Other than populaion control,does the panel have any initiatives at a local, national or international level that would help to ensure our children and their children are left with enough resources to enjoy an acceptable standard of life?
I think our leaders simply pay lip service to the issue and have yet to see any party publish a viable strategy.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Being Green
last reply
58 replies
2.8k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Sex God
Im gonna leave it another decade and then turn to scientology myself.
Quote by benrums0n
Other than populaion control,does the panel have any initiatives at a local, national or international level that would help to ensure our children and their children are left with enough resources to enjoy an acceptable standard of life?
I think our leaders simply pay lip service to the issue and have yet to see any party publish a viable strategy.
Dare I quote scriptures for a response on that?
No!
Sex God
Quote by Calista
Until there is a cure for materialism, it's a losing battle!
I think the banks have just found a cure for that Cal
Ohhhh please don't get me on my environmental hobby horse!
Grrr, I am an environmentalist, I work educating the young to be more environmental ala reduce reuse recycle. However I think its too late, we have passed the tipping point and the earths climate is changing and will continue to change for years to come, even if we, and I mean the world, stops pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
So Inow believe its a case of limiting the environmental damamge we will have. Stopping companies polluting, cutting back on air travel, ensuring the seas are kept clean etc etc.
All political parties play lip service to the green vote but will that actually do anything? nah!
Grrr, I am an environmentalist, I work educating the young to be more environmental ala reduce reuse recycle. However I think its too late, we have passed the tipping point and the earths climate is changing and will continue to change for years to come, even if we, and I mean the world, stops pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
So Inow believe its a case of limiting the environmental damamge we will have. Stopping companies polluting, cutting back on air travel, ensuring the seas are kept clean etc etc.
All political parties play lip service to the green vote but will that actually do anything? nah!
Sex God
I think you are right Ben, while governments across the world have made tentative steps in the right direction, there has been no large co-ordinated effort globally to produce a viable plan of action that is agreed to and then acted upon. I'm not sure independent plans on a local or even national scale can have the effect that is needed. I only feel a global action can have a marked and sustainable effect. The likelihood of this being agreed and happening however is practically nil down to countries own self-interests and business interests.
Kyoto was an example of this, a great idea in principle, but then the major polluters refused to sign unless they were exempt from X and certain businesses allowed to do Y and of course Z is impractical so we don't want that bit either... the end result being so many loopholes the legislature became totally ineffective in the countries where it is perhaps needed the most.
I see glimpses of hope in the increasing awareness of green issues, the need to reuse, save and recycle, developments like the hydrogen fuel cell which can hopefully extinguish the gluttonous reliance on fossil fuels and the slowly dawning realisation that what we have may not last forever. However at the moment it still feels like we are swimming somewhat against the tide. I feel countries own self-interests are of more importance to the global issue at hand and in time that may be what costs us. As soon as we decide to tackle this as a planet and not as an individual nation or group of nation(s), we stand a far better chance of making the changes needed to give ourselves a chance of a brighter future.
It seems bleak but I think the tide is turning, just perhaps not quickly enough.
Kyoto was an example of this, a great idea in principle, but then the major polluters refused to sign unless they were exempt from X and certain businesses allowed to do Y and of course Z is impractical so we don't want that bit either... the end result being so many loopholes the legislature became totally ineffective in the countries where it is perhaps needed the most.
I see glimpses of hope in the increasing awareness of green issues, the need to reuse, save and recycle, developments like the hydrogen fuel cell which can hopefully extinguish the gluttonous reliance on fossil fuels and the slowly dawning realisation that what we have may not last forever. However at the moment it still feels like we are swimming somewhat against the tide. I feel countries own self-interests are of more importance to the global issue at hand and in time that may be what costs us. As soon as we decide to tackle this as a planet and not as an individual nation or group of nation(s), we stand a far better chance of making the changes needed to give ourselves a chance of a brighter future.
It seems bleak but I think the tide is turning, just perhaps not quickly enough.
OK.
Serious response to a good post.
As adults, and parents we are responsable to educate our families to do the right thing!
That may be to simply turn a light switch off, to recycle, to be tolerant to others beliefs, to be tolerent to other peoples opinions(!?)
