You obviously didn't bother with any of that pesky evidence laid out before you, did you?
All of what I tried to explain just went right over your head didn't it? Yet, I'm the one who won't listen? I only take notice of statements of FACT based on solid, peer reviewed, publicly available EVIDENCE. Any websites I use or recommend are based on that principle. Yours, no doubt, are from people who 'reckon' something and can write a bit of HTML. They do not have equal merit. The former contain FACTS. The latter contain BULLSHIT.
It is my job to know the difference.
On the one side we have a huge, multibillion dollar industry who stand to lose a lot if we act to stop global warming (look up 'astroturfing' in google and a whole world will be revealed to you) and who bribe politicians and pay people to set up websites where they 'know' for a 'fact' that AGW is a hoax. On the other side we have...who exactly? People who have constructed an enormous worldwide hoax just to stop you driving your car to work? Jesus.
Please have a look at the kind of fucknuts who publish this shit. You are lumping yourself in with creationists and their ilk on one hand and moneymen who would sell their granny if they though they could get something for the spare parts on the other. Whenever you read anything from any point of view, ask yourself - 'what do they have to gain by this?' and you are on the path to reason.
Don't worry. There's still hope for you to understand the thing we call 'science'. Try this for a start: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/000728487X/?tag=bs0b-21
BTW Off_it, I'm a toxicologist if you must know...
It's not really about global warming at all, but explains to people in laymans terms how science works and why so much of what you read will be wrong (and more importantly, how to spot it). Everyone, and I mean everyone, should read it.
BTW Steve, it's not difficult to spot proper experts. You find that they write lots of papers on the stuff they research and that it published in decent, respected journals. They also work in respected universities. They are where they are because they are good at what they do.
The aim of scientific experiments is to DISPROVE a hypothesis. If you can't, then you are onto something.
Only climate change deniers and creationists do it another way around, which is announce what they 'think' is happening and then try to find evidence to support it!
I absolutely love reading these threads. None of you know the first f***ing thing about global warming one way or the other. Believe it or not - I do. All you know is what you read about in the papers, or watch on the telly. As a Geologist, who studied Climatology as part of his degree (albeit nearly 20 years ago now), I can quite comfortably assure you that global warming IS very real. I won't bore you with the details - including the reams and reams of empirical evidence - because, well, most of you wouldn't understand it, it is incredibly dull, and those of you who think its funny, fashionable or somehow 'risque' to take the piss out of people who believe global warming is a serious threat to the planet would just find some way to either take the piss, or come up with some other absolutely irrelevant bollocks, like:
"solar flares",
"no barbecue summer",
"we don't have enough evidence going back x number of 100 years to say this is anything more than a blip",
"so and so 'scientist' whose research is - entirely coincidentally - funded by BP/Shell/Texaco says that these temperature fluctuations are entirely normal - and the ice core evidence that proves conclusively that global warming has had a devastating impact on the environment was all put there by alien civilisations"
"but it snowed this winter - how can there be global warming if it snowed for the first time in London for 20 years"
There isn't a single thing I or anyone else with any common sense can do to persuade anyone who wants to ignore all the evidence because they think its clever to do so, or is too stupid/lazy enough to bother reading up on the subject themselves. Since most people don't muster up the energy to do anything more than f*** off down the boozer every night and discuss the trivialities of football, birds and Z-list celebs it doesn't make a blind bit of difference anyway.
Do yourself a favour. When you get into work tomorrow get the old BB out of the cupbard and set something alight. Obviously that might not do the climate much good, but boy will it feel good!
Do yourself a favour. When you get into work tomorrow get the old BB out of the cupbard and set something alight. Obviously that might not do the climate much good, but boy will it feel good!
Haha - quality. I had a bunsen burner out a couple of weeks back - bought my nephew a Chemistry set
Thanks for the book reference BTW. Believe it or not it's actually sitting on my bookcase right now so maybe you want to tone down the condescending attitude a smidge? I also enjoyed the chapter on 'Dr' Gillian.
My whole point has been that this issue has grown to a level now where reasoned debate becomes difficult because to question some of the science and research, which is driving so much of our political agenda and public finances BTW, you end up shouted down as a planet kliler and lumped in with crackpots like David Iyke.
As an example look no further than yourself. At no point have I said climate change isn't happening. You'll no doubt go back and try to suggest I did but I didn't because it clearly is. Yet your very first first post labelled me as a 'denier', an emotive term with incredibly negative conotations. From that moment on you closed down to anything I might have said and adopted an aggressive attitude to my (alternative) point of view. I accept you are entitled to a point of view, yet I'm not allowed my own unless it happens to agree with the perceived agenda of the day or matches your own? It's a basic human trait to question the status quo surely?
I don't expect you apologise or even acknowledge you may have overstepped the mark with some of your comments but it's funny that you should address me as 'Dr' as I have just finished my doctorate in molecular biology.
[cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite]Since most people don't muster up the energy to do anything more than f*** off down the boozer every night and discuss the trivialities of football, birds and Z-list celebs it doesn't make a blind bit of difference anyway.
Oi - don't knock it mate. Boozers everywhere are going out of business because of people like you reading books and stuff when you should be supping.
I did apologise (post 26), but there is only so much 'scientific fact' that I can take from a non-scientist and I have been here before many times. Just because it's been in the Daily Mail it doesn't necessarily make it true.
I talk about facts and evidence and you keep talking about opinion. That's where we differ.
It sounds like you need to read the book again (particularly the bits about the scientific method). Only next time, try doing it with the lights on.
And Leroy, yes I do not claim to know all the intricacies of global warming. But I know people who do (here: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/) and I trust their expert opinion, because they are just that - experts. That was my whole fucking point in the first place. However, with a PhD in toxicology I can get surprisingly far in most things, even understanding concepts from undergraduate climatology may conceivably be within my reach if I try really, really hard...who knows.
Should do a book which non-entity celeb visits the camp.
1-200 Pete Doherty 1-100 Russell Brand 1-75 Daisy Lowe 1-50 Peaches Geldof Evens Lily Allen 6-4 Chris Martin 2-1 Any knob from Big Brother 4-1 Chris Evans 50-1 Lady Gaga 200-1 Parky 1000-1 Liam Gallagher 1500-1 That fat bald twat West Ham fan who gave the 'V's
Maybe its the condescending attitude of the dull fuckers trying to ram their agenda down our throats that makes me not want to believe it. So the doubling of the human population every few decades has no impact at all, how stupid of me to think it had.
[cite]Posted By: bigstemarra[/cite]So you do believe, Steve!
I look forward to seeing the pictures of you at the climate camp on Telly.
And its difficult not to be condescending when people seem to be going out of their way to sound shit thick.
Jeez fella, you really aren't winning anybody around with that sort of attitude and approach. I've tried to remain lighthearted despite your personal attacks and respectful of your opinion (yes that word again) which is based on your understanding of the facts that you've seen and accepted as being truthful. I've seen other facts presented by other so called experts which suggest a different thing. You know NOTHING about the level of my education, interests or experience but despite that I'm a "s##t thick", Daily Hate reading numpty and you're clearly a genius who's far, far cleverer than I could ever hope to be.
so when we turn off everything electrical, walk everywhere,fly no where, eat tofu for ever it wont matter a f**K. Doing 100% of what the eco facists want we would only make less than 2% to the green house gas levels.
let them walk to china and lecture their government and people about global warming.
by the way its kept very quiet about how much co2 is caused by the growing of rice ----------------------------- i wonder why that is ? no left wing political PC bollox there ?
PS what has Stockwell tude station got to do with Climate change ? this was one of the places this rabble racked up to ? so do tell how a Brazillian kid shot by OB has to do with green houses gases ?
