Oldskool

[JawD 31]

Id say that man (or woman!) influences on global warming are only slight compared to natural influences. However, who can argue against just improving the quality of what we manufacture & use? Less carbon from cars etc, cant really be a bad thing?

[Renton 18081]

Id say that man (or woman!) influences on global warming are only slight compared to natural influences. However, who can argue against just improving the quality of what we manufacture & use? Less carbon from cars etc, cant really be a bad thing?

 

But how are you making your first assertion? I do agree though that what we should focus on the fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource and will run out, do SUVs etc really make no sense in the longterm in any case. Thing is we live in the here and now, it's human nature to enjoy things while we can.

[NJS 4017]

However, who can argue against just improving the quality of what we manufacture & use? Less carbon from cars etc, cant really be a bad thing?

 

I think if it provides the impetus for a leap in science and technology and it could somehow be reversed it would have been well worth it.

 

Of course a non-catastrophic effect which causes mankind to stop reproducing like a disease would also be welcome imo.

[Happy Face 29]

While we're on it the trend for lay people claiming to know better than scientists and questioning their findings could be reversed to.

 

Scientists question their own findings more than enough, that's why evolution's still only a threory 150 years after being hypothesised. They don't need white van men telling them they're wrong based on gut instinct.

Edited May 20, 2010 by Happy Face

[Renton 18081]

Ha ha. HF has accused JawD of driving a white van. Class.

[Geordieracer 0]

While we're on it the trend for lay people claiming to know better than scientists and questioning their findings could be reversed to.

 

Scientists question their own findings more than enough, that's why evolution's still only a threory 150 years after being hypothesised. They don't need white van men telling them they're wrong based on gut instinct.

 

So the ordinary man isn't allowed to look at both sides of the argument and make his own judgements?

[Renton 18081]

While we're on it the trend for lay people claiming to know better than scientists and questioning their findings could be reversed to.

 

Scientists question their own findings more than enough, that's why evolution's still only a threory 150 years after being hypothesised. They don't need white van men telling them they're wrong based on gut instinct.

 

So the ordinary man isn't allowed to look at both sides of the argument and make his own judgements?

 

I don't think a lay person can argue about scientific facts tbh - really it requires a two decade education or more. They can argue about value judgements and choices though, i.e., given that X is going to happen, do you want to do Y or Z?

[Happy Face 29]

While we're on it the trend for lay people claiming to know better than scientists and questioning their findings could be reversed to.

 

Scientists question their own findings more than enough, that's why evolution's still only a threory 150 years after being hypothesised. They don't need white van men telling them they're wrong based on gut instinct.

 

So the ordinary man isn't allowed to look at both sides of the argument and make his own judgements?

 

Yeah, course they are. I've done that, and you did above.

 

Both sides of the argument aren't the Daily Mail and the Sun though.

[JawD 31]

Thats just it, my own opinion is just based on what I've read/watched. I don't profess to know even half the ins & outs, but there are strong arguements on both sides. Either way, I dont see the harm in breathing cleaner air, using less energy and cleaner energy etc.

 

Oh, and I dont drive a van

[Happy Face 29]

Thats just it, my own opinion is just based on what I've read/watched. I don't profess to know even half the ins & outs, but there are strong arguements on both sides. Either way, I dont see the harm in breathing cleaner air, using less energy and cleaner energy etc.

 

Oh, and I dont drive a van

 

There aren't.

 

Warming is established as fact.

 

Whether it's man made is 90% certain.

 

There's a concerted effort to report the 10% of questions that remain unanswered because fossil fuel use is still the cheapest and easiest way to make money from energy provision.

[The Fish 9263]

I'd like to see this thread reverse this trend and get back on track

 

I'd like a return to (probably mythical) stereotypes of old. A bit more class and style about the place, kids being kids until they're well into their teens, instead of these 14 yr old mums and gob shite little bastards. I know it's never going to happen and I know it's a rather romantic view of the past. But this is hardly a topic for rational thought.

[Renton 18081]

Thats just it, my own opinion is just based on what I've read/watched. I don't profess to know even half the ins & outs, but there are strong arguements on both sides. Either way, I dont see the harm in breathing cleaner air, using less energy and cleaner energy etc.

 

Oh, and I dont drive a van

 

There aren't.

