Brown pledges extra £7.5 BILLION while at Copenhagen

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1236659/Copenhagen-climate-change-conference-World-leaders-reach-Copenhagen-agreement--officials-admit-enough.html


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/12/18/article-1236659-07A70688000005DC-833_306x419.jpg



Copenhagen climate change summit delegates have recognised a US-backed agreement on climate change, passing a motion this morning. The decision follows a US-led group of five nations - including China - tabling a last-minute proposal that US President Barack Obama called a 'meaningful agreement'. It came as delegates began to fear the summit would end without a meaningful resolution being reached.

This morning the conference said it 'takes note' of the accord - and said the document setting out the deal would specify a list of countries which agreed with it, as some nations were still adamant they would not accept it. The deal includes references to keeping temperature rises to no more than 2C and provisions for finance to help poor countries fight global warming.

Soeaking last night, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the agreement was 'a vital first step' but accepted that a lot more work was required to turn it into the legal treaty he had originally wanted to secure at the summit
He said: 'This is the first step we are taking towards a green and low carbon future for the world, steps we are taking together. First steps are difficult, but they are also necessary.' He said China opposed turning the proposals into a treaty 'for the wrong reasons: clinging to their version of what they think international organisations should not do'.

Mr Brown had offered to hand over £7.5 billion in extra cash to developing countries to sweeten the deal. He also offered to cut Britain's carbon emissions by an eye-watering 42 per cent - 10 times the level offered by the United States. But in a further humiliation Mr Brown was not included in a list of world leaders personally thanked by Barack Obama for their contribution to the talks. The 11th-hour deal followed two years of negotiations and a fortnight of intensive talks aimed at saving the planet.Its almost as if he's trying to make it as bad as possible for whoever forms the next government. While our debt spirals and business becomes weary of investing in the UK, while we're still one of the only nations still in recession Gordy just keeps on spending. And where is the opposition to this? Cameron has not said one thing on this, this man is supposed to be an alternative to the idiots we have incharge now - where he is!?. and.. he wonders why the Conservatives are so low against Labour in the polls!. Is it any wonder why people are turning to UKIP and the BNP?

On Obama he seems to be snubbing the UK at every point he can, despite the fact we are one of the only NATO members having any real contribution to the Afganhistan war, so whether or not you agree with the war, would it not make common sense for Obama to seek closer ties with us rather than France and Germany? - but hey why should he when France and Germany creates most of our laws anyway.

Thoughts, and should the UK be pledging this amount of money,if any at all at Copenhgan?

[Wig44.]

Berlusconi what do you think of Mr Obama?

<Insert unacceptable yet hilarious comment>

[GommeInc]

Meh, let the different leaders discuss trivial and meaningless issues and waste more money. It makes them happy as it drives away from anything they will ever do that is useful. The only thing that shoud come from this, is aid to third world countries who are tackling the changes in their area which cannot be stopped from chucking money at exhaust fumes. But even still, some could just move further inland and make use of the water, rather than sit in it :/

[-:Undertaker:-]

Mr Mugabe will be able to buy all his generals and himself a new porche each.

[Alkaz]

This country is too polite - We need to sort ourselves out before we can even consider helping others. The country is in a diabolical state.

[Tash.]

I might be the only one thinking this, but the debt may not make much difference if our country continues to flood in the way it currently does. Flooding costs us alot of money, and you can deny that global warming exists all you want, but green house gases have contributed to the world heating up. Big big polluters such as the US, China etc all need to cut their emissions and this is what this whole thing about. Money will mean nothing at all if the world ceases to exist so yeah, put it into perspective. Oh and I fully expect to be ridiculed for this view but it's my thoughts on this, so think very carefully what you write when you try.

[Robbie]

I might be the only one thinking this, but the debt may not make much difference if our country continues to flood in the way it currently does. Flooding costs us alot of money, and you can deny that global warming exists all you want, but green house gases have contributed to the world heating up. Big big polluters such as the US, China etc all need to cut their emissions and this is what this whole thing about. Money will mean nothing at all if the world ceases to exist so yeah, put it into perspective. Oh and I fully expect to be ridiculed for this view but it's my thoughts on this, so think very carefully what you write when you try.

Wouldn't have as much flooding if we didn't build on flood plains (tip: clue in the name, gordon)

[Tash.]

Wouldn't have as much flooding if we didn't build on flood plains (tip: clue in the name, gordon)

On flood plains? Alot of these places which flood have been lived on for hundreds of years :S Infact it is the most natural thing in the world to live near a source of water, hence in earlier times alot of people lived near rivers etc. I can't see how you can blame Gordon Brown for building on flood plains at all. Unless i'm missing something here?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I might be the only one thinking this, but the debt may not make much difference if our country continues to flood in the way it currently does. Flooding costs us alot of money, and you can deny that global warming exists all you want, but green house gases have contributed to the world heating up. Big big polluters such as the US, China etc all need to cut their emissions and this is what this whole thing about. Money will mean nothing at all if the world ceases to exist so yeah, put it into perspective. Oh and I fully expect to be ridiculed for this view but it's my thoughts on this, so think very carefully what you write when you try.

We have always had flooding, flooding was occuring millions of years ago and will continue long after humanity has gone (if we ever do).


On flood plains? Alot of these places which flood have been lived on for hundreds of years :S Infact it is the most natural thing in the world to live near a source of water, hence in earlier times alot of people lived near rivers etc. I can't see how you can blame Gordon Brown for building on flood plains at all. Unless i'm missing something here?

They haven't all been lived on for hundreds of years, for those that have - they have always flooded. It is just like when houses next to a river flood because of terrible rain, you know its pretty much common sense so much that someone in a vegatitive state could work out;

..you build next to a river + heavy rain = flood

On top of this you have the problems that surfacing of areas creates with excess water run off which overwhelmes river systems far faster, as flood plains have been built on and the outlets of the river have been cut off = flooding along the whole river system.

On Gormless Gord and his Labour cronies, yes it is partly their fault. They allowed the building of thousands of new homes on flood-risk areas which will not only make those houses unsellable when they flood meaning families are basically uninsured and stuck, but it also makes it worse for those downstream.

[GommeInc]

On flood plains? Alot of these places which flood have been lived on for hundreds of years :S Infact it is the most natural thing in the world to live near a source of water, hence in earlier times alot of people lived near rivers etc. I can't see how you can blame Gordon Brown for building on flood plains at all. Unless i'm missing something here?
It's been raining since time immorial, flooding inland shouldn't and isn't at all related to this. Climate change only really effects the sea level, seeing as that what is proposed to go up. When rain goes inland it is beyond any ones control, seeing as rain isn't a new invention that came about due to climate change. Coastal defences and the sea level are the main fears for this country, what happens inland isn't at all related to the sea level (for obvious reasons).

And all countries have flood plains, unfortunately not all countries are aware of what flood plains are so therefore think it wise to build towns and developments around rivers that are probably prone to, or will be prone to flooding when a town is built around them.

[Tash.]

I'm not sure you got the point of what I wrote. I never said that the flooding was a direct result of global warming. Of course flooding has occured since the beginning of humanity, but what I was trying to say is that global warming (or at least the melting of the ice caps if you don't believe in the term 'global warming') is making sea levels rise. This in turn creates a very real threat of lower land within countries including ours becoming almost permanantely flooded. What I was saying is, the money it's costing us to try and preempt this threat is little to what it may continue to cost us if sea levels continue to rise.

On the whole building on flood plains thing, you cannot blame 'Gordon and his cronies' for building houses. This country is relatively small and people are always crying out for more housing. We're actually running out of space to build. If they didn't build new houses then you'd also be on their backs for not providing services we need. They can do no right.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm not sure you got the point of what I wrote. I never said that the flooding was a direct result of global warming. Of course flooding has occured since the beginning of humanity, but what I was trying to say is that global warming (or at least the melting of the ice caps if you don't believe in the term 'global warming') is making sea levels rise. This in turn creates a very real threat of lower land within countries including ours becoming almost permanantely flooded. What I was saying is, the money it's costing us to try and preempt this threat is little to what it may continue to cost us if sea levels continue to rise.

On the whole building on flood plains thing, you cannot blame 'Gordon and his cronies' for building houses. This country is relatively small and people are always crying out for more housing. We're actually running out of space to build. If they didn't build new houses then you'd also be on their backs for not providing services we need. They can do no right.

The sea levels haven't risen though, what can effect or appear to effect the levels of the oceans/seas are the pull of the moon and longshore drift. There is no part of the UK from what I have heard or any evidence has been provided on which shows any levels of water have risen at all.

Yes I can blame Gordon Brown, you do not build on flood plains you build on deralict brownfield sites instead of the countryside and flood plains which ties in with what I was saying earlier about common sense - something which this government, Gordon Brown and the left in general seem to lack which explains why they have never been able to run one country in the history of this planet successfully.

If we are running out of space to build then perhaps its time to look at our immigration policy - the point is I don't believe we are running out of space to build. If managed properly then housing regeneration is the better path taken and a cheaper path taken rather than building a whole new generation of houses on the edges of already tatty 1960 outer-town developments.

[Tash.]

The sea levels haven't risen though, what can effect or appear to effect the levels of the oceans/seas are the pull of the moon and longshore drift. There is no part of the UK from what I have heard or any evidence has been provided on which shows any levels of water have risen at all.

Yes I can blame Gordon Brown, you do not build on flood plains you build on deralict brownfield sites instead of the countryside and flood plains which ties in with what I was saying earlier about common sense - something which this government, Gordon Brown and the left in general seem to lack which explains why they have never been able to run one country in the history of this planet successfully.

If we are running out of space to build then perhaps its time to look at our immigration policy - the point is I don't believe we are running out of space to build. If managed properly then housing regeneration is the better path taken and a cheaper path taken rather than building a whole new generation of houses on the edges of already tatty 1960 outer-town developments.

No disrespect to you, i'm sure you are a very intelligent person, but I choose to believe the experts on such things over you. Perhaps a better way to get across what I was trying to say is that the ice caps are melting. This is a fact and regardless of the reasons behind this, this will eventually lead the sea levels to rise even if they haven't done so yet. When this happens (not if), we are all going to be paying for it in one way or another. I live on low ground, in a vale even, and we flood here alot - every year infact. I for one do not want to have to abandon the city I grew up in because it is no longer inhabitable. Evidence shows that this might be a real threat in my lifetime. I for one am happy for as much money to be spent on trying to stop this from happening quicker as possible.

Gordon Brown himself has been in office just over 2 years, alot of the policies surrounding house building probably are not his own. On this same vein of thought, you cannot blame him for some of the things the Labour government have been doing on housing. And as for the:


"common sense - something which this government, Gordon Brown and the left in general seem to lack which explains why they have never been able to run one country in the history of this planet successfully."

I honestly would challenge you to provide me with an example of a government (and i'm not speaking only about within the UK, you can go wider if you wish) that has done EVERYTHING right. Where there has been no opposition to any policies they have had or anything. You won't find one, they don't exist. I'm not getting into politics with you because I don't have the energy nor the will to debate UKIP with you, but I would love to see them try and do things any better because I tell you it won't happen. All governments are eventually remembered only for the bad things they do, never anything good.

As for the immigration thing, I wrote what I did with the knowledge you would right something similar back. You don't believe we are running out of space to build, and that's fine, but I was taught something entirely different. We no longer build upwards, and alot of our countryside is rightly protected from building developments, but this causes a problem when the UK population, and the world's population is increasing at an alarming rate.

[dbgtz]

We should get out of debt first :l Pretty simple IMO, make people pay for certain things and get rid of useless things which nobody needs, loads of things today, for me, are pointless such as certain job titles. I don't see why we need like 20,000 or something MPs, that could easily be cut by half I think. Also people who earn a certain amount should not get "the complete NHS package", so if they make over £30k or something then they cannot recieve prescriptions or if they make over £100,000 then they have to pay for it all.

Btw to the melting ice-caps, I don't think they're rising as most of the ice is in the water already so if it does rise it will be miniscule imo.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No disrespect to you, i'm sure you are a very intelligent person, but I choose to believe the experts on such things over you. Perhaps a better way to get across what I was trying to say is that the ice caps are melting. This is a fact and regardless of the reasons behind this, this will eventually lead the sea levels to rise even if they haven't done so yet. When this happens (not if), we are all going to be paying for it in one way or another. I live on low ground, in a vale even, and we flood here alot - every year infact. I for one do not want to have to abandon the city I grew up in because it is no longer inhabitable. Evidence shows that this might be a real threat in my lifetime. I for one am happy for as much money to be spent on trying to stop this from happening quicker as possible. The experts who are paid by the government?. The experts who sent a letter to the US President in the 70s and 80s predicting another ice age?. The experts who happen to support higher taxes on the people of countries around the world who just happen to recieve very generous grants from central government and the European Union? - I know what I believe, not myself but common sense.

The ice caps melting? - well why haven't sea levels risen already then? - until I start seeing the River Mersey or the Irish Sea rising then I will not believe a damn word of it, on the ice caps - you see ice caps collapsing and do you know why this is?; I shall explain.

a) the ice caps have always regenerated by pushing out from the polar centres, and thus ice on the edges will collapse into the sea as it is constantly being pushed outwards by newer ice in the centre. If this did not happen then the poles would be ice mountains which would be thousands if not millions of feet in height at this point in time.

b) the ice caps melt in the summer but reform in the winter, to what extent they reform can vary on each year and will do so while the ice caps are present. Sunlight melts ice.

On where you live, you live in a basin then. What needs to happen thanks to mass-urbanization is for better drainage and planning to take place but this will not stop flooding, if you live on low ground then you will get flooding and always have had flooing.


Gordon Brown himself has been in office just over 2 years, alot of the policies surrounding house building probably are not his own. On this same vein of thought, you cannot blame him for some of the things the Labour government have been doing on housing. And as for the:Gordon Browns treasury funded John Prescotts department and mass-town planning schemes, Gordon Brown funded the Iraq war. Gordon Brown funded everything - so the left needs to stop pretending poor Gordy has been plonked into a mess, hes been put in a mess which he created and a mess which we will have to suffer for years to come, while Gordon and the rest of the disgraced Labour cabinet go off to the EU for nicely funded jobs which will still be paid for by us.


I honestly would challenge you to provide me with an example of a government (and i'm not speaking only about within the UK, you can go wider if you wish) that has done EVERYTHING right. Where there has been no opposition to any policies they have had or anything. You won't find one, they don't exist. I'm not getting into politics with you because I don't have the energy nor the will to debate UKIP with you, but I would love to see them try and do things any better because I tell you it won't happen. All governments are eventually remembered only for the bad things they do, never anything good.The Thatcher government is a government I can point to for getting most things right, or at least improving the country. The Churchill government (first time) is another example. Every single time a Labour government gains office it creates the same old mess.

What would UKIP do better? - stop giving billions upon billions of our money to tinpot leaders like Robert Mugabe and start spending it on things that are real, things that make a difference like umm.. I don't know maybe; military, NHS drugs, infastructure and lower taxes to make peoples lives easier.

Take a look at the Callgahan government, i'm no Conservative Party fan at the moment with cast-iron Dave incharge, but I know from past governments records that the Conservatives are capable of running a government, the opposite of a Labour government or any left government in general.


As for the immigration thing, I wrote what I did with the knowledge you would right something similar back. You don't believe we are running out of space to build, and that's fine, but I was taught something entirely different. We no longer build upwards, and alot of our countryside is rightly protected from building developments, but this causes a problem when the UK population, and the world's population is increasing at an alarming rate.If you believe we are running out of space then surely you believe immigration should be stopped or cut as soon as possible?

[Tash.]

The experts who are paid by the government?. The experts who sent a letter to the US President in the 70s and 80s predicting another ice age?. The experts who happen to support higher taxes on the people of countries around the world who just happen to recieve very generous grants from central government and the European Union? - I know what I believe, not myself but common sense.

The ice caps melting? - well why haven't sea levels risen already then? - until I start seeing the River Mersey or the Irish Sea rising then I will not believe a damn word of it, on the ice caps - you see ice caps collapsing and do you know why this is?; I shall explain.

a) the ice caps have always regenerated by pushing out from the polar centres, and thus ice on the edges will collapse into the sea as it is constantly being pushed outwards by newer ice in the centre. If this did not happen then the poles would be ice mountains which would be thousands if not millions of feet in height at this point in time.

b) the ice caps melt in the summer but reform in the winter, to what extent they reform can vary on each year and will do so while the ice caps are present. Sunlight melts ice.

On where you live, you live in a basin then. What needs to happen thanks to mass-urbanization is for better drainage and planning to take place but this will not stop flooding, if you live on low ground then you will get flooding and always have had flooing.

Gordon Browns treasury funded John Prescotts department and mass-town planning schemes, Gordon Brown funded the Iraq war. Gordon Brown funded everything - so the left needs to stop pretending poor Gordy has been plonked into a mess, hes been put in a mess which he created and a mess which we will have to suffer for years to come, while Gordon and the rest of the disgraced Labour cabinet go off to the EU for nicely funded jobs which will still be paid for by us.

The Thatcher government is a government I can point to for getting most things right, or at least improving the country. The Churchill government (first time) is another example. Every single time a Labour government gains office it creates the same old mess.

What would UKIP do better? - stop giving billions upon billions of our money to tinpot leaders like Robert Mugabe and start spending it on things that are real, things that make a difference like umm.. I don't know maybe; military, NHS drugs, infastructure and lower taxes to make peoples lives easier.

Take a look at the Callgahan government, i'm no Conservative Party fan at the moment with cast-iron Dave incharge, but I know from past governments records that the Conservatives are capable of running a government, the opposite of a Labour government or any left government in general.

If you believe we are running out of space then surely you believe immigration should be stopped or cut as soon as possible?

It's quite evident to me that you see yourself as some sort of rebel, though against what i'm yet to discover as you appear to despise many many things for no real reason. Yes, I trust the experts who are paid by the government as they have the relevant knowledge and experience to support their views. Common sense has nothing to do with this, your common sense will not tell you at what rate the ice caps are melting, nor will it tell you at what rate the ozone is depleting either so using your common sense won't get you very far.

I'm pretty confident I know why the ice caps are melting, and yes those reasoons you kindly explained for me in a very derogatory manner are part of it. However, the earth is warming. It is only common sense, a thing you apparently like to use, that ice is going to melt when temperatures increase. You might not want to except it until you see it with your own eyes in this country, but I for one don't want to let it get that far and i'm sure others don't either.

Yes like I said, the Vale of York has always flooded and probably always will, but does that mean that it can't get worse? No it doesn't, currently where I live in York it doesn't flood but I don't want it to get to the point where it does. I'm sure other people living in a basin would share my sentiments.

Again, yes Gordon Brown was the chancellor, but do you honestly think alot of the decisions for funding were down to his beliefs on things? I don't think so, and if you do you're more naive than I thought. In politics, and you really should know this considering how deeply into the whole subject you are, nothing is straight forward. Brown did not create the entirety of the mess we are in, he did not regulate all the banks in the world and therefore he is not responsible for the current downturn. And oh look, yet again you seem to have managed to relate this current debate back to the EU, please just leave it alone because it's getting tiresome.

The Thatcher government? Ok, I have just one question, are you crazy? She is well known to have pretty much ruined this country. I aren't proud of this as a feminist as it appears to many that a woman running this country will never be any good, but the fact still stands - she was horrible. She managed to alienate hundreds of thousands of people and some of her policies we're still paying for today, so no she is not a good example at all.

And no, I do not believe that immigration is solely to blame. It may have escaped your notice, what with you being a major advocate for the complete halt of immigration, but there are 'families', and I use that term loosely, that keep reproducing despite the fact that they have no means to upgrade to a bigger house when they do end up with too many people to house. That is a major problem.

[Seatherny]

The experts who are paid by the government?. The experts who sent a letter to the US President in the 70s and 80s predicting another ice age?. The experts who happen to support higher taxes on the people of countries around the world who just happen to recieve very generous grants from central government and the European Union? - I know what I believe, not myself but common sense.

The ice caps melting? - well why haven't sea levels risen already then? - until I start seeing the River Mersey or the Irish Sea rising then I will not believe a damn word of it, on the ice caps - you see ice caps collapsing and do you know why this is?; I shall explain.

a) the ice caps have always regenerated by pushing out from the polar centres, and thus ice on the edges will collapse into the sea as it is constantly being pushed outwards by newer ice in the centre. If this did not happen then the poles would be ice mountains which would be thousands if not millions of feet in height at this point in time.

b) the ice caps melt in the summer but reform in the winter, to what extent they reform can vary on each year and will do so while the ice caps are present. Sunlight melts ice.

On where you live, you live in a basin then. What needs to happen thanks to mass-urbanization is for better drainage and planning to take place but this will not stop flooding, if you live on low ground then you will get flooding and always have had flooing.

Gordon Browns treasury funded John Prescotts department and mass-town planning schemes, Gordon Brown funded the Iraq war. Gordon Brown funded everything - so the left needs to stop pretending poor Gordy has been plonked into a mess, hes been put in a mess which he created and a mess which we will have to suffer for years to come, while Gordon and the rest of the disgraced Labour cabinet go off to the EU for nicely funded jobs which will still be paid for by us.

The Thatcher government is a government I can point to for getting most things right, or at least improving the country. The Churchill government (first time) is another example. Every single time a Labour government gains office it creates the same old mess.

What would UKIP do better? - stop giving billions upon billions of our money to tinpot leaders like Robert Mugabe and start spending it on things that are real, things that make a difference like umm.. I don't know maybe; military, NHS drugs, infastructure and lower taxes to make peoples lives easier.

Take a look at the Callgahan government, i'm no Conservative Party fan at the moment with cast-iron Dave incharge, but I know from past governments records that the Conservatives are capable of running a government, the opposite of a Labour government or any left government in general.

If you believe we are running out of space then surely you believe immigration should be stopped or cut as soon as possible?

Experts said we would have no petrol by 2000. They now say its about 2050 or something. They are never accurate but they aren't wrong either.

You claim you dont know much about the ozone, so I am unable to understand how you can argue about this point? Fossil fuels are burnt, causing a hole in the ozone, causing earth to warm up, causing ice to melt.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's quite evident to me that you see yourself as some sort of rebel, though against what i'm yet to discover as you appear to despise many many things for no real reason. Yes, I trust the experts who are paid by the government as they have the relevant knowledge and experience to support their views. Common sense has nothing to do with this, your common sense will not tell you at what rate the ice caps are melting, nor will it tell you at what rate the ozone is depleting either so using your common sense won't get you very far.Rebel because I disagree with you, Labour and the European Union? - well if i'm a rebel most of this country is for sure a rebel because most people on the streets don't want EU and don't believe in global warming, or as its called nowadays climate change.

On the common sense, yes it would. If the ice caps are melting then my common sense would of detected a sea rise when i'm on the beach or at the docks at the River Mersey - no sea rise. As I said before, the others factors I mentioned are in play and not climate change.


I'm pretty confident I know why the ice caps are melting, and yes those reasoons you kindly explained for me in a very derogatory manner are part of it. However, the earth is warming. It is only common sense, a thing you apparently like to use, that ice is going to melt when temperatures increase. You might not want to except it until you see it with your own eyes in this country, but I for one don't want to let it get that far and i'm sure others don't either. You have just said the Earth is warming right after acknowledging what I explained to you, even when I explain in a simple a) and b) way its ignored, but am I genuinely suprised? - not really.


Yes like I said, the Vale of York has always flooded and probably always will, but does that mean that it can't get worse? No it doesn't, currently where I live in York it doesn't flood but I don't want it to get to the point where it does. I'm sure other people living in a basin would share my sentiments.Oh so now you are saying the climate COULD warm, well that sums up the whole climate issue to anybody reading this that without a shadow of a doubt all the facts such as the ones I mentioned are ignored, and everything is based on what could happen. A lot of things could happe, a volcano could sprout up in my back garden overnight but we don't spend billions upon billions on 'preventing' it because its simply not a threat, just like climate change.


Again, yes Gordon Brown was the chancellor, but do you honestly think alot of the decisions for funding were down to his beliefs on things? I don't think so, and if you do you're more naive than I thought. In politics, and you really should know this considering how deeply into the whole subject you are, nothing is straight forward. Brown did not create the entirety of the mess we are in, he did not regulate all the banks in the world and therefore he is not responsible for the current downturn. And oh look, yet again you seem to have managed to relate this current debate back to the EU, please just leave it alone because it's getting tiresome. Yes, traditionally and even more so with the last government the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a lot of control over spending, as was said before; if the treasury would of refused funding for the Iraq war then the premiership of Tony Blair would of collapsed overnight.

On the downturn, Gordon sold our gold off at a stupendously cheap price, Gordon failed to see the collapse in financial capital coming which many were predicting (even I noticed in that summer before the collapse of major banks how the housing market was on its last legs) - something had to give. Gordons hands are all over it, especially when he funded a very wasteful state splashout during the last decade and continues to do so to this day, using our money to pay hundreds of thousands of buracrats in whitehall and across town halls in this country (not to mention the rising sums to the EU and tinpots like President Mugabe).


The Thatcher government? Ok, I have just one question, are you crazy? She is well known to have pretty much ruined this country. I aren't proud of this as a feminist as it appears to many that a woman running this country will never be any good, but the fact still stands - she was horrible. She managed to alienate hundreds of thousands of people and some of her policies we're still paying for today, so no she is not a good example at all.I have one question for you; how (tell me how and what) did the Thatcher government ruin this country?

You obviously have not heard of the winter of discontent, the strikes, Sunny Jim, the Kinnocks, Aruther Scargill, Derek Hatton and our good friend Michael Foot whos manifesto was perhaps the most famous (and absurd) manifesto in history.


And no, I do not believe that immigration is solely to blame. It may have escaped your notice, what with you being a major advocate for the complete halt of immigration, but there are 'families', and I use that term loosely, that keep reproducing despite the fact that they have no means to upgrade to a bigger house when they do end up with too many people to house. That is a major problem.I do not want a complete halt to immigration, yet again you (the left) shows it cannot accept the fact that people want simple controls our immigration to stop our country turning into a crime-ridden racial ghetto, but hey as I have said before, i'm not suprised.


Experts said we would have no petrol by 2000. They now say its about 2050 or something. They are never accurate but they aren't wrong either.

You claim you dont know much about the ozone, so I am unable to understand how you can argue about this point? Fossil fuels are burnt, causing a hole in the ozone, causing earth to warm up, causing ice to melt.

Thanks for proving my point.

You and Tash have both ignored my points in sea levels, ice pushing from the poles, pull of the moon, longshore drift and others, so it is infact me who is unable to understand how you can argue about this point and not the other way around.

[Seatherny]

Thanks for proving my point.

You and Tash have both ignored my points in sea levels, ice pushing from the poles, pull of the moon, longshore drift and others, so it is infact me who is unable to understand how you can argue about this point and not the other way around.

I will reply to the rest of your post later. But did you even read what I said or are you just being plain ignorant again? Pull of moon etc have been happening since the beginning :S wth.

Did you not read what I said?
Fossil fuels are burnt, causes hole in ozone layer, causes Earths temperature to rise, ice melts, sea level rises.

How can you even debate anything relating to this when you openly admitted you dont know much about the O-Zone. If you dont know about that then you are just arguing for the sake of it :s If you dont understand what ozone is, how can you say the scientists are making it all up?

Oh yes, lets doubt EVERYTHING that EVERY scientist says about EVERY test and experiment. Dont be silly.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I will reply to the rest of your post later. But did you even read what I said or are you just being plain ignorant again? Pull of moon etc have been happening since the beginning :S wth.

Did you not read what I said?
Fossil fuels are burnt, causes hole in ozone layer, causes Earths temperature to rise, ice melts, sea level rises.

How can you even debate anything relating to this when you openly admitted you dont know much about the O-Zone. If you dont know about that then you are just arguing for the sake of it :s If you dont understand what ozone is, how can you say the scientists are making it all up?

Oh yes, lets doubt EVERYTHING that EVERY scientist says about EVERY test and experiment. Dont be silly.

I did read what you said, i've read what you have said everytime you have replied in this thread and the other thread - and i'm afraid its the same old nonsense about how sea levels are supposedly rising and how climate change is an issue yet it ignores every single point I have made about longshore drift, flood plains, pull of the moon, ice being pushed from the centre of the poles and the fact that ice melts in the summetime, hence all the pictures of melting ice.

On the scientists, not all scientists are saying this. It only seems to be the scientists who are on government/EU payroll who a group were found out to be fixing data to suit the idea that the climate is changing, when its clearly not.

[Seatherny]

I did read what you said, i've read what you have said everytime you have replied in thuis thread and the other thread - and i'm afraid its the same old nonsense about how sea levels are supposedly rising and how climate change is an issue yet it ignores every single point I have made about longshore drift, flood plains, pull of the moon, ice being pushed from the centre of the poles and the fact that ice melts in the summetime, hence all the pictures of melting ice.

On the scientists, not all scientists are saying this. It only seems to be the scientists who are on government/EU payroll who a group were found out to be fixing data to suit the idea that the climate is changing, when its clearly not.

Why are you not replying to my comments on ozone then? :S :S :S
Is it because you know that you know very little on it and are not aware of how it works?
I have replied to your ideas on the moon. You know little/nothing about the ozone hence you are unable to reply to it, hence you cannot really comment on anything.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why are you not replying to my comments on ozone then? :S :S :S
Is it because you know that you know very little on it and are not aware of how it works?
I have replied to your ideas on the moon. You know little/nothing about the ozone hence you are unable to reply to it, hence you cannot really comment on anything.

Yes it is, as I have said before I don't know much about the ozone layer so I really don't know why you are asking me it again when i've clearly said in the past I don't know all that much on the ozone layer.

Would you like to reply now to my points raised, points which actually make sense rather than this hypothetical version of events you are giving which seems to suggest that the oceans are rising. Oh and I don't know if you know this or not, but the Ozone layer doesn't have an effect on climate it seems to be, as the ozone is only a layer which stops radiation from the Sun hitting the Earth.

[Tash.]

Rebel because I disagree with you, Labour and the European Union? - well if i'm a rebel most of this country is for sure a rebel because most people on the streets don't want EU and don't believe in global warming, or as its called nowadays climate change.

No, not rebel because you disagree with me, but because you have one major chip on your shoulder when it comes to the leadership of this country. I've already told you before, it is impossible to please all the people all the time, and really UKIP aren't going to get a chance to run this country and i'm really glad because i'd be petrified of what would happen. You cannot say that "most people on the streets don't want EU and don't believe in globalm warming" because you have no proof at all to support that statement.


On the common sense, yes it would. If the ice caps are melting then my common sense would of detected a sea rise when i'm on the beach or at the docks at the River Mersey - no sea rise. As I said before, the others factors I mentioned are in play and not climate change.

So now your eyes can detect the change in the sea level now can they? Amazing. What utter tripe. It's obvious you aren't going to recognise the sea level rising right now, it's not drastic enough for you to see yet. However this does not mean it's not happening.


You have just said the Earth is warming right after acknowledging what I explained to you, even when I explain in a simple a) and b) way its ignored, but am I genuinely suprised? - not really.

I didn't ignore it, I simply think you stated the obvious. Just because I didn't directly reference them doesn't mean I ignored it. I actually tried to explain why I thought the earth was warming, but I think you didn't read it.


Oh so now you are saying the climate COULD warm, well that sums up the whole climate issue to anybody reading this that without a shadow of a doubt all the facts such as the ones I mentioned are ignored, and everything is based on what could happen. A lot of things could happe, a volcano could sprout up in my back garden overnight but we don't spend billions upon billions on 'preventing' it because its simply not a threat, just like climate change.

I've never said anything different? Of course it could. Science does not always have to be exact. Scientists cannot say exactly the date when the ice caps will have melted to an extent where we will begin to notice because it all depends on various factors. And yes, a volcano could pop up in your back garden, but here is a prime example of you resorting to stupidity. Climate change is a threat, whether you acknowledge it or not is simply irrelevant.


Yes, traditionally and even more so with the last government the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a lot of control over spending, as was said before; if the treasury would of refused funding for the Iraq war then the premiership of Tony Blair would of collapsed overnight.

Oh my, no it could not. Do you really think that would happen? Of course it wouldn't.. I aren't getting into the Iraq war with you as well, i'm fighting too many battles with you here and my head is spinning with you. I think you should consider being an MP in later life, you sure love to try and worm your way out of difficult discussions by resorting to things which are completely off topic.


On the downturn, Gordon sold our gold off at a stupendously cheap price, Gordon failed to see the collapse in financial capital coming which many were predicting (even I noticed in that summer before the collapse of major banks how the housing market was on its last legs) - something had to give. Gordons hands are all over it, especially when he funded a very wasteful state splashout during the last decade and continues to do so to this day, using our money to pay hundreds of thousands of buracrats in whitehall and across town halls in this country (not to mention the rising sums to the EU and tinpots like President Mugabe).

Yes Gordon did sell off the Gold, clearly this was a bad move. I can't see how you can say that he didn't see the collapse in financial capital coming unless you're inside his head? Have you ever thought that he may have realised it was too late to stop it happening? Another question for you, how is he bankrolling Mugabe now? I'm not sure I understand this one?


I have one question for you; how (tell me how and what) did the Thatcher government ruin this country?

You obviously have not heard of the winter of discontent, the strikes, Sunny Jim, the Kinnocks, Aruther Scargill, Derek Hatton and our good friend Michael Foot whos manifesto was perhaps the most famous (and absurd) manifesto in history.

Here it goes:
Thatcher stopped free milk to school age children, something which was not well recieved and still is not till this day. This is not as important as some of the things I am about to list, but something that is nonetheless acknowledged as a bad move. She privatised many national institutions such as British Rail (which is in a very very bad state right now, and has arguably never been right since) and British Gas to name just two. She sold off council houses which resulted in a serious lack of affordable housing. She closed hundreds of mines across the country which resulted in furious protests and clashes between miners and the police. She became so hated, even by those within her own party, that she was forced to resign as PM before they overthrew her. I think maybe you have forgotten about all of these things. Oh and on a final note, just so that you get the message of how wrong you are here. Mrs Thatcher is the one who joined the EC, now known as the EU or the route of all evil in you mind. But i'm guessing you forgot or just glossed over that fact ;)


I do not want a complete halt to immigration, yet again you (the left) shows it cannot accept the fact that people want simple controls our immigration to stop our country turning into a crime-ridden racial ghetto, but hey as I have said before, i'm not suprised.

Yes you do? I've seen you write it several times over the past month on these boards. You and UKIP wish to halt all immigration for 5 years.. how is that not a complete halt to immigration? Again, please stop presuming my political leanings, i've never discussed my politics so you do not know what I stand for, kindly stop pushing the left upon me.



Thanks for proving my point.

You and Tash have both ignored my points in sea levels, ice pushing from the poles, pull of the moon, longshore drift and others, so it is infact me who is unable to understand how you can argue about this point and not the other way around.

And finally, I did not ignore you. As Saurav has said you fail to understand our points, so you keep saying we ignored you when infact we haven't.

[Seatherny]

Yes it is, as I have said before I don't know much about the ozone layer so I really don't know why you are asking me it again when i've clearly said in the past I don't know all that much on the ozone layer.

Would you like to reply now to my points raised, points which actually make sense rather than this hypothetical version of events you are giving which seems to suggest that the oceans are rising. Oh and I don't know if you know this or not, but the Ozone layer doesn't have an effect on climate it seems to be, as the ozone is only a layer which stops radiation from the Sun hitting the Earth.

Oh my. Lack of Ozone causes the Earth to warm up. Of course that isn't changing the climate ... :rolleyes:
I wonder if you are really saying such things ...
Like I said, if you dont know about the O-Zone, you cannot argue on this as that is the cause of Global Warming. You cant just go into a debate not knowing one of the most fundamental causes :S Earth warms up, sea level rises and that causes flooding. Is it really that hard to understand?

Where have you come up with the moon story? Because a non-British/USA government had it done by one of their scientists? :rolleyes:

[Grainger@CUFC]

Is it me, or is Gordon Brown the only short sighted leader out there? He goes on that it's for the 'greater good'. Well yeah, it may be for the 'greater good' of the world in the very long-term, which is good, but getting his own country out of debt before pledging that much money would be better.

I'm all for making change to help the environment, but we need to do it when we can afford it, not when it plunges us all deeper into the red.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, not rebel because you disagree with me, but because you have one major chip on your shoulder when it comes to the leadership of this country. I've already told you before, it is impossible to please all the people all the time, and really UKIP aren't going to get a chance to run this country and i'm really glad because i'd be petrified of what would happen. You cannot say that "most people on the streets don't want EU and don't believe in globalm warming" because you have no proof at all to support that statement. I have a chip on my shoulder because people like you (the left) who do not mirror what the people of this country want are running this country, and running it into the ground. Of course you are afraid of UKIP getting into power, and so are the ruling elite and that explains why they are firmly opposed to voting reform despite pledging to reform it everytime whilst in opposition.

Where is my evidence? - polls and the refusal of the ruling elite to give us a referendum on the European Union, there is your evidence.


So now your eyes can detect the change in the sea level now can they? Amazing. What utter tripe. It's obvious you aren't going to recognise the sea level rising right now, it's not drastic enough for you to see yet. However this does not mean it's not happening. Yes they can, thats what eyes are for. If houses near the sea are underwater then maybe i'll give the climate change lobby some of my time and could even be persuaded to believe in it, but as no water levels have increased I can't lie to myself about the issue as I used to before I started realising what a big myth the whole thing is and what a joke it is.


I didn't ignore it, I simply think you stated the obvious. Just because I didn't directly reference them doesn't mean I ignored it. I actually tried to explain why I thought the earth was warming, but I think you didn't read it.Of course you have ignored them, I have given all the reasons why natural events such as flooding occur but you continue to ramble on with how the seas are apparently rising and how the climate is changing.


I've never said anything different? Of course it could. Science does not always have to be exact. Scientists cannot say exactly the date when the ice caps will have melted to an extent where we will begin to notice because it all depends on various factors. And yes, a volcano could pop up in your back garden, but here is a prime example of you resorting to stupidity. Climate change is a threat, whether you acknowledge it or not is simply irrelevant.A stupid example has just shown how stupid the climate change saga is, everything is a threat but you don't throw billions and billions on something which all the evidence points to is not happening.


Oh my, no it could not. Do you really think that would happen? Of course it wouldn't.. I aren't getting into the Iraq war with you as well, i'm fighting too many battles with you here and my head is spinning with you. I think you should consider being an MP in later life, you sure love to try and worm your way out of difficult discussions by resorting to things which are completely off topic.Yes it could, its widely talked about on the BBC and co. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the second most powerful man in government, perhaps on par with the Prime Minister himself. If a Chancellor refuses to fund a government program then it would spark a crisis, especially over a war.


Yes Gordon did sell off the Gold, clearly this was a bad move. I can't see how you can say that he didn't see the collapse in financial capital coming unless you're inside his head? Have you ever thought that he may have realised it was too late to stop it happening? Another question for you, how is he bankrolling Mugabe now? I'm not sure I understand this one?The financial collapse would of happened no matter who was in government, and call me crazy or what ever, but in the long run a financial crash is healthy for the economy. Capitalism needs collapses to run and function. What I am contesting and what everyone has contested is the fast that Gordon Brown and this government refused to cut public spending when it was already over the top and continue to do so to this day.

How is he bankrolling Mugabe? - this money that he has just given (my money, your money) is going towards poor countries, now we know what happens when financial aid reaches poor countries don't we? - the corrupt leaders take it and bank it. That is why Mugabe, ZANU-PF and all the dictators of Africa are minted.

If you think President Mugabe is going to spend that money on wind turbines or his own people then you are living a dream.


Here it goes:
Thatcher stopped free milk to school age children, something which was not well recieved and still is not till this day. This is not as important as some of the things I am about to list, but something that is nonetheless acknowledged as a bad move. OH MY GOD. Despite the country being bankrupt and having to go to the IMF, with millions in poverty the sick COW took away their milk. Well now you have truly convinced me what an evil cow she was.


She privatised many national institutions such as British Rail (which is in a very very bad state right now, and has arguably never been right since) and British Gas to name just two. Do you know why she privatised industry? - because they were owned by the state and were making severe losses, which we the taxpayers had to pick up the bill. The country was already in dire straits and this was one of the main problems. This is the difference between socialist/communist economies; North Korea, USSR, China under Mao (disgusting poverty) and capitalist economies; United States and the western world.


She sold off council houses which resulted in a serious lack of affordable housing. Do you know how many people that helped?. For the FIRST TIME EVER in peoples lives they could afford to buy their own house, something they could achieve and work towards. The shortage was the fault of governments which followed (Major and Blair) and not the Thatcher government.


She closed hundreds of mines across the country which resulted in furious protests and clashes between miners and the police. Do you know why this is? - the mines were making SERIOUS losses which again were being put on the country which was sinking under its own debt. Please, I beg you as I did, to read on Militant tendancy and the Unions and then come back and say that.


She became so hated, even by those within her own party, that she was forced to resign as PM before they overthrew her. I think maybe you have forgotten about all of these things. Do you know why? - see below.


Oh and on a final note, just so that you get the message of how wrong you are here. Mrs Thatcher is the one who joined the EC, now known as the EU or the route of all evil in you mind. But i'm guessing you forgot or just glossed over that fact ;) Indeed she did, and do you know why and what forced her from office? - The Europe issue. Europhiles within the Conservative Party got increasingly angry at her for refusing to adopt the Euro as the new currency and her continued attacks on the European Project. Again, please read up on Michael Heseltine.


Yes you do? I've seen you write it several times over the past month on these boards. You and UKIP wish to halt all immigration for 5 years.. how is that not a complete halt to immigration? Again, please stop presuming my political leanings, i've never discussed my politics so you do not know what I stand for, kindly stop pushing the left upon me.
That is not a complete halt to immigration, its called a temperory measure so we can sort the current mess out and find out who is and is not in this country. On the left, you are left; you dispute the fact that people do not want the European Union yet I assume that you would not support a referendum on the EU which shows the hypocrisy of that argument. You oppose everything to do with Conservatism and the right of the individual to create his own business (Thatcherism). If socialism is so good, go and live in North Korea and see how you like it then.


And finally, I did not ignore you. As Saurav has said you fail to understand our points, so you keep saying we ignored you when infact we haven't.

You have not raised any valid points, the sea levels are not rising and the temperature has not changed. There is no point you are making.


Oh my. Lack of Ozone causes the Earth to warm up. Of course that isn't changing the climate ... :rolleyes:
I wonder if you are really saying such things ...
Like I said, if you dont know about the O-Zone, you cannot argue on this as that is the cause of Global Warming. You cant just go into a debate not knowing one of the most fundamental causes :S Earth warms up, sea level rises and that causes flooding. Is it really that hard to understand?You obviously do not understand longshore drift, pull of the moon and all the other things I mentioned hence why you haven't responded once to what I have said on those points. The ozone layer does not hold in toxic gases but keeps out harmful radiation from the Sun, it has no link from what I have read with the climate.

The greenhouse effect has no link with the ozone, otherwise if there was a depleting ozone layer would be good as it would be allowing CO2's and so on to escape into space.


Where have you come up with the moon story? Because a non-British/USA government had it done by one of their scientists? :rolleyes:It is scientific fact, you know like the way we were taught in primary school about the effect of the moon on the tides? (the moon causes the tides).

[Seatherny]

You obviously do not understand longshore drift, pull of the moon and all the other things I mentioned hence why you haven't responded once to what I have said on those points. The ozone layer does not hold in toxic gases but keeps out harmful radiation from the Sun, it has no link from what I have read with the climate.

The greenhouse effect has no link with the ozone, otherwise if there was a depleting ozone layer would be good as it would be allowing CO2's and so on to escape into space.

It is scientific fact, you know like the way we were taught in primary school about the effect of the moon on the tides? (the moon causes the tides).

Read my reply in my previous posts about the Moon. Radiation heats up the Earth. How hard is that to understand :s
Greenhouse gases have no link on the ozone? Are you crazy? Its whats causing a depletion in the O-Zone layer, especially over Australia.
Go read up on O-Zone as you obviously have no clue what you are on about. Like I have said earlier, you cannot comment on climate change if you do not understand this fundamental part.


The financial collapse would of happened no matter who was in government,

So UKIP would have failed too, so why are you moaning about Gordon Brown selling gold cheaply and hinting that caused the financial crisis :rolleyes:
Make your mind up and go read up on the ozone. We were taught about this in primary school :rolleyes:

[-:Undertaker:-]

Read my reply in my previous posts about the Moon. Radiation heats up the Earth. How hard is that to understand :s
Greenhouse gases have no link on the ozone? Are you crazy? Its whats causing a depletion in the O-Zone layer, especially over Australia.
Go read up on O-Zone as you obviously have no clue what you are on about. Like I have said earlier, you cannot comment on climate change if you do not understand this fundamental part.

Radiation from the Sun does not heat up the Earth. I have just read up on the Ozone layer, and nothing was linked to global warming and why should it be? - the Ozone protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, it does not trap greenhouse gases. Therefore it has no link. It is you who cannot comment on climate change because you have no given one reply to the pull of the moon, longshire drift or building next to a river. Give a decent reply and maybe you'll have some weight behind what you are saying.

On what I said above about temperatures, there is no consistent rise in temperatures, temperatures will change and always have, as when the Roman Empire was about, the Province of Britannia used to grow grape vines, but now that is nearly impossible as it is now too cold to grow them on such a large and successful scale.

[Seatherny]

I edited my post just before you replied, please reply to that too.

[-:Undertaker:-]

So UKIP would have failed too, so why are you moaning about Gordon Brown selling gold cheaply and hinting that caused the financial crisis :rolleyes:
Make your mind up and go read up on the ozone. We were taught about this in primary school :rolleyes:I didn't say Gordon Brown caused the financial crisis, and neither have I said that Gordon Brown selling our gold stocks caused the financial crisis. I am making the point about how Gordon Brown and Labour handled the crisis and the economy generally from 1997 onwards to this very point in time which will lead to dire economic consquences last seen in 1979 under the last Labour government.

I have read the Ozone dear, just as I said above. It shows no link with the climate. Now I suggest that you go and read on longshore drift, ice age, pull of the moon and
rivers.

[Seatherny]

Just to add:

I will reply to your above post tomorrow as I am going now.


Radiation from the Sun does not heat up the Earth.

Go read up on how a microwave works and what a microwave does and then talk about radiation.
Actually go read up on radiation in general as you clearly don't understand what it means or you wouldn't be making such laughable claims.

Go find out since when o-zone started erm depleting and since when the pull of the moon has existed and then look at the temperature of the earth and compare it all. Shocking results!!

[-:Undertaker:-]

Just to add:

I will reply to your above post tomorrow as I am going now.



Go read up on how a microwave works and what a microwave does and then talk about radiation.
Actually go read up on radiation in general as you clearly don't understand what it means or you wouldn't be making such laughable claims.

Go find out since when o-zone started erm depleting and since when the pull of the moon has existed and then look at the temperature of the earth and compare it all. Shocking results!!

..is that why the temperature of the Earth has varied so much in its entire history despite the fact that humans have only been here for a very small portion of its history?. To claim humans are causing global warming is laughable, not to mention the fact you continually ignore my points that the sea levels are not rising and the points on the pull of the moon on sea levels, longshore drift and rivers in general.

I used to believe in global warming believe it or not, then I actually looked at it and thought about it as I did with many other things and I came to the right conclusions as it turns out, because if you sing and dance to the tune Al Gore and Gordon Brown are playing then you certainly are being made a fool of.

[Seatherny]

Like I said, which clearly shows you arent reading my posts, I will reply properly in the morning.

The pull of the moon has existed since the beginning ...
Explain why Australia has had such a high rise in temperature and thats where the o-zone layer has a big hole?
Are you sure you wanna stick to your comment that radiation doesnt heat things up? If so, I would request you to look at your primary school books, unless now you are going to claim that they were written just to scare kids by scientists who were paid by the government.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Like I said, which clearly shows you arent reading my posts, I will reply properly in the morning.

