Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    What on earth? I really don't think you've researched this enough if you genuinely think the bolded text is incorrect. The predictions for climate change are not untrue, most of them have been exceeded. Humans are irrefutably to blame, whether or not you "accept it" is irrelevant because it doesn't make the science any less correct. If you "can't see how we are causing it at all" then I strongly recommend you pick up a basic science book and start reading. The basic science isn't that difficult to understand.
    Pretty confident you have wrongly interpreted my post....

    I was saying how long-term drivers were stopping the doomsday scenarios (which were predicted in early 2000s) thus when they subsequently reverse (ie ENSO state etc etc) then we will see a big rise in temperatures.
    NB: the whole point of putting that was to acknowledge that just because global temperatures have not risen in 20 years or so that doesn't mean the threat of GW is going away (as some skeptics claim)

    I then went on to say however, that much larger drivers over much greater timeframes ie think LIA (Little Ice Age) or MWP (Medieval Warm Period) are more significant than our contribution.

    That isn't up say we have no effect but more that I am of the opinion that our effect is smaller than environmental groups argue.

    Taking a 10-20 year view of the weather and then predicting how severe things will get is preposterous.
    If you lived through the Dalton minimas you'd be saying 'ah, see. Due to GW the arctic is being adversely affected, thus, the jet stream is becoming more amplified due to frequent cold outbreaks from the north due to loss of sea ice (which incidentally had improved since a low point in 2007 or thereabouts) therefore, we're having these terrible winters (they were truly cold back then)

    If you lived through the preceding period you'd be telling me how we can harvest wine 200 miles further north (than present day), how soil at 60m higher altitude can be farmed and how the climate is in average 1c warmer. Therefore, GW is effecting our lives, melting snow from high ground and raising sea levels due to ice loss....


    My whole point is that examining a (relatively) short time frame and to then suggest what 2030, never mind 2100 will look like is farcical. Yes, I'm aware long-term drivers have put pay to the early horror stories of the 2000s and therefore, you can't argue such a short sighted position that GW is going away or is significantly reduced. Not yet anyway.

    However, you can say that many of those predictions 10-15 years ago were wildly inaccurate and thus future predictions should be taken with a shed load of salt, including our impact
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=The_Mighty_Bush;53171383]Almost everyone only speaks English or Scottish English though so your policy doesn't make any sense.[/QUOTE}

    actually 1.6 million people speak it, though as a 2nd or 3rd language...point being it makes little sense to print stuff in foreign language because it's PC to placate immigrants.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    1) That certain generalisations CAN be made (statistically speaking) to certain races/religions.
    And 2) The above statement doesn't make one a racist, just a realist!
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    Pretty confident you have wrongly interpreted my post....

    I was saying how long-term drivers were stopping the doomsday scenarios (which were predicted in early 2000s) thus when they subsequently reverse (ie ENSO state etc etc) then we will see a big rise in temperatures.
    NB: the whole point of putting that was to acknowledge that just because global temperatures have not risen in 20 years or so that doesn't mean the threat of GW is going away (as some skeptics claim)

    I then went on to say however, that much larger drivers over much greater timeframes ie think LIA (Little Ice Age) or MWP (Medieval Warm Period) are more significant than our contribution.

    That isn't up say we have no effect but more that I am of the opinion that our effect is smaller than environmental groups argue.

    Taking a 10-20 year view of the weather and then predicting how severe things will get is preposterous.
    If you lived through the Dalton minimas you'd be saying 'ah, see. Due to GW the arctic is being adversely affected, thus, the jet stream is becoming more amplified due to frequent cold outbreaks from the north due to loss of sea ice (which incidentally had improved since a low point in 2007 or thereabouts) therefore, we're having these terrible winters (they were truly cold back then)

    If you lived through the preceding period you'd be telling me how we can harvest wine 200 miles further north (than present day), how soil at 60m higher altitude can be farmed and how the climate is in average 1c warmer. Therefore, GW is effecting our lives, melting snow from high ground and raising sea levels due to ice loss....


    My whole point is that examining a (relatively) short time frame and to then suggest what 2030, never mind 2100 will look like is farcical. Yes, I'm aware long-term drivers have put pay to the early horror stories of the 2000s and therefore, you can't argue such a short sighted position that GW is going away or is significantly reduced. Not yet anyway.

    However, you can say that many of those predictions 10-15 years ago were wildly inaccurate and thus future predictions should be taken with a shed load of salt, including our impact
    Firstly, it's totally incorrect that "global temperatures have not risen in 20 years". Surface temperatures underwent a slight temporary stagnation but the oceans have been consistently warming and since this is where most of the heat is trapped, the earth has been continuously warming.

    I'm not entirely sure what "larger" drivers you're talking about, but the anthropogenic effect is much greater than the "Little Ice Age" or MWP. Both of these had a magnitude of temperature change of around half a degree which is already less than what humans have done but more significantly, neither resulted in any significant change in CO2 concentration. The real significance of what humans are doing is not the change that has already happened, but the change that we've made inevitable because of our emissions.

    If you think that predictions are made on the basis of a decade long view of the weather then you quite clearly don't understand how these predictions are made in the first place. Climate prediction is not weather forecasting. If you're genuinely interested in climate prediction methods I can give you a summary. But trust me, the scientific community doesn't stake its reputation on a glorified weather forecast, it's a lot better than that. All of the points you're making about making long term predictions based on very short term observed behaviour are completely valid, which is precisely why the scientific community isn't doing that. That's not how climatology works.

    And you can't say that "many of those predictions 10-15 years ago were wildly inaccurate" because they weren't. Most estimates, particularly those on the actual heat content of the earth, turned out to be underestimates. There were a few predictions that were wrong but you have to massively cherry pick to find them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SheldorOfAzeroth)
    1) That certain generalisations CAN be made (statistically speaking) to certain races/religions.
    And 2) The above statement doesn't make one a racist, just a realist!
    such as? it's known that blacks, whites have different suspectibility to diseases, so not so controversial.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    -If such high a possibility that your child would be born with a severe disability then it must be terminated by law.
    -A Severely disabled person must be put to sleep after a certain age
    -Homeless hardcore addicts must also be put to sleep

    -People from poor backgrounds should only be allowed to have one child

    -people over 60 should not be allowed to work over 10 hours a week

    -people over 65 should not be allowed to drive
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    probably the fact that i support gender quotas and i believe feminism still has a place in the western world.

    yeah i get a lot of hate for it but idc. :dontknow:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blue_Mason)
    -If such high a possibility that your child would be born with a severe disability then it must be terminated by law.
    -A Severely disabled person must be put to sleep after a certain age
    -Homeless hardcore addicts must also be put to sleep

    -People from poor backgrounds should only be allowed to have one child

    -people over 60 should not be allowed to work over 10 hours a week

    -people over 65 should not be allowed to drive
    i'm curious.
    do you think stephen hawking should be put to sleep? he's severely disabled and quite old.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Blue_Mason)
    -If such high a possibility that your child would be born with a severe disability then it must be terminated by law.
    -A Severely disabled person must be put to sleep after a certain age
    -Homeless hardcore addicts must also be put to sleep

    -People from poor backgrounds should only be allowed to have one child

    -people over 60 should not be allowed to work over 10 hours a week

    -people over 65 should not be allowed to drive
    Interesting use of vocabulary there. I think what you're trying to say is "Homeless people with severe mental health problems as a result of their social situation should be murdered by the state because I'd feel more comfortable if they were out of the picture", which doesn't sound quite as nice.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sherlockfan)
    i'm curious.
    do you think stephen hawking should be put to sleep? he's severely disabled and quite old.

    No, as he is but an exception.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blue_Mason)
    No, as he is but an exception.
    that's the most idiotic amoral thing ive ever heard.
    i support it if someone who is suffering chooses to die. i do not support killing disabled people after so many years.
    i suppose this thread was about unpopular views...but how could anyone think that?
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Blue_Mason)
    No, as he is but an exception.
    Who gets to decide these exceptions? Why should you get to play God to decide which disabled people are worthy of life?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Restricting procreation, there are already to many mouths to feed and little available to sustain such a large population. It contradicts peoples idea of free will and that they feel they can choose to have as many kiddies as they want but I find such people to be socially irresponsible. Thats just my view. Unless you can 100% support all those kids as well then its a little more favourable
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Interesting use of vocabulary there. I think what you're trying to say is "Homeless people with severe mental health problems as a result of their social situation should be murdered by the state because I'd feel more comfortable if they were out of the picture", which doesn't sound quite as nice.
    But I am not the monster here.
    You have someone that has been on the streets for over a decade, with barely any loved ones and have gone past the irreversible stage in which they cannot function in society.
    Handing them food and change will only continue the cycle and I would personally prefer if they were given a painless and humane way to die.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by marco14196)
    Restricting procreation, there are already to many mouths to feed and little available to sustain such a large population. It contradicts peoples idea of free will and that they feel they can choose to have as many kiddies as they want but I find such people to be socially irresponsible. Thats just my view. Unless you can 100% support all those kids as well then its a little more favourable
    You do realise that this wouldn't solve the problem? It's a myth that the growing population is caused by "out of control" birthrates. The global fertility rate has already largely stabilised and isn't the cause of the growing population. The actual cause of the problem is that for a long time, developed countries have had triangular population pyramids with lots of young people but very few older people. The base of that pyramid isn't growing - which is the thing that birth control would stop. What's changing is that people are living longer, so the triangle is "filling up" into a trapezium and eventually a rectangle. The only way to stop this is to stop healthcare in developing countries, or start killing people off. Trying to control birthrates is a red herring because there's nothing to control.

