Forum

The NewsBiscuit Community

Sign up or log in - lost password?

Quick links: NewsBiscuit Home • Chat Room • Writers' Room • Top Ten

This is exactly why some people are sceptical about global warming news


(101 posts) (29 voices)
  • Started 5 months ago by waylandsmithy
  • Latest reply from Squudge

Tags:

  • Al will be along in a minute
  • E=MC HAMMER
  • end of the world kids
  • I'm a yokel
  • It's cold here so climate change can't be hap
  • Lets all do some sex
  • NO SMALL SHEEP
  • no we are not just massively inconvenienced
  • old chestnut being roasted
  • oohh get her!
  • plaster of Paris cock
  • replica watches for sale
  • salty the spineless hides in the bogs
  • scientist fails to discover sense of humour
  • Tagger the spineless hides in the tags.
  • too hard to understand so I'll believe in fairies
  • we're all doomed
  • You're all going to DIE
« Previous1234Next »
  1. Bourbon

    offline
    Member

    Ok. I'm a skeptic and here's my very scientific reason why

    Hippies say that the temperature is rising as well as water levels. If this is the case we are in trouble.

    The only other example I have of temperatures being to high and rising water levels is in my washing machine. Last January 24th I put a wash on. Included in that wash was a lovely little woollen jumper my mum had brought me for Christmas. It had a snowman on the front and Santa on his sleigh in the background. Now I had worn this jumper only once and it fit me perfectly. If anything it was a little to big but that made it cosy and warm. Not sure if you remember January 24th last year but it was a very cold day, so the extra cosiness was appreciated. Anyway after that wash I went to wear the jumper again I noticed it had shrunk considerably. I got the receipt from my mum and took it back to the shop for a refund or at the very least a replacement. Now normally I find the staff at Oxfam very polite but this young lad was obviously feeling sarcastic. 'It's cos you washed it at to high a temperature' he told me. (Because I know you will be wondering, yes, I did complain to the manager and he promised my the staff member in question would be docked a weeks wages. 1-nil to the biscuit boy).

    Anyway, back to the point, that jumper got too warm, and I remember watching the washing machine that day and distinctly remember the water rising. Those two so called 'climate change' factors caused my jumper to shrink, yet I have not heard 1 single scientist, greenpeace member, our independent reader (i if you are a cheapskate) say the world is shrinking like bourbon jumper. There has not even been any evidence to say that the average sheep is getting smaller.

    So I conclude, based on my own scientific evidance, it is all bollocks.

    Thank you and goodnight

    Posted 5 months ago #
  2. Quaz

    offline
    Member

    I think it's fairly undisputed that cattle farts, burning wood, coal, oil, and just the act of the amount of the increasing number of humans on the planet breathing while burning the trees will lead to an an increase in greenhouse gasses, which can have a heating effect on the planet. The man made component vs natural variations in temperature is another question. I well recall predictions from the 70s of a new ice age, so maybe we are fending it off, or maybe we are making things worse the other way. Humans have always had a belief that they can do something to influence wider events, that's why the Aztecs cut people's hearts out on top of a step Pyramid. At the end of the day, we are just clever monkeys in shoes.

    We really have no idea, civilisation is only a few thouand years old, growing up in a fairly benign climate, and for most of that people believed the world was run by Sun Gods or somesuch. Any decision made now is based on such a short timelime, since we tend to live fo 60 - 80 years, and politicians look only 4 to 5 years ahead for elections. We'll likely wipe ourselves out in a battle over resources and which end the egg should be cracked long before the melting ice drowns us. The planet really does not give a toss if we are here or not, it'll rock along just fine and something else will evolve.

    It becomes like Pascal's Wager.

    But we do need to shift to renewables and Fusion power because we will eventually run out of fossil fuels, so it's a win-win situation.

    And yes, the Ozone hole has started to close since we stopped dumping CFC's in it.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  3. saltire

    offline
    Member

    World Wildlife activist,representing both wings,arrives at London Metropolitan University for climate change conference.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  4. Golgo13

    offline
    Member


    Posted 5 months ago #
  5. Al OPecia

    offline
    Member

    That says it all Golgo.

    Wayland - how come you are ascribing the misreporting to scientists?

    In the Yellow Pages there used to be a section for "Civil Engineers" - underneath it simply said "See 'Boring'".

    I have clearly over-reacted, and I apologise for that, but when you see politicians resisting the facts based on fairy stories made up by the fossil-fuel industry, fronted by religious nutcases and media barons, it does get to you a bit.

    As for the lack axes on the diagram (for which I would take students to great task) the X axis is the distribution of extreme events (hotter right, cooler left) and the y axis their frequency - in other words the distribution has been flattened and pushed out to the hotter end. All this has been predicted for some 20 odd years, along with several others. 1 cm rise over the surface of the planet is a HUGE amount of water.

    The "it's arrogant to say humans can affect the whole planet" is just silly. We have converted 83% of the Earths surface, mainly since the 1700's:

    http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/anthropocene.htm

    This means that all of the feedback mechanisms (e.g. carbon sequestration, forests responding to changing moisture etc.) have been seriously compromised or removed. That's what intensive agriculture does.

    And to the "they told us that there would be ice ages in the 1970's" rap, we didn't know as much then and didn't have the amount of data and computing capacity - and the signal was till strengthening. The story changed because facts and evidence dictated it. Unlike climate deniers, creationists and young Earth proponents, scientists tend to do that - we rely on evidence not "The Word of Authority". And before you say "that's what the Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change is treated like by scientists" it's like saying "what's so good about Einstein, e=mc squared is only a theory". So is every prediction and law. They all need to be challanged - that's what scientists do.

    Go and attack sensationalist journo's if you have to (and you should).

    Posted 5 months ago #
  6. Bourbon

    offline
    Member

    Al O'peachair did you not here a word I said. The jumper theory is as valid as any other.

    WE'RE ALL GOING TO LIVE, surely that's good news

    It seems people will only believe the 'Evidence' that suits their point of view

    Either way I'm not scared. God will save us, right. More people believe in God than climate change, so I'm with them

    AMEN

    Posted 5 months ago #
  7. Al OPecia

    offline
    Member

    We are not all going to live - people die every day.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  8. Bourbon

    offline
    Member

    But people don't die because the sheep have shrunk.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  9. waylandsmithy

    offline
    Member

    That's very negative, Al. Any statistician will tell you that previous odds don't affect future ones.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  10. Al OPecia

    offline
    Member

    True Wayland, that's why I am hoping my old lottery tickets might still win.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  11. Bourbon

    offline
    Member

    See Al, it's people like you that make it worse. You shouldn't hold on to those tickets,

    RECYCLE THEM

    Posted 5 months ago #
  12. waylandsmithy

    offline
    Member

    Jesus, I hadn't thought of that. I'm going to have to start picking up any old scratch cards I find. You never know when they'll become a winner.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  13. Al OPecia

    offline
    Member

    Exactly so.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  14. Gerontius

    offline
    Member

    It's ALL a bit irrelevant really.
    You know - which argument is right and which is wrong.
    Because neither of you are going to change your ways.
    Right?
    So why get all hot under the collar.
    We know we should cut back on our excess.
    But apart from financial restraints I really don't see many people making a significant effort to change their ways.
    The only way people like Bono and Sting will have a positive impact on the planet will be when they die.
    I'll bet the Irish eco-warrior's own personal carbon footprint would swamp our combined efforts a 1000 times over.

    (shouldn't the duck be wearing wellingtons?)

    Posted 5 months ago #
  15. Al OPecia

    offline
    Member

    Game over:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20556703

    Posted 5 months ago #
  16. Bourbon

    offline
    Member

    Extra time

    http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/

    Posted 5 months ago #
  17. Sinnick

    offline
    Member

    I'm glad someone remembers this is a comedy site. No surprise Economides & Glover are trying to flog a book on the back of their hilariously ill-informed & ill-represented version of Science. At least they're on the ball, when 99% of scientists have obviously just got it wrong.

    A better use of their time might be to understand this denial - the psychology is quite interesting: not just limited to this topic, but also applies to flat earth, moon landing, earth-centric universe, etc, etc

    Posted 5 months ago #
  18. Bourbon

    offline
    Member

    Jumpers and sheep dear sinnick, jumpers and sheep.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  19. Al OPecia

    offline
    Member

    What Sinnick said, again.

    For a decent look at the psychology of the deniers and assorted loonies have a look at:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Republican-Brain-Science-They-Reality/dp/1118094514/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354524327&sr=1-1

    Some interesting research here, don't know how balanced it is because it's not my area.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  20. waylandsmithy

    offline
    Member

    'I think there may be some holes in your methods, and the conclusions you've come to don't seem to be fully supported.'

    'Oh. You're obviously a mental. We'd better carry out some research into that.'

    The arrogance of scientists. 'I'm not sure how accurate a book called 'Republican Brain Science They (sic) Reality' is.'

    Judging from the title, it's complete, unscientific bollocks. The trouble is, you seem to want to believe it might be legitimate research. That's not very scientific of you at all.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  21. Al OPecia

    offline
    Member

    In what way are scientists arrogant? Anymore arrogant than wine merchants when you ask them about wine? Or doctors when you ask them about what ails you? So is your basic premise don't trust anyone who is an expert? "Oh those car engineers are an arrogant bunch, I wouldn't get in a car designed by one of them, only one I designed myself"?

    Just chatting.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  22. Sinnick

    offline
    Member

    As a footnote, I don't mean to knock climate-change sceptics individually, just to point out that it's an understandable reaction to something so massively complex, unimaginable and potentially disastrous. This denial was famously reported when Galileo discovered that Jupiter has moons, but I don't think many people still deny that.

    However, extrapolating this denial to decry Science, and capitalising on it to sell crap books and newspapers, etc is reactionary, immoral and culpable.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  23. waylandsmithy

    offline
    Member

    Car engineers don't spend quite so much time rubbishing their critics, though.

    Scientists are pretty arrogant: have been throughout history. And when someone disproves something later on, they just say 'bit of course, we know more now. That was old research, we've got a better computer since then.'

    So why trust the latest findings unquestioningly? It's Catch-22: if you question a conclusion you're an idiot with a Republican Brain Problem. But if you point out where science has been wrong in the past, it's dismissed as a 'completely understandable mistake'.

    Engineers do what anyone can do, they just do it cheaper. They also use 'engineering factors' in calculations, which make allowances for scientific models being wrong. If they didn't, bridges and stuff would fall down a lot more often.

    Never get on a plane designed by scientists.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  24. The All New Jeni B

    offline
    Member

    Until such time as Governments stop using Climate Change as a means by which they can further tax the population, people will be sceptical. Why should they trust the word of successive Governments who are consistently shown to lie, cheat and steal from the very people they supposedly represent the interests of?

    I'm sceptical, doesn't make me a loonie, it means that I've been taught to question, analyse and question again all information made available to me. That is what will ensure I become a good lawyer, but it also ensures that in my private life, I am less susceptible to being conned by shysters.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  25. dvo4fun

    offline
    Member

    Good point Jeni, you seem just the sort of woman who would appreciate a new environmental product I've got coming to the market shortly. If you'd like to be in the first wave of happy customers please send a cheque (made to 'cash') to PO Box 17 Walsall

    Posted 5 months ago #
  26. Midfield Diamond

    offline
    Member

    It seems to me that there is a choice, whether or not you believe that the human race is adversely affecting the planet with its behaviour. The choices are a) do nothing in the hope that the scientists are wrong or b) change human behaviour to try and reverse or at least contain the damage (if there is any). Personally, I'm in favour of b).

    The biggest problem is that it takes a long time to change human behaviour (unfortunately, governments and politicians have to get involved) and even longer to measure the effect. Plus, as Jeni says, it costs money to develop 'green' alternatives to previous practices, hence the scepticism.

    But surely even the climate change denial brigade are in favour of unleaded petrol, CFC-free aerosols and recycling rubbish instead of dumping it, even if they aren't tirelessly campaigning to save the Amazonian rainforest or knitting their own free-range GM-free organic yogurts.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  27. The All New Jeni B

    offline
    Member

    dvo, the cheque's in the post.

    Md - Exactly. I don't refute that we need to change our ways, nor that we must find alternative fuel sources, but I think that it's imperative that we address the root causes of the problems, such as deforestation and the population explosion. These are often third-world issues though, and I think there is a fear of a backlash from telling the indigenous peoples that they can't earn a living or have more than two children, but bunging up thousands of wind turbines is NOT the solution.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  28. waylandsmithy

    offline
    Member

    Unleaded petrol actively worsens global warming...

    - It allows a catalytic converter to be used, which turns CO into CO2.
    - That cat causes engines to be less fuel efficient, and prevents the development of lean burn technology.
    - Rainforest is dug up to find the platinum and other metals needed in a cat.

    And to cap it all, leaded petrol was probably killing a few people off, which can only be a good thing for the planet.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  29. Midfield Diamond

    offline
    Member

    A possible increase in greenhouse gases or continue poisoning the planet with a pollutant that affects the central nervous system and brain development in children? Unleaded was definitely the way to go. I'd dig out the figures but, as they were measured by scientists, you wouldn't believe them anyway.

    Incidentally, did you know that the bloke who put lead in petrol also developed CFCs? http://www.psychedelicporcupine.co.uk/2010/05/thomas-midgley-jr-the-worlds-most-destructive-man/

    Posted 5 months ago #
  30. waylandsmithy

    offline
    Member

    yeah, it was in a Bill Bryson book. Did you know unleaded fuel chucks out benzene?

    Slowly poisoning a generation of children is good for the planet, dead men don't emit.

    Posted 5 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

« Previous1234Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.