Global Warming

[malg]

Unfortunately, as there is so, so, so much money in this climate change stuff you will absolutely never convince me that 'outside' influences have nothing whatsoever to do with it. Where there's money, you can be damn sure you'll find corruption. I read far too much Private Eye! And the more people try to convince by saying 'trust the scientists' the more sceptical I get.

So you think that it's a worldwide conspiracy crossing cultural, religious and racial boundaries, into tens of different scientific disciplines and thousands of scientists and data gatherers?

Seems legit to me. Is it ran by the Illuminati by any chance?

I agree with the bloke above - it won't affect me so I probably don't give a shite. I'm more concerned about getting a job, or City winning another trophy next season, or Silva signing a new contract.

That's a nice attitude. I presume you have no children?

You know something, I actually do think there's a lot of bullshit in it. As I said, there is far too much money involved, and way, way too many capitalists with a vested interest in it.

Oh, I don't have kids. But what the fuck has that to do with anything? I see plenty of people with kids who drive big fuck off 4x4s, fly around the world a few times a year, and don't give a flying fuck about their 'carbon footprint' (now there's another bit of bullshit).

To be honest you're beginning to sound like some fucking religious nutter with all this. You are absolutely not going to change anyones mind on this matter, as that's what you seem to want. To be honest, the way you go on about this is a little suspicious. Are you a venture capitalist by any chance, do you own shares in windfarms?

 

[Skashion]

I find it strange that the climate change tipping point keeps being postponed.

 

[Damocles]

You know something, I actually do think there's a lot of bullshit in it. As I said, there is far too much money involved, and way, way too many capitalists with a vested interest in it.

How much money do you think is involved? You must know a figure to judge whether or not there is too much. What do you think is the correct figure that's not too much?

Oh, I don't have kids. But what the fuck has that to do with anything?

I was suggesting that perhaps if you had a future generation to wory about then you might be more inclined to actually do the tiniest bit of research into this.

I see plenty of people with kids who drive big fuck off 4x4s, fly around the world a few times a year, and don't give a flying fuck about their 'carbon footprint' (now there's another bit of bullshit).

So? People are idiots, hypocrites and generally uninformed. You're demonstrating this perfectly.

To be honest you're beginning to sound like some fucking religious nutter with all this. You are absolutely not going to change anyones mind on this matter, as that's what you seem to want.

I'm just like a religious nutter. Apart from I can produce data samples taken from monitoring stations all over the world, collate them against historical measurements then draw a simple graph. I could also show pictures about things like ice melting levels. So, I'm just like a religious nutter apart from what I say, I can back up with strong evidence to support it.

To be honest, the way you go on about this is a little suspicious. Are you a venture capitalist by any chance, do you own shares in windfarms?

Straight back to conspiracy theories.

I'm a member of the Illuminati and a lizard. I also did 9/11, shot JFK and am Platini's mole in City.

Just being a normal person who reads scientific literature and is concerned that we are causing a catastrophic event to the planet is just so unbelievable that I must be a "venture capitalist or own shares in windfarms".

 

[metalblue]

@Damo.

Cheers for lengthy reply earlier on - it was pretty much the response I was expecting and I'll read them articles when I get hold of someone's Athens sign-in.

Now your original question was "what is the proverbial man in the streets view on climate change"...the majority have said "it's happening but it is also part of a natural process". The problem IMO science has, is not so much people don't give a fuck, but more you've lost the argument. Not lost it from a scientific view but from a "man on the street" view, at the outset we all had warnings of impending doom for millions (at least that was what the press circulated because easy headlines)...this turned out to not be true, not perhaps because the science used was wrong but more because the knock on effects weren't necessarily factored in - if you take my earlier question to you you describe a chain of associations that perhaps weren't understood/ignored in that intial reported research?). Now sciences knowledge of these things has undoubtedly improved considerably but the public have the view "we've heard it all before". You then add to this anything from the UEA emails to Gordon Brown telling us all unleaded fuel isn't as good for the environment as we hoped so we're going to stick up tax on it and other tax measures/extra cost all in the name of it being for our own good and you have a skeptical public that sees it as a money making scheme.

Science needs to consolidate its position and tell us why they got it wrong...most people do care enough to listen.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Where do all these historical climate change data records come from

 

[twinkletoes]

@Damo.

Cheers for lengthy reply earlier on - it was pretty much the response I was expecting and I'll read them articles when I get hold of someone's Athens sign-in.

Now your original question was "what is the proverbial man in the streets view on climate change"...the majority have said "it's happening but it is also part of a natural process". The problem IMO science has, is not so much people don't give a fuck, but more you've lost the argument. Not lost it from a scientific view but from a "man on the street" view, at the outset we all had warnings of impending doom for millions (at least that was what the press circulated because easy headlines)...this turned out to not be true, not perhaps because the science used was wrong but more because the knock on effects weren't necessarily factored in - if you take my earlier question to you you describe a chain of associations that perhaps weren't understood/ignored in that intial reported research?). Now sciences knowledge of these things has undoubtedly improved considerably but the public have the view "we've heard it all before". You then add to this anything from the UEA emails to Gordon Brown telling us all unleaded fuel isn't as good for the environment as we hoped so we're going to stick up tax on it and other tax measures/extra cost all in the name of it being for our own good and you have a skeptical public that sees it as a money making scheme.

Science needs to consolidate its position and tell us why they got it wrong...most people do care enough to listen.

The problem is all the "bollockspeak" churned out by certain sections of the right wing press in this country.

 

[Skashion]

The problem is the alarmism of liberal hippy douches.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

The problem is the alarmism of liberal hippy douches.

Now now Skash we all know the answer is Thatcher and the middle classes

 

[twinkletoes]

The problem is the alarmism of liberal hippy douches.

I am sorry but that is a good example of bollockspeak.

 

[Skashion]

I am sorry but that is a good example of bollockspeak.

Don't apologise liberal hippy douche.