Originally Posted by Clippo:
g hall wrote:-


You have a worrying propensity to quote fairy tales & therefore believe them.

Good I'm glad you're worried

Most Fairy Stories are there to make a point and they usually succeed very well. The fact that you can only make silly comments proves to me that you are not intelligent enough to understand or are too disingenuous to even contemplate that you are wrong
[Rep]

g hall,

How about leaving Alice in Wonderland for a moment and making a rational comment on the subject of the thread ? or are the numbers in the link too difficult for you ?
&
[quote[ ..... or are too disingenuous to even contemplate that you are wrong [/quote]

What have I said about the subject of this thread that is supposedly wrong?
[Rep]

Here's one. Cameron and Zac haven't got a hope in hell of making the Tory Party into the new green, high tax, low efficiency party they have in mind. Not with a recession coming on and criminal oil and energy prices and then add to that the 140% hike in food prices since 2002, all due to the hare-brained biofuel fascists. People are already dying in some countries due to the lack of food. All based of course on a dodgy computer model that has since been proven to have been fraudulent as well. Then of course there is the weather. In the next few years we will see a complete divergence from their computer model, simply because their model is not scientific, it is political. Just like the last scam these globalists tried to pull on us in the 70s, except they told everyone we were heading for a new ice age.
[Rep]

BVL wrote:_

Originally Posted by :
Here's one. Cameron and ............... they told everyone we were heading for a new ice age.

Jeez !!!!!!

Assuming your 'Here's one' refers to my 'supposedly wrong',:-
Where did I say anything about Cameron etc. here ?

As for the rest of your outburst, it would be nice if you could posts some factual links to support your paranoia.

I ask you again, where did you get the figures in your first post ??
[Rep]

What does it have to do with intelligence? Is that just a snide insult?
[Rep]

Just to keep Clippo happy lets look at the questions to see how loaded they where

Q1. Do you believe climate change is happening and can be directly attributed to greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity?

Q2. Are you aware of your local council taking positive action to tackle climate change?

Q3. To what extent do you agree or disagree that councils have a key role to play in tackling climate change?

Q4. If you answered ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ to Q1c above, do you see local councils’ role as:

Q5a. Below is a list of things that councils might do to force their residents to take action on climate change. To what extent do you agree or disagree councils should do these things?
Councils should introduce financial incentives to encourage people to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Q5b. Below is a list of things that councils might do to force their residents to take action on climate change. To what extent do you agree or disagree councils should do these things?
Councils should introduce penalties to encourage people to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Q6. Overall, to what extent do you agree or disagree that councils should force their residents to take action on climate change?

Q7. At local election time, would a candidate with policies to tackle climate change be more likely or less likely to get your vote?

Q8. In your opinion should tackling climate change be one of the top five priorities for your local council?

Q9. Is it one of the top five priorities for your local council?

Q10. Do you think your local council could do more to tackle climate change within the existing level of resources

Q11. Overall, how well would you say your local council is doing in tackling climate change?

I believe I stated Emperor's New clothes and with these questions I stand by that remark
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
As for the rest of your outburst, it would be nice if you could posts some factual links to support your paranoia.

31 000 scientists can't be all wrong. Would you like to tell them that they are all paranoid as well?

You want a quote do you? Well try this.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate."

(signed last month by by 31 000 scientists including physicist Prof Freeman Dyson, atmospheric physicist Prof Richard Lindzen and climate scientist Prof Fred Singer)

Or this:

Ivar Glaever, who won a Nobel Prize for Physics, this month declared "I am a sceptic", because "we don't really know what the actual effect on the climate is".
[Rep]

Baron von Lotsov
1. You haven't clearly answered my question so I repeat again:-

Where did you get your initial figures from ?

(I'm quite prepared to admit I may have misread the questionaire results but please tell me where ?)

& although I am not trying to plagiarise BonnieDundee's question, as he put it , what has the poll got to do with 'intelligence?

2. Have you been ill ? or on along boat trip or locked away from the real world ? Did you not see this thread earlier :-
http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/envi...ory-named.html

Scores of 'investigators' have been scouring the 31,000 petition and I don't think they've come up with even 1 practising climate scientist. This whole petition is a complete joke in serious scientific circles.

You need to do better than that I'm afraid BVL? (& are you sure that Freeman Dyson signed this?) From Wiki :-

Originally Posted by :
Criticism of global warming studies
Dyson agrees with the general theory of anthropogenic global warming, and has written
“ One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas.[18]

He has criticisms of the models but his latest proposal is to bio-engineer 'carbon-eating-trees (seriously - his words in a NY Times book review) to mop up all the CO2. How a physicist proposes to tell GM experts how to do this isn't very clear to me.

as for g hall,
- whose a clever boy then being able to copy stuff out.

Okay, please spell it out for me on say, Q1 - explain to me how you think that question is 'loaded' ?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
as for g hall,
- whose a clever boy then being able to copy stuff out.

Okay, please spell it out for me on say, Q1 - explain to me how you think that question is 'loaded' ?

Thank you for the compliment though I doubt that is what you meant
OK then for the benefit of Clippo the question is
Q1. Do you believe climate change is happening and can be directly attributed to greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity?

If you believe that climate change is happening and all the available evidence is that the climate does change then most people will automatically answer yes but the phrasing of the question implies that you agree that it is man made. It would be better if it was 2 separate questions

If you have ever worked in Sales and Marketing you will see that the question is designed to get the maximum YES answers.

Please don't hesitate to ask further questions after all if MikeUK can change his mind then maybe there is hope for you
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
Baron von Lotsov

& although I am not trying to plagiarise BonnieDundee's question, as he put it , what has the poll got to do with 'intelligence?

It's just my sense of humour that's all. A bit of artistic licence maybe as well. What is 'green intelligence', well its an understanding of the argument in my opinion, the argument of all arguments as far as the greens are concerned, and you know it well, it is the issue of whether man can affect the climate with CO2 emissions. I use the word 'intelligence' in the same sense as, lets say, military intelligence, i.e. knowledge of the terrain and that sort of thing, not as in an IQ test. Well, you fell for that though. You lack subtlety.
[Rep]