This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comments by pewkatchoo

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 418 by pewkatchoo

Agreed on that score, I think I would rather be a bit warm than die of skin cancer. However, it does highlight the need to try and ensure that environmental cures do not end up worsening the problem.

Sat, 09 Jan 2010 00:27:00 UTC | #430295

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 416 by pewkatchoo

Well Decius, you say that repairing the hole was a success, and then I find something like this! http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/01/ozone-antarctica

Ummm, well what was it, a success or a failure?

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:27:00 UTC | #430257

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 414 by pewkatchoo

Scot, I do sympathise on the lack of cycling possibilities. I love cycling and hardly ever get the opportunity to do so in the UK, because of the lack of safe areas to go cycling. You have to stick the bike on the back of the car and head for somewhere like the grand union canal to find a long enough stretch to make it worthwhile. British drivers seem to have no respect or even awareness of cyclists. If I lived in a place like you do I would invest in cheap trail motorbikes for the family.

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:03:00 UTC | #430225

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 413 by pewkatchoo

That was a long way to suggest snow refutes AGW. Is that what you meant? And we don't really have wolves in europe any more?


What are you talking about? Try the wolves of Portugal and Spain. Italy has around 100 wolves spread across the Appeniines. Wolves have even repopulated parts of France in recent years and I was lucky enough to see one in the Pyrenees once, or at least I am relatively sure that is what it was. They are protected by law in most parts of central Europe. Wolves have even been sighted in Germany, they wander down from Poland apparently.

Anyway I posted that to highlight that there is nothing like the wisdom of prediction and as a bit of humour. But then the religious are not know for their humour are they. (^8

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:58:00 UTC | #430222

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 407 by pewkatchoo

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past

By Charles Onians

Monday, 20 March 2000

Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.

Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain's biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. "It was a bit of a first," a spokesperson said.

Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia, now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. "As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it's few and far between," he said.

Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a generation was growing up "without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world - open-air skating".

Warmer winters have significant environmental and economic implications, and a wide range of research indicates that pests and plant diseases, usually killed back by sharp frosts, are likely to flourish. But very little research has been done on the cultural implications of climate change - into the possibility, for example, that our notion of Christmas might have to shift.

Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important.

"We don't really have wolves in Europe any more, but they are still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what they look like," he said.

David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.

The chances are certainly now stacked against the sort of heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in "London Snow" of it, "stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying".

Not any more, it seems.

------------------------
Meanwhile:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/07/article-1241060-07C9B4D0000005DC-111_634x650.jpg

Yes, I know it is a picture from the Daily Mail, but there you go.

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:35:00 UTC | #430166

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 405 by pewkatchoo

Mark Jones

Thanks for your reasoned and reasonable response. I have lived through so many nonsense scare stories that I am totally distrusting when I can see what looks like an agenda. I don't like and seriously distrust conspiracy theories, but there are times when it is clear that financial benefit has accrued from a little scare mongering. MAD, the Ice Age of the 70s, the Ozone layer (which we were told could never repair itself but seems to have confounded us by doing just that) Y2K (I admit that I profited a little from that too but not as much as the big business scare mongers), the War on Terrorism, etc. They have all come and gone and we are all still here (actually even more of us).

I sincerely hope that some sort of rationality will come out of all this and that there will be a greater emphasis on technological solutions to the worlds' environmental and resource problems and less on scamming money off of people who fancy flying to Majorca once a year on holiday. I don't know if you are aware but our unelected president of Europe, Mr Rumpty Pumptie something or other, made a speech in which he suggested that green taxes should be imposed and used to pay for social services (read pay for our pensions) costs. WTF has that got to do with tackling climate change? And climate change in which direction? Are we going to be pleasantly comfortable in the summer or boiling hot? Are we going to be freezing our nuts off in the winter or just wafted mildly by pleasant zephyrs? Can you predict the effects of global warming (Anthro or otherwise) accurately over the next 50 years? What if the peak oil people are correct and that we are already running out of fossil fuels? If there is none left then we will not be running our SUVs for much longer anyway so perhaps problem solved.

What if the Mayans were right, though they did not do too good a job of predicting their own demise, and the world is all set to implode or get hit by a giant rock? OK, I am just kidding there (but am I?)!

