Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => The Dressing Room => Topic started by: Jonny on January 06, 2010, 12:06:49 PM
-
Yes, it was ice, ice, ice, today - blizzard.
So, anyone curious as to how serious it has become all of a sudden? I don't want to wave the global warming stick or anything like that but I somehow feel the enevitable has come quicker than we'd thought.
I don't suppose anyone else is sort of thinking like this? Or I'm just worrying myself to insanity.
-
When I was younger (about 28 years ago) I remember we used to have loads of snow in winter. Obviously I can't relate it to what we have now as back then all I was interested in was if the school was going to be closed. It certainly feels worse now but that's only because I now drive and know how tough it is - my Daughter is very excited and wants to go and play in the snow.
If it lasts another week I'll start worrying that something has gone wrong! I can still see the sun, which is a good thing.
-
I'll say it fast so as to hopefully kill this stone dead.
STOP IT!
This is life and the world has always been this way... go and do something to help someone personally or make them smile.
Climate change?
Climates ARE SUPPOSED to $%&#ing change!!!! :? :?
-
Don't believe the Dogma.
It is snowing becuase it's winter. Last few years there was global warming because it was mild, now we've got it becuase the winter is like winters used to be before global warming.
I think you must have watched 'The Day After Tomorrow' recently.
There's more important things to worry about, like how England will manage to get a second innings total of 466 in South Africa!
-
:lol:
Yeah, chill... I've seen worse
(weather, that is ... the cricket's just normal :lol:)
-
One word: Climategate
-
I'm not shitetin' bricks over it, I guess I have been plagued to the point I'm not really talking for myself but people who have paraded the stuff all over the place. I quite like the snow, just not ice. My knees have bad times with ice.
And I think I've offended Dave with my weakness, lol.. Apologies.
-
And I think I've offended Dave with my weakness, lol.. Apologies.
BE STRONG LIKE VIKING!!
(http://www.othersideimages.com/images/POWEBS/zakk001.jpg)
(who lives in LA is scared of real bike gangs and has had a nosejob to look pretty) :? :? :P
-
I'm not finding it at all problematic, and this certainly isn't comparable up here to many of the fantastic snowy winters I went sledging in as a child.
-
I'm not finding it at all problematic, and this certainly isn't comparable up here to many of the fantastic snowy winters I went sledging in as a child.
exactly.
my dads famliy used to get snowed in all the time when he was younger. and that never never happened for years.
I don't think its as bad as people make out.
people just aren't ever prepared for it.
-
It seems people's brain completely freeze as well as the roads.
Some complete tw@t hit my car, dented the rear drivers panel near the fuel cap, cracked my front bumper, scratched it and hit my tyres.
The driver didn't leave any details what so ever. This driver also hit my girlfriends Dad's car which was parked behind me.
I won't be claiming it on insurance because my insurance premium will sky rocket (it's £1000 already). So I'm gonna try and get it repaired when I get some money together. Doesn't help I'm losing my job at the end of the month.
-
I was driving a lorry in it a 6 this morning and it isn't too bad, you just have to be very alert. The roads were very quiet, so I assume most folks threw the towel in before the day started.
This global warming propaganda drives me insane! We normally draw mild damp air from the gulf stream at this time of year but at the moment the high pressure over us is pushing the mild weather under the UK and we getting cold air from Siberia. Thats why its snowing, that and because its winter!
The Earth is aprox 4.5 billion years old. Its gone through extreme changes in temperature long before we were here. The last ice age lasted longer than our existence here. Its a cycle and it will happen again and when it does taxation to control 'Global Warming' will have absolutely no effect whatsoever and most of us will die. Some may live and keep reproducing long enough to keep us from extinction. The life cycle starts again. The diagram below shows just how little time we have existed in relation to the age of our planet.
-
Its a cycle and it will happen again and when it does taxation to control 'Global Warming' will have absolutely no effect whatsoever and most of us will die.
Happy New year!! :D
-
Last few years there was global warming because it was mild, now we've got it becuase the winter is like winters used to be before global warming.
I disagree with that, global warming has not 'happened', whether it started or finished. I think we have just had a few mild years, caused by..
..nature.
-
i doubt one christmas is anything to worry about.
everyone confidently pronouncing global warming isn't real and the scientists are involved in some kind of conspiracy probably is, though.
-
We're entering The End Of Days.
It's been foretold for centuries. All the signs are there.
Only last week I saw a cat with two heads, two tails and two bodies.
-
i doubt one christmas is anything to worry about.
everyone confidently pronouncing global warming isn't real and the scientists are involved in some kind of conspiracy probably is, though.
There does seem to have been a very substantial backlash against global warming theories in the last year or so.
I don't know who's right, I'm not a scientist and I haven't read a great deal about the subject. But I'm not convinced by the "humans haven't been here for long so we can't have done any damage" argument. Before us, there wasn't anyone exploiting the planet's resources and pumping pollutants into the atmosphere. We've only been using coal, oil and gas for a few hundred years but we've used it on an enormous scale.
I'm just worried that if climate change scepticism becomes the default position, it'll give the big-scale polluters licence to carry on regardless. We may all be doomed, but why speed it up?
-
I always amused by people with no scientific background that are positive enough that humans are having zero effect on the climate to active laugh at and slate people who think otherwise. Course, there's really nothing to gain for anybody saying it's true if it is, but lots and lots to gain for the people saying (or funding) those who claim it's false. I don't know why any government.
We might be, might not be, I don't have remotely enough understanding of the topic to hold any other view, and neither do 99.999% of people. The one positive though, is that all the climate change panic has encouraged a far more ecological attitude from a huge number of people and legislation pushed towards greener behaviour by governments, and that can only be a good thing.
-
The Earth is aprox 4.5 billion years old. Its gone through extreme changes in temperature long before we were here. The last ice age lasted longer than our existence here. Its a cycle and it will happen again and when it does taxation to control 'Global Warming' will have absolutely no effect whatsoever and most of us will die. Some may live and keep reproducing long enough to keep us from extinction. The life cycle starts again. The diagram below shows just how little time we have existed in relation to the age of our planet.
[sarcasm]How can you post this nonsense - If you read your bible you would know that the earth is 6000 years old[/sarcasm]
Jonny - we used to have much more snow in decades gone by and the country didn't grind to a halt either
Many of us in our 40s can tell stories about great fun sledging and snowball fights etc
Also hundreds of years ago the Thames used to freeze over completely and winter fairs were held on the ice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs)
Here is a picture of a painting of one such event in 1677 (11 years after the Fire of London)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/The_Frozen_Thames_1677.jpg)
-
Course, there's really nothing to gain for anybody saying it's true if it is, but lots and lots to gain for the people saying (or funding) those who claim it's false.
Mr Ambassador ... with this comment, you're really spoiling us....
I'm not going to burst your bubble... PDT_038
-
I always amused by people with no scientific background that are positive enough that humans are having zero effect on the climate to active laugh at and slate people who think otherwise.
It is impossible to deny that we have effect, but the climate does evolve. Ice ages, species become extinct - the world is forever changing, we act as a catalyst to it, but are we really responsible for the T-rex dying out?
-
Course, there's really nothing to gain for anybody saying it's true if it is, but lots and lots to gain for the people saying (or funding) those who claim it's false.
Mr Ambassador ... with this comment, you're really spoiling us....
I'm not going to burst your bubble... PDT_038
Other than some renewable energy providers, who really stands to gain from climate change being true and action taken to combat it? Geniune question, I just can't really think of anyone.
I always amused by people with no scientific background that are positive enough that humans are having zero effect on the climate to active laugh at and slate people who think otherwise.
It is impossible to deny that we have effect, but the climate does evolve. Ice ages, species become extinct - the world is forever changing, we act as a catalyst to it, but are we really responsible for the T-rex dying out?
In the little reading I've done on the subject, I've never seen anyone deny that climate change happens anyway, it's the rate of change that's the abnormality.
-
There was a great Doc on telly a few weeks back presented by Tony Robinson on this subject. They were saying the climate heats up and cools down in cycles and always has based on their scientist findings, When the climate shifted hot or cold it lasted for thousands of years and the shift would take a decade.
I remember the extra taxes put on air travel a few years ago which were necessary "because of global warming" It was only here that these taxes were imposed. That just said it all to me that its just another way for this clown of a PM to raise even more money. So it would be the gain of the government wouldn't it. They have Ads on tv right now spreading this propaganda.
Thousands of years before we were driving cars the earth was pumping huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere with volcanos so the worlds been "polluted' ever since, ever since. And I'm no Magnus Pike!
Edit another theory for why it could be happening is elliptical orbits of the sun.
-
are we really responsible for the T-rex dying out?
If they were around today, then yes, we almost certainly would be.
Some arse would be destroying their habitat, and some other arse would be killing them to use their toenails as aphrodisiacs. Or something.
-
Some arse would be destroying their habitat, and some other arse would be killing them to use their toenails as aphrodisiacs. Or something.
Or some gun-nut would be driving around in a jeep shouting woo-hoo as they shot many rounds at it.
-
Some arse would be destroying their habitat, and some other arse would be killing them to use their toenails as aphrodisiacs. Or something.
Or some gun-nut would be driving around in a jeep shouting woo-hoo as they shot many rounds at it.
And if you lived near a colony of wild T-Rex you would be f**king overjoyed that they were killing each and every one of em!
It's like the poor communities forced (economically) to live closer to wild Tigers.... They love em shot dead.
I love em alive but I don't have to live with the man-eating buggers :? :?
-
Some arse would be destroying their habitat, and some other arse would be killing them to use their toenails as aphrodisiacs. Or something.
Or some gun-nut would be driving around in a jeep shouting woo-hoo as they shot many rounds at it.
But if we had co-existed with Dinosaurs, would we have become top of the food chain? If not then we wouldn't have the technology we have these days so no cars, roads guns ect
-
Oh God, we'll have Copperhead in here in a minute going on about the Second Amendment and his right to bear armour-piercing missiles or something.
How do we always end up going off on these tangents? :?
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d85/frethand2/KaneRobertsGunGuitar.jpg)(http://mog.com/images/users/0000/0004/6523/images/1192838406.jpeg)
-
:lol: It was some tangent that one!
-
isn't there a creationist natural history museum in the USA (where else?) that points out humans and dinosaurs DID live together, but the T-Rex didn't eat humans because god had not put the fear of man into them for the whole of both species period on the same earth??
-
"This walk through history is the centerpiece of the Creation Museum and features amazing scientific and biblical answers for the world we live in today. Witness the true time line of the universe unfold through the 7 C’s of History—illuminating God’s redemptive plan throughout history."
http://creationmuseum.org/whats-here/exhibits/
BKP outing?
-
There are creationist UNIVERSITIES in the states that teach that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Universities whos qualifications are actually recognised.
-
Blimey that is bizarre! I dismissed creation as bollocks as a kid. They love all that in the States don't they :lol:
-
Blimey that is bizarre! I dismissed creation as bollocks as a kid. They love all that in the States don't they :lol:
Well, they're a young country and have alot of growing up to do... :) Bless...
-
I'm curious about any possible days off from it.
SNOW DAMN YOU!
Which god do I have to pray to? Is there some sort of specialist deity I can submit a request to for a respectable sized blizard at my workplace?
-
Blimey that is bizarre! I dismissed creation as bollocks as a kid. They love all that in the States don't they :lol:
Well, they're a young country and have alot of growing up to do... :) Bless...
:lol:
-
On the creationist thing -
there was a creationist museum that in the last couple of years ran into some finacial trouble and had to sell off some stuff.
The main thing they were hoping to offload was a mastodon skull. It was (independently dated to be) 45,000 years old. The museum spouted the normal creationist 6000 year old earth shite. I really wanted any potential buyer to ask for proof of age of the skull.
-
I may strongly deviate from the more common viewpoint, but I am like a giddy schoolgirl right now. Situated in Dublin at the moment, and far as I can imagine, we're supposed to have milder winters compared with you brits. :) It's everything to do with the rain shadow of the mountain ranges to our west, which helps block the rain that gets carried over to the British isles by the dominating cold fronts of the Atlantic, the cool temperate oceanic climate zone, the common altitudes, icecream, stuff like that. We've been having quite a bit of snow lately, with snowfall throughout most nights and what seems to be a dying out winter anticyclone, so stuff's nice and chilly so far. Love it. Frankly, I wanna have more of it, gives me some cheap yuks. The state of even moderately used roads isn't any worse than that after a mild downpour in the heat of the summer, the roads are as wet as they always are here, only difference is that there's snow by the side of them. The locals up here can't really take any frost round here, nor a few hotter days where the temperature is anywhere above 22 Celcius. It can be mildly entertaining to observe this round here. :lol: :lol:
-
I am like a giddy schoolgirl right now. ...
Well I'll forgive you anything!! :P
-
I am like a giddy schoolgirl right now. ...
Well I'll forgive you anything!! :P
Well, bless you sir. Feel free to unzip at your leisure. :P
-
I am like a giddy schoolgirl right now. ...
Well I'll forgive you anything!! :P
Well, bless you sir. Feel free to unzip at your leisure. :P
As anybody on this board can tell you, I don't always wait for an invitation so yours is appreciated..
Welcome the the forum, we're a VERY friendly bunch. PDT_001 PDT_008 PDT_002
-
I am like a giddy schoolgirl right now. ...
Well I'll forgive you anything!! :P
Well, bless you sir. Feel free to unzip at your leisure. :P
As anybody on this board can tell you, I don't always wait for an invitation so yours is appreciated..
Welcome the the forum, we're a VERY friendly bunch. PDT_001 PDT_008 PDT_002
Thank you for your welcome, very much appreciated. PDT_001
-
The thing that gets me is, 'they' say if there's no change in carbon emission policy, there will be at least a 2 degree change in temperature which will produce massive worldwide climate change. The Met Office said we would have a mild Winter, it's the coldest Winter since 1981. They said is would be a barbecue-Summer, it wasn't. How can they tell what the temperature change will be over the next 50-100 years and can't tell what the weather will be like in a months time (and I've not talking specific temperature, just general conditions). IMO anyone predicting what the temperature will be in 100 years, is taking a massive punt. For me it would be like trying to predict the stock market value in 2110 :?
I suspect the climate models that scientists use aren't as accurate as they would like us to believe. However I also believe that a little 'Green' in our lives won't do us any harm :)
-
Weather != Climate
Other parts of the world are having milder winters (some parts of Canada are 10 degrees warmer than usual). This current weather we're seeing is mostly caused by something called the Arctic Oscillation. Google it to find out more.
Now stop moaning and start building snowmen playing snow guitars. ;)
-
I'm curious about any possible days off from it.
SNOW DAMN YOU!
Which god do I have to pray to? Is there some sort of specialist deity I can submit a request to for a respectable sized blizard at my workplace?
I'm now on my second day off work :P
-
I'm back in the office today. I am a little worried about the climate though as it has stopped snowing.
-
And the sun is out....
-
I'm back in the office today. I am a little worried about the climate though as it has stopped snowing.
I'm at home today, not because of the snow but because I'm feeling a bit crook. It hasn't snowed, but the sky's starting to look a little ominous....
