Global warming - what global warming

[Real Sharapova]

Bit nippy today......

......well put it away then......

 

[Steven]

More conspiracy theorists at work, from the Daily Mail. :icon_wink

With Tony Blair launching his own plan to save the world (groans), and the G8 leaders also unveiling their thoughts about global warming, this is a big week for environmental fanaticism.

Whatever he or they offer, it will not be enough to quell the warmists' semi-religious fervour.

They are like medieval preachers, proclaiming to baying crowds that the end of the word is nigh.

 

[Dour]

More conspiracy theorists at work, from the Daily Mail. :icon_wink

Yeah, the Daily Mail does push conspiracy theories pretty hard - mainly as a way of demonstrating how the British Way Of Life is under attack from foreigners and lefties. Which seems to be the underlying point of that article.

And you've gotta love how to give his anti-scientist rant some credibility, Alexander bigs up the scientific credentials of Pilmer. So scientists are wrong, except when they say other scientists are wrong. In that case, they're a jolly important scientist.

 

[Steven]

The Pope was right and Galileo was wrong?

 

[Dour]

The Pope was right and Galileo was wrong?

The pope was a scientist?

 

[Steven]

The pope was a scientist?

No but anyone with an opposing view was no doubt a heretic and in the modern idiom a "conspiracy theorist". :icon_wink

 

[Dour]

Unfortunately for me, that twat Monbiot comes to the same conclusion about Plimer - this time how it's covered in the Spectator.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/10/ian-pilmer-climate-change-spectator

 

[Macky]

Unfortunately for me, that twat Monbiot comes to the same conclusion about Plimer - this time how it's covered in the Spectator.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/10/ian-pilmer-climate-change-spectator

But the fact is, just because Plimer has written a nonsensical book, it doesn't automatically follow that because of that, all of the hysteria about man-made climate change must therefore be true.

 

[Dour]

But the fact is, just because Plimer has written a nonsensical book, it doesn't automatically follow that because of that, all of the hysteria about man-made climate change must therefore be true.

Of course not.

But it's worrying that the 'evidence' that sceptics cite is almost always tragic nonsense. It used to be just wilful misreadings and misunderstandings, but now it comes cloaked in ever weirder conspiracy theories.

 

[Macky]

Of course not.

To be honest, I was just making the point more for general consumption by the less critically minded, not necessarily directed at yourself.

it's worrying that the 'evidence' that sceptics cite is almost always tragic nonsense. It used to be just wilful misreadings and misunderstandings, but now it comes cloaked in ever weirder conspiracy theories.

I think both sides of the debate are guilty of this, which only feeds into the conspiracy theorists.

Personally, I don't think it's as clear cut either way. I don't buy into the it's either an entirely natural phenomena or humans are responsible kind of paradigm, but it's increasingly hard to sort bullshit from fact.



Shit, did I just say 'paradigm'? My apologies, I'm going to go sit in the corner for a while and think about what I've done

 

[Dour]

Personally, I don't think it's as clear cut either way. I don't buy into the it's either an entirely natural phenomena or humans are responsible kind of paradigm, but it's increasingly hard to sort bullshit from fact.

This is really a problem, to be honest here too. Most of the stuff Steven posts on this is clearly bollocks if you take the time to read it through critically. That doesn't mean the case is proven the other way either, obviously.

How do you sort through the mess to try and work out what's sensible and what fits with the evidence gathered? Some which is pure shite or hyperbole can be disentangled but the after that, it's difficult. At some point this becomes an issue of trust, if you're not an expert in the necessary fields. Then, it's who do you trust? For me, it was cynical ****s in academia in related fields that I know who shifted from disbelievers via agnosticism to being generally convinced.

But that's a personal story and anyone reading this should know that you'd be a fool to ever trust me...

Shit, did I just say 'paradigm'? My apologies, I'm going to go sit in the corner for a while and think about what I've done

Raise you a paradigmatic.

 

[DesertFox]

The whole arguement of whether it's man made or not is going to be moot when everyone's a few feet underwater. Rather than arguing about it (for more than 30 years now!) it might be prudent to address it some ways. We could all start by affording the living planet which we inhabit a lot more respect.

That's just IMO of course, but it's not an opinion any of you feckers are going to change.

 

[The Major]

The whole arguement of whether it's man made or not is going to be moot when everyone's a few feet underwater. Rather than arguing about it (for more than 30 years now!) it might be prudent to address it some ways. We could all start by affording the living planet which we inhabit a lot more respect.

That's just IMO of course, but it's not an opinion any of you feckers are going to change.

If it's not manmade then what can we do about it?

 

[Willlow]

If it's not manmade then what can we do about it?

Nothing so everyone should stop worrying about it.

 

[Real Sharapova]

Nothing so everyone should stop worrying about it.

Oh that's all right then, Prof. I'm totally reassured now. Thanks.

 

[Singth]

I haven't got any dolphins swimming down my street and my house hasn't been picked up by a tornado. Nor is this likely to happen whilst I am breathing on this planet so, to be brutally honest, I couldn't give a monkeys.

I'm going home to burn some polystyrine in my garden.

 

[Willlow]

Oh that's all right then, Prof. I'm totally reassured now. Thanks.

Please prove me wrong...

Can you prove climate change is directly linked to humans?

Until you can it is very much as case of innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Jeff]

Please prove me wrong...

Can you prove climate change is directly linked to humans?

Until you can it is very much as case of innocent until proven guilty.

Why does it matter if humans are causing it or not?
It's still a threat!

Would you say we shouldn't worry about a meteor that's about to hit the earth, because we didn't cause it?


If global warming is a threat we should do what we can to stop it, whatever the cause. Unless you're happy for your kids and their kids to suffer as a result of our inaction.

 

[Willlow]

Why does it matter if humans are causing it or not?
It's still a threat!

Would you say we shouldn't worry about a meteor that's about to hit the earth, because we didn't cause it?


If global warming is a threat we should do what we can to stop it, whatever the cause. Unless you're happy for your kids and their kids to suffer as a result of our inaction.

Climate change isnt a threat beacuse it doesnt exist in the form being suggested by environmentalists. Yes the world is getting hotter, it could also get colder over the next 100 years or could stay the same over the next 100 years.

Its very noble to say as humans we are to blame for the rise in temperature and unless we change our ways the whole world will end, but unless we can actually prove why there is a rise in temperature, it is very difficult to stop it.

 

[Real Sharapova]

Climate change isnt a threat beacuse it doesnt exist in the form being suggested by environmentalists.

Is this conjecture on your part?