|
Post by Skankmonkey on Apr 29, 2016 23:11:15 GMT
Right in that mate. File carbon trading along with sustainable development, ethical investment and environmentally friendly planning in the bucket marked Snake Oil/Wishful thinking :-)
Man made global warming is definitely a thing though.
Sorry, let my inner tree hugger out there. Bedtime.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Apr 30, 2016 3:02:10 GMT
Please take my views with a pinch of salt - I have no evidence, just a lot of skepticism about Obama and the Clintons. What I suspect, based on what I hear and my general view on the world, is that the Democrats have sponsored a lot of dubious research and had it labelled as science. Carbon trading will make some people a lot of money... On most things you should ignore what I say (I thought Afellay was dogshit ) but I'm pretty clued up on this. There's tons of persuasive anti-science, just like when some of the same groups told us that smoking doesn't cause cancer. They helped and encouraged people to kill themselves and basically got away with it so it's no wonder they have the balls to do it again. When 97% of science points one way that should mean something and although the Mail thinks it's all a global conspiracy it's hard to believe that Obama and Al Gore hopped into their time machine and held a gun to Svante Arrhenius' head while he first calculated global warming back in 1896. I know it's become super political, but I hate it when politicians smear scientists to win votes or keep their funders happy. That's what's going on now; they've been so effective at bullshitting that many people think that there's a serious scientific debate over whether man-made global warming is happening or not. Science is one of our best tools and a one of the brightest lights lit by the western englightenment: these bullshitters are destroying trust in it and I can never support one of them.
|
|
|
Post by Skankmonkey on Apr 30, 2016 7:18:55 GMT
Please take my views with a pinch of salt - I have no evidence, just a lot of skepticism about Obama and the Clintons. What I suspect, based on what I hear and my general view on the world, is that the Democrats have sponsored a lot of dubious research and had it labelled as science. Carbon trading will make some people a lot of money... On most things you should ignore what I say (I thought Afellay was dogshit ) but I'm pretty clued up on this. There's tons of persuasive anti-science, just like when some of the same groups told us that smoking doesn't cause cancer. They helped and encouraged people to kill themselves and basically got away with it so it's no wonder they have the balls to do it again. When 97% of science points one way that should mean something and although the Mail thinks it's all a global conspiracy it's hard to believe that Obama and Al Gore hopped into their time machine and held a gun to Svante Arrhenius' head while he first calculated global warming back in 1896. I know it's become super political, but I hate it when politicians smear scientists to win votes or keep their funders happy. That's what's going on now; they've been so effective at bullshitting that many people think that there's a serious scientific debate over whether man-made global warming is happening or not. Science is one of our best tools and a one of the brightest lights lit by the western englightenment: these bullshitters are destroying trust in it and I can never support one of them. 100% this.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Apr 30, 2016 7:25:25 GMT
We wunna have to pay fuck all, we can protect ourselves. (It's surely aimed at countries like, say, Austria or someone)
MMGW is a load of bollocks.
Putin is a great leader who has actually got the bollocks to do something about scumbag terrorists.
Atleast Trump doesn't hate the British, unlike the tosser in the White House right now.
|
|
|
Post by Skankmonkey on Apr 30, 2016 7:43:42 GMT
We wunna have to pay fuck all, we can protect ourselves. (It's surely aimed at countries like, say, Austria or someone) MMGW is a load of bollocks. Putin is a great leader who has actually got the bollocks to do something about scumbag terrorists. Atleast Trump doesn't hate the British, unlike the tosser in the White House right now. He specifically referred to "allies" DC. Austria is neutral though a "partner" of NATO. I fear he means us. Say's "even our allies do not respect the US". "If they wont pay, they defend themselves" Disagree with most of the rest. :-)
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Apr 30, 2016 7:51:19 GMT
The US doesn't defend us, though. And we're always first in-line to help the US out whenever they decide another country needs a regime change... And even if he does mean us I couldn't give a toss, we're big & ugly enough to look after ourselves... Just like we had to do in 1982. What do you disagree with? Are you saying Putin bends over & takes it up the arse off Saudi Arabia, too? That Obama loves Britain, British people & British companies? That Penguins have become extinct & Holland is no longer on any maps? You know I'm right, just like I'm always right
|
|
|
Post by Skankmonkey on Apr 30, 2016 8:40:06 GMT
:-):-):-) Well. You are right about FVZ. I'll give you that. The rest......meh! . Back in a bit mate :-)
|
|
|
Post by Skankmonkey on Apr 30, 2016 11:06:26 GMT
The US doesn't defend us, though. And we're always first in-line to help the US out whenever they decide another country needs a regime change... And even if he does mean us I couldn't give a toss, we're big & ugly enough to look after ourselves... Just like we had to do in 1982. What do you disagree with? Are you saying Putin bends over & takes it up the arse off Saudi Arabia, too? That Obama loves Britain, British people & British companies? That Penguins have become extinct & Holland is no longer on any maps? You know I'm right, just like I'm always right So in Nato we aren't under the protection of the US Nuclear arsenal? I think you are kidding yourself if you think Trident will deter them if any big boys come out to play. Remember that BBC prog about the confrontation over Latvia that you posted a thread about? I think only mey and they commented as I recall. I hold to the same view as then, that our deterrent is largely there to guarantee our permanent place on the Security Council as a US ally. And maintaining the nuclear deterrent at the expense of our conventional forces in no defence at all IMHO.
You do me a disservice I think DC, I'm not your factory issue stereotype hand wringer. I have an enduring respect for Britain's military and it's traditions and history. I may not have served myself, but there is a family tradition and over the best part of 25 years I've never let my squeamishness get in the way of taking on the odd contract with them (and similar) in some interesting parts of the world.
There are people far better qualified here than me to say whether we currently have the capacity to carry out an operation like 1982. I'd hope so but I suspect not.
We tolerate Saudi Arabia for obscure historical reasons but mainly because they buy our weapons.
I'm not privy to what Obama thinks. I don't keep up much nowadays. There are plenty of experts on here to consult.
As to the penguins I could have gone once but didn't. I doubt I would have counted them anyway.
And Holland is still here due to fluid displacement dynamics - Hint: Most of the ice that has melted so far has been sea ice. Wait till the Greenland ice cap sloughs off. Wait till the hydrated methane at the bottom of the oceans is released! The end is nigh chance whether Trump plays a role or not. - sorry tree hugger got out again.
Armageddon through to you yet?
Just out of interest mate, have you ever resided in a communist country? And I don't mean Lemmingrad or wherever it is.
On a different note I have a music thread lined up for Tuesday that might be of interest to you. Plenty of opportunity for you to wind me up anyway, you young scamp!
Let's hope we get a result of some sort today. Have a good weekend mate. I'm probably away eating roadkill in my tent for a couple of days after the match. Yum.
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on Apr 30, 2016 11:31:47 GMT
Please take my views with a pinch of salt - I have no evidence, just a lot of skepticism about Obama and the Clintons. What I suspect, based on what I hear and my general view on the world, is that the Democrats have sponsored a lot of dubious research and had it labelled as science. Carbon trading will make some people a lot of money... On most things you should ignore what I say (I thought Afellay was dogshit ) but I'm pretty clued up on this. There's tons of persuasive anti-science, just like when some of the same groups told us that smoking doesn't cause cancer. They helped and encouraged people to kill themselves and basically got away with it so it's no wonder they have the balls to do it again. When 97% of science points one way that should mean something and although the Mail thinks it's all a global conspiracy it's hard to believe that Obama and Al Gore hopped into their time machine and held a gun to Svante Arrhenius' head while he first calculated global warming back in 1896. I know it's become super political, but I hate it when politicians smear scientists to win votes or keep their funders happy. That's what's going on now; they've been so effective at bullshitting that many people think that there's a serious scientific debate over whether man-made global warming is happening or not. Science is one of our best tools and a one of the brightest lights lit by the western englightenment: these bullshitters are destroying trust in it and I can never support one of them. I share your concern over the mistreatment of science. Thanks for the articles, they look interesting, I'll have a read of them because I'd definitely like to know more.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Apr 30, 2016 19:26:06 GMT
Thanks for the articles, they look interesting, I'll have a read of them because I'd definitely like to know more. I nerd out too much about this but if you're interested in anything else then ask! Now I mostly work with the A-train satellites and I've learned that over and over and over again the criticisms in blogs and newspapers turn out to be bullshit. But they get a lot of coverage and they're better talkers than scientists so it makes sense that they're able to persuade so many people that it's all a hoax. By doing this, they're undermining the scientific method that's behind some of our greatest advances - why bother pointing your spectrometer at the sky and taking measurements if Donald Trump decides that a snowball means the greenhouse effect is a hoax?
|
|