Chill!

Catweazle · Post by **Catweazle** » 03 Dec 2010, 13:20

Vortex wrote:
Andy Hunt wrote:Hey look - it's PowerSwitch!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2m9SNzxJJA
So why the heck did I have to spend a chunk of my life watching that meaningless exchange?

So the rest of us don't have to. Thanks

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 03 Dec 2010, 17:26

You only need to watch 2 minutes of it to get the picture. Not to mention to feel some despair towards the level of intelligence of some of those in power. It was akin to watching a teacher patiently trying to explain something to a stubborn child who just didn't want to learn. A quote from the film Grease springs to mind, "Simple are his looks. His brains are in his biceps".

For once, a sensible article from the Telegraph.

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 03 Dec 2010, 21:22

caspian wrote:
Ludwig wrote:I think he's described himself as an AGW-sceptic, actually.
No such thing. "AGW sceptic" is a denialist term which they use to make themselves seem less like swivel-eyed loonies. A bit like creationism has now become "intelligent design".

One can be sceptical about all sorts of things. Whether the reason is ignorance, stupidity or self-delusion, one is still sceptical.

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 03 Dec 2010, 21:34

caspian wrote:
Yes, quite. Climate deniers are very one-sided sceptics, because they never challenge their own dogma.

Sceptics can be sceptical for several reasons. One may be that they're not experts and prefer to stick their heads in the sand. So what? They're still sceptics.

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 03 Dec 2010, 21:38

caspian wrote: Not quite sure how pointing out the similarity in mindsets between such groups equates to childishness, but that's your problem. The similarities exist whether you like it or not. Check out Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time - although it doesn't cover climate science, many of the arguments are pertinent to that subject.

People who write articles like that start out from the premise that certain things "cannot be", rather than from evidence, of which in some cases there is plenty.

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 03 Dec 2010, 21:47

Andy Hunt wrote: A prime example of making up untruths to support your argument. I stated quite clearly in my post that we can never be 100% sure when it comes to climate science, Catweazle said the same just a few posts back and many others have also said so.

Meanwhile, Caspian referred to AGW sceptics as "swivel-eyed loonies".

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 03 Dec 2010, 21:52

I must have been a "swivel-eyed loony" to keep reading this thread.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 03 Dec 2010, 22:01

Bandidoz wrote:It was akin to watching a teacher patiently trying to explain something to a stubborn child who just didn't want to learn.

Yes, that's what I got from it too. Did you notice the bit where the senator said something along the lines of, "I'm not a beard, so I don't understand these things" obviously derogatorily referring to the scientist.

I thought he did pretty well to explain ice ages in the 15-sorry, 30 seconds he was given to do so.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 03 Dec 2010, 22:03

Ludwig wrote:
Andy Hunt wrote: A prime example of making up untruths to support your argument. I stated quite clearly in my post that we can never be 100% sure when it comes to climate science, Catweazle said the same just a few posts back and many others have also said so.
Meanwhile, Caspian referred to AGW sceptics as "swivel-eyed loonies".

It's true that Christopher Monckton has given the 'sceptics' a bit of a bad image. A bit 'ad hominem' though, I grant you.

woodpecker · Post by **woodpecker** » 03 Dec 2010, 22:06

Can I point out that the people who run the various sceptic societies, and have been doing so for years, are more than a little pissed off as this new use of the term is causing them no end of problems, with confused people thinking the climate lot are part of the same mob.

Post by **clv101** » 03 Dec 2010, 22:20

Andy Hunt wrote:
Bandidoz wrote:It was akin to watching a teacher patiently trying to explain something to a stubborn child who just didn't want to learn.
Yes, that's what I got from it too. Did you notice the bit where the senator said something along the lines of, "I'm not a beard, so I don't understand these things" obviously derogatorily referring to the scientist.

I thought he did pretty well to explain ice ages in the 15-sorry, 30 seconds he was given to do so.

Richard Alley is an incredibly well respected geoscientist. You can't attend an academic conference on oceanography, glaciology or climate change without Alley being mentioned within a couple of hours. Credit to him for engaging with politicians - it can't be fun.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 05 Dec 2010, 15:44

The earlier draft had >95% but was changed to >90% at the behest of the delegations from China and Saudi Arabia.

The scientists wanted >95% and I'm not sure that an even larger number was available to the scientists.

Anyway, why are we still debating whether the Earth is flat?

the mad cyclist · Post by **the mad cyclist** » 05 Dec 2010, 18:01

Just for you RenewableCandy; picture taken by my daughter on the way to York last Thursday morning.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 05 Dec 2010, 21:33

Blimey

!!

nexus · Post by **nexus** » 06 Dec 2010, 09:23

well 'ard them northerners