Jump to content
Thunder?
Local
Radar
Pollen
IGNORED

Sammy Wilson Right Or Wrong!


Solar Cycles

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs

    Is the Northern Ireland minister right or wrong with his comments regarding the banning of a Government advertising about climate change.

    Me personally, think it was about time a high ranking government official spoke out on this!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    • Replies 68
    • Created
    • Last Reply
    Posted
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire

    Oh, no. I've just posted a link in the general politics thread! I'll dig it out and post it here.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7878399.stm

    Here it is. Well done, Mr Wilson is what I say and I hope that other ministers and maybe even governments will take their lead from his bold step.

    The Green Party don't like it. On BBCNews24, their spokesman, when asked how we know that C02 causes climate change, said "it's common sense". Not a very convincing argument. He also called Mr Wilson a "climate change denier". Tut tut.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
    Oh, no. I've just posted a link in the general politics thread! I'll dig it out and post it here.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7878399.stm

    Here it is. Well done, Mr Wilson is what I say and I hope that other ministers and maybe even governments will take their lead from his bold step.

    The Green Party don't like it. On BBCNews24, their spokesman, when asked how we know that C02 causes climate change, said "it's common sense". Not a very convincing argument. He also called Mr Wilson a "climate change denier". Tut tut.

    But common sense isn't very common, as you can see!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire

    I'd wager that this thread doesn't survive for very long, now that there is a minister, a man with powers, speaking out like this. It'll get ignored by the AGW proponents. :)

    Mind you, I have to say that I am surprised that the old Beeb reported it. Maybe the times are a'changing?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

    You're bang on right guys, scientists shouldn't tell govt.s what to do eh? Smoking,STD's,traffic speed,lead in petrol who are they to tell us what to do? :)

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
    You're bang on right guys, scientists shouldn't tell govt.s what to do eh? Smoking,STD's,traffic speed,lead in petrol who are they to tell us what to do? :)

    They shouldn't tell us what to do, without first being 100% sure GW!!!!!!!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Hayes, Kent
  • Location: Hayes, Kent
    You're bang on right guys, scientists shouldn't tell govt.s what to do eh? Smoking,STD's,traffic speed,lead in petrol who are they to tell us what to do? :lol:

    Well actually no, scientists shouldn't tell the government what to do, scientists are not afforded any special treatment under universal suffrage. Scientist can of course provide information to the government for the government to make informed decisions but it is for the government representing the people to make those decisions.

    Don't start with lists, scientist are not infallible, the top of my opposing list would start with eugenics.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
    They shouldn't tell us what to do, without first being 100% sure GW!!!!!!!

    100% sure??? In that case, they should never tell to do anything!

    Time to bring back smoking in classrooms??

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
    Well actually no, scientists shouldn't tell the government what to do, scientists are not afforded any special treatment under universal suffrage. Scientist can of course provide information to the government for the government to make informed decisions but it is for the government representing the people to make those decisions.

    Don't start with lists, scientist are not infallible, the top of my opposing list would start with eugenics.

    Don't we have that via the back door? With monitoring now able to flag deformities early on in pregnancies terminations are common place. Come the time where sex,eye colour,stature are a thing of choice we will be even further into 'acceptable Eugenics'. (IMHO of course)

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
    100% sure??? In that case, they should never tell to do anything!

    Time to bring back smoking in classrooms??

    Whilst they're taught the world was created in 4004BC - can't have our kids being brainwashed into believing unproven scientofic theories like evolution now, can we? :rolleyes:

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

    This is the thing as you age.Once the world was black and white, right and wrong, but with age and experience, you see too many mitigating circumstances to be so draconian in your views. Seeing as nature is far from perfect (I'd love to be shown where she is 100% perfect!) then we can never give 100% surety on anything. It's the old Economic tool of 'all other things being equal' that we tend to use as a baseline and all this will ever show is what happens under a specific set of conditions/circumstances, a feat hard to replicate out in nature.

    The worry is that many folk willingly choose to oversimplify and then take this 'oversimplification' walkabout in the real world. Take AGW for instance. We are given 90+% surety that it is real and man made yet still the blog sphere is full of folk refuting it. We will be 100% sure once the impacts are happening and we can say "look ,I told you so!".............a bit late for the millions who must die to bring that 'proof' to those who whine on about needing 'proof'.

    In life we take our best shot (hopefully an informed one) and ,with so much at stake, are we wrong to seek to alleviate that which we predict is to come?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
    Scientists are not elected. That's it. It's not difficult. There's no room for confusion here. They ain't elected.

    VP sums it all up really. Scientists are not elected, all they can do is offer advice, and then it's up to you and me if we act upon that advice.

    Whilst they're taught the world was created in 4004BC - can't have our kids being brainwashed into believing unproven scientofic theories like evolution now, can we? :D
    But what if you believe in creationism, and only view evolution as ongoing from then!
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

    Scientists may not be elected- but most get into their positions through acquiring a lot of scientific knowledge and learning to think logically and, in the case of most climate scientists, going through PhDs and the like.

    Scientists aren't infallible- of course they aren't, they are human, and all humans sometimes make mistakes. But at the same time, that doesn't make them worthless!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Hayes, Kent
  • Location: Hayes, Kent
    Don't we have that via the back door? With monitoring now able to flag deformities early on in pregnancies terminations are common place. Come the time where sex,eye colour,stature are a thing of choice we will be even further into 'acceptable Eugenics'. (IMHO of course)

    I suggest you read up on Charles Davenport and the Cold Spring Harbor Lab. James Watson feared such a similarity and set up the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications Program. There is a vast difference between genetic screening and the sterilisation and euthanasia of those deemed genetically impure. I believe you know the ultimate outcome of the eugenics movement?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
    Scientists may not be elected- but most get into their positions through acquiring a lot of scientific knowledge and learning to think logically and, in the case of most climate scientists, going through PhDs and the like.

    I didn't say that they were not qualified to provide advice, and, indeed, sit on committees with those elected; but, being the tail, they should not be wagging the dog - indeed, if they want to be the dog, they should stand for election.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
    VP sums it all up really. Scientists are not elected, all they can do is offer advice, and then it's up to you and me if we act upon that advice.

    But what if you believe in creationism, and only view evolution as ongoing from then!

    But your average climate scientist often knows somewhat more about matters scientific than does any fly-by-night politician, methinks?

    And if you do happen to believe that the world is only 6000 years' old - then more fool you? :D

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
    VP sums it all up really. Scientists are not elected, all they can do is offer advice, and then it's up to you and me if we act upon that advice.

    Right! They give us advice. They can't (wait for it...) give us the kind of solidity of proof that would have all the worlds religious teachers vanish in a puff of logic demanded of them before we act on that advice!

    But what if you believe in creationism, and only view evolution as ongoing from then!

    Erm, I find such pick n mix of profound anti science and science hard to get my head around tbh.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
    Scientists may not be elected- but most get into their positions through acquiring a lot of scientific knowledge and learning to think logically and, in the case of most climate scientists, going through PhDs and the like.

    Scientists aren't infallible- of course they aren't, they are human, and all humans sometimes make mistakes. But at the same time, that doesn't make them worthless!

    TWs, I never implied they was!
    But your average climate scientist often knows somewhat more about matters scientific than does any fly-by-night politician, methinks?

    And if you do happen to believe that the world is only 6000 years' old - then more fool you? :(

    Who said I believe that? Jumping to conclusions again I see Pete!

    Right! They give us advice. They can't (wait for it...) give us the kind of solidity of proof that would have all the worlds religious teachers vanish in a puff of logic demanded of them before we act on that advice!

    Erm, I find such pick n mix of profound anti science and science hard to get my head around tbh.

    Dev, pick n mix is what a lot of AGW believers on here seem to be good at!
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

    Being a democracy, and accepting that there are those who vote who have faith (I've left the term 'religious' alone because of it's unwanted connotations) then we should expect there to be a faith-based aspect to our government, being that it is, notionally, representative.

    I don't really have a problem with it. I don't live my life by those means, I accept that such beliefs entail a structure of morality which is, mostly, right (I think I agree with over 50% of the ten commandments, for instance) and I strongly believe that others have birth-right to hold whichever opinion they choose to whether or not I think they are correct or not .... and that includes flat-earthers.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

    [quote name='Solar Cycles' date='10 Feb 2009, 10:46 AM' post='1483226'

    Who said I believe that? Jumping to conclusions again I see Pete!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
    Being a democracy, and accepting that there are those who vote who have faith (I've left the term 'religious' alone because of it's unwanted connotations) then we should expect there to be a faith-based aspect to our government, being that it is, notionally, representative.

    I don't really have a problem with it. I don't live my life by those means, I accept that such beliefs entail a structure of morality which is, mostly, right (I think I agree with over 50% of the ten commandments, for instance) and I strongly believe that others have birth-right to hold whichever opinion they choose to whether or not I think they are correct or not .... and that includes flat-earthers.

    Excellent point again VP. We still live in a relegious world, whether we agree or not!
    [quote name='Solar Cycles' date='10 Feb 2009, 10:46 AM' post='1483226'

    Who said I believe that? Jumping to conclusions again I see Pete!

    No one said you believe that, SC...So who is 'jumping to conclusions'?

    I was merely using the word 'you' the same way as you were...

    :(

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Winchester
  • Location: Winchester
    I didn't say that they were not qualified to provide advice, and, indeed, sit on committees with those elected; but, being the tail, they should not be wagging the dog - indeed, if they want to be the dog, they should stand for election.

    really? the 'tail'? the politicians says wag and the scientists say which way? Sounds like a bad idea to me.. would have thought a model where the elected representatives are the frontal lobes of the dogs brain while the scientists are the information centres of the brain would be a better bet..? :(

    on creationism - obviously everyone has the right to believe what they choose, but if someone chooses to believe in the creation myth then they've surely got to expect a slightly dubious reaction to any scientific assesments they make on other subjects?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
    really? the 'tail'? the politicians says wag and the scientists say which way? Sounds like a bad idea to me.. would have thought a model where the elected representatives are the frontal lobes of the dogs brain while the scientists are the information centres of the brain would be a better bet..? :(

    on creationism - obviously everyone has the right to believe what they choose, but if someone chooses to believe in the creation myth then they've surely got to expect a slightly dubious reaction to any scientific assesments they make on other subjects?

    So are you saying all Relegious people cannot take part in a scientific debate because of there beliefs, due to them not being taken seriously by others. How odd, and very worrying!
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Winchester
  • Location: Winchester
    So are you saying all Relegious people cannot take part in a scientific debate because of there beliefs, due to them not being taken seriously by others. How odd!

    nope, just that those with such extreme religious views may not be taken seriously - at least initially.. I guess if someone with such a view were to demonstrate a track record of clear scientific thought processes then you might be able to ignore it as an eccentricity? Much like if someone were convinced they were napolean or some such.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Archived

    This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

    Guest
    This topic is now closed to further replies.
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...