Sanity really has broken out in the US
21 April 2009, 07:59 PM
#91
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But SNet can also be open minded, trusting and supportive.... let's not badge SNet as the bad guy here.
21 April 2009, 08:02 PM
#92
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
21 April 2009, 08:07 PM
#93
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
21 April 2009, 08:11 PM
#94
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is such a pleasant experience, thanks guys
21 April 2009, 08:28 PM
#95
Guest
Posts: n/a
David Ottewell's politics: Moston by-election
" ... Rita Tavernor (Lab) 1353
Derek Adams (BNP) 815
Timothy Hartley (LD) 696
Phil Donohue (Con) 558
Karl Wardlaw (Green) 74 ..."
Sort of shows that 20% on SN could well be 'representative and mainstream'! If I was in one of the larger, more 'established' parties, I'd be a little worried now.
Dave
22 April 2009, 10:07 AM
#96
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martin, Scoobynet is a great place and the rest of us have had some good debates on MMGW. Strangely, you keep trying to join in by claiming that you don't know what to think, then slag the rest of us off for having an opinion. 
I have got some excellent advice here in the past and there have been heartwarming threads such as Sonic's dog who was on the verge of being put down until a whole load of complete strangers chipped in for his treatment.
If you want to be a part of that then stick around, but to be honest I don't know why you bother as you obviously consider most people here to be extremist crazy nutters!
I have got some excellent advice here in the past and there have been heartwarming threads such as Sonic's dog who was on the verge of being put down until a whole load of complete strangers chipped in for his treatment.
If you want to be a part of that then stick around, but to be honest I don't know why you bother as you obviously consider most people here to be extremist crazy nutters!
22 April 2009, 10:15 AM
#97
Martin may be intelligent....... I do not know....
But based on this thread it is the sort of intelligence that would let him say 'a tomato is a fruit' but then he would go and stick it in a fruit salad
Knowledge is not the same as wisdom
But based on this thread it is the sort of intelligence that would let him say 'a tomato is a fruit' but then he would go and stick it in a fruit salad
Knowledge is not the same as wisdom
22 April 2009, 10:24 AM
#98
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No way, he's not intelligent. What he is can be summed up as keen pursuer of the pointless debate, or for that matter a master procrastinator. The rules are simple; pick a subject that has no known solution, end state or cannot (yet) be proved to be factual and then take up an opposing viewpoint. Simple. You persist to quote an opposing view, argue over small points and then play the victim when people start to get frustrated. So again, I don't see anything intelligent springing forth as if that were the case he would have everyone agreeing with him.
22 April 2009, 10:27 AM
#99
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No way, he's not intelligent. What he is can be summed up as keen pursuer of the pointless debate, or for that matter a master procrastinator. The rules are simple; pick a subject that has no known solution, end state or cannot (yet) be proved to be factual and then take up an opposing viewpoint. Simple. You persist to quote an opposing view, argue over small points and then play the victim when people start to get frustrated. So again, I don't see anything intelligent springing forth as if that were the case he would have everyone agreeing with him.
22 April 2009, 10:32 AM
#100
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 April 2009, 10:38 AM
#101
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it would be wrong to say that the human population has no effect whatsoever on the sun's overall effect on the Earth and its climate.
I believe however that political capital has been made out of it as a heaven sent opportunity to invent new taxes and to use it as a means of creating smoke and mirrors about what else is happening due to political actions of one kind and another.
I don't think that the effects on GBW are as great as we have been told and that the climate, which does have perodic changes over the aeons of time anyway, justifies the political conning which is going on at the moment.
I think the important thing is to conserve what we have in the way of energy from Earth resources and to find ways of adding to those in a sensible manner, and to cultivate a a general consensus that we should avoid waste just for the sake of convenience. That lesson was very well learned in the aftermath of WW2.
Les
I believe however that political capital has been made out of it as a heaven sent opportunity to invent new taxes and to use it as a means of creating smoke and mirrors about what else is happening due to political actions of one kind and another.
I don't think that the effects on GBW are as great as we have been told and that the climate, which does have perodic changes over the aeons of time anyway, justifies the political conning which is going on at the moment.
I think the important thing is to conserve what we have in the way of energy from Earth resources and to find ways of adding to those in a sensible manner, and to cultivate a a general consensus that we should avoid waste just for the sake of convenience. That lesson was very well learned in the aftermath of WW2.
Les
22 April 2009, 11:29 AM
#102
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No way, he's not intelligent. What he is can be summed up as keen pursuer of the pointless debate, or for that matter a master procrastinator. The rules are simple; pick a subject that has no known solution, end state or cannot (yet) be proved to be factual and then take up an opposing viewpoint. Simple. You persist to quote an opposing view, argue over small points and then play the victim when people start to get frustrated. So again, I don't see anything intelligent springing forth as if that were the case he would have everyone agreeing with him.
If you find this frustrating ...just for a second imagine how frustrating I find it. I mean try having every word you use deliberately misconstrude.
I fail to see (if any of actually bothered to read what I’ve said on this subject) what aspects are unreasonable, unfair or unfounded…I just don’t understand where you get that from. The cynic in me says this is because it’s easier to paint somebody into a corner than actually answer for your own view point.
If I post up lot’s of IPCC stuff on here, does that really help the debate? Let’s face it, that stuff has pretty much been dismissed by most of you already, (if you want to read it, go to there website, you don’t need me to post it up do you). So what difference does it make? And to say that I’m ignoring the evidence it just unfair, I fully accept that there are 2 sides to this argument, both are valid. I just come back to the ‘balance of probability argument, that if the majority of scientists and governments say we have a problem here, then we probably have a problem here. Again what is unreasonable about that?
The point I wanted to debate, given the popular belief on here, was why has the US changed policy on this issue, and what does that tell us about the way the scientific evidence must be stacking up. Surely that is reasonable?
Finally the conspiracy theories on this subject just don’t pass the logic test as far as I’m concerned, and I’m still awaiting somebody on here to clearly articulate the conspiracy in all its glory.
22 April 2009, 11:39 AM
#103
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must be out of my mind in responding yet again to this …but here goes.
If you find this frustrating ...just for a second imagine how frustrating I find it. I mean try having every word you use deliberately misconstrude.
I fail to see (if any of actually bothered to read what I’ve said on this subject) what aspects are unreasonable, unfair or unfounded…I just don’t understand where you get that from. The cynic in me says this is because it’s easier to paint somebody into a corner than actually answer for your own view point.
If I post up lot’s of IPCC stuff on here, does that really help the debate? Let’s face it, that stuff has pretty much been dismissed by most of you already, (if you want to read it, go to there website, you don’t need me to post it up do you). So what difference does it make? And to say that I’m ignoring the evidence it just unfair, I fully accept that there are 2 sides to this argument, both are valid. I just come back to the ‘balance of probability argument, that if the majority of scientists and governments say we have a problem here, then we probably have a problem here. Again what is unreasonable about that?
The point I wanted to debate, given the popular belief on here, was why has the US changed policy on this issue, and what does that tell us about the way the scientific evidence must be stacking up. Surely that is reasonable?
Finally the conspiracy theories on this subject just don’t pass the logic test as far as I’m concerned, and I’m still awaiting somebody on here to clearly articulate the conspiracy in all its glory.
If you find this frustrating ...just for a second imagine how frustrating I find it. I mean try having every word you use deliberately misconstrude.
I fail to see (if any of actually bothered to read what I’ve said on this subject) what aspects are unreasonable, unfair or unfounded…I just don’t understand where you get that from. The cynic in me says this is because it’s easier to paint somebody into a corner than actually answer for your own view point.
If I post up lot’s of IPCC stuff on here, does that really help the debate? Let’s face it, that stuff has pretty much been dismissed by most of you already, (if you want to read it, go to there website, you don’t need me to post it up do you). So what difference does it make? And to say that I’m ignoring the evidence it just unfair, I fully accept that there are 2 sides to this argument, both are valid. I just come back to the ‘balance of probability argument, that if the majority of scientists and governments say we have a problem here, then we probably have a problem here. Again what is unreasonable about that?
The point I wanted to debate, given the popular belief on here, was why has the US changed policy on this issue, and what does that tell us about the way the scientific evidence must be stacking up. Surely that is reasonable?