-
I was out again this morning at 5:30, -7. Not much to do though. No work tomorrow which means no pay even though its illegal. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olmag5Cu9TI
Anyway this ^ is why we have global warming. Fact. Don't argue with me as I'm off work tomorrow and I might find you because 'The Devil makes work for idle hands' :wink:
-
Awesome picture of the UK taken today by a NASA satellite:
(http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/2010007-0107/GreatBritain.A2010007.1150.1km.jpg)
-
I saw that on the news it is an amazing picture :D
-
Incredible picture! :o Nothing visible except the snow. It's weird to think that we're under all that, somewhere.
-
There's an absolutely massive resolution version here: http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/?2010007-0107/GreatBritain.A2010007.1150.250m.jpg (http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/?2010007-0107/GreatBritain.A2010007.1150.250m.jpg)
-
Wow! That's awesome.
-
There does seem to have been a very substantial backlash against global warming theories in the last year or so.
(a) I don't know who's right, I'm not a scientist and I haven't read a great deal about the subject. (b) But I'm not convinced by the "humans haven't been here for long so we can't have done any damage" argument. (c) Before us, there wasn't anyone exploiting the planet's resources and pumping pollutants into the atmosphere. We've only been using coal, oil and gas for a few hundred years but we've used it on an enormous scale.
(d) I'm just worried that if climate change scepticism becomes the default position, it'll give the big-scale polluters licence to carry on regardless. We may all be doomed, but why speed it up?
(a) i don't know who's right, for 100% certain, either, but I'm going with the scientists. I find it hilarious how oil company apologists (not saying anyone here is one; i'm saying the guys muddying the waters and manufacturing doubt are) point out how biased scientists are, while blatantly ignoring how the oil companies etc. are about a million times more biased, and have much more to gain (last time i checked in science, if you blow the existing theories out of the water with kickass research, you won't get ostracised, you'll win the nobel prize).
(b) agreed. plus the "oh, there are natural cycles" (which, might i add, no scientists are suggesting there aren't) is a specious argument, of course there are natural cycles, but just because there are doesn't mean we can't be influencing things, too.
(c) actually, that's not true. The reason the atmosphere is ~20% oxygen is plants. :D But i agree that we're producing stuff which the earth was never exposed to before (or else in very small quantities).
(d) exactly.
I always amused by people with no scientific background that are positive enough that humans are having zero effect on the climate to active laugh at and slate people who think otherwise. Course, there's really nothing to gain for anybody saying it's true if it is, but lots and lots to gain for the people saying (or funding) those who claim it's false. I don't know why any government.
i wouldn't say there's no reason to claim global warming is happening when it's not (plenty of companies are jumping on the bandwagon), but there are an awful lot more financial reasons to claim it's not, if you ask me.
There was a great Doc on telly a few weeks back presented by Tony Robinson on this subject. They were saying the climate heats up and cools down in cycles and always has based on their scientist findings, When the climate shifted hot or cold it lasted for thousands of years and the shift would take a decade.
I remember the extra taxes put on air travel a few years ago which were necessary "because of global warming" It was only here that these taxes were imposed. That just said it all to me that its just another way for this clown of a PM to raise even more money. So it would be the gain of the government wouldn't it. They have Ads on tv right now spreading this propaganda.
Thousands of years before we were driving cars the earth was pumping huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere with volcanos so the worlds been "polluted' ever since, ever since. And I'm no Magnus Pike!
Edit another theory for why it could be happening is elliptical orbits of the sun.
i don't trust tv docs.
of course there have always been volcanoes. I think the climate change scientists might be aware of the existence of volcanoes, just a thought.
your last point about the taxes etc. i'd agree with. But that's disagreeing with how to fight global warming/climate change (which i also disagree with, as do most of the climate change scientists, ironically enough), not disagreeing with whether or not it's happening.
i'm also assuming the scientists are aware of the earth's orbit around the sun.
The thing that gets me is, 'they' say if there's no change in carbon emission policy, there will be at least a 2 degree change in temperature which will produce massive worldwide climate change. The Met Office said we would have a mild Winter, it's the coldest Winter since 1981. They said is would be a barbecue-Summer, it wasn't. How can they tell what the temperature change will be over the next 50-100 years and can't tell what the weather will be like in a months time (and I've not talking specific temperature, just general conditions). IMO anyone predicting what the temperature will be in 100 years, is taking a massive punt. For me it would be like trying to predict the stock market value in 2110 :?
I suspect the climate models that scientists use aren't as accurate as they would like us to believe. However I also believe that a little 'Green' in our lives won't do us any harm :)
i imagine it's easier to predict the climate than it is to predict our weather.
badass picture, too. :)
-
Is this pic real?? :?
-
Dave, do you really think that if mankind all got together and did something positive about our emissions and did what needs to be done it would make any difference? Those climate cycles will still take place and eventually, despite the efforts of friends of the earth ect, an ice age will happen once again or the planet will heat up too much to sustain life as we know it. We can't control the Earth and nor can taxation. Anything that we can do will be cancelled out by the world population growing bigger and bigger, consuming more and more resources. Nothings going to get the world together to try and make a difference, its just not going to happen. The task is far too vast. There has been deforestation going on for 100's of years for various needs and it still goes on. All that does happens is someone like Sting brought it too our attention in the 80's and people have twittered about it ever since. But it still goes on, mainly for Palm Oil now. Because its used in so many products that we use. More people, more consumption. Mankind, sadly will destroy itself. We can't do much about it. We don't need a PM taxing us to death on so many levels already, to exploit this to try squeeze even more money from us. I know this sounds very pessimistic but we should be grateful we we're born in the times we were, we have electric guitars ect. In 30 years the world population is expected to level off at 9 billion. The world won't be able to produce enough food to feed that amount of people, let alone fresh drinking water. Some say we already at that point.
We can try and reduce our impact on the world and we already are in this country doing as much re-cycling as we can feasibly cope with.
Anyway, I'm dog tired and had a very large Bruichladdich earlier!
-
(a) i don't know who's right, for 100% certain, either, but I'm going with the scientists. I find it hilarious how oil company apologists (not saying anyone here is one; i'm saying the guys muddying the waters and manufacturing doubt are) point out how biased scientists are, while blatantly ignoring how the oil companies etc. are about a million times more biased, and have much more to gain (last time i checked in science, if you blow the existing theories out of the water with kickass research, you won't get ostracised, you'll win the nobel prize).
[/quote]
Go with the scientists and become Vegetarian:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7600005.stm
'UN figures suggest that meat production puts more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than transport.'
Don't worry about your oil companies and 4x4's, it's the crimbo pigs in blankets that have got us in this mess :D
-
I'm a operator in a Petroleum refinary... I guess I can be called "guilty"
-
Dave, do you really think that if mankind all got together and did something positive about our emissions and did what needs to be done it would make any difference? Those climate cycles will still take place and eventually, despite the efforts of friends of the earth ect, an ice age will happen once again or the planet will heat up too much to sustain life as we know it. We can't control the Earth and nor can taxation. Anything that we can do will be cancelled out by the world population growing bigger and bigger, consuming more and more resources. Nothings going to get the world together to try and make a difference, its just not going to happen. The task is far too vast. There has been deforestation going on for 100's of years for various needs and it still goes on. All that does happens is someone like Sting brought it too our attention in the 80's and people have twittered about it ever since. But it still goes on, mainly for Palm Oil now. Because its used in so many products that we use. More people, more consumption. Mankind, sadly will destroy itself. We can't do much about it. We don't need a PM taxing us to death on so many levels already, to exploit this to try squeeze even more money from us. I know this sounds very pessimistic but we should be grateful we we're born in the times we were, we have electric guitars ect. In 30 years the world population is expected to level off at 9 billion. The world won't be able to produce enough food to feed that amount of people, let alone fresh drinking water. Some say we already at that point.
We can try and reduce our impact on the world and we already are in this country doing as much re-cycling as we can feasibly cope with.
Anyway, I'm dog tired and had a very large Bruichladdich earlier!
Good job you didn't have a gin!
-
I'm a operator in a Petroleum refinary... I guess I can be called "guilty"
No more guilty than anybody who uses fuel, which is all of us...
-
(a) Dave, do you really think that if mankind all got together and did something positive about our emissions and did what needs to be done it would make any difference? (b) Those climate cycles will still take place and eventually, despite the efforts of friends of the earth ect, an ice age will happen once again or the planet will heat up too much to sustain life as we know it. (c) We can't control the Earth and nor can taxation. Anything that we can do will be cancelled out by the world population growing bigger and bigger, consuming more and more resources. Nothings going to get the world together to try and make a difference, its just not going to happen. The task is far too vast. There has been deforestation going on for 100's of years for various needs and it still goes on. All that does happens is someone like Sting brought it too our attention in the 80's and people have twittered about it ever since. But it still goes on, mainly for Palm Oil now. Because its used in so many products that we use. More people, more consumption. Mankind, sadly will destroy itself. We can't do much about it. We don't need a PM taxing us to death on so many levels already, to exploit this to try squeeze even more money from us. I know this sounds very pessimistic but we should be grateful we we're born in the times we were, we have electric guitars ect. In 30 years the world population is expected to level off at 9 billion. The world won't be able to produce enough food to feed that amount of people, let alone fresh drinking water. Some say we already at that point.
We can try and reduce our impact on the world and we already are in this country doing as much re-cycling as we can feasibly cope with.
Anyway, I'm dog tired and had a very large Bruichladdich earlier!
(a) it'd definitely stop the harm we're doing. it probably would help, yeah, if it were done right.
(b) of course. but the climate change scientists seem to think what's happening at the moment is mainly caused by us.
also, these scientists probably aren't in friends of the earth. neither am i.
(c) i already said i didn't agree with taxation. We can already do a fair bit. Trying our best to minimise the harm we're doing might buy us enough time to figure out some way to combat the harm we're not doing.
I agree with what you're saying about consumption etc., but again that's why i disagree with how we're fighting it. We're doing small things for political gain which will just piss people off, when we need to do fairly big things. Or else do nothing, and take our medicine when it comes. The half-assed way we're trying to fix it at the moment is probably the worst of both worlds.
-
Dave, do you really think that if mankind all got together and did something positive about our emissions and did what needs to be done it would make any difference? Those climate cycles will still take place and eventually, despite the efforts of friends of the earth ect, an ice age will happen once again or the planet will heat up too much to sustain life as we know it. We can't control the Earth and nor can taxation. Anything that we can do will be cancelled out by the world population growing bigger and bigger, consuming more and more resources. Nothings going to get the world together to try and make a difference, its just not going to happen. The task is far too vast. There has been deforestation going on for 100's of years for various needs and it still goes on. All that does happens is someone like Sting brought it too our attention in the 80's and people have twittered about it ever since. But it still goes on, mainly for Palm Oil now. Because its used in so many products that we use. More people, more consumption. Mankind, sadly will destroy itself. We can't do much about it. We don't need a PM taxing us to death on so many levels already, to exploit this to try squeeze even more money from us. I know this sounds very pessimistic but we should be grateful we we're born in the times we were, we have electric guitars ect. In 30 years the world population is expected to level off at 9 billion. The world won't be able to produce enough food to feed that amount of people, let alone fresh drinking water. Some say we already at that point.
We can try and reduce our impact on the world and we already are in this country doing as much re-cycling as we can feasibly cope with.
Anyway, I'm dog tired and had a very large Bruichladdich earlier!
Good job you didn't have a gin!
Your right there, Gin makes me talk bollocks! :lol:
Anyway Scientists are for and against climate change.
Here's the Tony Robison Doc I mentioned earlier
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/man-on-earth/4od
-
It's been said before on this board but I'll say it again.
I have one live - only one and I'm living it. My way.
Morally and legally consuming what I need, want and can afford.
I will continue to do this until I find a BETTER way or until I die.
Then I shall pass the problem and the moral choice onto my children (should I have any).
-
cheers dad.
-
(a) Dave, do you really think that if mankind all got together and did something positive about our emissions and did what needs to be done it would make any difference? (b) Those climate cycles will still take place and eventually, despite the efforts of friends of the earth ect, an ice age will happen once again or the planet will heat up too much to sustain life as we know it. (c) We can't control the Earth and nor can taxation. Anything that we can do will be cancelled out by the world population growing bigger and bigger, consuming more and more resources. Nothings going to get the world together to try and make a difference, its just not going to happen. The task is far too vast. There has been deforestation going on for 100's of years for various needs and it still goes on. All that does happens is someone like Sting brought it too our attention in the 80's and people have twittered about it ever since. But it still goes on, mainly for Palm Oil now. Because its used in so many products that we use. More people, more consumption. Mankind, sadly will destroy itself. We can't do much about it. We don't need a PM taxing us to death on so many levels already, to exploit this to try squeeze even more money from us. I know this sounds very pessimistic but we should be grateful we we're born in the times we were, we have electric guitars ect. In 30 years the world population is expected to level off at 9 billion. The world won't be able to produce enough food to feed that amount of people, let alone fresh drinking water. Some say we already at that point.
We can try and reduce our impact on the world and we already are in this country doing as much re-cycling as we can feasibly cope with.
Anyway, I'm dog tired and had a very large Bruichladdich earlier!
(a) it'd definitely stop the harm we're doing. it probably would help, yeah, if it were done right.
(b) of course. but the climate change scientists seem to think what's happening at the moment is mainly caused by us.
also, these scientists probably aren't in friends of the earth. neither am i.
(c) i already said i didn't agree with taxation. We can already do a fair bit. Trying our best to minimise the harm we're doing might buy us enough time to figure out some way to combat the harm we're not doing.
I agree with what you're saying about consumption etc., but again that's why i disagree with how we're fighting it. We're doing small things for political gain which will just piss people off, when we need to do fairly big things. Or else do nothing, and take our medicine when it comes. The half-assed way we're trying to fix it at the moment is probably the worst of both worlds.
Dave there's so much I've picked up in the last few years just on waste disposal that is so scary. We produce so much rubbish that we can't keep using landfills. That is being controlled by tax so aggressively that fly tipping is rife. So we will have to start burning it again, which will piss off more beards and sandals. Taxing somthing to try and control it isn't the answer, get to the root of problems. Packaging is one of them but its also a big buisness. (I know you said you didn't agree with taxation, I just mentioned it in general cos it pisses me off so much) That's just one thing and there are so many things that need action but its just not happening. I agree there is more we can do on a bigger scale to minimise and try and slow down our impact on the world.
Some scientists say we have caused global warming some say we haven't.
I've always been under the impression that the tech for engines to run on alternative fuels has been with us for decades but we never get them. Maybe The big Oil Companys do buy up the ideas and lock them away, who knows. Ultimately we rely so much on things that harm the world and its wildlife. We really need to stop breeding like bloody rabbits but people are not going to stop having children.
How long do you think we have left? I think around 200 years tops. :| Doomed! :lol:
-
I'm a operator in a Petroleum refinary... I guess I can be called "guilty"
Job done! It's all Fernandos fault!!!
-
Taxing somthing to try and control it isn't the answer, get to the root of problems. Packaging is one of them but its also a big buisness. (I know you said you didn't agree with taxation, I just mentioned it in general cos it pisses me off so much) That's just one thing and there are so many things that need action but its just not happening. I agree there is more we can do on a bigger scale to minimise and try and slow down our impact on the world.
Some scientists say we have caused global warming some say we haven't.
I've always been under the impression that the tech for engines to run on alternative fuels has been with us for decades but we never get them. Maybe The big Oil Companys do buy up the ideas and lock them away, who knows. Ultimately we rely so much on things that harm the world and its wildlife. We really need to stop breeding like bloody rabbits but people are not going to stop having children.
I certainly agree with all this part. Taxing is just punishing us for contributing to the problem, not dealing with any of the root causes. Beyond that, of course, it's another way of hitting us with "stealth" taxes and grabbing more money out of us. Is that tax money even earmarked for environmental projects?
I suppose ultimately I agree that we're doomed (and on a personal level I won't be around to see it), but it's a shame politicians around the world have no real will to TRY to do something about it because it would ruffle too many feathers.
It would be interesting to see how the world ends, actually. No doubt the rich folks will cling on as long as possible by creating their own little artificial environments, like Center Parcs....
-
No doubt the rich folks will cling on as long as possible by creating their own little artificial environments, like Center Parcs....
When the rich start going to Center Parcs it will truly signal the "End of Days" .... :lol: :lol:
-
No doubt the rich folks will cling on as long as possible by creating their own little artificial environments, like Center Parcs....
When the rich start going to Center Parcs it will truly signal the "End of Days" .... :lol: :lol:
I can't see Prince Michael Of Kent and his appalling wife, nipping out of their chalet for a bike ride to the burger bar and then taking in some evening cabaret with Roy Chubby Brown but you never now! :lol:
-
No doubt the rich folks will cling on as long as possible by creating their own little artificial environments, like Center Parcs....
When the rich start going to Center Parcs it will truly signal the "End of Days" .... :lol: :lol:
I can't see Prince Michael Of Kent and his appalling wife, nipping out of their chalet for a bike ride to the burger bar and then taking in some evening cabaret with Roy Chubby Brown but you never now! :lol:
Yeah, I guess it'll have to be "Center Parcs Platinum" or something, to keep out the hoi polloi. :wink:
-
i wouldn't say there's no reason to claim global warming is happening when it's not (plenty of companies are jumping on the bandwagon), but there are an awful lot more financial reasons to claim it's not, if you ask me.
This is the interesting one - how many companies have jumped on the Green band wagon for fear of losing sales by not being perceived as being environmentally friendly? It bugs the hell out of me to see car companies and airlines claiming to be 'Green' - sure, you can be less polluting than you were, but they are a long way from being environmentally friendly, however you look at it.
On the scientific stuff - problem is that we don't have any accurate data which goes back far enough to draw any logical conclusions - and you don't want to be an enviro-sceptical boffin, because you will get your funding withdrawn from the government who is busy collecting green taxes. My conclusions are pretty much with Johnny Mac:
1. Is climate change a fact of life? - Yup
2. Is our consumption of Earth's raw materials contributing to this? - Probably
3. Will going Green reverse climate change? - No
4. Is going Green still a valid thing to do in order to conserve scarce resources - Yes
In my view, (and apologies if I offend anyone) - the one biggest thing that the world could do in order to slow down 4 is to control population growth - in 1950 there were about 2.5 Billion people on Earth - we now have more than 6 Billion!! - so we should be doing everything we can to REDUCE this number, rather than letting it increase. I'll stop before I get on my really radical soap box about this one.....
-
i wouldn't say there's no reason to claim global warming is happening when it's not (plenty of companies are jumping on the bandwagon), but there are an awful lot more financial reasons to claim it's not, if you ask me.
This is the interesting one - how many companies have jumped on the Green band wagon for fear of losing sales by not being perceived as being environmentally friendly? It bugs the hell out of me to see car companies and airlines claiming to be 'Green' - sure, you can be less polluting than you were, but they are a long way from being environmentally friendly, however you look at it.
On the scientific stuff - problem is that we don't have any accurate data which goes back far enough to draw any logical conclusions - and you don't want to be an enviro-sceptical boffin, because you will get your funding withdrawn from the government who is busy collecting green taxes. My conclusions are pretty much with Johnny Mac:
1. Is climate change a fact of life? - Yup
2. Is our consumption of Earth's raw materials contributing to this? - Probably
3. Will going Green reverse climate change? - No
4. Is going Green still a valid thing to do in order to conserve scarce resources - Yes
In my view, (and apologies if I offend anyone) - the one biggest thing that the world could do in order to slow down 4 is to control population growth - in 1950 there were about 2.5 Billion people on Earth - we now have more than 6 Billion!! - so we should be doing everything we can to REDUCE this number, rather than letting it increase. I'll stop before I get on my really radical soap box about this one.....
Easy there sonny!
Ok, you twisted my arm - give eugenics a chance!
Chavs and carreer criminals first.
-
quote:"(a) it'd definitely stop the harm we're doing. it probably would help, yeah, if it were done right."
CO2 does no harm. It's what makes plants grow. The atmosphere used to contain 3 times as much. Must have been those dinosaurs driving their Humvees.
Quote: "(b) of course. but the climate change scientists seem to think what's happening at the moment is mainly caused by us.
also, these scientists probably aren't in friends of the earth. neither am i."
Those so called scientists manipulated their data. It's fraud. Scientific value of that data is 0.0. They're not friends of the Earth. They're friends of money.
Like I said earlier, google for climategate.
Always ask yourself this when reading about some 'scientific' report: Who ordered it and who benifits from it financially? In other words: Follow the money.
-
1. Is climate change a fact of life? - Yup
2. Is our consumption of Earth's raw materials contributing to this? - Probably
3. Will going Green reverse climate change? - No
4. Is going Green still a valid thing to do in order to conserve scarce resources - Yes
Sums it up pretty nicely.
In my view, (and apologies if I offend anyone) - the one biggest thing that the world could do in order to slow down 4 is to control population growth - in 1950 there were about 2.5 Billion people on Earth - we now have more than 6 Billion!! - so we should be doing everything we can to REDUCE this number, rather than letting it increase. I'll stop before I get on my really radical soap box about this one.....
I think that's very true, but would anyone (apart from China) have the balls (or lack of balls, maybe? :lol: ) to actually do anything about it?
(Actually, I suppose I'm doing my bit :| . But I'd love to have kids should the opportunity arise. Though I fear the responsibility.)
-
All so called experts on any subject make money from their thoughts on that subject. I remember one so called 'expert' on 'Global Warming' saying live on the Robert Elms BBC London radio show a few years ago that it will never snow in London again. It snowed the following winter. Also 24 hour blanket news coverage on a lot of subjects these days fuel these 'experts' earnings. Hype and bullshiteee. Bollocks is a big industry these days as it was 100's of years ago. Anyway never mind the bollocks...never mind the bollocks....
Calm down and carry on. I'm cleaning my bathroom you know!
-
Somehow this came to mind...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=Ks7AwE3Xpfk
-
:lol: Permission will be granted.
So what made you think of this? :wink:
-
Me, my soap box and a good rant!
Must be going stir-crazy stuck inside 'cos of the snow.......
-
Must be going stir-crazy stuck inside 'cos of the snow.......
Good job the darts is on! :D
Although the afternoon programme is a repeat of last night's matches. I've seen them all 3 times now. :(
-
Must be going stir-crazy stuck inside 'cos of the snow.......
Good job the darts is on! :D
Although the afternoon programme is a repeat of last night's matches. I've seen them all 3 times now. :(
You need BTvision, loads of stuff on demand here, replay, or pay per view and the box works like sky + for recording too.
-
There was a serious article in a local news paper the other day.
Some climate dude wrote it. In short he said it's not cold at all. it just looks that way because of the snow.
Another article said 2009 was one of the warmest in 30 years. As long as you excluded all the other warm years.
-
Anyway Scientists are for and against climate change.
Here's the Tony Robison Doc I mentioned earlier
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/man-on-earth/4od
how many scientists are for and against it? last time i checked, the vast majority are for it, though obviously they won't all agree 100%. you mentioned creationism earlier in the thread- it's a similar idea with the "scientists" they wheel out who supposedly don't believe in evolution.
It's been said before on this board but I'll say it again.
I have one live - only one and I'm living it. My way.
Morally and legally consuming what I need, want and can afford.
I will continue to do this until I find a BETTER way or until I die.
Then I shall pass the problem and the moral choice onto my children (should I have any).
oh, i agree wholeheartedly. Just, as i said earlier, there's a difference between disbelieving in climate change, and disagreeing with how to fight it.
Dave there's so much I've picked up in the last few years just on waste disposal that is so scary. We produce so much rubbish that we can't keep using landfills. That is being controlled by tax so aggressively that fly tipping is rife. So we will have to start burning it again, which will piss off more beards and sandals. Taxing somthing to try and control it isn't the answer, get to the root of problems. Packaging is one of them but its also a big buisness. (I know you said you didn't agree with taxation, I just mentioned it in general cos it pisses me off so much) That's just one thing and there are so many things that need action but its just not happening. I agree there is more we can do on a bigger scale to minimise and try and slow down our impact on the world.
Some scientists say we have caused global warming some say we haven't.
I've always been under the impression that the tech for engines to run on alternative fuels has been with us for decades but we never get them. Maybe The big Oil Companys do buy up the ideas and lock them away, who knows. Ultimately we rely so much on things that harm the world and its wildlife. We really need to stop breeding like bloody rabbits but people are not going to stop having children.
How long do you think we have left? I think around 200 years tops. :| Doomed! :lol:
can't argue with that (other than i have no idea how long we have left) :)
(a) This is the interesting one - how many companies have jumped on the Green band wagon for fear of losing sales by not being perceived as being environmentally friendly? It bugs the hell out of me to see car companies and airlines claiming to be 'Green' - sure, you can be less polluting than you were, but they are a long way from being environmentally friendly, however you look at it.
(b) On the scientific stuff - problem is that we don't have any accurate data which goes back far enough to draw any logical conclusions - and you don't want to be an enviro-sceptical boffin, because you will get your funding withdrawn from the government who is busy collecting green taxes. My conclusions are pretty much with Johnny Mac:
(a) agreed.
(b) i don't think that's how funding works. Also, think of all the famous scientists you can name. Odds are most of them were involved in a massive paradigm shift, or new invention/discovery (which probably laid waste to existing theory). As i've said before, if you were to conclusively prove global warming wrong (and i mean "conclusively", not this muddying the waters type of prove which is typical of quacks, charlatans and company lackeys), you wouldn't lose your funding, you'd win the fricking nobel prize.
I doubt the government is getting that many green taxes. Sure, it helps, and I agree that it's a handy way to get a little extra, but it's not going to be the end of the world if they don't get it. And if the govts are so keen on climate change, how come they go out of their way not to come to any agreement on reducing emissions? Could it have anything to do with the fact that capitalism, and, as a result, their economies would completely collapse if we did what we probably have to do to fight climate change properly? In fact, several of the highest climate change scientists said copenhagen was a joke, i don't see how that puts them in the governments' pockets. if anything, they're a thorn in the governments' sides.
quote:"(a) it'd definitely stop the harm we're doing. it probably would help, yeah, if it were done right."
CO2 does no harm. It's what makes plants grow. The atmosphere used to contain 3 times as much. Must have been those dinosaurs driving their Humvees.
Quote: "(b) of course. but the climate change scientists seem to think what's happening at the moment is mainly caused by us.
also, these scientists probably aren't in friends of the earth. neither am i."
Those so called scientists manipulated their data. It's fraud. Scientific value of that data is 0.0. They're not friends of the Earth. They're friends of money.
Like I said earlier, google for climategate.
Always ask yourself this when reading about some 'scientific' report: Who ordered it and who benifits from it financially? In other words: Follow the money.
(a) that is specious logic. Just because the plants take in CO2 doesn't mean it can't do harm in other places. As i said already, the fact there's any oxygen in the atmosphere is a result of photosynthesis over millions of years.
(b) i should really read all those emails etc., but what i got out of what little I saw of them, there wasn't all that much manipulation at all, and a lot of the words and phrases being used were science terms which mean completely different things when used in science. It also doesn't mean for sure that the value is 0.0 (what the heck does that mean?)- it would depend on the amount of manipulation, etc. etc. Every science experiement/study/whatever is flawed to some degree. It doesn't mean we chuck it all out.
I have followed the money. It seems extremely simple to me. If you can explain to me how the entire world can make more money out of climate change politics, with all the uprooting and rebuilding of infrastructure that'd entail, not to mention selling and consuming much less stuff, I'd love to hear it.
-
i doubt one christmas is anything to worry about.
everyone confidently pronouncing global warming isn't real and the scientists are involved in some kind of conspiracy probably is, though.
+1
-
i bet you're a scientist in the pockets of government. maybe even the new world order.
-
Another article said 2009 was one of the warmest in 30 years. As long as you excluded all the other warm years.
:lol:
-
^ I'd like to see a citation for that because, y'know, it sounds made up.
All so called experts on any subject make money from their thoughts on that subject.
that's possibly true, but you stand to make an awful lot more if you have something to sell (most scientists don't, those working at universities, anyway). Also, science isn't based on what people have to say, it's based on evidence. You won't get a paper published (in a reputable journal, anyway) unless you can replicate the results etc. etc.
-
All so called experts on any subject make money from their thoughts on that subject.
that's possibly true, but you stand to make an awful lot more if you have something to sell (most scientists don't, those working at universities, anyway).
That's why they make money or raise funding or fame by hitching their waggon to the Climate Change agenda...
You "sell" what you've got and scientists are no different.
It's a hell of a lot easier to find funding for research with any link to "climate change" - so guess what is being researched?
-
It doesn't matter how many scientists are for or against. Science is not a democracy. Most scientists used to believe the earth was flat. They used to believe the sun orbited the earth.
Not too long ago scientists said you couldn't survive speeds over 60 Mph. In the early 50's scientists said we could go through the sound barrier.
There only has to be one scientist who can prove that all others are wrong.
Do read those hacked emails. You don't need to read all of them, a couple of dozen is enough to realise that they didn't manipulate a little bit but a whole lot.
Russia wants an investigation too. They gave tons of meteo data and those climate hoaxers only used a quarter of that data. I bet they left out all the data from Siberia.
But it doesn't even matter how much they manipulated the data. Even the slightest manipulation would drop the scientific value to 0.0.
Environmantalism is a religion, not a science.
-
I think getting hung up on either side of the global warning debate is missing the point entirely. The climate is changing, but what's causing that change I don't know and I've not heard convincing enough evidence from either camp that allows me to make an informed choice about it one way or the other.
Having been lucky enough to have been to the Arctic on a couple of occasions with work and having talked to the people who live and work there, I believe what they say based on their experiences. They are aware of something going on, as things like the supposedly perma-frost tundra is no longer permanently frozen during the warmer months and the locals we talked to had never experienced that before.
Lots of glaciers are in retreat and the Arctic polar ice cap is reducing in size. I believe I'm correct in that assumption as there is historic data that can be used for comparison.
