Saintandy666

Do you know how much rainforest is destroyed on an annual basis? What about the coral reef destruction? What about the changing pH of the oceans? Three examples there. Directly related to human activity. It really is our fault.

Yep, ocean is a big absorber of CO2. And CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid. While this is fine to a degree, if we push the balance too far the pH of the ocean will drop and everything will die. We are in the middle of a mass extinction at present. All over the world, in all habitats on an unprecedented scale and it's all our fault.

This is laughable.

Oh and you can know that it would be around -18. 1. You know how much energy and at what frequency each bond in greenhouse gases can absorb. 2. Therefore, if you can measure greenhouse gases concentrations within the atmosphere, you can work out how much energy they trap within our atmosphere. 3. From that you can work out how much they warm the earth's atmosphere. The greenhouse effect doesn't have to be a terrible thing. In fact, one of the big greenhouse gases is water! However, the problem with CO2 and CH4 etc is that they absorb in what is known as the infra red window which should allow infra red to leave our atmosphere without being absorbed and re-emitted allowing some sort of liveable temperature to arise. Science is a wonderful thing.

Yes, I'm aware that science isn't infallible. Indeed, I have looked into reasons why it is infalliable. If you look up Heisenberg's principle which is horrendously complicated there's one good reason there. However, your whimsical cynicism does not match up to the gigantic mass of evidence behind the greenhouse effect. If the greenhouse effect is wrong, then so is everything else that our science is based upon so I am willing to bet that we are right on this. I have seen for myself in experiments the proof that the greenhouse effect is fact.

Standards rose. Exam results and other statistics such as CVA etc show this! And just the extra resources available to children helps.

Educating as many people as possible for as long as possible is a good thing. It doesn't have to be the university route though, I agree with you there. Also, on the GCSE 'pass rate'(to clarify for people in general): if you class a G grade as a pass(which it isn't really, D-G grades are generally seen as 'fail grades')... then yes pass rate is 99.7% or something along those lines. But generally, it is a C grade which is considered a pass these days. In fact, GCSE results as a whole are put into bands and the so called bench mark is 5A*-C grades including maths and english and I can assure that this is not as high. In fact, at my school while I was there it has been as low as in the low 30%'s... Look at 7A*-B grades and higher and you really start to see what is what. And education IS a lot better than it was 20 years ago... funding has ensured that.

The greenhouse effect isn't just some 'correlation'... it's hard solid fact that if it was wrong then pretty much all the science we practice would also be wrong. It's all to do with bonds in certain molecules being at the correct energy level to become excited upon absorbing IR radiation. This is not some... oh look there's more CO2 and it's hotter correlation(though that correlation does exist too).

The real issue I see arising from this thread and from discussions with others is those who agree with him saying he should be allowed to protest and those who don't saying he shouldn't be allowed to protest. That isn't how free speech works! I don't agree with him really on tonnes of issues, but I am proud he was allowed to be there for 10 years despite government opposition.

Exactly the point I am trying to express in this thread, even when the government passed SOCPA which had a clause effectively designed to kick him out of parliament square, he took on the government in court and won. SOCPA really needs to be reviewed now... I think it is bad news that there are restrictions regarding protest around parliament.

Many would say that war is the health of the state. If you need to whip up some patriotism and support for the government... find a war. Obviously, this doesn't always work, as seen with Iraq. But look at the Falklands and Thatcher's resulting popularity; and perhaps more recently Sarkozy scrambling to be tough on Libya after his disaster in Tunisia and general low support.

Why is it unpatriotic to support freedom of speech and protest?! Authority should always be scrutinised and questioned. Power must be check to power.

Again, it's a ridiculous parallel to make as our houses aren't the houses of parliament!

That's a ridiculous parallel... 1. It doesn't matter who they are or what they believe in. They should be allowed to protest there. 2. My front garden isn't the houses of parliament and so is very different.

Woops, my bad. Mods, merge or lock this!

That's subjective. I think it's a crying shame the way the police and our government tried to rid themselves of him over the years. Everyone should have to right to protest outside our parliament, whenever they want, regardless of opinion or length.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13828800 I do not agree with him on a lot of what he said, but I have to admire the way he managed to stay there, the courage with which he stood up for what he believed in even when faced with the full might of the law. R.I.P.

Re: The Milibands... I bet their father had some degree of influence in them getting into Oxford to do PPE. Ralph Miliband is very famous, and obviously a man of principle as he no doubt probably had the funds to send them to private schools.

I can accept that I am naive in my opinions, as I am young. However, I can not accept that because someone is older than me they are instantly correct. Also, debate is always healthy. This is why I do not understand why people like Dune and thedelldays come on here, start a thread bragging about how right they are and then get all butthurt and personal when someone disagrees with them. It's only an internet forum at the end of the day and it is used for debate, not name calling. But of course whether I am naive or not depends on your own view point.

You know nothing of me from some posts on an internet forum.

I don't claim to be an expert on anything. I merely have opinions which happen to be opposed to yours and thedelldays.

No, I have spoken to these people and they tell me they are 'easy'.

You seriously thought I was about 40?! I'm 18.

Everyone who is old and has no knowledge of them whatsoever except the Daily Mail and its parody 'the Daily Express' to young people all the time.

Because Michael Gove said it, it does not mean it is correct. The man has an agenda. I am taking my A levels at present and I can assure you that A2 Chemistry, A2 Biology and A2 politics are far from 'easy'.