Anyone sick of the 'green'/Global warming stuff yet?
10 April 2008, 07:01 PM
#451
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel Lawson (who is very sceptical) was making this very point the other day on Newsnight.
Nobody doubts that c02 is a greenhouse gas, therefore the debate is about how much man made co2 affects our climate.
Did you not know this
10 April 2008, 10:05 PM
#452
What?
What do you base that assumption on?
Karori researcher Kesten Green has told MPs there was no need to pass the Government's Climate Change (Emissions Trade and Renewable Preference) Bill - because global warming forecasts are unscientific.
....
He told Parliament's finance select committee that authors of the IPCC fourth assessment report provided sufficient information to observe predic tions violated 72 of 89 accepted principles of forecasting
Which bit of this isn't skeptical about GW?
What do you base that assumption on?
Karori researcher Kesten Green has told MPs there was no need to pass the Government's Climate Change (Emissions Trade and Renewable Preference) Bill - because global warming forecasts are unscientific.
....
He told Parliament's finance select committee that authors of the IPCC fourth assessment report provided sufficient information to observe predic tions violated 72 of 89 accepted principles of forecasting
Which bit of this isn't skeptical about GW?
The above factually dismisses the methods IPCC are using to panic the masses as wholly unscientific. The IPCC's arguments are blown out of the water.
'Skepticism' is an irritating GW put down for anyone who doesn't share their unscientific and deluded 'belief'.
11 April 2008, 12:10 AM
#453
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's hardly a put down is it, especially as skeptics refer to themselves as skeptics.
Incidentally there is a world of difference between skeptic and just rejecting the notion, I'm a skeptic (and increasingly so), most of the comments are by people who just out-right deny this is a possible problem, no one on here of knows for sure.
I think it takes a pretty big leap not to accept that there is science on both sides of this arguement. Who are you or I to dismiss what is or isn't scientific, let the experts sort this one out.
My increasing skeptisim is being driven by the revolation, that the earth hasn't warmed much or at all the century, if this is true (and I don't know for sure) then that puts a pretty big hole in the 'rapid warming' that was what made me sit up and listen in the first place.
Do I think this is some huge global conspiracy, no of course not, you'd have to reasonably mad to believe that, do I think they might have just got it wrong, well yes possibly.
Ahhh the beauty of an open mind.
Last edited by Martin2005; 11 April 2008 at 12:23 AM.
11 April 2008, 04:20 AM
#454
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And how much of this "deadly rapidly climate changing" gas in the atmosphere is actually down to humans?
11 April 2008, 04:22 AM
#455
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done that man.
11 April 2008, 04:25 AM
#456
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's hardly a put down is it, especially as skeptics refer to themselves as skeptics.
Incidentally there is a world of difference between skeptic and just rejecting the notion, I'm a skeptic (and increasingly so), most of the comments are by people who just out-right deny this is a possible problem, no one on here of knows for sure.
I think it takes a pretty big leap not to accept that there is science on both sides of this arguement. Who are you or I to dismiss what is or isn't scientific, let the experts sort this one out.
My increasing skeptisim is being driven by the revolation, that the earth hasn't warmed much or at all the century, if this is true (and I don't know for sure) then that puts a pretty big hole in the 'rapid warming' that was what made me sit up and listen in the first place.
Do I think this is some huge global conspiracy, no of course not, you'd have to reasonably mad to believe that, do I think they might have just got it wrong, well yes possibly.
Ahhh the beauty of an open mind.
Incidentally there is a world of difference between skeptic and just rejecting the notion, I'm a skeptic (and increasingly so), most of the comments are by people who just out-right deny this is a possible problem, no one on here of knows for sure.
I think it takes a pretty big leap not to accept that there is science on both sides of this arguement. Who are you or I to dismiss what is or isn't scientific, let the experts sort this one out.
My increasing skeptisim is being driven by the revolation, that the earth hasn't warmed much or at all the century, if this is true (and I don't know for sure) then that puts a pretty big hole in the 'rapid warming' that was what made me sit up and listen in the first place.
Do I think this is some huge global conspiracy, no of course not, you'd have to reasonably mad to believe that, do I think they might have just got it wrong, well yes possibly.
Ahhh the beauty of an open mind.
Please remember I have been following/studying this for 30 or more years, so call me a skeptic if you wish, but understand I am an informed skeptic.
11 April 2008, 04:30 AM
#457
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Based on facts. The IPCC do present "facts" that aren't. Assumption, isn't fact. Consensus, based on assumption, isn't science. Yet the IPCC, and more importantly Al gore, seem to think so.
Who cares if Al's mocumentary, backed up by the IPCC, contains no less than 36 actual, indisputable, unthruths, as long as it's on the tele/interweb and in colour, it has to be true, right?
Who cares if Al's mocumentary, backed up by the IPCC, contains no less than 36 actual, indisputable, unthruths, as long as it's on the tele/interweb and in colour, it has to be true, right?
11 April 2008, 06:34 AM
#458
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: a more anarchic place
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm also a sceptic. The reason being, I see the one-eyed exagerrations and downright BS claims by both 'sides' of the argument. I am gradually coming round to the 'anti' MMGW side though as it seems to me that one side relies on 'computer modelled projections' and the other relies on data to back up their arguments. I'm also fed up to the back teeth with the claims of 'scientific concensus' when it is patently obvious to anyone with access to the internet that there is a host of relevant scientists who disagree.
Dr Roger Daley, who is regarded as pretty much the founder of numerical global weather and climate modelling. He said, in his very well-educated opinion as the scientist who created global atmospheric modelling: “Our systems cannot predict weather much beyond four days, so attempting to predict global changes 100 years from now seems questionable at best.”
science.ca Profile : Roger Daley
Dr Vincent Gray, Cambridge Chemistry PhD, has been a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception
“Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only “reform” I could envisage, would be it’s abolition.” he concluded; “The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The reason is, that the world will slowly realise that the ‘predictions’ emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any ‘global warming’ for the past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner or later all of us will come to realise that this organisation, and the thinking behind it, is phoney. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens.” His feelings were succinctly summed up in a television interview when he said “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense. All the science of the IPCC is unsound”
nzclimatescience.net - SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC
Dr Roger Daley, who is regarded as pretty much the founder of numerical global weather and climate modelling. He said, in his very well-educated opinion as the scientist who created global atmospheric modelling: “Our systems cannot predict weather much beyond four days, so attempting to predict global changes 100 years from now seems questionable at best.”
science.ca Profile : Roger Daley
Dr Vincent Gray, Cambridge Chemistry PhD, has been a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception
“Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only “reform” I could envisage, would be it’s abolition.” he concluded; “The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The reason is, that the world will slowly realise that the ‘predictions’ emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any ‘global warming’ for the past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner or later all of us will come to realise that this organisation, and the thinking behind it, is phoney. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens.” His feelings were succinctly summed up in a television interview when he said “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense. All the science of the IPCC is unsound”
nzclimatescience.net - SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC
11 April 2008, 08:40 AM
#459
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will find plenty of people that say the IPCC's finding aren't unscientific.
That doens;t make either one the indisputable truth.
Based on facts. The IPCC do present "facts" that aren't. Assumption, isn't fact. Consensus, based on assumption, isn't science. Yet the IPCC, and more importantly Al gore, seem to think so.
Who cares if Al's mocumentary, backed up by the IPCC, contains no less than 36 actual, indisputable, unthruths, as long as it's on the tele/interweb and in colour, it has to be true, right?
Who cares if Al's mocumentary, backed up by the IPCC, contains no less than 36 actual, indisputable, unthruths, as long as it's on the tele/interweb and in colour, it has to be true, right?
Last edited by PeteBrant; 11 April 2008 at 09:16 AM.
11 April 2008, 09:06 AM
#460
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave
11 April 2008, 01:11 PM
#461
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking of indisputable thruths....in Al Gores mocumentary...there are no less than 36 unthruths. I shall leave you to determine what they are. When you "discover" the unthruths then maybe, maybe, you will grasp the concept of what really is going on with AGW and the IPCC.
11 April 2008, 01:21 PM
#462
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He wasn't fighting against accepted science, because there was no science about celesital bodies to argue about.
He actually completed Prinicipia for a wager - As to who could prove the movement of celestial bodies - He could have done a simple equation, but instead produced one of the most amazing works in history - And all of it, theory - None of it proven.
Right - So, does that make everythign the IPCC have ever said wrong? Or does it means that some people have revised thier opnion?
Following that logic, if a well known GW skeptic changes his mind, then all Skeptic opinion becomes invalid - which is patently ridiculous.
Don't talk rot - Much of Prinicpia was proven for hundreds of years. Some of it was proven wrong - But "in the right ball park".
What you are saying, is that Einstiens General theory of relativity is not science. That the age of the universe is not science.
Just because something has not been proven absolutely does not mean that it is not extremely likely.
The Neutron was theorised to exists in the late 1800's - It took another 40 years to actualy prove it existed - But the facts upon which the theory was based absolutely lead to the existance of a Neutron being incredibly likely.
All of Einstiens, Newtons and Hawkings predictions are based on thoeries that support the facts.
You have a series of result and you postulate what the resons for those event sis - That's what a theory is.
If you are suggesting that Science only deals in absolute facts and nothing else, then you are absolutely dead wrong.
He actually completed Prinicipia for a wager - As to who could prove the movement of celestial bodies - He could have done a simple equation, but instead produced one of the most amazing works in history - And all of it, theory - None of it proven.
Right - So, does that make everythign the IPCC have ever said wrong? Or does it means that some people have revised thier opnion?
Following that logic, if a well known GW skeptic changes his mind, then all Skeptic opinion becomes invalid - which is patently ridiculous.
Don't talk rot - Much of Prinicpia was proven for hundreds of years. Some of it was proven wrong - But "in the right ball park".
What you are saying, is that Einstiens General theory of relativity is not science. That the age of the universe is not science.
Just because something has not been proven absolutely does not mean that it is not extremely likely.
The Neutron was theorised to exists in the late 1800's - It took another 40 years to actualy prove it existed - But the facts upon which the theory was based absolutely lead to the existance of a Neutron being incredibly likely.
All of Einstiens, Newtons and Hawkings predictions are based on thoeries that support the facts.
You have a series of result and you postulate what the resons for those event sis - That's what a theory is.
If you are suggesting that Science only deals in absolute facts and nothing else, then you are absolutely dead wrong.
When you talk of science dealing with absolute fact, you are right. Proven science is absolute fact. However, when you assume "fact" and establish "policy" on "people" based on "assumption", misinformation, propaganda, that is a problem.
11 April 2008, 03:42 PM
#463
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is even doubt on that point. Noone can model the earths atmosphere in the lab. so that is still theory as well. See Greenhouse Gas Myth Part 1 : June 2007 : ReasonMcLucus : My Telegraph for just one point. Additionally, if you bother to read the articles on CO2 concentrations and temperature back in history you'll find that CO2 rises FOLLOW temperature rises. CO2 concentrations have been many times todays levels and all was hunky dory with the world. The THEORY goes also, that any 'greenhouse' effect is based on a log. scale so increasing amounts have diminishing effects. Did you not know this?
Dave
Dave
Co2 is a greenhouse gas, that is an undisputed fact (as far as I know), look at Venus as a great example of the greenhouse effect gone crazy.
11 April 2008, 03:45 PM
#464
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But you're are by definition not a skeptic are you?
12 April 2008, 08:38 AM
#465
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: a more anarchic place
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Person? Person?! Make that one (Of many) IPCC scientists! He contributed to the IPCC 4th report. There are many, an ever increasing number of, "scientists" who are "backing away" from the IPCC "model" of "future climate". Strange that the 2005 hurricane "season", apparently a DIRECT result of AWG, hasn't been surpassed, as "climatologists" "predicted"?
Exactly.
A few scientists (mostly full time climatologists) who are not part of the 'consensus'
JustGoFaster :: Consensus? What Consensus
BTW, the list is much longer, but I lost the will to live typing up and linking that lot...
14 April 2008, 01:35 AM
#466
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Venus, GH effect gone crazy? Complete and utter rubbish. I wondered how long it would be before someone would mention Venus. The atmosphere on Venus hans't gone crazy. The temperature on Venus is normal for the atmospheric conditions on Venus. You are trying to compare one gas on two very different planets. Co2 on Venus is about 95% of the atmosphere. True Venus is closer to the Sun, but the atmosphere on Venus is significant thicker than on earth (An important fact), add to that significantly higher concentrations of Co2, greater pressure (The most impoartant fact), more heat input from the Sun, it WILL be hotter there. Go study planetary science.
Do you know the concentration of Co2 on Earth, and how much man contributes to that?
Last edited by Klaatu; 14 April 2008 at 02:08 AM.
14 April 2008, 08:50 AM
#467
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nor am I conspiracy theorist, which you have proven to be on a numbe rof subjects.
And whcith regards to "one person" you have completely taken my response out of context (again).
Suresh said that "The above factually dismisses the methods IPCC are using to panic the masses as wholly unscientific. The IPCC's arguments are blown out of the water!
Talking about your link - It does no such thing .
14 April 2008, 01:49 PM
#468
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No-one disputes Co2 is a GHG, so too is water vapour with concentrations of 95% in the atmosphere.
Venus, GH effect gone crazy? Complete and utter rubbish. I wondered how long it would be before someone would mention Venus. The atmosphere on Venus hans't gone crazy. The temperature on Venus is normal for the atmospheric conditions on Venus. You are trying to compare one gas on two very different planets. Co2 on Venus is about 95% of the atmosphere. True Venus is closer to the Sun, but the atmosphere on Venus is significant thicker than on earth (An important fact), add to that significantly higher concentrations of Co2, greater pressure (The most impoartant fact), more heat input from the Sun, it WILL be hotter there. Go study planetary science.
Do you know the concentration of Co2 on Earth, and how much man contributes to that?
Venus, GH effect gone crazy? Complete and utter rubbish. I wondered how long it would be before someone would mention Venus. The atmosphere on Venus hans't gone crazy. The temperature on Venus is normal for the atmospheric conditions on Venus. You are trying to compare one gas on two very different planets. Co2 on Venus is about 95% of the atmosphere. True Venus is closer to the Sun, but the atmosphere on Venus is significant thicker than on earth (An important fact), add to that significantly higher concentrations of Co2, greater pressure (The most impoartant fact), more heat input from the Sun, it WILL be hotter there. Go study planetary science.
Do you know the concentration of Co2 on Earth, and how much man contributes to that?
The point was that HuttonD was disputing this thats why I posted this.
As for Venus, I'm not sure we disagree at all, Co2 levels are 98%, trapping the sun heat within it's atmosphere, a very good example of greenhouse effect I'd say.
As for 'go study planetary science' you are one arrogant m'fcker sometimes aren't you?
Planetary Science
Venus and the Greenhouse Effect
A Runaway Greenhouse Effect?
THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
ESA - Venus Express - Greenhouse effect, clouds and winds
Venus inferno due to 'runaway greenhouse effect', say scientists
Venus & Mars
Venus inferno driven by greenhouse effect | COSMOS magazine
http://amesnews.arc.nasa.gov/releases/2002/02_60AR.html
Greenhouse Effect: Background Material
Spaceflight Now | Breaking News | Tropical greenhouse effect provides insight to Venus
There's loads more, but you obviously know better!
Last edited by Martin2005; 14 April 2008 at 01:55 PM.
15 April 2008, 04:37 PM
#470
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The UN's Climate Committee leadership and policies were today challenged
by four scientists, including one Nobel Peace Prize winner, from
around the world to admit that CO2 centred Global Warming theories are
now disproved by observations and to renounced that theory and
associated 'devastating policies' which are weakening the world economy
and increasing food shortages and destruction of forest across the
planet.
Their bombshell letter (below) includes a graph by
Joseph D'Aleo, (Certified Consultant Meteorologist, Fellow of the
American Meteorological Society (AMS), and Executive Director Icecap.us)
based entirely on official figures which shows that while CO2 has risen
dramatically for the last ten years world temperatures have been falling
contrary to the UN (IPCC) predictions.
The writers directly challenge the IPCC to produce observational
evidence for the UN's CO2 driven Global Warming theories which are now
being used to justify anti-CO2 measures and taxes all over the world:
"If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the
available data please present a graph of it" the scientists challenge.
Media are welcome to publish the graph and letter and extracts
therefrom."UN asked to admit climate change errors | The Climate Scam
by four scientists, including one Nobel Peace Prize winner, from
around the world to admit that CO2 centred Global Warming theories are
now disproved by observations and to renounced that theory and
associated 'devastating policies' which are weakening the world economy
and increasing food shortages and destruction of forest across the
planet.
Their bombshell letter (below) includes a graph by
Joseph D'Aleo, (Certified Consultant Meteorologist, Fellow of the
American Meteorological Society (AMS), and Executive Director Icecap.us)
based entirely on official figures which shows that while CO2 has risen
dramatically for the last ten years world temperatures have been falling
contrary to the UN (IPCC) predictions.
The writers directly challenge the IPCC to produce observational
evidence for the UN's CO2 driven Global Warming theories which are now
being used to justify anti-CO2 measures and taxes all over the world:
"If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the
available data please present a graph of it" the scientists challenge.
Media are welcome to publish the graph and letter and extracts
therefrom."UN asked to admit climate change errors | The Climate Scam
15 April 2008, 05:34 PM
#471
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
let me throw this not-so-little-morsel into the ring - the manhattan declaration on climate change, march 2008.
naturally unreported by the mainstream media here, particularly unreported by the green party, sorry, BBC news & current affairs. you have to ask yourself why.
IPCC's 'evil twin' launches climate change sceptic's creed | The Register
and given a thorough fisking here ...
The Devil's Kitchen: The Manhattan Declaration On Climate Change
... and if you need any proof about how in thrall to non-scientist environmental activists the BBC is, read this little thought-crime shocker:
The Devil's Kitchen: The BBC, the activists and the lies
consensus on AGW? no. BBC biased? yes. where did the anti-capitalist left wing disappear to after the collapse of communism and the USSR? the green party. are we being duped? the chances are better than even. is the argument for AGW starting to unravel? you decide ...
naturally unreported by the mainstream media here, particularly unreported by the green party, sorry, BBC news & current affairs. you have to ask yourself why.
IPCC's 'evil twin' launches climate change sceptic's creed | The Register
and given a thorough fisking here ...
The Devil's Kitchen: The Manhattan Declaration On Climate Change
... and if you need any proof about how in thrall to non-scientist environmental activists the BBC is, read this little thought-crime shocker:
The Devil's Kitchen: The BBC, the activists and the lies
consensus on AGW? no. BBC biased? yes. where did the anti-capitalist left wing disappear to after the collapse of communism and the USSR? the green party. are we being duped? the chances are better than even. is the argument for AGW starting to unravel? you decide ...
16 April 2008, 01:36 PM
#473
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just the graph alone on this page has to make you stop and question the whole CO2 theory!
UN asked to admit climate change errors | The Climate Scam
UN asked to admit climate change errors | The Climate Scam
16 April 2008, 01:57 PM
#474
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly I think that although the evidence against AGW seems pretty clear cut if you bother to look at it, the majority of people still listen to the people who shout the loudest.
It's like paedophiles, the danger to our kids is not any worse than it was when we were small, but the perception does not reflect this and so our kids have very little freedom.
Geezer
It's like paedophiles, the danger to our kids is not any worse than it was when we were small, but the perception does not reflect this and so our kids have very little freedom.
Geezer
16 April 2008, 01:59 PM
#475
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just the graph alone on this page has to make you stop and question the whole CO2 theory!
UN asked to admit climate change errors | The Climate Scam
UN asked to admit climate change errors | The Climate Scam
16 April 2008, 02:00 PM
#476
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fact I would say that at the moment I am more convinced by the "it is happening" camp than the "no it isn't" one.
Although I try to keep an open mind ont he whole thing.
16 April 2008, 03:28 PM
#477
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16 April 2008, 05:55 PM
#478
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
17 April 2008, 02:39 PM
#479
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This prediction is quite worrying.....
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/rising-sea-levels-to-reach-ronnie-corbett-20080417879/
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/rising-sea-levels-to-reach-ronnie-corbett-20080417879/
17 April 2008, 07:14 PM
#480
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
**
it's not an ignoble cause at all, as you well know. but is it not questionable when such an organisation is paid significant sums by the very benefactor that it lobbies? conflict of interest perhaps? heaven forbid a hidden agenda.
it's not an ignoble cause at all, as you well know. but is it not questionable when such an organisation is paid significant sums by the very benefactor that it lobbies? conflict of interest perhaps? heaven forbid a hidden agenda.