6538 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Introduced with cynicism by announcer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Introduced with cynicism by announcer. I did notice that too !! Will give him the benefit of the doubt though. Although lots of 'deniar' and 'sceptics' chat so far. Also probably as much time so far on those on the other side of the debate. Funny that. Any hour long show I see on 'climate change' usually shows precisely zero chat from the 'sceptics'. Ah well. Lets hope for some decent debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 This looks like one serious stitch up job. Whatever side of the debate you are on. Why are 'climate scientists' getting so much time on this ?! It is a ******ing joke. Have you ever seen a show about climate change and its dangers etc.. - and 'deniars' have been given even a tenth of hte air time !? How about an even sided debate on the subject. Nah - cant have that on the BBC can we. Joke. Meet the climate sceptics ? Far more interviews and statements so far from the 'opposition' . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6538 Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 It is rather looking that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 23 minutes gone. So that is what 2 Sceptics we have 'met' so far ? And as for the 'other side' of the debate ? At a rough guess perhaps 8-10. Brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6538 Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 Although it has gone along way to reenforcing my opinion that Australians are the most irritating ntionality on Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Although it has gone along way to reenforcing my opinion that Australians are the most irritating ntionality on Earth. There are no denials to that one. The jist of this show seems to be that all the climate 'sceptics' are not bothering with science. Why didn't this supposed 'journalist' just get this list of the internet (That I found in 0.19 seconds) and ask them what science they have behind their thoughts ? You know - seeing as these are all eminent scientists in this particular field (Or related). Scientific sceptics Total sham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Now it is about the addiction on oil and energy usage. A bit more interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 This is shameful. Why is this guy sitting trying to pick holes in this boys argument ? I thought this was 'Meet the sceptics' ? Why is he not picking holes in the other areas, and sitting down with them with incorrect quotes they have made and been pushing them to admit they made mistakes too ? This has got me thinking of George Orwell and 1984. Even the music behind it - and especially this rhetoric at the end. Shameful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Woods? Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 There are no denials to that one. The jist of this show seems to be that all the climate 'sceptics' are not bothering with science. Why didn't this supposed 'journalist' just get this list of the internet (That I found in 0.19 seconds) and ask them what science they have behind their thoughts ? You know - seeing as these are all eminent scientists in this particular field (Or related). Scientific sceptics Total sham. Did you notice the graph placed at the right of the beginning of the list of climate sceptics on wikipedia? Editorally subtle as a f***ing brick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Why is he not picking holes in the other areas, and sitting down with them with incorrect quotes they have made and been pushing them to admit they made mistakes too ? That's quite hilarious. Do you honestly think that that is the way science works? This has got me thinking of George Orwell and 1984. Even the music behind it - and especially this rhetoric at the end. Well, let's see... - Continuing venom and hatred directed towards bogeymen.. (Al Gore, James Hansen, Phil Jones..) Or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate - Inconvenient facts or lost arguments dropped into thememory hole. - A deliberate refusal even to understand the arguments of opponents for fear of being tarnished. ('protective stupidity') - The ability to come out with a stream of ideologically-correct 'arguments' without any conscious thought being involved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Newspeak_words#Duckspeak - The refusal to follow or examine even one's own freshly-made arguments if there is even the possibility of them leading in the 'wrong' direction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink TO quote: To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 That's quite hilarious. Do you honestly think that that is the way science works? We are not talking about science here. We are talking about a TV show to the masses giving over opinions that may sway the thoughts of the general public. This was supposed to be a show about 'Meeting the climate scpetics'. However when it came down to it they just used it to pick holes in the arguments of the climate sceptics. Well in fact one in particular. Considering this is a show about climate sceptics - would it not have made more sense to pick holes in the arguments of the other side of the debate ? You know - seeing as evey other article/programme/newstory on climate change gives about ZERO coverage to any 'sceptic' argument ? You know seeing as pretty much all we have heard on this subject is one side of the debate ? Would ONE HOUR of the other side of the debate on BBC4 REALLY be a lot to ask ? I really think you are just so blinkered on this subject that you cannot see ANYTHING from the view of anyone else. As I have stated before many times - whether MMGW is true or not I do not know. However I do know there is an agenda in the media to portray one side of the debate. As you have decided to sit on one side of this debate you simply cannot even see this. Please - try opening your eyes. Whether MMGW is true or not - people are being conned and brainwashed. This is one of the most obvious examples I ahve ever seen. Up there with the 'House prices rising is great - hooray' mantra peddled by the same organisation. You know they peddle this shit about the subject of property - so has it not crossed your mind that they may also do it for other subjects as well..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Woods? Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Well, let's see... Irony fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Sando Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I liked the fact that the doc never let Lord Monkton say anything in context, they only alowed sound bites of irelevance, while giving the for argument all the time in the world to make there point. Its also funny that they made fun of alex jones for believing that man made global warming theory is been used to take away our freedoms, they then went on to suggest that people who don't believe the theory should be put on trial, and that democracy should be suspended on the issue, which totally proved Alex Jones point. Silly Fascist Idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Sando Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 That's quite hilarious. Do you honestly think that that is the way science works? Well, let's see... - Continuing venom and hatred directed towards bogeymen.. (Al Gore, James Hansen, Phil Jones..) Or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate - Inconvenient facts or lost arguments dropped into thememory hole. - A deliberate refusal even to understand the arguments of opponents for fear of being tarnished. ('protective stupidity') - The ability to come out with a stream of ideologically-correct 'arguments' without any conscious thought being involved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Newspeak_words#Duckspeak - The refusal to follow or examine even one's own freshly-made arguments if there is even the possibility of them leading in the 'wrong' direction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink TO quote: To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink. I think we all know who's involved in double think fluffy, why don't you take me to room 101 for a bit of re education as your program suggests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Sando Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 For anyone interested in the program look here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Sando Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Meet the climate sceptics, ( who is sceptical we have a climate) it starts with people who believe in man made global warming. some off my favourate quotes " I don't know about you but I've been quite frightened by all the media stories about global warming" " my guilt for being human began to evaporate as leading sceptic Lord C Monkton seemed to demolish many of the key predictions of doom" Guilt for being human, What the F**K. " In Britain, parliment had made up our minds for us" HA HA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I really think you are just so blinkered on this subject that you cannot see ANYTHING from the view of anyone else. As I have stated before many times - whether MMGW is true or not I do not know. Despite my best efforts to educate you, you have quite deliberately refused to learn. And you accuse me of being blinkered! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I liked the fact that the doc never let Lord Monkton say anything in context, they only alowed sound bites of irelevance, while giving the for argument all the time in the world to make there Why would you listen to anything the Lord Monkton says about global warming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Sando Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Lord Monkton in his own words http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuovqFwUtDc&feature=related Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Sando Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 'This movie is to show the complete 30 year history of the NSIDC satellite derived arctic sea ice extent in a single video. Brown is land, black is shoreline, blue is water except for the large blue dot in the center of the plot. The movie plays double speed at the beginning because the early satellite collected data every other day. Youll see the large blue circle change in size flashing back and forth between the older and newer sat data just as the video slows down.After staring at the graphs above you think you understand what is happening as ice gradually shrinks away. Well the high speed video shows a much more turbulent world with changing weather patterns in 2007 and 2008 summer blasting away at the south west corner of the ice. Ive watched it 20 times at least, noticing cloud patterns (causing lower ice levels), winds, water currents and all kinds of different things. Im not so sure anymore that were seeing a consistent decline to polar bear doom, with this kind of variance it might just be everyday noise.Note that despite some mainstream media reports, our Arctic Sea ice has not melted away, but comes back every year as it has done for millennia..This is the normal season cycle.' Antarctic Sea Ice Daily Video - NasaTeam NSIDC data 1978 - 2009Remember kids don't let the facts get in the way of a good profit making scare story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Despite my best efforts to educate you, you have quite deliberately refused to learn. And you accuse me of being blinkered! Educate me ? Refused to learn ? I am not blinkered. I can see both sides of this debate. Do you understand that someone who only sees one side of the debate - calling someone who has not made up his mind yet, and sees both sides of the debate is..................well.....quite ludicrous The aspect of this that most intrigues me today is the media/Government/associated bodies attitude to this subject. If you cannot even see there is an obvious agreed agenda across the board then you really need to take a look at yourself. And this has nothing to do with any 'rights' or 'wrong' of the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveinHope Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 This looks like one serious stitch up job. Whatever side of the debate you are on. Why are 'climate scientists' getting so much time on this ?! It is a ******ing joke. Have you ever seen a show about climate change and its dangers etc.. - and 'deniars' have been given even a tenth of hte air time !? How about an even sided debate on the subject. Nah - cant have that on the BBC can we. Joke. Meet the climate sceptics ? Far more interviews and statements so far from the 'opposition' . The thing is, if you were fair then the skeptics would not even justify a tenth of the time, They do get very defensive when challenged too ..if you can't stand the heat.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Woods? Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Educate me ? Refused to learn ? At least the climate catastrophists aren't slaughtering non-believers and apostates yet...oh, wait a minute: You are either with us or against us, a tactic used by historical giants such as Jesus Christ, Lenin, Mussolini, and George W. Bush: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Educate me ? Refused to learn ? I am not blinkered. I can see both sides of this debate. Do you understand that someone who only sees one side of the debate - calling someone who has not made up his mind yet, and sees both sides of the debate is..................well.....quite ludicrous No. A person who claims to 'see both sides' of 'does 2+2=4 or 2+2=3' is indeed being blinkered. The aspect of this that most intrigues me today is the media/Government/associated bodies attitude to this subject. If you cannot even see there is an obvious agreed agenda across the board then you really need to take a look at yourself. And this has nothing to do with any 'rights' or 'wrong' of the debate. There are three agendas that I could plausably suggest. One is to use the science of global warming as an excuse to push unrealistic distributed energy schemes (wind, solar, etc) by a strange alliance of aristocratic types and engineering-deprived hippies. A second one is do deny and confuse the science of global warming in order to prolong the life of the coal industry. And a third to promote various carbon trading schemes, offsets and other financial shennigans which will do surprisingly little to reduce emissions but generate vast profits from energy consumers. However, the existance of these agendas does not falsify the science (unless you are a rabid postmodernist, of course) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.