Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Skeptical Environmentalist on Global warming

Options
1…456810

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    zippy 99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 215 ✭✭zippy 99


    djpbarry wrote: »
    What, the bit about the tree? I don't think so.


    No?

    Its happening already. Look at Iraq, Kenya etc.

    People are getting slaughtered and here we are worried about trees and global warming.


  • Options
    #213
    zippy 99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 215 ✭✭zippy 99


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    I think you are trying to deceive us here.
    The article you linked goes to some odd looking website that appearts to cater to certain political views. The points of the article are about this odd ball character named Frank Notestein, who according to wikipedia was "the first director of the Population Division of the United Nations, 1946-1948."
    It says absolutely nothing about a UN definition of the term "sustainability".


    Odd website??

    Suppose we can hardly expect such issues to be covered on rte or bbc.


  • Options
    #214
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    I think you are trying to deceive us here.
    The article you linked goes to some odd looking website that appearts to cater to certain political views. The points of the article are about this odd ball character named Frank Notestein, who according to wikipedia was "the first director of the Population Division of the United Nations, 1946-1948."
    It says absolutely nothing about a UN definition of the term "sustainability".

    Look up that definition seperately. And what would you assume the purpose of thepopulation division of the UN to be.


  • Options
    #215
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    casey212 wrote: »
    Look up that definition seperately. And what would you assume the purpose of thepopulation division of the UN to be.

    I don't know, but it's probably really really scary :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #216
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    I don't know, but it's probably really really scary :rolleyes:

    I think it goes a bit further than scary in all seriousness.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    casey212 wrote: »
    I think it goes a bit further than scary in all seriousness.
    Here's their site:
    http://www.un.org/esa/population/aboutpop.htm
    Sounds entirely innocuos to me.
    But it's you that appears to be formulating a conspiracy from this, so do tell...


  • Options
    #218
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    Here's their site:
    http://www.un.org/esa/population/aboutpop.htm
    Sounds entirely innocuos to me.
    But it's you that appears to be formulating a conspiracy from this, so do tell...

    I personally would not use the "conspiracy" word. However don't worry about it. Are there any football matches on tonight?


  • Options
    #219
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    So what've we've got here is:
    casey212 posting a link he claims has something to do with the UN definition of "sustainability".
    After i refute his link he suggests that I search for the UN definition myself. :rolleyes:
    Which is a bit pathetic since casey212 brought the matter up in the first place.
    When asked about the conspiracy he alledges of UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs - Population Division, he again doesn't answer nor explain himself whatsoever.

    And we are to take you serious because..... ??


  • Options
    #220
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    So what've we've got here is:
    casey212 posting a link he claims has something to do with the UN definition of "sustainability".
    After i refute his link he suggests that I search for the UN definition myself. :rolleyes:
    Which is a bit pathetic since casey212 brought the matter up in the first place.
    When asked about the conspiracy he alledges of UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs - Population Division, he again doesn't answer nor explain himself whatsoever.

    And we are to take you serious because..... ??

    I suggest you take a second look at the original post. Have you looekd up that definition, I'll assume you have and therefore you will not comment on it as it backs up all of what I have said.


  • Options
    #221
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    Isn't there a minimum age requirement for boards.ie?
    Or can any 13 yr old post here...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    zippy 99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 215 ✭✭zippy 99


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    Isn't there a minimum age requirement for boards.ie?
    Or can any 13 yr old post here...


    Whats with the insults??

    Please keep this on topic and converse like gentlemen.

    I remember a time, before 'group think' when people could have an individual opinion and discuss it with others. On my time on this board it seems that anyone who dosent tow the line of popular consensus is insulted.


  • Options
    #223
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    So does anybody else get the feeling that "Zippy 99" and "casey212" are the same poster?


  • Options
    #224
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    So does anybody else get the feeling that "Zippy 99" and "casey212" are the same poster?

    Don't get involved in conspiracy theories, mate.


  • Options
    #225
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    So does anybody else get the feeling that "Zippy 99" and "casey212" are the same poster?
    Copped on to that ages ago:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54828741&postcount=208


  • Options
    #226
    zippy 99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 215 ✭✭zippy 99


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Copped on to that ages ago:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54828741&postcount=208


    You have no cop on in you from my perspective.

    Look above your head on a clear day, aerial spraying is a serious issue, it cannot be denied.


  • Options
    #227
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    zippy 99 wrote: »
    Look above your head on a clear day, aerial spraying is a serious issue, it cannot be denied.
    That's all very well and good, but this thread is about global warming, or at least it was until you/casey hijacked it.


  • Options
    #228
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    The issue is that you can in no way deny a lot of what has been said. You can use all the personal remarks you like, however this does not affect the facts.


  • Options
    #229
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    casey212 wrote: »
    You can use all the personal remarks you like, however this does not affect the facts.

    Similarly, you can use innuendo, assumption and so forth to try and make your point, but that too will not affect the facts.


  • Options
    #230
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    bonkey wrote: »
    Similarly, you can use innuendo, assumption and so forth to try and make your point, but that too will not affect the facts.

    Alright Bonk, thought we had lost you.

    What you say is true, however it is worth rembering that in relation to global warming the facts are in my favour.


  • Options
    #231
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    casey212 wrote: »
    The issue is that you can in no way deny a lot of what has been said. You can use all the personal remarks you like, however this does not affect the facts.
    I can deny anything I want, particularly if it is not backed up with any evidence.

    Excuse you, but I have not made any personal remarks against anyone on this thread or any other.
    casey212 wrote: »
    it is worth rembering that in relation to global warming the facts are in my favour.
    What facts would these be?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    Gordon
    Registered Users Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    So does anybody else get the feeling that "Zippy 99" and "casey212" are the same poster?
    If that were true then casey212 would be involved in a conspiracy, it would be awfully embarrasing for him/her.


  • Options
    #233
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,792 ✭✭✭SeanW


    casey212 wrote: »
    Don't get involved in conspiracy theories, mate.
    No offense intended, but you're hardly one to talk.


  • Options
    #234
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    SeanW wrote: »
    No offense intended, but you're hardly one to talk.

    Thats a strange comment to make. Assuming you are refering to global waming, of course a conspiracy exists. Just look at the media everyday to see the amount of propaganda to convince the masses. No problem exists, its one of many scams to restrict your freedoms and take away any remaining rights which you may have.


  • Options
    #235
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I can deny anything I want, particularly if it is not backed up with any evidence.

    Excuse you, but I have not made any personal remarks against anyone on this thread or any other.

    What facts would these be?

    Well as for all scientists being in agreement have a look at this petition signed by 17,000 people in white coats.

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p333.htm


  • Options
    #236
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    casey212 wrote: »
    Just look at the media everyday to see the amount of propaganda to convince the masses.
    Hardly. If anything, there are far more attempts within the media to discredit the AGW theory than there are to reinforce it, particularly within the American media - check out FOX for example. Or who could forget Martin Durkin's ridiculous documentary on the subject on Channel 4?
    casey212 wrote: »
    No problem exists, its one of many scams to restrict your freedoms and take away any remaining rights which you may have.
    How do efforts to combat global warming "restrict your freedoms"? Surely measures such as improved energy efficiency are going to benefit humanity?
    casey212 wrote: »
    Well as for all scientists being in agreement have a look at this petition signed by 17,000 people in white coats.

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p333.htm
    I've already explained why this petition is total nonsense.


  • Options
    #237
    zippy 99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 215 ✭✭zippy 99


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Hardly. If anything, there are far more attempts within the media to discredit the AGW theory than there are to reinforce it, particularly within the American media - check out FOX for example. Or who could forget Martin Durkin's ridiculous documentary on the subject on Channel 4?

    How do efforts to combat global warming "restrict your freedoms"? Surely measures such as improved energy efficiency are going to benefit humanity?

    quote]

    How does it restrict freedoms?

    1. If I didnt have to pay for all these crazy charges (bins for example) I could get away with working less. Therefore I am less free as a result of these efforts to 'combat global warming'.

    The government is turning the screw more and more.

    When the Kyoto agreement comes into full effect, fuel prices will rocket, along with food. Many peolpe will not be able to afford private transport, or worse, to eat properly. The food is all GM nowadays anyway, pure rubbish, but thats for another day.

    What about attempts to put metres on private wells?? Soon you cannot even have fresh water without paying for it...

    By fresh I mean without that bloody flouride (makes us docile).


  • Options
    #238
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    zippy 99 wrote: »
    If I didnt have to pay for all these crazy charges (bins for example) I could get away with working less. Therefore I am less free as a result of these efforts to 'combat global warming'.
    How can you expect people to take you seriously when you try to relate bin charges with global warming? Bin charges are designed to encourage people to produce less waste and to provide funding for local authorities (who deal with your waste). If you recycle more and produce less waste, you pay less bin charges. Simple really.
    zippy 99 wrote: »
    When the Kyoto agreement comes into full effect, fuel prices will rocket, along with food. Many peolpe will not be able to afford private transport, or worse, to eat properly.
    Again with the nonsense...

    You quite clearly have no idea what the Kyoto Protocol entails. How will fuel prices rocket as a result of Kyoto? If anything, they should decline. Reducing fuel consumption is a priority for most nations who have ratified the agreement. How could a reduction in consumption and hence, a reduction in demand, lead to an increase in prices?

    If you're so worried about the price of food, grow your own. There are campaigns to reintroduce allotments in Dublin, something that is commonplace in other European countries, such as the UK.
    zippy 99 wrote: »
    The food is all GM nowadays anyway, pure rubbish, but thats for another day.
    I'm going to assume that you're just thinking out loud now, because this is getting farcical. What evidence do you have to support this claim? Let me guess: NONE.
    zippy 99 wrote: »
    By fresh I mean without that bloody flouride (makes us docile).
    :rolleyes:

    First of all, fluorides occur naturally in all forms of water. Secondly, how could fluorides possibly "make us docile" when our bodies are incapable of metabolising them? Fluorides only persist in the body for a few hours after consumption - they are passed out in urine. Only trace amounts remain in bone tissue (teeth, for example).


  • Options
    #239
    zippy 99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 215 ✭✭zippy 99


    djpbarry wrote: »
    How can you expect people to take you seriously when you try to relate bin charges with global warming? Bin charges are designed to encourage people to produce less waste and to provide funding for local authorities (who deal with your waste). If you recycle more and produce less waste, you pay less bin charges. Simple really.

    Again with the nonsense...

    You quite clearly have no idea what the Kyoto Protocol entails. How will fuel prices rocket as a result of Kyoto? If anything, they should decline. Reducing fuel consumption is a priority for most nations who have ratified the agreement. How could a reduction in consumption and hence, a reduction in demand, lead to an increase in prices?

    If you're so worried about the price of food, grow your own. There are campaigns to reintroduce allotments in Dublin, something that is commonplace in other European countries, such as the UK.

    I'm going to assume that you're just thinking out loud now, because this is getting farcical. What evidence do you have to support this claim? Let me guess: NONE.

    :rolleyes:

    First of all, fluorides occur naturally in all forms of water. Secondly, how could fluorides possibly "make us docile" when our bodies are incapable of metabolising them? Fluorides only persist in the body for a few hours after consumption - they are passed out in urine. Only trace amounts remain in bone tissue (teeth, for example).


    Why do government add flouride to our water??


  • Options
    #240
    Ciaran500
    Registered Users Posts: 8,225 ✭✭✭Ciaran500


    zippy 99 wrote: »
    Why do government add flouride to our water??
    You made the claims, you give them some substance.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    zippy 99 wrote: »
    Why do government add flouride to our water??
    They don't. The HSE is ultimately responsible for the fluoridation of water supplies.

    Can we get back on-topic now please?


Advertisement