The Mail seem to be in denial on the subject other than it will "hit families and the Middle Class" hardest.

Use this thread to post any Mail wisdom on the subject.

This is a real gem.

Lamb born as Mother Nature confuses autumn for spring

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

it's got the readers worried

Oh, come on! She will be for the pot soon.

The mail's attitude towards global warming is a confusing one. On the one hand, you'd think they'd jump for it. It's a way to scare the shit out of your readers and point a finger at all the over-consuming untermenschen and their evil consumerist ways.

But the mail acts not just as if it's not caused by human activity, but as if it's not even an issue at all. We hear these stories of unusually high temperatures in autumn and winter and weather or not it has anything to do with global warming the mail's like 'get your sunhat on folks'

a true paradox

I think that though the Mail would love to add yet another topic to it's armageddon theory, they don't want it to appear that they support something that may require funding.

In other words they don't want to say "yup, global warming exists. Carrier bag tax is good. Recycle tax is good. We should use taxpayers money to fund research into alternatives". It would also make it more difficult to stick up for the law abiding motorist if they appeared to take the stand that cars are global warming contributers.

Besides, they have enough topic to instil fear day after day, this one wouldn't really make that much difference.

I think it's more that there being no man-made global warming fits in nicely with their general view that if people did something stupid and widely considered harmful in the past, they should be allowed to do it forever more.

That and if they supported the idea, they'd have to agree with Labour, which would make them implode in a giant paradox.

Thay can't loose on this. If the evidence becomes so insurmountable that even they have to recognise it, then they'll be able to play the "we're all doomed, everything's shit" card. Until then, they'll be going with "dastardly government won't let you do exactly what you want, when you want, and will tax you until the pips squeak if you try. Everything's shit."

What you need to remember is that global warming/climate change/etc is primarily a human problem which involves GETTING OFF OUR ARSES AND DOING SOMETHING. Unlike bird flu, MRSA, etc which are all the fault of Someone Else.

The Mail makes a virtue of shifting responsibility onto another party. When it senses that its core (or idealised) readership might be asked to make a bit of an effort, it either shuts up or tries to shift the issue.

_________________
Ten seconds... the pain begins.

Fifteen seconds... you can't breathe.

Twenty seconds... you give up and turn off the Jeremy Vine show.

ooooooooooooooooooh look !

Forecasters predicting a white Christmas as first snow falls across Britain

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

First person to post a comment containing the words 'snow tax' wins 10p and a satsuma.

Let us not forget that the people telling us about climate change tend to be 'environ-mentalists', i.e. sworn enemies of the Mail. So I think it's not so much the message that they don't like but who's telling it. Watch them turn it around, however, whenever there are storms or floods -- lack of investment in flood defences and emergency services etc.

Also the simple mental leap it takes to realise 'Global Warming' doesn't mean 'Everything will get hotter; therefore if anything gets colder it's evidence of the direct opposite of global warming' is apparently impossible to make.

The 'global warming' label wasn't working because fuckwits like those who write and read the Mail couldn't reconcile this with temperatures dropping in some circumstances. So 'climate change' became the new black as it seemed to to the job better, but the trouble is that commentators now use this as a stick to beat it with. Thus:

Global warming -- but some places will be cooler so "that'll be global warming, eh?" and all that.
Climate change -- "Oh, so now that these so-called scientists have realised that the world isn't warming, they've just changed the name so that we can all still be taxed."

Actually on this last point, I don't seem to be paying any more tax as a result of policies on climate change. Does anyone else? In fact, I actually pay no tax on my road fuel and this is a result of a 'green' policy. Can't find it in the Mail though...

The annoying thing is that if these people read anything else about climate change -- anything anywhere -- then they might, for example, start to appreciate the difference between climate and weather. But what else can we expect from people who get all their facts, and world view, from the Daily Mail? Ooh, that sent a shudder so I'm going to repeat it: imagine what it's like to get all your facts and world view from the Daily Mail...

Er, yes it does. Global = everything
Warming = gets hotter
Global warming is poor terminology, thats why most people use 'climate change', which is unfortunate in being rather more ambiguous.

The best thing is all the self-appointed geniuses.

'I know that climate change is bogus because <obvious but blatantly unscientific observation>'

Really? I'll just get on to every single climatologist and tell them they've all missed something totally obvious.

My stance on Climate Change is the opposite of 'The climate goes in cycles! How dare we be so arrogant to think we can change it! We should just get on with life'.
I'm of the belief that it doesn't matter if it's man-made or not. If it's going to kill us all, I'm against it.

My understanding is that rising 'global' (i.e. average) temperatures are increasing, but that this causes localised cooling in some circumstances. So yes, overall 'global warming' is correct, but the numpties don't get that this doesn't mean that everything, everywhere warms at the same rate, or at all.

The term global warming is misleading as has already been discussed but i think the term 'climate change' is also incredibly vague and unscientific. It's more of a media term. I prefer the more old-skool 'greenhouse effect'. It's a more scentific term which actually explains the process of how greenhouse gas emissions collect etc. Plus it's a very sobre term, global warming and climate change are very doom-laden