I am not convinced that we are in a scrape nor do I think that anyone can predict what is actually going to happen. We could come up with solutions that cause more problems than they fix. Like subsidising the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and Hussein in Iraq seemed like a good idea at the time but ended up blowing up in the faces of the USA. I don't think that the human race has got any smarter over the years. Seems the more we understand about our world the less we understand ourselves and the more mistakes we make.

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:54:00 UTC | #430132

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 402 by pewkatchoo

Yes yes Decius, I can quote little bits of things too. Neat trick.

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:07:00 UTC | #430110

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 401 by pewkatchoo

Climate Science does not equal AGW. Or have I got that wrong?

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:03:00 UTC | #430107

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 399 by pewkatchoo

Mark Jones, I am answering you because I like the cut of your jib, plus I am a sucker for Charlie Brown.

I am not 'rejecting' climate science. Only an idiot could hold such a ridiculous position. I am rejecting the AGW agenda totally which I consider is a sham and a scam (no Quetz I dont have smoking gun evidence just lots of little clues and a huge gut feeling that we have been here before). Big business is up to its arse in it and the undeveloped nations are jumping on the bandwagon because they can see yet another way of scamming money off of the developed countries.

I am also totally sceptical of modelling that has to use proxy data (but only when it works) as most if not all of the studies seem to do. It seems to me that climate science is an easy thing to get wrong, not so easy to get right and there is as much disagreement as there is agreement. I would like to see the experts on both sides and the middle discussing it all rationally and governments keeping their big fat 'lets tax them to pay for our pensions' noses out completely, but fat chance of that happening. As far as I can see AGW has been hijacked by governments and by big big business and is ably backed by a bunch of screaming leftie hysterics who have given up religion but are looking for something else to believe in. Good grief, they even label people like me who are simply sceptical as denialists. I think I am going to label them as Armagedonists. Disappointingly, there is not even very much in the way of rationality on the subject in the Richard Dawkins site, cue the hysterics of Steve Zara (wur awll doooomed ah tell ye) and the weird reasoning of Epeeist that I have the responsibility to care for his 80 year old aunt, whom I have never met.

You are right, I am not an expert on climate science and nor do I want to be. If this was just about science, I would be all ears, but there seems to be as much guesswork involved as science.

What I am an expert on is big con games and big con merchants (Al Gore). Wealth redistribution seems to be the ultimate game, all of our wealth gets redistributed to the likes of Gore and Pachauri via climate tithes (they got that idea from the Roman Catholic church I think). These people don't care about the poor of the world, or about anyone else except themselves for that matter. They burn up more fossil fuels flying themselves to Copenhagen and Mexico City than all of the SUVs in the world are going to use in their entire lifetimes. If the likes of these are your saviours then thanks, but I will pass. Whatever the science says.

If you want me to take AGW even remotely seriously then I suggest you get yourself some more reasonable and reasoned mouthpieces.

I might start believing that there is something in Global Warming when Al Gore sells his huge house and donates 90 percent of his vast fortune to Climate research. Until then, keep taking the happy pills.

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:10:00 UTC | #430094

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 397 by pewkatchoo

Sciros

One last one for you. I have been clammering for more cycle paths in the UK for literally ages. I lambasted my local council to no avail. Public transport here is a joke too, I assume you are in the UK as you have a cynical and realistic idea of what we would end up with and how long it would take and how much it would cost.

I would settle for Holland, Germany or even France's public transport system, but I guess we are more likely to end up with Romania or Bulgarias.

I lived in Holland for 20 years and used to cycle, quite literally, everywhere. I even took my bike on the train and cycled to work from the station, something I would not even contemplate doing in the UK as eventually I would be killed or badly injured, it would only be a matter of time. So much for governments' green policies.

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:57:00 UTC | #430075

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 395 by pewkatchoo

Mark

I distrust anything that relies so heavily on computer modelling. I had a quite healthy scepticism about financial models, long before the credit crunch scandal and the collapse of the banks. I was asking how it was possible for people to be buying houses when they had no money and no income to speak of. I was also questioning the function of derivatives. I questioned the amount of electronic money that was washing through the system as it seemed impossible that there was that much real money around. I was continually pointed in the direction of financial models and told to trust the experts. I generally replied that I had heard that one before and that I thought that the whole thing was a house of cards. It gave me no satisfaction when it all collapsed as, of course, even with my scepticism it still had a backlash on me. I have had to cancel a private pension in order to survive.

So if you think I am going to put my faith in yet another bunch of so-called experts who want more of my non-existent cash to save the 3rd world based on dubious computer models you are having a laugh. The measure that you numpties want to impose would totally bankrupt the developed world which, of course, would not help anyone in the undeveloped world one iota.

Even if I were to accept that AGW is happening, I still would oppose the solutions that you people want to impose. You are positively dangerous and deluded. Enjoy your new religion, I am out of here for the last time and will not be responding to any of your hysterical rebuttals.

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:46:00 UTC | #430068

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 392 by pewkatchoo

Hey Scot, why not buy a bike or even walk. You don't need an SUV if that is all you use it for. I don't own and never have owned an SUV. The closest I came to owning one was an Audi allroad, but that was because I was living in the Pyranees at the time. I find SUVs ridiculous vehicles, especially when they are driven by townies, but that is their lookout. If they want to pay through the nose for a stupid car then they are quite welcome to do so. I would never consider banning them from owning them. If the government decides to ban their production, then that is quite another thing, but they will never do that because they need the tax money they generate.

If government was serious about conserving energy, they would provide subsidies to companies who encourage people who can, to work from home. They would make rail travel much cheaper. They would actually ring fence the money from green taxes for research into alternative fuels (and I don't mean by subsidising private companies so that they can get rich), but they don't.

FWIW I am all for conservation and for research into weaning us off of dependence on fossil fuels. However, I do not see why we should be throwing a bunch of money at India or Africa just because we are developed and they prefer to spend their money on nukes and guns and Swiss bank accounts. Pachauri and his Tata paymasters have just caused a Corus steel production mill in Redcar to close down and we (the British government) are subsidising the building of one in India instead. This puts 1700 British workers out of work and exports their jobs to India, without any saving on CO2 output. All in the name of the AGW agenda.

And you guys complain about the so-labled denialists being in the pay of or dupes of Big Oil. Irony just doesn't even describe it.

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:34:00 UTC | #430060

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 390 by pewkatchoo

Root2squared thinks he is a Libertarian, what a laugh. More like a Libtard.

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:16:00 UTC | #430048

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 377 by pewkatchoo

And as you are clearly incredibly hard of thinking, people who own SUVs already pay huge amounts of taxes to run them.

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 06:01:00 UTC | #429928

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 376 by pewkatchoo

This:

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem or maybe you don't understand english.


from the keyboard of someone who comes out with shite like this:

Why not just make it prohibitive for people to consume more than their fair share of energy? No limits for anyone. Example: Just triple the price of gas. Makes it safer for the bicycle guy with fewer SUVs on the road and punishes the other guy.


You are having a laugh. The only people that would suffer in such a situation would be, again, the middle class. Poor people get everything subsidised and the rich simply don't care what things cost. Economics not your strong point eh?

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 05:58:00 UTC | #429927

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 374 by pewkatchoo

Mordacious, what is it like to be a smug self-satisfied git? I am well aware of the difference between weather and climate. However, I am also not impressed by people who claim to be able to predict what the climate will be like in 20 years time, yet cannot predict even generally what the weather is going to be like in 5 days time. Our met office was predicting a particularly mild winter up to 1 week before the snows hit. This is not the first time they have been proven catastrophically wrong this year. And yet our absurd met office boss got a performance related increase in pay of 25 percent this year. What performance???

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 05:47:00 UTC | #429925

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 373 by pewkatchoo

What is wrong with SUVs? There was a news article today on the Beeb (so pro-AGW that it should be a crime) showing how one small village in Oxfordshire being totally cut off by snow were only able to get about thanks to the generosity of the very few people who owned 4x4s. They ferried people to hospital, collected and delivered groceries to old people stranded in isolated cottages etc. Yep, terrible things those SUVs. Why should I pay taxes so that greedy sleaseballs like Pachauri can stay in 5 star hotels in Copenhagen while trying to lay a guilt trip on my comparitively environmentally friendly lifestyle.

On yer bike pal.

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 05:39:00 UTC | #429924

Go to: Climate Change editorial

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 365 by pewkatchoo

Mark Jones, you cannot be serious. Pointing me in the direction of a weenie like Moonbat is not doing it for me.

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 03:33:00 UTC | #429893

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 364 by pewkatchoo

Ok Laurie, if you think that it is so right and proper then you are quite welcome to pay my contribution for me. Just as Epeeist is quite welcome to pay for his own house heating and that of his aunts, if he cares so much for her. Keep your religious guilt trips to yourself please. In case you have not noticed our wonderful government has not been investing in any of these things, they have been frittering your dosh on useless quangos, fraudulent expenses and subsidies for hangers on. We did not even create enough storage for gas reserves. As a consequence this could be an uncomfortable winter. Still, global warming will save us.

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 03:30:00 UTC | #429892

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 362 by pewkatchoo

epeeist, that is deflection. We were not talking about your 80 year old aunt. I am a taxpayer and, because of all the taxes that I pay, I cannot afford to make my house as efficient as I would like. But there are no subsidies for me as I am not poor enough. Too busy paying everybody else's way.

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:19:00 UTC | #429878

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 361 by pewkatchoo

”Global warming is still happening – our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren’t able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can’t definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That’s a travesty!“

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:16:00 UTC | #429877

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 353 by pewkatchoo

(and the insulation and the new energy efficient boiler I put in is grant aided)
.

How nice that your conscience is being subsidised by the taxpayer. Sorry epeeist, I see you as one of the good guys, but that is the sort of thing that gets my goat. You want to be energy efficient then fine, but do it on your own terms.

Thu, 07 Jan 2010 11:53:00 UTC | #429652

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 350 by pewkatchoo

By the way, I am not just trolling. I am trying to get you people to be a little more sceptical, which is one of the key purposes of this site (or so I believed). But you have created a situation where people who may not share your opinions or faith in a very shaky hypothesis are actually the enemies of mankind and are, as Mordacious so quaintly put it "wanks". Well guess who comes over as the wanker here? I don't know this guy Cavuto, but I doubt he ever called Mordacious a wank. And for those who think I am being hypocritical with my slagging of Gore and Pigchauri, well these guys are trying to get their hands on my money and also trying to cramp my already very limited lifestyle while burning more carbon in a year than I will in several lifetimes. Follow the money.

Thu, 07 Jan 2010 11:45:00 UTC | #429648

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 348 by pewkatchoo

You should try reading some of the utter unsubstantiated scaremongering bollix you people are coming out with. Evidence equals made up data to you guys. I am really looking forward to the day when you are all shown up for the unscientific religites that you are. A pig dressed up as a scientist is still a pig (cue Pigchauri). Again, I do not need to show you any evidence for the non-existence of an event, you need to prove it to me that it is happening and sending out extremely wealthy clowns like Gore and the good doctor to tell me it is happening is not doing it for me. I have been hearing scare stories all my life. You people are not happy unless there is some sort of Armageddon like event going on. You really want Global Warming to be true so that you can be proven right. Try putting on your atheists sceptical glasses once in a while. It is not thousands of scientists that are driving this, it is actually just a few in very powerful positions. Many of them the same ones that predicted global cooling 30 years ago. I am really looking forward to the day when you AGW alarmists are shown for the dangerous deluded fools that I think you are.

I left this site 3 years ago because of you people and you are still here promoting your death and destruction agenda.

Cavuto seems to think the U.S. is equivalent to the entire planet. Therefore, whatever the temperature is in the U.S., it is obviously the same as everywhere else. It's cold in Phoenix, therefore, the planet is getting colder.



You cannot have it every which way you know. Either it is Global Warming or it is not quite so Global Warming. If there is a warming effect all over the globe then it should certainly be affecting a landmass the size of the USA. The fact that the freezing weather is all over Europe, China, India (I have a friend of my age there who reports that it is unseasonally cold there) does sort of put a huge hole in your reasoning. By the way, it is not just a little cold in Scotland (where I do not live by the way, just shows that presumptions don't mean anything eh!) it is ballsachingly freezing.

Have hit yourselves in the head with your hockeysticks girls.

Thu, 07 Jan 2010 11:35:00 UTC | #429644

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 335 by pewkatchoo

Quine - nope and I don't need any. It is up to you to prove to me beyond any shadow of doubt that it is happening. Did I tell you that it is a bit cold outside. You clowns cannot even get short range weather right and you expect me to take your word on climate? Don't make me laugh.

Thu, 07 Jan 2010 03:13:00 UTC | #429564

Go to: Climate Change editorial

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 332 by pewkatchoo

Oh good grief, Steve Zara crawls out of his hole again with his Private Frazer impressions again; wur awl dooomed ah tell ye Captain Mannerrring!

I am really lapping this up at the moment. Climate science has been shown to be the sham that it always was. I always thought there was something decidedly unscientific about it, computer modelling is not science and never was. Computer models were used heavily in the financial markets. That worked well then. Climate and weather are rather more complex than finance, yet the vanity of the pundits pushing them knew no bounds. Well you all just got found out and the current round of freezing winter weather is just the icing on the cake.

The game was up when Al Gore started getting involved. Anyone want to buy some carbon credits, slightly used but still good for any old mug that wants them? And now we discover that Mr Global Warming himself, Dr panicmongering Pachauri is as corrupt as they come and is so busy skimming off the profits from carbon credits and other little scams that he should be soon catching up with his little pal Mr Gore.

The final clincher has to be when Gibbo Brown starts to campaign for carbon capping. Everything that idiot touches turns to pure sh1te, if it already isn't. With numpties like that on your side, I reckon that your little AGW scam is not long for this world.

Now, can we get back to fixing the real problems of the world. Like making sure people have clean water to drink, cleaning up the oceans before we drown every bit of sea life in an avalanche of muck and maybe invest some money in creating alternative fuel sources so that we all don't freeze to death in the next frozen winter. If we had invested all of the money and brains wasted on AGW research in finding real solutions, we might actually be in a better place. Lock the doom mongers back in the bedroom closets, they are a danger to the world.

I used to be slightly agnostic about AGW, now I am an out and out atheist on the subject. I did not swap my conversion to atheism just to be subsumed by a bunch of hysterics claiming a new pseudo-science based religion.

Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:13:00 UTC | #429528

Go to: Anti-atheist prejudice widespread in America

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 135 by pewkatchoo

This is my first time back after a very long lay off and I see that little has changed in the way of perceptions of atheism by religious people and the rather poor arguments that they put together. However, this article puts another question on things for me. It seems to me that Americans have almost deified their own founders. You even refer to them as the founding fathers. These were only men. Extremely fallible and often extremely ill-informed and wrong. Many of their writings do not stand the test of time and yet people still set such great store by them. And it is not just religious people that do this, normally level-headed atheists do too.

This strikes me as indicating that America is stuck in a time-warp in respect of political and social development. Far from being an ultra-modern society it is actually far more wedded to the past than are other countries. Countries that Americans themselves refer to as old-Europe. In fact European countries have not stood still but have changed considerably (not always for the better) over the last 200 years where America has not. Am I making sense' Or are my perceptions simply delusions' I have only been to the US on half a dozen occasions and never for longer than 3 weeks, so I cannot claim to be an expert on the place.

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:22:00 UTC | #335305

Go to: Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 320 by pewkatchoo

Richard's comment no 7. Yes, I suppose it was a bit squirming singing the whole of the national anthem, but I still found it quite amusing. Ms Brown came across as a bit humourless and, for a lobbyist, seemed unable to think on her feet. Colbert gave here quite a few funny openings that, if she had been just a wee bit more witty or had a sense of humour at all, she could have won a lot of kudos by responding. The bit about having sex at the end was a clear opening for a riposte. She should have said something like 'Yes you are quite right, so we should forego it this time.', instead of 'I have nothing to say to that.'

Sorry, but I would like to have someone lobbying for our cause who is a bit more quick minded than this lady. She knew she was on Comedy Central and should have been on top of her game.

Sorry Richard, but the days of Dad's Army are long gone. Humour has evolved too.

Mon, 01 Sep 2008 14:41:00 UTC | #228242

Go to: Porn pastor's wife vows to stand by him

pewkatchoo's Avatar Jump to comment 132 by pewkatchoo

J Mac


There is no need to air out someone else's dirty laundry just for kicks.

We all have skeletons in our closets and I wouldn't like mine being discussed on a forum. Certainly anything I do in public is fair game for criticism, but I would hope there would be some discretion when dealing with someone's personal life.


Why? He outed himself, or at least his missus did. All we did was reference the article. Yes, everybody probably does have skeletons in their cupboards. But not everybody is a public figure trading on their moral superiority for their living. The same goes for politicians and other questionable prosoletysers. They are fair game and should be held up to ridicule and dismissal. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the furnace.

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 04:32:00 UTC | #225027