The pull of the moon has existed since the beginning ...
Explain why Australia has had such a high rise in temperature and thats where the o-zone layer has a big hole?
Are you sure you wanna stick to your comment that radiation doesnt heat things up? If so, I would request you to look at your primary school books, unless now you are going to claim that they were written just to scare kids by scientists who were paid by the government.

The pull of the Moon changes throughout history, as does the magnetic pulse of the Earth and the poles also switch, not to mention the tilt of the Earth.

On Austrialia, because thats a natural change in temperature as shown by the examples below;

Explain to me how Britain (Britannia under the Romans) went from being a warm climate where vine farms were growing all over to a land where its nearly impossible to grow grapes right now in 2009?. (No factories or cars around at this time)

Explain to me how the British Isles went from tropical forests to a landmass covered in ice? (No factories or cars around at this time)

Explain to me how it used to be possible to walk from Europe to Britain where the English Channel currently is? (No factories or cars around at this time)

[Seatherny]

Just to add:

I will reply to your above post tomorrow as I am going now.



Go read up on how a microwave works and what a microwave does and then talk about radiation.
Actually go read up on radiation in general as you clearly don't understand what it means or you wouldn't be making such laughable claims.

Go find out since when o-zone started erm depleting and since when the pull of the moon has existed and then look at the temperature of the earth and compare it all. Shocking results!!


Like I said, which clearly shows you arent reading my posts, I will reply properly in the morning.

The pull of the moon has existed since the beginning ...
Explain why Australia has had such a high rise in temperature and thats where the o-zone layer has a big hole?
Are you sure you wanna stick to your comment that radiation doesnt heat things up? If so, I would request you to look at your primary school books, unless now you are going to claim that they were written just to scare kids by scientists who were paid by the government.


Read my reply in my previous posts about the Moon. Radiation heats up the Earth. How hard is that to understand :s
Greenhouse gases have no link on the ozone? Are you crazy? Its whats causing a depletion in the O-Zone layer, especially over Australia.
Go read up on O-Zone as you obviously have no clue what you are on about. Like I have said earlier, you cannot comment on climate change if you do not understand this fundamental part.



So UKIP would have failed too, so why are you moaning about Gordon Brown selling gold cheaply and hinting that caused the financial crisis :rolleyes:
Make your mind up and go read up on the ozone. We were taught about this in primary school :rolleyes:


Oh my. Lack of Ozone causes the Earth to warm up. Of course that isn't changing the climate ... :rolleyes:
I wonder if you are really saying such things ...
Like I said, if you dont know about the O-Zone, you cannot argue on this as that is the cause of Global Warming. You cant just go into a debate not knowing one of the most fundamental causes :S Earth warms up, sea level rises and that causes flooding. Is it really that hard to understand?

Where have you come up with the moon story? Because a non-British/USA government had it done by one of their scientists? :rolleyes:

Once you reply to all these posts of mine regarding the o-zone and radiation, I will happily answer yours. You keep saying I am ignoring your questions but it was me who asked these first. If you cannot answer them properly then simply stop arguing as it shows you know very little about this topic. You cannot just take one side of the argument and not understand the otherside.

I will sum it up once again:

If you think radiation doesn't warm stuff up, open your primary school books.
If you think Earths radiation isnt blocked by o-zone, go read up on it.
When we burn fossil fuels, the gases it releases causes a depletion in the o-zone. This means that the ozone is unable to protect the Earth from these radiation. What fossil fuel we burn doesn't go directly above Britain, it is blown by the wind to surrounding countries and they suffer because of us. A big hole in the ozone layer has appeared above Australia and that's causing the country/continent to warm up so much. Otherwise explain to me where the hole came from? Or have the scientists edited their results and put a big hole above Australia? Their expertise must actually be on paint tbh.

Now there is a lack of o-zone over Australia, the Sun's radiation is able to hit the Earths surface directly e.g. Australia and that's causing the temperate to rise.

You have said radiation doesn't cause climate change / warmer weather. You have said it twice actually. If you still stand by that statement, I am not even going to bother replying to you as it would be just a waste of my time as it shows how you have just seen one side of the argument and are just using that without fully understanding the otherside. Its very clear your expertise is in Politics and how to dodge questions which you cannot answer like my local MP who is annoying as hell, and not in Science.

Now answer every point I have made above made, otherwise don't bother replying / don't expect a reply from me. I am not going to keep repeating myself. If you don't understand the ozone, then stop debating this as it shows your lack of understanding on the topic.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Once you reply to all these posts of mine regarding the o-zone and radiation, I will happily answer yours. You keep saying I am ignoring your questions but it was me who asked these first. If you cannot answer them properly then simply stop arguing as it shows you know very little about this topic. You cannot just take one side of the argument and not understand the otherside.I have answered them, the ozone keeps out radiation - what more can I possibly say about that?

I will sum it up once again:

If you think radiation doesn't warm stuff up, open your primary school books.All radiation isn't hot, radiation at the polls has always been higher and there is background radiation in Cornwall from the rocks, yet its not a tropic area now is it?


If you think Earths radiation isnt blocked by o-zone, go read up on it.Where have I said that?


When we burn fossil fuels, the gases it releases causes a depletion in the o-zone. This means that the ozone is unable to protect the Earth from these radiation. What fossil fuel we burn doesn't go directly above Britain, it is blown by the wind to surrounding countries and they suffer because of us. It does not warm up the Earth. The greenhouse effect is based on the argument that the gases and not the ozone heat up the Earth, as the gases get trapped and the heat from the Sun cannot escape.


A big hole in the ozone layer has appeared above Australia and that's causing the country/continent to warm up so much. Otherwise explain to me where the hole came from? Or have the scientists edited their results and put a big hole above Australia? Their expertise must actually be on paint tbh.Austrialia has not 'warmed up so much', it may of escaped your notice but Austrialia is a desert and always has been for much of its modern history. Ozone depletion does not cause higher temperatures, it merely causes more dangerous radiation/UV levels.


Now there is a lack of o-zone over Australia, the Sun's radiation is able to hit the Earths surface directly e.g. Australia and that's causing the temperate to rise.I'll ask one question and it'll stumble this argument right over, how did the last ice ages and other tropical periods occur when we didn't even have factories or cars?


You have said radiation doesn't cause climate change / warmer weather. You have said it twice actually. If you still stand by that statement, I am not even going to bother replying to you as it would be just a waste of my time as it shows how you have just seen one side of the argument and are just using that without fully understanding the otherside. Its very clear your expertise is in Politics and how to dodge questions which you cannot answer like my local MP who is annoying as hell, and not in Science.It is very strange how I am debating with someone about climate change but they refuse to even understand the fact that if you build next to a river you get a flood, not to mention somebody who blindly ignores history which shows that the temperature of the Earth never ever stays the same.

Although when the other side starts to question the opposing sides debating skills that is truly a sign that they seriously have no idea what they are talking about.


Now answer every point I have made above made, otherwise don't bother replying / don't expect a reply from me. I am not going to keep repeating myself. If you don't understand the ozone, then stop debating this as it shows your lack of understanding on the topic.Answered, now explain what I asked you to explain.