Sorry Bournemouth, but you started trotting out the same tired, discredited crap regarding global warming that I have seen all over the internet.
I'm sorry, but a knowledge of science makes it easier to understand scientific arguments (and more to the point, to be able to spot bad ones and to know why they are bad) - I made an assumption, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you are not a scientist.
You have repeatedly missed the point about facts and evidence and it doesn't sound like you intend to take them into consideration anytime soon.
If you feel personally slighted, then I apologise. But I will not apologise for attempting to stand up for facts and evidence as opposed to opinion.
Remember, without scientists (and their pesky evidence based reasoning) most of us would not be alive now to have an opinion about anything whatsoever.
Remember, without scientists (and their pesky evidence based reasoning) most of us would not be alive now to have an opinion about anything whatsoever.
Crikey! When GH started this thread who on here would have known it was to end up as an intellectual 'smackdown'! A real Bunsen Burner's at dawn. You don't get that kind of entertainment on your average football forum! Fansciencetastic! :-x
when can we discuss cows being a part of the problem, therefore by veggies not eating them, they (veggies) are actually contributing to climate change?
and oohaah, great away turn out from the campaigners.
Comments
Oh I do mate - frequently.
You obviously didn't bother with any of that pesky evidence laid out before you, did you?
All of what I tried to explain just went right over your head didn't it? Yet, I'm the one who won't listen? I only take notice of statements of FACT based on solid, peer reviewed, publicly available EVIDENCE. Any websites I use or recommend are based on that principle. Yours, no doubt, are from people who 'reckon' something and can write a bit of HTML. They do not have equal merit. The former contain FACTS. The latter contain BULLSHIT.
It is my job to know the difference.
On the one side we have a huge, multibillion dollar industry who stand to lose a lot if we act to stop global warming (look up 'astroturfing' in google and a whole world will be revealed to you) and who bribe politicians and pay people to set up websites where they 'know' for a 'fact' that AGW is a hoax. On the other side we have...who exactly? People who have constructed an enormous worldwide hoax just to stop you driving your car to work? Jesus.
Please have a look at the kind of fucknuts who publish this shit. You are lumping yourself in with creationists and their ilk on one hand and moneymen who would sell their granny if they though they could get something for the spare parts on the other. Whenever you read anything from any point of view, ask yourself - 'what do they have to gain by this?' and you are on the path to reason.
Don't worry. There's still hope for you to understand the thing we call 'science'. Try this for a start:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/000728487X/?tag=bs0b-21
BTW Off_it, I'm a toxicologist if you must know...
It's not really about global warming at all, but explains to people in laymans terms how science works and why so much of what you read will be wrong (and more importantly, how to spot it). Everyone, and I mean everyone, should read it.
''Shall we find an answer to global warming...?''
''no, i wanna see how many fruit pastels it takes to choke a kestrel''
It's not rocket science!
Also it is worth remembering scientists want thier work proved or disproved by others.
Only climate change deniers and creationists do it another way around, which is announce what they 'think' is happening and then try to find evidence to support it!
"solar flares",
"no barbecue summer",
"we don't have enough evidence going back x number of 100 years to say this is anything more than a blip",
"so and so 'scientist' whose research is - entirely coincidentally - funded by BP/Shell/Texaco says that these temperature fluctuations are entirely normal - and the ice core evidence that proves conclusively that global warming has had a devastating impact on the environment was all put there by alien civilisations"
"but it snowed this winter - how can there be global warming if it snowed for the first time in London for 20 years"
There isn't a single thing I or anyone else with any common sense can do to persuade anyone who wants to ignore all the evidence because they think its clever to do so, or is too stupid/lazy enough to bother reading up on the subject themselves. Since most people don't muster up the energy to do anything more than f*** off down the boozer every night and discuss the trivialities of football, birds and Z-list celebs it doesn't make a blind bit of difference anyway.
Do yourself a favour. When you get into work tomorrow get the old BB out of the cupbard and set something alight. Obviously that might not do the climate much good, but boy will it feel good!
My whole point has been that this issue has grown to a level now where reasoned debate becomes difficult because to question some of the science and research, which is driving so much of our political agenda and public finances BTW, you end up shouted down as a planet kliler and lumped in with crackpots like David Iyke.
As an example look no further than yourself. At no point have I said climate change isn't happening. You'll no doubt go back and try to suggest I did but I didn't because it clearly is. Yet your very first first post labelled me as a 'denier', an emotive term with incredibly negative conotations. From that moment on you closed down to anything I might have said and adopted an aggressive attitude to my (alternative) point of view. I accept you are entitled to a point of view, yet I'm not allowed my own unless it happens to agree with the perceived agenda of the day or matches your own? It's a basic human trait to question the status quo surely?
I don't expect you apologise or even acknowledge you may have overstepped the mark with some of your comments but it's funny that you should address me as 'Dr' as I have just finished my doctorate in molecular biology.
[NB I may have made that last bit up...]
That is unless someone torches their 'camp'.
Oi - don't knock it mate. Boozers everywhere are going out of business because of people like you reading books and stuff when you should be supping.
I talk about facts and evidence and you keep talking about opinion. That's where we differ.
It sounds like you need to read the book again (particularly the bits about the scientific method). Only next time, try doing it with the lights on.
And Leroy, yes I do not claim to know all the intricacies of global warming. But I know people who do (here: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/) and I trust their expert opinion, because they are just that - experts. That was my whole fucking point in the first place. However, with a PhD in toxicology I can get surprisingly far in most things, even understanding concepts from undergraduate climatology may conceivably be within my reach if I try really, really hard...who knows.
1-200 Pete Doherty
1-100 Russell Brand
1-75 Daisy Lowe
1-50 Peaches Geldof
Evens Lily Allen
6-4 Chris Martin
2-1 Any knob from Big Brother
4-1 Chris Evans
50-1 Lady Gaga
200-1 Parky
1000-1 Liam Gallagher
1500-1 That fat bald twat West Ham fan who gave the 'V's
I look forward to seeing the pictures of you at the climate camp on Telly.
And its difficult not to be condescending when people seem to be going out of their way to sound shit thick.
Jeez fella, you really aren't winning anybody around with that sort of attitude and approach. I've tried to remain lighthearted despite your personal attacks and respectful of your opinion (yes that word again) which is based on your understanding of the facts that you've seen and accepted as being truthful. I've seen other facts presented by other so called experts which suggest a different thing. You know NOTHING about the level of my education, interests or experience but despite that I'm a "s##t thick", Daily Hate reading numpty and you're clearly a genius who's far, far cleverer than I could ever hope to be.
Well on that basis, "I'm out..."
so when we turn off everything electrical, walk everywhere,fly no where, eat tofu for ever it wont matter a f**K. Doing 100% of what the eco facists want we would only make less than 2% to the green house gas levels.
let them walk to china and lecture their government and people about global warming.
by the way its kept very quiet about how much co2 is caused by the growing of rice ----------------------------- i wonder why that is ? no left wing political PC bollox there ?
PS what has Stockwell tude station got to do with Climate change ? this was one of the places this rabble racked up to ? so do tell how a Brazillian kid shot by OB has to do with green houses gases ?
I'm sorry, but a knowledge of science makes it easier to understand scientific arguments (and more to the point, to be able to spot bad ones and to know why they are bad) - I made an assumption, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you are not a scientist.
You have repeatedly missed the point about facts and evidence and it doesn't sound like you intend to take them into consideration anytime soon.
If you feel personally slighted, then I apologise. But I will not apologise for attempting to stand up for facts and evidence as opposed to opinion.
Remember, without scientists (and their pesky evidence based reasoning) most of us would not be alive now to have an opinion about anything whatsoever.
.
is that Fact???
and oohaah, great away turn out from the campaigners.