1:32 pm

Re: Global warming
 

Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar (Post 8303016)
indeed. At least the environmental groups make it public.

Im surpised you havent accused me of being paid by the coal industry yet :)

Wol Feb 1st 2010 1:33 pm

Re: Global warming
 
>>Thats how you get corporate donations....<<

You have that wrong: donations have no influence on decisions.

(Sources: Keneally, Sartor, Rees, ALP)

slapphead_otool Feb 1st 2010 1:40 pm

Re: Global warming
 

Originally Posted by Wol (Post 8303026)
>>Thats how you get corporate donations....<<

You have that wrong: donations have no influence on decisions.

(Sources: Keneally, Sartor, Rees, ALP)

At least WWF don’t shoot you if you argue with them...:D:D:D

Wol Feb 1st 2010 1:42 pm

Re: Global warming
 

Originally Posted by slapphead_otool (Post 8303035)
At least WWF don’t shoot you if you argue with them...:D:D:D

I couldn't possibly comment.

Sussex Street has my address..................

slapphead_otool Feb 1st 2010 2:03 pm

Re: Global warming
 

Originally Posted by Wol (Post 8303039)
I couldn't possibly comment.

Sussex Street has my address..................

I live on Sussex Street. I can see the Politbureau from my bedroom.

and smell the cordite.

iolande Feb 1st 2010 2:40 pm

Re: Global warming
 

Originally Posted by slapphead_otool (Post 8303020)
WWF sides with Shell and Enron
4 August 1999
Amidst great controversy, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and (MBG) recently agreed to support a gas pipeline project proposed by Enron and Shell Eastern Bolivia.

Didn't they agree to administer a large sum from Enron to be used towards conservation to minimise the impact of the pipeline (as they couldn't stop it) and then later pulled out of the project because of further issues with Enron and Shell that were impacting the conservation work?

Lord_Farquar Feb 1st 2010 4:51 pm

Re: Global warming
 
AGW is real. Fact.

slapphead_otool Feb 1st 2010 5:03 pm

Re: Global warming
 

Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar (Post 8303338)
AGW is real. Fact.

And your evidence of that is???????

(forget the IPCC - they publish any old crap that find lying around, and the CRU are under investigation so forget them too. NASA seem to have stuffed up its measurements, so they are out of the game, and the oceans are cooling according to measurements.)

Got anything else?
:rofl:

Lord_Farquar Feb 1st 2010 5:11 pm

Re: Global warming
 

Originally Posted by slapphead_otool (Post 8303366)
And your evidence of that is???????

(forget the IPCC - they publish any old crap that find lying around, and the CRU are under investigation so forget them too. NASA seem to have stuffed up its measurements, so they are out of the game, and the oceans are cooling according to measurements.)

Got anything else?
:rofl:

Let me make this incredibly clear....


THERE IS NO UNDERLYING SCIENCE MAKING THE CASE AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING

polyama Feb 1st 2010 5:14 pm

Re: Global warming
 

Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar (Post 8303385)
THERE IS NO UNDERLYING SCIENCE MAKING THE CASE AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING

There is also NO UNDERLYING SCIENCE MAKING THE CASE AGAINST GLOBAL COOLING

slapphead_otool Feb 1st 2010 5:22 pm

Re: Global warming
 

Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar (Post 8303385)
Let me make this incredibly clear....


THERE IS NO UNDERLYING SCIENCE MAKING THE CASE AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING

Nor is there any underlying science for it.

Resulting in stalemate.

Which is fine, except those protagonists who believe it "must occur” are demanding that those who do not support the idea must change their lifestyle to meet their theory.

Which isn’t really fair is it?

Not that environmentalists and activists give a shoot about fairness. They are more interested in socialist ideals about smashing industry, giving money to the third world and smoking dope in Byron Bay.

Environmental issues didn’t stop thousands of them flying to Copenhagen for a wunkfest did it. :D

Bob Tonnor Feb 1st 2010 5:32 pm

Re: Global warming
 

Originally Posted by BadgeIsBack (Post 8132868)
I am not a sceptic - but believe it's not just humans.

Interesting how we have gone to Climate change now and not Global Warming.

CO2 levels are going through the roof and very recently too. There is evidence to suggest I guess it is man-made. Apparently the CFC lobby back in the 80s etc really worked (don't ask me how it was measured).

If I'm not mistaken everyone mistakes, or equates these levels for global warming (temperature rise). I know greenhouse gases will cause warming, but warming may have happened anyway.

Global warming was ditched in favour of climate change because the american administration of the time decided that was a far more apt name,also note at the time the americans were the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases. CFC's have pretty much nothing to do with carbon emitions. I would suggest that anyone who proudly describes themselves as a climate change sceptic read the IPCC reports, they can be found at http://www.ipcc.ch/. To try and suggest that climate change is solely attributable to man made pollution and emmisions is ridiculous and this has not been suggested in any IPCC report. All science contained in the IPCC reports is peer reviewed and a the majority by independent scientists, sometimes there are minor mistakes, but so far the core body of the science has not seriously been challenged.
Anyone who seriously considers that the pollution caused by the very inefficient burning of fossill fuels is not a problem should buy themselves a ticket to china, download the 4th IPCC report, read it on the plane and when you get to china see the problems first hand.

Bob

Lord_Farquar Feb 1st 2010 5:33 pm

Re: Global warming
 

Originally Posted by slapphead_otool (Post 8303402)

Not that environmentalists and activists give a shoot about fairness. They are more interested in socialist ideals about smashing industry, giving money to the third world and smoking dope in Byron Bay.

You really seem to have a problem with people who want to protect the environment.

ABCDiamond Feb 1st 2010 5:42 pm

Re: Global warming
 
Interesting Poll results 50-50 in the end

Half say all or majority human caused
and
Half say minimal or no human cause.


I am curious which way Slapphead_otool voted, given that he actually seems to supports neither side, just disagrees with the way it is argued.


Originally Posted by slapphead_otool (Post 8302755)
Agreed, both sides are purely speculating.

One says the increase in carbon must be affecting global temperatures, but cannot prove it.

The other side says who cares, if we cant measure it, or if it isn’t within known natural boundaries anyway.

I don’t agree with either sides attitude, but I sure as hell don’t agree with one side telling the world its over and they have proved their theory, because they haven’t. And when the bunch of clowns convince the government to apply extra taxation I get a tad angry.

Then when the socialists, communists and greenies get involved and the argument becomes about giving money to under developed countries and ending industrialisation, then I get very angry.



All times are GMT -12. The time now is 5:54 pm.

Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.