Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
shull

The Vegan, Plastic & Climate Change Fecking Fanatics

Recommended Posts

Anyway, back on topic, the answer to your question Shull is 'yes'. Polar bears, while under threat, and classed as 'vulnerable' are not terribly rare and perfectly edible, though, as with pork there's a risk of trichinosis if undercooked. You'd have to be careful though on the hunt. My brother-in-law saw one slice the top of a guy's heid off with a claw on Svalbard when he was a young seaman,and still has occasional nightmares about it.

While climate change is kind of my field I can't be arsed going over the science on a forum like this; it's all out there. This guy does it far better anyway - so If you're genuinely interested in getting behind the myths of climate change and the difference between good ole skepticism and blind denial this is an entertaining and well reviewed (full length) lecture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh9kDCuPuU8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's like asking an atheist to submit evidence for there being no god.

What they could do is either explain why they are refuting scientific evidence or produce contrary evidence and allow it to be scrutinised publicly by experts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A thick guy where i work at mi5 was asked if he liked or would eat penguin if it was on the menu ..i dont like any type of fish was the come back..thick those james bond guys..

Aye thick right enough.

Almost as thick as someone on a public forum telling everyone he works at mi5.

Of course that could be shite I'm smelling.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want you to misunderstand me here.

I'm not in possession of enough knowledge to have the faintest idea whether global warming is man made or not.

That video proves a lot of scientists have doubts as well.

I've said in the past that this is not yet a discussion for ordinary untrained people.

It's a discussion between trained scientists and is yet to be fully resolved to the point where we have a smoking gun as the cause of the current warming.

There is no smoking gun because proving it is bloody difficult.

What is required is a continuation of the scientific research with papers published for consideration.

Sadly, we have a contingent of scientists out there who have turned too quickly to the media to get their idea accepted as true.

That is unscientific media whoring of the worst kind. Right up there with the bullshit about how red wine cuts cancer risk.

Now the global warming debate, which should be considered by scientists has been hijacked by interest groups who haven't a f**king clue what they are talking about.but will die to get their worthless opinions heard.

The sad thing is that this damages science, alienates billions of people and will ultimately set back a cure for this problem if it is shown that man made CO2 is in fact the problem.

I'm angry about this simply because the wrong and worst types of people have hijacked a debate which only scientists are qualified to have. The rest of us have absolutely no ability to form a coherent opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea if global warming is natural, man-made or a combination of both (although I suspect the last option). I do know that recycling and using less carbon fuels will, most definitely, help our children, grandchildren, etc., won't do any harm and is easy to do on a personal level. A "no-brainer" is the term, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want you to misunderstand me here.

I'm not in possession of enough knowledge to have the faintest idea whether global warming is man made or not.

That video proves a lot of scientists have doubts as well.

I've said in the past that this is not yet a discussion for ordinary untrained people.

It's a discussion between trained scientists and is yet to be fully resolved to the point where we have a smoking gun as the cause of the current warming.

There is no smoking gun because proving it is bloody difficult.

What is required is a continuation of the scientific research with papers published for consideration.

Sadly, we have a contingent of scientists out there who have turned too quickly to the media to get their idea accepted as true.

That is unscientific media whoring of the worst kind. Right up there with the bullshit about how red wine cuts cancer risk.

Now the global warming debate, which should be considered by scientists has been hijacked by interest groups who haven't a f**king clue what they are talking about.but will die to get their worthless opinions heard.

The sad thing is that this damages science, alienates billions of people and will ultimately set back a cure for this problem if it is shown that man made CO2 is in fact the problem.

I'm angry about this simply because the wrong and worst types of people have hijacked a debate which only scientists are qualified to have. The rest of us have absolutely no ability to form a coherent opinion.

