I know! I put 9.15 but it seems to want to revert to 12.00. At least peeps might read and think before they vote (unless their name is Lakesailor of course!) /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
I shan't be voting because my credentials are not good enough. I am not a professor of climatology like some forumites. So my opinion doesn't count anyway. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Is it a combination of complex factors not just one which has been hijacked by politicians for their own ends which in turn has polarised opinions so no meaningful concensus can ever be found.
We have already solved the emmisions from industry, we buy it all from China, thus leaving a nice green UK.
All we need is to expand this into other areas, and instant green UK.
Thank you for your constructive criticism. Perhaps you would like to make some suggestions as to how the questions could be improved? I did think the boxes represented the core arguments put in the other post but there is still time to modify the questions if necessary. One of the advantages of not starting until 12.00. Or do you think it's just a waste of time voting at all?
Well I will say the same to you. Voting doesn't start till 12.00 which allows others to suggest to any changes to the wording of the questions they want to put.
I thought that the main extremes were.... Its us releasing co2. Or no its the sun getting hotter, but as I personally think its a bit of both I put the third question in and just for those who seem to deny its happening at all and its all a function of a government conspiracy to raise taxes I put the 4th option. I think the problem with voting at all is that the questions have to be right in the first place so all suggestions are welcome but they have to be one liners and simple or it won't work. And it will still be on page 1 in 1 1/2 hours time.....
Problem is in this matter there are no one-line questions. It all comes down to a bit of this and a bit of that.
I repeat and I shall probably have to, ad infinitum, that I see no problem in behaving AS IF global warming is caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions, and reducing these as much as we can (which is a lot).
If our contribution is not causing warming, we'll have done no harm, but if we are behind warming, then we might just manage to avoid a cataclysmic tipping point.
As an aside, our profligate consumption of fossil energy is probably unsustainable for more than few more decades in any case for reasons of supply, and so we'll be forced to modify our way of doing things (something humans are good at) sooner or later in any case. So why not sooner?
I think % answers will confuse things but you have a point in that we need a don't know/dont care option.
Actually I have had 6 PMs now from peeps with suggestions which I will try and summarise and include. Any more?
[ QUOTE ]
I see no problem in behaving AS IF global warming is caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem with that approach is that the cost of conversion will make the UK bankrupt, and of course make the country incredibly rich because it's all just a government conspiracy to collect more taxes