Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
durbster said:
Edit: It's interesting you raised the FOTE thing because I thought the British legal system was in on the conspiracy? 
What has the British legal system got to do with the FoE escapade related to adverts in opposition to so called "fracking"?Note that the FoE apparently spent an entire year trying to find some evidence to back up their claims. It seems they failed to do so and promised not to make the same claims again in order to close the matter.
That's about as much as the regulator could expect to achieve so apparently there was no point in taking things further.
FoE then claim that the enquiry had been dropped and make it sound as if they were entirely justified.
Is that an acceptable level of public honesty for an NGO. Indeed for a Charity?
Are they the sort of business from which you might consider buying a used car?
This conspiracy attrition looping - who apart from believers ever makes such a claim...
Believers like to ridicule a conspiracy, actually a conspiracy that's only ever mentioned by them.
There's a coincidence of vested interests, with many parties riding the green blob for their own ends, but they don't have conference calls to plot infamy.
Boring strawman is boring.
Believers like to ridicule a conspiracy, actually a conspiracy that's only ever mentioned by them.
There's a coincidence of vested interests, with many parties riding the green blob for their own ends, but they don't have conference calls to plot infamy.
Boring strawman is boring.
Mr GrimNasty said:
That's gold! You tick almost all of those boxes. 
What is funny is no matter how you manage to refute the claims of experts, when they are wrong its simply ignored. Yet even once proved wrong they still insist they are right and still, people believe them.
Durbs, you laugh at the jokey posts above, but theyre all true, every one of them.
If you took your car on for a repair and the head technician had you spend tens of thousands on something that wasnt needed, time after time after time, would you still deem him an expert? Would you continue to listen to his explanations? Or simply see them as someone who didnt know what they were talking about or perhaps trying to make a living out of duping people into believing they need something they dont?
Would you say the Emperors new clothes have now become visible as invisible?
Durbs, you laugh at the jokey posts above, but theyre all true, every one of them.
If you took your car on for a repair and the head technician had you spend tens of thousands on something that wasnt needed, time after time after time, would you still deem him an expert? Would you continue to listen to his explanations? Or simply see them as someone who didnt know what they were talking about or perhaps trying to make a living out of duping people into believing they need something they dont?
Would you say the Emperors new clothes have now become visible as invisible?
LongQ said:
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
If evidence-based education was the order of the day, Gore's quackumentary would be off the menu and few pupils would leave school 'believing' that agw has even an ounce of credibility.
That would be Gore's "quackumentary" that was put through the British legal system and deemed to be acceptable to show in schools (with a few conditions)?Evidence that has been tested by one of the most robust legal systems in the world is inadequate to PH. Tough crowd.
Are you trying to suggest that the British legal system is infallible and has extensive expertise in science?
It surely is a strange world, the fantasy world occupied by people who can see an invisible signal but lack any apparent grip on something basic like causality.
Also, my post clearly said IF evidence-based education was the order of the day; it isn't. Therefore any reference to what is the order of the day, is irrelevant.
ks?This link via Euan Mearn's Energy Matters blog.
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/...
What it seems to suggest is that any "Paris Accord" targets for nett CO2 reduction are, at best, fanciful.
So it's going to take about 20 years before the political lies of today become fully observable by the masses.
Imagine you are a fully paid up influencer who genuinely believes that humanity is causing problems and that we are at or possibly past the significant tipping point on the road to human Armageddon.
As a conscientious human caring about your fellow humans, how do you react?
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/...
What it seems to suggest is that any "Paris Accord" targets for nett CO2 reduction are, at best, fanciful.
So it's going to take about 20 years before the political lies of today become fully observable by the masses.
Imagine you are a fully paid up influencer who genuinely believes that humanity is causing problems and that we are at or possibly past the significant tipping point on the road to human Armageddon.
As a conscientious human caring about your fellow humans, how do you react?
turbobloke said:
There's a coincidence of vested interests,
Do you mean vested interest in like someone arguing on a website dedicated to large engined cars, turbo's and drinking babychams by the pint? It's not unsurprising that the ratio of pro and con climate change on here is heavily in favour of the con.
PS The BBC are terrible left wing loonies.
durbster said:
LongQ said:
What on earth is that comment about durbster?
Are you trying to suggest that the British legal system is infallible and has extensive expertise in science?
No, nobody said the British legal system was infallible. What it is, is a system entirely based on around the strength of evidence, and scientific evidence where possible. It is as objective a way to test something as we have available. Are you trying to suggest that the British legal system is infallible and has extensive expertise in science?
But we already know that no amount of evidence will ever be enough. There are some on here that could be sat three metres under the Atlantic and still manage to post a graph stating the sea-levels aren't changing.
You're a real conundrum LQ. Every single time you're presented with solid, subjective evidence that challenges your view, you start looking for some insanely complex reason why it - and not you - must be wrong. I don't know if there's a name for the exact opposite of Occam's razor, but that's what you're doing (when it suits...).
Edit: It's interesting you raised the FOTE thing because I thought the British legal system was in on the conspiracy?
You might as well give up, you can lead a horse to water, sorry, herd of donkeys, but you can't make them drink.
No matter what you or I may say, those donkeys have their blinkers on, they ain't going to be changed by any facts that might upset their worldview.
Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 8th January 20:32
Gandahar said:
Dear durbster,
You might as well give up, you can lead a horse to water, sorry, herd of donkeys, but you can't make them drink.
No matter what you or I may say, those donkeys have their blinkers on, they ain't going to be changed by anyfacts faiths that might upset their worldview.
Fixed that for you...You might as well give up, you can lead a horse to water, sorry, herd of donkeys, but you can't make them drink.
No matter what you or I may say, those donkeys have their blinkers on, they ain't going to be changed by any
durbster said:
I've no interest or opinion in Al Gore but, as above, after being tested by British law, his documentary was deemed to be (mostly) correct according to the evidence available, and therefore can be shown in schools.
Do you have a better test that a topic must pass before being taught?
Blimey, that's scary, did the fraudulent hockey stick graph survive too?Do you have a better test that a topic must pass before being taught?
mybrainhurts said:
Gandahar said:
Dear durbster,
You might as well give up, you can lead a horse to water, sorry, herd of donkeys, but you can't make them drink.
No matter what you or I may say, those donkeys have their blinkers on, they ain't going to be changed by anyfacts faiths that might upset their worldview.
Fixed that for you...You might as well give up, you can lead a horse to water, sorry, herd of donkeys, but you can't make them drink.
No matter what you or I may say, those donkeys have their blinkers on, they ain't going to be changed by any
Cheers
Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 8th January 20:46
durbster said:
You're a real conundrum LQ. Every single time you're presented with solid, subjective evidence that challenges your view, you start looking for some insanely complex reason why it - and not you - must be wrong. I don't know if there's a name for the exact opposite of Occam's razor, but that's what you're doing (when it suits...).
Looking back at this odd comment - are you claiming that politics is awash with "solid, subjective evidence"?If so your idea of "solid, subjective evidence" is clearly very different to mine.
In any case I would prefer objective evidence.
But if you can supply something of substance that is new and undoubtedly and provably conclusive, subjective or objective I am more than happy to consider it.
I'm not entirely sure where Occam and his alleged razor fit into the attempted substance of your criticism.
No matter.
Gandahar said:
mybrainhurts said:
Gandahar said:
Dear durbster,
You might as well give up, you can lead a horse to water, sorry, herd of donkeys, but you can't make them drink.
No matter what you or I may say, those donkeys have their blinkers on, they ain't going to be changed by anyfacts faiths that might upset their worldview.
Fixed that for you...You might as well give up, you can lead a horse to water, sorry, herd of donkeys, but you can't make them drink.
No matter what you or I may say, those donkeys have their blinkers on, they ain't going to be changed by any
Cheers
Gandahar said:
Do you mean vested interest in like someone arguing on a website dedicated to large engined cars, turbo's and drinking babychams by the pint?
It's not unsurprising that the ratio of pro and con climate change on here is heavily in favour of the con.
PS The BBC are terrible left wing loonies.
I've heard that said before, but I've never understood the reasoning.It's not unsurprising that the ratio of pro and con climate change on here is heavily in favour of the con.
PS The BBC are terrible left wing loonies.
Are you saying that people that have an interest in cars favour the con, while people that use cars but have no interest in them are pro? If so, why?
Also, where does that leave people that use electricity, people that live in houses for example, are they likely to favour the con too?
Gandahar said:
mybrainhurts said:
Gandahar said:
Dear durbster,
You might as well give up, you can lead a horse to water, sorry, herd of donkeys, but you can't make them drink.
No matter what you or I may say, those donkeys have their blinkers on, they ain't going to be changed by anyfacts faiths that might upset their worldview.
Fixed that for you...You might as well give up, you can lead a horse to water, sorry, herd of donkeys, but you can't make them drink.
No matter what you or I may say, those donkeys have their blinkers on, they ain't going to be changed by any
Cheers
Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 8th January 20:46
Very pleasant.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff