Don't Forget....9pm Channel 4 Tonight!!!!

MutleyRules · **Posted:** Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:19 pm

'The Great Global Warming Swindle'!!!! :grin:

It should be interesting!!!! :sweeeet:

MutleyRules · **Posted:** Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:12 pm

Oooh....it's hotting up!!!! :laugh:

MutleyRules · **Posted:** Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:38 pm

It's getting very interesting Mr.Fireball....don't fall asleep yet!!!! :grin:

MutleyRules · **Posted:** Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:40 pm

To stop 'Global Warming' we have to Ban all Seas and Oceans!!!! :laugh:

MutleyRules · **Posted:** Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:41 pm

Err....and the Sun!!!! :laugh:

The Big Firey thing in the sky not the 'newspaper'!!!! confised

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 36426

Loved how the records showed CO2 trailed global warming by 800 years and how all the inverted charts lined up to prove the theory ... looks like we'll have all the lentil munchers picketing the sun and in the end it all came down to politics...
As the man who brought the subject up in the first place 40 years ago said, If I do research on squirrel habitats in Sussex the funding will be zero, If I can add the words 'and the effects of global warming', money will be thrown at me. He doesn't believe in it either, as the subject at the time was global cooling :roll:

...people nowadays are so hysterical and the whole global warming thing is symptomatic, it's like a witch hunt in the Middle Ages were the Church's word was absolute and there would be no rational discussion of all the facts! :roll:

dawlishmonkey · **Joined:** Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:53 am **Posts:** 1588

theres a piece on this programme on five live at the minute followed by phone in

Karl Marx · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:33 am

offshorepoolie wrote:

Wonder if our resident good doctor watched it!

Sort of backed up all our crackpot theories,

but after all I have a vested interest!! :laugh:

No, family crisis.

BTW, what's so funny?

Karl Marx · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:44 am

offshorepoolie wrote:

BTW I re-cycled when it wasn't fashionable! :roll:

Looks like you've been wasting your time then? :roll:

MutleyRules · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2007 5:05 pm

Karl Marx wrote:

offshorepoolie wrote:

Wonder if our resident good doctor watched it!

Sort of backed up all our crackpot theories,

but after all I have a vested interest!! :laugh:

No, family crisis.

I taped it if you wanna' watch it!!!! :sweeeet:

We'll make a night of it....I'll invite Mr.Offshore, Mr.Gloves and Mr.Snowy and yourself round ours and we'll all watch it together!!!! :laugh:

Spender · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2007 5:15 pm

MutleyRules wrote:

Karl Marx wrote:

offshorepoolie wrote:

Wonder if our resident good doctor watched it!

Sort of backed up all our crackpot theories,

but after all I have a vested interest!! :laugh:

No, family crisis.

I taped it if you wanna' watch it!!!! :sweeeet:

We'll make a night of it....I'll invite Mr.Offshore, Mr.Gloves and Mr.Snowy and yourself round ours and we'll all watch it together!!!! :laugh:

Oh right well then, I don't want to come anyway. :evil:

No, no, really you have a nice time, never mind that I'm the only one who lives in the bloody third world, no, it doesn't matter, I don't want to, you make your own mind up about China's pollution, I'm sure you know better than me, after all I only live amongst it, no, I'm sure you know more than I do.............shakes head. :shock:

Sorry. My female side came out there. :uhoh:

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 36426

Karl Marx wrote:

offshorepoolie wrote:

BTW I re-cycled when it wasn't fashionable! :roll:

Looks like you've been wasting your time then? :roll:

Don't confuse the issues, nothing wrong with reducing pollution or consumption or even stopping the waste of the worlds resources...if the facts were known I'm probably a lot greener than you ( I don't do air travel) but I approach everything with an open mind and don't always accept the perceived 'wisdom'.

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 36426

chip fireball wrote:

i found it dull, confusing and far from convincing. in addition to which the maker of the programme has got previous. he was censured by the itc following his last enviromental doccumentary for distortion of factual information.

i agree about not trusting scientists given funding producing results that will support the stance taken by their backers. what wasnt made clear last night was that 2 of the most vociferous scientists dissing global warming are in the employ of the oil industry. one of them was funded by exon. hardly a bastion of truth and honesty.

all we learned last night was that a bunch of ultra conservatives e.g. nigel lawson, think global warning isnt caused by man. they would say that wouldnt they.

Come on Chip, approach it with an open mind, not an open mouth. :laugh:

MutleyRules · **Posted:** Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:41 pm

A letter on Ceefax just about sums it all up....

"Mild & Wet Winter Weather = Global Warming. Cold & Icy Winter Weather = Global Warming. Warm & Wet Summer = Global Warming. Hot & Dry Summer = Global Warming.
For as long as I can remember we have always had extremes where our weather is concerned.
However, the only thing that has remained consistent is the Taxman's ability to use the global warming cash cow to help fill his coffers."

DS, Nottinghamshire.

confised

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 36426

chip fireball wrote:

i approached the programme with an open mind of sorts. i was however not at all shocked to find that the film was made by martin durkin. as i stated previously he was in bother with the itc with his last film attacking the enviromental movement, for bias and distortion.

when i watch something made by a bloke who is a proven liar i have to be sceptical. what i saw was a stream of people whose credentials were never questioned put across a viewpoint as if it were fact. there was no balance and no counter argument.

why should i believe the failed politician nigel lawson for instance ? what qualifications does he have ? and why was it never pointed out that 2 of the scientists putting their opinion across as fact had their research paid for by huge multinational energy companies. you only have to look at the enron scandal, or the ogoni killings in nigeria to see what a pack of lying scumbags these people are.

i wasnt convinced by what i saw. it was a long dull programme.

if i ever watch an inconvenient truth i shall approach that in the same way.

The co-founder of Greenpeace said he was shocked when his fellow members advocated the banning of chlorine .... how do you ban chlorine?...besides being an element, I'm prepared to accept the advantages of it over the disadvantages, i.e ...water treatment :wink:

TalbotAvenger · **Posted:** Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:48 pm

Snowy wrote:

chip fireball wrote:

i approached the programme with an open mind of sorts. i was however not at all shocked to find that the film was made by martin durkin. as i stated previously he was in bother with the itc with his last film attacking the enviromental movement, for bias and distortion.

when i watch something made by a bloke who is a proven liar i have to be sceptical. what i saw was a stream of people whose credentials were never questioned put across a viewpoint as if it were fact. there was no balance and no counter argument.

why should i believe the failed politician nigel lawson for instance ? what qualifications does he have ? and why was it never pointed out that 2 of the scientists putting their opinion across as fact had their research paid for by huge multinational energy companies. you only have to look at the enron scandal, or the ogoni killings in nigeria to see what a pack of lying scumbags these people are.

i wasnt convinced by what i saw. it was a long dull programme.

if i ever watch an inconvenient truth i shall approach that in the same way.

The co-founder of Greenpeace said he was shocked when his fellow members advocated the banning of chlorine .... how do you ban chlorine?...besides being an element, I'm prepared to accept the advantages of it over the disadvantages, i.e ...water treatment :wink:

And clean the piss in swimming pools

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 36426

I could give you a loooooooong boooooring talk on the subject, but as long as the free chlorine is greater then the combined chlorine, the piss is history.

BillinghamPoolie · **Posted:** Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:07 pm

Snowy wrote:

chip fireball wrote:

i approached the programme with an open mind of sorts. i was however not at all shocked to find that the film was made by martin durkin. as i stated previously he was in bother with the itc with his last film attacking the enviromental movement, for bias and distortion.

when i watch something made by a bloke who is a proven liar i have to be sceptical. what i saw was a stream of people whose credentials were never questioned put across a viewpoint as if it were fact. there was no balance and no counter argument.

why should i believe the failed politician nigel lawson for instance ? what qualifications does he have ? and why was it never pointed out that 2 of the scientists putting their opinion across as fact had their research paid for by huge multinational energy companies. you only have to look at the enron scandal, or the ogoni killings in nigeria to see what a pack of lying scumbags these people are.

i wasnt convinced by what i saw. it was a long dull programme.

if i ever watch an inconvenient truth i shall approach that in the same way.

The co-founder of Greenpeace said he was shocked when his fellow members advocated the banning of chlorine .... how do you ban chlorine?...besides being an element, I'm prepared to accept the advantages of it over the disadvantages, i.e ...water treatment :wink:

Tioxide would be out of business if they did ban Chlorine, they wouldn't be able to do their magic of turning TiCl4 into TiO2 pigment to make the world a whiter place. :laugh:

Karl Marx · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:54 am

MutleyRules wrote:

Karl Marx wrote:

offshorepoolie wrote:

Wonder if our resident good doctor watched it!

Sort of backed up all our crackpot theories,

but after all I have a vested interest!! :laugh:

No, family crisis.

I taped it if you wanna' watch it!!!! :sweeeet:

We'll make a night of it....I'll invite Mr.Offshore, Mr.Gloves and Mr.Snowy and yourself round ours and we'll all watch it together!!!! :laugh:

I'm only going if Mr Fireball is invited!

Karl Marx · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:55 am

Snowy wrote:

Karl Marx wrote:

offshorepoolie wrote:

BTW I re-cycled when it wasn't fashionable! :roll:

Looks like you've been wasting your time then? :roll:

Don't confuse the issues...

It's not like you to miss sarcasm Snowy?

Karl Marx · **Posted:** Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:41 pm

Interesting response to the "documentary" in today's Guardian. So much for the "evidence"?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 75,00.html

MutleyRules · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:02 am

I've just read the top 34 'Comments' on that article which took me a good hour and only 5 out of the 34 support Mr.Monbiot's article!!!! :shock:

I think that is even more interesting than the article Dr.Trimdon!!!! :grin:

Karl Marx · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:11 am

MutleyRules wrote:

I've just read the top 34 'Comments' on that article which took me a good hour and only 5 out of the 34 support Mr.Monbiot's article!!!! :shock:

I think that is even more interesting than the article Dr.Trimdon!!!! :grin:

So, on that logic, if you said something on rivals, and everyone disagreed, you'd be wrong?

Read the article (not the responses), in particular the comments on further research (in academic journals - refereed journals for that) that questioned the findings of the research used in the documentary.

MutleyRules · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:45 am

I have read the article!!!! :sweeeet:

But after reading the comments it seems the majority are saying that Mr.Monbiot doesn't know what he is talking about and when they ask him to answer something he won't answer or he answers like a Politician!!!! :roll:

"So, on that logic, if you said something on rivals, and everyone disagreed, you'd be wrong?"

No I wouldn't be wrong because 90% of the posters on Rivals are as thick as pigshit and the people who are replying on the Guardian site seem a lot more inteligent than your average Rivals poster!!!! :laugh:

I actually started reading the comments because I thought that the majority would be backing George Monbiot's case but to find the opposite I was quite shocked!!!! :shock:

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 36426

Karl Marx wrote:

Snowy wrote:

Karl Marx wrote:

offshorepoolie wrote:

BTW I re-cycled when it wasn't fashionable! :roll:

Looks like you've been wasting your time then? :roll:

Don't confuse the issues...

It's not like you to miss sarcasm Snowy?

I can't do it when I'm asleep...you try snoring sarcastically, it's not easy but I think I'm getting there.

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 36426

Why is the Guardian always referred to as some sort of undisputed font of knowledge and set in stone facts ...? I take three papers a day from across the political spectrum and they all contain a hint of the truth on some subjects and a load of bull in general, the Guardian being no different except it's stuck it's fat arse on the grassy knoll of the moral high ground and claims the intellectual rights... I'll stick with my Private Eye and the Spectator(for balance)

Karl Marx · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:21 am

Snowy wrote:

Why is the Guardian always referred to as some sort of undisputed font of knowledge and set in stone facts ...?

It's not, it's like any other newspaper; prone to mistakes and it contains an inherent bias. I link to it as it's the paper I read.

Karl Marx · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:28 am

MutleyRules wrote:

I actually started reading the comments because I thought that the majority would be backing George Monbiot's case but to find the opposite I was quite shocked!!!! :shock:

Agreed, but that's the nature of debate probably! Anyway, looking at the comments is interesting. I've not read them all (there are loads now) but one did stand out - the only person to engage with the evidence came to an ambivalent conclusion - "more research needed". It appeared that very few others engaged with the paper on this level. Shame really, as the paper was largely concerned with the weight of evidence.

grabec · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:33 am

I don't think the Guardian is anything like as good as it used to be, or the Observer either. They're both much much more middle class. The political writers are still among the best around, but there are too many 30-something feature writers who seem to think we want to read about their boring lifestyles and assumptions.
Also, the Guardian has developed a strange, blinkered approach to anything that isn't main-stream science.....as if scientists are never wrong, and as if there aren't other ways of deriving knowledge.

I need another doughnut, now....

GighaPooly · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:54 am

grabec wrote:

I don't think the Guardian is anything like as good as it used to be, or the Observer either. They're both much much more middle class. The political writers are still among the best around, but there are too many 30-something feature writers who seem to think we want to read about their boring lifestyles and assumptions.
Also, the Guardian has developed a strange, blinkered approach to anything that isn't main-stream science.....as if scientists are never wrong, and as if there aren't other ways of deriving knowledge.

I need another doughnut, now....

Totally agree - as an ex-Grauniad reader of many years. Whoever told feature writers that we interested in their oh-so lovely lifestyles was sadly deluded. I dont take a newspaper anymore as on the whole they are bilge, but when I do I take the Glasgow Herald and the Independant. The Herald is kinda lefty Scottish but its really good at reporting news - vital I always felt - and the Independant is the ONLY paper that appears not to have a specific line to tow. I always find their analysis of a subject tight, believable and, bizarrely, indepenant.

Oh, and obviously Razzle, like :grin:

Keep the faith

Karl Marx · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:29 pm

grabec wrote:

I don't think the Guardian is anything like as good as it used to be, or the Observer either. They're both much much more middle class. The political writers are still among the best around, but there are too many 30-something feature writers who seem to think we want to read about their boring lifestyles and assumptions.

Tell me about it; the Saturday magazine, for instance, is an abomination!

MutleyRules · **Posted:** Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:17 am

Question Time tonight....15/03/07....

Here's a few Texts....

'I've lived by the sea for 60 years and the sea doesn't come any further up the beach'!!!!

'Global warming = the new Cold War'!!!!

'How does paying taxes to fly make it less polluting'????

'I hope historians are documenting this global warming hysteria so our grand kids can have a hoot'!!!!

'We all thought that the world was flat, same goes with Global warming'!!!!

:sweeeet:

And of course I haven't put the sheeps texts on the board....I'm not a sheep!!!! :sweeeet:

PS....sorry just realised....the Kettle is on stand by!!!! :roll:

Don't Forget....9pm Channel 4 Tonight!!!!

Gadgies online