• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Global warming survey"

Collapse

  • DimPrawn
    replied
    Here an angry 4x4 owner hits back at the BBC for using 4x4 in all the headlines instead of high emissions vehicle, and the BBC response is there is not enough space to put high emissions vehicle, so all bad cars are going to be called 4x4 on the bulletins.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs...00/5324718.stm

    But we have had a tendency to lump high emission vehicles together under the banner of 4x4s - it's a kind of shorthand. Phil mentioned specifically the on-screen caption used on News 24. Now space is at a premium on these captions and '4x4' is three characters while 'high emission vehicle' just won't fit.
    And we pay a license fee for this?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bagpuss
    replied
    Originally posted by zeitghost
    Which will live forever...

    You'll never live it down...
    Can you give me 3 references?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bagpuss
    replied
    Originally posted by Dundeegeorge
    pusbag, the recruitment consultant. (snigger)
    It was a joke!

    Leave a comment:


  • Dundeegeorge
    replied
    I bow to your superior scientific background

    Originally posted by Bagpuss
    The university of South California

    What next, perhaps the opinion of Southampton womens' guild?
    pusbag, the recruitment consultant. (snigger)

    Leave a comment:


  • shaunbhoy
    replied
    Originally posted by Bagpuss
    The university of South California

    What next, perhaps the opinion of Southampton womens' guild?
    There are always sceptical cranks swimming against the tide Baggy. You are not alone I am sure in refusing to face up to scientific explanations. I bet you get nervous about mobile phone masts too, don't you?
    Its alright, you are amongst friends now.

    Leave a comment:


  • wendigo100
    replied
    Originally posted by Bagpuss
    The university of South California

    What next, perhaps the opinion of Southampton womens' guild?
    They advocate another tablespoon of sugar.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bagpuss
    replied
    Originally posted by Dundeegeorge

    The university of South California

    What next, perhaps the opinion of Southampton womens' guild?

    Leave a comment:


  • shaunbhoy
    replied
    Originally posted by DimPrawn
    Was this due to dirty selfish middle class peasants?

    Yeah, them and all those big hay-guzzling 4-leg drive vehicles of theirs!!

    Leave a comment:


  • DimPrawn
    replied
    Originally posted by Dundeegeorge

    But Tony and Gordon disagree? Now I'm confused.

    Maybe the politicians have their own "green" agenda?




    Leave a comment:


  • Dundeegeorge
    replied
    No comment

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...lobal-warming/

    Leave a comment:


  • lukemg
    replied
    Ok, the 'carbon age' is 50 years from extinction (more or less) i.e. oil, gas and coal are running out. From that point and presumably leading up to then, energy usage will be more or less carbon neutral - wind, nuclear, bio-fuel, solar funnel etc etc. So the question is - will it be too late by then, will we all be doomed etc or will the earth kick back the other way ?
    In reality, unfettered expansion of humanity, with no natural limiting of numbers having any real effect will finish the planet off on it's own. This will result in war over the scraps of energy production left on the planet (already happening). Strangely the apopcalyptic vision of a deadly disease wiping out huge swathes of the population of the earth might turn out to be the thing that saves the planet rather than destroys it.
    All in all, I can't do jack to prevent any of this happening, so it goes on my - 'can't do anything about that, don't worry about it' list and I will carry on regardless.
    HTH

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    replied
    Originally posted by DimPrawn
    Well, we'll never really know.

    In a few hundred years, after 100's of trillions of pounds are wasted globally to address a cause that has no effect, we'll enter a cooling period that we have no control over, and wonder why all these idiots were using a 50 year temp change that is no different from ones seen in the past.

    Regardless, people like Gordon will raise the money to fund wars, and people like you will be falling over-themselves to pay it.

    I see you're more willing to stick to your prejudices than bother to find out the facts. You are Chico and I claim my 5 polluted crustaceans.

    Leave a comment:


  • DimPrawn
    replied
    Well, we'll never really know.

    In a few hundred years, after 100's of trillions of pounds are wasted globally to address a cause that has no effect, we'll enter a cooling period that we have no control over, and wonder why all these idiots were using a 50 year temp change that is no different from ones seen in the past.

    Regardless, people like Gordon will raise the money to fund wars, and people like you will be falling over-themselves to pay it.

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    replied
    Originally posted by Bagpuss
    Well, just because I'm willing to keep an open mind does not mean I think there isn't an manipulation of the situation by the government, however I don't check the treasury's stance before making my mind up on issues. We have the ability through technology to reduce carbon emmisions and lead a fairly unchanged lifestyle, is it not worthwile to make some effort, just in case?

    I expect to be branded a tree hugging socialist now.
    A fair point well made. I agree.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bagpuss
    replied
    Originally posted by sasguru
    Funny how all logic goes out of the window when something becomes political.
    Well, just because I'm willing to keep an open mind does not mean I think there isn't an manipulation of the situation by the government, however I don't check the treasury's stance before making my mind up on issues. We have the ability through technology to reduce carbon emmisions and lead a fairly unchanged lifestyle, is it not worthwile to make some effort, just in case?

    I expect to be branded a tree hugging socialist now.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X