Forum Replies Created
23rd December 2010, 8:21 at 8:21 am #156825
Part of this will include actually doing what you can to defend your position, rather than wave through a faster car.
This is a canard put forth often by Schumacher fanboys – that anyone who objects to his ramming-off-the-road antics wants to go back to the era of “politely waving faster cars through”…
Schumacher is the only driver of any era who has coldly and repeatedly used this tactic.19th December 2010, 12:56 at 12:56 pm #15666919th December 2010, 12:54 at 12:54 pm #156668
Mark Blundell and Kimi Raikkonen17th December 2010, 23:25 at 11:25 pm #136247
oh yeah he is… whoops. Sorry, I keep making that mistake … he sounds more like he’s a Scot to me, I don’t know why.
We shouldn’t complain too much, this is actually an improvement. No more Legard. Maybe Brundle and Coulthard won’t be the best team ever but it’s better than listening to Legard again.
Also, I know Crash isn’t exactly the most trusted source but it’s hard to see why they would be so specific if they were just rumour-mongering.17th December 2010, 10:21 at 10:21 am #136245
Yeah, this probably means Brundle as lead…. something he was never really meant to do…
Another piece of amateurish hackery from the Beeb…
If they’re going to hire a Scot, why can’t they get John Watson? He actually has experience as a commentator. He was great on EuroSport. I would have even been happy with Ben Edwards despite the unfortunate tendency he shares with Anthony Davidson to sound like a 12 year old when particularly excited. But anyway, to remind Edwards fans again, he’s said he doesnt want the job…
But why can’t they hire… y’know, a professional? Like Allen? There’s probably only about 3 people in the world who still think Legard is better than JA…
Actually I think he has a contract somewhere else at the moment but still… they should have hired him in the first place, stupid sods.8th December 2010, 20:25 at 8:25 pm #155301
double post!8th December 2010, 20:25 at 8:25 pm #155300
Can you provide specific examples of people who’ve been “persecuted” for trying to publish evidence that climate change isn’t happening or isn’t caused by humans? That’s a pretty serious charge.
Um.. no it’s not a “serious charge” at all – because I didn’t specifically accuse anyone. I said people who seek the truth are often persecuted. But of course you probably know that, your response is yet more and more timewasting chaff to “run down the clock”.
I think I see your strategy now, you’re trying to bore me into submission right?7th December 2010, 20:30 at 8:30 pm #155298
Of course I know how the Catholic Church “dealt” with Galileo. And so do you – which is essentially my point.
No it’s not. It’s my point. In your own ham-fisted way you’re making my point for me… people who seek the truth are often persecuted and ridiculed. Just like then, we have the same situation now, only this time it’s not a religion it’s a cult – statism – and it’s much more scary.
Have you read those papers yet?
No. Why would I want to read those old chestnuts. I’ve been asking you (repeatedly) to tell me why I should believe these people, I never asked you to tell me what they’ve already said 500 times.
Of course you weren’t really trying to inform anyone, your “thinking” was that if you throw out a lot of references with heavy scientific language in them, you hope it’ll intimidate the opponent into backing down. Sorry, doesn’t work with me.
Like I said right at the beginning…… global warming alarmists… not very good at answering questions….6th December 2010, 22:44 at 10:44 pm #155296
I’m also curious about this idea that scientists somehow have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The most famous scientists throughout history have been the ones who have overturned established scientific thought – think of Galileo showing that the Earth revolves around the Sun, or Darwin providing a mechanism for biological change… There would be far more wealth and fame attainable for any scientist who managed to disprove the established theory of global warming, rather than for those who shamelessly parroted a “party line.”
Your example of a scientist who became “famous” and “wealthy” by challenging the status quo is Galileo?
Do you know what happened to Galileo and how he was persecuted? Do you know how he spent the last ten years of his life? *super glues palms to face*
Your argument has mostly revolved around pointing out that I “don’t understand” science, but you’ve revealed that you’ve clearly never read a single history book.6th December 2010, 18:39 at 6:39 pm #136233
Hairs has got it right.
I had a suspicion it might just be simply this year’s details with “2011” written on them but I didn’t know Samos was retiring.
… that’s a good piece of info, thanks for pointing it out.5th December 2010, 20:34 at 8:34 pm #155294
Funny thing is I don’t actually mind that much as far as F1’s concerned because it’s going to make the engines much more interesting than we have now. There’s no good reason for F1 not to have turbos anyway. Naturally cooled engines are charming and nice in their own way (especially the noise of the old V10s and V12s) but now we have V8s, I’ll be very glad to have turbos instead.
Of course I do mind not being able to see anything because these light bulbs are so crappy, for no good reason. And being taxed to death.5th December 2010, 19:00 at 7:00 pm #155291
If that explanation is true, why couldn’t it have been made a day or a few days after the CRU emails became the huge story that they did? Why did left wing sites like the Huffington Post wait for a week to feebly cover the story? Why did the BBC wait 3 weeks to even mention it on their TV news or website?
Of course there a million other suspicious emails, there’s not much of them I can remember off the top of my head this long afterwards. The next question of course is why I didn’t see that explanation on the news after the inquiry, why there wasn’t a detailed point by point explanation for those famous emails that became emblematic of the story? All I saw was that they were cleared, and then there was nothing much more than that. If global warming really is that urgent a problem then surely they would have wanted to explain this away in detail, instead of just rushing it, to make sure nobody was in any doubt? Could it be that they just didn’t have much of an explanation to give, and were deeply embarrassed at being caught?
Obviously you can see why someone would be suspicious if, after all the attention the story generated, the establishment responds by simply saying “they were found innocent, next story”. Compare the way the media reported the clearing of the CRU scientists to the Wikileaks “scandal” this week – they’ve spent every day reporting every little tidbit of utter trivia from these leaked American documents – criticisms about some European leader’s taste in decor merit a big scary “quotation marks” display by the BBC, and hand-wringing from their reporters ensues about how bad and arrogant it makes America look… or compare it to the various inquiries about Iraq, they pretty much devoted themselves to that. I didn’t see them saying “Well, maybe we shouldn’t go into such detail we might bore people” on those occasions…
It was a big story and essentially it was just swept under the carpet. So I don’t see why anyone should believe that explanation or any other given at an inquiry where the “impartiality” of the investigators is so obviously in doubt.
Also, I recall when this scandal happened, the attitude among some left wing people was quite disturbing to say the least – particularly the widespread attitude that the emails were “private property” that had been stolen. We’re talking about a research body that no doubt recieves squillions of taxpayers’ money. As all climate research has done. And they claim to be operating entirely in the public interest to save the world, or at least convince it that it’s in mortal danger, and yet some people seemingly demand that they should be granted “privacy”. Why the hell should they have anything to hide? Can’t you see how absurd that is and why it would lead people to the conclusion that climate change is nothing other than an excuse for control freaks in government to continue to intrude into people’s lives?
As for the other “independent” scientists who you say are part of the concensus – if you can name a good number of scientific research establishments anywhere in the Western world that say climate change isn’t really happening as it is apocalyptically described, or that it is not man made, who continue to receive central government funding (i.e. from the EU, or federal money in the US) (I doubt you can even name one) I will accept that there is such a thing as an “independent” scientist who is allowed to make up his own mind on this matter. I believe there is no such thing, they are all beholden to extremely disturbing persons such as Al Gore and George Soros.5th December 2010, 8:27 at 8:27 am #155289
Also regarding the “right wing blogosphere”, how are they any more a “secondary source” than the BBC? I suppose you’d say that I’m not supposed to believe “right wingers” but I should always believe the BBC because it’s full of perfect people who don’t have any biases at all?5th December 2010, 8:18 at 8:18 am #155288
You mention the CRU emails and the subsequent investigations. Can you point to specific incriminating passages in the emails?
So you’re not going to deny that the official British inquiry was a whitewash then?
I notice you didn’t even go back to the matter of the people who carried that out having a financial stake in seeing global warming panic continue (even the BBC admitted that in their article about the verdict, but still laughably described the inquiry as “independent” in their opening paragraph of the article..)
If you want to have a little “retrial” here, I suggest you start by explaining in what kind of “context” an honest scientist would possibly use the word “trick” at all, let alone refer to using a “data trick”.4th December 2010, 2:16 at 2:16 am #155285
Another thing – you never actually specified what was wrong with my original post. You just said “don’t believe everything you read on right wing websites”.
If you could be specific, like I have been from the start, that would be a lot more convincing than just snorting and saying “gosh, you’re so gullible”.
Since you didn’t specify anything I can only speculate on what you were suggesting
For instance… if the man who chaired the British inquiry doesn’t in fact head a “Carbon Capture” business that stands to gain greatly from the climate hysteria and would obviously fail miserably if the climate change boom collapsed, why hasn’t he sued all the “liars” on the internet who said that he does, for libel? The only answer is that they would get laughed out of court.
The climate “scientists” at the CRU in East Anglia admitted themselves more or less straight away that the hacked emails posted on the web were in fact genuine, from their own servers. Presumably because even they could see it would have been totally pointless and risible to say that someone had “made up” ten years worth of emails.