Climate Change I hope this is not to political but it is so important
- Thread starter nodd
- Start date
- Status
Depends a lot on who is Arthur and who is Martha. Strangely, I don't feel as though I'm derailing the thread much posting this...
I think it is one of those around the fire bouncy about kind of threads but without the alcohol, well perhaps I'm speaking for myself on the alcohol front, it is after dark after all.
So, if we ate less sausage would that help the Climate stop changing?
Last edited:
I was talking to a meteoroligist a while ago who in very basic terms explained to me we have little effect on climate change. He went on to say our climate is cyclical and revolves around patterns that are hundred's and thousands of years long. He became quite agitated about how governments try and push eco sanctions as a way of control and raising funds. Whether he's right or wrong, it was all very plausible and made me think
Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk
He's a AGW denier, take him to the Hague, off with is head! No intimidation or inflammatory language being used to beat down people with a different perspective then, DENIER? Noooo that never happens, that would be bordering on conspiracy. (University of East Anglia?) I'm sure the last person that suffered from that was Galileo, that kind of thing doesn't happen in our day, we have the Scientific Method don't you know and nice pear review? Al is the one that needs to be gored, lying corrupt little Weasel. And to think that abomination of a discredited dicumentary of his was pushed on School children until it was challenged in court. That reminds me, what is the difference between a weasel and a stout?
A weasel is weasily seen, a stout is stoutily different! I remember being told that as a child, the 'joke' doesn't improve with age does it?
It sounds like this meteorologist has been doing his due diligence, reading around, researching, thinking for himself, balancing evidence and testimony, it just won't do you know, he's challenging the establishment, dares to think he has a duty to hold them to account for any incompetence, corruption and propaganda, thinks he knows better than the expenses diddling bureaucrats, shills and gravy train experts. He really ought to be watching Coronation Street and getting ratted on a Friday night not questioning what the Brussels Brainwashing Corpse (BBC) is telling him on the goggle box, or is that Google box or NSA box perhaps! I really must remember to ask Snowden which it is now.
Last edited:
I was talking to some bloke. ....
Must be true then. Some bloke said so.
The propensity to believe "some bloke down t'pub" over the collective of qualified scientists always amazes me.
Must be true then. Some bloke said so.
The propensity to believe "some bloke down t'pub" over the collective of qualified scientists always amazes me.
Last edited:
The problem with all these argument is that the debate always seems to be dominated by the person that shouts loudest or longest and any facts are rarely put forward in a balanced calm rational manner. It's all "I'm right and everybody else is a freaking idiot."
Personally I am still undecided about causes and consequences in this issue although I follow the topic with some interest. I do usually disregard theories put forward by people with minds totally closed to different possibilities or opinions though.
The scientific method and peer review have their faults just like everything else but they have less faults than hair brained shouting matches.
I really must stop reading this thread because it's going round in ever decreasing circles but I just keep vainly hoping to read something that actually makes sense.
Personally I am still undecided about causes and consequences in this issue although I follow the topic with some interest. I do usually disregard theories put forward by people with minds totally closed to different possibilities or opinions though.
The scientific method and peer review have their faults just like everything else but they have less faults than hair brained shouting matches.
I really must stop reading this thread because it's going round in ever decreasing circles but I just keep vainly hoping to read something that actually makes sense.
That 'some bloke' happened to be a meteorologist who also lectures on the subject. I wasn't trying to persuade anyone else with my statement but it was enough to make me do some research of my own.
I think you'll find that the 'collective of qualified scientists' as you put it also believed the world was flat once upon a time, it was 'some bloke' who thought otherwise and was ostracised as s heretic.
Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk
The accepted wisdom has always been the world was round. Very few people thought it was flat.
That's just not true, the Greeks believed in a flat earth philosophy until the classical era. My point was the scientific status quo aren't always right. Should we just blindly accept everything we're told or look at all the information available subjectively? Also, your comment about wildly believing 'some bloke' is just ignorant, everything we know about literally everything has come from 'some bloke' or 'some woman'.
Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk
As early as the fourth century B.C. however, philosophers and scientists realized that the Earth was actually a sphere. Aristotle was one Greek philosopher who advocated that Earth was a sphere. This debate has raged on in many cultures throughout the centuries.
Now, some believe that most educated people since around the fourth century B.C. and on realized that the Earth was a sphere, and that the belief that the flat earth theory was widespread is just a myth that took root in the 19th century.
It is now thought by many, including the Historical Association based in England, that Columbus did not believe the Earth was flat and that this story was merely a myth spread by Washington Irving in his book about Columbus.
Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/48753/flat-earth-theory/#ixzz2rUcSj520
And because the internet says so it must be true right?
I believe climate change is happening.
It is caused or exacerbated by our actions.
We should do something to try and stop it.
If we don't do something there will be serious consequences.
I think we are at or near a point of no return.
I think acting to prevent carbon emissions by increased use of renewable supplies can only have a net positive effect and is something we'll eventually have to do anyway.
So let's start now. As we won't know it's too late until it is to late.
That's how I tend to feel.
Once people start thinking they need to discredit everyone else's opinion that doesn't match their own, there is no way to have a sensible debate.
It is actually possible to have a rational conversation and agree to disagree. It just seems very difficult to do that when someone is raving away on the internet from behind a keyboard.
It's also possible to conclude that nobody actually knows the full story yet and perhaps we never will. But there is no sense of superiority to be gained from saying "I'm just as baffled as everyone else."
I just don't think the debate has to be so polarised and adversarial. We see enough of that foolish behaviour in politics as it is and often the most sensible way ahead lies in moderation and co-operation.
I have my own opinions and they fall pretty much into line with much of the scientific consensus but I am also aware that there are apparent contradictions to that consensus too. Climate is a fiendishly complicated subject and it is little surprise that even the most informed minds are still struggling to understand what is going on.
It would be incredibly arrogant of us to believe that we have all the answers.
Just like anyone living a privileged Western life, I'm a long way from perfect but do I think that on the whole I run a business and live a lifestyle which offsets some of my consumption against more wasteful practices. I don't think I'm saving the planet that way, it just seems a sensible way to go about things.
I also think a day of reckoning will come along though. It may be people fed up of watching their babies die of starvation and disease, it may be wars fought over dwindling oil supplies or even water.
It's not going to happen next week though so that's all right by most people.
Your children and their children will see a the world very different to ours in the future. That may be good or it may not...
It's also possible to conclude that nobody actually knows the full story yet and perhaps we never will. But there is no sense of superiority to be gained from saying "I'm just as baffled as everyone else."
I just don't think the debate has to be so polarised and adversarial. We see enough of that foolish behaviour in politics as it is and often the most sensible way ahead lies in moderation and co-operation.
I have my own opinions and they fall pretty much into line with much of the scientific consensus but I am also aware that there are apparent contradictions to that consensus too. Climate is a fiendishly complicated subject and it is little surprise that even the most informed minds are still struggling to understand what is going on.
It would be incredibly arrogant of us to believe that we have all the answers.
Just like anyone living a privileged Western life, I'm a long way from perfect but do I think that on the whole I run a business and live a lifestyle which offsets some of my consumption against more wasteful practices. I don't think I'm saving the planet that way, it just seems a sensible way to go about things.
I also think a day of reckoning will come along though. It may be people fed up of watching their babies die of starvation and disease, it may be wars fought over dwindling oil supplies or even water.
It's not going to happen next week though so that's all right by most people.
Your children and their children will see a the world very different to ours in the future. That may be good or it may not...
Would be useful if people could avoid false syllogisms.
That some scientific theories that were scoffed at turned out to be true does not mean that any scoffed at scientific theory will turn out to be true. Derision is not a counter-intuitive method of establishing the truth.
That some scientific theories that were scoffed at turned out to be true does not mean that any scoffed at scientific theory will turn out to be true. Derision is not a counter-intuitive method of establishing the truth.
"the collective" isn't that another name for The Borg? The collective thought that everything revolved around Earth for over 1300 years, the open minded maverick thought it was the Sun. I don't know if Copernicus presented his viewpoint whilst at the pub, I'm sure he did at times.
- Status
Similar threads
