Robyn Malcolm should go back to being a bad actor

[JimO]

on tv3 news soon

[325rocket]

seconded ..

[Tink]

on tv3 news soonwho.....................>?

[JimO]

who.....................>?

the stupid cow on the telly

[rainman]

Robin is a boys' name; the actress in question is Robyn.

I didn't see the news tonight, what are you boys (and girl) whining about? I assume Robyn is saying something too green for your tastes.

[Hitcher]

Robyn Malcolm and Keisha Sandcastle-Hues are actors. They're peddling their celebrity for a cause that they presumably believe in. Other than that, they are not experts on climate change. Their opinions have no more relevance than yours or mine. However our media are so gullible that they will pander to celebrities pimping a cause du jour, rather than doing any real investigation of the issues or taking seriously the views of experts who actually know something about the issue at question.

I wait with breathless anticipation for the day when the media starts asking some probing questions about the activities of multinational NGOs like Greenpeace, or specifically Greenpeace. I don't care which.

[rainman]

Other than that, they are not experts on climate change. Their opinions have no more relevance than yours or mine.

Well, we do seem determined to ignore or marginalise the real experts, maybe some entertaining and well-meaning non-experts is just what we need.

And, the media are there for entertainment, doncha know.

[Maha]

Robyn in Acting/Leanne was on TV, whos the other sister that use to be a News reporter?
Edit: dont worry, I have thought of her name...Jo, I can sleep easy now.

[Laava]

Nighty nite then Mark may all your dreams be about the voluptuous Malcolm Sisters!

[oldrider]

Fool's names and fool's faces are often seen in public places! :mellow:

[Berries]

Oh sorry, thought you said Leanne Malcolm on TV3. I got excited for a second but will leave now.

[spacemonkey]

on tv3 news soon

Given the quality of news on NZ Tv I think she'll fit in just fine.

[Winston001]

I much preferred her as nurse Ellen on Shortland Street. Husky voice and a certain sensuality......time for a lie-down methinks......

[JimO]

Robin is a boys' name; the actress in question is Robyn.

I didn't see the news tonight, what are you boys (and girl) whining about? I assume Robyn is saying something too green for your tastes.

if you look at the title you will see that i spelt her name correctly professor

[JimO]

Well, we do seem determined to ignore or marginalise the real experts, maybe some entertaining and well-meaning non-experts is just what we need.

And, the media are there for entertainment, doncha know.

the REAL ex berts may not agree with you or her

[R6_kid]

Well, we do seem determined to ignore or marginalise the real experts, maybe some entertaining and well-meaning non-experts is just what we need.

And, the media are there for entertainment, doncha know.

Yeh, but you won't find them interviewing any of the 'celebrity non-experts' who don't support the whole "the end is nigh" campaign.

[rainman]

if you look at the title you will see that i spelt her name correctly professor

So you did. That'll teach me to post while pissed. My apologies.


the REAL ex berts may not agree with you or her

Ah, but how does someone like you or me, who are not real scientists, tell which experts are realer than others? We can listen to what they say and see if it makes logical sense (up to the point where it becomes too arcane to follow); or look for evidence supporting or opposing their positions; look for reasons why they may be deceived or deceiving; or we can make it a numbers game: how many claimed experts say yea, how many say nay? Science is, to a degree, a majority opinion game.

The latter is not ideal, but for some complicated bits may be our only option. An analogy: if you go to the doc and he/she check's your cholesterol, pronounces it too high, and prescribes statins, do you a) take them without question, b) investigate the science a bit, get lost in the complex bits, and end up trusting the majority view, or c) reject them because the "science isn't settled" (it isn't)? What does this do to your risk of heart disease?

On the basis of this methodology I would have to say a rational person would conclude that the principle of anthropogenic climate change is likely to be right, and the experts claiming it more realer than the conservative mutatiophobes hanging on at all costs to the ideas of yesteryear. I may be wrong, of course, as may you - neither of us, I'm guessing, being real scientists. But I'll take my chances with logic rather than visceral rejection and la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you-ism.

As an aside, I've always found it odd that the biggest climate change deniers are in the Act party, who are committed to the idea of property rights, and yet are quite content to pollute and destroy "property" used/owned by others for private gain. Somewhat hypocritical, but that's how they roll, I guess.



Yeh, but you won't find them interviewing any of the 'celebrity non-experts' who don't support the whole "the end is nigh" campaign.

Ah, a conspiracy theorist! Pray tell, who's running this "campaign"?

[HenryDorsetCase]

Robyn Malcolm and Keisha Sandcastle-Hues are actors. They're peddling their celebrity for a cause that they presumably believe in. Other than that, they are not experts on climate change. Their opinions have no more relevance than yours or mine. However our media are so gullible that they will pander to celebrities pimping a cause du jour, rather than doing any real investigation of the issues or taking seriously the views of experts who actually know something about the issue at question.

I wait with breathless anticipation for the day when the media starts asking some probing questions about the activities of multinational NGOs like Greenpeace, or specifically Greenpeace. I don't care which.

greenpeace = mcdonalds: just another evil corporate, with franchises everywhere. Avoid.

[oldrider]

So you did. That'll teach me to post while pissed. My apologies.

Silly me, I thought that was just business as usual! :rofl:

[JimO]

So you did. That'll teach me to post while pissed. My apologies.



Ah, but how does someone like you or me, who are not real scientists, tell which experts are realer than others? We can listen to what they say and see if it makes logical sense (up to the point where it becomes too arcane to follow); or look for evidence supporting or opposing their positions; look for reasons why they may be deceived or deceiving; or we can make it a numbers game: how many claimed experts say yea, how many say nay? Science is, to a degree, a majority opinion game.

The latter is not ideal, but for some complicated bits may be our only option. An analogy: if you go to the doc and he/she check's your cholesterol, pronounces it too high, and prescribes statins, do you a) take them without question, b) investigate the science a bit, get lost in the complex bits, and end up trusting the majority view, or c) reject them because the "science isn't settled" (it isn't)? What does this do to your risk of heart disease?

On the basis of this methodology I would have to say a rational person would conclude that the principle of anthropogenic climate change is likely to be right, and the experts claiming it more realer than the conservative mutatiophobes hanging on at all costs to the ideas of yesteryear. I may be wrong, of course, as may you - neither of us, I'm guessing, being real scientists. But I'll take my chances with logic rather than visceral rejection and la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you-ism.

As an aside, I've always found it odd that the biggest climate change deniers are in the Act party, who are committed to the idea of property rights, and yet are quite content to pollute and destroy "property" used/owned by others for private gain. Somewhat hypocritical, but that's how they roll, I guess.




Ah, a conspiracy theorist! Pray tell, who's running this "campaign"?

the whole planet used to be covered in ice, now it isnt, most of NZ was carved out by glaciers (which arnt here any more) what caused that ice to melt

[bogan]

the whole planet used to be covered in ice, now it isnt, most of NZ was carved out by glaciers (which arnt here any more) what caused that ice to melt

fat kids.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5vubVvBx0tg/Sl1fnXH5QBI/AAAAAAAAA84/7iRnfs-GTRk/s400/fat-kids-swing-demotivational-poster-1206148563.jpg

also, whens the new season of outrageous fortune coming out? actually why don't I just google it, expected to return in june, gonna be awesome :D

[cowpoos]

something too green for your tastes.

You mean ill informed and full of shit...

[Morcs]

both Z list celebs anyway. who cares.

[rainman]

the whole planet used to be covered in ice, now it isnt, most of NZ was carved out by glaciers (which arnt here any more) what caused that ice to melt

Is that seriously your argument against anthropogenic climate change?

You have got to be shitting me.


You mean ill informed and full of shit...

As you might be able to see from the above, ill-informed is hardly the problem of the green viewpoint.

And full of shit is a good thing. Need some shitstirrers around to chase you ostriches out of their complacency, otherwise nothing'd get done. Most days, when I wake up in the morning, I say to myself "Self, today I'm going to be full of shit. Maybe even disruptive."

Conservatism is an inappropriate evolutionary response to our present circumstances.

[Jonno.]

You know Keisha is full of shit when she gives her credibilty for knowing about climate change is that she is a mother :laugh:

[JimO]

Is that seriously your argument against anthropogenic climate change?

You have got to be shitting me.






yes that is my argument

[bogan]

yes that is my argument

well the planet used to be completely covered in magma too didn't it?

[Winston001]

The rationale for dissing Robyn Malcolm and Keisha Castle-Hughes is that they are only actors, not scientists, and have no special expertise that allows them to comment on climate change. Keisha in particular is very young and unlikely to know much detail.

Nevertheless one of the most effective ways of broadcasting a message is to have a celebrity do the talking. It might not make intellectual sense but as a method of getting public attention, enlisting high-profile people works.

[Jonno.]

I'm sick of going places and have an old hippy show me half a herald article saying the Iceburgs melting, thus proving CO2 causes climate change.

It's kind of like how you see the people promoting a higher minimum wage are derros who won't make any more than minimum wage for the rest of their lives.

[Mudfart]

the more you talk about em, the more their celebrity status increases.
in the words of Oscar Wilde, "its better to be talked about, than not talked about at all".
That was in response to the rumour flying around Londons high society that he was gay, which was true, in an attempt to diminish his personality.
Please, talk about me instead.

[rainman]

yes that is my argument

Well, Jimmy me lad, not sure how to put this without offending you, so... I'll just have to take that chance. I'm usually more than happy to argue the (pop) science of climate change, but in order to do this we would have to depart from an approximately congruent starting point, that being a level of general knowledge and intelligence somewhat above... well, the amoebic. Your opening bid for an argument is so brain-stoppingly idiotic that, well, I'm flatly astounded. To be honest I just don't think you possess the basic logic required to have an intelligent discussion. Having dropped your initial clanger, how could I ever think that anything else you might concoct might be worth considering?

As a result I very much doubt I could ever persuade you of the truth or falsehood of the subject of climate change, and likewise doubt you could persuade me of your views. Both of which seem to me as requirements for a reasonable debate. So, my apologies, but I must decline to engage further. It would be like arguing the politics of global development with my cat.

You may see this as victory if that makes you feel better (but I'm afraid it isn't).

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." A Einstein.
(How many times do I have to learn this lesson???)


I'm sick of going places and have an old hippy show me half a herald article saying the Iceburgs melting, thus proving CO2 causes climate change.

Well, inconvenienly for you it does, and we have known this since the 1800s. Try to keep up. Perhaps start by googling Fourier, Tyndall, Ångström, Arrhenius and Högbom (and yes, Milankovich, too). Or just about any related science in the century since.


Keisha in particular is very young and unlikely to know much detail.

I suspect our Keisha is younger than Jimmy and Jonno above, and clearly she has waaaaay more of a clue than they do. Combined, even.

[JimO]

[QUOTE=rainman;1129730264










I suspect our Keisha is younger than Jimmy and Jonno above, and clearly she has waaaaay more of a clue than they do. Combined, even.[/QUOTE]

you were doing alright until the above sentance

[Manxman]

Robyn Malcolm and Keisha Sandcastle-Hues are actors. They're peddling their celebrity for a cause that they presumably believe in. Other than that, they are not experts on climate change. Their opinions have no more relevance than yours or mine. However our media are so gullible that they will pander to celebrities pimping a cause du jour, rather than doing any real investigation of the issues or taking seriously the views of experts who actually know something about the issue at question.

I wait with breathless anticipation for the day when the media starts asking some probing questions about the activities of multinational NGOs like Greenpeace, or specifically Greenpeace. I don't care which.

Started reading this thread, but quickly found this was as far as I needed to go.

Well put that man...

[cowpoos]

Well, Jimmy me lad, not sure how to put this without offending you, so... I'll just have to take that chance. I'm usually more than happy to argue the (pop) science of climate change, but in order to do this we would have to depart from an approximately congruent starting point, that being a level of general knowledge and intelligence somewhat above... well, the amoebic. Your opening bid for an argument is so brain-stoppingly idiotic that, well, I'm flatly astounded. To be honest I just don't think you possess the basic logic required to have an intelligent discussion. Having dropped your initial clanger, how could I ever think that anything else you might concoct might be worth considering?

As a result I very much doubt I could ever persuade you of the truth or falsehood of the subject of climate change, and likewise doubt you could persuade me of your views. Both of which seem to me as requirements for a reasonable debate. So, my apologies, but I must decline to engage further. It would be like arguing the politics of global development with my cat.

You may see this as victory if that makes you feel better (but I'm afraid it isn't).

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." A Einstein.
(How many times do I have to learn this lesson???)




¿¿əʞıl noʎ ɟı spɹoʍ ɥʇıʍ əƃɐʇuəɹɐd ɹnoʎ ʞɔɐʇʇɐ puɐ səɯɐu noʎ llɐɔ uəʌə˙˙noʎ ɥʇıʍ əʇɐqəp ʎlıddɐɥ llıʍ ı˙˙˙pɐəɹɥʇ ʍəu ɐ ʇɹɐʇs əsɐəld ˙ƃuıɯɹɐʍ lɐqloɹƃ əpɐɯ uɐɯ ɹoɟ əsɐɔ ɹnoʎ əʇɐʇs əsɐəld˙˙˙ɥo ¿¿ʇɥƃıɹ ʇuəɯnƃɹɐ ɹnoʎ əʞɐɯ ʇɐɥʇ səop səɯɐu ɯıɥ ƃuıllɐɔ əlɔıʇɹɐ əloɥʍ ɐ ƃuıpuəds ʎq ʇɐɥʇ 'ʇı sı ʍoɥ˙˙˙ʎɐʞo ¿¿¿¿ʇɐɥʍ ɹo ʇɹɐɯs əɹɐ noʎ ʞuıɥʇ noʎ op poƃ ʎɯ ɥo

[oldrider]

¿¿əʞıl noʎ ɟı spɹoʍ ɥʇıʍ əƃɐʇuəɹɐd ɹnoʎ ʞɔɐʇʇɐ puɐ səɯɐu noʎ llɐɔ uəʌə˙˙noʎ ɥʇıʍ əʇɐqəp ʎlıddɐɥ llıʍ ı˙˙˙pɐəɹɥʇ ʍəu ɐ ʇɹɐʇs əsɐəld ˙ƃuıɯɹɐʍ lɐqloɹƃ əpɐɯ uɐɯ ɹoɟ əsɐɔ ɹnoʎ əʇɐʇs əsɐəld˙˙˙ɥo ¿¿ʇɥƃıɹ ʇuəɯnƃɹɐ ɹnoʎ əʞɐɯ ʇɐɥʇ səop səɯɐu ɯıɥ ƃuıllɐɔ əlɔıʇɹɐ əloɥʍ ɐ ƃuıpuəds ʎq ʇɐɥʇ 'ʇı sı ʍoɥ˙˙˙ʎɐʞo ¿¿¿¿ʇɐɥʍ ɹo ʇɹɐɯs əɹɐ noʎ ʞuıɥʇ noʎ op poƃ ʎɯ ɥo

I am too old to stand on my head long enough to read this backwards, how the fuck did you do that? :lol:

[bogan]

I am too old to stand on my head long enough to read this backwards, how the fuck did you do that? :lol:

and the quote even upside down italic'd it, thats pretty cool wouldn't you say ¿

also, it aint that hard to read it upside down, just use a mirror!

[cowpoos]

I am too old to stand on my head long enough to read this backwards, how the fuck did you do that? :lol:

I was trying to see how smart rainman was...not that I take by the eerie silence from him.

[cowpoos]

, just use a mirror! and turn your laptop upside down. :)

[rainman]

I was trying to see how smart rainman was...not that I take by the eerie silence from him.

Sorry, real life intervened. You know how it goes, whales to save, yoghurt to eat, sandals to wear... And, sorry to disappoint, but I can read upside down. Can't see the point, though.

As to your points, well...
1. Yes I am relatively smart (and indeed often too much of a smartarse for my own good)
2. I don't think I called JimO names (Ok maybe I made a tart comment about amoebas, but that's all, and it was clearly exaggeration), and I certainly didn't insult his parentage.
3. I did (correctly I think) suggest that the logic in his theory of the non-existence of anthro. climate change was, um, poor. I mean, really, superficially similar events can't have different causes? C'mon. I even gave him a chance to think about it before sticking his neck out.

People with really poorly thought out positions can do with a bit of a prod from time to time. What else is a sane person to do?

[MisterD]

People with really poorly thought out positions can do with a bit of a prod from time to time. What else is a sane person to do?

Ah-ha, back to celebrity eco-idiots...campaigning at Punakaiki against a possible mine 50km away? How many mines are there already within that radius?

[rainman]

Ah-ha, back to celebrity eco-idiots...campaigning at Punakaiki against a possible mine 50km away? How many mines are there already within that radius?

Dunno. How many? And how many are on S4 land?

[JimO]

People with really poorly thought out positions can do with a bit of a prod from time to time. What else is a sane person to do?

i dont know how about we ask Keisha Sandcastle Hughes

[cowpoos]

3. I did (correctly I think) suggest that the logic in his theory of the non-existence of anthro. climate change was, um, poor. I mean, really, superficially similar events can't have different causes? C'mon. I even gave him a chance to think about it before sticking his neck out.

No...No you did not....you didn't not produce any evidence to contrary.

And the argument you have just used, is that a similar event can't have different effects is very true...but they equally could have the same. Null argument... because all that you have done is state coulds and hows and ifs...No facts [proper peer review facts...not baseless IPCC propagandize half truths]

A war with words, will only win a war for so long. Lets have some facts Please!!!!

[cowpoos]

Keisha Sandcastle Hughes Hmmm....just because she has a voice...does not mean she should use it.

[rainman]

No...No you did not....you didn't not produce any evidence to contrary.

And the argument you have just used, is that a similar event can't have different effects is very true...but they equally could have the same. Null argument...

My discussion with JimO was not about evidence and facts, but logic. His assertion (present climate change cannot be caused by mankind's recent combustion of fossil fuels, because prior climate change happened, and there was not associated fossil fuel combustion then) is a syllogistic fallacy, aka logical crap. It's like saying "my toe can't be hurting because I stubbed it on the chair, as last time it hurt it was because I dropped a hammer on it". There's no point arguing anything with someone who thinks like that, because the logical error is so blatant any argument would be tedious and likely unproductive. It's like a language gap - think of Basil Fawlty talking to Manuel, who lacks the (language, in that case) capacity to understand Basil's instructions. Prety quickly there's shouting and people being hit on the head. No fun for anyone.

If you think my response to JimO's original point is a "null argument" you have failed to understand the assertion made by JimO in the first place, and the fallacy implicit in it. If you want facts, consider that I did stub my toe the other day, and I have dropped a hammer on it in the past. Both hurt. Therefore, JimO's argument is invalid.

In case you get all grumpy about me being so "rude" please understand I'm not questioning your value as a human being or your other capabilities - I have no doubt that there are many things you both can do far better than me. But you're not thinking clearly on this issue.

Then again, most of the rest of this thread seems to be saying that celebrities must be wrong about "technical" topics because they are only celebrities, so maybe I am expecting too much here.

[rainman]

Hmmm....just because she has a voice...does not mean she should use it.

Why not? People like you and JimO have voices, and use them. What is the difference?

[cowpoos]

My discussion with JimO was not about evidence and facts, but logic. His assertion (present climate change cannot be caused by mankind's recent combustion of fossil fuels, because prior climate change happened, and there was not associated fossil fuel combustion then) is a syllogistic fallacy, aka logical crap. It's like saying "my toe can't be hurting because I stubbed it on the chair, as last time it hurt it was because I dropped a hammer on it". There's no point arguing anything with someone who thinks like that, because the logical error is so blatant any argument would be tedious and likely unproductive. It's like a language gap - think of Basil Fawlty talking to Manuel, who lacks the (language, in that case) capacity to understand Basil's instructions. Prety quickly there's shouting and people being hit on the head. No fun for anyone.

If you think my response to JimO's original point is a "null argument" you have failed to understand the assertion made by JimO in the first place, and the fallacy implicit in it. If you want facts, consider that I did stub my toe the other day, and I have dropped a hammer on it in the past. Both hurt. Therefore, JimO's argument is invalid.

In case you get all grumpy about me being so "rude" please understand I'm not questioning your value as a human being or your other capabilities - I have no doubt that there are many things you both can do far better than me. But you're not thinking clearly on this issue.

Then again, most of the rest of this thread seems to be saying that celebrities must be wrong about "technical" topics because they are only celebrities, so maybe I am expecting too much here.

You are a very Good word smith...But you fail to be an Intellectual.
Your meaning of something that is writen, is not whats intended when, written by someone else is it? [unless your a preist, I'll forgive you]

[cowpoos]

Why not? People like you and JimO have voices, and use them. What is the difference?

I can't believe I have to explain this to you........BUT.......The difference is 'IF'....jimO or myself say something stupid...not many people will hear about it or influenced by it....If Keishia says something stupid lots of people will hear it and maybe influenced by it, because of who she is ment to be.

[JimO]

I can't believe I have to explain this to you........BUT.......The difference is 'IF'....jimO or myself say something stupid...not many people will hear about it or influenced by it....If Keishia says something stupid lots of people will hear it and maybe influenced by it, because of who she is ment to be.

give that man a cigar.

[JimO]

I can't believe I have to explain this to you........BUT.......The difference is 'IF'....jimO or myself say something stupid...not many people will hear about it or influenced by it....If Keishia says something stupid lots of people will hear it and maybe influenced by it, because of who she is ment to be.

give that man a cigar.

[cowpoos]

give that man a cigar.

Please do...price of fags just went up.

[marty]

Please do...price of fags just went up.

What? It's now gonna cost $50 for a blow job at the lake toilets?

[marty]

I was a little surprised the american govt. was considering lighting the entire (Venezuela sized) slick in the Gulf of Mexico - that's a fuck-load of black smoke in an uncontrollable controlled blaze!

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10641590&pnum=3

[rainman]

You are a very Good word smith...But you fail to be an Intellectual.

Thanks for the compliment. Never claimed to be one.


Your meaning of something that is writen, is not whats intended when, written by someone else is it? [unless your a preist, I'll forgive you]

Not a priest either. Closest I get to that all that malarkey is being a sort of a kinda buddhist. (I toldya I was sane).
And I haven't had nearly enough to drink to be able to understand what the rest of the sentence means.


I can't believe I have to explain this to you........BUT.......The difference is 'IF'....jimO or myself say something stupid...not many people will hear about it or influenced by it....If Keishia says something stupid lots of people will hear it and maybe influenced by it, because of who she is ment to be.

So, stop being helpless and speak up! What does she have that you don't? If you really want to say something stupid write to the press, or book a hall, put up some posters, and attract a crowd. It's remarkably easy to do.

[Winston001]

I can't believe I have to explain this to you........BUT.......The difference is 'IF'....jimO or myself say something stupid...not many people will hear about it or influenced by it....If Keishia says something stupid lots of people will hear it and maybe influenced by it, because of who she is ment to be.

Does it occur to you guys that you are attacking the messenger and not the message?? If you don't agree with Robyn Malcolm and Keisha Castle-Hughes by all means say so and set out your counter-arguments. Ignore the celebrities but demolish their message.

[cowpoos]

Does it occur to you guys that you are attacking the messenger and not the message?? If you don't agree with Robyn Malcolm and Keisha Castle-Hughes by all means say so and set out your counter-arguments. Ignore the celebrities but demolish their message.

Yes your right Winston...BUT....when you start arguing with an idiot...its hard for the bystanders to decide who's who!!

[cowpoos]

I haven't had nearly enough to drink to be able to understand what the rest of the sentence means.



Sober up and you might.

[rainman]

Sober up and you might.

Sorry no, I'm completely sober and it's still dictionary soup.
I even ran it by the kids, who are real language geeks, and what's more never been pissed, ever, and they said "eh what?"

But never mind, I'm sure it all makes sense to you. And to be frank, I don't care that much. How likely is it, do you think, that you could ever be persuaded that climate change is real and materially affected by mankind's activities? I'm picking... not. Too many uncomfortable conclusions that spin out of that. Anyhoo, at least Robyn and Keisha (and others) have some strength and courage to push this.

[Jonno.]

But never mind, I'm sure it all makes sense to you. And to be frank, I don't care that much. How likely is it, do you think, that you could ever be persuaded that climate change is real and materially affected by mankind's activities? I'm picking... not. Too many uncomfortable conclusions that spin out of that. Anyhoo, at least Robyn and Keisha (and others) have some strength and courage to push this.

No they don't. They're sheep.

Logic works the other way to. CO2 increase and temperater increase doesn't mean CO2 is the cause. My weight has been increasing too, therefore my eating habbits are directly linked to climate change.

[spacemonkey]

Actually Jonno CO2 is well known as having high heat insulation values (R value) in the atmosphere, not exactly a big leap of logic for increased CO2 = increased atmospheric insulation = less heat loss = higher temperatures.

As far as your eating habits go? Eat less = fart less! Methane has an even higher R value than CO2 ya porker!! :laugh:

[cowpoos]

Hmmm....just because she has a voice...does not mean she should use it.

Heres another reason... http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10646927

[spacemonkey]

Heres another reason... http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10646927

Soooo according to that article a 20year old stopped drinking LAST YEAR! Wow........ Your right, no one who in their late teens has gotten drunk should ever be listened to ever again. *snigger*

[JimO]

Soooo according to that article a 20year old stopped drinking LAST YEAR! Wow........ Your right, no one who in their late teens has gotten drunk should ever be listened to ever again. *snigger*

she is a maori teenage mother with a drinking problem so is obviously qualified to save the planet

[JMemonic]

Hang on people actually take these actors seriously, didn't that now 20 year old have a kid when she was under 16 and the country went all googly eye and all sorts of ah's and oh's were heard from terry eyed grandmother types around the nation, no one went hang on there a crime been committed here.

[Pixie]

If they feel guilty they should buy a fucken Prius

[rustyrobot]

If they feel guilty they should buy a fucken Prius

Yes, because the only way to make any (acceptable) change in our society is to buy something.

[cowpoos]

If they feel guilty they should buy a fucken Prius

Emits more CO2 than quite a few diesels...so funny!!

[bogan]

Emits more CO2 than quite a few diesels...so funny!!

and has a far larger environmental cost to build than rocking an old school muscle car too, I know which one I'd rather have too!