Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not!
Discussion
CamMoreRon said:
It shouldn't be a matter of whether AGW is a real phenomenon or not, as the timescale to gather adequate data is so long that irreversible damage could be done by not acting - with that risk in mind it should be blindingly obvious that the best course of action is one of caution and attempting to limit our potential impact as much as possible.
We need to understand what is causing the climate change so that we can come up with an efficient solution.The climate change bill on which MPs voted quite clearly showed that the cost of adaptation is much cheaper than the cost of prevention (even if we ignore the fact that the UK has minimal influence). Well it was, until the figures were rigged to show a different picture!).
CamMoreRon said:
The solution is of course to listen to the advice of the scientific community, to acknowledge that the best course of action is preventative, and to agree on an energy policy that is LONG TERM and CANNOT BE CHANGED without serious democratic consultation.
The best course of action is not preventative - that is clear.We should only listen to 'the scientific community' when their claims match up with the reality, which has spectacularly failed to date!
Guam said:
CamMoreRon said:
Well said. This applies absolutely to those "taking action" - i.e. humans burning fossil fuels - in that the burden of proof is on them if they want to carry on risking irreparable damage to the environment.
However.. the consensus of scientific opinion is behind AGW, so that becomes invalid and we should stop risking harm asafp.
Ah now an appeal to "authority" even though the "consensus" was shown to be pretty bogus.However.. the consensus of scientific opinion is behind AGW, so that becomes invalid and we should stop risking harm asafp.
You carry on though Its amusing watching this tripe trotted out over and over.
Those claiming a human influence on global climate, or any other such claim, need to demonstrate that it exists using data not gigo. So far, nothing. Spending $trillions and de-industrialising on the basis of nothing is lunacy.
When is the next Question Time? Maybe it'll include other fairytales beyond climate and windymills, it would be asking too much to expect a comment that those who don't accept fairies exist at the bottom of the garden need to provide proof of non-existence otherwise they're all swivel-eyed loons in the pocket of Tinkerbell haters.
sidicks said:
We should only listen to 'the scientific community' when their claims match up with the reality, which has spectacularly failed to date!
And even then, that might be so when the 'scientific community' speaks with one voice, which is not the case in terms of climate. There is no consensus beyond the couple of dozen attribution people appointed by their governments to write Summaries for Policymakers in the name of IPCC. Listening to the data is where it's at, and the data does not agree with Green Party beliefs.
9mm said:
CamMoreRon said:
Scuffers said:
And scare resident greenie has failed to justify anything but was promoting heat pumps...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19511637
http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Grimsby-area-res...
That went well!
This is what happens when stupid people force their rhetoric on poor people.
And that's just selective reporting. There are significant numbers of people who use heat pumps & solar for their heating - my brother lives in such a house and has no heating bills AT ALL.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19511637
http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Grimsby-area-res...
That went well!
This is what happens when stupid people force their rhetoric on poor people.
Nobody uses solar for heating (in this country) quite simply, it does not work.
you really need a lesson in basic physics, typical house needs some 24,000Kwh PA to heat it for the winter, now work out what that means in terms of trying to store that much energy (either in thermal store or the like).
I am not against subsidising research, but what we are looking at here is nothing of the sort, paying subsidies for batteries/wind turbines/etc is not research.
remember this place?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/greenproperty/...
guess what?
they had to install a conventional boiler because the eco tech did not work, and the elec bills were stupendous.
and remind me again, just how much did this house cost to build?
Back to the social housing victims, they are the victim of green cretins like you, with their grand eco idea's, they saddles the poorest members of our society with totally inappropriate eco tech that ended up bankrupting them, but that's OK, because it was a noble cause?
and we are talking about thousands of ordinary families here, not just one or two.
Edited by Scuffers on Wednesday 17th December 12:26
Guam said:
CamMoreRon said:
Well said. This applies absolutely to those "taking action" - i.e. humans burning fossil fuels - in that the burden of proof is on them if they want to carry on risking irreparable damage to the environment.
However.. the consensus of scientific opinion is behind AGW, so that becomes invalid and we should stop risking harm asafp.
Ah now an appeal to "authority" even though the "consensus" was shown to be pretty bogus.However.. the consensus of scientific opinion is behind AGW, so that becomes invalid and we should stop risking harm asafp.
You carry on though Its amusing watching this tripe trotted out over and over.
Do come back with the reason for the trend divergences though, now THAT would be truly interesting.
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. - Doran & Zimmermann 2009
OOF! OHKO!
FINISH HIM!!
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. - Anderegg et al. 2010
FATALITY!
turbobloke said:
andy43 said:
They seemed to have an awful lot of lights on in the studio last week. Russell's beard was looking lovely and glossy. Anyone know if the beeb uses led bulbs?
There ya go - back on track.
But what about camera angles and the chest hair?There ya go - back on track.
chris watton said:
Why have the mods allowed CMR to completely de-rail this thread, which should be a discussion about QT?
There are other threads available to discuss MMGW/CC!
Listen.. I'm just responding to posts directed at me. You want to ban me because people ask questions? You better get all those guys banned too, then. There are other threads available to discuss MMGW/CC!
andy43 said:
turbobloke said:
andy43 said:
They seemed to have an awful lot of lights on in the studio last week. Russell's beard was looking lovely and glossy. Anyone know if the beeb uses led bulbs?
There ya go - back on track.
But what about camera angles and the chest hair?There ya go - back on track.
Che Guevara managed without one.
CamMoreRon said:
Listen.. I'm just responding to posts directed at me. You want to ban me because people ask questions? You better get all those guys banned too, then.
You have repeatedly been directed to the CC / MWGW threads, where there is plenty of information available to explain why your position simply doesn't stack up, yet you are conspicuous by your absence!Unfortunately it appears that, as with most subjects you post on, you have minimal technical understanding and you simply choose to believe the headlines you read in the paper (providing that they tie up with your political prejudices), and are unwilling to actually bother to educate yourself on these topics.
CamMoreRon said:
Has it? Because the last time I checked (now), the vast majority - i.e. "consensus" - of scientific opinion was behind AGW.
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. - Doran & Zimmermann 2009
OOF! OHKO!
FINISH HIM!!
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. - Anderegg et al. 2010
FATALITY!
RESURRECTIONIt seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. - Doran & Zimmermann 2009
OOF! OHKO!
FINISH HIM!!
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. - Anderegg et al. 2010
FATALITY!
sidicks said:
You have repeatedly been directed to the CC / MWGW threads, where there is plenty of information available to explain why your position simply doesn't stack up, yet you are conspicuous by your absence!
Unfortunately it appears that, as with most subjects you post on, you have minimal technical understanding and you simply choose to believe the headlines you read in the paper (providing that they tie up with your political prejudices), and are unwilling to actually bother to educate yourself on these topics.
+1Unfortunately it appears that, as with most subjects you post on, you have minimal technical understanding and you simply choose to believe the headlines you read in the paper (providing that they tie up with your political prejudices), and are unwilling to actually bother to educate yourself on these topics.
This is a thread for BBC QT, not global warming.
There are many threads which discuss GW, just not here.
It is an extremely contentious subject, hence the length
of the threads.
Originally, I thought this was an opportunity to put up or shut up,
but I now think it is time to offer the Foxtrot Oscar option.
Back on thread, no QT until 2015. Mind you, This Week is
much better anyway.
CamMoreRon said:
ummmm, have you read that link CamMoreRon? It does not support your position.....sidicks said:
You have repeatedly been directed to the CC / MWGW threads, where there is plenty of information available to explain why your position simply doesn't stack up, yet you are conspicuous by your absence!
Unfortunately it appears that, as with most subjects you post on, you have minimal technical understanding and you simply choose to believe the headlines you read in the paper (providing that they tie up with your political prejudices), and are unwilling to actually bother to educate yourself on these topics.
Yep, and I don't want to contribute to either of them because it's full of utter drivel, and anyone with even a hint of scientific background to defend against the attacks of non-science denialist bulls**t was banned long ago. A one-sided debate moderated by people with an agenda is not one I want to contribute to.Unfortunately it appears that, as with most subjects you post on, you have minimal technical understanding and you simply choose to believe the headlines you read in the paper (providing that they tie up with your political prejudices), and are unwilling to actually bother to educate yourself on these topics.
Not that I even want to discuss it here, mind. I only am because people have engaged me directly.
Sidney, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about WRT AGW, so I think you're in no position to tell me I have no understanding. At least my background is actually in science, rather than a banker w**ker..
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff