danny rampling - A different kind of house

jtsuited

Zascar wrote: »

Fair enough. I just think that the world is a complex place and with its weather systems and atmosphere, it is constantly changing and has done for millions of years. Realistically we know very little about it and we cannot be 100% sure that extra C02 WILL have detrimental results, especially considering such conflicting research.

one important aspect to consider, As its explains very clearly in the movie above - if a scientist gets a big whack of funding to do a massive project on the possibility of global warming, a large part of his findings will come from hugely complicated mathematical computer models. In these are lots of different figures from collated data. Changing some of these figures even slightly can mean hugely different end results. So, when it comes to result time, he could conclude with "Well, not sure, it might or it might not, probably won't be much difference" where will be a percieved waste of money and no one will notice the results, OR if he can get a conclusion that says "We're all Fcuked" - which will get his name in headlines all over the world. I wonder which one most scientists are likely to aim towards?

The world is very adaptive and I just have a problem with some guys saying the ice caps are going to melt in 20/50/100 years and we're going to be plunged into another ice age. Yes lets stop polluting and yes lets take better care of our earth, but lets not get carried away with ourselves while doing it.

oh absolutely.
I don't think anyone with half a brain and a fairly good grasp of science is really going round with the 'we're doomed' attitude that certain elements of the media love perpetuating.

Secondly, i think you underestimate scientists. They get paid shedloads of money for doing the research anyways. Appearing in the Mass Media really makes no difference to them (apart from people like Dawkins, but that's for a different reason).

Zascar

Felixdhc wrote: »

Hmmm, David McWilliams?

Sorry to drag away from global warming to local economy but I couldn't but think of our Mr McWilliams when I read that.

Deffo. But he's one man, and not an entire global lobbying industry.

If anyone remembers a show called "Future Shock - Property Crash" by a similar type journalist - he predicted 40% fall in house prices and massive dole queues etc etc. People laughed at him and called him a madman. I was thinking about buying a property at the time and that really helped me decide not to. Thank Fcuk. Now look where we are, he was not such a manman after all. However in fairness he probably wan't taking into account that Wall Street was going to sh!t itself.

Haha this is like the Off Topic Thread! Let it Roll!

OV

Ooooh don't you just love how a good global warming debate brings out all the backseat climatologists......:rolleyes:

Zascar

jtsuited wrote: »

(apart from people like Dawkins, but that's for a different reason).

Dawkins is a funny one alright. I have not read his book but I've seen a good few programs with him in it, most recently "The Genius of Charles Darwin". He's obviously done a great job of shooting himself to stardom and to being the kind-of leader of the eithiest movement - but I think he needs to change his approach. When he interviews Religious people etc and trys to have a discussion around whos right or wrong, he does it in such an arrogant way that these people are never going to consider any of the points he makes cause he's just so dam condescending towards them!

jtsuited

Zascar wrote: »

that way people are just going to want to buy more fuel efficient and less pollutant cars

which is the last thing a government needs!!!

What really grinds my gears is that when you say you really want to see renewable energy progress, people assume you're worried about the environment etc.

In reality, I'm interested in renewable energy because it's FREE. You set up a way of efficiently harnessing wind/wave/solar energy and you've got an endless supply of free energy.

You could run your car on massively inefficient batteries that let you go 500 miles an hour and you could fill up anywhere on electricity. For free.

Tbh, I couldn't give a crap about saving the earth's fragile beautiful balance yada yada yada. But oil is a fcuking disaster for everyone (especially given the fact most of it's under crazy religious fundamentalist countries). The warped free market speculation has landed us in the sh1t sooo many times now that you'd think we learn.

Anywho, back to Rampling. Wonder how big the cargo container was when he shipped the house music scene to England?

jtsuited

Zascar wrote: »

Dawkins is a funny one alright. I have not read his book but I've seen a good few programs with him in it, most recently "The Genius of Charles Darwin". He's obviously done a great job of shooting himself to stardom and to being the kind-of leader of the eithiest movement - but I think he needs to change his approach. When he interviews Religious people etc and trys to have a discussion around whos right or wrong, he does it in such an arrogant way that these people are never going to consider any of the points he makes cause he's just so dam condescending towards them!

ah to be fair to dawkins. he refuses to debate publically with creationists, which is fair enough, as the level of idiocy they're capable of would just end up as a complete joke.

I think what they semi-deliberately try to do with Dawkins is interesting. They get the guy who is one of the world leaders in evolutionary biology to try to talk sense into complete and utter retards. It's not to try and convince the creationists. It's about highlighting the intellectual gap between them to people who might have a bit more sense.

BaZmO*

I'm surprised at you Zas, I thought you were one of the enlightened ones.

Zascar wrote: »

I Highly recommend everyone watches this Channel 4 Documentary:

The Great Global Warming Swindle: http://www.viddler.com/explore/micheleforan/videos/2/

Even just watch the first 5-10 minutes and you'll get good idea of what its talking about.

(also note ciritcisms though - its not 100% accurate - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle)

I've seen several documentaries debunking "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

I suppose it all comes back to who do you believe the most. But one thing is for sure, there's certainly a lot of confusion/ambiguity as to whether or not global warming is a problem. You could argue that that confusion/ambiguity suits one side more than the other.

Zascar wrote: »

The world is very adaptive and I just have a problem with some guys saying the ice caps are going to melt in 20/50/100 years and we're going to be plunged into another ice age. Yes lets stop polluting and yes lets take better care of our earth, but lets not get carried away with ourselves while doing it.

Yes the world certainly is in an ever evolving state but generally the changes happen over a large period of time. Since the Industrial Revolution the rate of change has been astronomical and it would be silly to dismiss the fact that humans have had a large part to play in this.


I watched a documentary a while back and one of the major points that it made was that the world will keep turning no matter what we as humans do to it. And when we're all gone it will continue on as before.
The emphasis should not be save the planet but more so save ourselves or even moreso our future. But generally people don't give a sh1t because they won't be around when all the resources run out.

Zascar wrote: »

I was not really sure but fair enough. However, he said "I" did it, like it was him alone... He could have said "I was amongst a group of people who brought House Music to the UK" - but really I'm just being pedantic. I agree he's just trying to promote his career so fair enough.

In fairness though, he was one of a very very small group so he has a point even if he was being less than gracious while making it.

Zascar wrote: »

Dawkins is a funny one alright. I have not read his book but I've seen a good few programs with him in it, most recently "The Genius of Charles Darwin". He's obviously done a great job of shooting himself to stardom and to being the kind-of leader of the eithiest movement - but I think he needs to change his approach. When he interviews Religious people etc and trys to have a discussion around whos right or wrong, he does it in such an arrogant way that these people are never going to consider any of the points he makes cause he's just so dam condescending towards them!

I used to think that Dawkins was extremely arrogant when dealing with people opposed to his views, mainly creationists, but having watched the The Genius of Charles Darwin, and in particular the third episode, I can see why he does act in that way. Most of the people are loonies and treat him with complete and utter contempt. So it's hardly his fault that he doesn't have much time for them.

jtsuited

the problem with people's perception with Dawkins is that they often don't realise who he is. He's not some just some random scientist that one day decided to tell everyone they're stupid. His life's work has been in understanding evolution and explaining it to the masses. He is rated as one of THE greatest scientists in his area of expertise.

So when the Intelligent Design debacle kicked off in the States, the science community decided to send the one guy who nobody could even come close to in terms of scientific expertise into battle so to speak.

And on the way, he's encountered people whose stupidity and ignorance would make any rational intelligent and educated person laugh or cry (depending on their mood really). It is pretty funny seeing such an incredible intellect go face to face with complete and utter yokels. Because it illustrates that right now in certain parts of the United States, that very battle is taking place over whether evolution should be taught in schools.

If someone's a complete and utter idiot and their views are completely and utterly idiotic, it's very difficult to not come across as condescending. Especially when they genuinely think they're right because of some 2000 year old book. Even moreso when you've dedicated your life to scientific understanding of human origins.

BaZmO*

Yeah I agree totally.

The other problem is that by having someone like Dawkins engaging in debate with these crackpots it almost legitimises their viewpoint because in some circle it is seen as legitimate scientific debate when it's just a scientist arguing with retards.

Zascar

I know it's mad. The Evangelical Christians in the US are absolute Idiots. Have you seen that massive "Center for Creationism" they have in the bible belt? All about creationism and it shows how Dinosaurs and humans lived along side eachother. Pffft. The guy who runs it is an established scientist and totally believes in science etc etc - up until it conflicts with the Bible. Ha!

What I don't understand is how they are totally prepared to believe every single word in a book that was written collectively by dozens of people 2000 years ago (and if you hear some of the stuff that was in the books that did not get included in the final version of the bible you'd be shocked). It's not even like the Koran which was supposed to have been dictated by God himself. Aparently St Peter has had more of an influence over how every day Christianity works that Jesus did!

See, I think if Religion was able to adapt and change, it would have a far better chance of greater acceptance than still trying to govern with 2000 year old rules. If they just changed it to "God created the universe and the laws and rules around life" - less people would be opposed to it. If you have a second read this blog post I wrote a while back after watching a different documentary on the origins of life. Watch this 3m video for a summary)

This remind me of the recent saga going on in the UK about drugs. The Tsar said scientifically Alcohol and Tobacco are more dangerous that Cannabis, Ecstasy and LSD. His point was not to reverse the laws, but just to be more realistic about the messaging as if you tell people things that are just way to unbelieveable, people are just going to be instantly dismissive and not really listen.

(Go! Tangent Go!)

BaZmO*

Zascar wrote: »

(Go! Tangent Go!)

Ha. I love these Friday tangents!

acman

jtsuited wrote: »

Ah come on now Zas, you know what that's about. It's a way of introducing a sort of progressive taxation system on those that can afford it under the guise of trying to be environmentally conscious.
A fairly smart business move tbh by the government. If only they could be so fcuking smart when it came to spending money as opposed to making money.

Cars with a large C02 emission aren't necessarily expensive cars. In the case that they are, even the rich aren't stupid and will reluctantly buy a car that can cost up to 2500 euro PER YEAR to tax.

Bottom line is that it's a completely counter-productive system that discourages buying a new car...which you think they would encourage as they can reap the rewards of VRT.

That said, I would rather get back to slating Danny Rampling now

FLYNN-DOG

In fairness to Rampling, it's been well documented that he went to Ibiza, saw Alfredo dj'ing and brought the sound back to the UK. On the subject of Alfredo, I was speaking to him in Space - my (now, ex!) girlfriend wanted to know why I was talking to a sleazy looking old man!

Zascar

Who let their Grandad on the Decks?

Táck

thats how our kids will view moby