What is Top Gear's problem?

[Walter Goldsworthy]

I am not an 'enviromentalist' but you do raise a good point.
TG has recently become very irresponsible to their attidude on the envirment.

Clarkson typically mocks peoples concerns about the earth and frequently suggests global warming is a 'myth' that is part of a natural cycle (proved wrong last year by the Hockey Stick Curve') How on earth can the BBC be allowed to finance this fool who is deliberatly misleading the public about what we are doing to the planet.

I like performance etc as much as anyone but the way JC so absolutely no sense of awareness for the enviroment is sickening.

Sorry, I can not "bite my hands" any longer.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/i...ce-of-arctic-warmth-a-long-time-ago/#more-152

http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html
Please read all of this.

Don't be a fool. The evidence for Global warming is unflawed. Last year the 'Hockey Curve' data finished off the skeptics view that was being purported by Bush & co.

The World Climate report does not have a single peice of evidence that disproves that GLOBALLY the the world is warming up, all it points to is that certain areas have cooled. - This just shows a lack of understanding of what global warming actually does. (The U.K would also cool if Global Warming were to reach a critical degree.)

The World Climate report was funded by Exxon - A great impartial 'study'' then. What I refer you to is the IPPC, this is the international body of scientists that last year unanimously agreed that a)The world is warming and b) Humans have caused this.

Of course the media have hyped the figures to sell papers but the science is sound.

 

[SL65]

No I'm not the new No Boss

[Foghorn Leghorn]
I say, now, I say sir... a fine gentleman like myself will not tolerate such forms of impersonation and challenge you to a duel. [/Foghorn Leghorn]

...when does the free post party begin?

NOW. First person to post on the 6th page is the winner. And extra points are awarded to those who post pictures of monkeys...everybody likes monkeys right!

The thread will then be locked. I don't see much point in dragging this out any longer than it already has. You shouldn't have to prove yourself to ol' Walter.

 

[petraman]

I am not an 'enviromentalist' but you do raise a good point.
TG has recently become very irresponsible to their attidude on the envirment.

Clarkson typically mocks peoples concerns about the earth and frequently suggests global warming is a 'myth' that is part of a natural cycle (proved wrong last year by the Hockey Stick Curve') How on earth can the BBC be allowed to finance this fool who is deliberatly misleading the public about what we are doing to the planet.

I like performance etc as much as anyone but the way JC so absolutely no sense of awareness for the enviroment is sickening.

Sorry, I can not "bite my hands" any longer.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/i...ce-of-arctic-warmth-a-long-time-ago/#more-152

http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html
Please read all of this.

Don't be a fool. The evidence for Global warming is unflawed. Last year the 'Hockey Curve' data finished off the skeptics view that was being purported by Bush & co.

The World Climate report does not have a single peice of evidence that disproves that GLOBALLY the the world is warming up, all it points to is that certain areas have cooled. - This just shows a lack of understanding of what global warming actually does. (The U.K would also cool if Global Warming were to reach a critical degree.)

The World Climate report was funded by Exxon - A great impartial 'study'' then. What I refer you to is the IPPC, this is the international body of scientists that last year unanimously agreed that a)The world is warming and b) Humans have caused this.

Of course the media have hyped the figures to sell papers but the science is sound.

NOW the truth comes out: he's an enviromentalist.
Go hump a tree and stop trying to attack us and top gear

 

[No Boss]

And extra points are awarded to those who post pictures of monkeys...everybody likes monkeys right!

 

[Magnet]

We sure do!

 

[fbc]

It's a monkey of sorts...
http://img458.imageshack.**/img458/6049/monkeywrench9ua.jpg

 

[GM_IV]

As far as I know TG is the only motoring show on the BBC, at least the only one that's given a real budget.

If I am expected to pay my license fee every year I expect the car programmes to actually be about cars not just an outlet for a egotistic fool.

TG now is just a joke, it's unoriginal (how many football games have we had now?) and it's very irresponsible (anyone remember when he pulled down a tree with the Toureg or crashed into one the the Toyota?)

I am sick of everyone on here worshipping everything JC says as if it were gospel truth. The truth is he has only made a name for himself because he comes out with ridiculous statements that make him a laughing stock amoung real motoring journalists. If his reviews didn't have the fancy effects Top Gear use then he'd be exposed for the fraud he is.

I have already written a letter to the TG editor and told them exactly what everyone feels so don't be surprised people if your beloved TG gets changed back to how it used to be.

P.S. 'osabros', I'm paying for TG you are getting it for free. I want my money to be spent on a decent show not a load of nonsense.

Maybe you should live here in Canada, you can get exactly what you want. Motoring shows here are all about information, zero entertainment and politically correct right up your alley. I'm rather happy with TG in its current mode, if I wanted plain info I'd get a book on it rather than someone read it for me.

 

[rinat2r]

You know, I really love TG and I find the guys are really fun to watch. I also think finalgear.com is a great site and the members are the nicest I've seen on the internet.
But I'm really perplexed with this negative opinion of environmentalists and generally using 'environmentalist' as an insult. I would be happy to be called an environmentalist. It means that I support conservation, recycling etc. I admit my background isn't in conservation ecology; it's in genetics and a mere BSc at that. I've only taken a few courses in conservation but the professors are always mindful to include the fact that global warming is tricky because back in their day, they worried about global cooling and there is evidence to show that the earth undergoes warming and cooling cycles as part of a natural cycle. So it?s not like scientists are turning a blind eye to the obvious, despite the fact that the media makes it look that way. Researchers always use words like "may" and "possible correlation." Research is being done continuously on the subject. It?s not like one group of scientists and researchers have published these findings and that?s the end of that!
But keeping that in mind, I think I can say that all scientists, researchers, and students who have even taken one course in conservation can agree to the fact that what humans are doing to the Earth is not healthy. Especially at the speed and volume we dump pollutants into the environment. Not for the Earth, the other organisms on the planet or humans.
So if people can't agree on the correlation between carbon dioxide and global warming, how about we decrease the levels of pollutants we dump into our atmosphere for other reasons? Like our health? Or to prevent future wars which may arise over a finite resource like oil?
I see no real cons in the pursuit for eco-friendly ways to get from A to B (fuel cell research, biofuels or hybrids (I know there?s much debate about this due to the environmental cost of producing the car but this is a problem which exists due to limitations of current technology. Technology is evolving all the time. That?s why a computer in the 1970?s doesn?t look like my laptop in 2006. So in the near future, the environmental cost of producing the car may become nonexistent).

Anyways, that's my opinion~

 

[Blind_Io]

I am not an 'enviromentalist' but you do raise a good point.
TG has recently become very irresponsible to their attidude on the envirment.

Clarkson typically mocks peoples concerns about the earth and frequently suggests global warming is a 'myth' that is part of a natural cycle (proved wrong last year by the Hockey Stick Curve') How on earth can the BBC be allowed to finance this fool who is deliberatly misleading the public about what we are doing to the planet.

I like performance etc as much as anyone but the way JC so absolutely no sense of awareness for the enviroment is sickening.

Sorry, I can not "bite my hands" any longer.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/i...ce-of-arctic-warmth-a-long-time-ago/#more-152

http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html
Please read all of this.

Don't be a fool. The evidence for Global warming is unflawed. Last year the 'Hockey Curve' data finished off the skeptics view that was being purported by Bush & co.

The World Climate report does not have a single peice of evidence that disproves that GLOBALLY the the world is warming up, all it points to is that certain areas have cooled. - This just shows a lack of understanding of what global warming actually does. (The U.K would also cool if Global Warming were to reach a critical degree.)

The World Climate report was funded by Exxon - A great impartial 'study'' then. What I refer you to is the IPPC, this is the international body of scientists that last year unanimously agreed that a)The world is warming and b) Humans have caused this.

Of course the media have hyped the figures to sell papers but the science is sound.

Sounds like someone has been drinking the Kool-Aid. Again we go into the polarized all-good/all-bad thinking with no room for ambivalence. Let's break it down shall we? It should not be that hard.

1 - The evidence of global warming is unflawed.
Utter tripe. No data is without flaw, it's a statistical fact that there is always a chance for error and there is no way to know if an error has occured, so you minimize it by using different statistical tests. And example would be to use Miltivariate Analysis instead of a bunch of t-tests to minimize the risk of error. No matter how much you do to minimize error there is always a chance. Always. Take Statistics 101 before you shoot your mouth off about things you know nothing about.

2- This just shows a lack of understanding of what global warming actually does.
Really? And you know better, do you? Can I please see your doctorate in climatology? So we have Splitting (all good and all bad thinking) with a little bit of delusions of grandure added to flavor. Ahh, it's all becomming clear to me now.

3 - IPPC
Great source there, bud - oh, wait you never gave me a source so I had to read half of freakin' Google and guess which IPPC you were talking about.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ippc/index.htm
I assume it's this one. Of course they will find that global warming is a problem and that humans are to blame. That means that they have some control over it. Government buracracies exist to perpetuate themselves. These guys would have to come up with a reason like this to keep their funding. Don't you have any idea how things work in the government? This is not any more impartial than Exxon is - both have millions on the line depending upon the findings. The fact is that humanity has not been industrialized long enough to cause the kind of effects that the fear mongers are proposing. One volcanic erruption spews more green house gas and particulate matter into the atmosphere than all of humanity in a year.

Your posts don't contain enough logic to toast a bagle.

 

[Peter3hg]

The World Climate report does not have a single peice of evidence that disproves that GLOBALLY the the world is warming up, all it points to is that certain areas have cooled. - This just shows a lack of understanding of what global warming actually does. (The U.K would also cool if Global Warming were to reach a critical degree.)

Someones been watching "The Day after Tomorrow".

 

[jakifirbec]

monkey...

someone lock this please

 

[Magnet]

They're on their way...............

 

[watto]

http://img132.imageshack.**/img132/4593/monkey032xg.jpg

 

[kaBOOMn]

Do I win? Do I get a free Bannana?

But really, I'm a little disturbed how may people jumed on this guy. I'd rather have a nice explaination on why he's wrong rather than "you are a fool"

I'm writing up a new (longish) post...be finished soon....lol its almost a essay

 

[jakifirbec]

Do I win? Do I get a free Bannana?

no you're still on 5th page - if by winning you were refering to sl65amg's post

 

[Blind_Io]

Do I win? Do I get a free Bannana?

But really, I'm a little disturbed how may people jumed on this guy. I'd rather have a nice explaination on why he's wrong rather than "you are a fool"

I'm writing up a new (longish) post...be finished soon....lol its almost a essay

I did try to point out, in detail, exactly why he was a tool - I mean, wrong.

Sometimes asshattery must be confronted aggresively.

 

[fbc]

Do I win? Do I get a free Bannana?

But really, I'm a little disturbed how may people jumed on this guy. I'd rather have a nice explaination on why he's wrong rather than "you are a fool"

The guy's clearly trolling, and if he's not he's doing a great impression of it. So you can't really expect people to take him or his arguments seriously.

Dammit, didn't reach page 6

 

[Walter Goldsworthy]

No Blind IO, the IPCC is a non-govmental organisation. They are a collection of scientists across the world that were asked to look at climate change by WMO and UNEP (also non-political). The link for them is here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/

You may also want to watch this in connection with how the facts of warming were suppresed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_5040000/newsid_5048300/bb_rm_5048330.stm

[/url]

 

[Magnet]

There really is no point in arguing. It's like having an argument about religion (aren't we all Top Gear religious zealots on here :lol: ). You cannot convince us that Top Gear is rubbish, so why bother?

He has his own opinion, that's great, and good on him for having one. He's clearly after an argument of some sort though.

 

[fbc]

He's clearly after an argument of some sort though.

(Walk down the corridor)
M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

There, that ought to do him.

God dammit, still not page 6