News5 mins ago
Greta
Doesn’t that Swedish person ever go to school or does she think she knows it all already?
She’s off to Davos now for a world summit.
She’s off to Davos now for a world summit.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by MWG14. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I believe there are some Ricky Gervais fans on this thread. Here's one of many things he has to say about science ...
“Science seeks the truth. And it does not discriminate. For better or worse it finds things out. Science is humble. It knows what it knows and it knows what it doesn’t know. It bases its conclusions and beliefs on hard evidence -- evidence that is constantly updated and upgraded. It doesn’t get offended when new facts come along. It embraces the body of knowledge. It doesn’t hold on to medieval practices because they are tradition.”
“Science seeks the truth. And it does not discriminate. For better or worse it finds things out. Science is humble. It knows what it knows and it knows what it doesn’t know. It bases its conclusions and beliefs on hard evidence -- evidence that is constantly updated and upgraded. It doesn’t get offended when new facts come along. It embraces the body of knowledge. It doesn’t hold on to medieval practices because they are tradition.”
jim - // It was patronising, I agree -- but then again, I've tried explaining this to you before, without patronising, and you are still repeating the same ill-informed nonsense that you started with, which presumably shows how little attention you pay. Nor am I the only person whose views you could, and should, have been listening to. //
Now that really is patronising!
I understand a manipulated teenager with psychological issues being turned out like a puppet to chant nonsense, the detail of which she is clearly too young to grasp, but why you imagine I should take notice of you, with no advised qualifications whatsoever, is a complete mystery.
Now that really is patronising!
I understand a manipulated teenager with psychological issues being turned out like a puppet to chant nonsense, the detail of which she is clearly too young to grasp, but why you imagine I should take notice of you, with no advised qualifications whatsoever, is a complete mystery.
To be fair, Ellipsis, A-H has long been an advocate of the doctrine that all opinions, no matter the topic, are of equal weight, or at least deserve equal right to be expressed. The latter I of course wholeheartedly agree with -- the former is clearly wrong, as otherwise what would be the point in education and research?
Returning to the subject of Australian forest fires, might I suggest that there could be a correlation between several factors; bad governmental overseeing of the forest environment under pressure from the green lobby, a dryer & windier than average period in the Australian midsummer, and a high Christmas celebratory outdoor alcoholic intake at millions upon millions of festive barbecues?
You're welcome to suggest it, although, as has been established, the "pressure from the Green Lobby" argument is utterly without foundation.
What has been particularly important is the prolonged drought -- and, yes, some freak weather conditions, but the prolonged drought setting the scene for those conditions to be that much more destructive.
What has been particularly important is the prolonged drought -- and, yes, some freak weather conditions, but the prolonged drought setting the scene for those conditions to be that much more destructive.
See, for example,
https:/
Generally speaking there's a correlation between people arguing for increased burning and people who want to either (a) make money from forestry or other ventures that would benefit directly from land clearance, or (b) people who want to deflect attention away from the climate causes for some reason.
In any case, even if increased controlled burns helped, it would be equivalent to advocating treating cancers by chopping out more of the body, rather than taking decisions that would reduce the risk of developing cancers in the first place.
https:/
Generally speaking there's a correlation between people arguing for increased burning and people who want to either (a) make money from forestry or other ventures that would benefit directly from land clearance, or (b) people who want to deflect attention away from the climate causes for some reason.
In any case, even if increased controlled burns helped, it would be equivalent to advocating treating cancers by chopping out more of the body, rather than taking decisions that would reduce the risk of developing cancers in the first place.
My point, as I'm sure you knew, is that controlled burning is only a defensive measure, so it fundamentally doesn't matter if it's effective or not when the risk of such extreme bushfire events is expected to increase as a result of human-driven climate change. Given a choice between trying to reduce the risk of such fires, or trying to reduce their impact, wouldn't it make more sense to choose the former?
Same with flooding. In future we can either choose to invest in greater flood defences -- or we can try to avoid the risk of greater flooding by taking action to try and prevent it where possible.
Same with flooding. In future we can either choose to invest in greater flood defences -- or we can try to avoid the risk of greater flooding by taking action to try and prevent it where possible.
Latest Posts
Recession Risk As Britain Reels From...
News6 mins ago
Crosswords12 mins ago
ChatterBank21 mins ago
ChatterBank22 mins ago
