Go Joe facts above ideology

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Y2i...layer_embedded

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...
Go Joe facts above ideology

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Y2i...layer_embedded

Thanks Lawrence.

Will
--

On 10 Sep, 19:07, "Will Hand" wrote:
"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message

...

Go Joe facts above ideology

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Y2i...%2F%2Fwattsupw...

Thanks Lawrence.

Will
--

I normally avoid these sorts of threads, but. . .

I'm proud to be a member of Greenpeace, and in the past an active one.
I take the view that throwing piles of c**p into the environment must
have an effect. The fact that it's not really possible to accurately
evaluate the effect, makes it even more imperitive to minimise our
impact on our world.

The fact that the issue has descended into a political game for
egomaniacs is deeply depressing, and deserves no thanks.

Graham
Penzance

www.greenpeace.org.uk/about

On 10 Sep, 20:25, Graham Easterling
wrote:
On 10 Sep, 19:07, "Will Hand" wrote:

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message

.. .

Go Joe facts above ideology

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Y2i...%2F%2Fwattsupw...

Thanks Lawrence.

Will
--

I normally avoid these sorts of threads, but. . .

I'm proud to be a member of Greenpeace, and in the past an active one.
I take the view that throwing piles of c**p into the environment must
have an effect. The fact that it's not really possible *to accurately
evaluate the effect, makes it even more imperitive to minimise our
impact on our world.

The fact that the issue has descended into a political game for
egomaniacs is deeply depressing, and deserves no thanks.

Graham
Penzance

www.greenpeace.org.uk/about

I'm relieved to NOT be a member of Greenpeace, who continue to bark up
the wrong tree. We are ALL being conned, and eventually people will
wake up to it. In fact they ARE slowly waking up to it, and about
time too. AGW "science" is engineered in favour of government, is
seriously flawed and agenda-ridden, and sooner or later the world and
his brother will wake up to that fact.
Warming wont kill us, but cooling certainly will. Destroy the
economies in the name of AGW, and we'll all freeze or starve, or fight
each other unless disease, pestilence or desertification gets us
first. It's utter madness to believe that cutting "carbon" emissions
in a handful of locations, is going to have an iota of effect
globally. Gases don't recognise boundaries, and even if they did it
would make bugger all difference. Reduce pollution by all means, but
don't have the arrogance to believe you can mess with the climate,
there are far greater forces at work than the puny efforts of mankind.

Oh, and Dawlish, don't take this as an invitation for abuse, if you
don't mind.

CK

"Graham Easterling" wrote in message
...
On 10 Sep, 19:07, "Will Hand" wrote:
"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message

...

Go Joe facts above ideology

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Y2i...%2F%2Fwattsupw...

Thanks Lawrence.

Will
--

I normally avoid these sorts of threads, but. . .

I'm proud to be a member of Greenpeace, and in the past an active one.
I take the view that throwing piles of c**p into the environment must
have an effect. The fact that it's not really possible to accurately
evaluate the effect, makes it even more imperitive to minimise our
impact on our world.

The fact that the issue has descended into a political game for
egomaniacs is deeply depressing, and deserves no thanks.

Graham
Penzance

www.greenpeace.org.uk/about

To be fair Graham Joe was complimentary of the aims of Greenpeace but was
clearly -and I have seen another video of this-hacked of with the claims
that the California fires were due to AGW and that was the point.

If I may Joe. Greenpeace was once purely about environmental issue but they
have been hijacked by politics over the last twenty years which kind of
coincided with the demise of the TUC -as we once new it.

Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

Go Joe facts above ideology


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Y2i...layer_embedded

I thought I would agree with him about the Californian wildfires - it
being stupid of Greenpeace to tie one event to global warming - but his
explanation relied on an SST anomaly chart from Spring of last year to
"prove" his point that global cooling is to blame! Why didn't he show
current SST charts that must show it's even cooler? Could it be because
the SST off California - and most of the N Pacific - is warmer than
usual? Could have been difficult to explain that one away.

I see the SST-anomaly chart has Accuweather brand all over the heading
when it's someone else's product. Par for the course, I suppose.

Not only is he a *******i, he's a lying one.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

On Sep 11, 7:21*am, Graham P Davis wrote:
Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
Go Joe facts above ideology

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Y2i...%2F%2Fwattsupw....

I thought I would agree with him about the Californian wildfires - it
being stupid of Greenpeace to tie one event to global warming - but his
explanation relied on an SST anomaly chart from Spring of last year to
"prove" his point that global cooling is to blame! Why didn't he show
current SST charts that must show it's even cooler? Could it be because
the SST off California - and most of the N Pacific - is warmer than
usual? Could have been difficult to explain that one away.

I see the SST-anomaly chart has Accuweather brand all over the heading
when it's someone else's product. Par for the course, I suppose.

Not only is he a *******i, he's a lying one.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. *E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

*******i - a lower form of life. Natsman, you're ranting.

"Natsman" wrote in message
...
On 10 Sep, 20:25, Graham Easterling
wrote:
On 10 Sep, 19:07, "Will Hand" wrote:

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message

.. .

Go Joe facts above ideology

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Y2i...%2F%2Fwattsupw...

Thanks Lawrence.

Will
--

I normally avoid these sorts of threads, but. . .

I'm proud to be a member of Greenpeace, and in the past an active one.
I take the view that throwing piles of c**p into the environment must
have an effect. The fact that it's not really possible to accurately
evaluate the effect, makes it even more imperitive to minimise our
impact on our world.

The fact that the issue has descended into a political game for
egomaniacs is deeply depressing, and deserves no thanks.

Graham
Penzance

www.greenpeace.org.uk/about

I'm relieved to NOT be a member of Greenpeace, who continue to bark up
the wrong tree. We are ALL being conned, and eventually people will
wake up to it. In fact they ARE slowly waking up to it, and about
time too. AGW "science" is engineered in favour of government, is
seriously flawed and agenda-ridden, and sooner or later the world and
his brother will wake up to that fact.
Warming wont kill us, but cooling certainly will. Destroy the
economies in the name of AGW, and we'll all freeze or starve, or fight
each other unless disease, pestilence or desertification gets us
first. It's utter madness to believe that cutting "carbon" emissions
in a handful of locations, is going to have an iota of effect
globally. Gases don't recognise boundaries, and even if they did it
would make bugger all difference. Reduce pollution by all means, but
don't have the arrogance to believe you can mess with the climate,
there are far greater forces at work than the puny efforts of mankind.

Oh, and Dawlish, don't take this as an invitation for abuse, if you
don't mind.

CK

I have to agree with that.

I know people here will say whets politics got to do with weather/climate
science but the immediate jumping to conclusions that every weather extreme
event is the fault of humans makes my blood boil.

If humans had made and environmentally informed choice not to utilise fossil
fuels we would al be seeing and average age of thirty, no light, warmth,
medicine, nutrition and of course no NG. Ironically the things that concern
us in our very pampered world would go straight to the bottom of the pile
of important things that need attending. I've said it many times before that
this quality of life we now take for granted has only been around about a
hundred years and go back 300 the best the natural world offered was misery
and struggle.

Oh how we all, Greenpeace included , will miss it all when it's gone.

On 10 Sep, 20:17, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Graham Easterling" wrote in message

...



On 10 Sep, 19:07, "Will Hand" wrote:
"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message

. ..

Go Joe facts above ideology

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Y2i...%2F%2Fwattsupw...

Thanks Lawrence.

Will
--

I normally avoid these sorts of threads, but. . .

I'm proud to be a member of Greenpeace, and in the past an active one.
I take the view that throwing piles of c**p into the environment must
have an effect. The fact that it's not really possible *to accurately
evaluate the effect, makes it even more imperitive to minimise our
impact on our world.

The fact that the issue has descended into a political game for
egomaniacs is deeply depressing, and deserves no thanks.

Graham
Penzance

www.greenpeace.org.uk/about

To be fair Graham Joe was complimentary of the aims of Greenpeace but was
clearly -and I have seen another video of this-hacked of with the claims
that the California fires were due to AGW and that was the point.


Fair enough Lawrence, I agree that blaming individual events on AGW is
a mistake.

If I may Joe. Greenpeace was once purely about environmental issue but they
have been hijacked by politics over the last twenty years which kind of
coincided with the demise of the TUC -as we once new it

The fact that the whole issue has become so political is certainly a
problem. Greenpeace do their best to avoid becoming a political tool
by not taking donations from corporations or political parties.

Graham

"RWood" wrote in message
...
On Sep 11, 7:21 am, Graham P Davis wrote:
Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
Go Joe facts above ideology

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Y2i...%2F%2Fwattsupw...

I thought I would agree with him about the Californian wildfires - it
being stupid of Greenpeace to tie one event to global warming - but his
explanation relied on an SST anomaly chart from Spring of last year to
"prove" his point that global cooling is to blame! Why didn't he show
current SST charts that must show it's even cooler? Could it be because
the SST off California - and most of the N Pacific - is warmer than
usual? Could have been difficult to explain that one away.

I see the SST-anomaly chart has Accuweather brand all over the heading
when it's someone else's product. Par for the course, I suppose.

Not only is he a *******i, he's a lying one.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

*******i - a lower form of life. Natsman, you're ranting.

Why is that Ronnie, because you disagree with him you feel it necessary to
call him a lower form of life.