Liam Fox, The Tea Partiers, Global Warming Deniers and Oil Companies

You tell me, Alan. Could it be a perceived threat to your lifestyle, that might be imposed by environmentalists? Might it lead to an increase in your costs of energy consumption? Might that be why?


Ah ha - clever, basing the questions on lifestyle, environment and energy.

Seriously, I remember the days before bathrooms, inside toilets, central heating, insulation and double glazing.

I remember the beautiful ice patterns on the inside of house windows.

I remember having to clear out the fire grate every morning, lay down fresh newspaper, wood kindle and small bits of coal and get the fire going again before going outside and filling the coal bucket with fresh coal.

I remember the tin bath being unhooked from the wall in the outside toilet and being set up in front of the fire in the front room, mum heating up kettle after kettle of hot water on the gas stove, then each of us having a bath starting with with me the youngest and ending with dad. Bath day was once a week.

The good old days of a working-class family during the 1950s when I was a small child.

How's that for lifestyle, environment and energy?

:D
 
its equally interesting to note than when someone argues with you in a rational ,sensible fashion you invariably resort to a snide form of personal abuse.I ask again why not concentrate on the post rather than the poster?

Today I've been nice. I actually have a number of concerns over climate and do not put myself in the denial camp. When I've supplied an example (one selected because it is easy enough to coral on a work day- there are more), it is dimissed on account of the weather in West London being a type standard for the UK. It transpires there's little point debate. Faced with someone who wants an echo chamber, I'm going to lose interest.

Mike could ask himself why the range of people who have issues with the presentation on AGW in this thread very rarely agree on anything outside it- they certainly reach very different conclusions on other subjects- but I'm sure the answer will be "big business" or something equally convenient.
 
Get a grip. The money given by a few wealthy individuals pales into insignificance to the literally hundreds of billions of taxpayers money that western governments have thrown at this scam.
Well, of course there are costs associated with reducing our carbon emissions. That's indisputable. But the costs associated with not doing so are immeasurable. However, since you fail even accept the science, I that guess that argument holds little sway for you.
 
I couldn't disagree more with this remark. The scientifiic community has always conducted itself in an exemplary fashion, despite a endless barrage of attacks from wealthy vested interests aiming to distort public perception.

Are you intentionally misrepresenting what he wrote? You seemed so shocked the other day when I commented that I no longer get worked up by your posts, I just smile at them - it's pointless discussing with you because you are unwilling to concede an inch, and anything you disagree with is wrong. It doesn't exactly encourage debate.
 
Ah ha - clever, basing the questions on lifestyle, environment and energy.

Seriously, I remember the days before bathrooms, inside toilets, central heating, insulation and double glazing.

I remember the beautiful ice patterns on the inside of house windows.

I remember having to clear out the fire grate every morning, lay down fresh newspaper, wood kindle and small bits of coal and get the fire going again before going outside and filling the coal bucket with fresh coal.

I remember the tin bath being unhooked from the wall in the outside toilet and being set up in front of the fire in the front room, mum heating up kettle after kettle of hot water on the gas stove, then each of us having a bath starting with with me the youngest and ending with dad. Bath day was once a week.

The good old days of a working-class family during the 1950s when I was a small child.

How's that for lifestyle, environment and energy?

:D
Good grief, man, where do live - Wales? :devil:

I'm happy for you that you have made your own mind up on the issue. I just question why you would come to that conclusion, given that the scientists are adamant that it's something else. Actually, forget that - I'm not that interested. ;)
 
Are you intentionally misrepresenting what he wrote? You seemed so shocked the other day when I commented that I no longer get worked up by your posts, I just smile at them - it's pointless discussing with you because you are unwilling to concede an inch, and anything you disagree with is wrong. It doesn't exactly encourage debate.
I'm OK with that.
 
Well, of course there are costs associated with reducing our carbon emissions. That's indisputable. But the costs associated with not doing so are immeasurable. However, since you fail even accept the science, I that guess that argument holds little sway for you.

And there in lies one of the major problems.

No serious analysis has been done of the cost benefits of doing something now to possibly ameliorate the effects by reducing C02 emmissions, or spending money later to counter act some of the effects.

FWIW: I'm (just) in the believer camp for ACC, but the points about inredibly poor presentation, bad science etc from the scientists involved really have not helped. For example it took the ClimateGate email scandal to final get to a situation where Phil Jones actually had a certifiable set of source code to generate the data on which he was basing his results and public proclomations - prior to ClimateGate his code looked like it has been written by a poor GCSE student on work experience.
 
prior to ClimateGate his code looked like it has been written by a poor GCSE student on work experience.
That doesn't mean it was scientifically invalid. And it wasn't, as we now know. The climategate scandal was a classic example of misrepresentation, and a deliberate attempt to undermine the scientists.
 
Are you intentionally misrepresenting what he wrote?
I didn't represent him at all. I disagreed with him. So "no", is the answer to that.
You seemed so shocked the other day when I commented that I no longer get worked up by your posts, I just smile at them - it's pointless discussing with you because you are unwilling to concede an inch, and anything you disagree with is wrong. It doesn't exactly encourage debate.
That's just personal abuse. I've never been shocked at anything you have ever said on the forum.
 
Mike could ask himself why the range of people who have issues with the presentation on AGW in this thread very rarely agree on anything outside it- they certainly reach very different conclusions on other subjects- but I'm sure the answer will be "big business" or something equally convenient.
Or ignorance.
 
I'm happy for you that you have made your own mind up on the issue. I just question why you would come to that conclusion, given that the scientists are adamant that it's something else. Actually, forget that - I'm not that interested. ;)

I haven't made my mind up on any issue - I'm under the lamp post and open to any form of persuasion, darling.

You've missing the oblique point of my postal hyperbole. That was to answer your questions about lifestyle, environment and energy.

:)
 
That doesn't mean it was scientifically invalid. And it wasn't, as we now know. The climategate scandal was a classic example of misrepresentation, and a deliberate attempt to undermine the scientists.

Of course it was - it could not be preproduced by any other scientist - simply because Jones did not provide sufficient data and commented code. The very defintion of scientifically invalid. The fact that his results were later demonstrated to be broadly correct (within the limitations of the model) is irrelvant - it was extremely poor science. To argue otherwise is frankly stupid.

I notice you ignored my rather more important question about the debate that no one seems to have had yet, so I'll ask it again:


No serious analysis has been done of the cost benefits of doing something now to possibly ameliorate the effects by reducing C02 emmissions, or spending money later to counter act some of the effects.
 
And there in lies one of the major problems.

No serious analysis has been done of the cost benefits of doing something now to possibly ameliorate the effects by reducing C02 emmissions, or spending money later to counter act some of the effects.
But that's not true. It's a question of policy, and governments the world over are spending vast sums of money researching policies and implications.
 
I didn't represent him at all. I disagreed with him. So "no", is the answer to that.

You disagreed with an extract of a point he made that misrepresented the overall point he was making.

Here is the overall quote:

My problem isn't with the science Mike- it may surprise you that I'm I'm not keen on running a vast unregulated experiment on the planet- but with its relationship with the media. Too often it goes for sensationalism and absolutes like the above.

You ignored the bolded part, the bit where Ed says he has no problem with the science, it's the way scientific evidence is portrayed in the media he has a problem with. Your snippet of a quote was cut like that so you can make it appear to people that Ed said
Too often it goes for sensationalism and absolutes like the above."

as though he were referring to scientists and not the media who report on science. He blatantly wasn't but in your haste to bang your drum you replied as if he had by saying:

I couldn't disagree more with this remark. The scientifiic community has always conducted itself in an exemplary fashion, despite a endless barrage of attacks from wealthy vested interests aiming to distort public perception.

It would be far too dull and time-consuming to point out every time you do something like this, so it's easier just to laugh inwardly about it. Good luck with it though, you may be able to convince others of your views using this approach.

That's just personal abuse. I've never been shocked at anything you have ever said on the forum.

http://www.avforums.com/forums/16422083-post73.html sound like shock to me, but maybe not.
 
You disagreed with an extract of a point he made that misrepresented the overall point he was making.

Here is the overall quote:



You ignored the bolded part, the bit where Ed says he has no problem with the science, it's the way scientific evidence is portrayed in the media he has a problem with. Your snippet of a quote was cut like that so you can make it appear to people that Ed said


as though he were referring to scientists and not the media who report on science. He blatantly wasn't but in your haste to bang your drum you replied as if he had by saying:



It would be far too dull and time-consuming to point this out every time it happened, so it's easier just to laugh inwardly about it. Good luck with it though, you may be able to convince others of your views using this approach.



http://www.avforums.com/forums/16422083-post73.html sound like shock to me, but maybe not.
You said, he said, they said. Whatever, Kav.
 
But that's not true. It's a question of policy, and governments the world over are spending vast sums of money researching policies and implications.

And your source for that is where ?

Where is the cost benefit analysis of spending money now as against 50/100 years time. Certainly none of the IPCC reports have made such analysis

BTW I take it you now accept Jones's science was at the best 'poor'
 
At last we have found common ground! :smashin:

You are to humour what John Candy was to hangliding. Enjoy your echo chamber.
 
You said, he said, they said. Whatever, Kav.

:laugh: I did think it would be too much to expect you to apologise for your intentional misrepresenting, or to acknowledge your tabloidesque quote snipping. I'll say no more, people can make up their own minds on it.
 
Of course Mike, everybody who disagrees with you is a fool. How could it not be the case?
Of course, that's just a strawman argument. But I do regard anyone who disputes the science behind global warming as ignorant - in the same way as I regard anyone who disputes the science behind evolution, or the lunar landings, or the quark.
 
:laugh: I did think it would be too much to expect you to apologise for your intentional misrepresenting, or to acknowledge your tabloidesque quote snipping. I'll say no more, people can make up their own minds on it.
Great.
 
Of course, that's just a strawman argument. But I do regard anyone who disputes the science behind global warming as ignorant - in the same way as I regard anyone who disputes the science behind evolution, or the lunar landings, or the quark.

It is interesting you've brought up evolution twice now. When presenting evolution as a theory, Darwin never did so as a fait accompli. He acknowledged that he had the framwork but there was much to be done in the detail- timings, external influences and the like. When evolution was proposed, the means by which natural selection could occur- spontaneous mutation of a particular trait passed on via DNA- wasn't even a theory.

So it stands with global warming. I can be happy enough with the framework but presenting everything down to the last detail as incontrovertable (not least because as GasDad pointed out some of it couldn't even be successfully reporduced by peers) is as bad a science as denial.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom