Leaving Naim kit powered on!

osprey come over to the dark side.

thanks for the invitation but I prefer the light (unless you meant of the moon).

Oh, I don't know - "failed?" - he's accumulated enough dough to be able to afford spending over $30,000 a year on electricity for his home and pool house, while telling me I have to modify my $1,200 annual electricity habit to save the planet.  "Do as I say, not as I do."

Sounds like a rousing personal success to me.  He's just another parasite, as are all politicians from both parties. (At least in the US; I can't speak for other countries.)

I think it is you who needs to get a sense of humour, petal - not to mention a sense of perspective.

You also need to develop a greater sense of self-awareness if you can't see the irony of you, of all people, complaining about bigotry, "climate fascists" and an unwillingness to engage in sensible debate. Perhaps you should consider your words more carefully before you post in future, lest you make even more of an oaf of yourself than you have done hitherto.

I don't give a stuff whether you leave your kit on or not, it's none of my, or anyone else's, business what you do in your house. If you look back at your posts I never even commented on leaving kit on or not. I was merely concerned about you telling lies. (I don't really care what you think about CC either, come to think of it - live in whatever bubble pleases you).

I also know precisely the case you are talking about (as I said above), and, as Jason above has posted, its eventual outcome was probably not as you might have wanted. But you probably just read a headline and, like a gullible, accepting fool, just accepted what you were drip-fed by certain elements of the media without bothering to look any further. Why? Who knows - perhaps you are preternaturally lazy, or just a person who, despite claiming to "like debate", just blocks their ears and shouts "ner-ner-ner" when confronted with facts that disturb your cosily-held opinions.

What I do care about is you spreading lies and disinformation because you're too lazy, too stupid and too blinkered to bother with stuff as trivial as factual accuracy.

By the way, the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic did exist - scientists found in 1985 found it had levels had depleted by 70% (so how can we be "dogmatically told" about it?) Since the late 1970s CFCs had been heavily regulated because of their known adverse effect on the ozone layer. Since the phasing out of CFCs 20 or so years ago, the polar holes have shrunk (hey!)  although the ozone layer around the equator in the lower stratosphere remains thinner than it was when measurements started. The ozone hole didn't magically disappear, the depletion was halted and then reversed by concerted human action.

Terrible things, these facts. They are to a bigoted, humourless cretin what a buzzing, stabbing hornet is to a ruminant animal. 

PS - I'm never sure whether to take being called a "fascist" by demented trolls as a compliment or not. What do you think?

I'm sure I've read this thread at least 3 times before over the last few years..? Yet it's dated over the last few hours. I'm confused.

Well, both are crude propaganda of the very worst sort, which say far more about their makers than they do about climate change.

Martin Durkin, maker of the Great Global warming Swindle, was forced by the media regulator Ofcom to re-edit his film after its first broadcast when it was found that he had deliberately misrepresented a number of the scientists he'd interviewed.

Well, in the future I will think long and hard before posting this type of question again. I didn't expect it to create this type of debate. Oh well, looking forward to another listening session tonight. In fact, it's already started 

ATB to all, Anton

"By the way, the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic did exist - scientists found in 1985 found it had levels had depleted by 70% (so how can we be "dogmatically told" about it?) Since the late 1970s CFCs had been heavily regulated because of their known adverse effect on the ozone layer. Since the phasing out of CFCs 20 or so years ago, the polar holes have shrunk (hey!)  although the ozone layer around the equator in the lower stratosphere remains thinner than it was when measurements started. The ozone hole didn't magically disappear, the depletion was halted and then reversed by concerted human action."

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.  A well known logical fallacy.

For the record I remain agnostic on the topic - I see too much lying, agenda, and twisting of data on both sides to be persuaded either way.  But to cite the above paragraph as "factual evidence" is not in any way commensurate with scientific method, for the logical reason stated.

Breathtaking hypocrisy. Coming from someone like you, I can only take that as a compliment.

Please then explain further. Not about logical fallacies, but about why it is so. If you have expert knowledge in the field then I would like my statement to be corrected.

Really? I'd never have guessed. Wildean wit at its finest and most sophisticated. Good old you.

Now please pardon me while I visit casualty to get my broken ribs fixed. Laughter can be dangerous sometimes you know.

Still not decided yet. I do normally switch everything off, that's just me. Im also very careful about any waste but I certainly don't loose sleep over it. It will definitely get switched off if away for at least 2 days or greater. Still can't believe the sound these bad boys produce! 

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

`Lets not forget just a few years back we were dogmatically told that the ozone was disappearing and now hey suddenly it's repaired itself.`

Maze,the hole in the ozone is slowly mending thanks to an international agreement in 1987 to phase out the use of chlorofluorocarbons found in fridges etc......still don`t let the facts stand in the way of a good (your) story.

Good for you. A very enjoyable evening here too. Time for me to give the neighbours  a rest now.

Oh I don't know though, maybe another half hour...

Just simply, that "With this therefore because of this" proves nothing - that is taught in logic 101 class.  I don't have my notes from research methodologies class any longer, so I will lean on that bane of academia; wikipedia:

The cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy can be expressed as follows:

1. A occurs in correlation with B.
2. Therefore, A causes B.

In this type of logical fallacy, one makes a premature conclusion about causality after observing only a correlation between two or more factors. Generally, if one factor (A) is observed to only be correlated with another factor (B), it is sometimes taken for granted that A is causing B, even when no evidence supports it. This is a logical fallacy because there are at least five possibilities:

1. A may be the cause of B.
2. B may be the cause of A.
3. some unknown third factor C may actually be the cause of both A and B.
4. there may be a combination of the above three relationships. For example, B may be the cause of A at the same time as A is the cause of B (contradicting that the only relationship between A and B is that A causes B). This describes a self-reinforcing system.
5. the "relationship" is a coincidence or so complex or indirect that it is more effectively called a coincidence (i.e. two events occurring at the same time that have no direct relationship to each other besides the fact that they are occurring at the same time). A larger sample size helps to reduce the chance of a coincidence, unless there is a systematic error in the experiment.

In other words, there can be no conclusion made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause and effect relationship only from the fact that A and B are correlated. Determining whether there is an actual cause and effect relationship requires further investigation...

          -----------------------------------------------------------

No expertise in climatology is needed - this applies to every scientific discipline. 

As I said, I remain agnostic about the topic, since there appear to be too many axes to grind on both sides of the argument.  I just try to be a good steward and not be wasteful, but I get annoyed when expensive measures are put in place without thought to unintended consequences for something that may not even be what they think it is.

And in the megalomania that is typical of mankind, we forget that someday this planet will flick us off it's back like water from a dog that just jumped out of a pond.

@Harry, just thinking same re neighbours. I'll turn the volume down a notch 

I personally am willing to admit, arguendo, that the earth is warming and even that the increase in termperature is largely caused by human activity.  (Though I have to admit I would be more comfortable with my  hypothetical agreement were it not for the fact that the most "credible" scientists have proven willing to conceal data which might keep the rest of us poor benighted souls from concluding incorrectly that there is at least some evidence to the contrary.

As an American (U.S. variety), what I struggle with is the fact that the most salient aspect of the debate (what should be United States policy) is so politicized by both left and right.  As one who leans right, it makes sense that I would question whether the U.S. should unilaterally join the accord when major polluters such as the former S.U., China, and Indonesia do not.  (correct me if I am wrong on any of those.)  I hope I do not sound chauvinistic in saying that, given events from 1938 to 1945, followed by the cold war, it might not do the Free World (not to mention my own country) any good unilaterally to weaken itself and thus diminish its protective role in world events.

(I will now hasten down to my hardened bunker to avoid the wrath that I suspect I may have generated by this post!) 

Russ

No shortage of threads on this very topic. Check out the search function.

Russ you have articulated your point very well, much better than I.

All the best

I am always amazed how people rather join their neighbours when they are wrecking the common good than try to stop them. I would also expect US (as a leader of the Free World) to take more active role in environmental matters beside the endless crusades in various locations of the remote corners of the world. The resources clearly are available so it is only a question of will.

And as always left is right (although as some might guess I lean more towards green).