    (Original post by Blue_Mason)
    But I am not the monster here.
    You have someone that has been on the streets for over a decade, with barely any loved ones and have gone past the irreversible stage in which they cannot function in society.
    Handing them food and change will only continue the cycle and I would personally prefer if they were given a painless and humane way to die.
    Firstly, you're wrongly assuming that they're "irreversible" - that's groundless. Secondly, I think it's extremely disturbing (borderline psychopathic, to be honest) how you're completely dehumanising the homeless. Homeless people are humans. They're not dumb animals that you can mercifully "end their suffering" and "put to sleep", they're human beings with thoughts and emotions and feelings. You don't get to control their life and death because you don't feel that their quality of life is high enough to warrant them living.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by em211997)
    no more exams! everything should be practical
    I really don't understand how your idea works on the fundamental level.
    For some subjects (sciences) you could get incredibly biased views of students' practical ability (which is not very related to theoretical knowledge, see my profile). For other subjects (eg. maths) you wouldn't even get that. Imagine practical exams for maths. You would just have to take the person's word for their ability.

    First off primary and secondary schools: How can they keep up (low as it is) education standards without exams?

    Next sixth form applications: Without any candidates having any real qualifications, the sixth forms will have nothing to go on but the students' claims. Admissions standards would slip and as a result, education standards there would slip.

    Next sixth form education: Without any real pressure on the tutors or students, you can easily imagine that they wouldn't teach or learn respectively as effectively.

    Next university applications: For the sheer majority of courses, UK candidates will not have any real relevant qualifications. The best universities will only be able to accept international applications, but worse universities will have to let anyone in. As a result, the students on the course would be of a much lower ability, so standards would slip there as well. The best UK universities will be closed off from anyone previously studying in the UK.

    Next university education: Same as sixth form. There is no way to measure how well a student is doing or how well a lecturer teaches. There is little method on which to award a degree classification.

    Next employment: Employers don't have any real qualifications to go on, so hard work won't get you anywhere. They may as well give out jobs randomly.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Who gets to decide these exceptions? Why should you get to play God to decide which disabled people are worthy of life?
    Experts who have tests to determine such results.
    Personally I just find it cruel seeing someone with a conditioned being treated in such away
    Because such time and resources can be spent on people that can actually function in society.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Blue_Mason)
    Experts who have tests to determine such results.
    Personally I just find it cruel seeing someone with a conditioned being treated in such away
    Because such time and resources can be spent on people that can actually function in society.
    What test? What test do you propose that decides if someone's life is worth living? I'm not sure what magical test you're thinking of but the only person who can make that decision is the person themselves. Do you have a God complex?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    THAT NOT ALL MUSLIMS (AND RECENTLY JEWISH) PEOPLE ARE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WHO LEECH OFF THE STATE OR WHO WANT TO BOMB US.

    That's actually a controversial view to have today it seems :rolleyes:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Firstly, you're wrongly assuming that they're "irreversible" - that's groundless. Secondly, I think it's extremely disturbing (borderline psychopathic, to be honest) how you're completely dehumanising the homeless. Homeless people are humans. They're not dumb animals that you can mercifully "end their suffering" and "put to sleep", they're human beings with thoughts and emotions and feelings. You don't get to control their life and death because you don't feel that their quality of life is high enough to warrant them living.
    First time i have been called that
    Of course they're people, I mean, I am not targeting homeless people in general but you have such examples that cannot be helped without constants professional care.We cannot save everyone, Id rather the 60 percent function back into society and the other 40 percent be put to sleep.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.