All good points. I can't think of any other areas where there's such a public and vehement clash between (informed) evidence and (uninformed or selective) opinion. I recall a discussion about climate change with a friend of mine who works in IT. He got quite worked up at the answers to his questions which ended up with him dismissing the information out of hand, and indignantly exclaiming 'what do you know about it anyway?' It's hard to imagine that kind of reaction if someone were offering their views on any other subject based on 20 years direct experience. I try to avoid these conversations, which is why I'm reluctant to break cover on a forum. I should point out I am not a scientist but have worked in the environmental science field as an analyst since 1992 and as an adviser on policy and practice around the quantification, reporting and reduction of emissions, nationally and internationally for 10 years or so. It's almost as difficult as being a Saints follower; it ain't exactly laugh-a-minute stuff. I'm not saying all of this makes me right, just that I have access to better information than the man in the street.

Certainly, what the research suggests makes for extremely uncomfortable listening so it's no surprise that people don't like to hear it and get upset. None of the scientists I know working in the field are exactly jumping up and down for joy at what they're finding either. Of course there will be some out there with vested interests, there are shits in every walk of life, but the practice of peer review tends to weed out the poor work and distil published findings to an essence of 'good' science if you look properly. That's basically where we are today. So, to sum up, what we can say is that the overwhelming independent scientific consensus holds that climate change is real, it is happening now, and that it is caused (at least in part) by human activity. The debate now is around the extent to which human agency contributes, not whether it does.

I'm off for a polar bear sandwich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All good points. I can't think of any other areas where there's such a public and vehement clash between (informed) evidence and (uninformed or selective) opinion. I recall a discussion about climate change with a friend of mine who works in IT. He got quite worked up at the answers to his questions which ended up with him dismissing the information out of hand, and indignantly exclaiming 'what do you know about it anyway?' It's hard to imagine that kind of reaction if someone were offering their views on any other subject based on 20 years direct experience. I try to avoid these conversations, which is why I'm reluctant to break cover on a forum. I should point out I am not a scientist but have worked in the environmental science field as an analyst since 1992 and as an adviser on policy and practice around the quantification, reporting and reduction of emissions, nationally and internationally for 10 years or so. It's almost as difficult as being a Saints follower; it ain't exactly laugh-a-minute stuff. I'm not saying all of this makes me right, just that I have access to better information than the man in the street.

Certainly, what the research suggests makes for extremely uncomfortable listening so it's no surprise that people don't like to hear it and get upset. None of the scientists I know working in the field are exactly jumping up and down for joy at what they're finding either. Of course there will be some out there with vested interests, there are shits in every walk of life, but the practice of peer review tends to weed out the poor work and distil published findings to an essence of 'good' science if you look properly. That's basically where we are today. So, to sum up, what we can say is that the overwhelming independent scientific consensus holds that climate change is real, it is happening now, and that it is caused (at least in part) by human activity. The debate now is around the extent to which human agency contributes, not whether it does.

I'm off for a polar bear sandwich.

I don't envy you your job!! smile.png

For my part, I've seen some of the introductory Physics, Chemistry and Maths involved in the issue and it is incredibly complex.

What is particularly difficult is the interconnectivity of the various cycles such as ozone, CO2, acid rain, etc.

All 3 of course are natural phenomenon but can be added to by man.

Tweak one of these and all the others are affected. It's like trying to remove a single strand from a plate of spaghetti without any other strand being dislodged.

Clearly man can and does add to the CO2 in the air, acid rain prodicing compounds and ozone etc.

I'm not aware of a scientist who would argue with any of that but what gets affacted by that and how?

The issue needing debating is simply stated as follow:-

In a plate of spaghetti, a series of strands has been dislodged. The strand which caused the initial disruption might be still in motion, have changed it's motion, might have stopped moving altogether or might actually have been eaten. Descibe this strand in full detail including the cause of its initial movement.

That is a laymans terms equivalent of what is going on with climate change. CO2 can cause warming - we know this because it absorbs radiation from the sun and vibrates. Vibrating things warm up, bounce into each other and wamr those other things as well. This is what happens when water boils so we know this from our own kitchens. Man adds to CO2 in the air so clearly it is beyond dispute that some atmospheric warming is caused by man. The question is whether this is dissipated or whether it stays local to the atmosphere. It's also a question of how much will each molecule warm becauise if we're talking about a billionth of a degree Celsius per million tons of CO2 then it's maybe not worth worrying about.

