Oh here we go...
Discussion
Randy Winkman said:
REALIST123 said:
loafer123 said:
We don't need less cows, we need less people.
Ahh, but you won't find a politician who will talk about that. The more people, the more 'disadvantage' the more votes they can make empty promises for.I can't think of one of today's global problems that wouldn't be eased by a lower population. 'Climate change' in all it's forms, hunger, disease and treatment, you name it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate
Population is going up because the world is a much healthier place. Should we cull the old, useless people? We certainly don't want to cut down on the young people as they are the ones that do the hard work.
Melinda Gates is a truly amazing woman.
:technogogo said:
To deny global warming today is to put yourself into a group of people who cannot be reasoned with and who are not likely to believe any evidence at all. To me it is like someone claiming Elvis is still alive or that some magicians really can make things disappear.
Even the global warmists have changed the name to "climate change", to conveniently cover all eventualities. 
technogogo said:
To deny global warming today is to put yourself into a group of people who cannot be reasoned with and who are not likely to believe any evidence at all. To me it is like someone claiming Elvis is still alive or that some magicians really can make things disappear.
You mean the global warming that observed data confirm stopped 18 years ago?technogogo said:
To deny global warming today is to put yourself into a group of people who cannot be reasoned with
Oh, oh, the irony...
mybrainhurts said:
technogogo said:
To deny global warming today is to put yourself into a group of people who cannot be reasoned with and who are not likely to believe any evidence at all. To me it is like someone claiming Elvis is still alive or that some magicians really can make things disappear.
You mean the global warming that observed data confirm stopped 18 years ago?technogogo said:
To deny global warming today is to put yourself into a group of people who cannot be reasoned with
Oh, oh, the irony...With climate change the need for measurements taken over many dozens of years introduces some subjective opinion I suppose. But the fact so many non-scientists take firm positions against virtually every climate scientist on the planet does intrigue me.
technogogo said:
mybrainhurts said:
technogogo said:
To deny global warming today is to put yourself into a group of people who cannot be reasoned with and who are not likely to believe any evidence at all. To me it is like someone claiming Elvis is still alive or that some magicians really can make things disappear.
You mean the global warming that observed data confirm stopped 18 years ago?technogogo said:
To deny global warming today is to put yourself into a group of people who cannot be reasoned with
Oh, oh, the irony...With climate change the need for measurements taken over many dozens of years introduces some subjective opinion I suppose. But the fact so many non-scientists take firm positions against virtually every climate scientist on the planet does intrigue me.
Illogical
And can someone remind me how the 97% of scientists number was arrived at? Wasn't it something like 7 or 8 of them that could be bothered to answer a survey question?
Hurts mate, surely you know the oceans are boiling with sequestered new heat that may be released in, mmm, seventeen years or so.
Unprecedented times when the sea steals evidence that should have been available for the last seventeen or eighteen years.
One of the arguments that is so often made is the one where they talk about land given over to crop production vs land given over to grazing for animals. Whilst there is an overlap there is also a massive amount of land utterly unsuited to crop production - and you can graze animals on it.
Try growing wheat on a Welsh hillside. The sheep can go where the tractors can't. If the sheep can't go there then goats can. If not goats...
Maybe the argument should be about - what sort of meat should we be eating? Maybe "fewer beef steaks a month" is right. But there's a whole lot of other delicious stuff out there...
That and clearly - the human race cannot go on increasing in numbers for ever. Eventually we must control our numbers. We can do it the "nice" way or we can do it the hard way by fighting over the resources - which is all we have ever done in the past!
Try growing wheat on a Welsh hillside. The sheep can go where the tractors can't. If the sheep can't go there then goats can. If not goats...
Maybe the argument should be about - what sort of meat should we be eating? Maybe "fewer beef steaks a month" is right. But there's a whole lot of other delicious stuff out there...
That and clearly - the human race cannot go on increasing in numbers for ever. Eventually we must control our numbers. We can do it the "nice" way or we can do it the hard way by fighting over the resources - which is all we have ever done in the past!
dandarez said:
loafer123 said:
We don't need less cows, we need less people.
You can't have 'less' cows or people.It's 'fewer' cows, 'fewer' people.
Lesson over. Don't do it again or you'll be looking at detention.
technogogo said:
Science is based on the evidence leading to consensus for a position that becomes, eventually, accepted fact. Unless some counter evidence appears. In which case the reasoned scientific consensus can change overnight.
Well, part of your problem is that you are wrong from the start. That is not how science works.I realize I am probably breaching the never argue with an idiot rule, so I shall "say zis only once". This is the basis of scientific method:
1. You have an idea about how things work (we call it a hypothesis)
2. You make a prediction that should be true if your idea is correct
3. You make measurements and check your predicted results against reality (for clarity: reality is considered correct for our purposes)
4. You decide whether or not you still think your hypothesis is correct
5. You publish everything and let everyone else make their own minds up
You're welcome.
Edited by grumbledoak on Tuesday 2nd September 09:51
grumbledoak said:
technogogo said:
Science is based on the evidence leading to consensus for a position that becomes, eventually, accepted fact. Unless some counter evidence appears. In which case the reasoned scientific consensus can change overnight.
Well, part of your problem is that you are wrong from the start. That is not how science works.I realize I am probably breaching the never argue with an idiot rule, so I shall "say zis only once". This is the basis of scientific method:
1. You have an idea about how things work (we call it a hypothesis)
2. You make a prediction that should be true if your idea is correct
3. You make measurements and check your predicted results against reality (for clarity: reality is considered correct for our purposes)
4. You decided whether or not you still think your hypothesis is correct
5. You publish everything and let everyone else make their own minds up
Poultry must be feeling a bit henpecked as it's said they have no methanogenic bacteria.
turbobloke said:
technogogo said:
becomes, eventually, accepted fact
What emerges is contingent 'fact', anything axiomatic is in at the start.If what emerges (data) refutes a hypothesis then it must be rejected or modified.
Not getting into the "man made" aspect of this, but the government seems very keen to introduce policy and taxation* based upon some very very dodgy bad science - as she said "if I was to present studies with the same kind of evidence, I'd lose my job".
- on a related note - I'm loving old Boris - charge those nasty polluting diesels. Oh - can I have a new airport. These people are taking the piss.
technogogo said:
It is not ironic because that isn't how science works. Science is based on the evidence leading to consensus for a position that becomes, eventually, accepted fact. Unless some counter evidence appears. In which case the reasoned scientific consensus can change overnight.
With climate change the need for measurements taken over many dozens of years introduces some subjective opinion I suppose. But the fact so many non-scientists take firm positions against virtually every climate scientist on the planet does intrigue me.
You're hilarious. I hope it was intentional!With climate change the need for measurements taken over many dozens of years introduces some subjective opinion I suppose. But the fact so many non-scientists take firm positions against virtually every climate scientist on the planet does intrigue me.
Once that volcano in Iceland finally lets go global warming/climate change can be forgotten for a few years as the temperature will drop for a fair bit.
By my reckoning this means we can look forward to McPenguin burgers by Feb.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/502349/Icelan...
By my reckoning this means we can look forward to McPenguin burgers by Feb.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/502349/Icelan...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff