Hackers 'expose global warming con'

[Ardemax]

Why do we need renewable energy?

It is uneconomical.

Nobody said its complete fact, I think the Mail itself says its being investigated and its what the hackers are claming, not the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is merely reporting on it while the left wing BBC and others wouldn't dare cover this story.

Oh and did UKIP teach you this aswell?

Let's say global warming is a "myth" and we completely ignore it. We can't ignore the fact that our CO2 emmisions are shocking.

Renewable energy is the way to cut these down.

Are you saying that energy made by the down force of water is a bad idea and that nuclear would be more "economical" and efficient?

[kk.]

When I talk about mainstream media I speak mainly of the BBC, which when it seems they discuss global warming they accept it as fact and never invite anybody onto the program who is sceptical of global warming. It is like on Question Time and when they review the papers, it always seems to be a journalist from the Guardian giving their opinion despite the Guardian being a paper which has low sales figures.

I don't point to the Daily Mail when I am posting, I use it as a source for debate. I do not need the Daily Mail or UKIP to tell me what to think, more so the ruling elite (BBC, Guardian, European Union and Government).

its interesting you say the ruling elite, and also say the guardian has low sales figures.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh and did UKIP teach you this aswell?

Let's say global warming is a "myth" and we completely ignore it. We can't ignore the fact that our CO2 emmisions are shocking.

Renewable energy is the way to cut these down.

Are you saying that energy made by the down force of water is a bad idea and that nuclear would be more "economical" and efficient?

UKIP did not teach me this no, I learnt it in basic science and using common sense aswell, we do not need to cut down on C02 and even if we did, it would make no difference what so ever because China/India/Indochina are building a new power plant every week, along with millions more cars/houses being built every year.

On nuclear power, yes it is economical whereas wind and solar are not.

its interesting you say the ruling elite, and also say the guardian has low sales figures.

The Guardian does have low sales figures yet is invited onto the BBC constantly to give its view on the news/events, despite it being a left wing paper that nobody buys and has to be subsidised.

[kk.]

The Guardian does have low sales figures yet is invited onto the BBC constantly to give its view on the news/events, despite it being a left wing paper that nobody buys and has to be subsidised.

but you completely missed the point. It cant be in the 'ruling elite' if it has low sales figures. it goes completely against identifying who the ruling elite are. It would need a large user base to be influential.

its also very rare to find a newspaper which isnt biased to one side or the other. and maybe its just that other papers declined to go on.

[Ardemax]

UKIP did not teach me this no, I learnt it in basic science and using common sense aswell, we do not need to cut down on C02 and even if we did, it would make no difference what so ever because China/India/Indochina are building a new power plant every week, along with millions more cars/houses being built every year.

On nuclear power, yes it is economical whereas wind and solar are not.

I didn't comment on wind and solar?

Ok so if you know "basic science" and "common sense" then answer me this.

We're losing fuels. Fast.
So we should keep guzzling them up until they're all gone, then panic?

Or hows about this.
We act on CO2 right now and find new alternatives, then develop them for use in the future.

I don't wanna sound cheeky, but I think it's a no brainer.

[kk.]

I didn't comment on wind and solar?

Ok so if you know "basic science" and "common sense" then answer me this.

We're losing fuels. Fast.
So we should keep guzzling them up until they're all gone, then panic?

Or hows about this.
We act on CO2 right now and find new alternatives, then develop them for use in the future.

I don't wanna sound cheeky, but I think it's a no brainer.

i dont agree with the whole global warming is not happening, but in fairness, he has said (i think) that we should find alternate ways of getting energy. And nuclear is far better than using ***. of course its more dangerous, but much better

[-:Undertaker:-]

but you completely missed the point. It cant be in the 'ruling elite' if it has low sales figures. it goes completely against identifying who the ruling elite are. It would need a large user base to be influential.

its also very rare to find a newspaper which isnt biased to one side or the other. and maybe its just that other papers declined to go on.

It can, because it supports the ruling elite. If influence was that apparent, then we'd be having a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty because the Daily Express, Mail, Telegraph and the Sun (the best selling papers) have all campaigned for one.

I know, and I know the Daily Mail is biased - I read it because it fits my beliefs and I think it is pretty good at exposing this government/European Union pretty well, as well as it making some quite funny comments at times.

I didn't comment on wind and solar?

Ok so if you know "basic science" and "common sense" then answer me this.

We're losing fuels. Fast.
So we should keep guzzling them up until they're all gone, then panic?

Or hows about this.
We act on CO2 right now and find new alternatives, then develop them for use in the future.

I don't wanna sound cheeky, but I think it's a no brainer.

Actually fossil fuels have hundreds of years left, a massive oil field has been found off the coast of Argentina/The Falklands, Siberia still has many gas deposits to be explored, the poles also have VAST quantities of fuel and minerals left to be explored. I support moving away from fossil fuels with nuclear, not because of all this utter nonsense of '20 years left' or 'the earth is warming up considerably' - but for the safety of national security, we are now going to have to rely on Russia, Libya and the Middle East for our oil and gas, and more to the point with a growing China the prices are going to go through the roof.

On C02 we don't need to act on it, there is nothing to act on. Alternatives will be found when oil starts to rise, if the United Kingdom converts to nuclear for it energy this would mean only our cars would need to run on oil, which is far better than having our main supplies cut by Russia who could hold us to ransom just like they did with Ukraine a year or so ago.

[kk.]

I think it is pretty good at exposing this government/European Union pretty well, as well as it making some quite funny comments at times.

so basically, being right wing. You'd think it does a pretty good job because it supports your belief. which is excatly what its meant to do lol pointing out the obvious ftw

[-:Undertaker:-]

so basically, being right wing. You'd think it does a pretty good job because it supports your belief. which is excatly what its meant to do lol pointing out the obvious ftw

..because the rest of the media will not report on how the European Union is taking away our sovereignty, how our politicians are lieing and have been lieing over the past few decades about the European project.

[kk.]

and why do you think that is? Because they dont support it. theyre hardly going to go on about the european union taking our sovereignty away if they dont think they are.