Climate Hysteria Waning in the UK

Sure we went along with it for a while. Like every other passing fad, we wore our concern on our sleeves. But with the threat of higher taxation bringing it home, Britons are now waking up and refusing to indulge the great Global Warming myth.

from The Independent

It makes me proud, but there's a still a way to go. Apparently 9 out of 10 Brits still think that climate change is not created by natural phenomena and only one in three said they'd oppose loopy new green legislation. We can take comfort in the fact that people are asking questions now and are refusing to be spoon fed man made hysteria.

yeah sorry, chainlink

I didn't post it to retread old ground. I posted it because I find it interesting that people aren't falling for that climate crap anymore.

If you reject the scientific - even 'spoon fed' - explanation for planetary warming, you should ask yourself the following questions:

1. Does the atmosphere contain carbon dioxide?

2. Does atmospheric carbon dioxide raise the average global temperature?

3. Will this influence be enhanced by the addition of more carbon dioxide?

4. Have human activities led to a net emission of carbon dioxide?

If you are able to answer 'no' to any of them, you should put yourself forward for a Nobel prize. You will have turned science on its head.

Good thing McCain decided to jump on the global warming bandwagon.....perfect timing just as it's being proven a gigantic hoax.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

Anyone know what a feedback loop is?

At least someone is paying attention.

I hear that young people today are not using condoms as much as the generation before them. No doubt that is because they refusing to indulge the great AIDS myth.

I don't want my taxes raised to support the war in Iraq. Doesn't mean that I don't believe it exists.

Now you mention it, I think there is a lot of mythology about AIDS and how easy it is for most Western suburbanites to catch.

Of course, if I engaged in daily, repeated unprotected anal sex with Zairian hookers, I'd be much more likely to encounter the "crack of doom" than I would with my current - almost vegan - sexual lifestyle in North West London.

Of course, other health factors that beset countries with poor hygiene and medical facilities(open sores, ulcers etc.) play a huge part in transmission.

But when all is said and done, HIV is quite a puny virus. You have to get a big shot of blood or cum from someone suffering a high viral load at the time and it has to get into your blood stream through cuts or cavities. Even then, transmission is not guaranteed.

If the virus is exposed to the air, it dies quicker than a Hollywood movie about the Iraq war.

I guess the government doesn't stress how difficult it is to catch HIV for the same reason I don't tell my kids how safe it is for them to play with electrical cables. There is an element of danger, but why take the risk.

Plus a huge HIV industry has built up. Possibly bigger that the Eco-Hysteria industry, but probably not as big as the poverty/starvation industry.

why? Have you been telling pollsters that you don't think it exists?

Do you two share an apartment under some power lines or something?

Come on uptight didn't you know that we are causing global climate change, especially Obesity:

Although by the same logic people that exercise are also causing just as much damage, if not more to the environment as the obese people. When they exercise they burn calories and to gain that back they have to eat more which has the same effect as the people with obesity. So for the love of earth don't walk too much, and if you do don't run and it is okay to get liposuction now since it's for the environment

People that exercise are harming the process of evolution!

The human body evolves and adapts to its circumstance. That is why we are losing our little toes and body hair. Sadly our technology has evolved much faster than our bodies.

We have invented innumerable ways to save effort. Pizza delivery, tv remote controls, online music & video, escalators, elevators, planes, trains and automobiles all mean that we don't use our legs as much as our primeval ancestors.

We get fat because we don't move enough to burn up the calories we ingest. Ideally, we should have evolved into a species that channels energy into thought processes rather than fat cells.

This can not happen while there are vain gym rats stalling the process by keeping fit and breeding.

I suggest that gym membership comes with mandatory sterilization. It's the only way forward to an effort free future.

Why are you threadjacking your own thread?

Wow, this is stupid.

Bump.

Wow, UpTight. You're pretty ridiculous. You deny that humans have had an impact on the climate, but claim that the next step in human evolution lies in the McDonald's drive-thru.

Bravo.

I think hes beginning to start taking himself as seriously as we do.

*claps*

it was all that i imagined it would be and more!

er...you've misunderstood my thesis (if only you'd suggested MacDonalds home delivery....)

as for humans having an impact on the climate....we can seed clouds to make it rain, we can let off nukes to block out the sun for a few days, but to suggest that reducing the amount of car trips we make or polythene bags we use for our shopping will somehow save the planet, is the height of naivety, arrogance and stupidity.

A volcano can naturally do much more damage than you or I could ever do on purpose.

Our climate is in a constant state of change. There is no "correct" temperature. If the Polar Bear is meant to survive it will adapt (as all species have, even before Al Gore won a peace prize for scarying people with myths about the weather).

This planet has been around for donkey's years and for donkey's years it will stay. With us or without. Or society is a passing blip. A few years ago, scientists were telling us how radio waves were going to kill us. Then it was an impending new ice age. Then it was all about how the hole in the Ozone layer meant future disaster. Then it was global warming.

Now it's climate change and when this one has run its course, they probably scare us with stories of impending meteorite collision or that a race of super cockroaches will evolve and rule the Earth if we don't give up eating jelly.

It's called "value for money".

'Cause there's, like a ton of proof to back up your hoax statement.

Alternatively, maybe people in the UK do believe in global warming but just don't want to have to part with any cash in order to help combat it.

Here's a parallel example...

Most people in the UK want the government to invest more money in the NHS and the state education system. However, just because we think the NHS and schools should get more money this doesn't mean that we actually want to pay higher taxes. Think how much of a flop the old Lib Dem manifesto pledge, under Paddy Ashdown, to raise taxes by an extra 2 pence in the pound was! Hell yeah, that was a real vote winner wasn't it? People were just rushing out in droves to elect a party that was pledging to raise taxes!!

There is no need for Darling to raise fuel duty because the sustained global rise in oil prices should do the job for him (ie if a rise in petrol prices helps the environment by making people use less fuel, then then the current rise in fuel prices negates the environmental argument for extra fuel taxation). The only remaining reason for him to raise fuel duty would be to bring in much needed revenue for the debt-laden government.

Hoax? Credible sources please.

Thanks.

Well, I don't think one can reasonably say global warming is a myth. It's a relatively easy thing to measure.

I think the areas of dispute are more so, 1) to what extent do humans contribute? and 2) what are the consequences likely to be?

I'll address 2 first. Because any complex iterative model is little better then a random guess, I would say we don't know, and can't know. There are some failry unpleasant scenarios that are certainyl possible (in my mind the worst would be the stopping od the current that warms europe).

Now 1). Well, it seems to be the opinion of the majority of climatologists that it is in fact a largely man made phenomenon. There is some dissenting opinion from other fields, who might be inclined to look at other factors.

As far as what we do about it- I think, frankly, most of the ideas are pretty retarded. Thye only real way to limit human carbon emissions in any significant way is to find alternative energy sources. We should be doing this anyway, for an abundance of extremely important reasons. I'm not inclined to think this kyoto type stuff, (long term, vague commitments to reduce certain types of carbon emissions over a long time span) are going to have any real effect on this phenomenon.