By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
What I find interesting is that none of these calls take into consideration the right for those living in abject poverty the right to clean power and light.
There are millions of people using freshly cut timber and dung for cooking, heat and light. These people have the right to drive, fly, education and a better life.
All of these things create greenhouse gas.
They ask us to slow down, I get that, and we have changed a lot in our lifestyle to be more aware. We, the developed world can do more to tweak out way of life. That's not hard.
They always forget the developing world.
An oversight.
Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
What I find interesting is that none of these calls take into consideration the right for those living in abject poverty the right to clean power and light.
There are millions of people using freshly cut timber and dung for cooking, heat and light. These people have the right to drive, fly, education and a better life.
All of these things create greenhouse gas.
They ask us to slow down, I get that, and we have changed a lot in our lifestyle to be more aware. We, the developed world can do more to tweak out way of life. That's not hard.
They always forget the developing world.
An oversight.
"They always forget the developing world."
They don't because the vast majority of "developing" nations do not emit anywhere near as much as the other "developed" nations.
Also the "developing" nations will be the ones who struggle most with the consequences.
What I find interesting is that none of these calls take into consideration the right for those living in abject poverty the right to clean power and light.
There are millions of people using freshly cut timber and dung for cooking, heat and light. These people have the right to drive, fly, education and a better life.
All of these things create greenhouse gas.
They ask us to slow down, I get that, and we have changed a lot in our lifestyle to be more aware. We, the developed world can do more to tweak out way of life. That's not hard.
They always forget the developing world.
An oversight.
Dan said it better than I could.
But do yourself a favour and actually learn about this stuff instead of just voiding your own narrow thoughts every post.
What I find interesting is that none of these calls take into consideration the right for those living in abject poverty the right to clean power and light.
There are millions of people using freshly cut timber and dung for cooking, heat and light. These people have the right to drive, fly, education and a better life.
All of these things create greenhouse gas.
They ask us to slow down, I get that, and we have changed a lot in our lifestyle to be more aware. We, the developed world can do more to tweak out way of life. That's not hard.
They always forget the developing world.
An oversight.
Read...
literally the very first line say "Sir David Attenborough says the excesses of western countries should "be curbed" to restore the natural world and we'll all be happier for it."
Stop trying to pedal your agenda
Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top.
My reply was talking about the OP not the study you put forward.
The video in the clip shows a small part of this chap's argument. It's very interesting. He also explains in other videos and books how the assumptions are drawn in many of the most popular studies. Also that the examples given and picked-up by the media are the extreme of the extreme. Hey, death sells yeah!
This also blows the froth off Greta and puts the conversation into context.
Lots to discuss in this topic.
I would recommend Lomborg's books Cool it and False Alarm. They offer an view from a highly pragmatic angle rather than one of panic and politics.
After reading them I do feel that the argument has been hijacked somewhat by extreme predictions, the media, and politicians. All trying to 'out extreme' each other.
A more calm and measured conversation would be nice.
Oh, I am not saying I don't think the problem is real so don't all run at that wall. You'll hurt your heads. Don't get all frothy with your extreme assumptions. You'll hurt your head.
I'm simply putting a view that we all agree the problem is real BUT the solution's on offer may be worth re-visiting.
Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
My reply was talking about the OP not the study you put forward.
The video in the clip shows a small part of this chap's argument. It's very interesting. He also explains in other videos and books how the assumptions are drawn in many of the most popular studies. Also that the examples given and picked-up by the media are the extreme of the extreme. Hey, death sells yeah!
This also blows the froth off Greta and puts the conversation into context.
Lots to discuss in this topic.
I would recommend Lomborg's books Cool it and False Alarm. They offer an view from a highly pragmatic angle rather than one of panic and politics.
After reading them I do feel that the argument has been hijacked somewhat by extreme predictions, the media, and politicians. All trying to 'out extreme' each other.
A more calm and measured conversation would be nice.
Oh, I am not saying I don't think the problem is real so don't all run at that wall. You'll hurt your heads. Don't get all frothy with your extreme assumptions. You'll hurt your head.
I'm simply putting a view that we all agree the problem is real BUT the solution's on offer may be worth re-visiting.
Here we have it - the agenda that he actually wants to push.
Perceives himself as a Jordan Peterson type, who like him or loathe him, actually listens and reads before responding.
Curb excessive capitalism in the west to have a positive impact on the climate now becomes undermine Greta.
--------------
Still waiting for your vision of how the NHS should be structured, so it is no longer a socialist construct, but still delivers universal healthcare.
Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top.
My reply was talking about the OP not the study you put forward.
The video in the clip shows a small part of this chap's argument. It's very interesting. He also explains in other videos and books how the assumptions are drawn in many of the most popular studies. Also that the examples given and picked-up by the media are the extreme of the extreme. Hey, death sells yeah!
This also blows the froth off Greta and puts the conversation into context.
Lots to discuss in this topic.
I would recommend Lomborg's books Cool it and False Alarm. They offer an view from a highly pragmatic angle rather than one of panic and politics.
After reading them I do feel that the argument has been hijacked somewhat by extreme predictions, the media, and politicians. All trying to 'out extreme' each other.
A more calm and measured conversation would be nice.
Oh, I am not saying I don't think the problem is real so don't all run at that wall. You'll hurt your heads. Don't get all frothy with your extreme assumptions. You'll hurt your head.
I'm simply putting a view that we all agree the problem is real BUT the solution's on offer may be worth re-visiting.
Peterson is wrong about this - as he is about so much. He didn’t work for the UN or study the issue in any depth.
Because if he did then he’d know that economic growth and raising living standards are a central part of the UN’s sustainable development goals.
It’s telling that your main source is a fake expert who has monetized pulling the wool over people’s eyes.
Here we have it - the agenda that he actually wants to push.
Perceives himself as a Jordan Peterson type, who like him or loathe him, actually listens and reads before responding.
Curb excessive capitalism in the west to have a positive impact on the climate now becomes undermine Greta.
--------------
Still waiting for your vision of how the NHS should be structured, so it is no longer a socialist construct, but still delivers universal healthcare.
It just wouldn't be the same without a book recommendation (unless it's financial "advice").
This from wiki:
In 2010, Howard Friel wrote The Lomborg Deception, a book-length critique of Cool It, which traces Lomborg’s many references and tests their authority and substance. Friel has said he found "misrepresentation of academic research, misquotation of data, reliance on studies irrelevant to the author’s claims and citation of sources that seem not to exist".[5]
Friel's conclusion, as per his book's title, is that Lomborg is "a performance artist disguised as an academic." I don't want to be as trusting as the reviewers who praised Lomborg's scholarship without (it seems) bothering to check his references, so rather than taking Friel at his word just as they took Lomborg at his, I've done my best to do that checking. Although Friel engages in some bothersome overkill, overall his analysis is compelling.
– Sharon Begley, Newsweek[6][7]
According to Lomborg, Friel's book appears to be aimed primarily at the popular version of Cool It as opposed to the longer more thoroughly cited edition.
and this from the Grauniad:
Two prominent lukewarmers are now launching new manifestos: False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor and Fails to Fix the Planet by Bjorn Lomborg, and Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All by Michael Shellenberger.
Although they are aimed primarily at American audiences, they will appeal to anyone who, like the authors, proclaims themselves to be an environmentalist, but despises environmental campaigners.
Both books contain many pages of endnotes and references to academic publications, conveying the initial impression that their arguments are supported by reason and evidence. But the well-informed reader will recognise that they rely on sources that are outdated, cherry-picked or just wrong.
The content of False Alarm will be familiar to those who have read Lomborg’s previous books, The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It. New findings and evidence are twisted and forced into the same haranguing narrative for his new contribution.
Whilst my "research" is hardly in depth or even necessarily reliable it is sufficient for me to not want to bother reading either book - I have limited time left and there are many works of recognised fiction that I already would like to read.
My reply was talking about the OP not the study you put forward.
The video in the clip shows a small part of this chap's argument. It's very interesting. He also explains in other videos and books how the assumptions are drawn in many of the most popular studies. Also that the examples given and picked-up by the media are the extreme of the extreme. Hey, death sells yeah!
This also blows the froth off Greta and puts the conversation into context.
Lots to discuss in this topic.
I would recommend Lomborg's books Cool it and False Alarm. They offer an view from a highly pragmatic angle rather than one of panic and politics.
After reading them I do feel that the argument has been hijacked somewhat by extreme predictions, the media, and politicians. All trying to 'out extreme' each other.
A more calm and measured conversation would be nice.
Oh, I am not saying I don't think the problem is real so don't all run at that wall. You'll hurt your heads. Don't get all frothy with your extreme assumptions. You'll hurt your head.
I'm simply putting a view that we all agree the problem is real BUT the solution's on offer may be worth re-visiting.
"My reply was talking about the OP not the study you put forward."
Errr.. yes I know, I was backing up my point with research.
I'm not listening to Jordan Peterson on climate change, he is not even in a related field. A man who tells other people should get their house in order whilst getting addicted to drugs, suggesting ridiculous things like all meat diets. He is hardly a good source.
And you the follow up by offering some books but not actually outlining anything other than "there's another way". What exactly IS this other way?
Perhaps instead of listening to psychologists and (as far as I can tell) journalists, maybe you should listen to actual climate scientists?
It just wouldn't be the same without a book recommendation (unless it's financial "advice").
This from wiki:
In 2010, Howard Friel wrote The Lomborg Deception, a book-length critique of Cool It, which traces Lomborg’s many references and tests their authority and substance. Friel has said he found "misrepresentation of academic research, misquotation of data, reliance on studies irrelevant to the author’s claims and citation of sources that seem not to exist".[5]
Friel's conclusion, as per his book's title, is that Lomborg is "a performance artist disguised as an academic." I don't want to be as trusting as the reviewers who praised Lomborg's scholarship without (it seems) bothering to check his references, so rather than taking Friel at his word just as they took Lomborg at his, I've done my best to do that checking. Although Friel engages in some bothersome overkill, overall his analysis is compelling.
– Sharon Begley, Newsweek[6][7]
According to Lomborg, Friel's book appears to be aimed primarily at the popular version of Cool It as opposed to the longer more thoroughly cited edition.
and this from the Grauniad:
Two prominent lukewarmers are now launching new manifestos: False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor and Fails to Fix the Planet by Bjorn Lomborg, and Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All by Michael Shellenberger.
Although they are aimed primarily at American audiences, they will appeal to anyone who, like the authors, proclaims themselves to be an environmentalist, but despises environmental campaigners.
Both books contain many pages of endnotes and references to academic publications, conveying the initial impression that their arguments are supported by reason and evidence. But the well-informed reader will recognise that they rely on sources that are outdated, cherry-picked or just wrong.
The content of False Alarm will be familiar to those who have read Lomborg’s previous books, The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It. New findings and evidence are twisted and forced into the same haranguing narrative for his new contribution.
Whilst my "research" is hardly in depth or even necessarily reliable it is sufficient for me to not want to bother reading either book - I have limited time left and there are many works of recognised fiction that I already would like to read.
"a performance artist disguised as an academic" is also a good way of describing Peterson. I was just thinking similar before I read about Lomborg.
I’m sure Peterson is quite the expert in his own field of psychology. But the fact that he knows a lot more about how to manipulate people and their beliefs than he knows about the environment or economic development should set off a few alarm bells in rational people.
It just wouldn't be the same without a book recommendation (unless it's financial "advice").
This from wiki:
In 2010, Howard Friel wrote The Lomborg Deception, a book-length critique of Cool It, which traces Lomborg’s many references and tests their authority and substance. Friel has said he found "misrepresentation of academic research, misquotation of data, reliance on studies irrelevant to the author’s claims and citation of sources that seem not to exist".[5]
Friel's conclusion, as per his book's title, is that Lomborg is "a performance artist disguised as an academic." I don't want to be as trusting as the reviewers who praised Lomborg's scholarship without (it seems) bothering to check his references, so rather than taking Friel at his word just as they took Lomborg at his, I've done my best to do that checking. Although Friel engages in some bothersome overkill, overall his analysis is compelling.
– Sharon Begley, Newsweek[6][7]
According to Lomborg, Friel's book appears to be aimed primarily at the popular version of Cool It as opposed to the longer more thoroughly cited edition.
and this from the Grauniad:
Two prominent lukewarmers are now launching new manifestos: False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor and Fails to Fix the Planet by Bjorn Lomborg, and Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All by Michael Shellenberger.
Although they are aimed primarily at American audiences, they will appeal to anyone who, like the authors, proclaims themselves to be an environmentalist, but despises environmental campaigners.
Both books contain many pages of endnotes and references to academic publications, conveying the initial impression that their arguments are supported by reason and evidence. But the well-informed reader will recognise that they rely on sources that are outdated, cherry-picked or just wrong.
The content of False Alarm will be familiar to those who have read Lomborg’s previous books, The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It. New findings and evidence are twisted and forced into the same haranguing narrative for his new contribution.
Whilst my "research" is hardly in depth or even necessarily reliable it is sufficient for me to not want to bother reading either book - I have limited time left and there are many works of recognised fiction that I already would like to read.
Yep, it's tedious. Because he can't articulate a coherent response to what is actually being said, he feels the need to recommend a book every in every thread.
He can't provide a compelling and relevant response in relation to the original points.
- The original posters through their mocking title is something along the lines of moderate suggestions from moderate people are unnecessarily considered extreme
- David Attenborough's point is developed nations can curb excessive capitalism without ending capitalism and have a positive affect on the environment.
Yet he wants us, on the back of his recommendation, to buy a book and read it, just in order to understand him. Delivered of course like he is a subject matter expert and of only we had just read this one piece we would see the shortcomings of our understanding and be forced to agree.
What he isn't even self-aware enough to realise is that people that often get torn apart by Peterson are exactly the same as him, but on the left. They've read a few books, believed everything that fits their narrative, and then they've regurgitated it like they are making some sort of profound point. When all they are actually doing is showcasing how little they know about a subject matter and how driven they are by their pre-existing bias.
Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top.
"My reply was talking about the OP not the study you put forward."
Errr.. yes I know, I was backing up my point with research.
I'm not listening to Jordan Peterson on climate change, he is not even in a related field. A man who tells other people should get their house in order whilst getting addicted to drugs, suggesting ridiculous things like all meat diets. He is hardly a good source.
And you the follow up by offering some books but not actually outlining anything other than "there's another way". What exactly IS this other way?
Perhaps instead of listening to psychologists and (as far as I can tell) journalists, maybe you should listen to actual climate scientists?
[Post edited 9 Oct 2020 12:17]
Hampy gets very quiet when you ask him, which science does he dismiss as extreme, and which science does he use in order to conclude that everything will be fine.
"My reply was talking about the OP not the study you put forward."
Errr.. yes I know, I was backing up my point with research.
I'm not listening to Jordan Peterson on climate change, he is not even in a related field. A man who tells other people should get their house in order whilst getting addicted to drugs, suggesting ridiculous things like all meat diets. He is hardly a good source.
And you the follow up by offering some books but not actually outlining anything other than "there's another way". What exactly IS this other way?
Perhaps instead of listening to psychologists and (as far as I can tell) journalists, maybe you should listen to actual climate scientists?
[Post edited 9 Oct 2020 12:17]
The other way is hooning around on skid pans emitting loads of CO2 and other pollutants, if we take Hammers by his actions rather than his words. I don't know why he even bothers to pretend to care about climate change.
My reply was talking about the OP not the study you put forward.
The video in the clip shows a small part of this chap's argument. It's very interesting. He also explains in other videos and books how the assumptions are drawn in many of the most popular studies. Also that the examples given and picked-up by the media are the extreme of the extreme. Hey, death sells yeah!
This also blows the froth off Greta and puts the conversation into context.
Lots to discuss in this topic.
I would recommend Lomborg's books Cool it and False Alarm. They offer an view from a highly pragmatic angle rather than one of panic and politics.
After reading them I do feel that the argument has been hijacked somewhat by extreme predictions, the media, and politicians. All trying to 'out extreme' each other.
A more calm and measured conversation would be nice.
Oh, I am not saying I don't think the problem is real so don't all run at that wall. You'll hurt your heads. Don't get all frothy with your extreme assumptions. You'll hurt your head.
I'm simply putting a view that we all agree the problem is real BUT the solution's on offer may be worth re-visiting.
Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country."
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