I think we should be planning as to what we need to do if indeed the global temperature and the sea levels rise. We can all argue until we're blue in the face about what's causing it and we'll have missed our opportunity to prepare.
I suspect that it's a combination of the causes as to why the global system is changing, but again, no one has come up with convincing enough evidence for me to accurately make a judgement and that is just my opinion, which I accept may more than likely be incorrect.
-
Funny, but food fot thought: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOOc5yiIWkg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOOc5yiIWkg)
-
That's why they make money or raise funding or fame by hitching their waggon to the Climate Change agenda...
You "sell" what you've got and scientists are no different.
It's a hell of a lot easier to find funding for research with any link to "climate change" - so guess what is being researched?
easier to get research money, perhaps. But that research money won't be dependent on the results. If anything, it'd be a lot easier for the governments if climate change weren't true, as I already said, and which no-one has already provided a sufficient counter-argument to.
(a) It doesn't matter how many scientists are for or against. Science is not a democracy. (b) Most scientists used to believe the earth was flat. (c) They used to believe the sun orbited the earth.
(d) Not too long ago scientists said you couldn't survive speeds over 60 Mph. In the early 50's scientists said we could go through the sound barrier.
(e) There only has to be one scientist who can prove that all others are wrong.
(f) Do read those hacked emails. You don't need to read all of them, a couple of dozen is enough to realise that they didn't manipulate a little bit but a whole lot.
Russia wants an investigation too. They gave tons of meteo data and those climate hoaxers only used a quarter of that data. I bet they left out all the data from Siberia.
(g) But it doesn't even matter how much they manipulated the data. Even the slightest manipulation would drop the scientific value to 0.0.
(h) Environmantalism is a religion, not a science.
(a) oh, i agree. But the fact that the vast majority of scientists think it's true, after looking at the evidence, suggests there might be something in it.
(b) that is not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth
even if it were (and it's not), it was so long ago I don't think you can even call them scientists, as their methods were so different from the current scientific method.
(c) nor is that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism
and copernicus was the first modern(ish) astronomer to suggest the earth went round the sun, in 1543. Again, that's so far away from modern scientific method, that I'd say it hardly counts. The church was presumably also a major reason why a lot of people were against that theory.
(d) wasn't that around the time of the first steam trains? Again, that's quite a while ago.
(e) of course. But that happens a lot less frequently now than in the past (apart from anything there are a lot more scientists, and the scientific method is a lot more rigorous, we have much better analytical equipment, etc. etc.)
(f) do you have a link to them?
(g) that depends on what you mean by "manipulate". "Manipulate" can be used to mean just processing data, in a scientific context, for example. And again, i disagree with your assertion that any manipulation means the data has to be chucked out.
(h) I would probably agree, but there's a difference between environmentalists and climate change scientists.
-
^ I'd like to see a citation for that because, y'know, it sounds made up.
All so called experts on any subject make money from their thoughts on that subject.
that's possibly true, but you stand to make an awful lot more if you have something to sell (most scientists don't, those working at universities, anyway). Also, science isn't based on what people have to say, it's based on evidence. You won't get a paper published (in a reputable journal, anyway) unless you can replicate the results etc. etc.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8377128.stm
This is one of the problems with this issue? What possible definition of hottest are they using? The temperature never went above thirty and dropped to -8-10 in February for 2-3 weeks
-
I doubt the government is getting that many green taxes. Sure, it helps, and I agree that it's a handy way to get a little extra, but it's not going to be the end of the world if they don't get it.
Dave mc ^ quote
Dave, landfill tax is over 40 quid per tonne, then you have to add the actual cost of landfill per tone to the company running the site. It's coming in at nearly 70 quid a tone with VAT. The tax goes up every financial year. The Gov' make more money than everyone involved with disposing of waste responsibly and they do nothing for it. No initiatives for alternatives, just take take take. Those costs are paid by local councils too. They pass those costs on to you in council tax. They are tearing the arse out of green issues in tax! If they don't get paid, they send people around to collect. They like fffing gangsters! There is cr@p being slung all over industrial estates because its too expensive to take to a transfer station. That's not green its pollution caused by greed.
-
Dave is Gordon in disguise.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8377128.stm
This is one of the problems with this issue? What possible definition of hottest are they using? The temperature never went above thirty and dropped to -8-10 in February for 2-3 weeks
They're using an average, surely. It wasn't the "barbecue summer" people keep going about, and it actually rained on a lot of the warm days, but here in the south east the (daytime) temperature was 20+ degrees pretty much all the way through from May to the end of September - and at times it was much higher than that. There were some little warm spells in April and October too.
-
Nothing unusual about that is there ^
-
Nothing unusual about that is there ^
I don't know if there is or not, I don't know the year-on-year averages.
But as someone who hates hot weather, it does seem to me that the "summer" is getting longer and longer. I used to think of it as June to August, with all the really uncomfortable days in July/August, but now I feel like I'm suffering for a full five months or more.
(That's just a non-scientific personal observation, obviously. I should probably move North.... )
-
Nothing unusual about that is there ^
I don't know if there is or not, I don't know the year-on-year averages.
But as someone who hates hot weather, it does seem to me that the "summer" is getting longer and longer. I used to think of it as June to August, with all the really uncomfortable days in July/August, but now I feel like I'm suffering for a full five months or more.
(That's just a non-scientific personal observation, obviously. I should probably move North.... )
Nothings changed to my experiences, I've work outdoors for the last 20 years.
Its humidity that makes the summer uncomfortable buts that's normal for us.
Yes Scotland is milder but they have Midges! Sweden, Finland, and do yourself up like a panda for a beer on a friday night down The Putrefied Viking!
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8377128.stm
This is one of the problems with this issue? What possible definition of hottest are they using? The temperature never went above thirty and dropped to -8-10 in February for 2-3 weeks
average, presumably. one slightly-hotter-than-normal day is hardly likely to melt the polar ice caps, nor is one slightly colder one likely to refreeze what's been lost.
I doubt the government is getting that many green taxes. Sure, it helps, and I agree that it's a handy way to get a little extra, but it's not going to be the end of the world if they don't get it.
Dave mc ^ quote
Dave, landfill tax is over 40 quid per tonne, then you have to add the actual cost of landfill per tone to the company running the site. It's coming in at nearly 70 quid a tone with VAT. The tax goes up every financial year. The Gov' make more money than everyone involved with disposing of waste responsibly and they do nothing for it. No initiatives for alternatives, just take take take. Those costs are paid by local councils too. They pass those costs on to you in council tax. They are tearing the arse out of green issues in tax! If they don't get paid, they send people around to collect. They like fffing gangsters! There is cr@p being slung all over industrial estates because its too expensive to take to a transfer station. That's not green its pollution caused by greed.
i agree that that sucks, but my point still stands:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_taxes.svg
Dave is Gordon in disguise.
hey, i hate new labour. :lol:
-
as their methods were so different from the current scientific method.
That's what you grandchildren will say about today's science.
You might say that it was old science but back then there was some serious comprehension of mathematics.
The methods of science hasn't changed that much, the technology has.
And you sill haven't read those hacked emails, have you?
It's very clear that they left out the data that doesn't support their theory.
easier to get research money, perhaps. But that research money won't be dependent on the results. If anything, it'd be a lot easier for the governments if climate change weren't true, as I already said, and which no-one has already provided a sufficient counter-argument to.
Perhaps? For sure! This has become a multi-billion dollar industry. Governments and even companies have found out this is a great way to generate more money from the people. Extra taxes on fuel, energy, cars, road tax, consumer goods, packaging etc. all because of the environment. This amounts to billions in my country alone.
The article about the russian data was in some UK paper.
This feels like a discussion with a religious fundamentalist.
-
This feels like a discussion with a religious fundamentalist.
I have to say you're coming across as a very hardline sceptic. Fundamentalist, even.
-
I listened to a fantastic debate about the similarities of many of these climate change beliefs to a religion...
There are many.
And many of these secular arguments quoted above bring Pascals Wager to mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
The hot marketing ticket is "Greenwash" and no-one is immune.
-
One of my mates in a BIg fundamentalist. It doesn't seem to matter what about, but you give him a widely accepeted view and he'll be a fundamentalist against it. Climate Change is his latest get up and he thinks it's all bollox, using a couple of weakly held arguments to prove that it's all wrong. People keep using arguments that focus on one of the issues, or one of the variables in what is a very complicated process and think that the little snap shot that they are looking at proves or disprocvves the whole theory.
At the end of the day, I don't think you can keep pumping stuff into what is a finite atmosphere and not expect something to happen. It's like doing lots of little farts under the duvet, you might get away with it for a bit, but sooner or later it's going to smell of shite.
-
^ +1
(a) That's what you grandchildren will say about today's science.
(b) You might say that it was old science but back then there was some serious comprehension of mathematics.
(c) The methods of science hasn't changed that much, the technology has.
(d) And you sill haven't read those hacked emails, have you?
It's very clear that they left out the data that doesn't support their theory.
easier to get research money, perhaps. But that research money won't be dependent on the results. If anything, it'd be a lot easier for the governments if climate change weren't true, as I already said, and which no-one has already provided a sufficient counter-argument to.
(e) Perhaps? For sure! This has become a multi-billion dollar industry. Governments and even companies have found out this is a great way to generate more money from the people. Extra taxes on fuel, energy, cars, road tax, consumer goods, packaging etc. all because of the environment. This amounts to billions in my country alone.
The article about the russian data was in some UK paper.
(f) This feels like a discussion with a religious fundamentalist.
(a) that's unlikely. Most of the modern scientific method hasn't changed all that much in the past 50 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_history_of_scientific_method
(b) is that relevant? Just because you can do maths doesn't mean that your scientific method is rigorous. Plus it's not like we haven't come up with a lot more advanced maths recently.
(c) actually, the method has changed quite a bit. They only came up with the double blind (if that wiki link i posted is to be believed) in 1950. That's a fairly big one right there, in the field of medicine.
(d) i asked you if you had a link a while back, you didn't answer. I'll see if i can find them myself and report back.
(e) multi-billion dollar? really? Don't get me wrong, I agree that the govt is jumping on the bandwagon, as are a lot of companies which are "greenwashing" (as wikipedia seems to think the term is called). But in terms of actually making money out of environmentalism, it doesn't make sense. I listed the breakdown of the UK tax revenues a couple of posts back, and it showed that what the government got from green taxes, while not to be sneezed at, was a very small proportion of the total revenue. If you can explain to me how companies can make a killing out of environmentalism, with its central tenets of consuming (and hence selling) MUCH MUCH LESS STUFF, cleaning up after your polluting processes (which costs money, a lot of money, not to mention time and effort), helping to recycle old products (ditto) versus the status quo in capitalism which is to sell people as much stuff as they don't need as you can, while spending as little of your own money as possible in customer service/after sales/eco issues, then I'm all ears.
I can't speak about holland, but there was road tax, car tax, VAT, etc. etc. etc. here long before environmental issues became mainstream. Vehicle excise duty in the UK was introduced in 1888, and was introduced specifically for cars in 1920 (according to wiki).
(f) ooh, an ad hominem, nice. Right back atcha. You (by that i mean the climate-change deniers, not you personally) are using the exact same arguing and debating techniques which creationists use.
I listened to a fantastic debate about the similarities of many of these climate change beliefs to a religion...
There are many.
And many of these secular arguments quoted above bring Pascals Wager to mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
The hot marketing ticket is "Greenwash" and no-one is immune.
that's possibly true, but as i already said, there's a difference between disagreeing with how to fight climate change, and refusing to accept that it's happening, just as there's a difference between the guys in greenpeace and the scientists actually doing the research.
-
ok, i read (most of) what wikipedia had on the subject. I didn't see anything which called the science into question. The bit about "redefining what a peer reviewed journal is" is fairly bad (though knowing how scientists go on, I'm not sure it wasn't just a joke- we used to talk about not publishing in certain journals, or not trusting papers in certain journals, all the time). We also used to talk about "tricks" all the time, there was nothing untoward in using that word. And, from what i can tell (as a layman, but with a little scientific background), the only bit they decided to leave out was the bit about the tree rings, which aren't terribly accurate. It's not like the temperature fell by 10 degrees in the 2000s and they were trying to cover that up...
regarding your point about the climate change science advocates being "fundamentalists", I think it's worth pointing out that several of the scientists involved received death threats from (presumably) climate change deniers. If that's not fundamentalism, I don't know what is.
-
Death threats eh! :lol:
-
yeah, i know. :lol: Now, I'm sure (or at least hope) they're only that, idle threats, but even to go that far is fairly bad.
-
Wikipedia should not be your source.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/climate.html (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/climate.html)
http://www.newworldorderreport.com/Articles/tabid/266/ID/635/UK-scientist-and-Green-Party-activist-William-Connolley-hijacked-the-Climate-Change-argument-on-Wikipedia-it-is-now-confirmed.aspx (http://www.newworldorderreport.com/Articles/tabid/266/ID/635/UK-scientist-and-Green-Party-activist-William-Connolley-hijacked-the-Climate-Change-argument-on-Wikipedia-it-is-now-confirmed.aspx)
And let's have a look at Al Gore whobecame a millionaire with his climate message, shall we. He has four homes, three cars, a 100ft boat and a carbon footprint of a small town.
Does that sound like a guy who believes what he says?
You can read the hacked mails here: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php)
Some high lights: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html)
Edit: Some more.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1742/Climatologist-slams-RealClimateorg-for-erroneously-communicating-the-reality-of-the-how-climate-system-is-actually-behaving--Rebuts-Myths-On-Sea-Level-Oceans-and-Arctic-Ice (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1742/Climatologist-slams-RealClimateorg-for-erroneously-communicating-the-reality-of-the-how-climate-system-is-actually-behaving--Rebuts-Myths-On-Sea-Level-Oceans-and-Arctic-Ice)
The russians: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/ (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/)
More Wikipedia manipulation. Unfortunately for you it's in Dutch. http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koolstofdioxide&diff=19241524&oldid=19241495 (http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koolstofdioxide&diff=19241524&oldid=19241495)
-
And let's have a look at Al Gore whobecame a millionaire with his climate message, shall we. He has four homes, three cars, a 100ft boat and a carbon footprint of a small town.
Does that sound like a guy who believes what he says?
This is a former US Vice President. He may be something of a hypocrite, but do you think he'd be living in a trailer park, on Welfare, if he had different views on climate change?
-
No but at least he wouldn't be acting so hypocritically.
The man is a disgrace..
(http://knowledge.allianz.com/nopi_downloads/images/al-gore_bono_q.jpg)
"Hey B, we have to lie to simple people sometimes because the issue is SO important, oh have you been on my new Gulfstream jet.. It's green because I use it to save the world"
-
If you want an entertaining read on this - try State of Fear by Michael Crichton - has some interesting data in it which show just how short a period of time we have been measuring stuff.
I am sticking by my population control theory - hence 'Band Aid' is not top of my charity donation lists....
:?
-
If you want an entertaining read on this - try State of Fear by Michael Crichton - has some interesting data in it which show just how short a period of time we have been measuring stuff.
I read a Michael Crichton book once (Congo) and it was about 95% "fascinating scientific facts" and 5% plot.
I can say without a moment's hesitation that it's the worst book I've read in my entire life and Crichton's the worst writer I've ever read. Compared to him, Dan Brown is Shakespeare.
So I'll have to take your word on State Of Fear, Mike. :wink:
-
Wikipedia should not be your source.
Neither should right-wing news sources, anonymous blogs and web pages run by tin-foil hat consipracy theorist nutjobs. ;)
I believe virtually everything I read, and I think that is what makes me more of a selective human than someone who doesn't believe anything.
-
^ ^ ^ that's fairly specious logic, mikeluke. We might have been measuring for a short while, but we can use various techniques to tell what the temperature was ages ago.
^ agreed, muttley.
Wikipedia should not be your source.
lol, so instead i should make my sources ridiculously biased, conspiracy theory sites?
I check wikipedia quite a lot, for science stuff. Most (if not all) of the stuff I see is accurate.
Here's a hint- if you live in a glass house you probably shouldn't throw stones. You've done it already a couple of times in this thread, to me, and I don't appreciate it. Just because I'm not willing to stoop to your level of ad hominem upon ad hominem doesn't mean you have a better point. If anything, it means you don't have a point because you're hoping that if you throw enough mud, that some of it will stick, and are also hoping that it will act as a smokescreen against the stuff you and the guys you support are doing, which is as bad if not far worse.
again, al gore isn't one of the scientists. There's a difference, as i keep saying but no-one seems to be acknowledging, between people doing it for their own gain (politicians, wacko environmentalists, etc.), and the scientists. Plus as philly said, as a vice president he's hardly going to be going on welfare. Look how much tony blair makes from lectures etc., and he doesn't go near any of the green stuff. I wager he makes a lot more than al gore.
Plus you still haven't answered my point about the world economy. What al gore is making is small fry compared to what the big companies, and governments (from taxes) are making if the status quo remains.
i'm not particularly fond of bono or al gore, fwiw. I agree that al gore is a hypocrite, as is bono. But just because you have some hypocrites jumping on the bandwagon doesn't mean that the research is wrong. I imagine the climate change scientists wish bono and gore would eff off, as they're giving climate change a bad name.
-
OK, My point is this.
What do you care about. What motivates your interest?
Instead of guessing, I'll tell you mine.
Maximising Human Welfare.
Spend $100 possibly saving 100 people from suffering in 100 years by delaying climate change by 10 years.
or
Spend $100 saving 100 people from suffering / dying from dirty water & disease NOW
When the world gets off it's ass and does that latter.. I'll be over the f**king moon to support the former.
-
Can you imagine what things will be like when we are at war over fresh water if these hissy fits are anything to go by.
Doomed! :lol:
-
^ hehe.
OK, My point is this.
What do you care about. What motivates your interest?
Instead of guessing, I'll tell you mine.
Maximising Human Welfare.
Spend $100 possibly saving 100 people from suffering in 100 years by delaying climate change by 10 years.
or
Spend $100 saving 100 people from suffering / dying from dirty water & disease NOW
When the world gets off it's ass and does that latter.. I'll be over the f**king moon to support the former.
i agree wholeheartedly with that. Again, though, that's the politicians' realm, not the scientists.
-
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
OK. Done laughing now.
But really, now.
Pretty much all your counter arguments have been against me, the sources and are deviating from the topic itself. And then you accuse ME of throwing mud? After what you just wrote?
You attack my source, I’ll attack yours.
I may be heating up the discussion but it’s you who’s getting personal now.
Then you throw in a cliché metaphore. Well, here’s one for you. “If you only look left, you can’t see what’s coming from the right.”
First you drag me down into the mud, you climb on your moral high horse and say you won’t stoop down to ‘my level’.
Now that’s off my chest, let’s get back on topic. Man made global warming.
Science starts with questions. Is the globe warming up? What causes it? Does man have a serious influence on it? Then you collect data, do observations and you come to a conclusion. Next you have all that reviewed by others who try to shoot holes in it.
The hacked emails show that the IPCC might not have done it that way. It very much looks like they did the following:
They wrote the conclusion first. The globe is warming up because of CO2 and man has a significant influence in that. They collected data and observations to support that conclusion and left out what doesn’t support their conclusion. Those who then try to shoot holes in it are called conspiracy theorists, liars and what not.
This will be investigated. And if it will be proven (and I think it will) that IPCC has manipulated their data to support their own theories, it will mean that it has no scientific value whatsoever. It will all have to be done over.
Is the climate changing? Yes, as it always has been and will be.
Is that caused by CO2. No, but it could be a symptom.
Man’s influence? Negligible.
Does that mean we can do whatever we like? No but don’t overdo it either.
-
Phil.... I didn't say that Crichton was a great javascript:void(0);author just that there is some interesting stuff in the book... Assuming that the scientific data presented actually comes from the sources mentioned and were not made up whilst reading Dan Brown...
:-)
Interesting argument about spending $100 from Afghan Dave and human welfare.
This is where my point of view is not very humanitarian not charitable and I apologise if it offends. I see it more as nature's way of population control - if we had 2.5 billion people in 1950 and over 6 billion in 2000, just will we feed them all in 2050?
Perhaps choice of speakers and pickups are safer topics?
:?
-
Phil.... I didn't say that Crichton was a great javascript:void(0);author just that there is some interesting stuff in the book... Assuming that the scientific data presented actually comes from the sources mentioned and were not made up whilst reading Dan Brown...
Glad you cleared that up, Mike. I'm sure there is some interesting stuff, but I couldn't cope with reading his tortured prose ever again. :wink:
I read a summary of the book (on Wikipedia so it was probably all wrong). Apparently he took a lot of stick about it from scientists (the evil data-manipulating bar-stewards) for inaccuracies and misleading information. Shockingly, the literary reviews were unfavourable too (undoubtedly the critics were paid off by the scientists, with all those ill-gotten green gains of theirs).
The novel received the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) 2006 Journalism Award. AAPG Communications director Larry Nation told the New York Times, "It is fiction, but it has the absolute ring of truth". The presentation of this award has been criticized as a promotion of the politics of the oil industry and for blurring the lines between fiction and journalism.
What a $%&#ing outrageous suggestion! I blame the scientists.
-
It's the $%&#ing hippies that have done it. This global warming bollocks. It was all going fine until they came along. So what do we have now? Electric $%&#ing cars, 'just drive 5 miles a less every day' (well that won't get me to work you salad addled cretin), energy saving this, CO2 that, and what do we get for it all? the worst winter in about 20 years. These are the same fools that'll be crying because their Piouses don't actually function in the snow, the very people they lambasted for having 'huge baby killing, pointless off-roaders' are having no bother at all, in their huge 'pointless' cars.
So brothers and sisters, I say to you; trade in that eco-shiteee and buy something with a $%&#ing great V8 in it, preferably a Range Rover. Make the planet warmer again!
-
^ i don't think one winter will affect the average that much.
also, parts of australia are in a heatwave at the moment.
ratrod: two questions.
1) what research have the global warming specialists done themselves? it's very easy to criticise others' work when you're doing none yourself (e.g. opposition parties in politics; creationists; etc.)
2) I agree that if every scientist ever involved in climate change has been manipulating the data then it's worthless, but from the looks of those emails it was only a few scientists, plus from all i've seen you (by that i mean climate change sceptics) are exagerating how much manipulating there has been. plus when exactly did climate change research start? do you think they've been manipuating it from the start? or more recently?
Plus you still haven't answered my questions about how exactly it could be a conspiracy and how exactly they can make more money from environmental issues, seeing as how they're making far more money currently with the status quo. i agree that not all conspiracies are wacko, but to have a valid point, it kinda has to make logical sense. i would also add that a lot of the big guns in the climate change sceptics group are in the oil/mining/whatever business, and they also stand to mke a ton of money if they can persuade people that cc isn't happening. it's not just the scientists who might be biased.
finally, i apologise if i've upset you, i still maintain you started with the insults (:lol: ), but if you scale them back, so will i. i don't appreciate being called (or having it implied) that i'm a sheep, or just blindly accepting the party line. I'm one of the most suspicious people i know (as i think/hope most of my other posts on here about politics will prove), nd i rarely agree with the government on anything (heck, i don't agree with its policies on cc for a start). I also think it's a bit hypocritical of you to imply that I'm the credulous one, when you uncritically accept what your "sources" say as a fact (or at least, that's what it looks like.
anyway, long story short, you stop acting like I'm credulous and I'll stop acting like you're a wacko. :D
EDIT: by the way, i went back through the posts, and as far as I can tell (check them if you wish), this was the first direct insult:
This feels like a discussion with a religious fundamentalist.
-
What's so insulting about being a religious fundamentalist?
Rowan Williams is a religious fundamentalist and he seems like an awfully nice chap.
(http://nickbaines.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/rowan-williams.jpg)
-
well, apart from his idiotic comments about sharia law...
i'm also not sure you'd call him a fundamentalist, at least not in the way i understand the term. plus it's context- much like if someone called me a liberal, i wouldn't take it as an insult, but if i called, i dunno, bill o'reilly or sean hannity one they'd probably be a bit annoyed.
-
1. AFAIK all data is gathered from geological, meteorolgical research. Weather stations, ground and ice drillings, sattelites etc. Both parties probably have similar raw data.
2. Back in the early 80's I was told in school we were heading towards an ice age. 'Problems' back then were acid rain and later ozone. Somewhere around that time the greenhouse thing came along. I personally think they made a couple of mistakes. But instead of going "Oops! Sorry, we were wrong." They didn't want to loose face and feared they would lose their fundings.
Now then, the money making. First the scientists themselves. They scream the world is headed for a disaster, it's man's fault and man can stop it. But to know how to stop it, they need to do more research and for that they need more money.
Governments: They find it a great excuse to raise taxes. I mentioned some examples from Holland earlier. The latest addition to that is upping the VAT on meat because cows and pigs produce CO2.
Semi-government: My country is littered with committees and such. They do research, some are (sociological) think tanks, some develop ideas for durable technologies. Every now then they show something on TV or a local newspaper. Most of their ideas are from from realistic. Maybe the think Futurama and Star Trek are reality shows. The big kahuna's of those committees are ex-politicians, highly rated friends and members of red and green parties, celbrities, guys with grey beards and sandals who never been off campus grounds and the odd ex-astronaut. They probably couldn't have any other job. All heavily funded by tax payer's money.
Business: The last who jumped on the band wagon. But now they know how to sell their product. "Buy this new car. It takes less fuel, it's better for the environment." "Buy this new fridge, it uses less electricity." Philips jumped into the energy saving light bulb. They get some govt. funding and praise and make more profit on them. That those lights take more energy to produce and recycle and that they contain mercury doesn't seem to matter. Then there's companies that produce wind turbines, sun collectors and stuff. A booming market but only viable because of government support. Stores are filled with 'eco products' and I find it questionable wether or not they really are.
Save the planet, buy new stuff.
-
OMG!
I just had the laugh of the year. Nothing will be able to top this.
Someone in the Dutch Labour Party just put this on twitter: http://twitter.com/ChantalGillard/status/7724057954 (http://twitter.com/ChantalGillard/status/7724057954)
Translation: If we don't act disasters like this on Haiti will continue to happen. We must stop climate change and improve the coasts of the islands.
-
I'll say it fast so as to hopefully kill this stone dead.
STOP IT!
This is life and the world has always been this way... go and do something to help someone personally or make them smile.
Climate change?
Climates ARE SUPPOSED to $%&#ing change!!!! :? :?
... and yet the thread rumbles on...
-
I'll say it fast so as to hopefully kill this stone dead.
STOP IT!
This is life and the world has always been this way... go and do something to help someone personally or make them smile.
Climate change?
Climates ARE SUPPOSED to $%&#ing change!!!! :? :?
... and yet the thread rumbles on...
I think it's time we gave up on this - now that we've reached consensus :| - and debated some simpler, less controversial topics. I've got some suggestions:
Abortion
Capital punishment
Euthanasia
Same-sex marriage
Prison reform
The state benefits system
Islam
-
I'll say it fast so as to hopefully kill this stone dead.
STOP IT!
This is life and the world has always been this way... go and do something to help someone personally or make them smile.
Climate change?
Climates ARE SUPPOSED to $%&#ing change!!!! :? :?
... and yet the thread rumbles on...
I think it's time we gave up on this - now that we've reached consensus :| - and debated some simpler, less controversial topics. I've got some suggestions:
Abortion
Capital punishment
Euthanasia
Same-sex marriage
Prison reform
The state benefits system
Islam
what are we debating? is that your list of weekend activities to mess about with?
and you want to know if we approve?
-
Yep, I try to fit in a minimum of three of those, every weekend. Four if it's a bank holiday.
-
I totally condemn abortion in the context of a same sex islamic marriage - those bar-stewards should be hung and not kept in cushy jails at taxpayers expense... make the immigrants pay for it.
:?
-
:lol:
(but you missed euthanasia)
-
:lol:
(but you missed euthanasia)
Please could somebody just put me out of my misery?
-
Touché! :lol:
-
1. AFAIK all data is gathered from geological, meteorolgical research. Weather stations, ground and ice drillings, sattelites etc. Both parties probably have similar raw data.
2. Back in the early 80's I was told in school we were heading towards an ice age. 'Problems' back then were acid rain and later ozone. Somewhere around that time the greenhouse thing came along. I personally think they made a couple of mistakes. (3) But instead of going "Oops! Sorry, we were wrong." They didn't want to loose face and feared they would lose their fundings.
(4) Now then, the money making. First the scientists themselves. They scream the world is headed for a disaster, it's man's fault and man can stop it. But to know how to stop it, they need to do more research and for that they need more money.
(5) Governments: They find it a great excuse to raise taxes. I mentioned some examples from Holland earlier. The latest addition to that is upping the VAT on meat because cows and pigs produce CO2.
(6) Semi-government: My country is littered with committees and such. They do research, some are (sociological) think tanks, some develop ideas for durable technologies. Every now then they show something on TV or a local newspaper. Most of their ideas are from from realistic. Maybe the think Futurama and Star Trek are reality shows. The big kahuna's of those committees are ex-politicians, highly rated friends and members of red and green parties, celbrities, guys with grey beards and sandals who never been off campus grounds and the odd ex-astronaut. They probably couldn't have any other job. All heavily funded by tax payer's money.
(7) Business: The last who jumped on the band wagon. But now they know how to sell their product. "Buy this new car. It takes less fuel, it's better for the environment." "Buy this new fridge, it uses less electricity." Philips jumped into the energy saving light bulb. They get some govt. funding and praise and make more profit on them. That those lights take more energy to produce and recycle and that they contain mercury doesn't seem to matter. Then there's companies that produce wind turbines, sun collectors and stuff. A booming market but only viable because of government support. Stores are filled with 'eco products' and I find it questionable wether or not they really are.
Save the planet, buy new stuff.
1: don't think that's how it works. all those weather stations are (presumably) also run by scientists. Do you trust those ones and not the climate change ones? etc. etc.
2: acid rain and ozone were problems. As I told you in a previous thread (i think), where you claimed that these things went away on their own, I posted links which showed that what the scientists suggested doing actually fixed the problems. i don't remember being told about an ice age in the 80s (i was too young), but i'd add that i was told a lot of cr@p in school, primary school especially, mainly because the teachers weren't science specialists.
(3) That may be so, but I'd also point out that another surefire way of losing funding (and maybe even your doctorate) is to be caught making stuff up. It's really not worth it. Would you rather lose your current job or never be able to work again (at least in science)?
(4) Plenty of scientists make money without screaming that the world is going to end. The vast majority, in fact. And I'd point out that if money is your main priority, scientific research is a fairly bad path to follow.
(5) Oh, I agree, but as I already pointed out, green taxes make a very small proportion of the overall tax revenue, in the UK, anyway (and I assume the netherlands is the same). Plus many of these green proposals etc. would actually cost the government money, in terms of reduced VAT revenue, corporation tax, income tax, etc. (because of reduced consumption), not to mention the costs involved in completely changing the entire infrastructure.
(6) can't argue with that, it's the same here. But again, they're rarely the scientists, they're other eejits jumping on the bandwagon.
(7) again, i'm not arguing with companies jumping on the bandwagon, I hate that. But that's a symptom of climate change, not that they're manufacturing climate change to sell more stuff (for the vast majority of companies, anyway). It's not like they struggled to sell stuff before climate change became a big issue, and climate change is likely to be very hard on a lot of very big companies (oil, mining, etc. etc.).
OMG!
I just had the laugh of the year. Nothing will be able to top this.
Someone in the Dutch Labour Party just put this on twitter: http://twitter.com/ChantalGillard/status/7724057954 (http://twitter.com/ChantalGillard/status/7724057954)
Translation: If we don't act disasters like this on Haiti will continue to happen. We must stop climate change and improve the coasts of the islands.
assuming he claimed that the earthquake was related to climate change (never gone to twitter before, not starting now :lol: ), that is fairly retarded, nice find. :lol:
and hey, i didn't start the thread. I don't like every thread on here, and don't post in them saying the ones i don't like should stop. :)
-
Now then, the money making. First the scientists themselves. They scream the world is headed for a disaster, it's man's fault and man can stop it. But to know how to stop it, they need to do more research and for that they need more money.
This seems like a bit of a cop out to me. If scientists can't be trusted, who can we trust? Obviously, there is no way for any layman to answer these questions without appealing to (scientific) authority, so just shouting down authority in general pretty much calls a halt to the whole debate. There's no longer any scope for presenting arguments either way.
Also, as dave_mc says, you'd have to be pretty dense to decide that a career in research science was the best way to make yourself rich.
-
Not to fuel this fire but...
I don't think a guy wakes up and thinks... "Oh I want to be rich, I think I'll become a research scientist!"
More like.. A research scientist thinks...
"How the f**k am I gonna get funding for my work"
He realistically assesses that his chances are vastly improved if he can hitch it to the current climate change Zeitgeist.
Then his work gets published and speaks at a few conferences...
"Oh people are really listening to me, I like this"
Maybe gets invited onto network news for a 30 second talking head spot... he loves it.
If all goes REALLY well he gets appointed to a Govt quango as a special advisor.
Hubris and a proportional increase in earning potential within one's own profession is a pretty universal motivator. Scientist, Kindergarden Teacher or Hedge Fund Manager...
-
Hubris and a proportional increase in earning potential within one's own profession is a pretty universal motivator. Scientist, Kindergarden Teacher or Hedge Fund Manager...
To some extent, obviously, but equally the nature of the job does give you a clue as to the kind of people who do it. Kindergarten teachers, being people who care about children, are going to draw the line at beating the kids to discipline them ("what a job you're doing, they're all so quiet...") and it seems reasonable to assume that those who go into research science are people who care about truth and the scientific method. Unless you have something to gain in them all being untrustworthy, money grabbing liars, in which case it might start to look like a much less reasonable assumption.
I've worked in retail for long enough (2 years, more than long enough!) to know a thing or two about bullshiteeee peddlers, but it's a pretty cynical view that takes as a blanket generalisation everyone who makes money to be liars and cheats.
... Or is it just the ones we want to disagree with who are the liars and cheats? Just a thought...
-
Good grief... jump to extremes why don't you.
Scientist are generally good, kindergarden teachers are generally good and yes even some hedge fund managers are good!
Their methods are generally moral & honest.
I am not making a moral judgement & I am not attacking the scientific method...
BUT
To believe that there are people or professions that are somehow above self interest is a denial of human nature.
A question was raised regarding motivation & I was stating that "Rich" & "famous" are powerful motivators and can't only be judged in absolute terms.
One can be highly motivated to become more rich and famous in comparison to:
A) Yesterday
B) Their neighbor
C) Their colleagues
D) Elvis
It's up to you and your talents what you choose to shoot for...
Stating that "Big Business" would make more money measured in absolute $$ does not protect research scientists from individual bias or motivation founded on self interest to make more $$ or become recognised to a greater degree.
:?
Such bad science motivated by self interest WILL be uncovered in due time but the sense of catastrophy is a dangerous camouflage NOW...
So excuse me for not asking how high when those with loud voices tell me to jump.
-
1. There's probably nothing wrong with the raw data. I gave the Russian example. They got that data but they decided not to use 75% of it. Why? Because it included Siberian low temperatures, perhaps?
2. I still think those problems and it's sollutions were exadurated.
3. Those scientists will be protected by the politicians. Or they'll come up with an excuse. It's a good old case of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch your's." and "If you tell this about me, I'll tell that about you." POLITICS!
4. Afghan Dave nailed that one.
5. You're lucky. We're being taxed to death.
7. It would be better to consume less. Now they're making you feel guilty for driving an older car. Remember that 'cash for clunkers' programme in the USA? That had more to do with stimulating sales than the environment. They blew up the engines of the older cars so they couldn't be sold on. There was a clip on youtube where they blew up an Olds Aurora. That was equipped with a Northstar V8. Actually a very efficient engine, not a gas guzzler at all. Couldn't they have traded that with some poor guy's gas guzzling El Camino?
Toyota seems to do well with their Prius. And it's not as green as they say it is. But good for the mining companies who mine for the materials needed for those batteries.
-
Not to fuel this fire but...
I don't think a guy wakes up and thinks... "Oh I want to be rich, I think I'll become a research scientist!"
More like.. A research scientist thinks...
"How the f**k am I gonna get funding for my work"
He realistically assesses that his chances are vastly improved if he can hitch it to the current climate change Zeitgeist.
Then his work gets published and speaks at a few conferences...
"Oh people are really listening to me, I like this"
Maybe gets invited onto network news for a 30 second talking head spot... he loves it.
If all goes REALLY well he gets appointed to a Govt quango as a special advisor.
Hubris and a proportional increase in earning potential within one's own profession is a pretty universal motivator. Scientist, Kindergarden Teacher or Hedge Fund Manager...
as i said, though, for all the increase in earning power that would provide, it's not really worth it if you risk not getting to work again. Plus, you won't get published in a (reputable) journal if you make shite up. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a paper accepted for publication in a reputable journal?
To some extent, obviously, but equally the nature of the job does give you a clue as to the kind of people who do it. Kindergarten teachers, being people who care about children, are going to draw the line at beating the kids to discipline them ("what a job you're doing, they're all so quiet...") and it seems reasonable to assume that those who go into research science are people who care about truth and the scientific method. Unless you have something to gain in them all being untrustworthy, money grabbing liars, in which case it might start to look like a much less reasonable assumption.
I've worked in retail for long enough (2 years, more than long enough!) to know a thing or two about bullshiteeeeee peddlers, but it's a pretty cynical view that takes as a blanket generalisation everyone who makes money to be liars and cheats.
... Or is it just the ones we want to disagree with who are the liars and cheats? Just a thought...
exactly. if you want to make a ton of money out of science, you can make a lot more by going and working for a private company, it's not like the only jobs available in science are in universities :lol: . There's a ton of competition for university lectureship jobs, not to mention a ton of training (degree (preferably a first) + PHD + Postdoc), after which the pay is total shite (less than a teacher, the last time i checked, plus you don't get teachers' holidays or working hours) for pretty long hours, and your job is pretty much under constant threat if you don't publish, because of the competition.
don't get me wrong, i agree with afghan dave's second post on the matter two posts up, I'm just saying that, considering everyone is biased to some extent, the scientists probably have fewer reasons to be, plus all the hoops you have to jump through to get to be a lecturer will hopefully have weeded out the more mercenary types long before they get near to being a lecturer.
ratrod:
1) again, why do you trust the raw data then? surely if it were a conspiracy it'd be easier (not to mention harder to catch) to manufacture the data than to collect the real data and try to manipulate it?
2) that's convenient. Any proof for that?
3) I don't think that's true. Certainly here the government's drug tsar was fired for not supporting the party line; and jobs in universities aren't really anything to do with the government (or at least, they shouldn't be).
4) I don't think he did. I'm not saying scientists aren't human, but when you have two sets of people, one with a small reward for making stuff up, and pretty severe consequences if caught, and another with gigantic rewards and fewer consequences, who is more likely to be making stuff up?
5) So are we, but the vast majority aren't green taxes. I'd assume yours aren't, either.
7) again, those are private companies and governments jumping on the bandwagon. that doesn't affect the science.
-
^ It might not affect the science Dave but it sure helps brainwash the public.
It would be great if the world could pull together and do something to slow down out impact on the planet, like i said a few pages ago. Its not going to happen. To implement a task as vast as that would cause those involved to melt down arguing and fighting about what it is that we should all be doing. (This thread is proof of that :P). Time will fly by and anything that does get done will be not be anything like as effective and will be seen as a waste of time. Life will go on...for a while.
-
(http://home.btconnect.com/rdi/frazer.jpg)
-
1. Manipulating is easier than fabricating. Better to cover up as well.
2. Plenty of proof to be found. won't post it, you don't want to read it anyway and you'll say it's conspiracy nutter bull.
3. You're really that blind?
4. Small reward? Millions of dollars, surrounded by the rich, famous and powerfull, in the world news, big events (Copenhagen) with michelin star food etc. And if you don't go along with it, you'll be treated like a leper.
5. Assumed wrong.
It's all bull and you don't want to see it for some reason. Like I said, this is like a religion. No proof in the world will make you doubt anything.
-
(http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p216/phillyq/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg)
(http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p216/phillyq/deadhorse.jpg)
(http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p216/phillyq/newpatches.jpg)
-
Indeed Philly.
This is going nowhere. DaveMC is still denying the manipulation and that meens he hasn't read any of the hacked emails yet. Those are the smoking gun. Reasons of why aren't even important. Those mails are the smoking gun.
Last post.
edit: This is convenient: http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/ (http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7005963/Taxpayers-millions-paid-to-Indian-institute-run-by-UN-climate-chief.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7005963/Taxpayers-millions-paid-to-Indian-institute-run-by-UN-climate-chief.html)
-
This is starting to read like a conspiracy theory, Ratrod. Wait a minute, it is a conspiracy theory...
:lol:
(1) To believe that there are people or professions that are somehow above self interest is a denial of human nature.
(2) Such bad science motivated by self interest WILL be uncovered in due time but the sense of catastrophy is a dangerous camouflage NOW...
(3) So excuse me for not asking how high when those with loud voices tell me to jump.
1. Granted, but it's equally clear that some people and some professions are less motivated by self interest, and further motivated by different values apart from that.
2. A sense of catastrophe seems like pretty piss poor camoflague if you ask me. Seems like the opposite if anything, people are bound to take more notice of studies suggesting imminent catastrophe than studies suggesting, say, a new type of chewing gum is possible.
3. Without meaning to sound too confrontational, whose voices do you listen to? Nobody goes through their life without appealing to experts in one form or another, who do you turn to if not those with loud voices? For a lot of people it seems to be those who are saying what they want to hear...
-
Mine isn't a theory and it's not ring fenced by this debate.
I only give a sh1t about the dynamics going on here and the polarised thinking apparent.
I have stated clearly that I have total confidence that in time when accurate meta-analysis is undertaken the poor or biased studies will be exposed.
There are voices here that appear to discount bias or use its existance uncritically.
My further point is that the sense of catastrophy introduces time pressure and this is an impediment to clarity in any debate.
"Act in haste repent at leisure"
I don't listen to theory until I've discounted the most salient FACTS.
Doing this takes TIME and one side of the current debate appears to relish in stating that it is running out.
If others want to hand responsibility over to the state or "experts" I'm happy for them but don't try to limit my freedom & I will extend the same courtesy.
-
(0) I only give a sh1t about the dynamics going on here and the polarised thinking apparent.
(1) My further point is that the sense of catastrophy introduces time pressure and this is an impediment to clarity in any debate.
(2) If others want to hand responsibility over to the state or "experts" I'm happy for them but don't try to limit my freedom & I will extend the same courtesy.
(3) I don't listen to theory until I've discounted the most salient FACTS.
(0) Funny, we both came in with the exact same idea and now we're disagreeing. How does that always end up happening? :lol:
(1) Debate, yes, but it's a brilliant catalyst for peer review and further study in science.
(2) Point is, to what extent? Personal freedom only goes so far - if your neighbour's exhaust was pumping out anthrax you'd want something done about it, even if he didn't know it was dangerous. It's not up to him, and it's not up to you or me either. Obviously there's a line somewhere, and climate change will fall on one side or the other, but you can't just make blanket statements about personal freedom along the lines of "until I believe it's wrong I'm gonna keep doing it".
In terms of responsibility, nobody has the responsibility to research the long term consequences of everything they use. Or if they do, that's six billion very irresponsible people.
(3) Sorry I don't really follow this, what do you mean by 'theory', and why would you discount salient facts? :s
-
You are consistently misunderstanding my posts & I haven't yet decided if you're doing so deliberately :?
Putting up straw men doesn't add anything to whatever point you might be making.
Right on page one of this dead horse of a thread I stated my belief that climates change.
Then things rambled into a tin foil hat wearing debate of conspiracies...
I stated that all parties carry bias. I have also reiterated my faith in the scientific method rather than placing my faith in individual scientists or institutions.
My freedom is bounded by the law and is mitigated by the freedoms enjoyed by other agents. Within this are I can say or do what I like, I am free.
"It's not up to him, and it's not up to you or me either" - So who does that leave then? A benevolent dictator?
I'll post my last words on this thread by quoting something attributed to Carl Sagan..
"Because undue credulity causes so much measurable harm, it follows that there is an ethical obligation to work to mitigate it"
-
^ i apologise if I've misunderstood what you've been saying, dave, this thread's been going on so long that I can hardly remember what i wrote, let alone anyone else :lol:
from the sounds of that post, we have no arguments. :)
I agree that everyone is biased, all I'm saying is that some people are more biased than others. And you can be biased and still right. Copernicus was presumably biased against people who believed in geocentric theory, for example. That's all I'm saying.
(a) ^ It might not affect the science Dave but it sure helps brainwash the public.
(b) It would be great if the world could pull together and do something to slow down out impact on the planet, like i said a few pages ago. Its not going to happen. To implement a task as vast as that would cause those involved to melt down arguing and fighting about what it is that we should all be doing. (This thread is proof of that :P). Time will fly by and anything that does get done will be not be anything like as effective and will be seen as a waste of time. Life will go on...for a while.
(a) yeah, sure. That's happening in tons of things, not just climate change, though. Apparently we're all going to die now if we don't eat enough omega 3 and probiotics, despite there being no evidence in favour of either of them working.
(b) yeah, of course.
1. Manipulating is easier than fabricating. Better to cover up as well.
2. Plenty of proof to be found. won't post it, you don't want to read it anyway and you'll say it's conspiracy nutter bull.
3. You're really that blind?
4. Small reward? Millions of dollars, surrounded by the rich, famous and powerfull, in the world news, big events (Copenhagen) with michelin star food etc. And if you don't go along with it, you'll be treated like a leper.
5. Assumed wrong.
It's all bull and you don't want to see it for some reason. Like I said, this is like a religion. No proof in the world will make you doubt anything.
1) well, apparently not, if you think you'v debunked a gigantic conspiracy.
2) just because i don't count your "proof" as proof doesn't mean I'm wrong. You don't count my proof as proof either.
3) apparently. I didn't see any government involvement at all in what little science i ever did, though granted i wasn't working in climate change.
4) I'm talking about billions of dollars, not millions.
5) do you have a link to back that up?
and i did read several of the emails on wiki. You yourself said there were thousands, I'm not going to read thousands of the things.
afghan dave: i agree wholeheartedly that you should question everything, and I never suggested that I would even consider limiting your freedom to question anything. I also don't appreciate that you think I'm uncritically accepting the party line (and if I am, I'd contend that people like ratrod are doing the exact same, from the other angle); I've looked into this, as I have most other scientific controversies. In fact, I haven't mentioned too much about the science because CC is probably the one I've looked into the least- a lot of my arguing is coming from spotting similar tactics used by creationists, nutritionist quacks, etc. etc. etc. That obviously doesn't mean that the CC sceptics are wrong, but it makes me extremely suspicious as those tactics are used to muddy the waters and manufacture doubt where doubt doesn't exist. Ratrod is keen to say that the real scientists have been manipulating, but is seemingly unwilling to accept that the CC sceptics have been doing far more.
Finally, it's not about handing over responsibility to the state or scientists, it's about being realistic. You can only be realistically an expert in one or two things. When I get sick, I don't try to learn medicine in a day, I go to a doctor. Etc. etc. etc.
-
dave_mc we agree 99% of the way.
I was talking to Dr Stein. :lol:
-
no worries, just making sure it wasn't to me too :lol: :drink:
-
(1) My freedom is bounded by the law and is mitigated by the freedoms enjoyed by other agents. Within this are I can say or do what I like, I am free.
(2) "It's not up to him, and it's not up to you or me either" - So who does that leave then? A benevolent dictator?
I'll post my last words on this thread by quoting something attributed to Carl Sagan..
"Because undue credulity causes so much measurable harm, it follows that there is an ethical obligation to work to mitigate it"
There's no point me asking what straw man I've supposedly put up then, but I will at least say that you've answered (2) yourself - the law (ie, government) - and that (1) is massively vague, any number of vastly different systems could fit under that canopy.
Calling a thread a dead horse is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy but never mind...
-
i know the topic went slightly... off, while still staying with the climate dilemma...
but you people do know what WINTER means, yes?
-
What the hell?
I turn my back for 5 minutes and this thread becomes the copenhagen summit, micheal moore style!
I just want some time off work without having to use my leave! Which scientist do I have to bribe to get it?
-
On, on the general topic of scientific misrepresentation and birbary for carreer furtherence - yeah, some try it, but dont forget peer review!
Any given scientist in any given field can try to falsify or twist results, and when they release their findings all the other scientists in the field will tar and feather him for it precisely because competition is fierce, and its about the only area where intellectual dishonesty is a disqualifier, rather than a carreer booster.
Oh shite, see what I've done there - joined this thread....uh oh.
-
So...who do you think won BKP Forumites?! :lol:
-
So...who do you think won BKP Forumites?! :lol:
Whoever won, we all lost :lol:
-
So...who do you think won BKP Forumites?! :lol:
Whoever won, we all lost :lol:
:o
You mean......
..........................it happened....................?????!!!!!
(http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p216/phillyq/A-0010_AVP_Alien_vs_Predator_quad_m.jpg)
-
So...who do you think won BKP Forumites?! :lol:
Irrespective of science, Ratrod certainly came across as the less likeable participant.
-
So...who do you think won BKP Forumites?! :lol:
Whoever won, we all lost :lol:
:o
You mean......
..........................it happened....................?????!!!!!
(http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p216/phillyq/A-0010_AVP_Alien_vs_Predator_quad_m.jpg)
Ladies and gentlemen, normal service has resumed.
Excitement over, please relax and enjoy the banter.
So, a far more interesting and important question - which of the participants would be alien and which predator?
-
So...who do you think won BKP Forumites?! :lol:
Irrespective of science, Ratrod certainly came across as the less likeable participant.
I thought he did well.
-
So, a far more interesting and important question - which of the participants would be alien and which predator?
Hmmm, dunno.... do the Daves or Ratrod have acid-dripping teeth? :?
-
So...who do you think won BKP Forumites?! :lol:
Whoever won, we all lost :lol:
:o
You mean......
..........................it happened....................?????!!!!!
(http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p216/phillyq/A-0010_AVP_Alien_vs_Predator_quad_m.jpg)
Ladies and gentlemen, normal service has resumed.
Excitement over, please relax and enjoy the banter.
So, a far more interesting and important question - which of the participants would be alien and which predator?
I thought Dave Mc was Fozzy Bear! :lol:
-
I both disagree & agree with Ratrod and dave_mc on various points...
I walk my own path on this issue. :x
(http://www.insidesocal.com/tomhoffarth/arnold-schwarzenegger-with-two-old-ladies.jpg)
-
Jeeeezzz... I just read all this cr@p... I am a complete tosser! :lol:
And may I add some more? (cr@p)
There's some great stuff here, some funny (haha and peculiar) arguments on both sides, but I can't help feeling that the way it has panned out is missing the point slightly...
I/we need strategies/solutions for how to survive what happens next:
Lots of people are going to die because either humans have become too successful and too numerous for the environment they inhabit, or the environment itself is gonna pull some trick that the humans have not foreseen and cannot control (eg the Sun does something funny, or the Clangers get wise and nuke us).
For example:
- how do I/we find somewhere else to live if/when this pot of resources can no longer sustain me/us?
- how do I/we make sure that other people/species die instead of me/us?
Those are among the things that humans (as individuals, communities, and as a species) should be pondering if they're worried about it. Anything else on the subject is time-and-energy-wasting, head-in-the-sand, self-defeating, and probably involves accepting someone else's agenda without thinking.
Obviously, it's more complicated than that. There are ideologies (both political and spiritual) and practicalities involved that have to be taken into account, blah, blah, and so on, and so forth...
But, the more effort we put into piddling about arguing about what's going on and why, and can we stop the damage, the less effort we put into doing what makes humans so successful - adapting and finding solutions (including killing each other, if necessary, directly or indirectly, to make the survivors' lives better).
Luckily, I'm getting old enough that it doesn't really bother me too much. It's unlikely that I'll survive long enough to see the real fun start and, if I do, I'm one of those people who regards suicide as a valid life choice :lol:
Love and peace folks...
-
Jeeeezzz... I just read all this cr@p... I am a complete tosser! :lol:
And may I add some more? (cr@p)
There's some great stuff here, some funny (haha and peculiar) arguments on both sides, but I can't help feeling that the way it has panned out is missing the point slightly...
I/we need strategies/solutions for how to survive what happens next:
Lots of people are going to die because either humans have become too successful and too numerous for the environment they inhabit, or the environment itself is gonna pull some trick that the humans have not foreseen and cannot control (eg the Sun does something funny, or the Clangers get wise and nuke us).
For example:
- how do I/we find somewhere else to live if/when this pot of resources can no longer sustain me/us?
- how do I/we make sure that other people/species die instead of me/us?
Those are among the things that humans (as individuals, communities, and as a species) should be pondering if they're worried about it. Anything else on the subject is time-and-energy-wasting, head-in-the-sand, self-defeating, and probably involves accepting someone else's agenda without thinking.
Obviously, it's more complicated than that. There are ideologies (both political and spiritual) and practicalities involved that have to be taken into account, blah, blah, and so on, and so forth...
But, the more effort we put into piddling about arguing about what's going on and why, and can we stop the damage, the less effort we put into doing what makes humans so successful - adapting and finding solutions (including killing each other, if necessary, directly or indirectly, to make the survivors' lives better).
Luckily, I'm getting old enough that it doesn't really bother me too much. It's unlikely that I'll survive long enough to see the real fun start and, if I do, I'm one of those people who regards suicide as a valid life choice :lol:
Love and peace folks...
So, what youre saying, if I understand you correctly, is stien is the alien, ratrod is the alien queen, youre ripley, dave MC is predator and afghan dave is the somewhat more terse and dry clean-up predator from avp2, or possibly a face hugger?
That about the gist of it?
Or did I miss something?
-
So, what youre saying, if I understand you correctly, is stien is the alien, ratrod is the alien queen, youre ripley, dave MC is predator and afghan dave is the somewhat more terse and dry clean-up predator from avp2, or possibly a face hugger?
That about the gist of it?
Or did I miss something?
Can I be Ripley, canIcanIcanI pleeeeeeeeeeze? The way she is in Alien:Resurrection where she has a bit of Alien DNA and becomes totally $%&#ing badass??!! :o
-
:lol:
Yeah, I went a bit "off-topic" in relation to where things have drifted... but do take into account that I had just read all of the previous 11 pages (or the 7 or 8 I had missed since I last stuck an inanity in here), and my mind was on higher things ...
But otherwise, yep, that's, er, about the gist of it :lol:
EDIT: Yeah, I don't mind if you're Ripley, Philly, not sure I could get into the costume at the moment...
-
Cool. Glad we're singing from the same songsheet there, as they (tw@ts, that is) say.
How about, phil, andy can be ripley and you can be cloned part alien ripley?
They're not really the same ripley.
-
And I get to torch him?
Cool
(All theoretical and make believe, Philly, don't panic)
EDIT: I've misunderstood, haven't I? We wouldn't even be in the same film... I thought MDV was suggesting you could be one of the earlier clones that, er, didn't make it...
-
... Can I not be Scar Predator?
-
... Can I not be Scar Predator?
Shhh! Or you'll be that lass in AVP that no one remembers the name of that survived all the fighting but probably froze to death :P
Yes, andy, you get to have a flamethrower/machine gun thing gaffa taped together. This is a high honour, since its really, really cool and it served as inspiration for me to tape a little torch to my soldering iron: very handy.
-
How about, phil, andy can be ripley and you can be cloned part alien ripley?
They're not really the same ripley.
Yep! Cool!! :) 8)
I/we need strategies/solutions for how to survive what happens next:
Lots of people are going to die because either humans have become too successful and too numerous for the environment they inhabit, or the environment itself is gonna pull some trick that the humans have not foreseen and cannot control (eg the Sun does something funny, or the Clangers get wise and nuke us).
For example:
- how do I/we find somewhere else to live if/when this pot of resources can no longer sustain me/us?
- how do I/we make sure that other people/species die instead of me/us?
Reading that bit make me think of something entirely different, which is going to affect us in our lifetimes:
PENSIONS.
Rapidly growing, ageing population, inadequate state pensions and no matter how much we personally put away it's going to be worth buttons by the time we retire. We are sitting on a time bomb and the government are just turning a blind eye to it because it'll be someone else's problem.
(Let me make it clear: I don't want a pensions discussion, nothing could be more boring. Just crossed my mind.)
-
Discussing pesions you may have to be cpt harrigan/danny glover, from predator 2. Hes too old for this shite.
-
Not intending to fuel a "pensions" discussion either, but that's one of the areas where "suicide is a valid life choice" comes in for me and the missus :lol: (if there's enough of us p1ssed off enough at the time though, killing young f***ers and nicking their stuff might also prove a valid choice at the time... let's see how it pans out...)
And, I have to admit, "what the f*** happens to us here and now? (jobs, house, pension, etc)" is far more important to me than "is the world gonna stop working?"
The former question I might be able to do something about or influence the outcome of, the latter is decided for me no matter what I do...
-
On the topic of pensions, I might just put the hundred or two hundred quid or whatever it is, I dont even know, a month thats supposed to go in my pension in a savings account of some sort. Probably safer there, get better interest even now and well, yeah, thats done it hasnt it, now I'm talking about $%&#ing pensions - I'm 27 and pointedly dont care or believe that it will work in the least. What the economic picture will be like in the 2040s or 50s or whenever I retire is anyones guess anyway.
-
Discussing pesions you may have to be cpt harrigan/danny glover, from predator 2. Hes too old for this shite.
That's OK, so long as I'm Danny Glover in Predator 2 and not Danny Glover in the Lethal Weapon series.
And definitely not Danny Glover in Beloved.
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2009-09/49024463.jpg)
-
He was badass in predator 2. Went toe to toe with a predator and won, where arnie had to cheat with a big log trap.
I'll be the old ass predator that gives you the gun at the end, since now I'm talking about bloody pensions!
-
I'll be the old ass predator that gives you the gun at the end, since now I'm talking about bloody pensions!
"Take this and invest it wisely."
-
Ah pensions! The Gov' are advertising on the radio about this. They are saying we're all living longer blah blah blah, how are YOU going to pay for it blah ect.
AndyR Your post is along the lines of what I've always thought on the nature part. Nature finds a way and a lot of her ways a fffing horrible as they address imbalances with some pretty scary sh*t.
I think greed will flourish in attempts to put things right.
More people, more poverty, less education, more basic needs. Less people who understand what's going on. Plenty of people who couldn't give a flying f*ck. Some things are beyond control. Face it. Doomed!
-
It would be worth a bob or two. Old ass predator is all about preparing for the future, and knew that the police pension scheme wasnt up to snuff.
-
Ah pensions! The Gov' are advertising on the radio about this. They are saying we're all living longer blah blah blah, how are YOU going to pay for it blah ect.
AndyR Your post is along the lines of what I've always thought on the nature part. Nature finds a way and a lot of her ways a fffing horrible as they address imbalances with some pretty scary sh*t.
I think greed will flourish in attempts to put things right.
More people, more poverty, less education, more basic needs. Less people who understand what's going on. Plenty of people who couldn't give a flying f*ck. Some things are beyond control. Face it. Doomed!
Naysayer!
You'll have to be Hudson off aliens
"We're all screwed man, game over! Game over!"
You die before drawing a pension, but quite bravely.
-
You secure that shit, Hudson.
-
Ah pensions! The Gov' are advertising on the radio about this. They are saying we're all living longer blah blah blah, how are YOU going to pay for it blah ect.
AndyR Your post is along the lines of what I've always thought on the nature part. Nature finds a way and a lot of her ways a fffing horrible as they address imbalances with some pretty scary sh*t.
I think greed will flourish in attempts to put things right.
More people, more poverty, less education, more basic needs. Less people who understand what's going on. Plenty of people who couldn't give a flying f*ck. Some things are beyond control. Face it. Doomed!
Naysayer!
You'll have to be Hudson off aliens
"We're all screwed man, game over! Game over!"
You die before drawing a pension, but quite bravely.
I liked Steve Buscemi's character in the awful film Armageddon with Bruce Willis. It think that was what it was called.
When they were attempting to land on a Comet, he says "Doesn't it make you feel great that everything we need to keep us alive and land this thing safely was made by companys with the lowest tenders" Or something like that.
-
Ah pensions! The Gov' are advertising on the radio about this. They are saying we're all living longer blah blah blah, how are YOU going to pay for it blah ect.
AndyR Your post is along the lines of what I've always thought on the nature part. Nature finds a way and a lot of her ways a fffing horrible as they address imbalances with some pretty scary sh*t.
I think greed will flourish in attempts to put things right.
More people, more poverty, less education, more basic needs. Less people who understand what's going on. Plenty of people who couldn't give a flying f*ck. Some things are beyond control. Face it. Doomed!
Naysayer!
You'll have to be Hudson off aliens
"We're all screwed man, game over! Game over!"
You die before drawing a pension, but quite bravely.
I liked Steve Buscemi's character in the awful film Armageddon with Bruce Willis. It think that was what it was called.
When they were attempting to land on a Comet, he says "Doesn't it make you feel great that everything we need to keep us alive and land this thing safely was made by companys with the lowest tenders" Or something like that.
There was an awfull film with steve buscemi and bruce willis called armageddon where they landed on a comet. I dont remember much though, except lunar rover type things with chain guns.
That line does remind me all too much of work though in, depressingly enough, the nuclear industry.
-
Ah pensions! The Gov' are advertising on the radio about this. They are saying we're all living longer blah blah blah, how are YOU going to pay for it blah ect.
AndyR Your post is along the lines of what I've always thought on the nature part. Nature finds a way and a lot of her ways a fffing horrible as they address imbalances with some pretty scary sh*t.
I think greed will flourish in attempts to put things right.
More people, more poverty, less education, more basic needs. Less people who understand what's going on. Plenty of people who couldn't give a flying f*ck. Some things are beyond control. Face it. Doomed!
Naysayer!
You'll have to be Hudson off aliens
"We're all screwed man, game over! Game over!"
You die before drawing a pension, but quite bravely.
I liked Steve Buscemi's character in the awful film Armageddon with Bruce Willis. It think that was what it was called.
When they were attempting to land on a Comet, he says "Doesn't it make you feel great that everything we need to keep us alive and land this thing safely was made by companys with the lowest tenders" Or something like that.
There was an awfull film with steve buscemi and bruce willis called armageddon where they landed on a comet. I dont remember much though, except lunar rover type things with chain guns.
That line does remind me all too much of work though in, depressingly enough, the nuclear industry.
Big drills into comets, put atom bomb in there, press button save Earth. Yep utter wank. :lol:
The tender thing flourishes everywhere. Though in your line of work it should be money no object. Like when we design our guitars! :D
Well this is me eh!! :lol: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xm1XErUvXo
-
Ah pensions! The Gov' are advertising on the radio about this. They are saying we're all living longer blah blah blah, how are YOU going to pay for it blah ect.
AndyR Your post is along the lines of what I've always thought on the nature part. Nature finds a way and a lot of her ways a fffing horrible as they address imbalances with some pretty scary sh*t.
I think greed will flourish in attempts to put things right.
More people, more poverty, less education, more basic needs. Less people who understand what's going on. Plenty of people who couldn't give a flying f*ck. Some things are beyond control. Face it. Doomed!
Naysayer!
You'll have to be Hudson off aliens
"We're all screwed man, game over! Game over!"
You die before drawing a pension, but quite bravely.
I liked Steve Buscemi's character in the awful film Armageddon with Bruce Willis. It think that was what it was called.
When they were attempting to land on a Comet, he says "Doesn't it make you feel great that everything we need to keep us alive and land this thing safely was made by companys with the lowest tenders" Or something like that.
There was an awfull film with steve buscemi and bruce willis called armageddon where they landed on a comet. I dont remember much though, except lunar rover type things with chain guns.
That line does remind me all too much of work though in, depressingly enough, the nuclear industry.
Big drills into comets, put atom bomb in there, press button save Earth. Yep utter wank. :lol:
The tender thing flourishes everywhere. Though in your line of work it should be money no object. Like when we design our guitars! :D
Well this is me eh!! :lol: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xm1XErUvXo
Theres a fit for purpose thing to it thats supposed to stop sub standard service from doing the job. I could spend days listing the problems with that, but its better than nothing.
The main problem is when you know that company X knows the job, has the background and can deliver the good but you cant go to them directly, you have to tender it and hope that they win - thats $%&#ed, imo. Oh, you can make a single supplier business case, but the red tape is staggering.
Yep, thats you, Hudson :lol: You've surely seen aliens before? If not, do so; great film!
-
I thought Dave Mc was Fozzy Bear! :lol:
is that a compliment or an insult? :lol:
On, on the general topic of scientific misrepresentation and birbary for carreer furtherence - yeah, some try it, but dont forget peer review!
Any given scientist in any given field can try to falsify or twist results, and when they release their findings all the other scientists in the field will tar and feather him for it precisely because competition is fierce, and its about the only area where intellectual dishonesty is a disqualifier, rather than a carreer booster.
Oh shitee, see what I've done there - joined this thread....uh oh.
word
how come you don't get jumped on when you make statements like that? :( if i'd said that (and I think i probably did, somewhere) i'd get accused of being part of the conspiracy...
and I haven't seen any of the films you're discussing (well, except lethal weapon). I think it's a conspiracy to keep me out of the thread :lol:
-
Lots of people are going to die because either humans have become too successful and too numerous for the environment they inhabit, or the environment itself is gonna pull some trick that the humans have not foreseen and cannot control (eg the Sun does something funny, or the Clangers get wise and nuke us).
But, the more effort we put into piddling about arguing about what's going on and why, and can we stop the damage, the less effort we put into doing what makes humans so successful - adapting and finding solutions (including killing each other, if necessary, directly or indirectly, to make the survivors' lives better).
I've just finished reading a book by Neil Strauss. It's pretty much about survivalists and methods/techniques used to get yourself ready for WTSHTF. Not a bad book at all, pretty well written although it wouldn't surprise me if some of it is a little exaggerated. Some of the stuff in there is a little unbelievable.
-
I thought Dave Mc was Fozzy Bear! :lol:
is that a compliment or an insult? :lol:
On, on the general topic of scientific misrepresentation and birbary for carreer furtherence - yeah, some try it, but dont forget peer review!
Any given scientist in any given field can try to falsify or twist results, and when they release their findings all the other scientists in the field will tar and feather him for it precisely because competition is fierce, and its about the only area where intellectual dishonesty is a disqualifier, rather than a carreer booster.
Oh shiteeee, see what I've done there - joined this thread....uh oh.
word
how come you don't get jumped on when you make statements like that? :( if i'd said that (and I think i probably did, somewhere) i'd get accused of being part of the conspiracy...
and I haven't seen any of the films you're discussing (well, except lethal weapon). I think it's a conspiracy to keep me out of the thread :lol:
I dunno. Maybe people are too burned out on the topic to try to argue.
More importantly
Alien
Aliens
Alien 3
Alien ressurection
Predator
Predator 2
Alien Vs Predator
Alien Vs Predator requiem
Wide range of goodness in them, from outstanding to shitee, but you MUST WATCH THEM. The ones that are cr@p are still great fun.
All the conspiracies, you'd have to be Mr Weyland :P
I'd say burke, but he was a scumbag, Weyland at least meant well, before he got skewered.
-
Alien
Aliens
Alien 3
Alien ressurection
Predator
Predator 2
Alien Vs Predator
Alien Vs Predator requiem
Wide range of goodness in them, from outstanding to shitee, but you MUST WATCH THEM. The ones that are cr@p are still great fun.
Yeah, but leave AVP2 until last. It's the only one I couldn't bring myself to buy on DVD.
-
And there was me thinking it was all to do with baby Jesus. I have had half a gallon of gin so it may be the spirit talking.
-
hehe, i'll keep an eye out for them.
-
And you might want to watch Mama Mia as well. My wife, to her utter surprise, has grudgingly come to appreciate the Alien films, but she feels that Mama Mia is more true to life...
(I, on the other hand, although I do not have involuntary retching spasms when I have to watch it, unlike other manly males I know, would advise you to watch it in secret the first time, just in case you come out in a rash or something...)
-
I thought Dave Mc was Fozzy Bear! :lol:
is that a compliment or an insult? :lol:
On, on the general topic of scientific misrepresentation and birbary for carreer furtherence - yeah, some try it, but dont forget peer review!
Any given scientist in any given field can try to falsify or twist results, and when they release their findings all the other scientists in the field will tar and feather him for it precisely because competition is fierce, and its about the only area where intellectual dishonesty is a disqualifier, rather than a carreer booster.
Oh shiteeeee, see what I've done there - joined this thread....uh oh.
word
how come you don't get jumped on when you make statements like that? :( if i'd said that (and I think i probably did, somewhere) i'd get accused of being part of the conspiracy...
and I haven't seen any of the films you're discussing (well, except lethal weapon). I think it's a conspiracy to keep me out of the thread :lol:
I dunno. Maybe people are too burned out on the topic to try to argue.
More importantly
Alien
Aliens
Alien 3
Alien ressurection
Predator
Predator 2
Alien Vs Predator
Alien Vs Predator requiem
Wide range of goodness in them, from outstanding to shiteee, but you MUST WATCH THEM. The ones that are cr@p are still great fun.
All the conspiracies, you'd have to be Mr Weyland :P
I'd say burke, but he was a scumbag, Weyland at least meant well, before he got skewered.
I love the film Alien. I thought it was the best one, the suspense was brilliant. Aliens that was an 80's film wasn't it? I did watch it when it was released on VHS. I do remember that character now I've seen the you tube clip.
Alien resurrection is that one with the giant hybrid Alien isn't it?. Not so good! The others were a bit of fun.
-
I thought Dave Mc was Fozzy Bear! :lol:
is that a compliment or an insult? :lol:
On, on the general topic of scientific misrepresentation and birbary for carreer furtherence - yeah, some try it, but dont forget peer review!
Any given scientist in any given field can try to falsify or twist results, and when they release their findings all the other scientists in the field will tar and feather him for it precisely because competition is fierce, and its about the only area where intellectual dishonesty is a disqualifier, rather than a carreer booster.
Oh shiteeeeee, see what I've done there - joined this thread....uh oh.
word
how come you don't get jumped on when you make statements like that? :( if i'd said that (and I think i probably did, somewhere) i'd get accused of being part of the conspiracy...
and I haven't seen any of the films you're discussing (well, except lethal weapon). I think it's a conspiracy to keep me out of the thread :lol:
I dunno. Maybe people are too burned out on the topic to try to argue.
More importantly
Alien
Aliens
Alien 3
Alien ressurection
Predator
Predator 2
Alien Vs Predator
Alien Vs Predator requiem
Wide range of goodness in them, from outstanding to shiteeee, but you MUST WATCH THEM. The ones that are cr@p are still great fun.
All the conspiracies, you'd have to be Mr Weyland :P
I'd say burke, but he was a scumbag, Weyland at least meant well, before he got skewered.
I love the film Alien. I thought it was the best one, the suspense was brilliant. Aliens that was an 80's film wasn't it? I did watch it when it was released on VHS. I do remember that character now I've seen the you tube clip.
Alien resurrection is that one with the giant hybrid Alien isn't it?. Not so good! The others were a bit of fun.
Yeah, it tails off heavily after alien and aliens. I think they're similarly (very!) good films, but different. Alien 3 is a perfectly decent film, but it had misfortune of following the first 2, which are crackers. Ressurection is indeed shite, but enjoyable if one takes it for what it is - dumb action film executed with a level of skill appropriate to 'forgettable summer blockbuster' rather than 'cinematic legend'.
The predator films are what they are, at the end of the day - when the chips are down they're also dumb action films with a tad more charsima than most, y'know what I mean?
Sorry, some cross thread contamination there.
The AVP films are just cash-ins and a good laugh. I love them partly because they're bad - the plots are nothing but excuses to have aliens fight predators with some people getting in the way. In a similar sort of way to transformers being an excuse to have giant robots fighting, and pretty much nothing more.
-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6999815.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#
-
Thanks for the links above but I fear you're banging your head against a brick wall.
-
(http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/kyang/never-give-up-frog.jpg)
-
"Scientists exaggerated impact of climate change, says Government's chief adviser"
“I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece
-
Christ I must admit I haven't been following this thread after what Dave said to me but 14 $%&#ing pages? That's a record for me :P
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html)
-
jeez, this is still going? I've had a bad cold all week, if you really want i can see what i can do (i would add that i read the mail on sunday article yesterday about the UN guy who isn't actually a climate scientist and that's pretty worrying, but again i consider political bodies such as the UN as separate to scientists at university) in a couple of days as regards debating your points (assuming i don't agree), but i really can't be bothered right now... :)
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud)
This one is in Dutch. It only concerns Holland. Use a translator. http://www.vn.nl/Archief/Wetenschapmilieu/Artikel-Wetenschapmilieu/Nieuwe-fout-klimaatpanel-ontdekt.htm (http://www.vn.nl/Archief/Wetenschapmilieu/Artikel-Wetenschapmilieu/Nieuwe-fout-klimaatpanel-ontdekt.htm)
In short IPCC claims: 55% of Holland is below sea level and it produces 65% of the GNP.
The facts: 20% of Holland is below sea level and only 19% of the GNP is produced there. Plus the chances of flooding are exadurated.
-
I just hope this stink gives people pause for thought before believeing everything published should be acted on because "time is running out"....
Good honest science takes time and sh1t like this gets exposed in the end.
As I said - Time pressure / panic hides the truth and is a classic manipulation technique.
Give it time and the truth will emerge.
-
yeah, i read yesterday's guardian (and the previous day's- i think the one you linked to was from a couple of days ago; the article from yesterday's guardian, by the same writer, was arguably even more damning). It's not looking great. I'd still say that most of the science still backs up GW/CC, but I'm not going to defend things which were obviously wrong (as someone who is sympathetic to science I don't exactly want to be lied to either, as apart from anything it'll make me question my sympathies). Also some of the stuff the IPCC quoted was fairly dodgy... a WWF report or something? :lol:
I would also point out that, in the same article you linked to (at least, it was on the same page as the article in the print version of the guardian which i read), there was a list of misinformation which was being put around by CC sceptics, too.
-
The amount of lies is still rising.
Some dutch scientists who worked on the IPCC report claimed that CO2 slows down the growth of coral.
They used action documents from greenpeace and WWF as eveidence.
It is a known fact that temperature has an effect but CO2 has nothing to do with it.
Dutch link if you don't believe it: http://www.parool.nl/parool/nl/1024/GROEN/article/detail/278216/2010/02/05/Weer-fouten-in-klimaatrapport.dhtml
Every day more faults and lies are busted. Does the IPCC still deserve any credibility? I think not.