 

Warming is established as fact.

 

Whether it's man made is 90% certain.

 

There's a concerted effort to report the 10% of questions that remain unanswered because fossil fuel use is still the cheapest and easiest way to make money from energy provision.

 

Are you connecting that '10% of questions unaswered' with the '90% certainty its man made'? You shouldn't.

 

This 90% thing has always bugged me. That's not even statistically significant by most reckoning. For something like this, I'd like to be 99.999% certain.

[JawD 31]

The One Minute Case Against Global Warming Alarmism

 

Earth’s climate is complex and constantly changing

 

Earth’s climate is an enormously complex system with thousands of variables in constant flux. Natural cycles of warming and cooling have existed as long as earth has had a climate. We only began to make large-scale measurements in the last 100 years, so this system is poorly understood.

 

Attempts to manipulate climate are limited by the complexity and inertia of the system. Dr. James Hansen of NASA, the father of the global warming theory, estimates the Kyoto protocol would only affect temperatures by .13°C by 2100, and it would take 30 Kyotos to have an “acceptable” impact on climate change. “Should a catastrophic scenario prove correct”, states Dr. Richard Lindzen, an MIT climate expert, “Kyoto will not prevent it.”

 

No single indicator can provide proof of a global change. The thinning of the Greenland ice sheet may be due to human causes, natural variations in snowfall, changes in ocean currents, a long-term warming of the planet since the transition from the last glacial period, continued warming since the end of the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period, or all of the above.

 

Politicians and the media are eager to embrace the latest crisis

 

Climate changes during the twentieth century were often accompanied by widespread panic, only to be quickly forgotten when dire predictions failed to materialize. Intellectuals, the media, and political institutions find it profitable to capitalize on emergencies which focus public attention on the issues they champion. Often their predictions go far beyond the most alarmist of scientific bodies. Science writer David Appell, who has written for such publications as the New Scientist and Scientific American believes that global warming will “threaten fundamental food and water sources. It would lead to displacement of billions of people and huge waves of refugees, spawn terrorism and topple governments, spread disease across the globe.” It would be “would be chaos by any measure, far greater even than the sum total of chaos of the global wars of the 20th century.” This doomsday scenario hardly follows from the hesitant estimates of a 1.1 to 6.4°C temperature rise and 18 to 59 cm sea level rise by 2100 predicted in 2007 by the IPCC.

 

Attempts to halt climate change are not only costly and futile, but ignore the benefits of a warmer climate

 

Adapting to a warmer climate has many costs, but many benefits as well. According to NASA satellite data, higher levels of CO2 have dramatically increased biomass production and biodiversity worldwide. Global warming may cause Africa to become more arid, but enormous territories in Siberia and Canada might finally be open to settlement, and new resources and shipping routes will become available.

 

The focus of environmental movements is usually on reversing anthropogenic causes of ecological change. Such attempts are not only futile, but ignore the large scale economic destruction caused by environmental restrictions on human productivity. Free societies and technological innovation have allowed human ingenuity bring about vast improvements in human life. This change has almost doubled the life expectancy and quadrupled the standard of living in the developed world – and is now transforming the developing world. Disrupting the global economy would have a snowball effect on future living standards, as well as retard future technologies will help us adapt to a constantly changing world.

 

A genuine cost-benefit analysis should weight the costs of wealth destruction and long term inhibition of technological progress against the highly uncertain costs of adjusting to environmental changes. Human beings have never passively resigned themselves to environmental changes, but adapted their society to make optimal use of their environment.

 

Wealth, technology, and human ingenuity are our most powerful tools for dealing with change

 

Even the most alarmist of scientists generally agree that there is little humanity can do to influence the global climate for many decades, even if we wrecked an industrial civilization that has allowed billions of people to leave immeasurably longer and better lives. Our resources would be far better spent creating innovative technology that allows us to make the best of a constantly changing climate than crippling industrial civilization (our best tool for dealing with a constantly changing world) in a futile attempt to stop climate change.

 

link

 

As easy as I find that, you can find a counter arguement the same. I dont dispute global warming for a second, but the % of the effect being man made.

