Sheaf Saint

That doesn't even come close to explaining why David Cameron and the Conservative-led coalition government are continuing the commitment to reducing the CO2 output of the UK. I want to know how you reconcile this fact with your assertion that the whole global warming issue is just a socialist conspiracy to raise taxes.

I agree with you to an extent (wow, never thought I would find myself typing that!) that issues such as food and water will become a big issue if the population continues to increase at its current rate. But if we have the means to avoid conflict over fuel resources, why would we want to ignore that and go to war anyway? That doesn't make sense on any level. STILL waiting for you to comment on the Coalition government's green policies BTW dune. In your own time......

I don't have all the answers to that. Perhaps though, the taxes are imposed in order to raise funding to research new renewable technologies? Makes sense to me, but you would need to email the gov. and ask them.

But it doesn't need to be that way though does it dune? Surely if we can end our dependence on fossil fuels and resources then there will be no need to enter into conflict about it. Surely not even you could argue that if there is a way that we can avoid conflict then we should pursue that option. Still waiting for your response on the current government's green policies by the way.......

Still wearing the blinkers and spouting the same old drivel I see. I'm still waiting for you to respond to my previous post....

The problem with that though is that we as a society have become totally dependent on coal/oil/gas. The technology to replace carbon-based power production is nowhere near being ready to implement fully, so it has to be done gradually. Imagine if the government ordered everyone to stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow, what do you think would happen? A massive majority of the country would be without power and the economy would grind to a standstill because transport would be shut down completely. Shops would not be able to take deliveries of food so there would be riots in the streets by starving people. We would have no armed forces and I am sure that you understand, better than anyone on this forum, the implications of that.

Now this I wholeheartedly agree with. Even if it is proved that man-made carbon emissions have zero affect on the atmosphere (which is surely impossible), we still need to invest heavily in renewable energy in readiness for the time when all the fossil fuels this planet has to offer have been exhausted. The way I see it, we have two options.... We can either bury our heads in the sand, pretend that everything is OK and wait for the inevitable day when there is no more oil left to burn; or we can start making the transition now so that the technology can be perfected in plenty of time.

OK dune, let's for one moment, hypothetically, assume that you are right and that Climate change is just one big hoax invented by socialists in order to impose higher taxes on everyone. How do you explain this? But then you've always got frothing right-wingers reading their copy of the daily Mail and getting all uptight about immigration and getting in a tiz about scrounging benefit cheats. See what I've done there? It is testament to your true character that you are unable to grasp the basic concepts that people point out, and unwilling to address the actual points raised and instead resort to pathetic stereotyping.

I'm not intolerant of your opinions. You didn't state an opinion. You tried to pass off as fact a completely inaccurate statement about the content of the article, and I was just pointing out your error. You claimed that scientists were trying to justify the long-term climate data by pointing towards a short-term weather pattern in the atlantic, and accused them of being selective to justify the argument. As far as I can see, that is not what the article says at all. Sorry I bothered. In future I'll refrain from posting and allow you to continue with your blissful ignorance and your selective understanding (see, works both ways doesn't it)

Like many others before you on this thread, you are making the mistake of confusing short-term weather patterns with long-term climate change. The current cold spell is due to the disruption to the jetstream, allowing colder arctic winds to blow over the UK which they normally can't do. This disruption to the jetstream could possibly become a recurring phenomenon as a result of the changing climate. If you read the article thoroughly you will understand that Professor Slingo is absolutely not "justifying global warming by saying it is a bit warmer in Greenland" as you so crudely put it.

According to the weather reports last night, Greenland is currently experiencing record high temperatures for this time of year. This is due to the disruption of the jertstream which is pushing the warmer atlantic air currents north towards Greenland instead of towards the UK as it normally does. This is also why we are now getting the cold weather fronts in from the north east instead of the westerly winds that we normally get.

It wasn't intended to be an uplifting film to be fair.

It's been brewing for two months and I cracked it open today.... Oh My God! This stuff is amaaaaaazing! I'm going to make ten bottles next year and plant a blackthorn tree in my garden :-)

Really looking forward to this release. I'm a massive fan of the Coen Brothers' work - they have never made a bad film IMO - so it will be interesting to see how they handle a re-make of a true classic.

In all likelihood, the more frequent severe weather that is predicted will have an effect on that front. We may see a lot more events such as hurricane Katrina or the floods in the Indus valley in Pakistan - nature's very own version of population control.

For crying out loud dune. Do you ever actually read these threads before posting such drivel? How many times do you need to be told that CLIMATE AND WEATHER ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! You know what, I bet they're not dune. I bet that the world's leading climatologists, who actually study the data and have a lifetime of experience to draw on, could not give the slightest toss about what some snidey, ignorant cretins like you post on internet messageboards. I think I know who I would rather listen to thanks.

I honestly don't know the answer to that. But if you ask anybody who used to be a miner who they blame for the collapse of the industry then a huge majority would say Thatcher.

Not so much a "speech" that Redbul, but certainly an outstanding scene from an outstanding movie. Paddy Considine was absolutely superb in that. I fear you may have just ruined the surprise ending for anybody who hasn't seen it though.

But we're not overdue an ice age. we're still technically coming out of the last one. What is overdue, however, is an eruption of the super-volcano at Yellowstone in the US, the results of which could be catastrophic for the entire planet... http://www.nasca.org.uk/supervolcano/supervolcano.html

In that case, can you lend me twenty quid?

Dune, you really, really don't get it do you. I must confess that I do not have a degree in climate science, or anything close to that, but the long and short of the whole argument can be summed up with two basic facts.... Fact 1. Air with an increased CO2 content retains more heat. This is scientifically observable and cannot be disproved. Fact 2. Human activity is pumping MILLIONS OF TONNES of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Even someone as narrow-minded as you, who just loves to take every opportunity he can to sidetrack any important issue into a rant about socialism, cannot in all conscience try and claim that carrying on as we are is anything other than a very bad idea. Something tells me that you are going to try though.

There is still a hell of a lot of ill feeling towards her in the former mining villages of South Yorkshire. There will actually be street parties around these parts when she dies, mark my words.

I think that depends by which measure you define her 'success'. Come up to here and ask people from Barnsley and Rotherham if they agree with you and you'll probably end up with a black eye or two.

There are loads that I could suggest, and I'm sure others will, but personally I'm going for this one...

Indeed. It is usually the most vociferous deniers, such as St George, who refuse to answer difficult questions about their position and have extreme difficulty accepting reason and logic. It is a scientifically observable fact that the higher the concentration of CO2 in air, the more heat that air retains, and there can be no doubt that the level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has risen sharply since the times of the industrial revolution. The only question appears to be whether or not that has made or is making a contribution to the current changes to the global climate. It is true that the Earth goes through natural changes to the climate and it is also true that we are still, technically, not out of the last ice age yet. However, I firmly believe that been if there is just the slightest chance that human activity is contributing to the environmental changes then we should do everything we can to minimise any effect that might have. The other major aspect of this debate that often gets forgotten, is the fact that there is only a finite amount of fossil fuels available that we can burn, so at some point ion the future we will be forced to switch to other forms of renewable energy anyway. With that being the case, why not invest in it now instead of in the future when the need becomes much more desperate. The benefits of this will be that we can slowly wean ourselves off our need for fossil fuels and we will be much better prepared when the day comes that there is no more oil or coal to burn. I was very pleased to see on the news yesterday that EDF have announced they will be building two new nuclear plants in Somerset and Suffolk. Nuclear power may not be 100% clean, but it is far more efficient and environmentally friendly than coal or oil-fired power and I believe we should be putting more focus into this kind of energy while we develop more renewable sources.