Russell Brand.

John40 · 17 Dec 2014 at 13:12

He's up there with Tracy Emin and various celebrity cooks - classic Emperors new clothes.

CREATIVE!11 · 17 Dec 2014 at 13:12

John40 said:
As he relaxes by his Hollywood pool he must be laughing his socks off that immature people take him seriously.

Oh what you mean his points which are factual and based on his research which you can go and verify for yourself on Google.

GOD HE'S REALLY PULLING WOOL OVER MY EYES MAN!!!1!

Xordium · 17 Dec 2014 at 13:13

Glaucus said:
Oh dear

It is 'oh dear' because it is the truth and it means our alternatives are limited. Unless of course you actually think the scientific community reaches consensus solely on evidence and all the evidence lies in the same direction - I hope not because once you move away from the purity of maths then that's really not the case.

balky12 · 17 Dec 2014 at 13:14

drunkenmaster said:
He's not, everything he gets involved in is already in the public attention. The recent rent issue and protest had NOTHING to do with Brand. Brand saw a popular cause and decided to jump in front of it, if anything he took coverage away from the issue and all the news was about his interview rather than about the issue.

He's like many other people, Bono, Geldof, whoever else, a cause exists, it gets attention, they jump to the front of the cause pretending to be a champion of it, take away attention from said cause onto themselves. They get loads of attention, book/album/ticket sales go through the roof, the cause is pretty much ignored and become about those individuals, these people are worse than politicians. They are the worst type of people having absolutely no morals or care. It's easy to read a paper see what the latest cause of the people is then turn up and take the attention while being seen as the champion of the people when in actual fact doing nothing at all for the cause.

Brand doesn't have views, he's a populist, nothing more or less, we never hear what he is for BEFORE an issue becomes the popularly held view of the people. He always jumps on a cause as it gets big and gets lots of media attention. Media attention whores like him just follow the attention then jump in between the cause and the camera for his own personal gain.

He has a large vocab and nothing else, he has no ideas, when he talks on the subject matter he comes up empty, when asked how to fix something or how something could be made better he rambles on like a retarded idiot or simply lashes out at the person asking the question. The entire problem with politics is people like him, people with no idea who want the power, the attention but hasn't got a clue how to make things better. Politicians who have no long term plan how to make things better just jump in front of whatever is popular at the time with no coherent plan of how to improve things but act to appease the public masses even if said action makes things much worse in the long term. Brand is like that, jump on a cause, no ideas, follows the media attention, gets upset when called out on having no clue what he's talking about.

This in spades.

If people disagree I suggest going to a previous interview he was in. Learning English, then deciphering what he actually says. You will soon realise, as drunkenmaster said, that his arguments have no substance.

If you are still impresed with his nonesense (i.e. people should just not vote) then you are part of the problem.

Don't get me wrong, I admire his ability to make money with very little substance. But that is more a tell on today's society and it's love for 'reality TV stars'

Glaucus · 17 Dec 2014 at 13:14

It's why we have peer review. And why things can and do change as new data becomes available.

So yes oh dear.

balky12 · 17 Dec 2014 at 13:15

FinglisHobbit said:
Who said he made change? In fact most posts here are people saying he talks but changes nothing?

That's my point. I think you missed it. A few of his fans on here are saying he is bringing change.

Xordium · 17 Dec 2014 at 13:16

Glaucus said:
It's why we have peer review. And why things can and do change as new data becomes available.

So yes oh dear.

And meanwhile in the real world. Evidence produces contradictory results and the said experts behind them stick their opinion until they slowly shuffle on elsewhere.

Glaucus · 17 Dec 2014 at 13:17

Xordium said:
And meanwhile in the real world. Evidence produces contradictory results and the said experts behind them stick their opinion until they slowly shuffle on elsewhere.

Or in the real world where people know science, something are in complete agreement, where others require more data.

This doesn't support your view.

balky12 · 17 Dec 2014 at 13:21

Xordium said:
And meanwhile in the real world. Evidence produces contradictory results and the said experts behind them stick their opinion until they slowly shuffle on elsewhere.

Depends where the funding comes from as to what results you get. Great example of that is Global warming. 'OH NOS THE EARTH IS HEATING UP!!!'

That was proved nonsense. Yes many parts were warming up, some where also cooling. In comes the next thing... Climate change!!!