[Renton 18081]

I'd like to see this thread reverse this trend and get back on track

 

I'd like a return to (probably mythical) stereotypes of old. A bit more class and style about the place, kids being kids until they're well into their teens, instead of these 14 yr old mums and gob shite little bastards. I know it's never going to happen and I know it's a rather romantic view of the past. But this is hardly a topic for rational thought.

 

Men wearing blazers etc....

[Happy Face 29]

Thats just it, my own opinion is just based on what I've read/watched. I don't profess to know even half the ins & outs, but there are strong arguements on both sides. Either way, I dont see the harm in breathing cleaner air, using less energy and cleaner energy etc.

 

Oh, and I dont drive a van

 

There aren't.

 

Warming is established as fact.

 

Whether it's man made is 90% certain.

 

There's a concerted effort to report the 10% of questions that remain unanswered because fossil fuel use is still the cheapest and easiest way to make money from energy provision.

 

Are you connecting that '10% of questions unaswered' with the '90% certainty its man made'? You shouldn't.

 

This 90% thing has always bugged me. That's not even statistically significant by most reckoning. For something like this, I'd like to be 99.999% certain.

 

Accepted.

 

Shouldn't really put a number on it.

 

"Very Likely" is the term used i think.

[JawD 31]

I'd like to see this thread reverse this trend and get back on track

 

I'd like a return to (probably mythical) stereotypes of old. A bit more class and style about the place, kids being kids until they're well into their teens, instead of these 14 yr old mums and gob shite little bastards. I know it's never going to happen and I know it's a rather romantic view of the past. But this is hardly a topic for rational thought.

 

Men wearing blazers etc....

 

Ok, Id like to see the reversal of the txt spk trend. Does my head in, more so when there is no limitation of space which was the reason it came about.

[Happy Face 29]

I'd like to see this thread reverse this trend and get back on track

 

I'd like a return to (probably mythical) stereotypes of old. A bit more class and style about the place, kids being kids until they're well into their teens, instead of these 14 yr old mums and gob shite little bastards. I know it's never going to happen and I know it's a rather romantic view of the past. But this is hardly a topic for rational thought.

 

It's in the coalition manifesto released today.

 

We will crack down on irresponsible advertising and marketing, especially to children. We will also take steps to tackle the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood.

 

[The Fish 9263]

I'd like to see this thread reverse this trend and get back on track

 

I'd like a return to (probably mythical) stereotypes of old. A bit more class and style about the place, kids being kids until they're well into their teens, instead of these 14 yr old mums and gob shite little bastards. I know it's never going to happen and I know it's a rather romantic view of the past. But this is hardly a topic for rational thought.

 

Men wearing blazers etc....

little by little I'll fix this crazy mixed up world.

 

by the by, I do have an acquaintance who dresses in Victoriana; waist coats, fob watches and the like. It's a bit strange introducing him to new friends. They're forever expecting him to be off to a fancy dress party after or something, but no... no, that's just how he dresses.

[Renton 18081]

I'd like to see this thread reverse this trend and get back on track

 

I'd like a return to (probably mythical) stereotypes of old. A bit more class and style about the place, kids being kids until they're well into their teens, instead of these 14 yr old mums and gob shite little bastards. I know it's never going to happen and I know it's a rather romantic view of the past. But this is hardly a topic for rational thought.

 

It's in the coalition manifesto released today.

 

We will crack down on irresponsible advertising and marketing, especially to children. We will also take steps to tackle the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood.

 

 

I preferred Fish's wording.

 

Aye, and text speak should be a capital offence, agreed.

[The Fish 9263]

I'm all for the fluidity and malleability of language... but there's evolution and then there's just being fucking lazy. I don't feel enough work is being done to lay the ground rules of the English language at schools, it's more about ensuring the kids can pass the final exam. How people mistake There, Their and They're is a bloody mystery!

[Renton 18081]

Fish speak should be banned as well.

[ewerk 26855]

On a related note, it's 'could have'. FFS, that pisses me off.

[Happy Face 29]

On a related note, it's 'could have'. FFS, that pisses me off.

 

There there. They're their rules.

 

Could of been anything.

[sammynb 2934]

On a related note, it's 'could have'. FFS, that pisses me off.

 

There there. They're their rules.

 

Could've been anything.

[Christmas Tree 4005]

I'd reverse the rise of the underclass. The generations of scum that take everything and give nothing, that have no morals, no sense of decency no care for their fellow man.