Told you I was right ,the wigged one.
(90 posts) (29 voices)
Would that be Professor Sir Peter Sissons, then, the world renowned climatologist ?
(no offence to journalists, btw, who do a great job journalling stuff)
Interesting article to read, if possibly a little edited to favour the paper it's in.
I do agree that in the main, the Gobal catastrophy is nigh science is taken as proven by most of the mainstream media, even though it's erm, either fiddled or guesswork.
I'd agree views that oppose that the science is right aren't given any significant airtime.
It's his observations of how the Beeb presented things, and treated dissenters.
I might have mantioned the final line before....
It's only the basis for taxing us now, and hey, it's only money...
When Johnny ball tried to explain to an audience that Global Warming might not be what it is lead to believe ,this very popular entertainer was turned upon.Very fatherland like tactics ,these people are brainwashed .No wonder Scientology Ads are allover the place ,their time has come ,and they can thank the world Governments for preparing their new converts.
this very popular entertainer was turned upon
I prefer Max Bygraves on eugenics...
All right, Arrghgarry/Malcum Eggs/Melody, I admit it, you fooled me.
All this time, you were pretending to be an ignorant racist bigot with a penchant for right-wing conspiracy theories, when it was just a spoof. As you've just proved by citing an article by a disgruntled ex-BBC hack in the paper that gave us 'Hooray for the Blackshirts' to prove that there's no such thing as climate change. Pure comedy genius.
Now you've proved it though, do you think you could stop pretending you don't know how to use punctuation as well? That bit is a tad aggravating still.
Does the racist ignorant bigot remark (which I am not) as you state clearly , extend to the Oxbridge college that has not admitted a single person of colour in 5 years ?
Is the guy that strangled his sister(harry Potter starlet ) for going out with a non muslim ,racist ? BTW Or should I not mention that .They get touchy .
Despite my moniker, I don't actually run any Oxbridge colleges. But I'll have a go:
1) Dunno, I had not heard of this. It may be coincidence, maybe not. Either way, it's hardly relevant to whether or not you are a racist, is it? The fact that many others are racist too, including plenty of non-whites, doesn't excuse you.
2) He was certainly a bigot. Strictly speaking not a racist one, since the Muslims aren't a race, but that's not really the point. You're perfectly free to mention it, obviously the media did or you wouldn't know about it in the first place. But you rather show your own bigotry by your casual use of the word 'they' in this context. Who is the 'they' who is touchy and what is the 'it' 'they' are touchy about? If you mean Muslims and racism, yeah, quite a lot of people are indeed touchy about racism. That's mostly because they have been the victim of it from the likes of you.
I'll assume that your failure to put an apostrophe in 'I'll' was being post-modern and ironic.
I think the real debate over climate change still needs to be had. The scientists have had their time in the spotlight and have failed to come to a complete agreement over everything.
It's now the turn of the non-scientist; the man in the street who doesn't understand the science behind it but knows full well that it's been a cold winter so far; the media agencies who don't understand the issues and even if there were reporters who did would not be allowed to present the arguements and facts as such to the public due to media dumbing down; concerned citizens who represent big business; conspiracy hacks; idiots and the misguided.
How can we have a fair and balanced debate about the findings from scientific research if we insist that non-science groups are excluded from subjects they don't understand.
I recently had the option to undergo laser surgery on my eyes. I sought out opticians and other medically trained poeple who could advise what I should do based upon evidence from previous operations, research and trials. But I also went to seek the opinion of people who had no idea about any of those findings but had a gut feeling one way or the other including reporters from the Daily Mail who said that sometimes it goes wrong and people lose their eyesight completely.
The important thing was I received a fair and balanced discussion between sound advice and opinion.
It's equally important that for a touchy subject like the global lie of climate change that we allow scientists and non-scientists alike to discuss this scientific matter. And until everyone agrees we should do nothing.
Most of the people discussing climate change are non scientists, mainly politicians incapable of thinking straight anyhow. And when science becomes a political ballgame it becomes un-trustworthy by definition. Now climate change is unavoidable anyhow unless one can stop time. Predictions about how things are going to be are mostly wrong as the system is a wee bit too complex for our grasp. However there is nothing wrong with thinking about alternative energy as we run out of the black stuff some time and we better look for alternatives. Perhaps we can get the temperatures up enough that the additional water in the atmosphere makes it rain in some places in Africa again. We will get a few more flood disasters elsewhere but what the heck as long as I live not in a flood plain. If they just would not try to sell it as gospel but as science with an uncertain outcome but a high probablity it might even convince people.
Well, thisisall1word, that may just be about the most idiotic statement I have ever read on the subject.
Are you going to wait until everyone on the planet agrees? Or just us Western Society types, who have the resources to cope with what the consequences of inaction will be. Or the people of Tuvalu who are desparate for us to do something now because their whole country is disappearing under sea level rise - nope sorry not near enough for us to give a shit. The scientific evidence and consensus is absolutely solid.
The thought that the established medical concensus vs the Daily Mail/gut feeling is a balanced debate is laughable. The Daily Mail reports a lot of things "go wrong" without examining the evidence, when they are not trying to classify everything in the world into either causes or prevents cancer. Did you consult a psychic whilst you were at it - a lot of people believe in them, so there must be some truth in it, musn't there? Or why not try Andy Grey, he's consulting on the matter, now his day job has fallen through, he has plenty of opinions on everything on offer. I am keen to know the outcome - did you opt for aromatherapy to correct your vision?
And Arrgharry, you continue to be an incurious throwback.
@FormerlyAlOPecia - the heavy use of sarcasm tags around my comment were removed because I kinda hoped that it my argument was so retarded as to be transparent in its tongue in cheekness.
I am trying to cure my oncoming blindness through reverse-masturbation.
So you went for JMJ's laser lightshow? Guess a propper OP would be more successfull but less fun. Pitty we missed out on your way on that FP as a contribution from the field of "alternative medicin" - gniknaw or noitabrutsam, the cure for blindness.
I loved thisisall 1word's message, but then my sarcasm filters were in tune tonight and I understood the meaning!
Personally, I kind of like the idea that 95% of the world's climate scientists must be corrupt and on some kind of gravy train just doing it for the money.
Not sure how many scientists you know, but the majority scrape by with sod all money - the money isn't as important as the science.
However, Jeremy Clarkson thinks it's all bollocks, so perhaps we should just listen to him....
I think that alopecia is one of these "professors"at a uni in Japan ,asking what "they " did on the weekends .
You should have put that up as a sub 4TY 2.
Do the Ox walk . BTB Did you agree with Gordon brown when he called that old lady a bigot
Just for you Oxy.... I thought you Educated chaps were supposed to be enlightened
I'm a bit sceptical about climate change too.
I would like to hear both sides of the argument and I feel we're denied that on the BBC, as Mr Sissons alluded to.
I hadn't realised that makes me a racist bigot.
When I got in the car to come to work on Tuesday morning it was 4 degrees. Today, at the same time of day, it was minus 2. By my reckoning this means that climate change is happening quite rapidly but it is actually getting colder rather than warmer.
I'm going to continue to do further research but I expect my theory to be accurate and the temperature next Friday morning to be minus 26.
So I'm going to buy some gloves and a warm coat at the weekend.
But is there anywhere you CAN get a balanced view on climate change?
By balanced view, I don't mean "All the scientists agree, you racist, climate change denier!"
Just to be on the safe side, I've bought a series of solar power products. But they've all been shite.
I've bought a series of solar power products
I saw, on sale, a toy solar-powered windmill: wrong on so many levels...
is there anywhere you CAN get a balanced view on climate change?
The Guardian is running a sort of 'primer' on the subject, trying to get to the 'brass tacks'...
I can't think of one level on which the windmill might be wrong, enlighten me.
did it come with tiny sacks of GM wheat to grind?
Balance? In the Guardian? That's your best gag yet.
You might want to take a look at Climate Debate Daily, but then again that's the pundit war not the scientific debate.
And Arrgharry, you continue to be an incurious throwback.
As I have studied 4 languages ,traveled to over 25 countries ,have over 20 different jobs ,made quizzes and taken part in many for years fan ,and crossword fan ,I can read Kanji (self study) and would challenge you anytime to a General Knowledge test for a large amount of money .
I have read both sides of the Global Warming debate I used to believe it was caused by Humans ,I no longer believe that .
What did you say you were a professor of ?
I think one of the main barriers to any sort of enlightened debate is the fact that this is all incredibly complicated. Not to say that to make an effort to understand the issue well enough to contribute towards a proper scientific debate is not a noble thing indeed, just that, well life's too short for me to get close to that level of understanding.
Rather in these instances I find I have to trust experts. Trusting experts is strange ground in this age of instant opinion via the internet and the zeitgeist is definitely primed to lead us to believe all figures of authority are weird, corrupt and not to be trusted.
I would completely agree that we should question figures of authority but the processes of the scientific method make it fairly unique (if that's not an oxymoron) in providing what the 'truth' is. It's not mathematical proof it's a case of follow the research, follow the data and reveal the most likely 'truth'. Is manmade climate change 100% true? I couldn't say yes to that. Is it 99.9% true? Yes, I'd go with that.
But scientific method allows us to re-evaluate that level of truth with more research and data. So should we carry out more research before coming to any conclusions? No, in this case the research and data is strong enough - although further work will continue and this will be incorporated into the sum of all knowledge that will be constantly looked at to see if anything changes.
Another barrier is that reporting science as news so that we can understand it is very boring. However reporting the clashes of opinion about climate change is a news story that we can all understand. Reporting the science is where the truth will lie. Reporting the opinion, the 'balanced' argument, is where the unnecessary confusion stems from.
I don't want complicated.
I want a simple storyline, with all the loose end tied up by the end.
Who are the goodies and who are the baddies?
Also, if you listened to The Ovewhelming Concensus of Scientists, Alexander Fleming would never have invented pencillin, small pox would still be killing millions and Edward Jenner would have been struck off.
Scientists are very clubbish.They don't like anyone rocking their boat.
Look how they ganged up on one of today's brilliant but maverick doctors, Gillian Mckeith.
they ganged up on one of today's brilliant but maverick doctors, Gillian Mckeith.
That's something I'd pay good money to see. The woman is an appalling, self-serving charlatan...
Everybody seems to be looking at climate change as though it is a bad thing. As far as I can make out it is going to get a lot hotter and rising sea levels will mean that the sea will advance towards our major cities. And where does everyone want to go when its hot? The seaside. Now it will literally be on the doorstep for millions of people.
And as they won't have to travel so far to get to the seaside there will be less emissions which will throw global warming into reverse after a few nice summers. This all assumes of course that global warming is entirely caused by people driving to the seaside, which i think is the one thing that all scientists agree on.
Wagonload - I think you're logic may be slightly flawed. The most prolific users of the beaches and coastline of the UK are statistically the ones who currently live by the coast. If the sea encroached inland by 20 miles due to rising levels, then all those people would then have to travel 20 miles inland to visit the beach. This would mean that the number of journeys would actually increase.
You must log in to post.