egafd.com

?

You seem more interested in calling me names than debating my points, JR. I'm not going to alter my opinion of something serious just to appease people who act like children when their opinions are challenged.

I don't mind being called names now and again but do yourself a favour and grow up.

You're just trolling. You say I never debate when you've not added anything, on either side, concerning global warming on this thread. All you've done is attack me.

Name calling is still name calling whether you think the naming accurate or not. The same on the other thread, it was just an attack.

If you think that I think I'm right all the time then prove me wrong rather than being petulant and rude. Manners cost nothing.

The trouble is Sam, Jeremy does talk a lot of sense IMHO.Yes he's a bit brash but he articulates well against some of the bollocks the tree huggers would tell you is fact.He's got a common touch too ,which intellectual bullies don't like!

You think the fall out in Copenhagen is ,quote

'tragic'

You really do take their bollocks seriously don't you!

JRPornstar
They are not jumping on the bandwagon but think of it every car in the world, starting with the USA, will have to be electric! What a boost for ailing capitalism!
Mike Freeman.

Well, we'll have to disagree about Mr. Clarkson. You can't deny that his interests lie in debunking, dismissing or at least conspiring against the accepted consensus that man is making global warming worse.

What I will say is that you've mentioned 'bollocks' and 'tree hugging/hugger' in the same sentence quite frequently during these debates and plenty seem to sympathise with your view. However, apart from Peter, no one has even attempted to point out any credible opinion, nor lay out any reasonable logic of their own as to why they think global warming is indeed 'bollocks'.

Mr. Clarkson and Lord whatsisface on that youtube clip indeed have opinions, but to give them equal credence to, say, whole bodies of people that have studied the evidence, and, for some, dedicated their lives to the science, isn't reasonable.

If I want to know about keeping horses I think it logical of me to get the opinion of a stablehand; if I want to learn more about playing chess I will study grand masters of the past; if I want to find out why I keep getting a chesty cough I will see a doctor. I hope you see where this is heading, mm. I wouldn't dismiss the doctor, stablehand or grandmaster just because a few Mr. Clarksons think it 'bollocks'.

Most people will agree that my logic in the previous paragraph as general common sense. That is, most people will until any advice is given which affects their own life in some irritating way. For instance, if my sister gets a pain somewhere my aunt will urge her to see a doctor at once! Why wouldn't she if she cares for my sister's well being, right? That same aunt, though, scoffs at the doctor's advice when he tells her to give up smoking. Where once that doctor's advice is the most sensible approach to one's health it all of a sudden, to her, becomes, as you might like to say, 'bollocks'. And she'd point to a friend who's smoked for 40 years without a hiccup as proof that the doctor is talking 'bollocks'. And so I hope I've hinted at what I think a lot of deniers do. These experts are brilliant until they say something you don't want to here.

I've said it numerous times but I'll say it again: if these 'tree huggers' are proven wrong in time then all we'll have been is inconvenienced by being more economical with our use of cars and power. If we ignore them and they're proved right then we become extinct. I don't like the stake nor the odds in that gamble.