Global Warming Conference

PDN

I thought some of you might be interested in this. Looks interesting. If I'm in Ireland in mid-February I plan to make the trip to Belfast.

Ireland and Global Warming

16 February 2008This conference, organised by Christians in Science Ireland, will be held on Saturday 16 February 2008 in the Spires Conference Centre in Belfast.

Global warming has become one of the central scientific, political and ethical issues of our time. Nearly everybody in the world is contributing to it and everybody will be affected by it.

The basic facts of global warming are now well established through the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Global warming is of great interest to scientists because of the complexity of the physical processes that govern global climate and the far-reaching potential ecological impacts.

It is of great importance to public policy because the measures proposed to reduce its effects reach into nearly all aspects of the human economy and the costs of both action and inaction are high.

It raises very serious ethical questions, because global warming will soon affect the lives of many people especially in poorer economies, but also because our sons and daughters will inherit the consequences of our actions or inactions.

This conference, which should be of interest to Christians and non-Christians alike, aims to take a holistic approach to the problem of global warming. We want to look at the global issues raised by global warming, at the impact on the island of Ireland, and at what we can do as individuals to make a difference.

Speakers & Subjects:
Prof Sir John Houghton FRS - Global Warming: A Global Emergency
(Former Chair/Co-chair of the Scientific Assessment Working Group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Chairman of the John Ray Initiative)

Dr John Sweeney - Global Warming: It's Impact on Ireland
(Director of Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units and Senior Lecturer in Geography, National University of Ireland, Maynooth

Prof Bob White FRS - Global Warming: A Christian Response
(Associate Director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion and Professor of Geophysics, Cambridge University)

More info from Christians in Science - http://http://www.cis.org.uk/ireland/

Scofflaw

You may also like to go along to the remainder of the EPA Climate Change Lecture series - link. I'm appalled to realise I have already missed the first two, which were extremely conveniently situated for me to go to.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

Very interesting...

PDN

Last week I was in Cameroon - quite high up in the mountains of the North Western Province. I noticed a lot of the houses had fireplaces, so I asked if they ever used them. They explained that years ago it used to get cold in the winter so they had to light fires, but that for a number of years it has stayed hot all year round.

It reminded me of how, growing up in Ireland in the 1960s, we used to have sledges to ride down slopes in the local park each Winter when the snow came. I wonder how many kids in Ireland today have ever ridden on a sledge? I doubt that there would ever be enough snow to make the purchase of a sledge worthwhile.

Global warming is a reality.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

Last week I was in Cameroon - quite high up in the mountains of the North Western Province. I noticed a lot of the houses had fireplaces, so I asked if they ever used them. They explained that years ago it used to get cold in the winter so they had to light fires, but that for a number of years it has stayed hot all year round.

It reminded me of how, growing up in Ireland in the 1960s, we used to have sledges to ride down slopes in the local park each Winter when the snow came. I wonder how many kids in Ireland today have ever ridden on a sledge? I doubt that there would ever be enough snow to make the purchase of a sledge worthwhile.

Global warming is a reality.

Worrying times! There is so much noise being made that I fear there is actually very little in the way of progress.

If the rising sea levels don't get us it will be the killer bees.

SubjectSean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If the rising sea levels don't get us it will be the killer bees.

Bees will murder us? Surely you are mistaken

The rising heat and sea levels and the too much or not enough rain. That'll do the trick though. It's already hurting people in their millions. But not us. We're alright Jack, you may stick your heads in the sand until us rich folks start to suffer some.

JimiTime

Pangs of Distress my friends. Let those who have ears listen. Man will govern himself to his injury. All the things prophesised about the world must and will come to pass. Global warming seems to be the means in which all the things Jesus told us would happen are happening. Earthquakes, natural disasters etc. Don't misquote this though, I'm not saying God is causing it, rather God knew that this would happen when Man seperated himself from him.

BrianCalgary

PDN wrote: »

Global warming is a reality.

True enough, it is the cause that is in question.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote: »

True enough, it is the cause that is in question.

A question to which there are solidly established answers. Don't make me come over there, Brian.

wearily,
Scofflaw

PDN

BrianCalgary wrote: »

True enough, it is the cause that is in question.

I think that depends on whether you listen to:
a) Scientists who are knowledgable on the subject or
b) A President in the pocket of the oil industry.

JohnnyBravo

JimiTime wrote: »

Pangs of Distress my friends. Let those who have ears listen. Man will govern himself to his injury. All the things prophesised about the world must and will come to pass. Global warming seems to be the means in which all the things Jesus told us would happen are happening. Earthquakes, natural disasters etc. Don't misquote this though, I'm not saying God is causing it, rather God knew that this would happen when Man seperated himself from him.

But isnt the country most responsible for it (US) governed by a self confessed christian

PDN

JohnnyBravo wrote: »

But isnt the country most responsible for it (US) governed by a self confessed christian

The country that releases the most carbon dioxide in total (China) is actually governed by a self-confessed atheist. The country that releases the most per capita (USA) is governed by a self-confessed Christian. The country with the second highest emissions per capita (Saudi Arabia) is governed by a self-confessed Muslim. None of which has any relevance whatsoever.

SubjectSean

JohnnyBravo wrote: »

But isnt the country most responsible for it (US) governed by a self confessed christian

Ya that's his opinion but somehow I can't see Jesus sharing it.

robindch

What would Jesus drive?

PDN

I've actually been feeling a bit guilty recently about my frequent flyer elite plus status. Basically I get access to VIP lounges and priority boarding and check in because I have a bigger carbon footprint than other passengers. That just seems wrong somehow.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

I've actually been feeling a bit guilty recently about my frequent flyer elite plus status. Basically I get access to VIP lounges and priority boarding and check in because I have a bigger carbon footprint than other passengers. That just seems wrong somehow.

True - your carbon footprint must be enormous! How many miles a year are you doing (at 0.177kg/mile)?

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

True - your carbon footprint must be enormous! How many miles a year are you doing (at 0.177kg/mile)?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I flew 120,000 miles last year. I guess that makes me a bigfoot, ecologically speaking.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

I flew 120,000 miles last year. I guess that makes me a bigfoot, ecologically speaking.

Impressive. You're doing as much climate damage every year as 100 Ghanaians, 150 Cameroonians, 330 Ethiopians....and two-thirds of that is just by flying.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote: »

A question to which there are solidly established answers. Don't make me come over there, Brian.

wearily,
Scofflaw

And increase your ecological footprint? I'd be disappointed in you.

BrianCalgary

PDN wrote: »

I think that depends on whether you listen to:
a) Scientists who are knowledgable on the subject or
b) A President in the pocket of the oil industry.

Or a Nobel Peace prize winner who is firmly entrenched in the business of anti-carbon use. Who aslo operates a huge house and himself has a bigger ecological footprint than some small countries.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Or a Nobel Peace prize winner who is firmly entrenched in the business of anti-carbon use. Who aslo operates a huge house and himself has a bigger ecological footprint than some small countries.

Who is entirely irrelevant to the science. That's like claiming that Fred Phelps invalidates Christianity.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Brian wrote:

Or a Nobel Peace prize winner who is firmly entrenched in the business of anti-carbon use. Who also operates a huge house and himself has a bigger ecological footprint than some small countries.

Which would be frightful hypocrisy, if the insinuations you are repeating were very accurate, which they're not.

The original press-release was made by a group calling itself the Tennessee Center for Policy Research who issued it the day after Gore won an Oscar earlier in the year. Either the people there wrote the press-release real fast, or else they'd done it earlier and kept their mud dry until they found an opportunity to sling it. The TCPR is a right-wing policy outlet which obsesses about fuel prices and free markets. To judge from much of the content on the site, it looks like it receives money from oil companies. It shouldn't surprise many that it's not a fan of Gore.

Subsequent investigations by journalists and utility employees showed the initial press-release to be completely inaccurate -- see the NY Times with straightens out some of the very bent facts from the TCPR's press-release. As Gore's spokeswoman is quoted as saying, "Sometimes when people don’t like the message, in this case that global warming is real, it’s convenient to attack the messenger".

And just out of interest since the figure's fresh, PDN travels 120,000m per year which is 193,000km, and at a fuel consumption of 1.4 MJ/passenger-km, that gives an annual spend of 270,000MJ. At 3.6MJ/kWh, PDN's flying uses up around 75,000 kWh, or around 40% of the footprint for Gore's family home which costs Gore $16,300 (NYT again) to power. In contrast, the electricity bill in 2006 for Dick Cheney's official 33-bedroom mansion was $186,000 last year, up from $84,000 in 1999.

To offset PDN's travel, and at a rough rate of 45gC/km, the 193,000km will generate 8700kg of carbon. At 12kg per tree per year, we see that PDN must plant over 700 trees per year to maintain his carbon neutrality.

The calculations are rough and ready (but reasonably accurate, I hope; corrections welcome), but I hope this puts Gore's, Cheney's and PDN's relative energy consumption in a few separate areas into some kind of perspective.

Get out there and start planting trees, PDN!

.

Run_to_da_hills

Invoking September 11 has officially been succeeded by a new mantra and an excuse for the global powers to be to unleash a fresh tyranny no matter how offensive and damaging to individual liberty it may be, Global warming has now replaced 9/11 as the justification for the global elite to do anything!

The denouncement of the strategies implemented on us by the same world powers by sceptics is been tarred akin to holocaust deniers and is beginning to mirror what happened after 9/11, when anyone who criticized the Bush's agenda was lambasted as a traitor, a terrorist. Politicians are professional liars, they make careers out of deceiving people and twisting reality to fit pre conceived agendas.

What is more dangerous? A temperature fluctuation that has been mirrored in the past or an excuse for western governments to tighten the shackles of fascism around our ankles in the name of saving the planet?

Fanny Cradock

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

What is more dangerous? A temperature fluctuation that has been mirrored in the past or an excuse for western governments to tighten the shackles of fascism around our ankles in the name of saving the planet?

In it's rapidity this temperature rise hasn't been mirrored before. Describing global warming and all it multifarious detrimental effects as a mere 'temperature fluctuation' undermines the gravity of the situation. Taking off your sceptics hat for a moment and accepting the overwhelming scientific consensus, this could mean untold hardship and death for countless organisms over this planet. I see the efforts being made by governments - however half-assed - as an attempt to correct this massive problem.

Run_to_da_hills

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In it's rapidity this temperature rise hasn't been mirrored before. Describing global warming and all it multifarious detrimental effects as a mere 'temperature fluctuation' undermines the gravity of the situation. Taking off your sceptics hat for a moment and accepting the overwhelming scientific consensus, this could mean untold hardship and death for countless organisms over this planet. I see the efforts being made by governments - however half-assed - as an attempt to correct this massive problem.

As someone had already mentioned on this thread these are just "birth pangs". I can see much of this as what was spoken of by Christ in Matthew 24 as one of the signs of the great tribulation period just before his return. What I cannot stand is much of the hypocracy that is going on in the world by the very ones that are attempting to correct the problem. The same powers have for the last fifty years been accumilating nuclear weapons that have the potential to annihilate this planet several times over.

Fanny Cradock

My bad. I was mistakenly about to post about the same conference.

Húrin

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Or a Nobel Peace prize winner who is firmly entrenched in the business of anti-carbon use. Who aslo operates a huge house and himself has a bigger ecological footprint than some small countries.

Al Gore (it sounds like him you're talking about) is not the icon on this side of the Atlantic that he is in America. Nobody cares. His hypocrisy, if hypocrisy it is, is irrelevant to us. and anyone else who takes climate change seriously.

Húrin

Did anyone else go to this conference and think it was rubbish? John Haughton came across as a fraud.

Hero Of College

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In it's rapidity this temperature rise hasn't been mirrored before. Describing global warming and all it multifarious detrimental effects as a mere 'temperature fluctuation' undermines the gravity of the situation. Taking off your sceptics hat for a moment and accepting the overwhelming scientific consensus, this could mean untold hardship and death for countless organisms over this planet. I see the efforts being made by governments - however half-assed - as an attempt to correct this massive problem.

Question: What made all the ice melt during the last ice age???

"overwhelming scientific consensus"....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:..tunrs out to be pretty bloody underwhelming!!!!

EVERYBODY should have a look at THIS:-


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-4123082535546754758

Hero Of College

Húrin wrote: »

Al Gore (it sounds like him you're talking about) is not the icon on this side of the Atlantic that he is in America. Nobody cares. His hypocrisy, if hypocrisy it is, is irrelevant to us. and anyone else who takes climate change seriously.

He is a fat loafer- he'll never rob my rights with his lies.

Tim Robbins

Sorry to bring up an old chessnut, but I can't understand how Christians can accept anthropogenic global warming and not accept Darwinian Evolution.

The IPCC 4th report concluded 90% probability that global warmin was anthropogenic. Most Scientists, would say the probablity of all life evolving through natural selection from a single ancestor is far higher than that.

There is a huge amount of complicated Maths and Science in Global warming, much more complicated than anything in Evolution. So for most people who accept anthropogenic global warming, it's an act of faith in Scientific authority.

Whereas evolution is much easier to understand, it doesn't even require an act of faith in Scientific authority.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Sorry to bring up an old chessnut, but I can't understand how some Christians can accept anthropogenic global warming and not accept Darwinian Evolution.

Now lets not slip into generalisations. You forgot to put the word 'some' in there, but I've sorted that oversight. I don't believe that the rejection of evolution is limited to solely to some Christians. Indeed, I once encountered an atheist who bizarrely rejected evolution.

Off to the Creationism thread with you

Húrin

Hero Of College wrote: »

Question: What made all the ice melt during the last ice age???

"overwhelming scientific consensus"....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:..tunrs out to be pretty bloody underwhelming!!!!

EVERYBODY should have a look at THIS:

The greenhouse effect caused the ice to melt, but it was not anthropogenic.

The Great Global Warming Swindle is a fraud. Here are some lies:

1. “Volcanoes produce more CO2 each year than all the factories and cars and planes and other sources of man-made carbon dioxide put together.”

This is simply wrong, as the most basic fact-check would have established.

2. The closing statement was as follows: “There will still be people who believe that this is the end of the world. Particularly when you have, for example, uh, the chief scientist of the UK telling people that by the end of the century, the only inhabitable place on the Earth, will be the Antarctic and it may, humanity may survive, thanks to some breeding couples, who moved to the Antarctic, I mean this is hilarious, it would be hilarious actually, if, if, if it weren’t so sad.”

These are not the views of the chief scientist, Sir David King. They are the views of James Lovelock. Singer appears to have confused them. Again, even a cursory fact check would have established this.

3. Almost every graph in the film was manipulated. In some cases, the time-line was extended beyond the available data, in others the curve had been smoothed to the extent that it became misleading. It looks as if these instances were deliberate attempts to fit the data to the argument.

4. The credentials of several of the scientists in the film were inflated. The worst example is Tim Ball, who is described as “Professor Tim Ball, Department of Climatology, University of Winnipeg”. As far as I can discover, there is no Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. In fact he was a Professor of Geography at that university from 1988 until he retired in 1996. He has not since held an official position there or at any other university. Nor has he been granted an emeritus professorship.

Then there are the distortions by omission:

5. There is the suggestion, for example, that the standard climate model cannot explain the relative cooling between the 1940s and the 1970s. Any reputable climate scientist could have pointed out that the mechanism - global dimming - is well known and consistent with the models.

6. There is the claim that as rising temperatures, as shown in the Antarctic ice cores, pre-date rises in CO2, CO2 cannot be a driver of climate change. Again, as I suspect both you and Durkin knew perfectly well, this too is explained by the models.

7. There is the deliberate evasion of the question of funding. The film asks the contributers who have NOT received funding from the oil industry whether or not they have, and they reply in the negative. It does not ask Fred Singer, who HAS received such funding. It claims that Pat Michaels came “under attack from climate campaigners” for “conduct[ing] research which was part funded by the coal industry”. In fact, as the most cursory check would have shown, he came under attack for acting as a paid advocate for the coal industry, without declaring his interests. If you want documentary evidence for this, I can send it to you. But, again, your fact checkers - if there were any - should have found it.

Who was the scientific adviser on this film? Who were the fact-checkers? What qualifications did they have?

source: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/04/01/correspondence-with-hamish-mykura/

BrianCalgary

Húrin wrote: »

4. The credentials of several of the scientists in the film were inflated. The worst example is Tim Ball, who is described as “Professor Tim Ball, Department of Climatology, University of Winnipeg”. As far as I can discover, there is no Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. In fact he was a Professor of Geography at that university from 1988 until he retired in 1996. He has not since held an official position there or at any other university. Nor has he been granted an emeritus professorship.

Then there are the distortions by omission:


source: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/04/01/correspondence-with-hamish-mykura/

And a misleading statement here by the detractors. Tim Ball was a Professor of Climatology at the U of Winnipeg. The Claimatology courses are taught within the Faculty of Geography at the U of W.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

Who was the scientific adviser on this film? Who were the fact-checkers? What qualifications did they have?

When this was aired on telly here last year sometime, what struck me almost immediately was that the film could just as well have been about evolution-creationism.

The film-makers used much the kind of fairly obvious bait-and-switch, quote-out-of-context, grand-conspiracy of scientists, out-of-date-stats, outright lies (etc, etc) tactics that creationists use in their own agitprop. I've never seen such a one-sided production aired before. I watched twenty minutes of it and turned it off, as there's only so much of this that one can stomach.

What's interesting is how many people failed to notice that it was a pack of lies and have subsequently jumped onto the fingers-in-ears bandwagon. The oil companies must be thrilled!

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And a misleading statement here by the detractors. Tim Ball was a Professor of Climatology at the U of Winnipeg. The Claimatology courses are taught within the Faculty of Geography at the U of W.

But you agree that the credentials presented in the documentary were inaccurate, yes?

BrianCalgary

bonkey wrote: »

But you agree that the credentials presented in the documentary were inaccurate, yes?

I haven't seen it. It has never been aired here. I cant comment on it then.

Húrin

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I haven't seen it. It has never been aired here. I cant comment on it then.

Someone posted the internet version earlier in the thread.

Are you a young-earth creationist by any chance Brian?

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I haven't seen it. It has never been aired here. I cant comment on it then.

There is no contestation from anyone about what was presented in the documentary. You can take it from the earlier post, or you can reference it from the entry on Tim Ball in Wikipedia, or by any number of simple web searches.

You were happy enough to make comments on what was misleading about someone else's comments regarding Tim Ball. One assumes, therefore, that you know the man and have discussed his credentials with him personally, or that you are applying a differing standard of what constitutes sufficient information to comment on a subject in that case.

If you do know him personally, then ask him if it was misleading.

If you don't know him personally, but were willing to correct a misleading statement based on reading up some other sources, then why stand on not having seen the actual documentary, when it is a trivial matter to discover what was claimed in it.

In short, your asnwer strikes me as being deliberately evasive...almost as though you know it was misleading, but don't want to admit same.

BrianCalgary

bonkey wrote: »

There is no contestation from anyone about what was presented in the documentary. You can take it from the earlier post, or you can reference it from the entry on Tim Ball in Wikipedia, or by any number of simple web searches.

You were happy enough to make comments on what was misleading about someone else's comments regarding Tim Ball. One assumes, therefore, that you know the man and have discussed his credentials with him personally, or that you are applying a differing standard of what constitutes sufficient information to comment on a subject in that case.

If you do know him personally, then ask him if it was misleading.

If you don't know him personally, but were willing to correct a misleading statement based on reading up some other sources, then why stand on not having seen the actual documentary, when it is a trivial matter to discover what was claimed in it.

In short, your asnwer strikes me as being deliberately evasive...almost as though you know it was misleading, but don't want to admit same.

I dont get what you are upset about here.

I havent seen the documentary so I cant comment on anything in it.

There is one thing I do know though and that is that Tim Ball was a professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg and that climatological studies at that University are a part of the Faculty of Geography.

I am making a statement of fact, I dont need to know Mr Ball in order to make the statement that I did.

I can also sit here and say that Steve Staunton was the former manager of Ireland, dont need to know him either to make such a statement.

BrianCalgary

Húrin wrote: »

Someone posted the internet version earlier in the thread.

Are you a young-earth creationist by any chance Brian?

What does YEC have to with a global warming documenatary?

An Fear Aniar

A Hard Rains Gonna Fall....



.

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

What does YEC have to with a global warming documenatary?

Similar production values, I suspect.

Regardless of that and from a reasonable amount of anecdotal evidence, it seems that YEC's are statistically more likely to be global-warming deniers than people who are not YEC's.

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I dont get what you are upset about here.

I'm not upset...I put my point badly. Mea culpa.

I havent seen the documentary so I cant comment on anything in it.

You directed your point at the detractors. Its easy to read your point as being somewhat in support of the documentary, as opposed to as being merely support of accurately portraying Dr. Ball's qualifications.

I am making a statement of fact, I dont need to know Mr Ball in order to make the statement that I did.

You equally don't need to have seen the documentary to know what it claims about Dr. Ball, but thats the reason you've given for not commenting on the accuracy of the claim.

In both cases, as with your Staunton analagy, you are (presumably) using uncontested, second-hand information, readily available in the public domain on which to base your statements.

In the case of the documentary, you are taking an uncontested second-hand account, readily available in the public domain....and refusing to accept its veracity on the grounds that you haven't personally verified it first-hand.

Given that your interest is apparently the accurate portrayal of Dr. Ball's qualifications, and not a defence of the accuracy of a documentary you haven't seen, I found this somewhat strange.

However, I can get around all of that by rephrasing my question...

Would you agree that if the comment you were addressing is accurate regarding the documentary's claims of Ball's qualifications, then the documentary must have inaccurately portrayed Dr. Ball's qualifications and position.

PDN

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I am making a statement of fact, I dont need to know Mr Ball in order to make the statement that I did.

I can also sit here and say that Steve Staunton was the former manager of Ireland, dont need to know him either to make such a statement.

Mentioning Mr Ball in the same breath as Steve Staunton is unlikely to enhance our view of his competence or credentials.

robindch

Global warming more serious than first thought.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080408.wclimatebeer0408/BNStory/International/home

AP wrote:

Climate change to impact beer
April 8, 2008 at 4:43 AM EDT

WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND — The price of beer is likely to rise in coming decades because climate change will hamper the production of a key grain needed for the brew — especially in Australia, a scientist warned Tuesday. Jim Salinger, a climate scientist at New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, said climate change likely will cause a decline in the production of malting barley in parts of New Zealand and Australia. Malting barley is a key ingredient of beer. “It will mean either there will be pubs without beer or the cost of beer will go up,” Mr. Salinger told the Institute of Brewing and Distilling convention.

Similar effects could be expected worldwide, but Mr. Salinger spoke only of the effects on Australia and New Zealand. He said climate change could cause a drop in beer production within 30 years, especially in parts of Australia, as dry areas become drier and water shortages worsen. Barley growing parts of Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales would likely be harder hit than growing areas in New Zealand's South Island. “It will provide a lot of challenges for the brewing industry,” even forcing breweries to look at new varieties of malt barley as a direct result of climate change, Mr. Salinger said.

New Zealand and Australian brewer Lion Nathan's corporate affairs director Liz Read said climate change already was forcing up the price of malted barley, sugar, aluminum and sugar. Ms. Read said that in addition to climate change, barley growers are grappling with competition from other forms or land use, such as the dairy industry.

Fanny Cradock

It will mean either there will be pubs without beer or the cost of beer will go up

Merciful hour. We must act NOW!

Húrin

I would encourage everyone to write to Brian Cowen, your TDs and your MEPs to let them know that you are concerned about climate change. Pray also to God that the authorities will embrace justice and radical anti-climate change policies if it is His will.

Popinjay

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It will mean either there will be pubs without beer or the cost of beer will go up

Merciful hour. We must act NOW!

I think even the doubters will realise that no amount of uncertainty is worth this risk. We must do everything we can to halt this terrible problem. Any effort made will at least be better than sitting around doing nothing and waiting for the breweries to dry up.

I for one refuse to let my (potential) children grow up in a world where I can't drink to block out their noises.

coolbeans

Hero Of College wrote: »

He is a fat loafer- he'll never rob my rights with his lies.

I think i can sum up your attitude quite succinctly with the following:

"This world is mine,
This world is free,
I'll do what I want; irresponsibly".

You're part of the problem. Freedom brings responsibility my friend.:o