'OH KNOW THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING!!!!' well deeeeer. it has done since the beginning of time. In cycles. Working as intended.

Now it's just a ****ing contest on whether or not us humans are to blame. If so, how much is our fault? It's embarrassing.

Xordium · 17 Dec 2014 at 13:23

Glaucus said:
Or in the real world where people know science, something are in complete agreement, where others require more data.

This doesn't support your view.

My point was the evidence based politics would fall afoul of the same problems.

So currently we have politicians who disagree on some things, agree on others and just wing the rest when they have incomplete data and have to give an answer or make a decision.

So that's pretty much what you've just agreed with. :rolleyes:

...

Glaucus · 17 Dec 2014 at 13:24

balky12 said:
Depends where the funding comes from as to what results you get. Great example of that is Global warming. 'OH NOS THE EARTH IS HEATING UP!!!'

That was proved nonsense. Yes many parts were warming up, some where also cooling. In comes the next thing... Climate change!!!

'OH KNOW THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING!!!!' well deeeeer. it has done since the beginning of time. In cycles. Working as intended.

Now it's just a ****ing contest on whether or not us humans are to blame. If so, how much is our fault? It's embarrassing.

Dear god, the world is warming up. That is undeniable. You know this thing called weather and regions. Just because some places experience the old cold spell doesn't mean the average temperature isn't rising. And ~97% of scientists are in agreement. The other 3% are well less than credible.
It was changed to climate change as people didn't understand average temprature raise and local climate., which could be colder.

DAIR · 17 Dec 2014 at 13:25

I prefer RB as a stand up comedian / entertainer. I dislike his ranting!

Glaucus · 17 Dec 2014 at 13:25

Xordium said:
My point was the evidence based politics would fall afoul of the same problems.

So currently we have politicians who disagree on some things, agree on others and just wing the rest when they have incomplete data and have to give an answer or make a decision.

So that's pretty much what you've just agreed with. ...

Not at all, as most science related to politics would be in agreement. Like drugs, or animal welfare etc.
Scientist aren't in disagreement about most things. Like you suggest.

John40 · 17 Dec 2014 at 13:25

Glaucus said:
Dear god, the world is warming up. That is undeniable. You know this thing called weather and regions. Just because some places experience the old cold spell doesn't mean the average temperature isn't rising. And ~97% of scientists are in agreement. The other 3% are well less than credible.

Didn't Brand blame Global warming on the bankers.

Glaucus · 17 Dec 2014 at 13:27

John40 said:
Didn't Brand blame Global warming on the bankers.

No idea, he likes to blame bankers. Easy escape goat which you guessed it was an easy escape goat, well before he was on the scene.

AGD · 17 Dec 2014 at 13:30

balky12 said:
Depends where the funding comes from as to what results you get. Great example of that is Global warming. 'OH NOS THE EARTH IS HEATING UP!!!'

That was proved nonsense.

Actually no. All the evidence so far suggests that it is true. You might want to check your sources.

Xordium · 17 Dec 2014 at 13:30

Glaucus said:
:Not at all, as most science related to politics would be in agreement.

Pure conjecture where is your evidence to back up this assertion.

And I never said scientists disagree about most things - you've just made that up. You want to keep away from this Russell Brand chap - he's made you all polemic ...

Glaucus · 17 Dec 2014 at 13:31

Good god, you are so anti everything. You're lost.

Science works, unlike what you think.

Think about law, policies etc.
Most are well understood and researched. we know gull well harsh punishments does not work and we should move to a far better rehabilitation focused system this is scientific fact. As is animal welfare, order of drug harm etc. This should all be legislated according to the scientific knowledge and taken out of the hand if politics/voters.

CREATIVE!11 · 17 Dec 2014 at 13:32

Glaucus said:
No idea, he likes to blame bankers. Easy escape goat which you guessed it was an easy escape goat, well before he was on the scene.

It's an easy scape goat because they did commit massive amounts of fraud effectively?

lolwut

Tonester0011 · 17 Dec 2014 at 13:34

AGD said:
Actually no. All the evidence so far suggests that it is true. You might want to check your sources.

Not all the evidence, some crazy people think otherwise

Doesn't it take nature thousands of years to increase CO2 ppm like we've managed in just over a hundred?

Love the people who use the last decade of temps stabilising as reason to deflect CC isn't happening, well done. You've forgotten how to draw trend lines.