'Rich pricks' bemoan treatment

GRZ9Kk Thanks for good post

In response to #11, #15, #17, #19 & #25:

Actually we can't know the weather patterns that have occurred for the last 720,000 years because... well we weren't there measuring temperatures and air pressures etc...

We can create a theory about what they could have been through science, tree rings and ice cores but to use this theory as a base for another wild theory (climate change) and call it science is a little too far-fetched for me. Based on what we know that we can know there is too little evidence to start creating government legislation.

My comment on the age of the Earth was partly sarcastic because the science involved in measuring the age of our planet is equally flawed.

In response to #11 & &19:

Have you ever seen CFC gas? If it were possible to fill a bucket with CFC gases and you were to pour it out where would it go? It would fall to the ground and stay there. The entire theory that CFC gases harm the atmosphere is flawed (they are cold, last I checked it was the hot gases which rose). What harms the atmosphere is superheated chlorine gas (a small amount comes from CFC gases) but the vast majority is produced volcanoes such as Mount Erebus in Antarctica.

"Mt Erebus puts out more chlorine per year, all by itself, than all the cars and aerosol cans on earth put together could do in a decade." If you prefer to delude yourself that CFCs make even a small impact on our world climate then go right ahead.

My house isn't burning down, in fact I don't even see smoke. Summer is just arriving.

In response to #25:

My argument for the accuracy of weather prediction holds. You haven't disproved it at all just pointed out how little we know of the Earth's cycles. El Nino could simply be the result of a larger weather cycle we don't know about and that one part of another cycle.

Cheers #22 I'm not sure if I'll take it to extremes, what with the price of petrol but I'd be glad to discuss these issues with any and all.

"flexible land use" alliance?

i guess they mean get rid of any protections for heritage sites, scenic sites, conservation estate or any concern for the welfare of the neighbours!

I totally agree ... Scientists have no more understanding of the whereabouts of jimmy hoffa than to what good old mother nature is up to...and who pays the price ... you and I

It's past time rich people were given the respect they deserve, for too many years now they've had virtually no rights whatsoever, held back by the jealous politically correct nanny state tree hugging communist liberal labour gummint. When will the people of this country realise that the rich are simply better than the rest of us? Anyone over a certain wealth threshold should be allowed to do whatever they like. Want to chop down a forest and concrete over the land? No worries. Drive drunk in your SUV through a children's playground? Go for your life, mate. Maybe shoot some protesters or homeless scum? Allow me to hold your spare ammo, mister millionaire, sir. On the other hand, beneficiaries should have no rights whatsoever. Any employed person should be able to at any time beat, abuse, or even kill them. That will encourage the lazy sods to get off their bums and find work.

We can study the weather going back thousands of years, not just this "150 possibly 200" you just made up. Through ice at the poles, through marine and lake sediments, tree rings, recorded history and so on. The argument that the weather forecasters can't forecast next weeks weather has no merit at all. Take it even slightly further out and they are bloody good. Summer and winter for starters, then there's the El Nino cycle.

The earth is estimated to be about 4.5 billion years old, so you're off by an order of magnitude. Kinda makes the rest of your argument look like waffle.

Absolutely right Derekguy. Though I disagree with your comment regarding how old the earth is. As we all know, the earth is neither tens of billions of years old, nor as some misguided "scientists" claim, 4-5 billion years old. It is instead closer to 6000 years old. All this nonsensical scientific claptrap of evolution is based on spurious science, as can be clearly demonstrated by the irreducible complexity argument. I congratulate your refreshing attitude approach to this worrying modern infatuation with "overwhelming scientific consensus" tish-tosh, and invite you to join me in a peaceful evening exchanging notes. We can smoke cigarettes, talk about the creation of the universe in 6 days, and all of this in the comfort of my asbetos-filled home while the heavens spin around this flat earth of ours. If you like, you can drive the car up here and leave it running all afternoon - heaven forbid these pesky scientists should have any impact whatsoever on the enjoyment of our lives.

Absolutely right Derekguy. Though I disagree with your comment regarding how old the earth is. As we all know, the earth is neither tens of billions of years old, nor as some misguided "scientists" claim, 4-5 billion years old. It is instead closer to 6000 years old. All this nonsensical scientific claptrap of evolution is based on spurious science, as can be clearly demonstrated by the irreducible complexity argument. I congratulate your refreshing attitude approach to this worrying modern infatuation with "overwhelming scientific consensus" tish-tosh, and invite you to join me in a peaceful evening exchanging notes. We can smoke cigarettes, talk about the creation of the universe in 6 days, and all of this in the comfort of my asbetos-filled home while the heavens spin around this flat earth of ours. If you like, you can drive the car up here and leave it running all afternoon - heaven forbid these pesky scientists should have any impact whatsoever on the enjoyment of our lives.

If the rich pricks want dump their financial responsibility's onto tax-payers they can fu<k off somewhere else.