There's not a politician or former sports presenter in the world who could begin to answer those questions without a science degree and years of research experience.

The only thing which comes close to the polarisation in this debate is the discussion about the existence of god between religious groups and scientists.

The problem there is different though - neither side is using science to debate the point.

At least some of the global warming debaters are trying to use science to answer the questions but in all other respects this debate has become dominated by loud but ill informed religious-like zealots.

ETA: I may have just repeated some of what you've already said........bangin.gif

Edited by oaksoft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye thick right enough.

Almost as thick as someone on a public forum telling everyone he works at mi5.

Of course that could be shite I'm smelling.......

You seem to smell a lot of shite...we could do with a guy like you at thames house

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smell a lot of shite? Oaky & Barney took about 3 million words each to say what I said in twenty.

Yes but you have to admire the style with which we constructed and framed our arguments.

"Polished" would be a good way to describe what I wrote.

You guys are so lucky to have me around.

Enjoy the moment.

One day I'll be dead and tears will flow. Until then rejoice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What they could do is either explain why they are refuting scientific evidence or produce contrary evidence and allow it to be scrutinised publicly by experts.

exactly.

Evidence?

I have watched the video of The Great Global Warming Swindle and it seems to me that there is a good deal of evidence that, over thousands of years, carbon dioxide level rises have lagged behind global temperature rises by a considerable distance. It seems that man-made climate change propagandists are confusing the cart with the horse: or maybe the chicken with the egg would be a more apposite example, since no one really knows which came first.. Most people who can remember hoses and carts believe that the cart pulled the horse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence?

I have watched the video of The Great Global Warming Swindle and it seems to me that there is a good deal of evidence that, over thousands of years, carbon dioxide level rises have lagged behind global temperature rises by a considerable distance. It seems that man-made climate change propagandists are confusing the cart with the horse: or maybe the chicken with the egg would be a more apposite example, since no one really knows which came first.. Most people who can remember hoses and carts believe that the cart pulled the horse.

An edited and sexed up TV programme doesn't constitute evidence.

The scientists in that programme need to publish their results in a peer reviewed journal.

I know we all WANT to have an opinion on global warming and its causes but at this stage only trained scientists can possibly have an educated view.

The rest of us, who lack the intellectual tools to know for ourselves, need to know when to pipe down and leave the experts to decide amongst themselves.

There's hordes of people who simply don't have the education to understand this stuff running around like headless chickens screaming to have their viewpoint heard and it's not helping. Both sides of the debate are suffering from these people.

Edited by oaksoft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As interesting as this debate is as someone who is not qualified in any field of science I will avoid the global warming side of this debate.

To return to the point that was intended for discussion I will say YES.

In fact I will be treating the current wife to a meal this very evening and if polar bear is to be found on the menu then I shall order it with a side helping of chips (medium rare, the meat not the chips). As an avid meat eater I will try almost any meat in order to establish if it is to my liking. Here are some meat feasts that I will try if the opportunity arises

Penguin

Lion

Tiger

Leopard (the snow leopard would have to be rare)

Emu

Rhino

Elephant

and so on. Does anyone have any description of what bear actually tastes like? I would wager a shilling or two that the steaks would be lovely and red.

I wonder what dodo tasted like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom - I understand that the extremely tender and delicious taste of Dodo was essentially its downfall. That, and the fact that it couldn't fly away... at least that's what they said on QI, so it must be true (ahem).

Not tried bear, but I believe it's very gamey and fatty and goes off very quickly. Not on your list, but I have eaten seal (gagworthy in extremis) and smoked cormorant (even gagworthier), ostrich (truly terrific), moose (excellent, like the best beef), reindeer (like lamb I'd say) various types of antelope (all excellent), croc (nope), and finally beaver (no jokes, please) (indistinguishable from beef).

My uncle swears he had elephant trunk steak in Rhodesia. It arrived as an unknown large oval steak with two holes in it and it took him a while to work out what it was but he said it was great. Protected species now I'd have thought. Likewise Lions which are in big trouble, as are Tigers, so please keep your paws off. Cats are notoriously un-tasty anyway.

I've eaten countless penguins too. I prefer the ones in the red wrapper boom boom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An edited and sexed up TV programme doesn't constitute evidence.

The scientists in that programme need to publish their results in a peer reviewed journal.

I know we all WANT to have an opinion on global warming and its causes but at this stage only trained scientists can possibly have an educated view.

The rest of us, who lack the intellectual tools to know for ourselves, need to know when to pipe down and leave the experts to decide amongst themselves.

There's hordes of people who simply don't have the education to understand this stuff running around like headless chickens screaming to have their viewpoint heard and it's not helping. Both sides of the debate are suffering from these people.

That is exactly what I was saying!

Where is your evidence that it was sexed up? Are you saying that none of the contributors is qualified to give an opinion? Do yo know for certain that none of this has been peer-reviewed, and are you aware that anything that goes against majority thinking is unlikely to be published in a peer-reviewed journal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest somner9

As interesting as this debate is as someone who is not qualified in any field of science I will avoid the global warming side of this debate.

To return to the point that was intended for discussion I will say YES.

In fact I will be treating the current wife to a meal this very evening and if polar bear is to be found on the menu then I shall order it with a side helping of chips (medium rare, the meat not the chips). As an avid meat eater I will try almost any meat in order to establish if it is to my liking. Here are some meat feasts that I will try if the opportunity arises

Penguin

Lion

Tiger

Leopard (the snow leopard would have to be rare)

Emu

Rhino

Elephant

and so on. Does anyone have any description of what bear actually tastes like? I would wager a shilling or two that the steaks would be lovely and red.

I wonder what dodo tasted like?

This guy likes his meat Tom.

1004900_317525191718119_1079263008_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence?

I have watched the video of The Great Global Warming Swindle and it seems to me that there is a good deal of evidence that, over thousands of years, carbon dioxide level rises have lagged behind global temperature rises by a considerable distance. It seems that man-made climate change propagandists are confusing the cart with the horse: or maybe the chicken with the egg would be a more apposite example, since no one really knows which came first.. Most people who can remember hoses and carts believe that the cart pulled the horse.

smcc - When you use a term a like 'propogandists' it sounds a bit like you've made your mind up anyway, but I take your point. What's interesting to note with this stuff (I think) is that the vast majority of climate change scientists interpret the data and reach particular conclusions pointing to climate change (and would dearly love to be wrong about it) and only a tiny handful don't agree. Even Bjorn Lomborg who was sceptic-in-chief has been persuaded by the weight of evidence. Why not have a look at the link I sent and see what you think.

Happy to be shot down but it seems to me that the egg must have come before the chicken if we believe in evolution In evolutionary terms the bird that laid the egg wasn't quite a chicken, but the baby that came out of the egg had evolved during its foetal development that tiny little bit more to become chicken numero uno. Tom would probably have just eaten it.

Edited by Barney63

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is exactly what I was saying!

Where is your evidence that it was sexed up? Are you saying that none of the contributors is qualified to give an opinion? Do yo know for certain that none of this has been peer-reviewed, and are you aware that anything that goes against majority thinking is unlikely to be published in a peer-reviewed journal?

I'm not saying the contributors are not qualified. I'm saying that a TV programme by necessity is edited which means context can be lost. One scientist on that programme (I think it was this one) has complained publicly about just that - that his words were taken out of context and important caveats omitted.

"Sexed up" wasn't the best phrase - it wasn't really what I meant. I'm not saying the TV programme is being edited to manipulate an agenda. I'm saying that the edit process itself inevitably and unavoidably forces errors.

A peer reviewed journal doesn't suffer from editing problems and can be published in full.

BTW you are wrong about science not being published unless it agrees with current orthodoxy. Lots of controversial stuff gets published all the time but the things published have to have a solid basis in science.

I'm also not saying the peer reviewed scientific journals process isn't flawless but it is the best we have right now by some considerable margin.

Nothing else comes remotely close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was the egg, dinosaur eggs predate chickens by quite some time. Unless you're a creationist, of course. In which case you really are too thick to be educated. Only my opinion, mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...