Uncle Bob Geldof Losing It

[Turned Out Nice Again]

Nevertheless, rational people choose their actions according to the estimated probabilities of various possible outcomes. While there is a small possibility that the climate changes resulting from anthropogenic global warming might have a net beneficial effect, the overall effect is far more likely to be negative. Not certain, but far more likely. It therefore makes sense to consider mitigation measures, such as moves towards a low emission energy generation infrastructure.

Edit: The train example was not meant as a comparison of probabilities; it was simply a "reductio ad absurdum" argument against your implication that avoidance action is necessary only when an outcome is certain.

it was a sophistic argument.

since there is absolutely ZERO benefit to be gained in stepping in front of a train

a more honest analogy would be people avoiding leaving the house in cloudy conditions for fear of being struck by lightning.

[snowflux]

it was a sophistic argument.

since there is absolutely ZERO benefit to be gained in stepping in front of a train

a more honest analogy would be people avoiding leaving the house in cloudy conditions for fear of being struck by lightning.

As I wrote in my edit, that was not intended as an analogy. It was a "reductio ad absurdum" argument against ccc's implication that avoidance action is necessary only when an outcome is certain.

Your analogy is very unrepresentative. The probability of being hit by lighting is slim, whereas the probability of net deleterious effects arising from human-induced climate change is close to certain, though not necessarily as catastrophic. A better analogy would be the decision as to whether or not to carry an umbrella on a day for which rain is forecast.

[MrPin]

Christ Almighty! You buggers like to argue!

[Turned Out Nice Again]

As I wrote in my edit, that was not intended as an analogy. It was a "reductio ad absurdum" argument against ccc's implication that avoidance action is necessary only when an outcome is certain.

Your analogy is very unrepresentative. The probability of being hit by lighting is slim, whereas the probability of net deleterious effects arising from human-induced climate change is close to certain, though not necessarily as catastrophic. A better analogy would be the decision as to whether or not to carry an umbrella on a day for which rain is forecast.

i still think my analogy is better since again there is very little downside to packing a brolly whereas the solutions provided for AGW would necessitate a new global economic order, at minimum.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

Christ Almighty! You buggers like to argue!

Oh no they don't!

[MrPin]

Oh no they don't!

Took me 20 seconds, before I found that funny! Yo barsteward!

[dances with sheeple]

So lets get back to Mr Geldorf. The biggest self opinionated knob to raise his scruffy head in modern times.

What I find amazing is that people actually take him and that other loony tune, Bono, seriously.

Having a few hit records suddenly turns them into serious commentators on important World issues.

Every day on the TV we still view starving children on the screen to make us feel guilty and give generously to charities.

The very same charities that are paying their bosses obscene salaries because "they are worth it".

The money raised inevitably ends up in the bank account of some filthy African dictator wearing sunglasses and raping his country.

I seem to remember Henry Kissinger making an announcement many moons ago that by the year 2000, starvation and malnutrition will have been eradicated.

He must be right we all thought. This gravelly voiced Germanic air of authority on everything....just another useful idiot.

Fxck the lot of them. I'm spending the money on me and my family.

Saw Bono on CNN a minute ago, sounding like a knob I`m afraid. The Geldof interview I mentioned had Bob coming across pretty well In my estimation, of course Bono is a proper rock star as U2 were massive? Geldof is more known for his activism, which seems to piss him off a bit, although I`m sure he has done some good but largely unheard music over the years. The Boomtown Rats clips from the M.Lawson interview, some of which I had not seen since the late 70`s were still pretty edgy though. Not to make light of the Hutchence/Yates period, because the interview gets very dark at that point, but Michael Hutchence was a bona fide global rock star at the time, so just more salt in the wound for Geldof who never really made it to that level?

[MrPin]

I guess with the "economic difficulties" of the last few years, all the clever people have left, so I'll bet what's left are "really thick"! Worthy of an "Irish" joke!

[Guest eight]

Not to make light of the Hutchence/Yates period, because the interview gets very dark at that point, but Michael Hutchence was a bona fide global rock star at the time, so just more salt in the wound for Geldof who never really made it to that level?

I'm also guessing that Hutchence was hung like a rhinoceros (no pun regarding his untimely demise intended).

[Nuggets Mahoney]

Took me 20 seconds, before I found that funny! Yo barsteward!

Another of my cunning traps foiled, dang nabit!

