Minty

Good question. We do not, if our government acts appropriately, but IMO they are not. If Governments are guided (through voting or whatever other means) by the public, then for them to act, I believe the public need to face up to the issue more, hence campaigns like the one I posted the graphic for. I do accept that 'appropriate' action from the Government is subjective, but when linked to the scientific consensus, I believe it is clear that governments aren't doing enough, and the public don't care enough to change that.

Totally with you on that... most peoples opinions are moulded by where and how they heard about it. So many people are lazy, they don't want to find out about something for themselves, they want a few words and a conclusion handed to them on a plate. Critical thinking seems to be becoming a thing of the past...

To be honest, so do I... to many grand public statements are made, again, with the intention of raising awareness in the wider public arena, but the way it is done sometimes turns people off from the issue completely. I know that Eastleigh Borough Council have very honourable intentions with regard to their climate impact, which is good, but soundbites and slogans can often be counter productive IMO.

Fair enough, and entirely reasonable. As I said before, scepticism is healthy, I just wish more people would look into things rather than just believing what they are told... it's the lack of reasoned debate I find frustrating. On that I agree wholeheartedly - but it's a fine line between trying to increase public engagement on an issue, and it being interpreted and 'preaching' and/or 'spin'. So, how do we promote interest and understanding in it? I don't have an answer, but I think it's an important part of the issue.

Are you two going to ruin another thread? As for Fry, I don't agree at all with the criticism that he has no right to comment, nor that he should be focusing on more important issues. All issue are important, but we can't deal with them all at the same time - ANY attempt to highlight ANY injustice is a good attempt IMO... if key figures in history had had the same outlook about their struggles, and not acted because 'it's just one small part of a much bigger issue' then we wouldn't have evolved to where we are today.

97% just happens to be a statistic which highlights the number of 'proper arguments' that happen to agree with the assertion that man is damaging the planet. I don't think anyone is relying on the statistic or using it instead of such arguments... indeed each and every one of those papers makes it's own clear arguments. This statistic just summarises that. Part of the wider issue is that many people simply don't want to know more about who is researching or funding these studies, hence why it is bottled up in a statistic for easy consumption. I think it would be great if there was more info about who is carrying out the studies, where, how and why, and with what funding, but there is a need to make contact with the wider public to try and increase engagement, and so that stat was produced by distilling key information down to a bite-sized chunk that the public can relate to. I think the issue of funding is a fair question, but I do find it slightly intriguing that it is only this issue that seems to provoke such enquiry and doubt, when in most other aspects of science, it is seemingly accepted with far less doubt or questioning. It is, IMO, simply because of the selfish human nature that most people don't care about science until it impacts upon them directly... and this clearly will impact on everyone. Naturally people do not like what they are hearing, and as a result, some want to disprove it. I understand that, its scary sh!t, but hiding from a consensus of 'proper arguments' won't help IMO.

Sorry, I really don't see how, other than 'I said so'...?! For starters, the papers are peer-reviewed. I'm certain you know what that means. So these are people and documents that know what they are talking about. Do you agree? Secondly, of ALL the peer-reviewed papers that reach a conclusion (so not just handpicked examples, but ALL of them), 97% come to a conclusion that humans are responsible for the situation we face. So, ignore the author, and look at the facts. Just what would have to happen for these results to actually mean something to you?

Playing at the Dell and scoring twice. Slightly selfish perhaps, and it may only have been a charity match, but not many people can say they've done it.

Fair enough! Still, what a game... finals day will probably be boring in comparison now!

I thought I made this quite clear earlier but perhaps not... 97% of peer-reviewed papers that express an opinion. Nothing to do with populations or voting. Peer-reviewed papers written by scientists across the world. And no weighting required. Just a simple % of all papers published. There are people convicted of crimes based on more doubt than that.

I think the correlation he draws is quite significant and valid actually.

What's the highest T20 losing score?! Must be in contention...

Won by 1 run! Amazing game.

17 off 6...!?

28 needed off 9 balls, hopefully we see this out now...

Cripes, bit closer than I would like, this one...

Sorry...

Wow... a thread that actually came back down to relative normalness having been up in the echelons of WUMmery, abuse and name-calling! Is that a first?!? Fair play to Jeff. As mentioned, at least he can take a bit on the chin and remain considered himself. Welcome along.

Cripes Bearsy, that was almost a serious response, which I presume came from a serious thought... I thought you hadn't had one of them since 1997? Anyway, Bearsy is spot on... Jeff, you're looking to blame someone for something that most people don't even think has gone wrong yet. You have an opinion that we should've signed a striker by now. You're absolutely entitled to that opinion. But when clearly most other people are at the very least waiting to see who we do sign, and are not making final judgements about our transfer activity until the end of the transfer window (and even then, who we sign is no guarantee of anything... it'll be our performances on the pitch that ultimately guide most peoples judgements on whether our transfer activity was good enough), then surely... SURELY... you can see why your assertion that someone needs to be blamed, now, for something only a small number of people think is a problem, is a little premature at best, and entirely unfair at worst?

I'm sure a similar thread on TMS would love to hear them Bearsy... At the risk of being a boring bastard, I would actually be interested in peoples genuine thoughts on this issue because I think it's a pretty significant one.

I actually agree with the skate... if I were a player in League 2, I would absolutely love the thought of going to FP to bring home 3 points in front of 15,000 delusional home fans, just to help ram home the reality of where they now find themselves. It would be like a Cup Final. Oh, was that not quite what he meant?

Brilliant piece this - not surprising perhaps from Stephen Fry, but on a very important subject IMO. http://www.stephenfry.com/2013/08/07/an-open-letter-to-david-cameron-and-the-ioc/single-page/

They did get off and changed trains - and then stood on the platform for at least as long as they were in earshot whilst I walked home, singing more pointless songs to no one in particular... most of em were incredibly witty and funny* teenagers, so the songs were indeed highly original and cutting*. * - They weren't.

Got off at Central and some of em were desperately try to pick a fight with various innocent late night passengers who all had the same look of 'You f*cking mongtards' on their face.

Just got on a train at Totton to get to town and its full of Skates... Quite hard to suppress my inner glee at their current circumstances. Just broke into a round of 'You dirty scammers, we're coming for you.' Stay classy...