Clarkson get's some free poo

Gaygle said:
Don't get me wrong, i am no hippy and i'm a petrolhead, but what you're saying is basically that we should bury our head in the sand and hope for the best.
Click to expand...

Your quote conviently forgets to mention that the resolution of the data for the last 650,000 years will not show short term (eg less than 4000 year) fluctuations due to the data resolution.

As such a peak like the one we currently appear to be in (200 years of rapid growth) simply wouldn't show up in the data, and as such no good scientist would claim that it is unprecedented, the evidence simply isn't there to make that claim.

Unfortunately, it seems good scientific practices and appropriate caution and climate change science frequently do not go together very often.
 
JRS said:
He's the son of a travelling salesman and a teacher. I'm not sure he qualifies for "toff" status, given that this implies an aristocratic background.
Click to expand...

So then, a 'pretend toff'.
Still, reassuring to know he hasn't got everyone fooled. He reminds me of the obnoxious loudmouth down the pub who everyone puts up with because he's a regular, or something.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
You sound like one of those loopy conspiracy theorists.
Click to expand...

lol.

I'm not sure quite what people want in terms of concrete proof. I don't know if such people are climate scientists themselves, but I would have thought it would be very difficult to provide any kind of concrete proof, until it is too late.

In the meantime, confirmation bias seems to cloud peoples judgement somewhat.
 
oli collett said:
lol.

I'm not sure quite what people want in terms of concrete proof. I don't know if such people are climate scientists themselves, but I would have thought it would be very difficult to provide any kind of concrete proof, until it is too late.

In the meantime, confirmation bias seems to cloud peoples judgement somewhat.
Click to expand...

The issue is not so much the requirement to provide concrete proof, but the political follow up ideas of completely shafting our economy for no demonstratable benefit with CO2 reduction proposals that only matter on a local level.

Climate change is about 10% scientific, 90% political, and because of the heavy political influence, even the scientific part does not confirm to standard scientific rigours and caution.
 
oli collett said:
lol.

I'm not sure quite what people want in terms of concrete proof. I don't know if such people are climate scientists themselves, but I would have thought it would be very difficult to provide any kind of concrete proof, until it is too late.

In the meantime, confirmation bias seems to cloud peoples judgement somewhat.
Click to expand...


I don't think many people are denying climate change is happening, but it always has happened throughout the history of the planet. Is recent climate change man made? I don't believe so. At the very worse we *may* have sped up the process, but I'm not convinced.

Besides, is it not true that motor-vehicles contribute a very small percentage of total yearly Co2 output?
 
Dolph said:
The issue is not so much the requirement to provide concrete proof, but the political follow up ideas of completely shafting our economy for no demonstratable benefit with CO2 reduction proposals that only matter on a local level.

Climate change is about 10% scientific, 90% political, and because of the heavy political influence, even the scientific part does not confirm to standard scientific rigours and caution.
Click to expand...

True - As DreXeL has said, focusing on the motor industry alone seems quite miss-guided when there are far worse offenders out there - the politicians do just seem to want to jump on bandwagons (surprise surprise). I'm not sure about the science bit though - there is some good science out there, it's just the whole thing is so complex that you end up with armchair experts (on both sides!) pointing at a graph which isn't really any kind of proof at all.

DreXeL said:
I don't think many people are denying climate change is happening, but it always has happened throughout the history of the planet. Is recent climate change man made? I don't believe so. At the very worse we *may* have sped up the process, but I'm not convinced.
Click to expand...

Yes, sorry that was my point. I don't personally have much of an understanding of the full extent of the issues involved, however the quality of science and scientists in the non man-made camp seems a lot worse than that in the pro man-made camp. Recent example that I would cite is the Monbiot vs. Plimer "debate" that never got going here. James Delingpole made himself look rather silly on the whole affair over here by completely miss-understanding the whole thing. My point being, when you have non man-made folk backing up someone like Ian Pilmer it doesn't do their credibility much good.

There was also of course the C4 documentary much cited by folk which was a bit of a shambles and here. Now I do realise there's bad science on both sides at times (we all know greenpeace have been guilty of such at times) but I seem to find myself reading a lot more on one side than another - although that could be down to my news sources.

DreXeL said:
Besides, is it not true that motor-vehicles contribute a very small percentage of total yearly Co2 output?
Click to expand...

I believe so yes. I don't personally think of cars as the main problem here, which again links back to Dolph's point about politics.
 
scott212 said:
Use your brain. Think of all the fumes/CO2 we dump into the atmosphere every second. How can anyone with any intelligence say that this has no effect whatsoever on the environment.
Click to expand...

So what? What about when a volcano blows its top? That lets out about a years worth of toxic and green house gases that humans let out in a whole year. And there are hundreds of volcanos doing this every week...

People are so naive, like yourself. The planet earth is a very complex ecosystem that we are only scratching the surface of understanding. So considering we know so little about it - why jump to conclusions so early?

Earth is completely equipped to deal with CO2 in natural processes. That is what oceans and trees are for.

If humans need to stop doing anything it would be the deforestation of the Amazon and other rainforests.
 
NathanE said:
Earth is completely equipped to deal with CO2 in natural processes. That is what oceans and trees are for.
Click to expand...

Having completed a geography degree I somewhat disagree with this. The Earth is equipped to deal with CO2 created by natural processes, but not so much the excessive amounts we are creating.

The climate only has to warm very small amounts, and this in turn can cause effects such as, sea-level rise; not only by melting of huge marine based ice sheets which could cause up to 6m sea level change, but also by thermal expansion.

While this only one tiny aspect of climate change imagine the impacts it could cause. I'm not targetting you directly but it would be nice if people chose to educate themselves a bit more before taking such a nonchalant view.
 
Thomas. PLease. said:
Having completed a geography degree I somewhat disagree with this. The Earth is equipped to deal with CO2 created by natural processes, but not so much the excessive amounts we are creating.
Click to expand...
I hope you didn't write your thesis like that. Because you would have failed for making a bold statement without a citation :p

The problem is, the only citations you could offer are theoretical research papers. And there would be just as many similar research papers that make an opposite conclusion. And that folks, is the crux of it.
 
The amount of people who are talking with real authority on subjects they don't have more than a modicum of real knowledge about is astounding.

Issues such as Global Warming can do without armchair pundits who's only sources of evidence are the newspapers and a few websites biased to their particular persuasion.

In fact, why am I caring. You'll all have to go along with whatever the scientists, who have spent their whole careers examining the evidence available to them, tell the government - a bunch of people saying off-hand things such as "global warming is bull****. Jeremy Clarkson is right on the money" on the Internet should not wind me up. :p
 
NathanE said:
I hope you didn't write your thesis like that. Because you would have failed for making a bold statement without a citation :p

The problem is, the only citations you could offer are theoretical research papers. And there would be just as many similar research papers that make an opposite conclusion. And that folks, is the crux of it.
Click to expand...

I agree, but at least having studied in this area, I've actually bothered to read a fair amount of scientific journals and therefore, feel I'm able to make an informed view of my own. ;)
 
slylittlefox said:
Issues such as Global Warming can do without armchair pundits who's only sources of evidence are the newspapers and a few websites biased to their particular persuasion.
Click to expand...

It can also do without governments cashing in on the 'problem' by taxing the smallest polluters but not taxing the biggest like industry, shipping and aviation.

It can also do without little hippies dressed as Suffragettes dumping 2 bags of manure on Clarkson's driveway to make some sort of point.

IF (and that is a big if) global warming is being caused and/or accelerated by humans then our current response to it is pathetic.

IMO there is nothing wrong with someone being of a "neutral" position on this matter. It is more incorrect to have already formed a solid opinion either positive or negative. Clarkson likes to play to the camera a bit when it comes to global warming. But I honestly think, if you sat down with him over lunch, he would reveal himself to actually be of a neutral position and he'd probably know more about the subject than most people who are either positive or negative.
 
NathanE said:
It can also do without governments cashing in on the 'problem' by taxing the smallest polluters but not taxing the biggest like industry, shipping and aviation.

It can also do without little hippies dressed as Suffragettes dumping 2 bags of manure on Clarkson's driveway to make some sort of point.

IF (and that is a big if) global warming is being caused and/or accelerated by humans then our current response to it is pathetic.
Click to expand...

Now thats a point put across well. I couldn't agree more.

Cars. One of the easiest targets for governments, but don't contribute anywhere near as much as the government like to make out. One fifth of the EU CO2 budget comes from road transport. Around 12% of this is from cars.

Understandable trying to cut this but even if its halved, thats 6% less CO2 in the atmosphere. not really a drop in the ocean.
 
I remember reading an article not long ago saying that the sea level rise predictions made in previous years were incorrect due to missing variables in the equation.

Either way, sea level rise (if it is true) could be the planet earth's natural response to CO2. More ocean water == bigger CO2 store.
 
The comments on the Daily Mail article are great...

Just for this, I will take my 5 litre BMW for a completely pointless drive & burn up a tank of fuel. The eco nutters need to get a job, and the jealous people on here who drive lesser cars need to work a bit harder. Peasants.

- Cheeky, England, 18/9/2009 10:10
Click to expand...

And everyone on there is a Climate Change expert.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom