Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

laurejon

Bbc Confirms That Global Warming Is A Myth

Recommended Posts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6913404.stm

When the waters clear

T'was ever thus - facing down the floods in 1953

God, climate change and the government are among those in the firing line for this summer's floods, but nature is the key culprit, says Frank Furedi. History shows the British are well equipped to face down this foe.

We were very lucky, the flooding stopped a few feet away from our cottage in Wellesbourne in Warwickshire. "Isn't it time we went back to church and prayed" a relative asked one of our other "lucky" friends.

Even in the 21st Century we find it difficult not to invest misfortune and tragedy with a hidden message. Most of us cannot accept the fact that disasters, especially floods are very natural. They are as much a part of the British way of life as football, warm beer and Big Ben.

Just last week scientific researchers reported that we became an island hundreds of thousands of years ago when a catastrophic "megaflood" separated Britain from France.

The scene in 1607

Enlarge Image

If you think today we have more than our share of floods, imagine living in Windsor during the late Victorian times. You would have been forced to clear the water from your house in 1869, 1872, 1875, 1891 and 1894.

Of course floods are catastrophic events that inflict destruction on communities and wreak havoc with the lives of individuals. But although words like "the worst in living memory" trip off our tongues, thankfully we have not been forced to face a truly calamitous event such as the flood of 1953. More than 300 people drowned in that disaster in south-east England.

Human beings find it difficult to accept the fact that although fortunately disasters are infrequent they are part of normal life. From the beginning of time people have asked questions like "why me?", "what does it mean?" and "who is to blame?".

Back in 1864 when almost 250 people died in the aftermath of the flood of Bradfield Reservoir near Doncaster, a churchman, Thomas Hughes, expressed the hope that although "we cannot remedy the past" we "may carry lessons of wisdom to the future".

But how much have we learned?

God's response

Some regard a disaster as an opportunity to score a moral point. The Bishop of Carlisle decided to turn the flood into a cautionary tale about the perils of immorality. He argued earlier month that the floods are God's response to the immorality and greed of our society."

Communities in Britain often respond to floods with gestures of solidarity and generosity rather than stealing from one another

Frank Furedi

Floods: At-a-glance

We are in serious moral trouble because every type of lifestyle is now regarded as legitimate," he warned. Others have rushed in pointing the finger human induced global warming, whilst others still are happy to blame the government.

How we make sense of a disaster has a crucial impact on the way that a community experiences its misfortune. That is why experts, the media and public figures have to ensure that their statements are not alarmist or confusing.

A headline such as "Looting, panic buying - and a water shortage", from yesterday's Times does little to encourage morale. Such headlines say more about the imagination of the author than what's going on in the affected communities. Especially when this story was about the "threat of looting" rather than crimes that have actually occurred.

In fact, experience shows that communities in Britain often respond to floods with gestures of solidarity and generosity rather than stealing from one another.

Dunkirk/Blitz spirit in abundant supply

Thankfully disasters have the potential to bring out the best in people. Back in 1953 observers were struck by the resilience and fortitude of flood-stricken communities. A report on this experience written by an American research team emphasised the robust and resilient character of the community's response to the floods. The American researchers claimed that "the culture of the British is itself a conditioning factor for playing an effective role under disaster conditions".

Will a team of researchers reach a similar verdict on how flood stricken communities in Gloucestershire or Bedfordshire deal with their predicament today? Or will they report that many individuals and communities were afflicted by a sense of bitterness or hopelessness.

It is never clear in advance just how communities will deal with life in the aftermath of a flood. The good news is that research shows people possess formidable potential for dealing with catastrophes.

Floods and other disaster destroy physical and financial capital. But not relations between people and their networks - what's often called social capital.

Even truckloads of goodwill can't offset the trauma of being flooded

Indeed, unlike any other form of capital - social capital can actually increase at a time of crisis. People who come together learn the importance of appreciating the value of neighbourly support, often act with greater community spirit in the aftermath of a disaster.

All of us can help by encouraging the victims of the flood to look for solutions that will improve their lives instead of looking for someone to blame. Blaming often weakens social capital and undermines the return to "normalcy".

Instead of looking for a hidden meaning behind the flood we ought to be focusing on learning the lessons. We now know that floods are normal part of our life. What we have to figure out is how much of our resources we are prepared to devote to minimising their destructive impact on our lives.

Frank Furedi is professor of sociology at University of Kent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite

Yeah, a sociology professor and the bastion of public information that is the BBC really convinced me that all these scientists are wrong.

FFS, get a life you twats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Poor old Frank Furedi, he must be on list of the worlds most wanted now for this publication.

Frank Furedi used to be editor of LIving Marixsm the organ of the Revolutionary Communist Party who were always very contrarian in their opinions about everything.

I like his stuff on paranoid parenting. IT is 100 per cent on the money as they say.

But that is sociological which is his field. He should leave the Climate change stuff to his colleagues in the other departments on campus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, a sociology professor and the bastion of public information that is the BBC really convinced me that all these scientists are wrong.

FFS, get a life you twats.

Who really gives a fuk about global warming true or not? Only those making money from it and the few with a enough money to placate their guilt at living like kings while the rest of society scrabbles like animals for the scraps. Although they would starve the 3rd world in it's name by refusing them certain technology. It's nice to see toffs dropping off a few card board boxes at the recycling center in the range rover I'm sure it really helps us all. A visit to the recycling center and a prayer at the card board crusher is less hassle than church though.

So what is not down to global warming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, a sociology professor and the bastion of public information that is the BBC really convinced me that all these scientists are wrong.

FFS, get a life you twats.

All these scientists? 40% of climate change scientists don't agree with man made global warming. Another 20% aren't convinced either way. 16,000 scientists have now signed a petition disputing the theory and in particular it's prophecies of doom.

Did you believe the scientists predicting another ice age in the 70's?

FFS, think for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect sociology professors know fak all about climate science.

I also suspect approximately 95% of people on earth lack the mental facilties to debate points of science, such as the status of climate change theory. This doesn't stop a lot of them generating a load of hot air though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All these scientists? 40% of climate change scientists don't agree with man made global warming. Another 20% aren't convinced either way. 16,000 scientists have now signed a petition disputing the theory and in particular it's prophecies of doom.

Did you believe the scientists predicting another ice age in the 70's?

FFS, think for yourself.

That's total tosh.

Utter tripe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All these scientists? 40% of climate change scientists don't agree with man made global warming. Another 20% aren't convinced either way. 16,000 scientists have now signed a petition disputing the theory and in particular it's prophecies of doom.

Did you believe the scientists predicting another ice age in the 70's?

FFS, think for yourself.

Source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If if were heaven sent surely at least one person would have received a dream telling them to build an ark ?

I think what is needed to stop this is the introduction of ID cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite
Who really gives a fuk about global warming true or not? Only those making money from it and the few with a enough money to placate their guilt at living like kings while the rest of society scrabbles like animals for the scraps. Although they would starve the 3rd world in it's name by refusing them certain technology. It's nice to see toffs dropping off a few card board boxes at the recycling center in the range rover I'm sure it really helps us all. A visit to the recycling center and a prayer at the card board crusher is less hassle than church though.

So what is not down to global warming?

What you said about the cardboard isn't down to global warming, that's about consumption of resources and landfill sites, which are a separate issue.

The current floods are probably naff all to do with global warming, its just unusual behaviour of the jet stream. The intensity of the wind and rain could be increased by global warming (whatever your faith happens to say the cause of the warming is), but the underlying weather patterns that are causing it have nothing to do with global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Skint Academic
All these scientists? 40% of climate change scientists don't agree with man made global warming. Another 20% aren't convinced either way. 16,000 scientists have now signed a petition disputing the theory and in particular it's prophecies of doom.

Did you believe the scientists predicting another ice age in the 70's?

Links and sources please, or are you just repeating something you heard down the pub when you were half drunk?

To reiterate again, scientists did not predict an ice age in the 70's. The media did.

And as for the OP, how does evidence of flooding throughout the ages dispute global warming? There are multiple causes of flooding rather than just global warming. And there has not been any mention of how frequent extreme weather events have been in the past compared to now (and as predicted in the future).

If you are going to argue against the science, then use science to argue your case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite
All these scientists? 40% of climate change scientists don't agree with man made global warming. Another 20% aren't convinced either way. 16,000 scientists have now signed a petition disputing the theory and in particular it's prophecies of doom.

Did you believe the scientists predicting another ice age in the 70's?

FFS, think for yourself.

Where did these numbers come from? What petition is this? What was the wording? I'd probably agree with them about the prophecies of doom bit to be honest.

Scientists didn't predict an imminent ice age in the 70s - the media did.

FFS, I did think for myself. I was a man made climate change skeptic for many years until the evidence became overwhelming a couple of years ago. Evidence which I have studied in detail and understand, unlike most other people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Skint Academic
If if were heaven sent surely at least one person would have received a dream telling them to build an ark ?

I think what is needed to stop this is the introduction of ID cards.

... and don't forget more taxes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.lobbywatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=39&page=1

LobbyWatch identifies the people and the front groups making up the LM network.

The LM network promote an extreme libertarian ideology - no restrictions on paedophilia, race hate etc. - and eulogise technologies like nuclear power, genetic engineering and human cloning.

In order to punch above their weight, they often hide their affiliations and engage in infiltration of media organisations; or operate via front groups or by colonising existing lobby groups.

The groups

The primary channels for promoting the network's ideology, after their LM magazine was sued out of existence, are Spiked-online and the Institute of Ideas (IoI).

Colonised lobby groups include Sense About Science, the Genetic Interest Group, Progress, and the Science Media Centre.

Over the years they have also been accused of setting up a series of their own front groups:

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Links and sources please, or are you just repeating something you heard down the pub when you were half drunk?

To reiterate again, scientists did not predict an ice age in the 70's. The media did.

And as for the OP, how does evidence of flooding throughout the ages dispute global warming? There are multiple causes of flooding rather than just global warming. And there has not been any mention of how frequent extreme weather events have been in the past compared to now (and as predicted in the future).

If you are going to argue against the science, then use science to argue your case.

ABSOLUTELY!

"Scientist predicted an ice age in the 70s" and "40% of scientists bla bla" are just pub bullsh1t. People who trot this sort of thing out as fact need to get a grip. There's a load of nonsense talked about how global warming is a myth etc.

Also, my reading of the article highlighted by the thread does not take from it that the author is expressing a view on the accuracy of global warming science.

This thread is totally bogus in my opinion. The BBC are not confirming anything. I say let this thread die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FFS, think for yourself.

How can you think for yourself when you don't have all the information? That's why people listen to other people who have access to more information.

I don't know whether man made climate change is happening or not. But the evidence I've seen suggests to me that it is.

But I'm not daft enough to think I'm right. And I think it would be sensible to modify our behaviour - in case the doomsday scenarios are correct.

But everything in life is driven by money. What if the Government did something sensible and - just as in the 3 day week in the 1970s - told all businesses to turn off the lights at night.

Can you imagine the outcry from the (private) energy companies. That's not fair! We're not making as much money! People aren't using as much energy as they used to.

At every turn in life the quest to lead a better life, less harmful to the environment, less in debt to the banks etc is thwarted by capitalism and greed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cletus VanDamme
All these scientists? 40% of climate change scientists don't agree with man made global warming. Another 20% aren't convinced either way. 16,000 scientists have now signed a petition disputing the theory and in particular it's prophecies of doom.

You know, my brother comes out with all this crap as well. His only sources are sites such as PrisonPlanet, which is most likely where you got this from also.

Have you ever read a scientific journal? One can only think for oneself once one has appraised the evidence for themselves.

What does '40% of climate change scientists don't agree with man made global warming' mean?

Most scientist worth their salt are very cautious when it comes to ascribing cause. Unfortunately, you, and the media at large, can only see things in black and white.

If the question was 'Is there conclusive evidence that global warming is certainly caused by human activity', then even the most bearish climatologist would disagree. However, if the question was 'Does the evidence suggest that human activity over the last 150 years has contributed to global warming', they would probably answer differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All these scientists? 40% of climate change scientists don't agree with man made global warming. Another 20% aren't convinced either way. 16,000 scientists have now signed a petition disputing the theory and in particular it's prophecies of doom.

Did you believe the scientists predicting another ice age in the 70's?

FFS, think for yourself.

So you reckon 60% of climate change scientists aren't sure about anthropogenic global warming? Well I work in a building full of climate change scientists and I can say for certain you are talking utter BS.

I'm not quite sure how the fact that there have been floods in the past debunks global warming either. I also interested to see any links to scientists who say these floods are due to global warming. All the scientists I've seen on TV recently have been very careful to state that while it seems annual midlatitude (eg UK) rainfall will increase (mainly due to the winter contribution), summer rainfall will actualy be decreasing.

Or are you just ignoring the evidence so you don't have to change your own lazy lifestyle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All these scientists? 40% of climate change scientists don't agree with man made global warming. Another 20% aren't convinced either way. 16,000 scientists have now signed a petition disputing the theory and in particular it's prophecies of doom.

Did you believe the scientists predicting another ice age in the 70's?

FFS, think for yourself.

lol - what a load of crap.

and people wonder why visitors don't take this site seriously - moronic posts like this don't help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cletus VanDamme
lol - what a load of crap.

and people wonder why visitors don't take this site seriously - moronic posts like this don't help.

It's all from the prisonplanet school of conspiracy theories. They posit that global warming is a myth peddled by the elites to extract more taxes from the masses.

It's weird how these types blame Bush & co. for 911, then side with him and the oil industry over the global warming issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people insist on quoting outrageous statistics, it would be nice to have a source wouldn't it?

There seems to be a growing army of people who now believe that the Governments themselves made this whole thing up to make more money. I'd like to remind such people that scientists have been arguing for decades about climate change, it is only in recent years that the Government has decided to listen.

What seems far more likely is that such conspiracy theories are created by and/or sustained by Big Oil.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/

Meanwhile the electric car was ultimately killed by Texaco (now Chevron) (among other things of course), after they purchased the patent to the NiMH battery technology. After doing so they ensured that production of the high power batteries, that could be used to power a car, was stopped. This patent will expire in 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you reckon 60% of climate change scientists aren't sure about anthropogenic global warming? Well I work in a building full of climate change scientists and I can say for certain you are talking utter BS.

I'm not quite sure how the fact that there have been floods in the past debunks global warming either. I also interested to see any links to scientists who say these floods are due to global warming. All the scientists I've seen on TV recently have been very careful to state that while it seems annual midlatitude (eg UK) rainfall will increase (mainly due to the winter contribution), summer rainfall will actualy be decreasing.

Or are you just ignoring the evidence so you don't have to change your own lazy lifestyle?

Just because they are scientists doesn't mean that everyone should believe every word that departs from their lips. I mean, scientists have never ever been wrong before have they ?

It's very easy for intelligent people to get swept away in group think. Look at the number of intelligent people who think house prices can rise forever.

I don't doubt the world is warming, but I do doubt that people are the cause of it. I'd rather wait and see and take the consequences instead of having a bunch of restrictions imposed on my life by people who think they are probably correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 356 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.