The end of the world is nigh!

mkpdavies · 31-10-2006, 11:58 AM

You wouldn't step outside your house you you treated every potential threat like that.

B.A.Ware · 31-10-2006, 12:03 PM

Just listened to a phone in on radio 4 about this subject, the sheeple are just queuing up with their wallets open ready to pay whatever the politicians want to stop this so called Armageddon.

Millennium3 · 31-10-2006, 12:04 PM

I would guess, that on an issue as big as this, that is what the majority would wish. [Although I agree with your principle with regard to, say, terrorism where the likely impact is relatively small].

Aardvark · 31-10-2006, 12:16 PM

Matt, You ask us to explain a lot to you, but you know full well that this material comes in book sized research papers that can't be posted here. I don't trust Brown's way of dealing with this issue and I don't trust Blair at all, but sometimes simple logic demands that we accept the basic assumption that the planet is being detroyed.

There are over 6 billion humans roaming around doing things that were largely impossible for most of them only 50 years ago. Each individual in any given society is consuming more resources than his/her parents. The earth is finite as are the resources contained therein, give or take the odd meteor or bit of cosmic dust for the pedants amongst you. When I was born the world's population was barely 2 billion and I'm not yet 50. More carbon dioxide is being produced by man than ever before. More methane is being produced by far more large ruminants (and no doubt far more chickens) than ever before. I think it is credible to argue that these things are having a deleterious effect on the world in which we live and it is reasonable to argue that something ought to be done about it.

The difficult thing to measure, since we don't have accurate data from the beginning of time, is how much damage is being done and what ought we to do? It is reasonable to err on the side of caution whilst scientists gather information. If they turn out to be wrong and nowhere disappears under the sea and no species die out then it is a bonus for future generations. If, however, they turn out to be correct (conventional wisdom says they will be :wink: ) then we will look like a very prescient generation indeed.

I don't think the argument is advanced by using epithets and rude words to describe or disparage science that you disagree with when you have very little independent science to support your contentions. Unsurprisingly all of the research by the oil companies comes down in favour of continuing the way we are (I read an item where an oil company scientist argued that the world's resources would never run out).

The fact that a lot of people on some thread somewhere are opposed to the government's taxes doesn't mean the government are wrong. A lot of threads are taken over by people who have an axe to grind and support each other - I get a request or 2 every week encouraging me to go and support the anti-EU/UKIP line on some thread or blog or website somewhere. That's how the Internet works as we all know.

Matt, nobody in your family or of your acquaintance has ever been truly raped otherwise you wouldn't use the word so often and in such an emotional way to desribe higher levels of taxation.

mkpdavies · 31-10-2006, 12:17 PM

What about meteors slamming into the planet? Better spend a few bill on defending against them too. Have a meteor tax or something.

What about Alien Invasion? That could happen one day, you are evil and hate your kids if your don't stump up the tax for that too.

The Sun will implode one day and will take the earth with it. Implosion tax is required.

You can make up any one of millions of possible disasters that could happen. you could worry yourself to sleep every night. The best thing people can do is try and be as neutral as possible, but not destroy our economic and therefore technological growth doing it.

Technology will be mans only hope one day, when we have to move off this planet. If we have stunted it worrying about hte consequences, when there is no firm evidence to suggest we are doing real damage, then we will deserve to go the way of the dinasaurs.

Aardvark · 31-10-2006, 12:25 PM

Matt, As I'm sure you already know, there are astronomers already monitoring meteors and comets etc. It costs millions and is being paid by largely Russian and American taxpayers. A recent space mission intercepted a comet for research purposes.

There is also research into the possibility that we might be able to pick up alien TV stations and monitoring is taking place (I kid you not).

The Sun will not implode during the life of the Labour government so they won't do anything about it. :roll:

I cannot make up millions of disasters that will never happen, and nor can you. :wink:

mkpdavies · 31-10-2006, 12:47 PM

That will never happen? Oh I can.

I will never eat the world, need I go on.

Quote:

Matt, As I'm sure you already know, there are astronomers already monitoring meteors and comets etc. It costs millions and is being paid by largely Russian and American taxpayers. A recent space mission intercepted a comet for research purposes.

That's not for the sole purpose of defending against metors, but learning about space so that we can explore and make use of it.

If the people are happy to pay for that, then good for them. I would certainly be happy to pay for scientific and technological development.

I am even happy to pay for enviromental technological and scientific development. What I am not happy to do is poor money into a black hole, on the basis of very biased media scaring.

mkpdavies · 31-10-2006, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Matt, nobody in your family or of your acquaintance has ever been truly raped otherwise you wouldn't use the word so often and in such an emotional way to desribe higher levels of taxation.

Just read this bit of ****.

Yes I do have a friend who was raped. Raped is a word and can be used to describe many things. Do I mean the tax payers would be sexually assaulted? Of course not. I mean they have been violated, abused, misused, badly treated. Raped means all of those things to me, thus is perfectly valid.

I never had you down as politically correct, but I guess you learn something every day.

Quote:

I don't think the argument is advanced by using epithets and rude words to describe or disparage science that you disagree with when you have very little independent science to support your contentions. Unsurprisingly all of the research by the oil companies comes down in favour of continuing the way we are (I read an item where an oil company

More PC and more bs. I can use whatever words I like to describe things. I am free and I am me.

I have read into the subject of climate change more than most people on this planet. I have seen the case for both sides (unlike most people on this planet). From it I have concluded that we are not getting a balanced debate and poor decisions are being made from that fact. Add to that, that there is no attempt to make this an environmental cause, that strips out the accusations of revenue generation and I am confident in MY opinion. You are welcome to yours.

The information I have read ranges from biased in the extreme on one side, right through to the other side. I have to make a judgment call on that.

I have posted many interesting pieces of information from the side that I support. What have you posted? Nothing!

Lose the attitude buddy, it don't wash with me.

mkpdavies · 31-10-2006, 01:41 PM

Because PC ****** me off more that the EU (almost), I have gone and found the dictionary description of the word (and that's all it is, a word).

Quote:

1. To force (another person) to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse; commit rape on.
2. To seize and carry off by force.
3. To plunder or pillage.

1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation:

I rest my case.

Aardvark · 31-10-2006, 02:43 PM

In the hallway, no doubt? :wink:

31-10-2006, 11:58 AM	#21 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,604	You wouldn't step outside your house you you treated every potential threat like that. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

31-10-2006, 12:17 PM	#25 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,604	What about meteors slamming into the planet? Better spend a few bill on defending against them too. Have a meteor tax or something. What about Alien Invasion? That could happen one day, you are evil and hate your kids if your don't stump up the tax for that too. The Sun will implode one day and will take the earth with it. Implosion tax is required. You can make up any one of millions of possible disasters that could happen. you could worry yourself to sleep every night. The best thing people can do is try and be as neutral as possible, but not destroy our economic and therefore technological growth doing it. Technology will be mans only hope one day, when we have to move off this planet. If we have stunted it worrying about hte consequences, when there is no firm evidence to suggest we are doing real damage, then we will deserve to go the way of the dinasaurs. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

31-10-2006, 12:03 PM	#22 (permalink)
B.A.Ware Moderator Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Birmingham Posts: 4,103 Party: UKIP	Just listened to a phone in on radio 4 about this subject, the sheeple are just queuing up with their wallets open ready to pay whatever the politicians want to stop this so called Armageddon.

31-10-2006, 12:04 PM	#23 (permalink)
Millennium3 Moderator Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Berkshire Posts: 3,873	I would guess, that on an issue as big as this, that is what the majority would wish. [Although I agree with your principle with regard to, say, terrorism where the likely impact is relatively small].

31-10-2006, 12:16 PM	#24 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,522	Matt, You ask us to explain a lot to you, but you know full well that this material comes in book sized research papers that can't be posted here. I don't trust Brown's way of dealing with this issue and I don't trust Blair at all, but sometimes simple logic demands that we accept the basic assumption that the planet is being detroyed. There are over 6 billion humans roaming around doing things that were largely impossible for most of them only 50 years ago. Each individual in any given society is consuming more resources than his/her parents. The earth is finite as are the resources contained therein, give or take the odd meteor or bit of cosmic dust for the pedants amongst you. When I was born the world's population was barely 2 billion and I'm not yet 50. More carbon dioxide is being produced by man than ever before. More methane is being produced by far more large ruminants (and no doubt far more chickens) than ever before. I think it is credible to argue that these things are having a deleterious effect on the world in which we live and it is reasonable to argue that something ought to be done about it. The difficult thing to measure, since we don't have accurate data from the beginning of time, is how much damage is being done and what ought we to do? It is reasonable to err on the side of caution whilst scientists gather information. If they turn out to be wrong and nowhere disappears under the sea and no species die out then it is a bonus for future generations. If, however, they turn out to be correct (conventional wisdom says they will be :wink: ) then we will look like a very prescient generation indeed. I don't think the argument is advanced by using epithets and rude words to describe or disparage science that you disagree with when you have very little independent science to support your contentions. Unsurprisingly all of the research by the oil companies comes down in favour of continuing the way we are (I read an item where an oil company scientist argued that the world's resources would never run out). The fact that a lot of people on some thread somewhere are opposed to the government's taxes doesn't mean the government are wrong. A lot of threads are taken over by people who have an axe to grind and support each other - I get a request or 2 every week encouraging me to go and support the anti-EU/UKIP line on some thread or blog or website somewhere. That's how the Internet works as we all know. Matt, nobody in your family or of your acquaintance has ever been truly raped otherwise you wouldn't use the word so often and in such an emotional way to desribe higher levels of taxation.

31-10-2006, 12:25 PM	#26 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,522	Matt, As I'm sure you already know, there are astronomers already monitoring meteors and comets etc. It costs millions and is being paid by largely Russian and American taxpayers. A recent space mission intercepted a comet for research purposes. There is also research into the possibility that we might be able to pick up alien TV stations and monitoring is taking place (I kid you not). The Sun will not implode during the life of the Labour government so they won't do anything about it. :roll: I cannot make up millions of disasters that will never happen, and nor can you. :wink:

31-10-2006, 02:43 PM	#30 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,522	In the hallway, no doubt? :wink: