Jeremy Clarkson

[flip_flop]

Love him or loathe him (personally I think he's great - the funniest writer wrting today in my opinion - his two columns in The Sunday Times are worth the price of the paper on their own), he is perfectly entitled to his opinion on global warming, and far from being 'blase' as is suggested in the link, having read clarkson for many many years, it is quite clear his views are hewn from research.

http://news.uk.msn.com/odd-news/article.aspx?cp-documentid=149753194 />
Why do idiots like those in the link feel they have a right to ride roughshod over somebody else's completely valid opinion?

It strikes me that if somebody has the temerity to disagree or question climate change, the ecomentalists get swivel-eyed, lose all reason and feel they are justified in pathetic action such as this. They are econazis.

At this point I should say I do not know enough, or for that matter understand, about climate change to particularly care whether it is happening or not.

[flip_flop]

Don't know what happened there. Only the link should be underlined and in red.

Another glitch?

[ummmm]

That link isn't working.

I love him. I've got a few of his books and giggled most the way through them. He even makes cars funny and I'm not into cars.

My cousin in America was trying to get me some friends to play an internet game. He posted that I could get tickets to Top Gear...I had about 100 requests in a hour.

[flip_flop]

http://news.uk.msn.com/odd-news/article.aspx?cp-documentid=149753194

[ummmm]

Crazy people.

He's a lot more green than he makes out. I think he has a house on the Isle of White or it could be Mann. I think that's generally self sufficient.

[fredpuli47]

He's good value. I was all for the Downing Street petition that he should Prime Minister. He never seems to have any mailce in his writing and genuinely believe what he says, though he may use a lot of humorous hyperbole in saying it. He's got a fine turn of phrase. I doubt whether he has done a lot of serious research about climate change. If he had , he wouldn't express such a black and white view of the subject , though some allowance has to be made for any exaggerated description and distortion of the opposing view , written up for comic effect .

[jake-the-peg]

Yes it's a valid opinion.

If you also take as a valid opinion that the Earth is 6,000 years old was created in a day and humans and Dinosaurs ran about together.

The difference is that we don't have to make global policy decisions on whether or not the Earth was created in 7 days.

We do have to make them on Global warming.

Global warming skeptics are continuing to try to use bad science and misleading arguments to disrupt this effort.

Leaving view like Clarkson's unchallenged would not just result in more poorly informed people describing his views as "valid".

In reality the scientific debate ended years ago - the debate now is not whether the patient is infected but how bad the symptoms are and what to do with it.

Having Clarkson wander into intensive care with a buch of goat entrails and declare "Nobody's ill at all" is unhelpful

[R1Geezer]

No one doubts global warming Jake, not even Clarkson. It's cause that is the debating point.

[jake-the-peg]

Really?

He does rather like to say things like

" And thanks to Global Warming the track is soaking wet and miserably cold"

I thought his point was the same as that of many "skeptics"

It doesn't exist - until you prove to me that it does when it isn't man-made - until you prove to me that it is when it's too expensive to act on it now - until you prove to me that it is too expensive to wait when it's too late anyway- when I'll think of some other objection

[jake-the-peg]

And anyway it's less what he actually believes that's important. His importance is more as a figurehead for the various members of the "head in the sand brigade" who aren't interested in looking at evidence but are interested in just ignoring everything and carrying on regardless

[ludwig]

It's not the people who think it's not real, or think it's not manmade that you have to worry about Jake. At least they're interested enough in the issue to be sceptical about it.
It's the vastly greater number of people who believe it's real, believe it's manmade, but couldn't give a sh1t.

[Mr Veritas]

I just hope he doesn't go near the compost,otherwise they won't be able to tell him apart from the sh!t!
To think I fought in WW2 to allow such prats to get into papers and TV.

[Whickerman]

I think Clarkson is a national treasure.

As to climate change - if you look at the past few hundred years there's no denying that the world's got warmer and that this coincides with the industrial revolution.

http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/images/climate_change3.jpg

However if you look at 400,000 years you will see that this is an expected cycle and is the ending of the last ice age.

http://www.ourworldfoundation.org.uk/IceCores1.gif

As to fighting in WW2 for this prat Mr Veritas - yip, you did. You fought for freedom and thank you.

You may note that Clarkson has been an outspoken champion for the cause of injured troops and is a patron of Help for Heroes
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2558222.ece

[Oneeyedvic]

Jake Actually, he is not in the put your head in the sand brigade - he (like me) is in the "lets actually ask for proof of this before we squander billions of pounds and change world policy".

I have repeatedly asked for and never received any scientific proof that we can accurately predict what will happen in 10 years let alone 100 years. If you can show me one single shred of published data from 5 years ago that accurately forecast the current climate to within 0.1 degrees centigrade I would be amazed.

You seem to think that since enough scientists say it is true it must be so.

I would refer you (as I always do) to the study of eugenics. Look at what happened there!