When you have to brainwash children, you know your argument is corrupt.
-
Blah blah blah. These aren't people talking to THEIR children. They are trying top brainwash OUR children. That is sick.
-
No they are not. You can choose whether or not to read their book with your children. No-one is forcing it on you or your kids. And, if you do read it with them, you are free to brainwash them yourselves by saying what a load of crap you think it is.
Well that at least is something, Al Gore's crock of shit film was rammed down kids throats in schools in the UK. And dont you worry, my daughter is fully aware of just how bad the science is behind global warming.
-
Well that at least is something, Al Gore's crock of shit film was rammed down kids throats in schools in the UK. And dont you worry, my daughter is fully aware of just how bad the science is behind global warming.
-
She is intelligent enough already to recognise that when you have dr whatever, on the roof of a university some where in India, talk about his new weather station to measure temperature, that when I point out the PLETHORA of air con heat exchanges just behind him, that the temperature measurement will be useless. And this was, you got it, the BBC. If you really think the earth is at risk in 50 or 100 years from man made CO2, you are either really very gullible or agreeing with it in order to further your political and social desire for the future. Which is it?
-
She is intelligent enough already to recognise that when you have dr whatever, on the roof of a university some where in India, talk about his new weather station to measure temperature, that when I point out the PLETHORA of air con heat exchanges just behind him, that the temperature measurement will be useless. And this was, you got it, the BBC. If you really think the earth is at risk in 50 or 100 years from man made CO2, you are either really very gullible or agreeing with it in order to further your political and social desire for the future. Which is it?
NO one thinks the earth is at risk, and no one can be 100% sure about what contribution man is making (or has made) to the current upward trend in average global temperatures – but that there is such a trend is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. The earth will survive whatever happens. How much human society and civilisation is affected will depend on the degree of change, but one thing is sure: we do not possess the political will or ability to cope with very much change. It won’t take much for global food production to be hit – while it’s all very well to say ”If we can’t grow it in X we can grow it in Y”, in reality it won’t be that simple. X has years of expertise and infrastructure in place; Y doesn’t. It’s not straightforward to relocate entire production lines across the globe. If nothing else, it could have a massive effect on prices, leading to civil unrest. And if some places become uninhabitable, the resulting mass migration will make Europe’s current issues with migrants seem like a picnic in the park. Nothing is certain – but the possibility for massive socio-political upheavals in the coming century is very real and quite significant. This is only denied by people who are either fools or are seeking to further their political and social goals. Or both.
-
NO one thinks the earth is at risk, and no one can be 100% sure about what contribution man is making (or has made) to the current upward trend in average global temperatures – but that there is such a trend is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. The earth will survive whatever happens. How much human society and civilisation is affected will depend on the degree of change, but one thing is sure: we do not possess the political will or ability to cope with very much change. It won’t take much for global food production to be hit – while it’s all very well to say ”If we can’t grow it in X we can grow it in Y”, in reality it won’t be that simple. X has years of expertise and infrastructure in place; Y doesn’t. It’s not straightforward to relocate entire production lines across the globe. If nothing else, it could have a massive effect on prices, leading to civil unrest. And if some places become uninhabitable, the resulting mass migration will make Europe’s current issues with migrants seem like a picnic in the park. Nothing is certain – but the possibility for massive socio-political upheavals in the coming century is very real and quite significant. This is only denied by people who are either fools or are seeking to further their political and social goals. Or both.
A_Griffin wrote:
but the possibility for massive socio-political upheavals in the coming century is very real and quite significant.
True. But we do not know what they will be, so we cannot prepare for any and all. If you accept that the climate is controlled by the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, we are warming the earth, and have to concentrate our resources on reducing GHGs. If you accept that 'astronomical' factors cause climate cycles, we are on the point of a cold spell that will reduce agricultural production, and we have to build non-gaseous greenhouses and more power stations to fuel them. Etc., etc. Your turn with the blindfold and the dart. :-D
-
We looked for a kids’ book to help us discuss the issue of climate change and discovered… there wasn’t one. We realized we’d have to make one ourselves. So we - a storyteller and a climate scientist - joined forces to write a book to communicate to kids about climate change. But more importantly, to inspire them to do something about it. With us, working together.[^] Not content with force feeding kids Gore's ludicrous film they now have to brainwash them at bed time. Disgusting. And the man behind it? Yes, old 'hide the decline' himself, mr 'my methods produce hockeysticks when fed red noise' junk scientist, Mann. He who made himself a Nobel Peace Prize award. When the debate leaves the realms of science, and becomes brainwashing the game is up.
-
Ha! So, run out of science and logic, the alarmist makes personal attacks! Thank you for conforming to breed. :)
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Ha! So, run out of science and logic, the alarmist makes personal attacks!
Used to watch a street corner fire and brimstone preacher that showed up every spring. He ignored the one young bravado that pointed out that the expensive watch that the preacher wore hardly fit in with the context of christian poverty. There of course was no point in doing so since the preacher was hardly going to change his views. But the commentary was funny.
-
Well that at least is something, Al Gore's crock of shit film was rammed down kids throats in schools in the UK. And dont you worry, my daughter is fully aware of just how bad the science is behind global warming.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Well that at least is something, Al Gore's crock of sh*t film was rammed down kids throats in schools in the UK.
First time I heard of that. Searching the first thing I find was some poor citizen challenging it in court. But, looks like it turns out is wasn't in fact a poor citizen but rather an energy company. [^] Information seems to suggest that the film is only shown in secondary schools (UK). That would be 11 to 16 and in some cased 18. The original link for this message thread suggests book for a much younger age. I can't find anything that suggests the film (the first one) is a mandated part of any country wide curriculum. Nor that is is used at all. At least in the US course work at the lower levels (say up to about 14) are often strictly mandated at the regional level. Only advanced students are allowed to go off course. But of course if it is used in a classroom then one must 'watch' it. Although if my schooling was any indicator whether students actually got anything from a film watched in a classroom was debatable. Please do provide a link that demonstrates that there was a region that mandated it as part of the fixed curriculum since I cannot find that.
-
We looked for a kids’ book to help us discuss the issue of climate change and discovered… there wasn’t one. We realized we’d have to make one ourselves. So we - a storyteller and a climate scientist - joined forces to write a book to communicate to kids about climate change. But more importantly, to inspire them to do something about it. With us, working together.[^] Not content with force feeding kids Gore's ludicrous film they now have to brainwash them at bed time. Disgusting. And the man behind it? Yes, old 'hide the decline' himself, mr 'my methods produce hockeysticks when fed red noise' junk scientist, Mann. He who made himself a Nobel Peace Prize award. When the debate leaves the realms of science, and becomes brainwashing the game is up.
you're such a fucking turd
-
NO one thinks the earth is at risk, and no one can be 100% sure about what contribution man is making (or has made) to the current upward trend in average global temperatures – but that there is such a trend is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. The earth will survive whatever happens. How much human society and civilisation is affected will depend on the degree of change, but one thing is sure: we do not possess the political will or ability to cope with very much change. It won’t take much for global food production to be hit – while it’s all very well to say ”If we can’t grow it in X we can grow it in Y”, in reality it won’t be that simple. X has years of expertise and infrastructure in place; Y doesn’t. It’s not straightforward to relocate entire production lines across the globe. If nothing else, it could have a massive effect on prices, leading to civil unrest. And if some places become uninhabitable, the resulting mass migration will make Europe’s current issues with migrants seem like a picnic in the park. Nothing is certain – but the possibility for massive socio-political upheavals in the coming century is very real and quite significant. This is only denied by people who are either fools or are seeking to further their political and social goals. Or both.
A_Griffin wrote:
NO one thinks the earth is at risk
Oh really? Plague, pestilence, drought, flood, fire? The end of human civilisation, a mass extinction event. All these have been promised in the name of AGW.
A_Griffin wrote:
no one can be 100% sure about what contribution man is making
And I thought the science was settled. Good to know you agree with me that it isnt, and that there is debate, not only about mans contribution, but about the impact of that contribution.
A_Griffin wrote:
we do not possess the political will or ability to cope with very much change
Why do you feel so weak? Man has the ability to cope with huge changes. Look at the history of the 20th century for instance.
A_Griffin wrote:
It won’t take much for global food production to be hit
Why? Currently more and more food is being produced from less and less land. The Dutch are the worlds second biggest food exporters. They produce all that, from a tiny country. Do you really think mankind can not master food production?
A_Griffin wrote:
relocate entire production lines across the globe
Why on earth would you do that?
-
A_Griffin wrote:
NO one thinks the earth is at risk
Oh really? Plague, pestilence, drought, flood, fire? The end of human civilisation, a mass extinction event. All these have been promised in the name of AGW.
A_Griffin wrote:
no one can be 100% sure about what contribution man is making
And I thought the science was settled. Good to know you agree with me that it isnt, and that there is debate, not only about mans contribution, but about the impact of that contribution.
A_Griffin wrote:
we do not possess the political will or ability to cope with very much change
Why do you feel so weak? Man has the ability to cope with huge changes. Look at the history of the 20th century for instance.
A_Griffin wrote:
It won’t take much for global food production to be hit
Why? Currently more and more food is being produced from less and less land. The Dutch are the worlds second biggest food exporters. They produce all that, from a tiny country. Do you really think mankind can not master food production?
A_Griffin wrote:
relocate entire production lines across the globe
Why on earth would you do that?
Quote:
Oh really? Plague, pestilence, drought, flood, fire? The end of human civilisation, a mass extinction event. All these have been promised in the name of AGW.
They have been put forward as possibilities, and they are.
Quote:
And I thought the science was settled. Good to know you agree with me that it isnt, and that there is debate, not only about mans contribution, but about the impact of that contribution.
The science is pretty much settled on the fact that mankind is major contributor to a general upward trend in global temperatures. Beyond that - the exact amount and the exact consequences - the debate is open.
Quote:
Look at the history of the 20th century for instance.
The bloodiest in human history. I rest my case.
Quote:
Do you really think mankind can not master food production?
Read what I said. In the event that temperature rises are enough to disrupt current growing patterns and practices, there could well be severe interruptions to the world's food supply as new patterns emerge. We won't be able to adapt quickly enough, esp given our propensity for not acting at all until the need is already upon us. There would be political, social and technical challenges to overcome. And in the meantime, hungry, angry people would be migrating across the globe by the hundreds of millions, not the trickle you see you.
-
Quote:
Oh really? Plague, pestilence, drought, flood, fire? The end of human civilisation, a mass extinction event. All these have been promised in the name of AGW.
They have been put forward as possibilities, and they are.
Quote:
And I thought the science was settled. Good to know you agree with me that it isnt, and that there is debate, not only about mans contribution, but about the impact of that contribution.
The science is pretty much settled on the fact that mankind is major contributor to a general upward trend in global temperatures. Beyond that - the exact amount and the exact consequences - the debate is open.
Quote:
Look at the history of the 20th century for instance.
The bloodiest in human history. I rest my case.
Quote:
Do you really think mankind can not master food production?
Read what I said. In the event that temperature rises are enough to disrupt current growing patterns and practices, there could well be severe interruptions to the world's food supply as new patterns emerge. We won't be able to adapt quickly enough, esp given our propensity for not acting at all until the need is already upon us. There would be political, social and technical challenges to overcome. And in the meantime, hungry, angry people would be migrating across the globe by the hundreds of millions, not the trickle you see you.
So first you say no one knows how much man contributes, and in a second breath say man is a major contributor. You see how hard it is to discuss anything with people who change their line every post?
A_Griffin wrote:
The bloodiest in human history. I rest my case.
:wtf: You said man kind can not cope with change and upheaval. I said it can, look what it coped with in the 20th century. And you say you rest your case? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Oh come on. Keep the debate logical at least!
A_Griffin wrote:
In the event that temperature rises are enough to disrupt current growing patterns and practices
You mean we might have to stop using greenhouses in europe!!!!!!!! Look, mankind ADDS heat and CO2 to make crops grow better. He has done for a long time. And you think they are worse for crops?
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Well that at least is something, Al Gore's crock of sh*t film was rammed down kids throats in schools in the UK.
First time I heard of that. Searching the first thing I find was some poor citizen challenging it in court. But, looks like it turns out is wasn't in fact a poor citizen but rather an energy company. [^] Information seems to suggest that the film is only shown in secondary schools (UK). That would be 11 to 16 and in some cased 18. The original link for this message thread suggests book for a much younger age. I can't find anything that suggests the film (the first one) is a mandated part of any country wide curriculum. Nor that is is used at all. At least in the US course work at the lower levels (say up to about 14) are often strictly mandated at the regional level. Only advanced students are allowed to go off course. But of course if it is used in a classroom then one must 'watch' it. Although if my schooling was any indicator whether students actually got anything from a film watched in a classroom was debatable. Please do provide a link that demonstrates that there was a region that mandated it as part of the fixed curriculum since I cannot find that.
I was talking about the UK, which is where I am from, so you found the link yourself. Jackass.
-
I was talking about the UK, which is where I am from, so you found the link yourself. Jackass.
Most of my post is specifically about the UK. The link that I posted demonstrated that the intent of the lawsuit, the UK lawsuit, was financed by denier business interests and not a concerned parent. But is not clear why the film, even in that case, was used. Was it at the discretion of the teacher or does the region mandate the usage at all? For that matter was it even shown in the classroom - article certainly does not indicate that? But excluding that case I could not find any documentation that UK schools mandated the use of that in the classroom. Versus for example putting it on a library shelf from which students might or might not use it as they wish. Do you have have a link where the use was mandated in the UK?