The world conditions as we know them today are self made, man has a lot to answer to!
I wish I could type a really good answer, but deep in my heart I know that even in these bad times, all will come well, but it is going to be a long waiting game!
Until that time, I will always encourage my kids(3)
to be good people, look after others and not just themselves, to turn energy off and recyle all things possible........
oh and to pray for world peace!!!!
Serious response to a good post.
As adults, and parents we are responsable to educate our families to do the right thing!
That may be to simply turn a light switch off, to recycle, to be tolerant to others beliefs, to be tolerent to other peoples opinions(!?)
The world conditions as we know them today are self made, man has a lot to answer to!
I wish I could type a really good answer, but deep in my heart I know that even in these bad times, all will come well, but it is going to be a long waiting game!
Until that time, I will always encourage my kids(3)
to be good people, look after others and not just themselves, to turn energy off and recyle all things possible........
oh and to pray for world peace!!!!
Quote by Lucyandmike7
Until there is a cure for materialism, it's a losing battle!
That was gonna be my next type!!!
Love one another, treat each other as equals?
No more war?
World peace?
The list could go on......................
War! that's it WWIII nuke the lot of us mother nature can then start again with a fresh blueprint...
Mother nature probably will anyway when we have buried ourselves under the mountain of waste we produce
As for the green lobby and recycling the bottom has dropped out of that myth most of it goes into landfill anyway cos the authorities cant sell the stuff.
here ends our little rant
PS all our burnable waste goes into the woodburner to heat the house, we only produce half a dustbin at most of household waste a fortnight here.
I work closely in the area of energy conservation in new and existing builds. I honestly must say the governments of this world ignore all the professionals and listen to the activists....recycle plastic? ask China about your waste because that is where a lot of it goes..good move europe!!!
Technology for clean energy and clean living exists but cannot move forward because of simple blinkered politics and greed...sorry guys we're on a handcart to hell and the fool has the steering....
Technology for clean energy and clean living exists but cannot move forward because of simple blinkered politics and greed...sorry guys we're on a handcart to hell and the fool has the steering....
Here goes,,,,,,,,,,, 
I am all in favour of recycling rubbish. I put my glass in one box, and my paper in another, and my plastice in another.
My local council gets a few bob for their recycling from national Government. It's all good.......or is it?
As somebody has stated, the bollox has dropped out of that market, there is no money to be had, so we just either ship it abroad or do what we have done for years, and put it into landfill sites.
The enviroment has been one of the talking points for a number of years now, with the " experts " telling us we will all die if we fail to " save the planet ". Well man will be here in a thousand years time, whether we recycle or not.
The " green issue " has done nothing other than to cost people money. In the print which I am in, IF we was to use recycled paper, it is four times as much to buy. On that basis we would go skint as none of our customers would pay the extra money.
I am still to be convinced about " global warming ", as nobody has proved beyond reasonable doubt, it actually exists. "The worlds getting warmer, they cry ", but actually it is not.
Recycle of course, find alternative fuel resources, but I don't buy all this rubbish about the " end is nigh " rubbish, unless we change our ways.
Sorry have not seen or heard or read anything that has convinced me, to change my mind. All I know is that for most people they are out of pocket, with nothing to show for it.
I am all in favour of recycling rubbish. I put my glass in one box, and my paper in another, and my plastice in another.
My local council gets a few bob for their recycling from national Government. It's all good.......or is it?
As somebody has stated, the bollox has dropped out of that market, there is no money to be had, so we just either ship it abroad or do what we have done for years, and put it into landfill sites.
The enviroment has been one of the talking points for a number of years now, with the " experts " telling us we will all die if we fail to " save the planet ". Well man will be here in a thousand years time, whether we recycle or not.
The " green issue " has done nothing other than to cost people money. In the print which I am in, IF we was to use recycled paper, it is four times as much to buy. On that basis we would go skint as none of our customers would pay the extra money.
I am still to be convinced about " global warming ", as nobody has proved beyond reasonable doubt, it actually exists. "The worlds getting warmer, they cry ", but actually it is not.
Recycle of course, find alternative fuel resources, but I don't buy all this rubbish about the " end is nigh " rubbish, unless we change our ways.
Sorry have not seen or heard or read anything that has convinced me, to change my mind. All I know is that for most people they are out of pocket, with nothing to show for it.
Quote by kentswingers777
Here goes,,,,,,,,,,,
I am all in favour of recycling rubbish. I put my glass in one box, and my paper in another, and my plastice in another.
My local council gets a few bob for their recycling from national Government. It's all good.......or is it?
As somebody has stated, the bollox has dropped out of that market, there is no money to be had, so we just either ship it abroad or do what we have done for years, and put it into landfill sites.
The enviroment has been one of the talking points for a number of years now, with the " experts " telling us we will all die if we fail to " save the planet ". Well man will be here in a thousand years time, whether we recycle or not.
The " green issue " has done nothing other than to cost people money. In the print which I am in, IF we was to use recycled paper, it is four times as much to buy. On that basis we would go skint as none of our customers would pay the extra money.
I am still to be convinced about " global warming ", as nobody has proved beyond reasonable doubt, it actually exists. "The worlds getting warmer, they cry ", but actually it is not.
Recycle of course, find alternative fuel resources, but I don't buy all this rubbish about the " end is nigh " rubbish, unless we change our ways.
Sorry have not seen or heard or read anything that has convinced me, to change my mind. All I know is that for most people they are out of pocket, with nothing to show for it.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: Can I ask which environmental reports you've read? Stuff what's written in the papers, what bit of research do you not believe?
Global warming exists, the seas are rising in temperature each year, the ice caps melting, raising sea levels.
The levels of methane being produced from waste are now being matched by methane escaping from waste products laid down thousands of years ago. Previously covered by snow, now able to escape.
The waste produced by "developed" nations has never been higher, despite recycling targets, reduction programmes. We are nations of greed and instant gratification, unable or unwilling to take responsibility for our actions and ignorant of the consequences.
Our demand for land and disposable products has affected our environment, and we are now de-sensitised to the dangers.
We strip our world of it's resources and add nothing but pollution, what part of that is difficult to understand. It's undeniable the cost we are having on our surroundings.
Individually, we can do or make little impact, why "should I bother" when other developed nations don't have the same targets or refuse to take part? Collectively, there is power! Problem being that there is always one group that are willing to say who cares or I'm not convinced.
Sex God
:lol: Is he pretending to play advocate again :lol: :lol: Because usually I get " the others ", come along to back each other up. Still I take great delight in all the pm's I get from others, backing ME up.
They do not want to put it on the forums because they do not want, the same treatment happening to them.
Now that is a fact.
I have a freedom to say whatever I like...within the rules. So to those who would just love to " shut me up ", well you will have a long sandals are well and trully locked away.
They do not want to put it on the forums because they do not want, the same treatment happening to them.
Now that is a fact.
I have a freedom to say whatever I like...within the rules. So to those who would just love to " shut me up ", well you will have a long sandals are well and trully locked away.
Sexlightened
None of these politicians, including "Green" ones, seem to be mentioning the elephant in the room that most/all of the environmental problems are caused by human overpopulation, often caused as a result of religeous stricture, ie, religeon disempowering women, catholics banning contraception & abortion,islam aiming to outbreed the infidels, etc etc the list goes on and on, but no one seems to want to "offend" them.
No Gods No Masters
No Gods No Masters
Quote by Riotandantony
None of these politicians, including "Green" ones, seem to be mentioning the elephant in the room that most/all of the environmental problems are caused by human overpopulation, often caused as a result of religeous stricture, ie, religeon disempowering women, catholics banning contraception & abortion,islam aiming to outbreed the infidels, etc etc the list goes on and on, but no one seems to want to "offend" them.
No Gods No Masters
This would take the original post down a completely different route, and that is good!
I accept that most of the conditions that all members of this planet have to endure, are in fact man made.
The churches and religion in general do govern the world along with the powers that be.
I can not see a solution to it though, can you?????
One universal religion?
Outlaw personal belief in the unseen?
Over to anyone else!!
We used to recycle in the 70’s what happened?
All milk came in bottles and got returned for refilling.
Fish and chips come wrapped in newspaper.
We had paper carrier bags.
All deli items came wrapped in paper.
Bottles from the off licence could be returned for a penny a bottle, kids loved finding a bottle to be returned.
