b3ta.com qotw
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Question of the Week » Off Topic » Post 1580291 | Search
This is a question Off Topic

Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.

(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
Pages: Latest, 836, 835, 834, 833, 832, ... 1

« Go Back | See The Full Thread

I brush them with a toothbrush.
ALt: I think it's undeniable that it's real. There is some debate about whether it is man-made but I believe the evidence is overwleminlgly that it is. Even if we aren't sure we should act as if it is because the penalty for being wrong is far greater if we do nothing.

AltAlt: none of them, they are all biassed bollocks.
(, Thu 5 Apr 2012, 11:20, 2 replies, latest was 12 years ago)
It's not overwhelmingly proven according to my father
who is a science bod.

We didn't cause the mini Ice Age in the middle ages and that was way more dramatic that this shit. The Thames froze solid every winter for decades.
(, Thu 5 Apr 2012, 11:23, Reply)
Wasn't that caused by a massive volcanic explosion that dumped shit-loads of ash into the atomsphere and blocked a significant amount of sunlight
and shit?
(, Thu 5 Apr 2012, 11:24, Reply)
Ah divvent knaa, like.

(, Thu 5 Apr 2012, 11:27, Reply)
You can't prove it, that's kind of the beauty of science.
having said that, my Dad's a fairly epically respected organic chemist and he doesn't believe in it either. The fucker. And he keeps making me buy him climate change denying books for presents. Bet that looks good on Government watch lists.
(, Thu 5 Apr 2012, 11:26, Reply)
If we do ever reach other planets in the Goldilocks zone
We'll have to use them as controls in experiments to find out.
(, Thu 5 Apr 2012, 11:30, Reply)
I never said it was proven, just that the evidence pointed that way
I'll retract overwelmingly, but will was the majority of evidence points that way. My basic view is that reducing the shit we put into the atmosphere is good regardless.
(, Thu 5 Apr 2012, 11:55, Reply)
I think the argument should get away from climate change
and go to being less wasteful and less reliant on forrin oil. Everyone agrees with that, except the forrins.
(, Thu 5 Apr 2012, 11:56, Reply)
Well, yes.
Also, "don't shit where you eat" seems to me quite enough reason not to but stuff into the air that we breath and the water we drink. It all seems pragmatic rather than idealistic to me and I'm not sure why ther would be such resistance.
(, Thu 5 Apr 2012, 12:09, Reply)
Chompy is right...partly
...that a large part of the issue is our dependence on oil, which is running out faster than we realise. If a politician admits "we're running out of oil" then the market goes crazy, idiots panic buy and traders make a fortune. The oil industry has a significant lobby clout too.
(, Thu 5 Apr 2012, 12:27, Reply)
Are you suggesting that we should go out and panic buy oil?
I think you are.
(, Thu 5 Apr 2012, 12:31, Reply)
Fuck that shit....
...I'm sitting on a fucking pasty mountain here.
(, Thu 5 Apr 2012, 12:34, Reply)
I thought chickenlady had lost weight
And I think she'd prefer to be called "pale".
(, Thu 5 Apr 2012, 13:13, Reply)
Cheeky bugger!
In actual fact, I've put on weight of late....too much work to get to the gym or to go rock climbing :(
(, Thu 5 Apr 2012, 14:38, Reply)
yeah man, im with you.
I'm not 100% convinced its man made after reading that Michael chriton book... That the environentalists lobbyers are paid millions as well as the oil ones so they have just as much to personally gain.

But put it that we shouldn't be so wastefull and you're spot on, everyone agrees
(, Thu 5 Apr 2012, 13:37, Reply)
It's not really that much of debate, is it?
A insignificant minority deny what the vast majority of experts believe, yet both sides are given equal weight in the media.
(, Thu 5 Apr 2012, 11:23, Reply)
not so.
Only a few crackpots believe it's caused solely by man - and the debate over the extent of man's influence on it is a real one.
(, Thu 5 Apr 2012, 11:25, Reply)
Over the extent of, perhaps, but my understanding is that we are having an influence.
It is kind of hard to prove perfectly as it cannot be recreated under laboratory conditions.
(, Thu 5 Apr 2012, 11:28, Reply)
I'm quite happy to accept the argument for climate change...
...but I don't understand why a bunch of cunts have decided that the best way to deal with it is to try and make money out of it.

It's like trying to prevent incest by whoring out your own sister.
(, Thu 5 Apr 2012, 11:29, Reply)
Innit.

(, Thu 5 Apr 2012, 11:31, Reply)
..because the human solution is to try and make money out of fucking everything?

(, Thu 5 Apr 2012, 11:31, Reply)
That's partly true...
...I also think it's dangerous. The well off can continue to pollute unabated while the proles have to struggle with higher energy and transportation costs? Why must we have artificially created markets to solve every single social problem today?

I blame fatcha innit.
(, Thu 5 Apr 2012, 11:36, Reply)
I don't think they are.
It's one of the few scientific debates out there where to be on the "wrong" side (ie anti-man made warming) brings you in for instant ridicule from the scientific community and the general public, regardless of how valid your point may be.

I happen to think man contributes strongly to global warming, but it's become science by public and political opinion rather than actually by science, and that's a terribly bad thing.
(, Thu 5 Apr 2012, 11:28, Reply)
cf Genetic modification.
Stupid knee-jerk newpaper cunts.
(, Thu 5 Apr 2012, 11:31, Reply)
it's just as much politicians faults
but, yeah.
(, Thu 5 Apr 2012, 11:32, Reply)

« Go Back | See The Full Thread

Pages: Latest, 836, 835, 834, 833, 832, ... 1