Clever bloke says global warming is a sack of arse

[Globulator]

Frankeh said:

Globulator said:

Frankeh said:

I'm in the perfect position.
I can laugh if it all turns out to be bullst hysteria and I can accept it gracefully if it turns out to be true.

And yet, it's all turning out to be FALSE.

According to some.

No, according to the crushing majority. The only people still supporting MMGW/AGW now are the small clique of climate scientists that hover around the IPCC, and those trading in Carbon credits like Al Gore.

Honest scientists have pointed out time and again that the IPCC theories do not obey the fundamental laws of physics. Additionally the thicker than usual artic ice and natural cooling phase that we are in also shows the lie.

Additionally proper scientific theories are now emerging that reveal the earth's 'climate' (as much as it has one) are entirely dependent on the sun and external cosmic radiation.

You should watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA if you'd like to see a real theory backed by real research by real scientists.

[elster]

tamore said:

Frankeh said:

tamore said:

Frankeh said:

I'm in the perfect position.
I can laugh if it all turns out to be bullst hysteria and I can accept it gracefully if it turns out to be true.

Sometimes you don't have to take sides, and this is certainly true when your opinion doesn't matter.

It's probably more important for people like scientists and politician to take sides and if I ever become one of them, I'll make sure to take a side.

so you'd laugh at all the tax hikes you'd been hit with?

Tax hikes discussed in previous pages post.
Essentially I wouldn't mind them even if MMGW is a myth IF they were actually going to R&D on alternative fuels.
Unfortunately, I don't think that's the case.

but that's the whole point. the money is being spent of daft schemes like windymills. how is this putting you in the 'perfect position'?

Well with people like Tim Yeo as the Chairman of the Environment select committee it is no wonder there is government investment in "green" technologies.

[freecar]

Frankeh said:

It's probably more important for people like scientists and politician to take sides and if I ever become one of them, I'll make sure to take a side.

This post perfectly highlights why you are a "fence sitter"

You are too stupid to form an intelligent opinion! Case in point, Scientists and polticians are the very last people you want taking sides, you want them working on evidence. Once a scientist takes sides, he goes and works in climate modelling.

A scientist should be trying to disprove him(or her)self at every opportunity, take sides and you become nothing.

I would recommend you step out of this debate and let more intelligent people hash it out and tell you what to think later.

[kerplunk]

So a quick summary - for scientists and politicians taking sides is bad. For everyone else taking sides is good and fence-sitting a sign of a weak intellect.

[Frankeh]

kerplunk said:

So a quick summary - for scientists and politicians taking sides is bad. For everyone else taking sides is good and fence-sitting a sign of a weak intellect.

[BoRED S2upid]

From the Geological record a lot worse has happend to this planet without our help and its still here and will still be here a long time after us.

[Blue Meanie]

kerplunk said:

So a quick summary - for scientists and politicians taking sides is bad. For everyone else taking sides is good and fence-sitting a sign of a weak intellect.

Obviously a scientist should simply go where the evidence takes them... Taking sides shouldn't even come into it? Are you saying otherwise. By a scientist taking sides doesn't that mean that the scientific method is out of the window, and they are now a proponent of an idea, rather than the evidence?

[Frankeh]

Also I am too stupid to form an intelligent opinion.
I am not a scientist. I have a keen interest in physics but it's just that, an interest.

What I don't do is pick a choose my science based on my own confirmation bias and then draft a conclusion from that.

“I know that I'm intelligent, because I know that I know nothing.”

[Einion Yrth]

Frankeh said:

I am not a scientist.

Surely a scientist is merely someone who follows the scientific method with regard to establishing the truth. It doesn't involve elaborate pieces of paper or diplomas on walls.

[Percy Flage]

One of Lewis's key issues is the use of the word incontrovertible. The definition (taken from dictionary.com) is not open to dispute.

in·con·tro·vert·i·ble   
[in-kon-truh-vur-tuh-buhl, in-kon-]
–adjective
not controvertible; not open to question or dispute; indisputable: absolute and incontrovertible truth.

So it is 100% absolute proven scientific fact? Hmmm.

[Frankeh]

Einion Yrth said:

Frankeh said:

I am not a scientist.

Surely a scientist is merely someone who follows the scientific method with regard to establishing the truth. It doesn't involve elaborate pieces of paper or diplomas on walls.

Well, read the 3rd line of my comment. It's the relevant bit in this particular discussion.
All I really ever see from the MMGW deniers are a seemingly random selection of often non peer reviewed papers that they then regurgitate. I doubt many (if any) of them have actually read the papers in question but they've more thank likely read a bloggers summery of the paper, who himself probably only read some other bloggers summery.

It's all very reminiscent of the 9/11 truth bull and I don't like that rubbish either.

So yeah, on the fence I sit. The only logical place to watch from at this moment in time.

[chris watton]

Frankeh said:

It's all very reminiscent of the 9/11 truth bull and I don't like that rubbish either.

I see what you did there, and no, it is absolutely nothing like the 9/11 bull.

[Frankeh]

chris watton said:

Frankeh said:

It's all very reminiscent of the 9/11 truth bull and I don't like that rubbish either.

I see what you did there, and no, it is absolutely nothing like the 9/11 bull.

The techniques used by the deniers and truthers are very similar.

Truthers = Believe no name architects.

MMGW Deniers = Believe no name scientists.

And BOTH sides claim that the consensus is really on their side even when it's not. They are very comparable.

[Blue Meanie]

Frankeh said:

chris watton said:

Frankeh said:

It's all very reminiscent of the 9/11 truth bull and I don't like that rubbish either.

I see what you did there, and no, it is absolutely nothing like the 9/11 bull.

The techniques used by the deniers and truthers are very similar.

Truthers = Believe no name architects.

MMGW Deniers = Believe no name scientists.

And BOTH sides claim that the consensus is really on their side even when it's not. They are very comparable.

You say you are sitting on the fence, and yet you accuse the 'deniers' of believing no-name scientists... Doesn;t sound very fence sitterish to me. (Yes, sitterish is a word, I just checked with my 4 year old niece)

[Timsta]

Frankeh said:

chris watton said:

Frankeh said:

It's all very reminiscent of the 9/11 truth bull and I don't like that rubbish either.

I see what you did there, and no, it is absolutely nothing like the 9/11 bull.

The techniques used by the deniers and truthers are very similar.

Truthers = Believe no name architects.

MMGW Deniers = Believe no name scientists.

And BOTH sides claim that the consensus is really on their side even when it's not. They are very comparable.

There never will be a consensus. Name one religion where there is consensus, even amongst the believers.

[Frankeh]

Blue Meanie said:

Frankeh said:

chris watton said:

Frankeh said:

It's all very reminiscent of the 9/11 truth bull and I don't like that rubbish either.

I see what you did there, and no, it is absolutely nothing like the 9/11 bull.

The techniques used by the deniers and truthers are very similar.

Truthers = Believe no name architects.

MMGW Deniers = Believe no name scientists.

And BOTH sides claim that the consensus is really on their side even when it's not. They are very comparable.

You say you are sitting on the fence, and yet you accuse the 'deniers' of believing no-name scientists... Doesn;t sound very fence sitterish to me. (Yes, sitterish is a word, I just checked with my 4 year old niece)

Well I'm discussing the subject with people who believe categorically that it's all bullst.
Of course I'm going to be talking about why I think their stance doesn't hold up.

Likewise I could give my reasons for not believing the consensus as well. For example, I don't think the famous hockey stick image has any scientific merit at all and using the rings of trees to determine what the temperature was hundreds of years ago seems dubious to me.

Remember, I'm sitting on the fence. There's stuff that I believe, there's stuff that I don't believe.

As a general rule they both cancel out and I am forced into a "I don't know" situation which results in fence lounging.

[freecar]

kerplunk said:

So a quick summary - for scientists and politicians taking sides is bad. For everyone else taking sides is good and fence-sitting a sign of a weak intellect.

No you fool, for everyone else to take sides or sit on fences is irrelevant, the only people who need to be unbiased by their own interests are the scientists researching it and the policymakers acting on that information.

[Frankeh]

This is a strong factor too:



Maybe it is all bullst, but if we end up reducing our dependency on foreign oil and non-renewable (read: costly) fuel in general then maybe the price is worth it.

Maybe the western population of earth have to be duped into thinking their life is in danger for the changes that need to be made to be made.

People do their best work when they think doom and gloom is the only alternative.

So yeah, that's another stance. Even if it's bullst, maybe it's beneficial bullst.

[Timsta]

Ah, a tree-hugger. It all makes sense now.

The points in that cartoon:

Energy Independance - A non issue at the moment and for many years to come.
Preserve rain forests - Nothing to do with "climate change" as far as I can see
Sustainability - Not an issue - What needs sustaining?
Livable Cities - They're already livable. That's what makes them cities.
Renewables - Also known as Atomic?
Clean Water, Air - My water and air is clean enough for me.
Healthy Children - Mine are healthier than I was as a kid.
Green Jobs. - This is what it's all about. Why do we need them?

Edited by Timsta on Tuesday 12th October 13:47

[Globulator]

Frankeh said:

People do their best work when they think doom and gloom is the only alternative.

I certainly don't, and I am 'people'.

Frankeh said:

So yeah, that's another stance. Even if it's bullst, maybe it's beneficial bullst.

No, the truth is better. If we need to avoid over dependence on foreign energy then lets do that directly. A green tax on everything will simply do the opposite, by encouraging more consumption (by the government spending again on their inefficient pet quangos).

If you consider about 50% of people in the public sector are not doing anything useful (while competing for our housing, road space and the money we earned) giving the government more money in tax is hardly good for anything but consumption of energy.

Also consider the rising age of retirement. Welcome to youth unemployment and a surfeit of elderly drivers clogging up the roads when they'd be happier at home using 1/10th of the energy.

Lies are always lies, we should not hope to solve a complex problem by pretending it's a different complex problem. It doesn't work.