In the same circumstances I would have posted a reply after 15 seconds and started editing it 6 seconds later.

[Bloo Loo]

You mean that same infrasound / Low frequency noise that people living by the Sea are exposed to (virtually continuously and at much higher levels)

ive noticed that noise by the Sea too...that doesnt mean the nimby wont want to object...that is his lifestyle at stake dontchaknow.

[happy_renting]

Saw Bono on CNN a minute ago, sounding like a knob I`m afraid. The Geldof interview I mentioned had Bob coming across pretty well In my estimation, of course Bono is a proper rock star as U2 were massive? Geldof is more known for his activism, which seems to piss him off a bit, although I`m sure he has done some good but largely unheard music over the years. The Boomtown Rats clips from the M.Lawson interview, some of which I had not seen since the late 70`s were still pretty edgy though. Not to make light of the Hutchence/Yates period, because the interview gets very dark at that point, but Michael Hutchence was a bona fide global rock star at the time, so just more salt in the wound for Geldof who never really made it to that level?

I quite liked some of the Boomtown Rats stuff.

But the real point is, a persons success (or failure) as a rock star, should have no bearing on their credibility on environmental 'issues', nor their access to the media to spout about them.

Geldof's and Bono's record on tax avoidance, and their hanging of their careers on activism for personal fame, glory and profit, devalues anything they say.

[MrPin]

I quite liked some of the Boomtown Rats stuff.

But the real point is, a persons success (or failure) as a rock star, should have no bearing on their credibility on environmental 'issues', nor their access to the media to spout about them.

Geldof's and Bono's record on tax avoidance, and their hanging of their careers on activism for personal fame, glory and profit, devalues anything they say.

I'm not "avoiding" tax! I have to fugging pay it!

[dances with sheeple]

I quite liked some of the Boomtown Rats stuff.

But the real point is, a persons success (or failure) as a rock star, should have no bearing on their credibility on environmental 'issues', nor their access to the media to spout about them.

Geldof's and Bono's record on tax avoidance, and their hanging of their careers on activism for personal fame, glory and profit, devalues anything they say.

I personally don`t care about their tax avoidance, if people don`t like it just don`t pay for anything they are selling. Who the f*uck want`s to pay tax to a bunch of clown`s running something like HTB2 anyway? If you watch the Geldof interview he says that his wealth comes from running companies, in particular TV companies, not being associated with Live Aid. He says he turned down a lot of offers to do ads in the late 80`s and was basically broke after Live Aid.

[dances with sheeple]

I quite liked some of the Boomtown Rats stuff.

But the real point is, a persons success (or failure) as a rock star, should have no bearing on their credibility on environmental 'issues', nor their access to the media to spout about them.

Geldof's and Bono's record on tax avoidance, and their hanging of their careers on activism for personal fame, glory and profit, devalues anything they say.

Bono had all the fame glory and profit he would ever need probably as soon as U2 did the "Live at Red Rocks" thing? Geldof was a fading rock star by the time of the original Live Aid fair enough, but Bono just needs to do comeback tours, no need to hang anything on activism?

[Nuggets Mahoney]

I would disagree with the concept of there even being a small benefit (See eight I don't blindly agree with SF and Fluffy) as increasing Co2 concentrations has a negative effect on Marine life through acidification which adversely affects the ability of plankton to form shells. Plankton is the base of the marine food chain

Collapsing the marine food chain will have profoundly negative effects on mankind (take 90 odd million tonnes of marine protein out of the World food budget). I dare say some berk will be along to tell us that the system will adapt however that takes millions of years Infact there is a lot of evidence that marine mass extinctions have been associated previously with large spikes in Co2 levels.

According to the Guardian...

Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years

Overfishing and pollution are part of the problem, scientists say, warning that mass extinction of species may be inevitable

The oceans are more acidic now than they have been for at least 300m years, due to carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, and a mass extinction of key species may already be almost inevitable as a result, leading marine scientists warned on Thursday.

(continued, but the Guardian may be pulling it soon)

and... no

[snowflux]

According to the Guardian...

Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years

and... no

What the scientists actually said was that the rate of acidification was at its highest for 300 million years and that this has serious consequences. It's not unknown for newspaper reporters to misunderstand what scientists say to them, though I bet George Monbiot wouldn't have made the same slip.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

What the scientists actually said was that the rate of acidification was at its highest for 300 million years and that this has serious consequences. It's not unknown for newspaper reporters to misunderstand what scientists say to them, though I bet George Monbiot wouldn't have made the same slip.

And not forgetting Nature Geoscience and someone at BBC World Service who (un)thoughtfully retweeted the slip.

Tomorrow, when I'm feeling a little fresher, I'll be interested to track back to the origin of the claim that the rate of reduction in alkalinity is unprecedented in 300 million years.

[snowflux]

And not forgetting Nature Geoscience and someone at BBC World Service who (un)thoughtfully retweeted the slip.

Tomorrow, when I'm feeling a little fresher, I'll be interested to track back to the origin of the claim that the rate of reduction in alkalinity is unprecedented in 300 million years.

Yes, would be interesting to know the basis for that claim.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

though I bet George Monbiot wouldn't have made the same slip.

A slow-burner that one but I got there in the end.

Whilst poodling around trying to get some background on the measured historical rate of alkalisation/ acidification/ neutralisation of the oceans I came across this gem on www.oceanacidification.org.uk...

Clearly the folk behind that chart don't have the same concerns I have about mixing and matching modeled projections with high resolution, directly measured contemporary data with proxies featuring a spacing of about a million years between each data point.

The underlying correctness or incorrectness of opposing views of the impact of C02 emissions aside, there's something about being treated like a daft **** and being insulted with junk like that that can really impact on a chap's objectivity.

[snowflux]

A slow-burner that one but I got there in the end.

Whilst poodling around trying to get some background on the measured historical rate of alkalisation/ acidification/ neutralisation of the oceans I came across this gem on www.oceanacidification.org.uk...

Clearly the folk behind that chart don't have the same concerns I have about mixing and matching modeled projections with high resolution, directly measured contemporary data with proxies featuring a spacing of about a million years between each data point.

The underlying correctness or incorrectness of opposing views of the impact of C02 emissions aside, there's something about being treated like a daft **** and being insulted with junk like that that can really impact on a chap's objectivity.

At least that graph is based on actual and projected data. If we're talking bad graphs, this one takes some beating:

The temperature curve in particular looks extremely improbable and appears to have been simply pulled out of the author's ****. As far as I can tell, there is no data behind it at all, but this doesn't stop it from being widely quoted as gospel on anti-AGW websites!

[ccc]

Since this new report came out - i have heard the phrases 'global warming' or 'warming planet' etc on the tv more times than in the last couple of years.

Is a memo sent around or something !?

Previously it was all 'climate change' - probably due to the very cold winters making things like 'warming' not as palatable for the public to hear.

And we are not talking just the media here. A new 'carbon institute' has just opened in Edinburgh (at the cost of over ten million pounds and almost 2 years of work - i am sure that is environmentally friendly lol)

On the news report on Bbc this morning it was a scientist who was using the 'warming' phrase all of a sudden. I don't think i have heard that phrase on the Scottish news in at least 2 years.

Does of single report suddenly 'prove' something to a point where the language used to explain to all the ' non scientists' can change over night ?

Its all very strange and far too clinical and organised imo. It almost appears planned.

[Guest eight]

Its all very strange and far too clinical and organised imo. It almost appears planned.

I did hear the BBC weatherman last night say that the current temperatures were x degrees above "where they are supposed to be at this time of year."

Very strange choice of words indeed, IMO.

[Guest eight]

I should add, a friend of mine who I never really discuss much apart from football with, quite out of the blue asked me in the car the other day if I thought global warming was real. I gave a fairly non-commital answer at first to see where he was going with it, and he said he thought it was odd that this whole "it's all going into the sea" meme seemed to have sprung up in a lot of places since it became apparent that warming hadn't really materialised. I replied that I hadn't noticed, which is true.

And now here it is, on this thread. Score one to my football mate.

[MrPin]

I should add, a friend of mine who I never really discuss much apart from football with, quite out of the blue asked me in the car the other day if I thought global warming was real. I gave a fairly non-commital answer at first to see where he was going with it, and he said he thought it was odd that this whole "it's all going into the sea" meme seemed to have sprung up in a lot of places since it became apparent that warming hadn't really materialised. I replied that I hadn't noticed, which is true.

And now here it is, on this thread. Score one to my football mate.

Mr Eight! I used to take it all a bit more seriously! I haven't taken anything seriously for many years, and I find I am a happier person!