Finally the conspiracy theories on this subject just don’t pass the logic test as far as I’m concerned, and I’m still awaiting somebody on here to clearly articulate the conspiracy in all its glory.
See what I mean
....
22 April 2009, 11:49 AM
#105
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're fooling no-one I'm afraid. Do you not think it's strange that no-one is taking your side on this. We can all see you're taken in by all the media hype regarding this, sorry that we don't believe it, but as you still refuse to admit your position or offer any evidence, why should our minds be altered.
BTW, I may well change my mind on this subject if sea level suddenly rose or temperatures suddenly went up, but as they haven't I don't see the evidence in front of me. It's a bit like if God suddenly did loads of miracles, I'd have to change my mind on that subject too.
22 April 2009, 11:56 AM
#106
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not about giving up, it's about having a view and being able to articulate it in such a manner to create a lively debate rather than taking an opposing stance without any specific reason other than to relentlessly request evidence from the opposing side in the hope that they will be unable to completely validate their viewpoint or that at some point you'll be able to disprove what they are saying.
That is why, Martin2005...... you FAIL
Next.
That is why, Martin2005...... you FAIL
Next.
22 April 2009, 11:59 AM
#108
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 April 2009, 12:04 PM
#109
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is a debate you see!
Why are you awaiting someone to articulate this theory, as whenever they do you criticise them for refusing to accept your own views, or posting meaningless Google links.
I honestly cannot make you out, I don't think you are even a troll!
22 April 2009, 12:19 PM
#110
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
probably cause they have just been across here (Obama) and had a chat with our numpty PM and they have realised that theres actually quite alot of money to be made out of this
22 April 2009, 12:24 PM
#111
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget everyone, today is Earth Day!
Because I turned off my monitors at work when I went home last night, someone had come round and left a chocolate on my desk!
I'm not sure whether the energy I saved by turning off my monitors was enough to offset the energy needed to make the individual wrapper for my Green & Black's chocolate though?
Because I turned off my monitors at work when I went home last night, someone had come round and left a chocolate on my desk!
I'm not sure whether the energy I saved by turning off my monitors was enough to offset the energy needed to make the individual wrapper for my Green & Black's chocolate though?
22 April 2009, 12:30 PM
#112
This is my belief
We are not damaging the climate beyond anything Earth/Mother nature can not sort out or has not sorted at some point in the past through natural cycles.
What concerns me more is the massive overcrowding.... lets face it.... 1.5 billion in 1900 and 6.4 billion now.... something has to give at some point.
We live far longer than we were ever designed to and more babies reach adulthood now than were ever designed to.
It is not temperature I am worried about... it is running out of resources
We are not damaging the climate beyond anything Earth/Mother nature can not sort out or has not sorted at some point in the past through natural cycles.
What concerns me more is the massive overcrowding.... lets face it.... 1.5 billion in 1900 and 6.4 billion now.... something has to give at some point.
We live far longer than we were ever designed to and more babies reach adulthood now than were ever designed to.
It is not temperature I am worried about... it is running out of resources
22 April 2009, 01:27 PM
#116
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You see this is where anyone else would begin the debate, by providing examples of so called conspiracy theories and then saying why they don't pass the logic test. Why don't you give it a go, just once and then you can see what a debate is, because someone else will put an opposing view to your own, or even agree with you.
That is a debate you see!
Why are you awaiting someone to articulate this theory, as whenever they do you criticise them for refusing to accept your own views, or posting meaningless Google links.
I honestly cannot make you out, I don't think you are even a troll!
That is a debate you see!
Why are you awaiting someone to articulate this theory, as whenever they do you criticise them for refusing to accept your own views, or posting meaningless Google links.
I honestly cannot make you out, I don't think you are even a troll!
I can make you out though sunshine, you just like playing to the gallery
Last edited by Martin2005; 22 April 2009 at 01:28 PM.
22 April 2009, 01:37 PM
#118
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 April 2009, 01:52 PM
#119
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know why you suddenly play dumb on this, you know as well as I do that this issue is always mixed up with taxation conspiracy on here, so I ask again how has this cunning plan been hatched, by whom, when and how?