Czuch: Many scientists know the truth about the global warming con but don't speak up because they universities they work for would possibly lose some funding or even their jobs could be in jeopardy. Politicians that talk about global warming as if it is man made are ignorant. They don't know. They've not studied the issue. They, like so many, jump on the band wagon. And in the end, if they get their way, we will pay big bucks.

Locally we are being forced to recycle. Now my rates have gone up. I have to recycle through the government or I will pay a fine. Never mind that for years I've recycled everything that's possible to recycle. No exceptions. So what I used to do for free, I now have to pay for.

It's only the beginning. There will be more nonsense from the government. Where there's a buck to be made, they will try to make it. Note the new term "carbon footprint." What the heck is that? It's mumbo-jumbo. They are morons. A bunch of fools.

Some idiot from Hollywood was interviewed and she talked about using less toilet paper. Seriously? If she's using less, then I'll use more. What an idiot. That's as bad as the PETA fool who complained about the Seattle fish market that is well known for throwing and catching of the fish they sell. The guy actually called the dead fish a cadaver. And how would you feel if we did that same thing to humans?

Another idiot. So I went out and bought a fish from the local market and we played a game of "fishball" with it. A few swings of the bat and that fish was mush. I packaged it up and sent it to PETA. With some crackers.

Ok, just kidding on that but it makes ya wanna puke sometimes.

Czuch: Well that Ice ages made us spread more about the world tends to make his thoughts a little nuts. As to random.. that's only due to lack of info over how.

Plus he ignores that we are the first race on this planet to be able to change significantly our surroundings, such as deforestation.. The dust bowl somewhat shows what can happen. That farmers here are restoring the use of natural predators regarding bugs that attack crops, which cuts down on the need of pesticides.

I agree, the carbon footprint thing is a bit crazy in certain respects, but it's also leading to a cut down in fuel usage by making cars more economical.

(V): I'm curious. How do you know he ignores anything? Which of his books have you read and which of his papers have you studied?

Artful Dodger: I'm just going by what I've learnt of our history as a species. By what I've seen and learnt of how important it is that we are a race (as such) with now no natural predators.

And by what the link Czuch posted.

Seems guys on both sides of the global warming debate are making money out of this business.

And can you provide a link to that 2005 article you are going on about? I thought you would have least done that.

(V): In other words your claims aren't really based on any fact, just your generalized opinion based on your own narrow experience.

Artful Dodger: That link based on old data. Sure that's great You are saying having an opinion is bad?

Shall we all stop posting then?? And I thought having an opinion was better then c&p stuff!! Look.. have I missed a memo?

(V): Stating an opinion and then stating something as a fact (which you have done here) are not the same thing. You claim that the scientist's data was flawed. That's not an opinion. You are making an assertion. Either the scientist did overlook what you said he did, or he didn't. You can't have an opinion on that. It's either a fact that he did, or a fact that he didn't. Now you claim he DID. So it's reasonable to expect you to offer some proof of that claim.

C&P is fine as long as it's not your argument. Pointing out studies or articles (which we all do) is fine.

Artful Dodger: Ok... it is a fact that we are an adaptive species.. skin colour being one, hence as man left Africa and travelled far away our skin change to match our surroundings. It is a fact that during ice ages man did travel to escape (survival technique) and hence grew stronger. Man then as such became a stronger more adaptable race, hence our ability to travel to the four corners of the earth. The way Africa's climate changed, led to man moving.

........ An opinion based on what has learnt as being held as historic fact from findings by geologists is fine. But to distort the significance of the event on human existence by taking that many humans died during the ice ages as a decline, rather than a time of hardening and strengthening as nature doth provide from time to time. The dinosaurs opened up the way for mammals, yet at cost of much of life on Earth. But some survived.

For example... the humble hedgehog here has been in decline, but now.. they are learning not to crawl into a ball when on a road. Hence those hedgehogs that do not, and instead run are transferring that trait unto their descendants and the population is now on the increase.

Do you see the basis for my opinion now??

(V): where did you get the bit about hedgehogs "learning" not to crawl into a ball? They only turn themselves into a ball if they are threatened, how do they know a car is a threat? and why hasnt it happened in NZ...they do have cars there you know. LOL

CCP*****Hedgehogs are a powerful form of pest control. A single hedgehog can keep an average garden free of pests by eating up to 200 grams of insects each night. It is common throughout the United Kingdom to see people attempting to lure hedgehogs into their gardens with treats and hedgehog-sized holes in their fences.[citation needed]

One problem with using hedgehogs for garden pest control is the use of chemical insecticide. While the hedgehog is large enough to resist most insecticides, it cannot withstand them if it eats many insects which have become full of the poison. This causes many hedgehog deaths where pet hedgehogs eat contaminated bugs within the house.

In areas where hedgehogs have been introduced, such as New Zealand and the islands of Scotland, the hedgehog itself has become a pest. In New Zealand it causes immense damage to native species including insects, snails, lizards and ground-nesting birds, particularly shore birds. As with many introduced animals, it lacks natural predators. With overpopulation, it kills off more insects than initially intended and expands its diet to include things such as snails, worms, and the eggs of wading birds.

Correcting overpopulation is troublesome itself. Attempts to eliminate hedgehogs from bird colonies on the Scottish islands of North Uist and Benbecula in the Outer Hebrides were met with international outrage. Eradication began in 2003 with 690 hedgehogs being killed. Animal welfare groups attempted rescues to save the hedgehogs. By 2007, legal injunctions against the killing of hedgehogs were put in place. In 2008, the elimination process was changed from killing the hedgehogs to trapping them and releasing on the mainland.

Bernice: It's called roadkill Bernice, there was a day when our roads were littered with dead hedgehogs. Scientists who study hedgehogs(it was on the news) are now saying that many are learning to not crawl into a ball which is a natural trait when they feel threatened. And a car.. especially at nights with headlamps is a threat.. so they feel.

Hence .. roadkill.

If you look on google you'll find the story.

(V): I know what roadkill is, but are they more clever in NZ than they are in UK? they were introduced to NZ and are now a pest...*shakes head*

no need to look on giggle...bing is the go.

(V): No. It's rambling nonsense. It avoid the topic entirely. We aren't even talking about any of those silly things you've drawn into the conversation. Bunny trails NOT welcome.

Artful Dodger: Yes we are and I get this every time when I have a point on here.

I can't help remembering things.

(V): You have no point. You ramble around in circles. You don't stay on point. And nothing you bla bla around will change that fact.

What was the geologists main thesis? That's what's being discussed. NOT dinosaurs and hedgehogs.

You've gone off the cliff.

Artful Dodger: People can use examples Art. I see people comparing things to other things on here?

Did I miss another memo??

(V): Ok... it is a fact that we are an adaptive species..


The point AD was trying to make , is that you claimed that he IGNORED the fact that we are an adaptive species when he made his thesis.... give us some proof how you know that this fact was IGNORED?

Czuch: You've summed it up. ;)

Czuch: I've already stated why I think he ignored it. The bloke "Plimer" says the Earth's climate is cyclic and random. To me that is wrong. The climate regarding ice ages and the like is cyclic, true. Random... no. Why ... because they come in cycles. No-one can predict exactly to the minute when they occur, we do not have the weather forecasting ability for that, but they are not random.

But I presumed people here would know that... my bad.

(V): You said: "As to random.. that's only due to lack of info over how. "

If you lack information, how can you draw such a conclusion? The reality is, you can't. You're saying that the scientist is wrong about "random" and you use as evidence in your argument the lack of evidence. How's that work?

Then you say: "Plus he ignores that we are the first race on this planet to be able to change significantly our surroundings, such as deforestation.."

Which you can't possibly REALLY know unless you've read his work in its entirety. Which I doubt you have.

So it makes me wonder how you came to that conclusion. Did a hedgehog whisper it in your ear?

And also: "I agree, the carbon footprint thing is a bit crazy in certain respects, but it's also leading to a cut down in fuel usage by making cars more economical."

If the "carbon footprint" is a bit crazy (it's not scientific and it's nonsense. Carbon dioxide is plant food. The environmentalists treat it like it's a polution. And Co2 levels are DOWN. Temps are up. Where's the connection?

You are saying that the end justifies the means. That's bad policy.

Artful Dodger: You are saying that the end justifies the means. That's bad policy.


Thats exactly what he is saying... that it doesnt really matter how we get people to reduce their "carbon foot print" as long as it happens!

Czuch: Yeah. Interesting that it assumes the very thing is supposed to prove: That in fact there is such a thing as a "carbon footprint" and that such a thing is actually significant to the fact of global warming.

In the 70's it was global cooling. In twenty years from now it will be something else. Politicians and ideologues are always inventing new crises to control people and extort money from the little guy.

Artful Dodger: Perhaps you don't know what I'm referring to Art regarding carbon footprint.. It's to people (or companies) buying the ability to off put their excessive production of carbon by buying someone's lack of production of carbon.

And have you read all his works to know it's true? I just read the article as presented by Czuch and found errors. Maybe it's just the way Jonathan Manthorpe presented it. But based on that presentation, there are concerns I have over what Plimer is saying.

Is that ok?

And if this Plimer bloke is right, then can you (or Czuch) provide from his work (seeing as you two are saying it's right) the evidence to show he is correct??

(V): Its two different arguments..... you made a statement that he had ignored some evidence, but until your recent post, you never gave any evidence that he had. I only claimed to agree with his thesis, there is a difference.

Czuch: Sorry Czuch, sometimes I forget that people might not have read or seen the stuff I have. Most of what I think people know is basic stuff about geology, geography, etc is a case such as this.

As to the carbon footprint business.. I'll have to look and see how much it's worth. Seeing as everyone (pro greenhouse or anti greenhouse) is making a buck, I don't see why we shouldn't

(V): So what is a zero carbon footprint worth these days, in dollars, and who decides this, and how come the government can sell and keep the cash for my personal carbon foot print, shouldnt I have the right to sell my own and keep the cash?