Audi TT Forum banner

Bobs global warming/smart meter whinge-a-thon

66K views 1K replies 31 participants last post by  Spandex 
#1 ·
Here you go Bob. A place for all your alternative facts on global warming and smart meters. Basically the topic is "the contents of Bobs brain", so you can't go off topic here. I'll start things off:

Man made global warming is real and smart meters don't microwave your testicals.
 
#2 ·
On yer bike mate :)

Little known fact or at least of little interest to UK folk .
Ireland isnt going to meet the emissions targets for 2020 it signed up to ,so its going to get fined .
Recently a milk production cap per acre was removed across the EU..er so?
The cow population here has gone up,there were already more cows than people.
Agriculture and associated production accounts for 45% of our emissions and its increasing , a lot of that is direct cow emissions :) .
Sounds like a new dragons den opportunity ! cnaf (cow nappy and air filter) . :lol:
Govt response is of course, keep our heads down till next election , just worry about water charges and keeping EU masters happy.
 
#3 ·
Yes, I think we've all heard the "because X makes more CO2, we don't need to worry about Y making loads of it" argument.

If I was slapping you round the head every minute, I'm not sure you'd accept the argument that I can carry on doing it as long as JohnH is kicking you in the nuts every 30 seconds.
 
#4 ·
:lol:
but if I was wearing my "sports protector" .
Im not saying global warming is an evil fabrication foisted on us by dogooders and that our brains are being damaged by say vibrations from wind farm towers springing up all over but.
Its laughable that govt policy encourages us to cycle to work/use leccy cars (as long as they dont lose too much tax revenue) and so on,but then some minor improvements in this regard are totally outweighed by literally bs :)
Theyre now blaming the Green party , who got wiped out in the last election/but were in a coalition govt, for signing us up to unrealistic targets.
The greens you see didnt forsee a cow population increase..shame on them ! .
 
#5 ·
3TT3 said:
:lol:
but if I was wearing my "sports protector" .
Im not saying global warming is an evil fabrication foisted on us by dogooders and that our brains are being damaged by say vibrations from wind farm towers springing up all over but.
Its laughable that govt policy encourages us to cycle to work/use leccy cars (as long as they dont lose too much tax revenue) and so on,but then some minor improvements in this regard are totally outweighed by literally bs :)
Theyre now blaming the Green party , who got wiped out in the last election/but were in a coalition govt, for signing us up to unrealistic targets.
The greens you see didnt forsee a cow population increase..shame on them ! .
You're just repeating the same fallacious argument though. The implication being that the smaller CO2 producers are not worth addressing because a larger CO2 producer exists.

The measures taken to address CO2 production should take into account a number of factors - the primary one being how easy it is to reduce CO2 for that producer. If instead you assume that the volume of CO2 produced should be the deciding factor when working out which producers to prioritise, you just end up crippling yourself and doing nothing.

Anyway, where's Bob when you need him. This thread needs less debate and more conspiracy theories.
 
#7 ·
Ah well I have a special derogation from the commission , I posted up on this just on the basis of the title . I was unaware of its origins at first not having followed the other thread for awhile . ;)
Hey I did send a pm on that other matter .
 
#8 ·
:lol: I was referring to myself mentioning the EU. We mentioned it once and thought we'd got away with it - quick all shut up before Bob comes along. . . . Warming global thoughts about smart meters tum te tum. Those meters hey? Heavens isn't it warm? [smiley=oops.gif]
 
#9 ·
Does anyone else tend to give zero-f***ks about global warming due to the fact that experts can't even agree on whether it exists or not? It's peoples opinions, based on 'facts' determined by others, so how can anyone spend time on a TT forum debating it? You don't know, i don't know, the bloody 'experts' don't know!

You can apply that same theory to the ridiculous arguments about the EU In, Out, Shake it all about crap. There's no right or wrong answer, if there was, it would be a decision made, not come down to a vote that allows the outcome to be decided by 99% of people who haven't got a bloody clue which is the right way, let alone any solid theory to support it.

How anyone can strongly argue for or against either of the above and ridicule others for their differences in opinion is beyond me... I was always taught not to argue unless you were 100% certain you were correct with you argument. Anyway, pointless rant over, at least i got that one out of the system! [smiley=bigcry.gif]
 
#11 ·
NickG said:
Does anyone else tend to give zero-f***ks about global warming due to the fact that experts can't even agree on whether it exists or not? It's peoples opinions, based on 'facts' determined by others, so how can anyone spend time on a TT forum debating it? You don't know, i don't know, the bloody 'experts' don't know!

You can apply that same theory to the ridiculous arguments about the EU In, Out, Shake it all about crap. There's no right or wrong answer, if there was, it would be a decision made, not come down to a vote that allows the outcome to be decided by 99% of people who haven't got a bloody clue which is the right way, let alone any solid theory to support it.

How anyone can strongly argue for or against either of the above and ridicule others for their differences in opinion is beyond me... I was always taught not to argue unless you were 100% certain you were correct with you argument. Anyway, pointless rant over, at least i got that one out of the system! [smiley=bigcry.gif]
Now, I know you don't really believe any of the above, because I've seen you debating things in the Mk1 section where you rely on and refer to 'experts' opinions on many different topics. Don't you read reviews before buying things? I know I do - not because I 100% trust every 'expert' reviewers opinion, but because they tend to know more than me so I give their opinions a degree of weight.

As for man-made global warming, the majority of experts do agree. Of course, not all of them do, but there isn't a single scientific principal where ALL the experts agree. So, it comes down to a choice - at what point do you trust them? How many have to agree before you believe it?

There are qualified doctors out there who claim that the MMR vaccine causes autism. The vast majority of doctors disagree with them. Would you give your child the vaccine or not?

Just remember, there IS ALWAYS a right and wrong answer - Not knowing what that is doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm sure if the UK economy goes down the pan, the brexiteers will all say "we made the right choice, but the politicians screwed it up". Well my response will be "if you didn't allow for the fact that politicians might screw it up, then you made the choice badly".
 
#13 ·
Yeah, i've definitely debated things in the Mk1 section, but these are areas where i have control and have researched, or attempted to at least increase my knowledge in the area. I also like a debate, hell i can debate with myself and happily present an argument for or against almost anything, but that doesn't mean i'm right and can almost always appreciate both sides of an argument!

An example of this is the area of 'suspension', you can read into suspension setup for a lifetime and still not know everything or be able to make a conclusion on what set-up/style/system is best, for that reason you won't find me pushing any particular theory as correct. The removal of the front anti-roll bar is a great example, there's people saying this is 100% the way to go, whereas others find this blaspheme as 'of course you need one'. I've read theories and have decided to trial it as i like the theory, that doesn't mean it's right, but i can at least test it and see if it works for me. If it does, maybe i can form a solid opinion on it and cram it in every post going forwards in the knowledge that i've tested it and it works, or vice-versa.

Regarding vaccines, i don't have a child, so from an unbiased point of view i'd say it could well cause Autism or it might not. If i had a child then i do know i would be getting them vaccinated, again i have no research to suggest either way and the majority of professionals agree it is safe, so i'd have no problem with getting it and also wouldn't feel an ounce of guilt if it caused negative side effects, as i would be relying on experts advice who are paid to know better then me.

So how can anyone, without any possibility of conducting their own research in the real world, regarding either Global Warming or 'Brexit', make their decision and stand by it 100%? You can't possibly, you can only hold your own opinion and should respect other people's.

Being right or wrong can surely only be measured at a certain point? A year from now the economy could be down the pan and it could be regarded as the wrong choice... but what happens if 2 years on the economy is then booming, is that because of, or in spite of Brexit?! :lol: It seems to be 50% of "experts" wanted it one way and 50% the other, so i hate that the next best solution is to ask a bunch of people who haven't got a clue what should happen.

To be honest i do think Global warming is a real thing although not necessarily an issue, i don't believe anyone knows how much man contributes to it, from there it's then reasonable to conclude that i don't know how much i contribute to it, so for that reason i won't let it effect anything i do. What's the point in not living the few years you have how you want to, on the basis that you may or may not be influencing the global climate? When i want to cycle to work i do, but not because of emissions, when i want to burn copious amounts of fuel on a track i do, when i turn the heating off it's because i hate being too hot and like saving money and when i want to have bonfire i do it (As long as the neighbors not got the washing out, i'm not a complete a-hole!) :lol: If you're conscious of the issue and actively seek a way to reduce your own carbon footprint, then good on you, i would assume that's because it's what you want to do however, not necessarily because it's the right thing to do!
 
#15 ·
NickG said:
Does anyone else tend to give zero-f***ks about global warming due to the fact that experts can't even agree on whether it exists or not? It's peoples opinions, based on 'facts' determined by others, so how can anyone spend time on a TT forum debating it? You don't know, i don't know, the bloody 'experts' don't know!

You can apply that same theory to the ridiculous arguments about the EU In, Out, Shake it all about crap. There's no right or wrong answer, if there was, it would be a decision made, not come down to a vote that allows the outcome to be decided by 99% of people who haven't got a bloody clue which is the right way, let alone any solid theory to support it.

How anyone can strongly argue for or against either of the above and ridicule others for their differences in opinion is beyond me... I was always taught not to argue unless you were 100% certain you were correct with you argument. Anyway, pointless rant over, at least i got that one out of the system! [smiley=bigcry.gif]
Damn cold today though.

A few years back the 'experts' were telling us we'd have a Mediterranean climate in the U.K. by now.

Maybe we should ignore the experts for a while?
 
#17 ·
Shug750S said:
NickG said:
Does anyone else tend to give zero-f***ks about global warming due to the fact that experts can't even agree on whether it exists or not? It's peoples opinions, based on 'facts' determined by others, so how can anyone spend time on a TT forum debating it? You don't know, i don't know, the bloody 'experts' don't know!

You can apply that same theory to the ridiculous arguments about the EU In, Out, Shake it all about crap. There's no right or wrong answer, if there was, it would be a decision made, not come down to a vote that allows the outcome to be decided by 99% of people who haven't got a bloody clue which is the right way, let alone any solid theory to support it.

How anyone can strongly argue for or against either of the above and ridicule others for their differences in opinion is beyond me... I was always taught not to argue unless you were 100% certain you were correct with you argument. Anyway, pointless rant over, at least i got that one out of the system! [smiley=bigcry.gif]
Damn cold today though.

A few years back the 'experts' were telling us we'd have a Mediterranean climate in the U.K. by now.

Maybe we should ignore the experts for a while?
Must be the same expertise who told everyone to drive diesel cars as it was better for the environment
 
#18 ·
NickG said:
Regarding vaccines, i don't have a child, so from an unbiased point of view i'd say it could well cause Autism or it might not. If i had a child then i do know i would be getting them vaccinated, again i have no research to suggest either way and the majority of professionals agree it is safe, so i'd have no problem with getting it and also wouldn't feel an ounce of guilt if it caused negative side effects, as i would be relying on experts advice who are paid to know better then me.
But that's pretty much it in a nutshell. You trust your (or your childs) life to 'experts' even though you know there is always some disagreement between them. If you can be so confident in their informed opinions that you trust them with your life, then surely you'd be confident enough to back that view in a forum debate?? Even if 'backing it' is simply you pointing out that the vast majority of medical opinion is on your side.

NickG said:
So how can anyone, without any possibility of conducting their own research in the real world, regarding either Global Warming or 'Brexit', make their decision and stand by it 100%? You can't possibly, you can only hold your own opinion and should respect other people's.
Because it doesn't have to be 100% unless, like Bob, you're looking for a loophole. He's happy to trust his life to 'experts' when he wants to, yet as soon as he doesn't like what they're telling him he hunts around for any dissenting voices then hold them up as proof that the 'experts' are all wrong because they can't agree with each other. Or, even more amusingly, he hunts back through history to find an instance were scientists were wrong, then claims that as evidence that they must be wrong now.

If someone stood you in front of a door and said, as a structural engineer, they felt there was a strong likelihood the room on the other side would collapse at some point in the next half hour, I suspect you'd make a decision not to walk through that door. And, importantly, you'd stand by that decision 100%, even though the information you based it on was clearly an opinion with no guarantees. And if someone said it's fine to walk in the room because "structural engineers have been wrong in the past", it would be perfectly reasonable to debate the logic of that statement, without having to understand structural engineering at all.

When Bob tells me we can't trust doctors because of Harold Shipman and something about stomach ulcers, I don't feel I need a deep understanding of modern medical techniques in order to point out the flaws in his argument.
 
#19 ·
Spandex said:
When Bob tells me we can't trust doctors because of Harold Shipman and something about stomach ulcers, I don't feel I need a deep understanding of modern medical techniques in order to point out the flaws in his argument.
Yep, that's just unreasonable! :lol:

Spandex said:
But that's pretty much it in a nutshell. You trust your (or your childs) life to 'experts' even though you know there is always some disagreement between them. If you can be so confident in their informed opinions that you trust them with your life, then surely you'd be confident enough to back that view in a forum debate?? Even if 'backing it' is simply you pointing out that the vast majority of medical opinion is on your side.
I would probably back that view yes, but again, that's a fairly small percentage of people saying it can cause autism in a small amount of cases, not that it does in any majority of cases.

Even if 100% of doctors agreed that maybe 1/10,000 children will develop autism due to this vaccination, would you take the risk? What are the risks of serious life changing effects of Measles for example... i don't know at all, but in reality maybe neither option is particularly favorable, therefore you could argue there is no right answer!

Spandex said:
If someone stood you in front of a door and said, as a structural engineer, they felt there was a strong likelihood the room on the other side would collapse at some point in the next half hour, I suspect you'd make a decision not to walk through that door. And, importantly, you'd stand by that decision 100%, even though the information you based it on was clearly an opinion with no guarantees. And if someone said it's fine to walk in the room because "structural engineers have been wrong in the past", it would be perfectly reasonable to debate the logic of that statement, without having to understand structural engineering at all.
It depends what i needed to go into the room for doesn't it! If it's to save a loved one, i'd still go in there and hope lucks with me in the half hour window, if it's for a £5 bet i sure as hell wouldn't! The consequences to me personally aren't worth it for money.

Relating that back to Global warming then, if Global warming was 100% going to cause death to the human race in 5 years and the experts all or in majority agreed, I'd do everything i could! But as it is, it might cause something bad in many many years, the consequences of which personally aren't worth worrying about, especially when you have such a minuscule affect on the outcome.

But what if the majority agreed that Global warming 100% would lead to the human race not being able to survive another;

100 years? I'd be inclined to get on board, i'd probably be feeling the effects in my lifetime and (Potential) children's lifetime.

1000 years? Selfish maybe but i probably wouldn't be concerning myself with doing anything drastic about it... scientists should focus on space travel to find a new habitable planet instead i'd say! :lol:
 
#20 ·
NickG said:
It depends what i needed to go into the room for doesn't it! If it's to save a loved one, i'd still go in there and hope lucks with me in the half hour window, if it's for a £5 bet i sure as hell wouldn't! The consequences to me personally aren't worth it for money.
Exactly! It doesn't matter what you would chose, or how you balance your priorities. The point I was making was that you can make a decision which you can back up 100% even if the information you're basing it on is incomplete. Hence why we can debate brexit on here, even though our information comes from 'experts' and isn't 100% guaranteed to come true.
 
#21 ·
Well here I am Spandex,

I posted a video for John relating to smart meters and RF exposure, he stated it was rubbish.

Here we go, I am in my mid 70`s, for about a year I have been suffering from acute tiredness, tired after a nights sleep, tired during the day, I was led to believe it was my age and had accepted this, having viewed that video one of the symptoms of RF radiation is acute tiredness.
Looking back, about the same time I started to have this problem I had purchased an android tablet for my wife, we found WiFi was almost none existent in our bedroom, to remedy this I hard wired my office router to a second router in the bedroom. The wifi from this router now connects with the tablet, the router ran 24/7.

2 days ago after viewing that video I turned the router off at night, I AM NOW BACK TO NORMAL, yes, that quick, so bullshit or not I can honestly state that RF emitting in my bedroom caused my acute tiredness. Prior to that episode of tiredness I had constructed a brick extension to my garage plus a brick side extension to the house. All the work other than plastering I did, even dug out most of the foundations.
 
#22 ·
When Bob tells me we can't trust doctors because of Harold Shipman and something about stomach ulcers, I don't feel I need a deep understanding of modern medical techniques in order to point out the flaws in his argument.
Rubbish Spanex, you can`t trust so called experts just because they say they are experts.

Shipman thought he could alter his computer records without trace,

Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren
discovered the bacterium Helicobacter pylori and its role in gastritis and peptic ulcer disease, the experts in this field called their discovery rubbish, that was until the most widely used drug at the time ran out of patent some 8 years later.

After a heart attack some 30 years ago I was placed on statins, I was then given an Angina spray to help alleviate the side effects of the statins, after reading an article on the net I decided to come off those drugs. While on statins I could not walk 200 yards without pain, 30 years later I walk miles, I always question expert opinion.
 
#23 ·
NickG wrote:
Does anyone else tend to give zero-f***ks about global warming due to the fact that experts can't even agree on whether it exists or not? It's peoples opinions, based on 'facts' determined by others, so how can anyone spend time on a TT forum debating it? You don't know, i don't know, the bloody 'experts' don't know!
It is unproven, it`s solely based on computer models GIGO, and it has massively increased your energy bills, filled the countryside with wind turbines and caused the diesel scandal, the pain for diesel owners has only just begun, I`m petrol though, did my homework. Therefor it should be debated, if you fill a greenhouse with CO2 the plants increase their yield, if you fill the same greenhouse with NOX the plants die, doesn`t take a rocket scientist to figure out which is the pollutant, but if you don`t question it you won`t know will you.
 
#24 ·
As for man-made global warming, the majority of experts do agree. Of course, not all of them do, but there isn't a single scientific principal where ALL the experts agree. So, it comes down to a choice - at what point do you trust them? How many have to agree before you believe it?
Spandex, do you trust them if you can`t replicate their studies because those climate scientists promoting AGW won`t release their data to anyone outside their grouping, do you just take their word for it. It`s all in the climategate emails.

If you can`t replicate the peer reviewed studies then the studies are rubbish.
 
#25 ·
bobclive22 said:
I AM NOW BACK TO NORMAL.
Plenty of room for a whole new debate there Bob :lol:
 
#26 ·
bobclive22 said:
so bullshit or not I can honestly state that RF emitting in my bedroom caused my acute tiredness.
No, you honestly can't state that. All you have described is a sequence of events. You haven't even shown it's repeatable, which is surely the bare minimum needed to form any kind of proof??

Oh, and welcome to your thread :)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top