View Full Version : OT: Jeremy Clarkson
Hepotec
16-05-08, 11:05 AM
Am I alone in thinking Jeremy Clarkson is an odious neanderthal? He really irritates me with his nonsense and opinionated silliness.
Obviously, this is not an attempt to provoke Amanda Holden reactions nor would I like to spend a huge amount on shoddy lawyers, so please keep it semi sensible.
I think classifieds may not be the place for this.....My apologies. My righteous anger blinded me momentarily.
BorderReiver
16-05-08, 11:06 AM
Am I alone in thinking Jeremy Clarkson is an odious neanderthal? He really irritates me with his nonsense and opinionated silliness.
Obviously, this is not an attempt to provoke Amanda Holden reactions nor would I like to spend a huge amount on shoddy lawyers, so please keep it semi sensible.
No
I think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread :)
Hepotec
16-05-08, 11:08 AM
No
Thank goodness for that.
mcleod1518
16-05-08, 11:09 AM
I think he is great, Totaly un pc and tells it like it is. Vote for Jeremy !!!!:D
Hep, this doesn't belong in Members Classifieds! ;)
I have to admit, I do think he is a bit of a prat, but I can't help but like him.
I see the floors in many of his programs but generally enjoy them non the less, which is more than I can say about most of what's on TV.
Hepotec
16-05-08, 11:12 AM
Hep, this doesn't belong in Members Classifieds! ;)
I saw my error almost immediately, but I had already pressed the button and revealed my foolishness to all and sundry. My thanks for moving it.
yellowhammer
16-05-08, 11:26 AM
I think he's an attention-seeking prat of the first order, who confuses his own brand of arrogant self-righteousness as 'straight-talking'. By talking long & loud enough he hopes to make everyone else think like him. Although I can't believe that he really means some of the things he comes out with - he's clearly not stupid, so he must be deliberately confrontational just to keep his lucrative TV job. It's this cynicism that galls me the most. Horrible, horrible man.
My mum really likes him though ;)
I think he is great, Totaly un pc and tells it like it is.
+1
I can do without the whole petrolhead thing, but he and I see eye-to-eye on many issues.
mirage
chaos6270
16-05-08, 11:29 AM
i find hammond more annoying than clarkson james may is hilarious but all three know what they are talking about which is why they are rich and i'm not:(
beach bum
16-05-08, 11:29 AM
I like him because he tells it the way it is. However I do realise he is a plonker, as even I wouldn't write an article in the Newspaper quoting my bank details. If I did, I wouldn't be surprised at being ripped off, but he was.:rolleyes:
Watta plonker :D
regards
beach bum
wanderingblade
16-05-08, 11:33 AM
I think he's an attention-seeking prat of the first order, who confuses his own brand of arrogant self-righteousness as 'straight-talking'.
Thats exactly why I like him. ;)
He is a journalist making a good living for himself. Nice work if you can get it I reckon.
The General
16-05-08, 12:00 PM
He's playing a role and playing it very well.:)
I think he's very entertaining in short doses but I don't like the guy for a number of reasons:
* saw him once at a motor show where he was supposed to be signing copies of Top Gear magazine but actually he was too busy chatting to a friend sitting next to him and he didn't say a damn thing to the fans ... it was just "Next!" (sign) "Next!" (sign) and he didn't once make eye contact with anyone.
* I really don't think he believes a lot of what he says in public - nobody could be that biggoted for so much of the time. His on-screen personna is a characature that has given him a good career but I just wish he'd give an interview where he didn't feel like he had to fly off on an anti-environmentalist rant to keep up his image.
Chris R.
He presents an entertainment show and he entertains me - not interested in what sort of bloke he is or whether it's a front or an image or anything else. /shrug As long as he doesn't molest kids or beat his wife etc etc who cares what his real life is like.
He's playing a role and playing it very well.:)
agrred. I'm not sure I always like the role he's playing but I do think it's not who he really is (or at least a more dramatic stage verion of him)
agrred. I'm not sure I always like the role he's playing but I do think it's not who he really is (or at least a more dramatic stage verion of him)
Are we still talking about Clarkson, or are we speaking about someone else now? :rolleye11
+1
I can do without the whole petrolhead thing, but he and I see eye-to-eye on many issues.
mirage
mcleod1518
16-05-08, 01:09 PM
I like him cause he is so anti enviroment, He refuses to jump on the bandwagon even though its fashionable. If we all refused to recycle the world would be a better place.;)
He thumps hoodies, he's pro - field sports, he hates the EU...where's the problem?
:D
mirage
BorderReiver
16-05-08, 01:45 PM
He thumps hoodies, he's pro - field sports, he hates the EU...where's the problem?
:D
mirage
Presentation dear boy,presentation.
mcleod1518
16-05-08, 02:00 PM
He thumps hoodies, he's pro - field sports, he hates the EU...where's the problem?
:D
mirage
Jeremy for prime minister :D
Jamie n
16-05-08, 02:04 PM
Jeremy for prime minister :D
X2.
Hepotec
16-05-08, 02:07 PM
Jeremy for prime minister :D
But if lots of people thought the same way as you, we'd end up with a biggotted, halfwit, lacking in social skills, for a prime minister.........Oh, hang on a minute......
...we'd end up with a biggotted, halfwit, lacking in social skills, for a prime minister.........Oh, hang on a minute....
:D
Gotta rep you for that succinct analysis.
mirage
Simon G
16-05-08, 02:12 PM
He thumps hoodies, he's pro - field sports, he hates the EU...where's the problem?
:D
mirage
No, I can't see a problem either.......
beachcaster
16-05-08, 02:21 PM
I like his irreverence..... and his view of the world.
It's refreshing.
I dont like his car show Top gear.
Its too laddish..........lets race a bentley against a light aircraft
lets blow up a caravan..........its playground stuff...and he comes across as a big kid.
Good car = fast car..................good bloke = fast driver
is just glorifying the wrong things.
So I only dislike half of him.
Barry
Inspector71
16-05-08, 02:22 PM
My sister-in-law works for the Beeb and is part of the production team on TG.
According to her his off-screen persona is rather similar to his on-screen one. Odious, loud and lecherous.
He is rather protected and edited/coached to keep his views in check apparently. Some of the things he says off the top of his head would be career killers... allegedly...
I've heard some of them. Even Mirage couldn't agree with him ;)
Not a nice man :yuck:
Again... allegedly...
Nick Steele
16-05-08, 02:29 PM
Jeremy for prime minister :D
Support Clarkson fullwise.
He thumps hoodies
And Piers Morgans ;)
I like the fact he speaks his mind, even not afraid to put his money where his mouth is. Like when he published his bank details, trying to prove identity theft wasn't that easy, only to discover someone set up a direct debit of £500 to some charity.
Some of the things he says off the top of his head, even Mirage couldn't agree with him ;)
:rolleye11
mirage
I think I remember him saying he would sack the government and let the civil service run everything!
Sound like a plan.
No expense claims to worry about either! :D
Mark
WhiteWolf
16-05-08, 02:59 PM
Jeremy for prime minister
Not sure about this, but how about Mayor of London? :]
He also one of the Patrons of Help for Heroes, so he gets my vote 100%
Andy
mcleod1518
16-05-08, 03:33 PM
There was an internet poll a while back asking would you vote for Jeremy Clarkson . I seem to remember there was a massive response most saying yes. My Mum who is the calmest forgiving person living even voted, She likes his views on immigration.:D
Ropeman
16-05-08, 03:50 PM
He thumps hoodies, he's pro - field sports, he hates the EU...where's the problem?
:D
mirage
He hates you, you're cyclist.
BorderReiver
16-05-08, 03:54 PM
Jeremy for prime minister
Not sure about this, but how about Mayor of London? :]
He also one of the Patrons of Help for Heroes, so he gets my vote 100%
Andy
Ok, so he's not ALL bad.:rolleyes:
He also one of the Patrons of Help for Heroes, so he gets my vote 100%
Of all the stuff I have read about him that one did make him go up in my estimation. I liked his series about Victoria Cross winners too - fascinating and done in the right spirit. The fact that he is married to the daughter of a VC winner lent a fair amount of credibility.
I have to say that, even though I don't *like* him as a person, I do find him entertaining and I don't disagree with all of his views. :)
Underhay
16-05-08, 05:40 PM
Jeremy Clarkson is very good at providing entertainment, I've enjoyed his shows and his writing over many years :)
He does enjoy winding people up, and if taken too seriously, he is capable of insulting almost every person in the country :)
khimbar1
16-05-08, 05:42 PM
I think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread :)
But sliced bread is generally rubbish?
Nick Steele
16-05-08, 05:43 PM
But sliced bread is generally rubbish?
Saves you from having to slice your own bread, just as Clarkson saves you from having to insult your own environmentalists.
munkyman
16-05-08, 05:58 PM
I like him cause he is so anti enviroment, He refuses to jump on the bandwagon even though its fashionable. If we all refused to recycle the world would be a better place.;)
i dislike him for his anti environent stance, i'd recycle even if it wasn't fashionble and i think that in truth the "vogue" thing to be is a cynic, to be seen as not following the bandwagon;)
I also dislike him because he can be rude, arrogant, oppinionated and silly, and often remind sme too much of myself:rolleyes: he still makes good entertainment though
He is a silly man. Quite timid and shy, too. :D
But apart from his playing out of the role of sanctimonious opinionated idiot (which he must think makes up a fair proportion of his audience) he has had me rolling about on the floor holding my sides many many times.
One thing really irritates me: his similies are invariably naff. But he once described a tiny Japanese car as a cross between a hair dyier, another hairdrier and a jet engine. :lol:
Millionaire gobshite. But i do watch Top gear.
easilyled
16-05-08, 07:41 PM
Personally I like the show but not the persona. Before casting my judgement in stone I'd be interested in how much of his, probably rather large, income he has given to charity in the last two years.
I think their insight has turned a dull show (under Noel Edmonds at one point) into something unmissable!
What's his charitable donations got to do with anything? His money his choice, his business.
What's his charitable donations got to do with anything? His money his choice, his business.
Well he must have SOME redeeming features :)
Well he must have SOME redeeming features :)
He's mortal
WhiteWolf
16-05-08, 10:03 PM
He's mortal
are you sure? :]
Roefisher
16-05-08, 10:13 PM
Without a doubt one of the main reasons I stopped watching general television programmes was the intolerable plague of people just like the dose mentioned here.
If it wasn't for the punishment on myself I could happily sledge a fencing post through their skulls.
Mark
Mark that seems a very violent thought for you. Had I known such things crossed your mind I may not have posted in the rolex thread.
*runs and hides under a kevlar blanket*
Roefisher
16-05-08, 10:28 PM
Only joking, Andy.
It comes from too much reading about Vlad :D
Mark
Millionaire gobshite.
You say "millionaire" like it's a bad thing!
mirage
ANDYLASER
17-05-08, 12:00 AM
Top bloke.
easilyled
17-05-08, 11:13 AM
What's his charitable donations got to do with anything? His money his choice, his business.
Its got to do with what I think of him as a person.
My opinion of him, which is what the original question was I believe, certainly is partly based on this.
For example, if you found out he worked tirelessly for a local children's hospital and funded a new wing for them, you'd probably develop a rather higher opinion of him than if you found out he charged around the countryside in a large 4x4 annoying all his neighbours. Wouldnt you? Or am I missing something?
I think thats a ridiculous question.
Saves you from having to slice your own bread, just as Clarkson saves you from having to insult your own environmentalists.
Hehe, excellent. Have some reppage. :lol:
For me the big problem with Clarkson is not his views, which he is as entitled to just as anyone else is but his bigoted attitude.
He is anti environmentalist not because he's carefully weighed up the issues but because he sees it as threatening his lifestyle and ego.
I find it very difficult to respect the views of anyone is isn't prepared to enter into an intelligent debate about them.
I suspect that one of the main reasons people like him is that his own attitude justifies the same kind of lazy thinking. If people engaged with issues in a sensible way rather than just choosing the most convenient position and sticking to it dogmatically then the world would be a much better place.
Dude is a TIT unfortunatly in this day and age he's a TIT who sometimes talks sense :(
He is anti environmentalist.
I can't claim to have watched much of JC on TV, though I have read a couple of his books.
I don't watch Top Gear because I'm not a petrolhead and cars don't really interest me.
With that caveat, I don't think that JC is anti-environment, but I agree that he is against the dogmatic environmentalists. I believe that is a good thing.
Without rehearsing any political/enviro arguments, I believe - like JC - that the "Green" movement has a far, far wider and more suspect agenda than "saving the planet."
I don't like that agenda.
I like JC.
mirage
Hepotec
17-05-08, 12:56 PM
If I was sat in the pub and heard Clarkson talking his rubbish, but he wasn't that bloke from the telly, I'd think he was a right pillock. That doesn't change because he actually is on the gogglebox. Still an over opinionated bigmouth.
I object to his kneejerk xenophobia, his sexism and his unreasoned dogmatic approach. His arguement style seems to be shout louder and repeat it whilst attempting to bully or belittle anyone taking the opposite view.
I can't claim to have watched much of JC on TV, though I have read a couple of his books.
I don't watch Top Gear because I'm not a petrolhead and cars don't really interest me.
With that caveat, I don't think that JC is anti-environment, but I agree that he is against the dogmatic environmentalists. I believe that is a good thing.
Without rehearsing any political/enviro arguments, I believe - like JC - that the "Green" movement has a far, far wider and more suspect agenda than "saving the planet."
I don't like that agenda.
I like JC.
mirage
But that's exactly the problem, he just rubbishes anything remotely associated with any kind of environmental or ecological issues. IF he was engaging in a proper debate and making properly reasoned challenges then I wouldn't have a problem.
Its this bizzare idea that any kind of issue can only be broken down into two polarized political viewpoints which are utterly mutually exclusive and must be accepted or rejected wholesale.
Nick Steele
17-05-08, 01:08 PM
The Marmite of television, isn't he?
IF he was engaging in a proper debate and making properly reasoned challenges...
...He'd be Jeremy PAXMAN and no-one would watch him. ;)
Its this bizzare idea that any kind of issue can only be broken down into two polarized political viewpoints which are utterly mutually exclusive and must be accepted or rejected wholesale.
"Pol Pot: Good schemes on agriculture."
"Stalin: Had some excellent ideas."
"Hitler: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." ;)
Environmentalists regard humans as vermin; they detest freedom, earning and keeping money; they vilify opponents and sabotage their works; they control the media; they even control the language; they want to reduce me to a lifestyle last experienced in the mid-Victorian era.
Hooray for JC!
mirage
Hepotec
17-05-08, 03:04 PM
"Pol Pot: Good schemes on agriculture."
mirage
Have you had your medicine today?:D Over two million people died as a result of Pol Pot's poor agricultural ideas.
BorderReiver
17-05-08, 04:06 PM
...He'd be Jeremy PAXMAN and no-one would watch him. ;)
Environmentalists regard humans as vermin; they detest freedom, earning and keeping money; they vilify opponents and sabotage their works; they control the media; they even control the language; they want to reduce me to a lifestyle last experienced in the mid-Victorian era.
Hooray for JC!
mirage
I think two spoonfuls of medicine and a nice lie down.
munkyman
17-05-08, 04:22 PM
Environmentalists regard humans as vermin; they detest freedom, earning and keeping money; they vilify opponents and sabotage their works; they control the media; they even control the language; they want to reduce me to a lifestyle last experienced in the mid-Victorian era.
Hooray for JC!
mirage
i think sir is mistaken , he has confused environmentalists with liberals. Environmentalists are people who sincerely care about the environment in which we live and the future of the natural world.
liberals don't know what they know and want you to vote for it
they want to reduce me to a lifestyle last experienced in the mid-Victorian era.
Heaven forbid!
I wonder what changes in life style you might have to undergo should the worlds climate change dramatically in any direction, for what ever reason.
:X
I would have thought he would have been quite at home in the mid victorian era.
I would have thought he would have been quite at home in the mid victorian era.
My thoughts exactly - mind you Brunel and his ilk would probably have thought him a bit of a tick
Inspector71
17-05-08, 07:08 PM
Environmentalists regard humans as vermin; they detest freedom, earning and keeping money; they vilify opponents and sabotage their works; they control the media; they even control the language; they want to reduce me to a lifestyle last experienced in the mid-Victorian era.
:lol:
There's much ammunition and spam being stockpiled in Boringville I assume. For the Greens will surely take over the world...
The mid-Victorian era was characterised largely by aggressive expansionist colonialism for us wasn't it? Mmm. I think we did it better the first time.
OK, the toilets were worse and there was a bit more infectious disease, but we've got heart disease, diabetes, obesity and lots of nice new diseases of old age to balance the scales. I bet the clothes were a bit itchy though, so you can have that one.
A plague on you and your house sirrah - may you be stuck in a lift with George Monbiot...
I would have thought he would have been quite at home in the mid victorian era.
No chance, not enough horse power :D
they want to reduce me to a lifestyle last experienced in the mid-Victorian era.
ahh but we could own all sorts of toys back then
sword canes
automatic knives
handguns
:lol:
There's much ammunition and spam being stockpiled in Boringville I assume. For the Greens will surely take over the world...
The mid-Victorian era was characterised largely by aggressive expansionist colonialism for us wasn't it? Mmm. I think we did it better the first time.
Don't forget the big game hunting, looking down on native peoples and expecting people of lower class to kowtow to and serve you.
Right up his street, I'd have thought. :rolleyes:
Mmmh, a hard decision ahead for Mr M, I imagine; Do I shoot anyone approaching my house in a small enviromentally friendly car, or who appears to be recycling in my neighbourhood and start preparing the tatp landmines or do I let them take over and reap the benefits of a victorian era lifestyle in the future? :S
Nick Steele
17-05-08, 08:05 PM
Bit o' both.
Steampunk, anyone?
Clarksons views on environmentalists and the whole 'green' issue are, in my opinion, well informed and make a good deal of sense.
Hear me out before you reach for the 'quote' button :C
Clarkson recently bought himself a piece of land on the Isle of Man for the sole reason of preserving it. He has gone to alot of personal effort and expense to sustain the land properly and protect the wildlife that can be found there.
He is also a keen on ornithology - his love of wild birds being one of the reasons for growing maize on his land as it attracts wildlife.
He has mentoned several times that he would like to have a debate with a particular leading member (who's name momentarily escapes me) of the Green party about the 'global warming' issue and has, as of yet not been taken up on his offer.
In fact the Green party's sole response was for one of it's members to shove a custard pie in his face.
He knows alot more about the issue of global warming than we are fed by the media and consequently knows more about it than most of us.
The information that he has gathered over time has enabled him to form his opinion about the environment which he quite often spits out on Top Gear - not really the best place for fair environmental debate - but he often neglects to tell us why he has that opinion, which leads us to think it must be because he's a self-interested petrol-head.
One of his opinions, which I am inclined to agree with, is that the climate is changing.
It has been doing this since the world first started cooling down 5,000,000,000 years ago - long before Ford Fiesta's and patio heaters were invented. Mankind is is having an impact on climate change but it is minimal - just 4% of global warming can be accredited to us. Maybe this is enough to kill the planet, maybe it isn't, we're still not in the scientific position where we can definitely say one way or the other.
But we're about to spend billions of £'s combating climate change without knowing if we're actually having a significant impact on the world or if we can even stop it in the first place.
That is a lot of money potentially going to waste on something we don't really understand. Whereas we do understand that half the worlds population are starving. We do understand that major natural disasters keep hitting Asia. Surely the huge amounts of money being ploughed into climate change would be better spent on brining water to a remote Sudanese village rather than throwing it at a potential lost cause?
That is Clarksons opinion and it is why he speaks up constantly against environmentalists, and it's an opinion I happen to agree with.
I don't think Clarkson is as intelligent as he would like to think, however he is well-travelled and well-read and doesn't form opinions lightly.
Unfotunately he hardly ever mentions the reasons behind his opinions which leads the majority of us to think of him as a self-opinionated halfwitted bigot.
Clarksons views on environmentalists and the whole 'green' issue are, in my opinion, well informed and make a good deal of sense.
Hear me out before you reach for the 'quote' button :C
Clarkson recently bought himself a piece of land on the Isle of Man for the sole reason of preserving it. He has gone to alot of personal effort and expense to sustain the land properly and protect the wildlife that can be found there.
He is also a keen on ornithology - his love of wild birds being one of the reasons for growing maize on his land as it attracts wildlife.
He has mentoned several times that he would like to have a debate with a particular leading member (who's name momentarily escapes me) of the Green party about the 'global warming' issue and has, as of yet not been taken up on his offer.
In fact the Green party's sole response was for one of it's members to shove a custard pie in his face.
He knows alot more about the issue of global warming than we are fed by the media and consequently knows more about it than most of us.
The information that he has gathered over time has enabled him to form his opinion about the environment which he quite often spits out on Top Gear - not really the best place for fair environmental debate - but he often neglects to tell us why he has that opinion, which leads us to think it must be because he's a self-interested petrol-head.
One of his opinions, which I am inclined to agree with, is that the climate is changing.
It has been doing this since the world first started cooling down 5,000,000,000 years ago - long before Ford Fiesta's and patio heaters were invented. Mankind is is having an impact on climate change but it is minimal - just 4% of global warming can be accredited to us. Maybe this is enough to kill the planet, maybe it isn't, we're still not in the scientific position where we can definitely say one way or the other.
But we're about to spend billions of £'s combating climate change without knowing if we're actually having a significant impact on the world or if we can even stop it in the first place.
That is a lot of money potentially going to waste on something we don't really understand. Whereas we do understand that half the worlds population are starving. We do understand that major natural disasters keep hitting Asia. Surely the huge amounts of money being ploughed into climate change would be better spent on brining water to a remote Sudanese village rather than throwing it at a potential lost cause?
That is Clarksons opinion and it is why he speaks up constantly against environmentalists, and it's an opinion I happen to agree with.
I don't think Clarkson is as intelligent as he would like to think, however he is well-travelled and well-read and doesn't form opinions lightly.
Unfotunately he hardly ever mentions the reasons behind his opinions which leads the majority of us to think of him as a self-opinionated halfwitted bigot.
I agree, and so do millions of others.
But he is still a gobshite.
I think he just wants to be loved but doesn't know how to ask, bless 'im :D
He has mentoned several times that he would like to have a debate with a particular leading member (who's name momentarily escapes me) of the Green party about the 'global warming' issue and has, as of yet not been taken up on his offer.
In fact the Green party's sole response was for one of it's members to shove a custard pie in his face.
The Green Party are not a scientific body or even an academic organisation.
What would a debate with the Green Party leader achieve?
He is a practised performer and no doubt he could hold his own in a battle of wits. His comments and opinions are carefully formulated and aimed at a certain part of society, often his reactions to and comments on current affairs are highly predictable.
In Clarksons opinions and in this thread the evil 'Environmentalist' is painted with the same brush to a staggering extent, I am really surprised at a lot of it. The jabs made at the so called 'environmentalist' sound so much like media sensationalism its slightly ironic as its coming from those people who are normally so anti-media.
The arguments against anthropogenic climate change bandied about in the media and by celebrity's hardly have a leg to stand on, until someone can come up with some good science people like Clarkson are simply playing to an under educated audience.
Ropeman
18-05-08, 10:27 AM
Clarksons views on environmentalists and the whole 'green' issue are, in my opinion, well informed and make a good deal of sense.
Hear me out before you reach for the 'quote' button :C
Clarkson recently bought himself a piece of land on the Isle of Man for the sole reason of preserving it. He has gone to alot of personal effort and expense to sustain the land properly and protect the wildlife that can be found there.
He is also a keen on ornithology - his love of wild birds being one of the reasons for growing maize on his land as it attracts wildlife.
He has mentoned several times that he would like to have a debate with a particular leading member (who's name momentarily escapes me) of the Green party about the 'global warming' issue and has, as of yet not been taken up on his offer.
In fact the Green party's sole response was for one of it's members to shove a custard pie in his face.
He knows alot more about the issue of global warming than we are fed by the media and consequently knows more about it than most of us.
The information that he has gathered over time has enabled him to form his opinion about the environment which he quite often spits out on Top Gear - not really the best place for fair environmental debate - but he often neglects to tell us why he has that opinion, which leads us to think it must be because he's a self-interested petrol-head.
One of his opinions, which I am inclined to agree with, is that the climate is changing.
It has been doing this since the world first started cooling down 5,000,000,000 years ago - long before Ford Fiesta's and patio heaters were invented. Mankind is is having an impact on climate change but it is minimal - just 4% of global warming can be accredited to us. Maybe this is enough to kill the planet, maybe it isn't, we're still not in the scientific position where we can definitely say one way or the other.
But we're about to spend billions of £'s combating climate change without knowing if we're actually having a significant impact on the world or if we can even stop it in the first place.
That is a lot of money potentially going to waste on something we don't really understand. Whereas we do understand that half the worlds population are starving. We do understand that major natural disasters keep hitting Asia. Surely the huge amounts of money being ploughed into climate change would be better spent on brining water to a remote Sudanese village rather than throwing it at a potential lost cause?
That is Clarksons opinion and it is why he speaks up constantly against environmentalists, and it's an opinion I happen to agree with.
I don't think Clarkson is as intelligent as he would like to think, however he is well-travelled and well-read and doesn't form opinions lightly.
Unfotunately he hardly ever mentions the reasons behind his opinions which leads the majority of us to think of him as a self-opinionated halfwitted bigot.
I agree, and so do millions of others.
But he is still a gobshite.
Spot on, both of you :D
Global warming panic thinking is crippling the world economy but driving a Land Rover up a Welsh mountain isn't helping anyone.
Inspector71
18-05-08, 10:48 AM
One of his opinions, which I am inclined to agree with, is that the climate is changing.
It has been doing this since the world first started cooling down 5,000,000,000 years ago - long before Ford Fiesta's and patio heaters were invented. Mankind is is having an impact on climate change but it is minimal - just 4% of global warming can be accredited to us. Maybe this is enough to kill the planet, maybe it isn't, we're still not in the scientific position where we can definitely say one way or the other.
But we're about to spend billions of £'s combating climate change without knowing if we're actually having a significant impact on the world or if we can even stop it in the first place.
That is a lot of money potentially going to waste on something we don't really understand. Whereas we do understand that half the worlds population are starving. We do understand that major natural disasters keep hitting Asia. Surely the huge amounts of money being ploughed into climate change would be better spent on brining water to a remote Sudanese village rather than throwing it at a potential lost cause?
That is Clarksons opinion and it is why he speaks up constantly against environmentalists, and it's an opinion I happen to agree with.
True - but either incredibly naive OR deliberately misleading.
The 'spend on what is hurting most now' argument has great pedigree - Karl Popper's theories about the Open Society spring to mind. But it is too simplistic given the nature of most of the dilemmas facing science and medicine.
Sometimes (almost all the time in fact) you cannot wait for certainty - science can rarely 'prove' something with sufficient certainty to satisfy everybody. And you can't wait for everybody before deciding...
Switch's statement is scientifically correct - we can't prove anything well enough to satisfy everybody (although that's now a moot point as most governments have been persuaded to act). But it is morally dubious, perhaps even completely amoral in its consequences. The potential harm associated with inaction in this case is too scary and governments the world over have decided to try and have an impact.
Doing anything planet-wide is depressingly difficult - just look at Burma. You offer free money and aid and a group of loonies decline on the basis of internal political paranoia.
I would argue that what has already happened in international politics with respect to Climate Change is one of mankind's greatest endeavours ever. The amount of governments agreeing on such a woolly and difficult topic is unprecedented. be ironic if it turns out be nonsense in 50 years time. :lol: But that still doesn't detract from the acheivement.
It is, in effect, gambling with billions of dollars. But the odds aren't as mad as they were it appears. Evidence slowly accumulates - but it'll never be enough to please everybody.
The 4% figure is interesting. Doesn't sound like much does it? Is that a lot or a little in this context? It's more than all the volcanic activity - but are volcanoes important? etc. etc. Think about changing anything in nature by 4% and see what happens...
When 'important people' with 'important knowledge' told us to do things in the past - 60 years ago for example - we did them. Because 'experts' knew things and could be trusted. Now most people outside of science and research think it all has an agenda.
If you were asked to Dig for Victory or give up your pots and pans so they could be turned into Hurricanes or Spitfires would you do it, like our grandparents did, or would you listen to Clarkson and his ilk? The experts still know as much as they ever did. Everybody else now thinks they know almost as much or can find it out. Wikipedia and Google are no substitute for hard work over long careers.
How much of what you find out by interweb searching is fact and how much is opinion? Can you read between the lines? Whatever your field of expertise/job would you trust anybody's opinion that had only read about it on the internet if you had to work with them?
We nor Clarkson should have a crack at environmentalists (whatever they are ) anyway with Climate Change. They've done their job and it's all over - Governments have got the idea in their heads and if you thought the claims and counterclaims were complicated in the science community - wait 'till the politicians get started on it. We won't know our arse from our elbow once China wants to tell us it's doing more than Germany, or Britain's economy could benefit from new technologies being applied in India etc. etc.
The money's already being piddled up the wall and daft ideas will spring up in Parliaments all over the globe. Complaining about it is now just whining...
We don't do whining do we? :lol:
Inspector71
18-05-08, 10:51 AM
Global warming panic thinking is crippling the world economy but driving a Land Rover up a Welsh mountain isn't helping anyone.
Not as badly as lending money to people who have no way of paying it back then flogging the debt to your mates in other banks.
Not yet anyway. We're saving that bit up for later... :lol:
easilyled
18-05-08, 10:56 AM
Interesting, but
He knows alot more about the issue of global warming than we are fed by the media and consequently knows more about it than most of us. Hmmmm, I wouldnt bet on it.
One of his opinions, which I am inclined to agree with, is that the climate is changing.
You're inclined to agree with the fact that climate is changing? Have you alerted the media?
.... leads the majority of us to think of him as a self-opinionated halfwitted bigot.
You might think of him like that, or not, I dont really care, but are you really qualified to tell us "what most people think"?
leealanr
18-05-08, 10:57 AM
I think he is good value, however he has realy come to the fore with the group of three he makes with Hamster and May.
the Top Gear programme is the best car related programme on telly and also..very good political satire!
Yes he is opinionated, and he is un PC, in the right places! He certainly did not come across at all inappropraitely recently on the London show for the British Forces, he came across very well indeed, actually!
So good for him, and bah humbug to mediocrity!
Alan L.
Nick Steele
18-05-08, 12:45 PM
[geologist hat]
Isn't it odd that the moment we come out of an ice age, it should suddenly get a bit warm? No?
The Times says that within the next 15 to 20 years, global warming will have slowed, and stopped, and that global temperature will beging to fall.
(Who'll take all the credit then? Planet-hugging celebrities like sting and travolta, no doubt)
The world would indeed seem to be getting warmer, i don't see any way of denying that.
What we don't know for sure is WHY it's getting warmer, whether the warming's a good thing or not, and we almost certainly aren't responsible.
Who knows, maybe by trying to slow it down, we're doing more harm than good? We're meddling in things we don't understand.
[/geologist hat]
Anyone else think that wind turbines could be the single worst idea ever?
The Times says that within the next 15 to 20 years, global warming will have slowed, and stopped, and that global temperature will beging to fall.
..and on what does The Times base this statement?
[geologist hat]
What we don't know for sure is WHY it's getting warmer, whether the warming's a good thing or not, and we almost certainly aren't responsible.
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures
since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.
7 It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic
warming over the past 50 years averaged over
each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4). {2.4}
In the IPCC reports the phrase 'very likely' has a specific definition. Being a probability greater than 90%.
That is the analysis of all of the very latest science, by the group operating on behalf of the UNFCCC and the WMO to analyse the causes and affects of the current warming trend in global climate.
Who knows, maybe by trying to slow it down, we're doing more harm than good? We're meddling in things we don't understand.
'Harm' and 'Good' are relative.
Nick Steele
18-05-08, 01:01 PM
Very well, i shall return with valid evidence contrary to your statements.
Very well, i shall return with valid evidence contrary to your statements.
I'm looking forward to it. :)
The climate is changing, always has changed and always will change.
IIRC, 99% of all species that ever walked the earth are extinct, much of that due to natural climate change.
England is today 1° cooler than it was at the time of the Norman Conquest.
The Romans grew grapes as far north as York 1,800 years ago.
The earth's average temperature - insofar as we can measure it accurately - has remained constant for the last 10 years, and has dropped slightly this year.
We are now being told that there may be a sustained period of cooling for 10 to 20 years, but that - after that - the warming will resume. Oh yes.
The cost to the global economy of pointless, vain attempts to reduce carbon output will be not billions, but trillions of pounds. And it won't work.
JC realises the above - as more and more people are starting to do - and has a TV platform from which to speak to an increasingly sceptical public. He must, therefore, be ridiculed, marginalised and insulted.
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations.
mirage
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations.
mirage
His point, I think, was that we should be helping those developing nations currently undergoing their move towards an industrial society to leap frog that very dirty and polluting step and move to a post-industrial economy such as service economy we enjoy here in the western world through transfer of science and technology.
The earth's average temperature - insofar as we can measure it accurately - has remained constant for the last 10 years, and has dropped slightly this year.
Citation need?
Putting aside, for a moment, issues of global temperature. There is no doubt at all that there is a huge global problem with availability of raw materials, energy and pollution.
It's very difficult to see how the whole population of the world can have even a basic standard of living if we continue to use resources at the current rate.
I find it a bit odd that anyone would consider an effort to find sustainable sources of energy, using that energy more efficiently and reducing pollution to be a bad thing. There is certainly a huge and valid debate on the best ways to achieve those goals but you can't just ignore a problem because it's difficult to solve.
Bear in mind that one of the key innovations of the industrial revolution, in many ways THE key one was James Watt's improvement of the ENERGY EFFICIENCY of the steam engine.
When you see someone who's very lucrative career is based on large powerful cars writing off these issues its very diificult not to see vested interests at work.
Ownership of raw materials and energy as well as individual labour are inseparable from all of the major social, economic and health problems that we see in the world today.
If nothing else at least the IDEA of global warming has done something to wake people up to the idea that they have some kind of global responsibility. Perhaps the only way people will take any notice is if they feel they're personally at risk.
His point, I think, was that we should be helping those developing nations currently undergoing their move towards an industrial society to leap frog that very dirty and polluting step and move to a post-industrial economy such as service economy we enjoy here in the western world through transfer of science and technology.
Citation need?
The problem with that is that the only reason we are able to have a 'post industrial economy' where every one goes to work in a suit with an ipod in their pocket is that there are other countries who do have industrial economies, with cheap labour and slack employment law.
If we want to do that we need to look at rebuilding our own manufacturing industry first.
I find it a bit odd that anyone would consider an effort to find sustainable sources of energy, using that energy more efficiently and reducing pollution to be a bad thing.
Its the capital cost of making changed which is the sticking point. Which given human selfishness isn't really surprising at all.
If we want to do that we need to look at rebuilding our own manufacturing industry first.
Which, no doubt, we will do with very little fuss the moment it becomes cost affective for us to do so.
His point, I think, was that we should be helping those developing nations currently undergoing their move towards an industrial society to leap frog that very dirty and polluting step and move to a post-industrial economy such as service economy we enjoy here in the western world through transfer of science and technology.?
Or perhaps he meant what he said:
Collapse:
1. To fall down or inward suddenly; cave in.
2. To break down suddenly in strength or health and thereby cease to function...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/collapse
The earth's average temperature - insofar as we can measure it accurately - has remained constant for the last 10 years, and has dropped slightly this year.
Citation need?
"The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly."
http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004
And others I can't recall just now...
mirage
http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004
And others I can't recall just now...
mirage
That is a very interesting article!
The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped.
This one if of interest to.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200801140011
I’ll be blunt. Whitehouse got it wrong – completely wrong. The article is based on a very elementary error: a confusion between year-on-year variability and the long-term average.
From Mark Lynas New Statesman’s environmental correspondent in response to the article by David Whitehouse, cited above.
I begin to see the value of Peer reviewed literature.
Another from the same.
‘Climate’ is defined by averaging out all this variability over a longer term period. So you won’t, by definition, see climate change from one year to the next - or even necessarily from one decade to the next.
Hepotec
18-05-08, 02:05 PM
Fascinating stuff, chaps. Maybe the purpose of a Clarkson is to promote interesting debate.
"If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor."
Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting
"The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
Newsweek, April 28, 1975 about the coming ice age .
"...in 1971, NASA predicted the world "could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age." "
"Recent climate changes on Earth lie well within the bounds of natural climate variability. UN temperature data show that the late 20th century phase of global warming ended in 1998; new data for the Southern Hemisphere show that a slight cooling is underway there.
Almost all the current public fear of global warming is being driven by unproven and un-testable computer model fears of the future, which now even the UN concedes do not account for half the variability in nature, and thus that their predictions are not reliable."
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=dceb518c-802a-23ad-45bf-894a13435a08
I have a £5 bet on with a good buddy of mine that, within five years, we will be being warned of a new Ice Age coming.
AGW will go the way of eugenics, "The inheritance of acquired characteristics" and the Phlogiston Theory.
mirage
"If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor."
Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting
Its a moot point, if you were to increase the thickness of your insulative flooring you would expect it to impact the temperature of the room, irrelevant of its thickness relative to the rest of the room.
"The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
Newsweek, April 28, 1975 about the coming ice age .
"...in 1971, NASA predicted the world "could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age."
The idea is that positive feedbacks (which while we might understand them better now that 30 years ago, we still have very little understanding of) could be triggered by a small change global temperature could cross a threshold and bring about a dramatic climate event in a very short time period.
Case of interest PETM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
"Recent climate changes on Earth lie well within the bounds of natural climate variability. UN temperature data show that the late 20th century phase of global warming ended in 1998; new data for the Southern Hemisphere show that a slight cooling is underway there.
Almost all the current public fear of global warming is being driven by unproven and un-testable computer model fears of the future, which now even the UN concedes do not account for half the variability in nature, and thus that their predictions are not reliable."
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=dceb518c-802a-23ad-45bf-894a13435a08
That speech makes some valid points. It also references a handful of carefully chosen supportive articles, it was given by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.). Interestingly, to me, only 1 US Senator received more received more campaign donations from the oil and gas industry in the 2002 election cycle than Senator Inhofe.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?Ind=E01&Cycle=2002&recipdetail=A&Mem=N&sortorder=U
Now that's as close the to political wind as I will sail, but he is not a scientist, and in my opinion that reference doesn't really stand up against the IPCC report, which I cited earlier.
Well, dinner is on the way, and I have never believed that debate will change anyone's mind on any subject, so here's a summary of a few of my beliefs:
1. I'd be more inclined to believe the IPCC if they were called the "Panel to Discover Whether Climate Change is Really Happening", not, "It's Happening!: The Sky is Falling!"
2. We don't know what the Earth's average temperature is, was, will be or "should be."
3. Climate always has changed and always will.
4. Climate change and atmospheric CO2 levels seem to bear little or no relationship one to another.
5. All of the climate predictions are based on computer modelling, or - as I think of it - "Garbage In, Garbage Out." Others call it "Playstation Climatology."
6. I would need incontrovertible, concrete, gold-plated, peer-reviewed, 100% convincing data about AGW before I would take the first step towards the future the watermelons have planned for us. No such evidence exists. You may be content for your kids to ride donkeys from their mud hut to work 18 hours per day digging ditches in return for payment in potatoes. I'm not.
7. Any changes we are scammed and taxed into making will be outweighed immediately by vastly increased energy consumption in countries like China and India.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2MSU.jpg
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/global_temperatures_are_uncorrelated_with_carbon_d ioxide_trends_this_last_d/
"...as IPCC senior scientist Kevin Trenberth noted recently: “. . . there are no (climate) predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been”; instead there are only “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios.
Trenberth continues, “None of the models used by IPCC is initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate”. "
"...the satellite data indicate that, since the 1998 El Nino when temperatures spiked 1C due to a rise in water vapour emissions, global temperatures dropped sharply, then stabilized and now show signs of continuing down - is global cooling next?"
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2352
Newton’s Laws of Experts, are as follows:
First Law: every expert persists in his state of rest or opinion unless acted upon by an external grant;
Second Law: the rate of change of opinion is directly proportional to the applied grant; and
Third Law: for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.
;)
mirage
BorderReiver
18-05-08, 05:19 PM
Mirage's point about the tax scam is valid IMO. Carbon futures anyone?
The ridiculous cost of petrochemicals at the moment is caused by speculators who are buying up future petrol stocks and looking to make an obscene profit. The same will no doubt happen with carbon offsets.
It's all a con.:mad:
As I've said before, one really big volcanic eruption will make our "climate changing emissions" look like a mouse flatule.
Anyhoo, it will be be us polluting humans who feel the effects most; animals and plants just get on with it.
I agree with you to some extent on most of your points, and completely on on e or two :O .
There does seem to be a lack of understanding (in the Canadian free press at least) of what the IPCC actually do. They do not carry or their own research or prescribe policy. The simply review the scientific literature coming out of the academic community and states its uncertainty.
Its also worth taking in to account that ice cap volumes can actually increase in volume as a result of warming as they are affected by precipitation levels as well as air/sea temp.
It seems dinner times correlate across the country.
Anyhoo, it will be be us polluting humans who feel the effects most; animals and plants just get on with it.
No doubt, though the affects, if there are any, will be felt most strongly by those humans who have contributed least to the problem and who have the least resources available to deal with it.
There does seem to be a lack of understanding (in the Canadian free press at least)
It is interesting here. There is a big push against bottled water. I was in the queue last night buying a few beers adn the guy in front of me had picked up two trays of 25cl water bottles. They guy in front of him proceeded to give this other chap a lecture on the evils of bottled water.
Oddly this didn't involve anyone getting poked in the eye for their rudeness. He just listened quietly, nodded at points, said Oh! occasionally.
He still bought the water. What surprised me was that he didn't knock the other guy down for his viewpoint.
My and a lot of people have a strong issue with the way "the environment" is used as an excuse to control our behaviour? Just because you don't approve of my riding my quad or 4X4 in the bush or hunting does not give you any more right to control what I am doing than someone who believes homosexuality is wrong should be able to control what other people do.
But you are hurting the environment and that affects everybody!
The guy who thinks he should have the power to force others not to be gay also thinks his reasons are just as important. Just because you think your right is not enough reason to abridge peoples rights.
This is the reason for 90% of the backlash to environmentalism.
Most people want to make things better especially hunters and other people who actually spend time in the woods. We tend to get really annoyed with self righteous people who want to make huge detrimental and usually unnecessary changes to our lives under the banner of environmentalism.
It also certainly does not help either when you get douchebags like Al Gore and his wife Tipper making millions off jumping on the bandwagon.
By all means go out of your way to reduce your own footprint ,lead by example and even use any pull you have with the government to pressure big industry but when it comes to interfering with the rights of private citizens especially those of us who are still part of the lands ecosystem(where I live Man is still an important apex predator) it is not only wrong it is counterproductive because you alienate people.
I love Jeremy I think he is funny and it is nice to know not every man left in the UK is a total Pu$$ie.
I love Jeremy I think he is funny and it is nice to know not every man left in the UK is a total Pu$$ie.
:rolleyes:
:bored3
By all means go out of your way to reduce your own footprint ,lead by example and even use any pull you have with the government to pressure big industry but when it comes to interfering with the rights of private citizens
the trouble you get if you try and put pressure on big industry is that the industry will say it increases costs. They may well then pass this on along (often with an increase in profit) and people complain that bread costs more.
I'm not sure how much good it does if it results in more imported good are a result of this.
I'd much rather see more being done to promote less of the transporting of goods combined with less packaging.
to bring the thread back on topic I think Jeremy Clarkson would like having less lorries getting in his way when driving supercars that do 10mpg
a lot of people have a strong issue with the way "the environment" is used as an excuse to control our behaviour?
Agreed 100%, it's the latest trump card that's been latched on to by anyone who wants to further their own interests.
"If you don't do what I say/buy what I'm selling/pay this tax then the planet will die and It Will All Be Your Fault, Planet-Killer!"
Hepotec
19-05-08, 08:42 AM
My and a lot of people have a strong issue with the way "the environment" is used as an excuse to control our behaviour? Just because you don't approve of my riding my quad or 4X4 in the bush or hunting does not give you any more right to control what I am doing than someone who believes homosexuality is wrong should be able to control what other people do.
But you are hurting the environment and that affects everybody!
The guy who thinks he should have the power to force others not to be gay also thinks his reasons are just as important. Just because you think your right is not enough reason to abridge peoples rights.
This is the reason for 90% of the backlash to environmentalism.
Most people want to make things better especially hunters and other people who actually spend time in the woods. We tend to get really annoyed with self righteous people who want to make huge detrimental and usually unnecessary changes to our lives under the banner of environmentalism.
It also certainly does not help either when you get douchebags like Al Gore and his wife Tipper making millions off jumping on the bandwagon.
By all means go out of your way to reduce your own footprint ,lead by example and even use any pull you have with the government to pressure big industry but when it comes to interfering with the rights of private citizens especially those of us who are still part of the lands ecosystem(where I live Man is still an important apex predator) it is not only wrong it is counterproductive because you alienate people.
I love Jeremy I think he is funny and it is nice to know not every man left in the UK is a total Pu$$ie.
Perfect example of a Clarksonism.
Balanced reasonable argument, completely overshadowed and undermined by the last line, which deteriorates into offensive nonsense.
Good to know they have irony in Cananda rather than macho posturing.
Balanced reasonable argument, completely overshadowed and undermined by the last line, which deteriorates into offensive nonsense.
Pu$$ie
:rolleyes:
mirage
Hepotec
19-05-08, 08:45 AM
Pu$$ie
:rolleyes:
mirage
Thank you for your input.:D
beachcaster
19-05-08, 09:06 AM
I dont understand the real science or the many attempts of false science for or against the carbon/global warming issues.
What is obvious .......is that this "new enthusiam" is supporting a new global industry.....involving huge numbers of zealots.
And its providing " Christmas everyday " for so called caring politicians to get us to pay more.
More for tax...more for just about everything.
Happy Christmas :):)
Barry
Inspector71
19-05-08, 10:42 AM
Well, dinner is on the way, and I have never believed that debate will change anyone's mind on any subject...
That's a pity - because that's what's been happening ~debate~ on the very specific issue of Climate Change in the Scientific Community since the late 80s. :rolleyes:
Thankfully that was engaged in by the relatively open minded.
I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous, though rather garbled, answer in post #79:
It. Is. Over. Stop. Whining...
Governments the world over are gearing up to do incredibly clever/incredibly silly (delete as appropriate) things in the name of Climate Change. And spin 'em to tell us how great they are. Help. :C
Question for you though Mirage:
You're clearly a bright fella, and a skilled google-monkey, as your frequent quoteoarrhea demonstrates. So why do you choose to take most of your points only part of the way. Everything you put up as opposition to AGW is refuted in full somewhere. If you found the bits you quote I find it hard to understand why you haven't taken them to their logical conclusion in your 'research'.
Take the "grapes in england/medieval warm period" thing. I know the old jokes are the best and all that but... not only is it irrelevant in this context, but it's also guff. How on earth have you missed the numerous references explaining why? If you haven't missed them, why didn't they convince you - they are very simple and straightforward?
And if the IPCC is such a croney-ridden discredited sham please stop selectively quoting its more sceptical contributors in support of you points (e.g. Trenberth). It's inconsistent and you undermine yourself by doing so.
Just curious ;)
Oh, and yes - I'm a fully paid-up Pu$$ie :lol:
...why do you choose to take most of your points only part of the way. Everything you put up as opposition to AGW is refuted in full somewhere. If you found the bits you quote I find it hard to understand why you haven't taken them to their logical conclusion in your 'research'.
Well, I've just discovered that - gasp! - I don't get paid for this!
Every single thing that AGW proponents claim is due to evil mankind's actions has happened before, numerous times, perfectly naturally.
Getting warmer/cooler? Check.
High CO2? Check.
Species extinction? Check.
Species migration to new climates? Check.
Ice melting/freezing? Check.
Etc.
Only this time it's my fault. And people over whose actions I have little or no control are going to make me grab my financial ankles in a pointless, vain attempt to ensure their lavish pay cheques for years to come. Sorry, I meant "Save the planet!"
There is little point in wasting more of my time sourcing evidence against AGW, because I'm either preaching to the converted, or losing chunks of my irreplaceable life trying to sway opponents whose minds are already made up.
It. Is. Over. Stop. Whining...
32,000 scientists - who do get paid to do research for you - disagree:
http://www.nationalpost.com/520843.bin
32,000 deniers. (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/17/32-000-deniers.aspx)
mirage
Tim-Gabz
19-05-08, 11:05 AM
We are constantly bombarded by politically correct, and evolving, claptrap that there seems to be an impervious idiot and nonsensical layer to our world.
Clarkson takes the cotton wool off the UK motoring society and expresses what fun people really would like to enjoy.
-often at the expense of curtain twitchers and crisis callers.
mcleod1518
19-05-08, 11:06 AM
I went to the rubbish tip a couple of weeks ago, I havent been for years, Last time i went you pulled up to a big hole in the ground and threw all your rubbish into the hole.
Now you have to drive round putting different materials into different skips. A real pain. I mentioned to 1 of the workers how i missed the big hole. His reply " dont worry mate it all gets chucked into the same hole but we have to be seen to be recycling" enough said i think.:D
BorderReiver
19-05-08, 11:20 AM
I went to the rubbish tip a couple of weeks ago, I havent been for years, Last time i went you pulled up to a big hole in the ground and threw all your rubbish into the hole.
Now you have to drive round putting different materials into different skips. A real pain. I mentioned to 1 of the workers how i missed the big hole. His reply " dont worry mate it all gets chucked into the same hole but we have to be seen to be recycling" enough said i think.:D
Pity really.:(
As we live in a sealed system, what we have is all that we have. Whatever it is, it's going to run out eventually and we'll have to go to all the bother of digging out the holes,if they're still accessible, to get at the material that we've thrown away.
What ever your views on global warming/freezing you can surely see the sense in recycling. Pity that the people in charge can't see past the carbon tax possibilities and do something useful.
The only cases you have made successfully is that:
1. Politicians will probably not do a fair or affective job of mitigation.
2. Climate change has/will always change
..neither of which are disputed by anyone here, so far as I can see.
Every single thing that AGW proponents claim is due to evil mankind's actions has happened before, numerous times, perfectly naturally.
Getting warmer/cooler? Check.
High CO2? Check.
Species extinction? Check.
Species migration to new climates? Check.
Ice melting/freezing? Check.
Etc.
No one has disputed any of that BUT CO2 levels have never, in the history of life on Earth, climbed so high over such a short period of time (except, perhaps in the case of the PETM which I referenced earlier which resulted in a major global warming event and the loss of the ice at the poles and an extinction event).
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/Atmos-CO2.gif
Ignore the projected part if you will, I know you don't like the bits out of computers, but the 2005 data point is a measured level
This means, while you are right its all happened before, it could all happen again faster (in relative terms) then it has in the past.
So wouldn't a major shift in climate could have devastating affects on you, me, everyone? What would be the affect of a cyclone over Boringville, or even the affect of an increase in frozen winters? Surely these would affect the quality of life which you so determined not to make changes to?
Look at the current price of Grain, a result in some part, of the affects on the lands about the South Pacific affected by ENSO (El Nino).
Only this time it's my fault. And people over whose actions I have little or no control are going to make me grab my financial ankles in a pointless, vain attempt to ensure their lavish pay cheques for years to come. Sorry, I meant "Save the planet!"
You are on to something there, I have no doubt, and always you bring it back to that. Just because some politicians may spin climate science to their own ends doesn't mean all the science is floored.
I can understand many of your concerns but like Inspector71, I can't understand why you continue to refute the good science behind concerns about anthropogenic climate change, earlier you cited an article in New Statesman which actually had the link to an article which debunked it attached to it, yet you chose only to look at the floored science of the first article. You haven't provided any good science for your claims that climate change isn't happening or has stopped but you can't take on the good science that it is.
I went to the rubbish tip a couple of weeks ago, I havent been for years, Last time i went you pulled up to a big hole in the ground and threw all your rubbish into the hole.
Now you have to drive round putting different materials into different skips. A real pain. I mentioned to 1 of the workers how i missed the big hole. His reply " dont worry mate it all gets chucked into the same hole but we have to be seen to be recycling" enough said i think.:D
Someone once said to me:
"A few centuries back someone worked out that pumping your excrement out in to the street, down the road and in to the local (drinking) water was bad for your health, in effect making our own habitat toxic and uninhabitable, so they stopped it.
Then in the last century it was worked out that allowing the waste chemicals from industry out in the the environment also made people ill, in effect making our own habitat toxic and uninhabitable, so they stopped it.
Now we are beginning to understand that pumping invisible waste gasses in to the atmosphere has some pretty nasty affects and may even end up making our own habitat toxic and uninhabitable.. do you see the pattern?"
But then, mirage has informed us about the lessons of history in the past, I forget what they were..
What ever your views on global warming/freezing you can surely see the sense in recycling.
"No one asks, however, the much more interesting question about this crazily complex system: how much of the rubbish collected for recycling actually gets recycled? The reason for the new system is Brussels's landfill directive of 1999, which set targets for the phasing out of landfill across the EU, to replace it with recycling.
The Government is remarkably coy with the facts of how we are doing in this respect.
Last week, however, I was supplied with figures that show what happens to our 10 million tons a year of packaging waste – and they are startling. At first sight it looks as if the UK is making good progress towards its EC targets. Since 1998, the year before the landfill directive was issued, packaging waste collected for recycling has risen from 2.8 million tons a year to 6 million tons, a rise from 29 to 59 per cent.
But this has only been achieved by a huge increase in the amount of waste we export, mainly to China and other Asian countries. The shipping costs are minimal because the waste provides ballast for the return journeys of the same container ships which bring us the vast quantities of goods we now import from those countries.
The amount of waste we export in this way has risen since 1998 from 115,000 tons to an estimated 2.2 million tons this year, so that half our additional "recycling" is taking place abroad. The conditions in which waste, particularly of plastics and electronic goods, is recycled in China and India are often environmentally horrifying. A significant amount ends up in vast unregulated dumps. To avoid carefully regulated dumping here, we are simply passing the problem on to other countries.
For example, we can tell the EU that our recycling of plastic has increased from 125,000 tons to 488,000 tons – but this is because
. We have increased our recycling of paper from 1.9 million tons a year to 2.9 million – but the amount of paper we recycle in the UK has dropped by 350,000 tons a year, because our exports have risen from nothing to 50 per cent.
As Phil Conran, Biffa's recycling development manager, explains, it is only because these other countries are willing to take so much of our packaging waste that we appear to be doing so well in meeting those EC targets. But if others follow our example, and countries such as China became less willing to take so much of our waste, we could find ourselves in serious trouble.
Our local authorities already face fines of hundreds of millions of pounds a year, payable to Brussels, for falling short of targets, because in categories other than packaging our record is much worse. (Merseyside alone warns that its fines could soon be £30 million a year.)"
Full article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533273/Christopher-Booker's-notebook.html
Smoke and mirrors. :rolleyes:
mirage
Tim-Gabz
19-05-08, 11:43 AM
What? You don't have tip scavangers?
Glass, metal, paper, plastic (bottles) all get scavanged for recycling in Africa. Tires are reused on scotch carts.............
As most 1st world county care for their economically disadvantaged it might be an idea to get some of those convicts out of your over crowded prisons to do the scavanging.
"A few centuries back someone worked out that pumping your excrement out in to the street, down the road and in to the local (drinking) water was bad for your health, in effect making our own habitat toxic and uninhabitable, so they stopped it.
Then in the last century it was worked out that allowing the waste chemicals from industry out in the the environment also made people ill, in effect making our own habitat toxic and uninhabitable, so they stopped it.
Now we are beginning to understand that pumping invisible waste gasses in to the atmosphere has some pretty nasty affects and may even end up making our own habitat toxic and uninhabitable.. do you see the pattern?"
In that late Victorian era, a mathematician worked out - with irrefutable logic - that life in London would soon become insupportable. The capital would shudder to a halt. Disease would ravage the streets. Why?
Horse poo!
He projected the number of horses used in commerce and transport into the future, and found that so many horses would be required to sustain London that there wouldn't be enough people available to shovel their "exhaust."
As I say, his logic could not be argued with.
;)
mirage
mcleod1518
19-05-08, 12:13 PM
We do seem to have gotten off the subject of Mr Clarkson !!!!!!!!!!!!! :D
Do you know what my problem with all this global warming/recycling debate is. I cant trust polititions, i cant trust music/film stars ( john travolta has his own fleet of jets)
If Gordon Brown came on the tv and said dont recycle its bad for us, i would then recycle i mistrust politicians that much.
I think there is a bit of a backlash, we are fed up with everyone telling us what to eat what to drink, dont smoke dont fry. If your lucky enough to own a bentley why the hell should you pay massive amounts of road tax, Your already being screwed with fuel tax/vat. Our roads are pants i spend more time avoiding pot holes than looking whats on the road. I dont believe our government present or future will do anything with the extra green taxes, Its just one big con to fiddle a little more money out of us.
Inspector71
19-05-08, 12:15 PM
Well, I've just discovered that - gasp! - I don't get paid for this!
There is little point in wasting more of my time sourcing evidence against AGW, because I'm either preaching to the converted, or losing chunks of my irreplaceable life trying to sway opponents whose minds are already made up.
No answer then? You were happy to spend ages earlier in the thread. When someone asks you a direct question you get bored and realise it's a waste of your time. It's OK - I'll take it personally :lol:
Every single thing that AGW proponents claim is due to evil mankind's actions has happened before, numerous times, perfectly naturally.
Getting warmer/cooler? Check.
High CO2? Check.
Species extinction? Check.
Species migration to new climates? Check.
Ice melting/freezing? Check.
Etc.
And there's just as many arguments explaining why it's not quite happening for the same reasons now. And you've either read none of them (:huh: ), or you've read some and disagree with all of them (:huh: :huh: ). Weird.
Only this time it's my fault. And people over whose actions I have little or no control are going to make me grab my financial ankles in a pointless, vain attempt to ensure their lavish pay cheques for years to come. Sorry, I meant "Save the planet!"
I take your point about having no control over something that might have an effect on you. I dislike being told what to do as well. But you're confusing the scientists with the politicians.
Your earlier Newton's Law of Experts is funny because it's true. It describes perfectly the scientific process:
1. A popular subject or a suitable challenge appears.
2. 'The Community' decides it needs resolving so it attracts more and more grant money.
3. You use that money to put up hypotheses and test them (a lot)
4. If it turns out to be a big issue, they get tested some more by people who realise they could make their name by destroying it (this is a little unfair on my part, but it is a motivation for some)
5. Enough of the questions get answered that everybody's happy for a while and we all move on to something else...
Sometimes it takes a long time (e.g. cures for Cancer). But Climate Change science will attract less and less money once there's enough evidence one way or another. It's the issue of the day - that's all.
The idea of self-perpetuating grants is partly true - if you demonstrate track record in a field you obviously will keep getting money to work in it for a while.
It's not brilliant but it's all we've got. There would be no research otherwise.
Can you give any credit to the scientists involved for trying to establish what's going on or not? Are they all a waste of air?
32,000 scientists - who do get paid to do research for you - disagree:
mirage
Funny :D
Shame they didn't leave a space for you to say what your qualification was in.
Are you aware that this petition was part of a direct marketing (junk mail) campaign?
A pre-printed letter was sent to Universties all over the States to all sorts of departments. Engineers, IT people, biologists, whatever. They got a package with the letter and a copy of an out-of-date re-hashed article that failed the peer reveiew process in an appropriate journal ten years previously but had 'newly' appeared in the Journal of Physicians and Surgeons. The ideal place for climatology :lol: I know because an Archaeology colleague in Virginia got one.
I think I'll put a petition together opposing the bloated size of police pensions paid to ex-officers in Boringville. I'll ask Dairy Farmers, members of the Green Party and my poorly-paid archaeologist freinds to sign it shall I? Bit like doing a chain letter.
I apologise for the last paragraph - meant to be light hearted. So don't just jump on it and claim I'm showing a lack of respect for the Police. I'm not. :)
Inspector71
19-05-08, 12:24 PM
"half our additional "recycling" is taking place abroad. The conditions in which waste, particularly of plastics and electronic goods, is recycled in China and India are often environmentally horrifying. A significant amount ends up in vast unregulated dumps. To avoid carefully regulated dumping here, we are simply passing the problem on to other countries.
When I first joined the place I work (a County Council) we were given a silly tour of our brand spanking new recycling centre. Some middle manager took us round and explained that all of Suffolk's plastics were smashed into big cubes, which he showed us with some pride, then shipped to China. Then they were shipped back to France so Peugeot/Citroen could turn it into dashboards.
I remember his face when one of us (not me I'm afraid - I was rather impressed :lol: ) asked why? I've never seen anybody so lost for words - it had honestly never occured to him.
Lunacy :rolleyes:
Inspector71
19-05-08, 12:27 PM
In that late Victorian era, a mathematician worked out - with irrefutable logic - that life in London would soon become insupportable. The capital would shudder to a halt. Disease would ravage the streets. Why?
Horse poo!
He projected the number of horses used in commerce and transport into the future, and found that so many horses would be required to sustain London that there wouldn't be enough people available to shovel their "exhaust."
As I say, his logic could not be argued with.
;)
mirage
Simple example of scientific progress. His hypothesis didn't survive any rigorous examination.
It doesn't prove anything beyond the foolishness of one man, and that only in hindsight.
You're examples are getting feebler. Have a lie down.
Back to Clarkson: the one irrefutable fact that marks him out as a bad 'un - his hair! You can't trust a big bluff Yorkshireman who still sports a perm :lol:
It's OK - I'll take it personally :lol:
Please don't. These threads are so much more fun than the usual "If you could have only one knife...", "Which is better: Semanix or Manbenza, and why?" threads!
.
And there's just as many arguments explaining why it's not quite happening for the same reasons now. And you've either read none of them (:huh: ), or you've read some and disagree with all of them (:huh: :huh: ). Weird
Nope, not weird. The inevitable consequence of accepting the AGW theory, and doing what the agitators require in order to palliate its effects, would be a catastrophic change in my lifestyle for the worse.
I have read an opinion piece by a hack who did one of the "Assess your carbon footprint" questionnaires. Even with fundamental changes in his way of life - no foreign holidays, no car use, low-energy lightbulbs, half-flush toilets etc. etc. - he couldn't attain the "desired target".
I have read another piece where the author reckoned that the anti-AGW effort would require us all to back-pedal our existence to a mid-Victorian level.
Can you give any credit to the scientists involved for trying to establish what's going on or not? Are they all a waste of air?
I have a great respect for scientists. Had I not crashed and burned in my A-levels, I are been one! (You might not believe this, but - had I not died on my [rear] at A-level, I wanted to become an archaeologist!
Shame they didn't leave a space for you to say what your qualification was in.
Errr...read that last line of the petition again...
Are you aware that this petition was part of a direct marketing (junk mail) campaign?
It's irrelevant if it was printed on Cornflake packets if it represents the considered views of 32,000 intelligent people, many of them experts in the field.
I think I'll put a petition together opposing the bloated size of police pensions paid to ex-officers in Boringville. I apologise for the last paragraph - meant to be light hearted.
Don't fret: I've been insulted by people whose opinions I care about! (I apologise for the last paragraph - meant to be light hearted. :D )
Tell 'em that my low pension figure is due to climate change: the EU will wheelbarrow other people's money at me! ;)
:D
mirage
Back to Clarkson: the one irrefutable fact that marks him out as a bad 'un - his hair!
Nope: it's the "tight jeans/fundament the size of Rutland" issue!
mirage
Hepotec
19-05-08, 01:08 PM
Please don't. These threads are so much more fun than the usual "If you could have only one knife...", "Which is better: Semanix or Manbenza, and why?" threads!
I have a great respect for scientists. Had I not crashed and burned in my A-levels, I are been one! (You might not believe this, but - had I not died on my [rear] at A-level, I wanted to become an archaeologist!
I couldn't agree more with the first sentiment, but the second, I'm happy to tell you is no longer current.
To study archaeology at University, you probably still need an A level quota, but to actually practice archaeology you just need the desire and ability to go to an excavation and have a go.
My own excavations take all manner of people. I have trained people in their 80's down to people who are not yet in their teens, the seriously overqualified through to the single celled. Dyspraxics, cerabal palsy sufferers, partially sighted.....And all flavour of other challenging conditions. There really is no bar, as far as I am concerned, given that the individual has a desire to learn about archaeology and the ability to do so. I've even had a copper on my site (he actually comes back every year).
There must be somewhere near you, Midge where you could have a bash. If not, get yourself down to Bamburgh for archaeology, beer and intelligent debate.
I draw the line at Clarkson though.:D
...get yourself down to Bamburgh for archaeology, beer and intelligent debate.
If I'm ever "Oop North", I'll take you up on that. :D
mirage
Inspector71
19-05-08, 01:21 PM
Please don't. These threads are so much more fun than the usual "If you could have only one knife...", "Which is better: Semanix or Manbenza, and why?" threads!
True :)
Nope, not weird. The inevitable consequence of accepting the AGW theory, and doing what the agitators require in order to palliate its effects, would be a catastrophic change in my lifestyle for the worse.
I have read an opinion piece by a hack who did one of the "Assess your carbon footprint" questionnaires. Even with fundamental changes in his way of life - no foreign holidays, no car use, low-energy lightbulbs, half-flush toilets etc. etc. - he couldn't attain the "desired target".
I have read another piece where the author reckoned that the anti-AGW effort would require us all to back-pedal our existence to a mid-Victorian level.
This is the biggie for me - is the threat of this catastrophic change why you believe what you believe? Chicken or egg? Do you really think AGW is crap or do want it to be crap because of the above?
I ask because whenever it come up you don't so much present a point of view as preach. And most of it is plain wrong. And so wrong that any thinking man must have had suspicions about much of it - had he put in as much effort to learning about the subject as you clearly have.
BTW I agree - the supposed solutions are just soooo unworkable for most people it makes your hair ache!
The language is the worst thing - all 'advice' is now framed in such panicked terms that people are automatically going to rebel and wonder about the overblown doom and gloom. "Destroy the economy? Destroy the planet? Which one? And why, pray tell, is it all my fault?"
Not really a way to get anything constructive done :rolleyes:
Errr...read that last line of the petition again...
Ooops :lol:
Quake before my thoroughness and despair! Not.
It's irrelevant if it was printed on Cornflake packets if it represents the considered views of 32,000 intelligent people, many of them experts in the field.
I'm not sure you can claim they were 'considered views'.
Can you say that any of them would have been heard otherwise, unless they were asked directly - using a 'paper' as accompanying information that was little more than marketing?
There's too much of that sort of knockabout politics involved now. I feel for the people actually doing the research. They just don't have the minerals to live in such a world of spin and claim and counter-claim (most of them). It's hard enough finding out, and presenting appropriately, anything new in a subject nobody gives a toss about. Ironically I bet the research is weaker than it ought to be 'cos the main thing must be to cover your back, rather than stick your neck out. Kind of blunts the whole scientific endeavour really...
As for Clarkson - I cannot beat the jeans. They trump the hair. The Horror... The Horror...
BorderReiver
19-05-08, 01:32 PM
Question for you though Mirage:
You're clearly a bright fella, and a skilled google-monkey, as your frequent quoteoarrhea demonstrates. So why do you choose to take most of your points only part of the way. Everything you put up as opposition to AGW is refuted in full somewhere. If you found the bits you quote I find it hard to understand why you haven't taken them to their logical conclusion in your 'research'.
Fair do 71, when yer having a debate you don't supply the opposition with ammo.:rolleyes:
It's irrelevant if it was printed on Cornflake packets if it represents the considered views of 32,000 intelligent people, many of them experts in the field.
mirage
How did you reach the conclusion that 'many' of them were experts in the field? Considering how many people have university degrees today, particularly, I imagine, in some social/economic groups (I believe it's well over 40% of the population in some developed countries according to some studies), and how many different fields of study there are, I can't see how you can draw the conclusion that many would be experts in the field.
Would you rely on the same people to give you a medical diagnosis or business advice if you sent them a short, relevant article? But, surely many of them will be experts in the area? :)
Do you really think AGW is crap?
Yep. The alleged "cure" just deepens my opposition.
I ask because whenever it come up you don't so much present a point of view as preach. And most of it is plain wrong. And so wrong that any thinking man must have had suspicions about much of it - had he put in as much effort to learning about the subject as you clearly have.
I don't aim to preach. I'm a non-scientist. I don't propose to go back to college, earn a degree, study climatology for 20 years and publish my findings just to respond to someone on an Internet knife forum! ;) All I can do is - as a layman - read articles in print and on the Web and try to make my own mind up.
...the supposed solutions are just soooo unworkable for most people it makes your hair ache!
You never wrote a truer sentence.
The language is the worst thing - all 'advice' is now framed in such panicked terms that people are automatically going to rebel and wonder about the overblown doom and gloom. "Destroy the economy? Destroy the planet? Which one? And why, pray tell, is it all my fault?"
Well, I've survived AIDS, SARS, Ebola, salmonella, necrotising fasciitis, Mad Cow disease, scrapie, cyclamates, DDT, leaded petrol, passive smoking and MRSA.
Now the same firm - who can't tell me whether it's going to rain on Thursday - are telling me that in 100 years' time, the temperature may have risen 1°. Or 3°. Or 0°. Or not. And that may be bad. Or good. And it may be because I leave my TV on "Standby". Or not. But either way it's going to be obscenely expensive, and my tax pound is going to pay for it, so "Grab your ankles!".
I'm not sure you can claim they were 'considered views'.
When I can be bothered to express my opinion in writing - as here - I express my considered view. The fact that it's in writing doesn't induce me to express views 180° from my true feelings.
Can you say that any of them would have been heard otherwise, unless they were asked directly?
Exactly!
As for Clarkson - I cannot beat the jeans. They trump the hair. The Horror... The Horror...
:D
mirage
MushiSushi
19-05-08, 01:41 PM
this threads gone a bit off the rails ;)
Anyway, even supposing it's all a big fuss about nothing, what's wrong with using a little less power or trying not to throw so much garbage away, etc?
Is it so difficult to limit yourself a little, even if it's not true today - couldn't it be true tomorrow if we all continue pleasing ourselves and saying to hell with it and I'm all right Jack?
How did you reach the conclusion that 'many' of them were experts in the field?
"Using a subset of the mailing list of American Men and Women of Science, a who's who of Science, Robinson mailed out his solicitations through the postal service, requesting signed petitions of those who agreed that Kyoto was a danger to humanity. The response rate was extraordinary, "much, much higher than anyone expected, much higher than you'd ordinarily expect," he explained.
He's processed more than 31,000 at this point, more than 9,000 of them with PhDs, and has another 1,000 or so to go.
The press conference releasing these names occurs on Monday at the National Press Center in Washington."
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=522276&p=2
mirage
...what's wrong with using a little less power or trying not to throw so much garbage away, etc?
No, no, no: You have to fly by private jet to Bali and spend a taxpayer-funded expense-account fortnight in a 5* hotel (http://www.undispatch.com/archives/2007/12/al_gores_bali_s.php) before you can lecture people like that.
Or have your £84,000 freeebie hybrid car flown 7,000 miles to your home. (http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=522276&p=2)
Or pay £850 to have your favourite hat jetted first class from London to Italy. (http://www.hecklerspray.com/bono-spends-thousands-on-transporting-hat/20051860.php)
:D
mirage
He's processed more than 31,000 at this point, more than 9,000 of them with PhDs, and has another 1,000 or so to go.
The press conference releasing these names occurs on Monday at the National Press Center in Washington."
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=522276&p=2
mirage
http://petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html
40 climatologists i.e. people who study long term weather.
:rolleye11
And they're all Americans. ;)
1. 40 climatologists i.e. people who study long term weather.
:rolleye11
2. And they're all Americans. ;)
1.
Atmospheric Science (114)
Climatology (40)
Meteorology (341 )
Earth Science (107)
Environmental Engineering (473)
Environmental Science (256)
Oceanography (86)
Etc.
2. ...And therefore automatically wrong. :S
mirage
No, no, no: You have to fly by private jet to Bali and spend a taxpayer-funded expense-account fortnight in a 5* hotel (http://www.undispatch.com/archives/2007/12/al_gores_bali_s.php) before you can lecture people like that.
Or have your £84,000 freeebie hybrid car flown 7,000 miles to your home.
Or pay £850 to have your favourite hat jetted first class from London to Italy.
:D
mirage
I'll have you know I even sit in the dark to save wasting power at times. Okay, to tell the truth it's because I'm too bloody lazy to get up and turn the light on, until it's too dark to see the keyboard, book, or TV remote, but at least it's inadvertently saving the planet. :)
Not automatically wrong, but 40 experts in the field (or even if we include the hundreds who may have some interest or relevant knowledge, like some environmental engineers, meteorologists, atmospheric scientists, etc,) it's hardly as damning as 32000.
As to point 2., you really have to ask? :)
I'll have you know I even sit in the dark...inadvertently saving the planet. :)
I am at the moment. In one of those supremely ironic coincidences, the low-energy lightbulb in this room burned out (after only a short life...) this morning!
mirage
Inspector71
19-05-08, 02:41 PM
Yep. The alleged "cure" just deepens my opposition.
Cool. It's just that you can't seem to quote any evidence that is correct, or hasn't been dismissed yet.
I suspect that's because...
I don't aim to preach. I'm a non-scientist. I don't propose to go back to college, earn a degree, study climatology for 20 years and publish my findings just to respond to someone on an Internet knife forum! ;) All I can do is - as a layman - read articles in print and on the Web and try to make my own mind up.
Try reading some more of them and you won't have to repeat yourself so often.
And you should be more suspicious of 'articles' - you are normally rather sceptical about having the wool pulled over your eyes. Lots of op-ed out there. In fact I don't think there's any decent journalists who don't appear to have 'taken a side' at least a bit. Probably because straight reporting is boring and won't get past the editor :rolleyes:
A non-scientist repeating his opinion often doesn't give it any more weight you know. It's just whining if you're on the (currently) losing side, or triumphalism if you're on the winning side. Neither is partuicularly dignified.
We are going off topic (sorry Mushi you're right to put a spanner in) and having a private sparring match, fun though it is. Are there any knives on this forum? :lol:
Now the same firm - who can't tell me whether it's going to rain on Thursday - are telling me that in 100 years' time, the temperature may have risen 1°. Or 3°. Or 0°. Or not. And that may be bad. Or good. And it may be because I leave my TV on "Standby". Or not. But either way it's going to be obscenely expensive, and my tax pound is going to pay for it, so "Grab your ankles!".
Finest example of alarmist nonsense you've ever come out with. Which side are you on? Which side is scaring who?
You are not enriching the debate with that stuff. It probably needs a few more exclamation marks as well to really convince us :P
When I can be bothered to express my opinion in writing - as here - I express my considered view. The fact that it's in writing doesn't induce me to express views 180° from my true feelings.
My apologies, I was referring to the people who'd filled in the petition, not your good self. :)
'Interesting' as the petition is, it's exactly the same one as did the rounds in 1999. Google 'Oregon Petition' and choose a reference (The Wikipedia entry's a bit rabid but is reasonably concise).
We probably ought to give it a rest. I'm sure it's boring everybody to tears :(
Cheers,
Rod
My apologies, I was referring to the people who'd filled in the petition, not your good self.
No apology required.
Your post seemed to imply that someone would answer a question in the exact opposite direction of what they believed, if the question was posed in writing.
"Now the same firm - who can't tell me whether it's going to rain on Thursday - are telling me that in 100 years' time, the temperature may have risen 1°. Or 3°. Or 0°. Or not. And that may be bad. Or good. And it may be because I leave my TV on "Standby". Or not. But either way it's going to be obscenely expensive, and my tax pound is going to pay for it, so "Grab your ankles!". "
Which side are you on?
Well, if my stance on the issue isn't obvious from that paragraph, it's probably time I stopped writing!
;)
mirage
mcleod1518
19-05-08, 03:24 PM
Anyway,
Jeremy Clarkson, Love the bloke, 50 something, is a millionaire and gets paid alot of money to thrash supercars round a track, Gets flown all over the world 1st class to test drive the latest motors. Has his own tv shows has number 1 selling books. And if decides to get into politics would almost certainly become PM. And why ? He speaks the truth. And people like that.:D
Well after 140 odd replies Clarkson o.t or not. and much greenhouse warming ,environmentalists, recycle good bad or indifferent, etc ,etc, ...love him or hate him,for me I find the Top Gear prog entertaining and ammusing .It is after all a prog about cars!:D
Inspector71
19-05-08, 03:55 PM
Well after 140 odd replies Clarkson o.t or not. and much greenhouse warming ,environmentalists, recycle good bad or indifferent, etc ,etc, ...love him or hate him,for me I find the Top Gear prog entertaining and ammusing .It is after all a prog about cars!:D
Agreed - it's a welcome change from bleedin' cooking and Grand Designs/"I've got a better House Than You" etc.
Given that we've (nearly) all got one - why's there so few programmes about cars on mainstream telly?
Ropeman
19-05-08, 04:01 PM
Agreed - it's a welcome change from bleedin' cooking and Grand Designs/"I've got a better House Than You" etc.
Given that we've (nearly) all got one - why's there so few programmes about cars on mainstream telly?
Reruns ;)
Cars, unlike houses and food, look really outdated after a couple of years. TV companies like to be able to run things over and over. Have a look at some episodes of 'Wheeler Dealers' on Bravo, it's still good but the cars are ancient now.
(Free one for the pedants, I know a two year old Shepherd's pie won't look exactly top drawer but I think my meaning's clear :D)
Because there's a limit on how long you can find it fun to watch a 50year old millionaire drive round in cars you can't afford.
Reruns ;)
Cars, unlike houses and food, look really outdated after a couple of years.
Maybe that's why Top Gear does the challenges with cars that are already dated.
Given that we've all got [knives] - why's there so few programmes about [knives] on mainstream telly?
:mad:
mirage
Because there's a limit on how long you can find it fun to watch a 50year old millionaire drive round in cars you can't afford.
6 million people seem to disagree. (http://upyourego.com/blog/index.php/2007/10/12/top-gear-is-back/)
;)
mirage
Inspector71
19-05-08, 04:09 PM
:mad:
mirage
You've stumbled on the answer - get Clarkson to do an Antiques Roadshow special on edged weapons and Bob's your uncle. He can take the Mikey out of our Draconian laws, get elected to Parliament and we'll be in his debt forever :D
mcleod1518
19-05-08, 04:10 PM
Even girls yes you read correctly girls seem to like Top Gear, I am told its because of the banter and silly things they do (caravanning etc) 5th gear is boring cause its all about cars.:)
Inspector71
19-05-08, 04:13 PM
Reruns ;)
Cars, unlike houses and food, look really outdated after a couple of years.
Funny that they always seem to be the ones I buy too :lol:
Ropeman
19-05-08, 04:19 PM
Perhaps there's a market for another programme:
Mediocre Gear. Watch a middle-aged man you earn more than drive a rustbucket to the shops.
Hepotec
19-05-08, 04:22 PM
Perhaps there's a market for another programme:
Mediocre Gear. Watch a middle-aged man you earn more than drive a rustbucket to the shops.
My kids do that most days. They seem to like it.:D
Ropeman
19-05-08, 04:24 PM
My kids do that most days. They seem to like it.:D
Hopefully they are quite spendy. I can see a rather lucrative niche here :D
Hepotec
19-05-08, 04:25 PM
Hopefully they are quite spendy. I can see a rather lucrative niche here :D
Nothing they like more. Just like their mum.
Ropeman
19-05-08, 04:30 PM
Excellent. You, Mirage and The Inspector. Testing Austin Allegros head to head with Fiat Pandas. Which glove box holds the most Werthers? How loud is the indicator clicker for those absent minded moments? How well does the upholstery match your slacks?
A car blanket mega-test, does tartan pattern affect wasp repellency on picnics?
Is it better to shovel up the bits that fall off or does the weight reduction help?
We'll have advertisers biting our hands off.
Inspector71
19-05-08, 04:37 PM
Excellent. You, Mirage and The Inspector. Testing Austin Allegros head to head with Fiat Pandas. Which glove box holds the most Werthers? How loud is the indicator clicker for those absent minded moments? How well does the upholstery match your slacks?
A car blanket mega-test, does tartan pattern affect wasp repellency on picnics?
Is it better to shovel up the bits that fall off or does the weight reduction help?
We'll have advertisers biting our hands off.
:lol:
I have just the elbow patches for the job...
I've always wanted groupies.
Goodness me, I got off for my Weather and Climate exam and it all turns to car talk. :rolleyes: :lol:
Excellent. You, Mirage and The Inspector. Testing Austin Allegros head to head with Fiat Pandas. Which glove box holds the most Werthers? How loud is the indicator clicker for those absent minded moments? How well does the upholstery match your slacks?
A car blanket mega-test, does tartan pattern affect wasp repellency on picnics?
:D
Is it easy to drive wearing M&S slippers?
Can I still hitch my trouser waist up to my armpits when the vinyl seats are saturated with wee?
Is there room on the bumper for my Daily Mail, "Immigrants cause global warming" sticker?
:D
mirage
6 million people seem to disagree. (http://upyourego.com/blog/index.php/2007/10/12/top-gear-is-back/)
;)
mirage
Nearly as many people watched Jade Goody on Big Brother and that doesn't mean it was worth the air time. :P
Not that I mind Top Gear, sometimes it's pretty dull but it's often quite good.
Is there room on the bumper for my Daily Mail, "Immigrants cause global warming" sticker?
mirage
:D Need to spead the rep.
I like Clarkson for many of the reasons already stated. His column in The Times (http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/jeremy_clarkson/) is equally amusing and strangley informative :)
Mirage: please explain why making more efficient use of the energy and raw materials available to us is a BAD thing.
MushiSushi
19-05-08, 09:59 PM
Rationalisations are essentially lacking the quality of discovery and uncovering; they only confirm the emotional prejudice existing in oneself. Rationalising is not a tool for penetration of reality, but a post factum attempt to harmonize one's own wishes (conscious, or unconscious) with existing reality.
Erich Fromm
:)
(I believe it's well over 40% of the population in some developed countries according to some studies)
That is a blimmin' brilliant statistic.. :D
Mirage: please explain why making more efficient use of the energy and raw materials available to us is a BAD thing.
:huh:
I didn't say that it was.
I don't believe in waste or ostentatious consumption.
However, neither do I believe in hair shirts and finger-pointing.
I also believe that we are not nearly as short of a lot of important stuff as people would like to have us believe.
mirage
:huh:
I also believe that we are not nearly as short of a lot of important stuff as people would like to have us believe.
mirage
Aren't we? Would any of that important stuff be gold or platinum? If so, I am a little short so I'd be willing to trade you one lightly used, but very rare, hair shirt for a few lbs of either. :)
:huh:
I didn't say that it was.
I don't believe in waste or ostentatious consumption.
However, neither do I believe in hair shirts and finger-pointing.
I also believe that we are not nearly as short of a lot of important stuff as people would like to have us believe.
mirage
Well if you believe that then we have some common ground and can get on with sorting out what is the best way we can use what we have for the benefit of everybody.
What I object to is stereotyping people who care about this issue as either stupid or part of some bizzare 'freedom hating' conspiracy.
What i find strange about this thread, is that i pretty much agree with a part of everyone's posts in this thread.
But its the way people get the point across. Whether their argument is valid or not, that can make the difference in taking notice, or not.
Which brings me neatly back to Jeremy Clarkson. Some of his opinions are like my own, but its the way he puts them across that really grinds my gears.
The earth goes round the sun, so we are told. I haven't done the experiments myself, but I am prepared to go along with it - whilst maintaining some skepticism.
Here's a website: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm :D
What i find strange about this thread, is that i pretty much agree with a part of everyone's posts in this thread.
But its the way people get the point across. Whether their argument is valid or not, that can make the difference in taking notice, or not.
Which brings me neatly back to Jeremy Clarkson. Some of his opinions are like my own, but its the way he puts them across that really grinds my gears.
Yes I think that's the real issue here. Honest debate is a fundamental part of science but it seems to have been lost in politics. Nobody wants to be proven wrong but most of us are, most of the time.
The trouble is that as soon as one person starts getting beligerant it makes it that much harder for everyone else to back down.
The real irony is that a lot of what JC likes about performance car technology is likely to be a big part of the solution eg lightweight materials, efficient electronic engine mapping
But you almost get the impression that if he had been around in Brunell's day he would have been first on the bandwagon condemning internal combustion engines.
Ropeman
20-05-08, 08:16 AM
"Namby-Pamby Whigs, telling me I can't drive my coal fired horse round the streets"
Kind of thing? :D
It's the voice that polarises people, I'd say. His views, while deliberately controversial and contrary are fairly acceptable in the big scheme of things. He's obviously trying to model himself slightly on that other great motoring journalist PJ O'Rourke and that's no bad thing, they both write well and manage to get points across that I disagree with because they are funny.
What grates on my nerves are Clarkson's odd intonations and End Of Sentence Emphases. He's that know-all bore down the pub and nobody likes talking to that guy, do they?
BorderReiver
20-05-08, 10:18 AM
I don't have a TV at home and am only exposed to the medium when I'm on holiday. That's the reason, I suppose, that I find him to be an obnoxious onanist. Probably just the manner of presentation which is expected on populist TV shows and not his fault I suppose.
He allegedly has two doctorates and can't be unintelligent but I find his "two brains" attitude irritating. SWMBO has an IQ in the top 1% of the population (Mensa) so I'm not an inverted intelligence snob.
Ropeman sums him up well IMO as the pub bore.
Ropeman
20-05-08, 10:37 AM
He allegedly has two doctorates and can't be unintelligent
Honorary doctorates so not much mental effort on his part.
Honorary doctorates so not much mental effort on his part.
Gordon Brown has one (http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/releases/detail/876), so QED.
:rolleyes:
mirage
Inspector71
20-05-08, 10:53 AM
Gordon Brown has one (http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/releases/detail/876), so QED.
:lol:
His real one (Edinburgh, 1982) sounds particularly thrilling - the title of his thesis was The Labour Party and Political Change in Scotland 1918-29.
I feel strangely sleepy all of a sudden...
:...The Labour Party and Political Change in Scotland 1918-29.
I feel strangely sleepy all of a sudden...
I just woke up with QWERTY face and a keyboard full of drool.
:D
mirage
BorderReiver
20-05-08, 11:53 AM
:lol:
His real one (Edinburgh, 1982) sounds particularly thrilling - the title of his thesis was The Labour Party and Political Change in Scotland 1918-29.
I feel strangely sleepy all of a sudden...
:)
So he is the pub bore.:rolleyes:
Another reason people are sick of environmentalists is all this talk about climate and global warming is horrendously boring. For proof I could quote the 5 or 6 pages of 500+ word replies on this very subject in this thread that is supposed to be about Clarkson. It is enough to make you hope the world will end soon.
I wish there were more peopl4e in the UK who like Jeremy are fed up with the whole Nannystate where you can't hunt on your own land because some people most of whom live in the city don't like it ,where CCTV cameras record you thousands of times a day and are completely ineffective in preventing the kinds of crimes they were supposedly put up to stop ,where taking responsibility for your own safety rather than relying on those ineffective cameras is considered a crime and especially people have been so mind*&^%$ed by the media that they see knives and guns as evil rather than the person who has used them.
The UK has become a cautionary tale about what can happen when a segment of the population gets so scared that they trade everybodys feedom away for the illusion of security.
A lot of people see Clarkson as a voice of reason.
I could not believe that a supposedly free country like 5the UK had gotten so bad as far as censorship that a knife forum has rules against almost any discussion of one of the FS Dagger and what it means to the history of your country!(this is a discusion of the rule not5 of the dagger).
It is things like that that make people who are not ignorant rednecks but are tired of the nannystate find Clarkson appealing.
Ropeman
20-05-08, 07:45 PM
In the vein of Clarkson style straight talking:
"How about you look after Canada and stop whining about my country?"
Short enough for you?
What a strange post. Starts with a bash on environmental discussion and then a load of argument compleatly unrelated to the issue.
Just because it doesn't interest you we shouldn't talk about it, doesn't that sound a little bit like the supposed censorship your so annoyed about when it comes to a topic you are interested in?
Prophecy
20-05-08, 07:50 PM
Unsub, you must have very big fingers. :D
JC says what much of Britain thinks, but no longer dares to utter without a couple of pints inside them and within their own four walls.
He is a beacon of non-PC-ness in a drab, grey landscape of frightened conformity.
Long may he rant.
mirage
JC says what much of Britain thinks, but no longer dares to utter without a couple of pints inside them and within their own four walls.
Nah, cant agree with that one.
Pretty far off the mark in my own opinion.
He is a beacon of non-PC-ness in a drab, grey landscape of frightened conformity.
Do you honestly think that?
Like I said earlier, I think he's a bit of a buffoon but I can't help but like him.
Come and live in Devon, we have got non-pc in buckets, its colourful and no ones frightened (at least no one I know).
Jeremy Clarkson certainly doesn't look a beacon of anything from here, he's just a bit witty.
Prophecy
20-05-08, 08:03 PM
Harsh words Mirage!
:lol:
JC says what much of Britain thinks
Nah! I think you missed it there. He's a comedian of sorts, and the reason people laugh is because he takes partially formed opinions and pursues them a step beyond sense
He's a kind of satirist in that regard, like - but one satirising the opinions he articulates, rather than the PC notions that appear to be his object of attack. Rather clever, in a Whitehouse-ish way.
I like him more and more :)
I also agree with most of his opinions on cars. His review of the Ford Lightning truck was spot on. It has a fantastic motor but handles like a shopping cart with a wobbly wheel. I also hate flappypaddle gear boxes and automatics. I also have a 03 Civic SIR(and a GMC 4X4 pickup and several offroad vehicles and motorbikes:D ) which is much superior to the newer heavier 08 SIR. I was thrilled to see Jeremy's review the other day even mentioned the way Honda changed the suspension which is fantastic in my car.
This may be the first post actually about his car reviews.
I think it is so incredibly ironic that there are people upset that I would say something negative about the UK's anti everything environmentalist nannystate when for so long they have been the ones doing exactly that ,"telling other people the way they are living is wrong". You are kind of missing the point.
I don't care what you do ,it is when you start using environmentalism or the strange irrational fear for inanimate objects Britons seem to have as a reason to control others. If you for example chose to be a vegetarian I have no problem with that, but I hunt wild game for my food and if you don't like it no one is making you do it but don't try to stop me.
It is mostly people from Europe and the US who every year try to stop the seal hunt here in Canada.
Seals are not the least bit endangered. Neither are foxes in the UK for that matter so why should one person be allowed to decide for everybody that hunting which my family and I have done for generations is now suddenly wrong and I should have to leave my home in order to feed and clothe myself and my children.
If you don't like hunting fine ,dont do it and don't buy the products but don't try to force me to live according to your rules.
Personally I think this fear of actually being an animal ourselves comes from living to much in cities and not having to see where your food comes from and how real animals and plants live. Where I live humans are still a important apex predator and as much a part of the ecosystem as any other animal. Humans have hunted here for 10 000 years. If we all suddenly stopped it would be an environmental disaster.
Hunting is just one example of how the PC movement (fascism for pussies:D )
wants to control people. The right to self defence ,the way we are not even allowed to discuss certain topics or drive the kind of vehicle we would choose.
It seems the right wing wants to steal are rights out of fear of terrorism(this week anyway) and the left wants to steal our rights for our own good.
Ropeman
21-05-08, 07:15 AM
Well, I imagine you'd consider it rude for me to say your kids are ugly and stupid. It's context, criticism from outsiders is far less welcome than from those who belong. You don't like my country? Fine. Just don't expect me to sit by while you criticise it constantly.
Who, exactly has told you not to hunt, by the way? You are making things up to bolster your argument, aren't you?
"People in Britain won't let me hunt, People in Britain won't let me ride my Quad, People in Britain are controlling what I say or do." Perhaps concentrate on the people in Saskatchewan who may actually be trying to stop you doing things?
I think it is so incredibly ironic that there are people upset that I would say something negative about the UK's anti everything environmentalist nannystate when for so long they have been the ones doing exactly that ,"telling other people the way they are living is wrong". You are kind of missing the point.
I think you are kind of missing the point.
I live in the UK. I hunt and fish for food, not just for myself but for others too. It's quite legal, nobody bothers about it and nobody tries to stop me.
You have a false picture of what it's like in the UK. Don't worry, it happens a lot on the Internet.
"People in Britain won't let me hunt, People in Britain won't let me ride my Quad, People in Britain are controlling what I say or do." Perhaps concentrate on the people in Saskatchewan who may actually be trying to stop you doing things?
What Canada has taken from Britain, and which are deadly dangerous in terms of how many tax dollars are gobbled up by them, are Public Private Partnerships. Schools, Hospitals etc. now cost a fortune more than they did, and most of that cash is given to venture capitalists - it reeks
I live in the UK. I hunt and fish for food, not just for myself but for others too. It's quite legal, nobody bothers about it and nobody tries to stop me.
It is, however, not a right.
You have had to jump through innumerable legal hoops in order to do what you do, and your entitlement can be taken away at the stroke of a pen.
mirage
Hepotec
21-05-08, 09:17 AM
And would you still be bleating about the right to do whatever you fancy when the animals you love so much have been removed from your land by greedy hunters or the rivers polluted by mining or unscrupulously polluting farming practices. Farmers should have the right to do whatever they like too.
