Auto Insurance Auto Insurance    FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  Gas Guzzlers Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next          Auto Insurance Forum Index -> 4x4 View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Stephen Firth Guest Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:05 am    Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers Ian Rawlings <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote: Quote: What pisses me off is those who dismiss this argument or that argument to fit their either green obsession or to try and scrub away their perceived guilt about driving a "dirty" car, or watch crap documentaries and cling to them like they were gospel without an agenda to push. You see people who can barely tie their own shoelaces stating with certainty that global warming is rubbish because this study showed something, a study they've never read and wouldn't understand if it was tattooed onto their brains. You do of course get the bunny huggers doing the same to justify throwing eggs at 4x4s etc. None of which has anything to do with me. Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Ian Rawlings Guest Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:59 am    Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers On 2007-03-20, Huw <hedydd> wrote: Quote: A good guess is still just a guess. All guesses are not equal.. Quote: People once believed in a flat Earth. They also once believed in a globe-shaped earth... Quote: Proof is what is needed not the present bullshit skewed or at least sensationalised to generate research funding. Proof is a long way off, and don't forget that the bullshit flows from both sides. The consensus is quite a mild prediction, and the more wild-eyed "look at me" type stuff is probably best ignored, although bear in mind that too could be right. It just doesn't look like it will be. Quote: The interesting point about this is that it assumes or implies that there is only either 'black or white'. Either one does not believe there is global warming or one does I don't think it implies that at all, there's precious little in life that's certain, other than taxes and death of course... Quote: "where is the evidence that the warming is not predominantly natural but caused by the action of man"? So far there is no convincing evidence. How would you know Huw, and how would you know that there is any evidence the other way? This is one of my pet hates in this whole GW "debate", people waving "evidence" about that might be sweet wrappers for all they know. I don't know, you don't know, Steve doesn't know, we don't know. Let's not go on about "evidence" until it turns up. -- Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Stephen Firth Guest Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:19 am    Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers Ian Rawlings <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote: Quote: The consensus is quite a mild prediction And you know that because you read 16,000 papers do you? Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Huw Guest Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:27 am    Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers "Ian Rawlings" <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message news:slrnf00mac.spu.news06@desktop.tarcus.org.uk... Quote: On 2007-03-20, Huw <hedydd> wrote: A good guess is still just a guess. All guesses are not equal.. People once believed in a flat Earth. They also once believed in a globe-shaped earth... Proof is what is needed not the present bullshit skewed or at least sensationalised to generate research funding. Proof is a long way off, How do you know this? What scale do you base your "long" on? and don't forget that the bullshit flows from Quote: both sides. The consensus is quite a mild prediction, and the more wild-eyed "look at me" type stuff is probably best ignored, although bear in mind that too could be right. It just doesn't look like it will be. No the bullshit is mostly one sided. The sceptics generally take broadly the same line as I and Steve do, and that is that warming might or might not be influenced to an unknown extent by the actions of human industry in burning fossil fuel or it might be in combination with natural change or even exclusively a natural change as as happened at intervals in the past. Quote: The interesting point about this is that it assumes or implies that there is only either 'black or white'. Either one does not believe there is global warming or one does I don't think it implies that at all, there's precious little in life that's certain, other than taxes and death of course... "where is the evidence that the warming is not predominantly natural but caused by the action of man"? So far there is no convincing evidence. How would you know Huw, and how would you know that there is any evidence the other way? This is one of my pet hates in this whole GW "debate", people waving "evidence" about that might be sweet wrappers for all they know. But I am making no claims. Neither is Steven. I only claim not to know and observe that there is no convincing evidence one way or another. All we can say is that there was a thirty year period of cooling now followed by a statistically rather insignificant period of some twenty years of mild warming in some areas of the Earth. Quote: I don't know, you don't know, Steve doesn't know, we don't know. Let's not go on about "evidence" until it turns up. At last you have hit the nail on the head. Nobody yet knows. Yet what could be a natural global cycle is treated and increasingly accepted as man-made and as something which can be influenced to a significant extent by the intervention of man, who is a mere recent and transient presence on the face of the Earth. If the current situation with regard to human activity has caused an accelerated warming, as claimed by some and repeated by many, then given that CO2 emissions on a global scale will certainly not lessen and probably increase in the medium term [next 30 years], and that things like air transport continue to be forecast to increase substantially in the medium to long term, I do think people who should know better are deluded or possibly cunning [depending on their intelligence and/or agenda] or even dishonest as to our current and future influence on the global climate. Huw Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Ian Rawlings Guest Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:55 am    Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers On 2007-03-20, Stephen Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: Quote: Ian Rawlings <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote: The consensus is quite a mild prediction And you know that because you read 16,000 papers do you? OK, the *reported* consensus, squished together by assorted governments. -- Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Ian Rawlings Guest Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:05 am    Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers On 2007-03-20, Huw <hedydd> wrote: Quote: How do you know this? What scale do you base your "long" on? It's a rather complicated subject from the look of it, widely open to interpretation and a lot of infighting, I don't see that settling down for a fair few years! Quote: No the bullshit is mostly one sided. Hmm, not so sure on that, if it is, it's because the "opposing team" has so many members. Quote: The sceptics generally take broadly the same line as I and Steve do, and that is that warming might or might not be influenced to an unknown extent by the actions of human industry in burning fossil fuel or it might be in combination with natural change or even exclusively a natural change as as happened at intervals in the past. And what line do I take that differs from that? Read what you wrote, it says "maybe, maybe not", if we differ it's on an emphasis on the maybe over the maybe not. I've not seen any broad scientific certainty either, so you've pretty much summed up everyone's position other than the wand-waving loonies ;-) Quote: But I am making no claims. Neither is Steven. I only claim not to know and observe that there is no convincing evidence one way or another. That's odd, I seem to remember saying that! Quote: All we can say is that there was a thirty year period of cooling now followed by a statistically rather insignificant period of some twenty years of mild warming in some areas of the Earth. Hey I can't even say that as I can't be sure that there's not someone credible saying "no that's wrong", well done for being certain... Quote: At last you have hit the nail on the head. Nobody yet knows. That's a nail I've been hitting for some time now... -- Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Stephen Firth Guest Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:22 am    Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers Ian Rawlings <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote: Quote: On 2007-03-20, Stephen Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: Ian Rawlings <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote: The consensus is quite a mild prediction And you know that because you read 16,000 papers do you? OK, the *reported* consensus, squished together by assorted governments. One rule for you... Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Ian Rawlings Guest Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:45 am    Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers On 2007-03-20, Stephen Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: Quote: Ian Rawlings <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote: OK, the *reported* consensus, squished together by assorted governments. One rule for you... What rule would that be? -- Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Stephen Firth Guest Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:29 pm    Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers Ian Rawlings <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote: Quote: On 2007-03-20, Stephen Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: Ian Rawlings <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote: OK, the *reported* consensus, squished together by assorted governments. One rule for you... What rule would that be? That you can get away with opinion formed from tenuous sources not backed up by a complete and painstaking review of every paper ever published in the field. Others are not permitted the same luxury. By your standards, or rather the standard you apply to others, your own argument is "ill informed". Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Ian Rawlings Guest Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers On 2007-03-21, Stephen Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: Quote: That you can get away with opinion formed from tenuous sources not backed up by a complete and painstaking review of every paper ever published in the field. Others are not permitted the same luxury. I guessed that's what you were referring to, shows your observational skills need some polishing ;-) I said that if someone was to state with *certainty* that experts in a field were without doubt wrong, then in order to do that then the person would have to know everything. If there's one thing I've repeatedly stated throughout, is that even mighty old you doesn't have anything even approaching certainty, and you seem to be aware of that. So quite how you think that I claim to have total certainty and therefore fall into my own trap, I don't quite see. I'm not 100% certain, never am, and never will be. That goes for everyone else too BTW, the world would be a much more boring place if it could be pinned down with precision. -- Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Stephen Firth Guest Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:23 pm    Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers Ian Rawlings <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote: Quote: If there's one thing I've repeatedly stated throughout, is that even mighty old you doesn't have anything even approaching certainty, and you seem to be aware of that. And I've never claimed to have certainty, nor have I claimed the experts in the field were, with certainty, wrong. Your own observational powers need a lot of tidying up. Because it was you that informed me that in order to comment at all that I must read every paper in the subject (yes you did) whereas now you apply different standards to yourself. There's a word for that behaviour. Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Ian Rawlings Guest Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:49 pm    Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers On 2007-03-21, Stephen Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: Quote: And I've never claimed to have certainty, nor have I claimed the experts in the field were, with certainty, wrong. Well, you implied earlier on in the thread but stated the opposite later which is fair enough, a straight statement overrides an implication, I said later that if that wasn't what you were claiming then we could drop that point. Quote: Your own observational powers need a lot of tidying up. Because it was you that informed me that in order to comment at all that I must read every paper in the subject (yes you did) whereas now you apply different standards to yourself. Ah, there you go again, getting yourself mixed up! That's not what I said, at all. And as for my observational powers, I've never been that impressed with them myself, but I'm not impressed with yours either. -- Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Stephen Firth Guest Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:38 pm    Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers Ian Rawlings <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote: Quote: On 2007-03-21, Stephen Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: And I've never claimed to have certainty, nor have I claimed the experts in the field were, with certainty, wrong. Well, you implied earlier on in the thread No I didn't, I stated very clearly that my comment was directed at the hysterical greens. To which yiou replied with a load of old rambling bollocks about houses. Quote: but stated the opposite later which is fair enough, a straight statement overrides an implication, There never was an implication. Quote: I said later that if that wasn't what you were claiming then we could drop that point. How big of you. Quote: Your own observational powers need a lot of tidying up. Because it was you that informed me that in order to comment at all that I must read every paper in the subject (yes you did) whereas now you apply different standards to yourself. Ah, there you go again, getting yourself mixed up! That's not what I said, at all. You clearly told me I was in no position to comment because I was not familiar with every paper published ont he subject. Quote: And as for my observational powers, I've never been that impressed with them myself, but I'm not impressed with yours either. Good oh, you can be as unimpressed as you like, but until you actually manage to recall what you have said consistently I'll remain even less impressed with your remembery. Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Ian Rawlings Guest Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers On 2007-03-21, Stephen Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: Quote: No I didn't, I stated very clearly that my comment was directed at the hysterical greens. To which yiou replied with a load of old rambling bollocks about houses. It was after that, here's the bit; Quote: You or I can't sit here and say that we don't believe any of it unless we're prepared to say that it's a matter of faith You may not be able to, but since I've been a scientist for many years, with an interest in Geology which formed part of my degree as well as Biochemistry which was the major subject of my degree and with a long track record in scientific trials and evaluations I'm qualified to evaluate scientific evidence. So I said that you or I weren't up to saying that the evidence was wrong, but you said that you were a scientist and were up to evaluating scientific evidence. That's where I was somewhat surprised as the "evidence" we were talking about was so wide-ranging crossing so many fields. You then went on to invoke Richard Feynman in a spurious (and egotistical) support role. Quote: There never was an implication. Oh there was. Quote: You clearly told me I was in no position to comment because I was not familiar with every paper published ont he subject. As I've said time after time now, I said you were in no position to be *certain*. You really do find that hard to grasp. It's written in black and white in the thread, repeatedly, but you still can't see it. Quote: Good oh, you can be as unimpressed as you like, but until you actually manage to recall what you have said consistently I'll remain even less impressed with your remembery. Don't need to remember, the computer's got records. -- Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Stephen Firth Guest Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 7:25 pm    Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers Ian Rawlings <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote: Quote: On 2007-03-21, Stephen Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: No I didn't, I stated very clearly that my comment was directed at the hysterical greens. To which yiou replied with a load of old rambling bollocks about houses. It was after that, here's the bit; You or I can't sit here and say that we don't believe any of it unless we're prepared to say that it's a matter of faith You may not be able to, but since I've been a scientist for many years, with an interest in Geology which formed part of my degree as well as Biochemistry which was the major subject of my degree and with a long track record in scientific trials and evaluations I'm qualified to evaluate scientific evidence. So I said that you or I weren't up to saying that the evidence was wrong, but you said that you were a scientist and were up to evaluating scientific evidence. That's where I was somewhat surprised as the "evidence" we were talking about was so wide-ranging crossing so many fields. You then went on to invoke Richard Feynman in a spurious (and egotistical) support role. There never was an implication. Oh there was. No, there wasn't. You self seleced for being unable to evaluate scientific evidence. I pointed out why I can and do exactly that. You appear to have a reading problem, I did not say that every scientist in the world except me was wrong, I did say that I'm qualified to evaluate that evidence. You keep building your house on quicksand. [snip] Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         Auto Insurance Forum Index -> 4x4 All times are GMT Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next Page 3 of 4   Jump to: Select a forum Auto Insurance----------------Auto InsuranceLexus4x4Classic Cars  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum 106 Attacks blocked Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group