|
Your Breitbart links are nothing but trollery, Rog. Not even worth a click.
|
|
thats Rogers bible and religion - dont diss it, he may come and shoot you.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 9 Mar 15 at 14:47
|
On a related note, watched Fox News for a few minutes last night. Roger probably enjoys it too, in a different way.
Among the Islamophobic crap the newsreader kept mentioning in tones of deep respect someone called 'the prime minister'. Obviously didn't mean our PM, but it took me a while to twig that the person in question was the egregious, malevolent Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of a small inherently racist middle eastern country that shouldn't really exist (too late of course to do anything about it now).
Weird though. I would expect Fox to be in step with the Israel lobby, but I would also expect it to appeal to virulent anti-semites and have many such working for it.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 9 Mar 15 at 15:01
|
So I am imagining it when I recall lots of snow 30 years ago but hardly any now?
Not a climate change follower but Christopher Booking being quoted made me switch off at once...
|
|
I can't understand all the hype about climate change, it has always changed and will always change. There is nothing that mere humans can do to change that. No doubt we will end up extinct like many other species and I won't be here to worry about it.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 9 Mar 15 at 16:29
|
We are poorly served by the reporting of science in our popular media. They mistake science for politics, which has few clear cut answers and lots of maybe-it-will-maybe-it-won't debates. Science doesn't work that way; it constructs the best possible explanation of the evidence. If the evidence and settles on that explanation - a 'theory' - until a conclusively better one comes along. The scientific consensus is that the available evidence is explained best by anthropogenic climate change. Those who think otherwise are generally deluded, confused or have an ulterior, usually financial motive.
Unfortunately, this poor reporting creates the (erroneous) impression that 'scientists can't agree', which some - ON apparently being an example - take as justification to go on going what is most convenient to them. Human nature, perhaps, but not justified by the science.
Fox News, Roger's awful Breitbart - they are firmly in the ulterior motive camp. They stand to gain politically and financially from spreading disinformation, so that's what they do.
|
|
Scientific theories only last until the funding stops, then the search starts for someone with money who needs a different theory.
|
"We are poorly served by the reporting of science in our popular media."
After spending 28 years in the chemical industry, I absolutely agree with that statement. So much rubbish has been peddled by an ill-educated, mischievous press which has been lapped up by a gullible public. Take the GM debate, for example, it didn't matter if it was the unscientific Grauniad/BBC on the left, or the sensationalist Daily Mail/red tops on the right; the supermarkets saw an organic/non-GM marketing, added-value sector opening up and they made the most of it. While the UK stood still, the rest of the world moved on. Frankenstein foods - tcha!
I try and make up my mind about any issue based on my own personal observations where possible, or trusted first-hand accounts. My wife's colleague's daughter worked in one of the so-called Trojan Horse schools in Birmingham - and she said that it was "every bit as bad, if not worse than reported in the papers". Hence, I gave it some credence.
My eldest son has worked in the Arctic on several occasions, and the locals have pointed out watery estuaries that until recently were glaciers that could be crossed by dog sled. A bit more evidence of climate change? And would you buy a house on the Somerset Levels ........ and wouldn't you check the likelihood of flooding before buying a house? I would!
Yes, I'm pretty sure that the climate is changing, and I suspect that this change is affected by our activities. Anyway, I don't think it's a good idea to squander our precious fossil-fuels.
|
The problem is the "global warming" tag. People assume because we don't have super summers and the states is getting a shed load of snow dumped on it, that "global warming" is a lie.
Climate Change influenced by man, is, in my book a more accurate title, and one I think I have come to accept as true. the rate of change is probably not desirable, and yes we need to conserve fossil fuels until we have found a sustainable and safer alternative.
Conserving means taking small steps now.
|
>> Fox News, Roger's awful Breitbart - they are firmly in the ulterior motive camp. They
>> stand to gain politically and financially from spreading disinformation, so that's what they do.
>>
...and in the opposing corner we have The Huffington Post - they are firmly in the ulterior motive camp.
They stand to gain politically and financially from spreading disinformation, so that's what they do.
|
>>
>> >> Fox News, Roger's awful Breitbart -
you have to admit that website/blog is awful and very shouty, makes it very hard to read.
|
>> So I am imagining it when I recall lots of snow 30 years ago but
>> hardly any now?
>>
>> Not a climate change follower but Christopher Booking being quoted made me switch off at
>> once...
>>
What - not even willing to see a different opinion from your own?
|
SQ
>> What - not even willing to see a different opinion from your own?
>>
He's an unscientific ranter.. proven unreliable on climate change. What he says makes no sense based on empirical evidence of what is happening now..
On some issues - like social workers taking children from parents , he has a case BUT he overdoes it.
I cannot believe anything he writes as he frequently lies/exaggerates. If you know he can lie, why read him.
I reckon he may have some link to coal or oil companies - but of course I may be totally incorrect and his opinions may be genuinely his own...
In a world where there are lots of liars, reading one to find truth is a waste of time.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 10 Mar 15 at 12:46
|
>> Your Breitbart links are nothing but trollery, Rog. Not even worth a click.
>>
What - not even willing to see a different opinion from your own?
|
I don't think you're an idiot, Roger, so read my longer post and see if you understand why your meretricious trash isn't worth the time it would take to read.
ON, your answer is simply wrong. My point about poor reporting and public ignorance in a nutshell.
|
>> ON, your answer is simply wrong. My point about poor reporting and public ignorance in
>> a nutshell.
>>
That may be true, but I have travelled enough of the world to know that the vast majority of humans have either never heard of or could not care less about climate change. Any action taken in the UK no matter how dramatic would only be a tiny drop in a very big ocean. On a world scale the UK is a scruffy little island off the coast of Europe. I could add bankrupt to that but that applies to many western countries.
|
>> the UK is a scruffy little island off the coast of Europe. I could add bankrupt to that but that applies to many western countries.
ON, you're a miserable old sod before your time. You don't even know how lucky you are. Whinge whinge gripe gripe. A right petty officer's favourite you must have been.
|
|
Obviously you were prodded with a grain of truth. :)
|
>> Your Breitbart links are nothing but trollery, Rog. Not even worth a click.
Is there a link to aldi or lidl on there?
|
>> >> Your Breitbart links are nothing but trollery, Rog. Not even worth a click.
>>
>> Is there a link to aldi or lidl on there?
I'm sure the Aldi Trolls will be better and cheaper than any troll available anywhere else.
|
Warmist or non-warmist? - WillDeBeest