Then along came plastics why did everything change?
This is just one example where we have gone backwards.
All milk came in bottles and got returned for refilling.
Fish and chips come wrapped in newspaper.
We had paper carrier bags.
All deli items came wrapped in paper.
Bottles from the off licence could be returned for a penny a bottle, kids loved finding a bottle to be returned.
Then along came plastics why did everything change?
This is just one example where we have gone backwards.
Quote by Theladyisaminx
We used to recycle in the 70’s what happened?
All milk came in bottles and got returned for refilling.
Fish and chips come wrapped in newspaper.
We had paper carrier bags.
All deli items came wrapped in paper.
Bottles from the off licence could be returned for a penny a bottle, kids loved finding a bottle to be returned.
Then along came plastics why did everything change?
This is just one example where we have gone backwards.
Exactly! The petrochemical industry has become all pervasive and not only that but the by product of some plastics is contributing to the lowering of the sperm count globally and doing terrible things to some aquatic animals!
Sex God
"I am still to be convinced about " global warming ", as nobody has proved beyond reasonable doubt, it actually exists. "The worlds getting warmer, they cry ", but actually it is not."
Don't get too excited though by the title of the first piece, it actually disproves the notion that the world isn't getting warmer and shows that mean global temperatures have been increasing for a while and the graph at the foot of the second piece is pretty compelling evidence. In one of the reports it says mean global temperatures have risen when compared to the period 1950-1980, and more if you compare the period beyond that. To deny this is not a truism is the worst kind of blinkered Clarkson induced mania.
The question is what causes it. In that respect Mr Kent has some support. It is generally accepted by most that humanity has played a role with our waste, however in its long past the Earth has gone through periods of intense cold and then warming, all without the help of man. Some scientists argue, though they are in the minority, that what we are seeing now is simply another of these phases and that we are vastly over-emphasising the human factor in this. This is the main tenet of the Clarkson fraternity who believe, like Mr Kent, that Global warming is the modern day bogey man, aimed at changing our habits, in effect almost a taxation on ethics but with no concrete tangibility or credence save for "debatable" evidence.
Rather than get angry at this, I actually hope they are right. Because if they are then in time the world will right itself, regardless of what we do. I really don't think they are, but I can live in hope.
However that does not mean we should not be giving it a gentle shove in the right direction ourselves. In this I feel Mr Kent makes a fair point. The cost of recycled material should be considerably cheaper than the alternative to make it the ONLY option. The fact that where he works to be "green" costs four times as much, is a joke. This is profiteering, in much the same way that "natural" food at the supermarkets costs more. If we really wanted to make a concerted effort, a starting point would be to make every product recycled considerably cheaper than the alternative. In this I feel Mr Kent has a fair and perhaps overlooked point due mainly to the rest of his comments.
Everyone is well aware of the counter arguments and the wealth of scientific evidence to back the claims of global warming up and this evidence, I feel, is certainly not as spurious or as selective as those in the "There is no human factor in Global Warming" group. To deny this evidence as "not happening" is akin to saying the oceans are not rising or the ice caps are not melting, both of which have been scientifically proven to be without question, fact. The evidence is in the islands Amazon basin in Brazil, or the Maldives or Holland, which are so close to sea level that within the next generation vast tracts of them could well be under water.
One other point, I've read many posts by Mr Kent, and sometimes I do feel sorry for him. I seldom, if ever, agree with what he says and while I admire the courage he has to air his views, I do feel they represent something of a minority view. However I must take issue with the notion of "the others" coming along to take pot-shots at him personally for no other reason than to back up a friend who has posted a response counter to what he says. In a great many posts I have read, the posters who rebut Mr Kents arguments do just that, they rebut the argument and the opinion, not the poster. I myself take great care in doing that. I actually like Mr Kent, I admire his openness and willingness to raise topics others may find contentious or difficult to discuss but I must say that I often find it is Mr Kent himself who makes the issue more personal by using emotive terms to describe people or situations, terms which can easily cause offence and probably at times do. It immediately places a negative judgement on a group of people and raises the hackles of many in here who may not have such a dogmatic view of the subject, or may have experience in the situation which is entirely counter to his view. The problem is when they put this across, it is immediately dismissed as "liberal leftism" or "the others" coming in to support the point of view simply because of who they are supporting and who they are attacking. I feel that is totally unfair on the posters who may not agree with Mr Kent, but then get labelled as a group who will disagree with what he says simply because it is he who is saying it. I think Calista made some excellent points, as did third man. They have yet to be argued against, instead a rather childish, "they are all against me no matter what I say", pack mentality is insinuated to draw attention to the fact there is no easy rebuttal of this evidence and yes I am well aware that by stating this I can be bumped into that category. I see no anti-Kent bandwagon, just that people do not share his opinion.
Like I said, I have respect for Mr Kent as a person. He will often say what some think and not have the guts to. I don't agree with the vast majority of it but he has a right to state it, my preference would be without using judgemental, emotional terms that are sure to make people angry and often detract from the original point he was trying to make. I must admit I don't like the fact that as soon as it seems an argument is going one way or the other, the emphasis is changed away from the argument at hand, into personal comments and sniping that contributes nothing to the argument and promotes nothing but ill-will, discord and disdain.
Everyone has an opinion, but it is showing respect for others equally viable opinion that is lacking in some regards. There is also a belief that if your judgement is attacked then YOU are being attacked, that is not the case as I hope I've made clear. However it is the case that by using provocative, emotive and judgemental language and making unfounded, inflammatory, sweeping generalisations to back up your claim, rather than solid evidence, you will offend people and the more you do it, the more you will offend.
BenRumson said it well last night on another thread about how he wished it stayed on track. I think at times people do not want the thread to stay on track and divert it into personal clashes and petty point scoring, because it diverts attention away from the fact that their original argument in the first place does not stand up to any critical examination via evidence, whatsoever.
As Bertrand Russell states so correctly...
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd.”
Don't get too excited though by the title of the first piece, it actually disproves the notion that the world isn't getting warmer and shows that mean global temperatures have been increasing for a while and the graph at the foot of the second piece is pretty compelling evidence. In one of the reports it says mean global temperatures have risen when compared to the period 1950-1980, and more if you compare the period beyond that. To deny this is not a truism is the worst kind of blinkered Clarkson induced mania.
The question is what causes it. In that respect Mr Kent has some support. It is generally accepted by most that humanity has played a role with our waste, however in its long past the Earth has gone through periods of intense cold and then warming, all without the help of man. Some scientists argue, though they are in the minority, that what we are seeing now is simply another of these phases and that we are vastly over-emphasising the human factor in this. This is the main tenet of the Clarkson fraternity who believe, like Mr Kent, that Global warming is the modern day bogey man, aimed at changing our habits, in effect almost a taxation on ethics but with no concrete tangibility or credence save for "debatable" evidence.
Rather than get angry at this, I actually hope they are right. Because if they are then in time the world will right itself, regardless of what we do. I really don't think they are, but I can live in hope.
However that does not mean we should not be giving it a gentle shove in the right direction ourselves. In this I feel Mr Kent makes a fair point. The cost of recycled material should be considerably cheaper than the alternative to make it the ONLY option. The fact that where he works to be "green" costs four times as much, is a joke. This is profiteering, in much the same way that "natural" food at the supermarkets costs more. If we really wanted to make a concerted effort, a starting point would be to make every product recycled considerably cheaper than the alternative. In this I feel Mr Kent has a fair and perhaps overlooked point due mainly to the rest of his comments.
Everyone is well aware of the counter arguments and the wealth of scientific evidence to back the claims of global warming up and this evidence, I feel, is certainly not as spurious or as selective as those in the "There is no human factor in Global Warming" group. To deny this evidence as "not happening" is akin to saying the oceans are not rising or the ice caps are not melting, both of which have been scientifically proven to be without question, fact. The evidence is in the islands Amazon basin in Brazil, or the Maldives or Holland, which are so close to sea level that within the next generation vast tracts of them could well be under water.
One other point, I've read many posts by Mr Kent, and sometimes I do feel sorry for him. I seldom, if ever, agree with what he says and while I admire the courage he has to air his views, I do feel they represent something of a minority view. However I must take issue with the notion of "the others" coming along to take pot-shots at him personally for no other reason than to back up a friend who has posted a response counter to what he says. In a great many posts I have read, the posters who rebut Mr Kents arguments do just that, they rebut the argument and the opinion, not the poster. I myself take great care in doing that. I actually like Mr Kent, I admire his openness and willingness to raise topics others may find contentious or difficult to discuss but I must say that I often find it is Mr Kent himself who makes the issue more personal by using emotive terms to describe people or situations, terms which can easily cause offence and probably at times do. It immediately places a negative judgement on a group of people and raises the hackles of many in here who may not have such a dogmatic view of the subject, or may have experience in the situation which is entirely counter to his view. The problem is when they put this across, it is immediately dismissed as "liberal leftism" or "the others" coming in to support the point of view simply because of who they are supporting and who they are attacking. I feel that is totally unfair on the posters who may not agree with Mr Kent, but then get labelled as a group who will disagree with what he says simply because it is he who is saying it. I think Calista made some excellent points, as did third man. They have yet to be argued against, instead a rather childish, "they are all against me no matter what I say", pack mentality is insinuated to draw attention to the fact there is no easy rebuttal of this evidence and yes I am well aware that by stating this I can be bumped into that category. I see no anti-Kent bandwagon, just that people do not share his opinion.
Like I said, I have respect for Mr Kent as a person. He will often say what some think and not have the guts to. I don't agree with the vast majority of it but he has a right to state it, my preference would be without using judgemental, emotional terms that are sure to make people angry and often detract from the original point he was trying to make. I must admit I don't like the fact that as soon as it seems an argument is going one way or the other, the emphasis is changed away from the argument at hand, into personal comments and sniping that contributes nothing to the argument and promotes nothing but ill-will, discord and disdain.
Everyone has an opinion, but it is showing respect for others equally viable opinion that is lacking in some regards. There is also a belief that if your judgement is attacked then YOU are being attacked, that is not the case as I hope I've made clear. However it is the case that by using provocative, emotive and judgemental language and making unfounded, inflammatory, sweeping generalisations to back up your claim, rather than solid evidence, you will offend people and the more you do it, the more you will offend.
BenRumson said it well last night on another thread about how he wished it stayed on track. I think at times people do not want the thread to stay on track and divert it into personal clashes and petty point scoring, because it diverts attention away from the fact that their original argument in the first place does not stand up to any critical examination via evidence, whatsoever.
As Bertrand Russell states so correctly...
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd.”
I personally dispel the myth of global warming, I believe we are still coming out of an ace age, I feel it is an excuse to try and brainwasher the human race again.
I do believe we need to protect our planet from its own greed and consumption; I replace items when they break and are no longer fit for purpose.
Someone laughed at my £30 mobile phone, why do we need an all singing and dancing one, I only got one within the last year to text and call my children so I can keep in touch with them.
Do we need TV’s the size of cinema screens?
The biggest fastest latest car.
So many people are driven by getting the latest this or that and discard the one they got last year.
It takes resources to keep up demand, and it is greed and selfishness that drives the demand, not the need.
Until attitudes change nothing will.
That’s what I hope this latest crisis will help in some way of doing help change peoples attitudes
I do believe we need to protect our planet from its own greed and consumption; I replace items when they break and are no longer fit for purpose.
Someone laughed at my £30 mobile phone, why do we need an all singing and dancing one, I only got one within the last year to text and call my children so I can keep in touch with them.
Do we need TV’s the size of cinema screens?
The biggest fastest latest car.
So many people are driven by getting the latest this or that and discard the one they got last year.
It takes resources to keep up demand, and it is greed and selfishness that drives the demand, not the need.
Until attitudes change nothing will.
That’s what I hope this latest crisis will help in some way of doing help change peoples attitudes
Master of Sex
I'm a terrible fence sitter on these serious issues as I'm really crap at putting across an argument. However I too am not 100%convinced on the global warming argument.
That being said, even if there is a genuine case, I just feel an overwhelming sense of futility about it all. I just feel that all the efforts to recycle, reduce carbon footprint etc is such a tiny gesture in the grand scheme of things.
I think the US is coming around belatedly, but China is still building coal-fired power stations like there is no tomorrow, India too...and who are we to deny them their own industrial revolution?
That being said, even if there is a genuine case, I just feel an overwhelming sense of futility about it all. I just feel that all the efforts to recycle, reduce carbon footprint etc is such a tiny gesture in the grand scheme of things.
I think the US is coming around belatedly, but China is still building coal-fired power stations like there is no tomorrow, India too...and who are we to deny them their own industrial revolution?
I agree we are still coming out of the last ice age, that is clearly seen through isotonic up lift, where the UK is sinking into the sea in the south east and Scotland is rising, this is due to the removal of the weight of the glaciers.
However, there is overwhelming evidence that the rate of global warming has increased above and beyond that predicted in a post ice age era.
The environmental movement has been the subject of concerted efforts by the globes industries that see it as some sort of spoil sport that is trying to wreck their game. Right from the early days when Rachel Carson wrote her book silent spring, which showed the devastation that DDT had on the food chain and the chemical companies tried to get it banned, through to the global warming debate and the oil industry funded non science reports it has been a constant battle.
The latest attempt to discredit it has taken on the form that it is just one big government plot to get people to stump p more money. This is not the information age it is the disinformation age.
However, there is overwhelming evidence that the rate of global warming has increased above and beyond that predicted in a post ice age era.
The environmental movement has been the subject of concerted efforts by the globes industries that see it as some sort of spoil sport that is trying to wreck their game. Right from the early days when Rachel Carson wrote her book silent spring, which showed the devastation that DDT had on the food chain and the chemical companies tried to get it banned, through to the global warming debate and the oil industry funded non science reports it has been a constant battle.
The latest attempt to discredit it has taken on the form that it is just one big government plot to get people to stump p more money. This is not the information age it is the disinformation age.
Quote by flower411
Because usually I get " the others ", come along to back each other up. Still I take great delight in all the pm's I get from others, backing ME up.
They do not want to put it on the forums because they do not want, the same treatment happening to them.
Now that is a fact.
I have a freedom to say whatever I like...within the rules. So to those who would just love to " shut me up ", well you will have a long sandals are well and trully locked away.
Oh for crying out loud !!!
Talk about paranoid !!
What treatement ???
You abuse people and then start going on about people attacking you and all the people who PM you who are too afraid to post
You honestly expect people to believe that your in box is full of people who are too afraid to post on this forum but send you messages of support ??
Purleese !!!! :roll: :roll: :roll:
You have a very uncanny knack of " over exagerating " what one has said. I never said my in box was full, I merely said I have has pm's from others too scared too support me. In honesty over the last four months I have had approx 28 pm's from 14 different people. YOU believe what you want.
Example? On this thread I aired MY views on this, only to be " shot " down with a barrage of
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: Since then there have been others who have expressed their beliefs over Global warming. Funny I do not see any headbanging there.
I would really love to post a pm I had from another member, who described some on here as the " coven ". I felt that was a bit strong but...when someone has views which are against the grain, I have to except that I will get slated. We live in a pc correct, nanny state, enviromental obsessed country.
Because I dispell a lot of that I put myself up to be " shot down ". What I do take offence too is when I air my views, then get vilified by others but when others air similar views, nothing is said to them at all. This thread is a classic example.
Lets all get back to the " good old days " on here, when apparently all that was ever discussed was, fairy subjects. :shock:
Mod
Quote by kentswingers777
Because usually I get " the others ", come along to back each other up. Still I take great delight in all the pm's I get from others, backing ME up.
They do not want to put it on the forums because they do not want, the same treatment happening to them.
Now that is a fact.
I have a freedom to say whatever I like...within the rules. So to those who would just love to " shut me up ", well you will have a long sandals are well and trully locked away.
Well you wont be getting a PM from me backing you up on this. Your post was very generic with information, it was just your thoughts. You were asked specific questions about your post but you ignored all of them and went off on one because someone had dared to question you and no-one else. The thread has developed since your post with a lot more factual information than you gave, that's why they haven't been pulled to bits. If your post had been more factual you wouldn't have had the questions against you raised.
"I have a freedom to say whatever I like...within the rules."
How profound. People fall off the edge of cliffs, but others feel safe because they stand away from the edge. Sometimes that cliff crumbles and catches even those who stand a bit back from the edge.
Mal
