³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

William

You talk about the dodgy climate change "science".

From some inquiries I have made, I have not been able to confirm that any of the main models being used take into account natual factors in climate change, ie those which brought us out of the ice age, ie orbital variations. There is also the sun spot influence now raising its head as another faactor, c/o Armagh Obsevatory.

I know the father of modern environmentalism, James Lovelock, the person who intriduced Gaia theory to us, warned us in his landmark text 30 years ago we were forcing the earth into a new ice age.

I saw one of the founders of either Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth on Newsnight about 5 years ago saying they resigned from their group because it had switched from warning about a pending ice age to warning of global warming overnight with no explanation.

This was a fairly common fear a few decades ago. There are so many vested interests in the man-made theory of global warming, as was mentioned on Sunday Sequence by a scientist/clergyman recently.

So, without having a science background, how can you be sure climate change is not a natual cycle?

From personal experience, I feel at least some academics who are sceptical are afraid to speak out for fear of professional persecution.

A top academic at QUB talking to me was quite sceptical and told me himself and that he he viewed Blair's top scientist first of all as a politican on this matter. But he was adamant that he would never raise his dead above the parapet on the matter. Another academic at UUJ told me none of the six models he used discounted orbital variation as a possible cause of global warming and was quite spooked when he thought about it.

Perhaps aside from the scientists who are publicly for and against the theory there are many, many more who are silent unbelievers. Research funding, accolades, promotion are all wonderful motivators to keep people in line.

And scientific heretics are still quietly "burned at the stake" everyday all around the world.

Again, do any of the main models discount the factors which brought us out of the ice age as the causes of global warming?

PB

William

I had a quick glance at the Scandal Sheet link and it mentioned a US poltician exposed for predatory advances to young boys.

I would be interested to hear your views on this, as I have seen it pointed out that most gay rights groups lobby continually for ever lower ages of consent for gay sex.

And I have also seen it argued that gay rights groups never come out and condemns groups like the North American Man Boy Love Assocation, which is supposed to have signifacnt overlap in membership with other gay rights groups with no apparent tension and calls for legalisation of sex between men and children.

Do you think there should be a fixed age of consent or do you think it should be free to move as low as public sentiment will allow in the future? Would you condemn groups such as NAMBLA?

Inhernet in this question is whole issue of the rise of neo-paganism in the post-Christian era. This supports the concept of differing personal gods and value systems for all, with the rejection of the one size fits all God of judeo-christian outlook with his requirements for sexual restraint within marriage and equal standards for all.

In contrast neo-paganism supports the breaking down of all sexual taboos, between ages, sexes and species.

Interested in your views William.

PB

When I read intelligent people denying that we have a climate crisis, I think back to those "scientists" in the 80s who denied that tobacco produces lung cancer. They tended to be paid by tobacco companies, of course.

Hello. Can I write to object to "PB"'s misrepresentation of gay people. I am gay. I am not a paedophile. To claim that gay people are somehow also paedophiles is a homophobic attack which can lead to gay people being attacked physically. There are many examples. PB asks about the Man-Love association. I regard that as a disgraceful organisation and I object to you associating me, as a gay person, with that group. Some of its members are gay, some are straight. I condemn them all. Now would you please show some respect, some responsibility, and some self-respect, and retract your comments, at least acknowledge that it is wrong to portray gay people as paedophile supporters, as your comments here have done. I am tempted to write to the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and ask them to remove your comments, but I believe in free speech and I believe its reight to give you at least the chance to do the responsible thing here. That you make these "Christian" comments in a discussion about a christian pastor shown to be a hypocrite is all the more remarkable. If you wish to win people for christianity, this is not the way to do it.

Helen

Are you saying you have blind faith in the dogma of man-made climate change, or do you think through the problems such as the ones I outlined?

Here is how I see some groups exploit the doctrine;-

1) Trade unions - great opportunity for class war against middle class consumption. eg fancy cars and holiday flights.

2) Govt;- increasing control over industry, taxation of individuals, and international diplomacy bargaining chip.

3) Scientists;- openings for huge research funding and lots of nice international field trips and conferences. Chance to get their names in the media.

4)Green groups;- great opportunity to scare people into becoming members and therefore increased funding. Increased opportunity for public influence/power with NO accountability for the huge costs of their pronouncements in 20 years time. No rigour at all in their analysis and statements, often warped.

I am open to be convinced it is man-made, but nobody as been able to show me yet how this is not a natural cycle.

PB

Kael

If you read my comments again you will find I never suggest all gay people are paedophiles, I dont think that is true I apologise for hurting you by not making this clearer.

However, most gay lobby groups seem to campaign for ever lower ages of consent. Peter Tatchell on his website calls for a boy of 14 he interviews to be able to have sex with men legally.

What would you say should the age of consent be?
Should it be free to come down even lower if public opinion requires in the future?
Where is the absolute lowest boundary and how do you set it?

sincerely
PB