Its less than two centuries ago that the buffalo were sweeping majestically across the plains, before a small group of hunters with a desire to be "free" slaughtered the vast majority and wiped out the livelihood of tens of thousands of other people. But at least no one tried to make them part of a nanny state.
Will you still be standing up for the absence of rules when trawlers with ten mile long nets are hoovering the seas around your coast.
Presumably bear baiting is OK too? "Hey, I've got rights too. If I want to cruelly torment a noble animal for days I should be allowed to. Don't try to fence me in with your cityfolk ways...."
Inspector71
21-05-08, 09:33 AM
This may be the first post actually about his car reviews.
True - one other thing you mustn't expect of Brits is to stick to the point :D
I think it is so incredibly ironic that there are people upset that I would say something negative about the UK's anti everything environmentalist nannystate when for so long they have been the ones doing exactly that ,"telling other people the way they are living is wrong". You are kind of missing the point.
I don't care what you do ,it is when you start using environmentalism or the strange irrational fear for inanimate objects Britons seem to have as a reason to control others.
I don't think you could come up with much evidence of us wanting to control others on the basis of any of our Nanny State laws. We don't really care what others get up to unless they directly affect us.
We will happily try and control others if they have something that we (or our friends in the 'Special Relationship') want on the other hand...
If you for example chose to be a vegetarian I have no problem with that, but I hunt wild game for my food and if you don't like it no one is making you do it but don't try to stop me.
It is mostly people from Europe and the US who every year try to stop the seal hunt here in Canada.
Seals are not the least bit endangered. Neither are foxes in the UK for that matter so why should one person be allowed to decide for everybody that hunting which my family and I have done for generations is now suddenly wrong and I should have to leave my home in order to feed and clothe myself and my children.
If you don't like hunting fine ,dont do it and don't buy the products but don't try to force me to live according to your rules.
It's not that we don't like hunting per se but the great majority of us have no exposure to it for a long time and have lost our understanding of it. You're next paragraph is pretty much spot on about the reasons I think...
Personally I think this fear of actually being an animal ourselves comes from living to much in cities and not having to see where your food comes from and how real animals and plants live. Where I live humans are still a important apex predator and as much a part of the ecosystem as any other animal. Humans have hunted here for 10 000 years. If we all suddenly stopped it would be an environmental disaster.
We're not quite as bad as you suggest but it is becoming true that kids don't seem to know anything on the whole about nature in our inner cities. The origins of this problem are older than Canada itself though - so you shouldn't moan about us too much. It's not our generation's fault - or even that of out great-great grandfathers.
Ever since the beginnings of the Inclosure Acts (which started way back in the 13th century) in England and Wales the 'Common Land' where the 'Common Man' could excercise his ancient rights have gone. There's no doubt that there's more of a whiff of the Frontier about Canada than there's ever been here. The great majority of us have lost what connection we had to the 'Wild Land' generations ago. Some of us rural types are still close to the land - but as a nation (in the main) of arable farmers.
You can still buy and own large tracts of land in Canada. That's been impossible for all of us (excepting a couple of dozen of the super-rich maybe) - as it's pretty much all been in private hands already for hundreds of years. The 'Common Man' (i.e. me - although as I'm a Pu$$ie I probably couldn't shoot straight ;) ) cannot hunt for food by right. It's long been a privelige granted by others.
We are all poachers unless we ask nicely...
Scotland is a slightly different case, and I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to talk about it.
Hunting is just one example of how the PC movement (fascism for pussies:D ) wants to control people. The right to self defence ,the way we are not even allowed to discuss certain topics or drive the kind of vehicle we would choose. It seems the right wing wants to steal are rights out of fear of terrorism(this week anyway) and the left wants to steal our rights for our own good.
If you think Britain has already succumbed to what you descrobe asd the PC movement - you're just wrong.
It's good to get strong point of view and your post above is welcome. We just get a bit jumpy when you diss our land for what we think of as the wrong reasons. You have rights as a Canadian that the kind of people who frequent this forum are kind of jealous of. Be thankful and stop pi**ing on others who don't have the same things as you for reasons that have loooooooong been beyond the current generation's control. :)
It's not that we don't like hunting per se but the great majority of us have no exposure to it for a long time and have lost our understanding of it.
The intended result, just via a different route.
You can still buy and own large tracts of land in Canada. That's been impossible for all of us (excepting a couple of dozen of the super-rich maybe) - as it's pretty much all been in private hands already for hundreds of years.
:huh:
"1. You can only buy things if you have enough money.
2. You can't buy things someone else already owns.
3. Being rich (Boo! Hiss!) is bad."
:rolleyes:
If you think Britain has already succumbed to what you descrobe asd the PC movement - you're just wrong.
OK: Prove Unsub wrong. Walk into your local gun shop, buy a rifle and ammo, go to a National Park ("We all own them.") and shoot me a deer.
;)
mirage
MushiSushi
21-05-08, 09:58 AM
when these threads go the way of perceived attacks and defensive postures ensue, no good can ever come of them. Perspective narrows to a pinhole and everything is perceived with a presupposed prejudice. We see attacks where the are no attacks and we read in to every nuance, what our autonomous mental defences dictate. we become puppets, pulled by the strings of our phylogenetically inherited defences.
step away from the computer and stop reacting :love03:
when these threads go the way of perceived attacks and defensive postures ensue, no good can ever come of them. Perspective narrows to a pinhole and everything is perceived with a presupposed prejudice. We see attacks where the are no attacks and we read in to every nuance, what our autonomous mental defences dictate. we become puppets, pulled by the strings of our phylogenetically inherited defences.
http://1word.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/dalai-lama-1.jpg
As he said to the hot dog vendor: "Make me one with everything."
mirage
beachcaster
21-05-08, 10:14 AM
...we become puppets, pulled by the strings of our phylogenetically inherited defences.
:
I was thinking that :):):)
Barry
Hepotec
21-05-08, 10:27 AM
when these threads go the way of perceived attacks and defensive postures ensue, no good can ever come of them. Perspective narrows to a pinhole and everything is perceived with a presupposed prejudice. We see attacks where the are no attacks and we read in to every nuance, what our autonomous mental defences dictate. we become puppets, pulled by the strings of our phylogenetically inherited defences.
step away from the computer and stop reacting :love03:
I understand that humans are full of complexity, but you have created something of a (or two) tortology there.
How can I step away from the computer, if I am subject to the whim of the puppetmaster? Surely, only the puppetmaster can move me away from the computer. Which begs the question, I am subject to predeterminism.
And your reaction to the perceived attacks in this thread is advise that we all stop reaction.
Au contraire, you stop reacting.:D
I...you have created tortology...
Isn't the study of tortoises called herpetology?
;)
mirage
MushiSushi
21-05-08, 10:37 AM
I understand that humans are full of complexity, but you have created something of a (or two) tortology there.
How can I step away from the computer, if I am subject to the whim of the puppetmaster? Surely, only the puppetmaster can move me away from the computer. Which begs the question, I am subject to predeterminism.
You have, predictably, dichotomised the subject, as usual happens when predeterminism is discussed ;). Just because we can behave like puppets upon the strings of our unconscious urges doesn't mean that we don't have the option to impose our will over them. Predeterminism and free will exist side by side and the debate of 1 versus t'other is completely myopic :P ;) :D
And your reaction to the perceived attacks in this thread is advise that we all stop reaction.
Au contraire, you stop reacting.:D
I could perceive that as an attack, but I choose not to ;) :P :D
Mushi proposes, Hepotec disposes.
mirage
BorderReiver
21-05-08, 10:55 AM
To side step the philosophical discussion for a moment, when we have finished polluting the sea and killed off the plankton and cut down the last rain Forrest, where's our oxygen going to come from?
To side step the philosophical discussion for a moment, when we have finished polluting the sea and killed off the plankton and cut down the last rain Forrest, where's our oxygen going to come from?
We will probably be long gone before photosynthesising organisms disappear.
...when we have finished polluting the sea and killed off the plankton and cut down the last rain Forrest, where's our oxygen going to come from?
We can rely on a never-ending supply of hot air from Brussels and Westminster.
mirage
watcher
21-05-08, 11:20 AM
eleven pages from Jeremy Clarkson to here ... WOW ... never say BB ain't educational :D
Nicola
BorderReiver
21-05-08, 11:31 AM
eleven pages from Jeremy Clarkson to here ... WOW ... never say BB ain't educational :D
Nicola
Educational or not Nicola, I think that we should all get out more.:P
Ropeman
21-05-08, 11:33 AM
To side step the philosophical discussion for a moment, when we have finished polluting the sea and killed off the plankton and cut down the last rain Forrest, where's our oxygen going to come from?
The bacteria will carry on, as they always have. Whether we are on their planet or not is immaterial to them.
Hepotec
21-05-08, 11:34 AM
To side step the philosophical discussion for a moment, when we have finished polluting the sea and killed off the plankton and cut down the last rain Forrest, where's our oxygen going to come from?
B&Q?
The bacteria will carry on, as they always have. Whether we are on their planet or not is immaterial to them.
As I said:
We can rely on a never-ending supply of hot air from Brussels and Westminster.
Do keep up.
;)
mirage
BorderReiver
21-05-08, 11:39 AM
We can rely on a never-ending supply of hot air from Brussels and Westminster.
mirage
One bijou problemet; they have to breathe to heat it up.
Hepotec
21-05-08, 11:40 AM
You have, predictably, dichotomised the subject, as usual happens when predeterminism is discussed ;). Just because we can behave like puppets upon the strings of our unconscious urges doesn't mean that we don't have the option to impose our will over them.
Oh, we've gone all Schrodinger, now. I either have free will or not. I can't choose to have free will if someone else is pulling the strings. Pinocchio was just made up, he didn't really get the choice whether to be a boy or a puppet. In reality, Geppetto made him, pulled the strings and then finally consigned him to the box marked "To be recycled into knife handles". Pinocchio simply danced and cavorted, for a short time, at the whim of another.
BorderReiver
21-05-08, 11:42 AM
The bacteria will carry on, as they always have. Whether we are on their planet or not is immaterial to them.
Given that oxygen is poisonous and was produced by the first algae, the bacteria will be overjoyed to see the back of us oxygen breathers.:)
mcleod1518
21-05-08, 11:47 AM
Mmmmmmmmm I wonder if Jeremy Clarkson can earn 500 posts ? Did i mention i like him :D
Prophecy
21-05-08, 04:14 PM
We will probably be long gone before photosynthesising organisms disappear.
AKA Autotrophs.
:D
AKA Autotrophs.
:D
Photoautotrophs, if your being pedantic. :P
Ropeman
21-05-08, 05:01 PM
Photoautotrophs, if your being pedantic. :P
You're, if we're being really pedantic :D
You're, if we're being really pedantic :D
:banghead:
:ralmao:
Hepotec
21-05-08, 05:31 PM
You're, if we're being really pedantic :D
As a true pedant, I feel obliged to point out that a sentence should end in a full stop.
Ropeman
21-05-08, 05:56 PM
It does, a big green one with a wide grin.
:rolleyes:
khimbar1
21-05-08, 06:34 PM
As a true pedant, I feel obliged to point out that a sentence should end in a full stop.
So by that logic you'd say that this isn't a sentence?
Pedant mode off. :D
Hepotec
21-05-08, 07:00 PM
So by that logic you'd say that this isn't a sentence?
Pedant mode off. :D
The bit at the bottom is a full stop, the squiggle on top, implies the question.
Hepotec
21-05-08, 07:02 PM
It does, a big green one with a wide grin.
:rolleyes:
Not to my English teacher. Three on each hand in front of the class if I'd tried any of those sort of shenanigins. Made me the man I am. :D
Inspector71
21-05-08, 07:55 PM
:huh:
"1. You can only buy things if you have enough money.
2. You can't buy things someone else already owns.
3. Being rich (Boo! Hiss!) is bad."
:rolleyes:
;)
mirage
I was as clear as mud there wasn't I. I was just trying to put the question of land ownership into context in the respective countries.
Nothing wrong with being rich. I quite fancy it meself. It's just that significant land ownership is less of a realistic proposition here than in Canada. When I do the tour of my "Estate" the only things numerous enough to survive a hunting regime are ants and earthworms. That same circa £350k/$700k would probably get me into at least squirrel territory in Seskatchawatchamacallit :lol:
What a mad thread :)
Not nearly enough ear wax in it though. Especially the metphysical nature of earwax...
I mean you don't actually see it 'till it's out so would Schroedinger have been interested?
...would Schroedinger have been interested?
Too busy sealing cats in boxes and killing them.
Let's not interrupt: I don't like cats.
:D
mirage
Hepotec
22-05-08, 09:40 AM
I don't like cats.
:D
mirage
After all this time we have finally found something you don't like. And I thought you'd just love those cute, furry little critters.:D
Slightly offtopic, but can't wait for the new season of TopGear.
They've been spotted filming in the UAE, with 3 (THREE) Bugatti Veyrons, and a Koniegsegg ... they've got to have a race surely, with Stigg in the Konieg perhaps? :D
Hepotec
22-05-08, 01:57 PM
Slightly offtopic, but can't wait for the new season of TopGear.
They've been spotted filming in the UAE, with 3 (THREE) Bugatti Veyrons, and a Koniegsegg ... they've got to have a race surely, with Stigg in the Konieg perhaps? :D
I saw a Koniegsegg yesterday, and must say, I wasn't that impressed. Much more boxy than I thought. And sounded quite tame too, but it was in a 30 zone.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.