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!
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.
Logging in...
Previously on "there is no proof humans cause climate change"
So the scientists who believe (praise be) are better than those that don't is what you are saying?
Not even close. Whether I like a scientist or not is utterly irrelevant, the point is - are they correct? David Appell's criticism of Moore seems compelling, what did you think he got wrong?
The Moore piece was just propaganda, absent a science case, it's all they have. The Greenpeace link was tenuous at best, he left nearly thirty years ago and I'm not sure I would describe him as a scientist, these days he makes his living in PR for various industries ....
And the point sails over the heads of the assembled. A tar saturated lung is strong evidence of a causal link, but it is not proof. There's a small but finite chance that the cancer was caused by something else.
Well done! The most stupid comment in CUK ever. Remove a lung from any smoker and it will be saturated with tar and nicotine like you can never imagine. (I watched an autopsy in the 60s) Tar is cacogenic. I won’t bother to explain about viruses as its beyond your capability
The beauty of spamming links and graphs is that people will rarely follow them up and look behind them. Goes for both sides of the debate, of course.
Well done! The most stupid comment in CUK ever. Remove a lung from any smoker and it will be saturated with tar and nicotine like you can never imagine. (I watched an autopsy in the 60s) Tar is cacogenic. I won’t bother to explain about viruses as its beyond your capability
There is indeed a lot of evidence that HIV causes AIDS, and that smoking causes cancer, but if the global temperatures go down any further there won't be any evidence at all for global warming.
I am sure if we dig deep enough we can find that you are a paid stooge of the climate change industry
I dont think so. The other day I made a comment about Moore and pj wasnt too bothered. Went away and read the party line and came back all aggressive.
So I would say tribal definately, not a free independant thinker, and very green. but not a paid hack
Leave a comment: