http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

11/6/2006 4:04:54 PM

Don't do that.

11/6/2006 4:10:04 PM

^Don't do that

11/6/2006 4:15:19 PM

There's a clear rule in here that you don't just come on, and make a thread that contains a link. You have to in some way get the discussion started.

It's not like this section is a wiki of news links.

11/6/2006 4:16:00 PM

isnt there also a clear rule that you dont just post in a thread with a one liner of your own that has nothing to do with the link/article?

plus what could possibly be less biased than simply posting an article without giving the readers (subsequent TWW posters) any preconceived notions about the topic...would you prefer a strong passionate opinion about one side of the issue or the other or just the "facts" of the article without any TWW user spin?

11/6/2006 4:18:15 PM

Well, my post had relevance to the thread itself.

Besides, this isn't a news outlet. It's a forum for discussion and debate.

11/6/2006 4:22:07 PM

^^well considering it's called "soap box" and not "news outlet", i'd prefer people to state their opinions about things.

if you want to just post an article, put it in lounge or chit chat.

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 4:23 PM. Reason : /]

11/6/2006 4:22:49 PM

my opinion is that Monckton's article and point of view should get out there to the public...the people should have more than one side of the issue...I just hope we don't get too much immediate dismissal of the content of the article on the sole basis of "omg thats just a conservative newspaper funded by the oil companies"

11/6/2006 4:25:53 PM

^ how about this...

That newspaper is an outlet of the big oil companies and its pointless to read it and the UN is obviously overreacting and going about this in completely the wrong way.

11/6/2006 4:30:55 PM

sigh

11/6/2006 4:33:16 PM

dont tell me you believe any of these idiots

11/6/2006 4:34:11 PM

what idots are those? did you read the article at all? or does a powerpoint presentation with a video clip of a piece of glacier falling into the ocean hold more factual weight than the data that this guy used which can be viewed here? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=AIGPAYTJF450TQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0

11/6/2006 4:39:08 PM

thats super...

im not saying we need to legislate anything but things are happening to the planet that we cant explain which could be a serious poop on our world party.

but i'll be dead and i dont live by the coast so who cares....

11/6/2006 4:43:39 PM

Quote :

"things are happening to the planet that we cant explain "

exactly...we cant explain some of these things...so why are some of us so quick to jump to the unexplicable conclusion that humans are definitely killing the planet and disaster is eminent in just another decade or two?

11/6/2006 4:50:34 PM

^ I personally think people who say that are crazy.

But this doesnt mean we cant be smart about it and cut down on our pollution. But it most likely doesnt matter.

alot of places will be underwater in a few decades regardless of what we do however.

11/6/2006 4:54:12 PM

Quote :

"alot of places will be underwater in a few decades regardless of what we do"

I personally think people who say that are crazy.

11/6/2006 4:56:21 PM

the dude references michael crichton's book in his "scholarly" article multiple times. talk about <sigh>

11/6/2006 4:58:17 PM

that must mean nothing he says holds any weight

11/6/2006 4:59:58 PM

Bangladesh is falling into the ocean

http://www.christianaid.org.uk/indepth/605caweek/chap%205.pdf

its lost a few kilometers of coast line in the last few years.

11/6/2006 5:00:18 PM

^^bingo. i'm not going to read a thirty page review article that doesn't really come to its own conclusions or discuss the methods used.

i also am not a climatoligist, so i really don't know enough to validate methodology in the first place.

furthermore, this guy isn't a climatologist, he was an . . .wait for it. . . advisor to a conservative prime minister in england. big shocker there.

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 5:07 PM. Reason : ..]

11/6/2006 5:07:10 PM

was al gore a climatologist?

then why do so many people believe everything he says about climate change?

11/6/2006 5:08:56 PM

they dont believe him

they agree with him

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 5:10 PM. Reason : also Bangladesh is still falling into the ocean]

11/6/2006 5:09:58 PM

or any other politician for that matter

who is not a climatologist

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 5:11 PM. Reason : also thats geologically impossible if you had a rudimentary understanding of plate tectonics]

11/6/2006 5:10:48 PM

it has horrible soil which has been overworked and erosion is eating it.

its happening regardless of your belief of it.

11/6/2006 5:13:34 PM

north carolina is "falling in the ocean" if the only requisite for "falling into the ocean" is sedimentary erosion

11/6/2006 5:21:10 PM

NC isnt losing kilometers of land over several years.

11/6/2006 10:11:14 PM

^^^^who does the reasearch and publishes the reports that say this?

hint: its not politicians.

11/6/2006 10:12:19 PM

Its always fun to attack the messenger in an article like this, but the guy does make some very valid points.

Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick", the focal point of the 2001 UN climate conference and a visual aid that continues to be used in arguments such as the ones in this forum, is a bunch of bullshit.

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=799

11/6/2006 11:13:09 PM