|
Where have all the global warming extremists gone? Or is it a seasonal affliction?
|
global warming climate change
They are busy digesting this information
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/11/records-tumble-as-winter-tight.shtml
"Bradford Lister park recorded minus 7.5C; the coldest November night since records began in 1908.
Linton on Ouse recorded its coldest November night too with minus 11.2C. Remarkably on November 4th the same station recorded its highest daytime November temperature with 17.6C.
Linton on Ouse also recorded this morning at 9am the deepest November lying snow on record at 15cm.
It's been a remarkable night across our region, and the UK, with records tumbling. I haven't access to the full climate records as I am writing this from home, so I don't know the year in which most of the previous records were set."
|
I don't know why they have changed to "climate change", that has always happened.
Its a bit low profile, I wonder why?
|
>> I wonder why?
>>
Because someone may have to admit that we have been taxed on false pretences for all these years.
|
"taxed on false pretences " Yes. I believe the war with Napoleon is over.
John
|
|
I wonder where I can direct my mis-selling claim to get some of them taxes back
|
Changed to "climate change" simply because they realised that the great unwashed masses assumed that average global warming would translate in to higher temperatures everywhere.
A bit low profile, only a bit. The articles and latest reports are there to be found, it is just that the media and politicians have lost interest, the latter because they have the economy to sort out. Try telling an Irishman/woma or a Greek that he should worry about climate change when their priority is where their economy is heading.
latest
www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11834518
Last edited by: John H on Tue 30 Nov 10 at 14:08
|
There's a different fad to follow perhaps? Protesting against BP, or tuition fees or....
John
|
What do people do when they bang a drum that loud, then find the bandwagon is loosing speed?
They go quiet because they want to save face. Only the most upstanding humans being actually admit when wrong or reconsider their original position in light of new information. The climate change lobby, well lets just say they are predominately of the spineless variety.
|
>> They go quiet because they want to save face. Only the most upstanding humans being
>> actually admit when wrong or reconsider their original position in light of new information. The
>> climate change lobby, well lets just say they are predominately of the spineless variety.
>>
They are still busy proving the case, with ever growing supporting evidence.
It is all about to get going again today as I type this (started yesterday):
unfccc.int/2860.php
UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun
COP 16 / CMP 6, 29 November to 10 December 2010
Last edited by: John H on Tue 30 Nov 10 at 15:02
|
Thanks, John, I wondered where the were hiding.
I see they are somewhere nice and warm.
www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/214550/But-scientists-claim-world-is-too-warm-
|
>> Where have all the global warming extremists gone?
They're busy defrosting their windscreens and bemoaning the fact that their washer jets get frozen!
|
>> Where have all the global warming extremists gone? Or is it a seasonal affliction?
This year is one of the warmest on record. Just because some cold air comes down from the north does not mean that the climate is cooling.
I don't regard climate scientists who consider climate change to be real as extremists. Rather they are scientists who accept he evidence that climate change is a fact and that it is most probably man made. And as far as I am aware the vast majority of respected climate scientists accept climate change. Would that it were different.
|
>>This year is one of the warmest on record
You omitted the important words "so far"...
|
>> >>This year is one of the warmest on record
>>
>> You omitted the important words "so far"...
Well of course we will only know come the end of the year, but a bit of cold over one small part of the world probably won't change the overall temperature.
|
>> This year is one of the warmest on record.
This summer may have been one of the warmest on record, but I bet that by the end of the year the average for the year will be ............ er, average.
|
Dont forget that Leif is referring to the global average so our parochial observations are just a drop in the ocean.
John
|
>> This summer may have been one of the warmest on record, but I bet that
>> by the end of the year the average for the year will be ............ er,
>> average.
>>
L'escargot. Lincolnshire is not "global".
>> You omitted the important words "so far"...
It is quite hot in Australia at the moment. Little Englanders.
|
>It is quite hot in Australia at the moment. Little Englanders.
Even I as a little Englander know it's summer in Australia...!!!!!
|
>> I don't regard climate scientists who consider climate change to be real as extremists. Rather
>> they are scientists who accept he evidence that climate change is a fact and that
>> it is most probably man made. And as far as I am aware the vast
>> majority of respected climate scientists accept climate change. Would that it were different.
>>
Yes, but on this forum we have to humour the sceptics.
|
Logically, if you look at the amount of muck we've pumped out since the start of the Industrial Revolution, or even the way the landscape was changed before that, such as cutting down trees for charcoal for iron making or for building HMS Victory, it seems likely that it is going to have an effect.
I do think that some of the "evidence" though is dubious, as are some of the conclusions and I have to look beyond any statement and ask "what is the vested interest" because there are so many. The green "electricity is clean because it comes from that plug over in the corner" brigade make we want to scream.
So I'm somewhere in believing in climate change but not trusting the people who are trumpeting it. If we're serious about it let's start cutting a few nadgers off and get the population down. Oh, and build some nuclear power stations.
John
|
|
The Norwegians aren't daft, they run their country on hydro electricity, have kept their oil nationalised, and sell their gas (CO2) to us.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 30 Nov 10 at 15:45
|
>> The Norwegians aren't daft, they run their country on hydro electricity,
They have plenty.
|
>> They have plenty.
>>
So could we if certain people got their act together.
|
Where?
think you'll find most of the likely sites have been taken.
|
|
Severn barrage, and other tidal power generation systems. Far more reliable than wind power and tidal turbines are unobtrusive, although the barrage wouldn't be.
|
|
The severn barrage has been dumped for ecological and cost reasons.
|
|
Wait untill the cost of oil and gas make it viable, then there is only the tree huggers for the riot police to sort out.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 30 Nov 10 at 16:06
|
I think the problem with climate change is simply that whole industries and governments are woven into the fabric of the movement so whether or not it proves to be correct is irrelevant because the train has left the station and its not coming back.
I recall being told that WMD in Iraq was for certain. They would have kept telling us that if it hadnt become apparent it wasnt true. I suspect the whole truth about climate change is not something the general public will ever be privy to because it isnt in the best interests of those who have hitched their wagon to it, should it ever turn out it was not as black and white as its made out.
|
|
Too true, too much big money and vested interests involved.
|
It's all a conspiracy dreamed up by so called scientists. They say they have proof but me and a lot of important people don't believe it and anyway we don't really understand this science stuff.
The sun goes round the earth and that's a fact. That Galileo chap needs locking up
|
>> It's all a conspiracy dreamed up by so called scientists.
I think you are right. Quantum mechanics and general relativity are myths, and the fact that computers are built on the foundations of quantum theory, and moon rockets use the result of general relativity goes to prove that statement. And can someone please replace my rubber spoon with a metal one so I can eat my jelly, please. Nurse ...
|
>> I think the problem with climate change is simply that whole industries and governments are
>> woven into the fabric of the movement so whether or not it proves to be
>> correct is irrelevant because the train has left the station and its not coming back.
I agree completely. We are either stuffed, or the scientists have got it wrong.
>>
>> I recall being told that WMD in Iraq was for certain.
There is a huge difference between a small clique of politicians who at best misled themselves and us, and a large number of scientists in institutions all over the world, who discuss the climate via peer reviewed journals on the basis of evidence. If they are wrong, it will be due to some massive mistake in the science, rather than any kind of conspiracy.
|
|
Who funds the scientists?
|
>> Who funds the scientists?
>>
Governments, taxpayers, us.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 30 Nov 10 at 18:51
|
>> >> Who funds the scientists?
>>
>> Governments, taxpayers, us.
Typically UK scientists are funded via research councils, who are allocated a lump sum each year. The money is distributed on the basis of peer review of research proposals, the criteria being scientific quality ie. does the proposal sound like it will be good science. The reviewers are practicing scientists, and I think the proposals are reviewed anonymously i.e. without the proposers' names. Only the very best proposals get funded, and many otherwise good ideas do not get off the ground, as funding is tight. There are also some laboratories which get block grants. The Cavendish laboratory in Cambridge is one such, based on the excellence of past research. So the staff in the Cavendish laboratory get to decide for themselves which of their ideas get funded. And there are some independent institutions, partly funded by commercial work. There are also charitable donations and funds, bequests and so on, and these are not insubstantial especially at the older universities. I cannot speak for research outside the UK, but I am sure it is similar.
It is possible that scientists have got it all wrong, but it would be an unprecedented boo boo, and there is no conspiracy as alleged by some.
|
|
Are you a scientist Leif ?
|
As a rule, when anything isnt self-funded, there will always be questions about why something gets funding because contrary to the naive, nobody pays vast sums of money for nothing and has an interest in a certain result.
Conspiracy theories matter because they one must always question the establishment.
The idea that scientists are just in it for the science, well, its funny, but no, everyone has an agenda that isnt always obvious. Like MPs, some are in it for the love of it, but where theres money, theres motive.
|
Like MPs, some are in it
>> for the love of it, but where theres money, theres motive.
>>
Excellent post Stu, seems to me if you are a scientist that doesn't come up with the correct result you might soon be an ex scientist through lack of funding.
We've had much of this over the last 3 decades with politics, read from the wrong hymnsheet...the one that was gospel the previous week...and you're hounded from the face of the earth.
|
>> Like MPs, some are in it
>> >> for the love of it, but where theres money, theres motive.
>> >>
>>
>> Excellent post Stu, seems to me if you are a scientist that doesn't come up
>> with the correct result you might soon be an ex scientist through lack of funding.
That is not how science works. You make a reputation by publishing research in good journals, and having your research referenced in other peoples papers. The criterion is not getting the 'correct result' but whether or not your methods and assumptions are valid i.e. is it good science. If you reach a result that is contrary to the prevailing views, that is fine, as long as you clearly explain what you did, and can show how the conclusions follow.
What does tend to happen is that if you publish research that walks over work by a respected scientist, who is now a professor, with prizes etc, then you might have a hard time getting your work past referees, at least in the better journals. I say might, because it depends who reviews the work prior to publication.
But you will not be an ex scientist. Assuming you work in a university, you will continue to hold your post, but your promotion might be slower. I can think of one scientist who published ground breaking work while still a student, which later won him the Nobel prize. He suffered a lot of resistance, and he had a nervous breakdown, possibly due to the friction he experienced. But a respected scientist supported him, and helped him. That is an extreme example.
|
>> As a rule, when anything isnt self-funded, there will always be questions about why something
>> gets funding because contrary to the naive, nobody pays vast sums of money for nothing
>> and has an interest in a certain result.
Most scientists are obsessives or egotists, or a bit of both. They either have a burning need to know why something happens - such as why do clouds form - or they want glory by discovering something new, and earning a professorship, and a prize or two. I think if a scientist thought they could prove climate change wrong, and could amass a convincing argument for the research, then it would get funding. Science like any endeavour does have its fads, and I am sure lots of fundamental research which does not directly adress climate change has phrases inserted into the proposal such as "and out studies will throw light on important areas relating to climate change" blah blah.
>> Conspiracy theories matter because they one must always question the establishment.
The problem with conspiracy theories is that they tend to be nutty, and irrational. There are a few respected people arguing against climate change, and good luck to them. But don't forget that the reason America was agains the idea was due to the vested interests of the oil industry. The one area where I think of where conspiracy theorists have a point is medicine. A lot if not most research is directly funded by drugs companies, and often negative results are withheld. That is known to skew the science, and I think people are trying to make that illegal.
>> The idea that scientists are just in it for the science, well, its funny, but
>> no, everyone has an agenda that isnt always obvious. Like MPs, some are in it
>> for the love of it, but where theres money, theres motive.
Scientists do not make much money, for the most part. Most are clever people who could earn far more, and work far less hours, in industry. And the money for their research does not go into their pockets. They might have a conference or two each year, perhaps one in Manchester and one in France if they are lucky. MPS on the other hands earn much much more, and they have expenses, and some of the thieving beggers even work two jobs. Boris Johnson was a full time magazine editor and MP. That in my view is morally wrong (but quite legal I should add in case legal people are reading this). And he is not the only one.
|
>> Are you a scientist Leif ?
Oooh err, a nasty evil conspiring scientist, me? No. I used to be 'a scientist' many years ago, when the dinosaurs still roamed the earth, and Raquel Welch ran around in a flimsy animal skin.
|
>
>> and Raquel Welch ran around
>> in a flimsy animal skin.
Hmm yes - good vision.
|
>> >> and Raquel Welch ran around
>> >> in a flimsy animal skin.
>>
>> Hmm yes - good vision.
I nice warming thought in these chilly times ...
|
>> I recall being told that WMD in Iraq was for certain. They would have kept
Yes, it was. Saddam ran rings around the inspectors and delayed them until he had had time to move them to Syria.
Last edited by: John H on Tue 30 Nov 10 at 20:33
|
Cobblers
They never existed, it was bluster. The only reason he ran rings round them was because they never existed and he never had the bottle to admit it.
|
I happen to have a scientist in my family. He paints a somewhat more political landscape, but since he works for a very public organisation, I wont explain where he fits in.
He is also extremely well off.
|
>> He is also extremely well off.
That is very unusual and suggests he is quite senior, probably in a more administrative role. I know plenty of people who are lecturers, and they are comfortable, but not well off, and probably substantially poorer than if they had gone into industry. A lecturer probably gets ~£40K, which is not high for the skill level. Many of their students are in the city, or heading big name companies, and earning huge salaries. Oh, and most academics I know were in termporary contracts of ~3 years until well into their 30's, making it hard to have a mortgage on a house. They now have tenure.
|
Good post Leif, I chose to eschew academia and saw my friends who remained in short term research contracts scraping by until they were in their 30s. Meanwhile I quickly became more than comfortably off and I don't consider myself to be the brightest of my cohort by quite a margin. Neither do I think my contribution to society is any more valuable than their's.
As a society we (in the UK) don't value our scientists or academics, preferring to worship talentless buffoons who have no shame and become celebrities from banal reality TV shows.
As for climate change, maybe there is no exact 'truth' on this, the systems involved are so complex and interrelated. however it seems reasonable to assume that you don't release 150+ million years worth of CO2 in 150 years without some kind of impact, whatever the result we have to live with it now. Personally I think that running out of carbon-based fuels is more of a problem, increased demand and scarcer resources will drive up the price necessitating the use of alternatives.
People don't like science (from the Greek word for 'knowledge') which inconveniences them - smoking was once considered healthy for instance and people resisted the clear evidence to the contrary for 20 or 30 years.
However, in my line of work I've seen people with no concept of the underlying science jump onto the 'green' bandwagon, offering consultancy for the flippin' obvious. this is just opportunism and I can see how it fuels scepticism.
Last edited by: idle_chatterer on Wed 1 Dec 10 at 03:46
|
>> They never existed, it was bluster. The only reason he ran rings round them was
>> because they never existed and he never had the bottle to admit it.
>>
www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/what-is-assad-hiding-in-his-backyard-1.292935
www.worldthreats.com/?cat=19&paged=5
A Pentagon document reveals that an Iraqi dissident reported that 50 trucks crossed the border on March 10, 2003, and that his sources in Syria confirmed they carried WMD. These trucks have been talked about frequently and remain a mystery.
General Georges Sada, the former second-in-command of the Iraqi Air Force, claimed ithat he knew two Iraqi pilots that flew WMD into Syria over the summer of 2002, which came before a later shipment on the ground. Sada says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.
A 200 square-kilometer area in northwestern Syria,near Masyaf, and has at least five installations and hidden paths leading underneath the mountains.
John Loftus, a former Justice Department prosecutor known for his wide-ranging contacts in the intelligence community, said that “every senior member of a Western, European or Asian intelligence service whom I have ever met all agree that the Russians moved the last of the WMDs out of Iraq in the last few months before the war.”
General James Clapper, President Obama’s pick to replace Dennis Blair as director of national intelligence, has previously stated his belief that the weapons went to Syria.
Last edited by: John H on Tue 30 Nov 10 at 22:20
|
That is dated 2003 when they were trying to justify the cobblers they came up with
He had NO WMD - It was bluster to bolster his standing in the local area, because his army and air force were crapped out after the Iran / Iraq war and Desert storm 1. In fact he was trying to prevent Iran invading, and used fear as the only weapon he had left.
Check the last intelligence reports on the matter, not the rubbish they came out with to justify it.
|
>>
>> That is dated 2003 when they were trying to justify the cobblers they came up
>> with
Published 02:37 30.05.10
|
>> So I'm somewhere in believing in climate change but not trusting the people who are
>> trumpeting it. If we're serious about it let's start cutting a few nadgers off and
>> get the population down. Oh, and build some nuclear power stations.
Couldn't agree more. Many of the world's problems are down to overpopulation.
We should have been building nuclear power stations a decade ago. I suppose the only advantage is that technology has moved on and they'll be more efficient now.
|
|
They're pretty bloomin' efficient already.
|
>> They're pretty bloomin' efficient already.
There's always room for improvement :-)
At least with today's reactors, they are are designed so that if operators stop work in the control room, the reaction stops, as a safety measure (quite a big safety measure). With reactors such as Chernobyl, the thing just got hotter and hotter if it was left with no regulation for too long, resulting in the disaster we all know.
|
>>With reactors such as Chernobyl, the thing just got hotter and hotter if it
>> was left with no regulation for too long, resulting in the disaster we all know.
>>
>>
Chernobyl is a totaly different design to the ones in the UK.
|
...Chernobyl is a totaly different design to the ones in the UK...
I'm sure our sheep will be pleased to hear that.
|
>> Chernobyl is a totaly different design to the ones in the UK.
Quite right. And it had no containment vessel. It was well dodgy.
|
>> They're pretty bloomin' efficient already.
It isn't really the efficiency so much as the cost of decommissioning which is the issue with nuclear, that and the storage of waste. As I understand it they have never resolved that lost point, though they have done shed loads of studies.
|
I thought it had been resolved but NIMBY rules.
John
|
|
The nuclear submarines that have been lost in deep water have not caused a problem, (that I know of).
|
|
Oh I don't know, there's some right big fish turning up in Morrisons these days !
|
>> The nuclear submarines that have been lost in deep water have not caused a problem,
>> (that I know of).
You forgot to add "yet".
Regarding waste, they have studied dumping it in disused salt mines, and vitrification, but I think at present they just store waste above ground in tanks.
|
Dumping nuclear waste in someone else back yard is not normally a problem
Which is what happened with most of the nuclear submarine - "accidents"
|
Incosiderate devils, those Swiss. ;-)
John
Last edited by: Tooslow on Wed 1 Dec 10 at 19:28
|
>> Dumping nuclear waste in someone else back yard is not normally a problem
>>
>> Which is what happened with most of the nuclear submarine - "accidents"
>>
I find that an odd statement given the location of the wrecks, and the number of lives lost.
|
Whats odd about it?
there have been 8 lost nuclear submarines.
Most have been out of the owning countries home waters.
|
>> www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/214792/-Learn-to-live-with-climate-change-says-leading-expert
Are you sure that's not Brian Blessed? The only advice I'll take off him is to wear some earplugs..
|
"Are you sure that's not Brian Blessed?"
Have you noticed how Brian Blessed hasn't aged since the early 80s?
|
|
He's an Ac-tor dear boy, its a role.
|
>> He's an Ac-tor dear boy, its a role.
And an ex-paratrooper. Imagine him parachuted into enemy terrotory at night, to take them by surprise ... "I say Hans, vat iz zat almighty rrracket in zee sky? Haf you seen my earplugs. I left them somevere on zees table? "
|
...Have you noticed how Brian Blessed hasn't aged since the early 80s?...
Even if he had, would you tell him to his face?
preview.tinyurl.com/33zszol
|
"Even if he had, would you tell him to his face?"
Fantastic.
Flash Gordon was crap though. I'm sure I loved it at the time but I caught it a couple of years ago. Jeez...
"Gordon's Alive?"
|
>> I bit of climate change sense?
>>
>> www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/214792/-Learn-to-live-with-climate-change-says-leading-expert
Given that the vast majority of climatologists accept climate change, why do you choose to accept the views of one of the small minority of sceptics, in this case a geologist? In other words, on what grounds?
|
>> in this case a
>> geologist? In other words, on what grounds?
>>
He seems to have a bit of common sense, more than can be said of the scientists with vested interests.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 1 Dec 10 at 20:02
|
>> >> in this case a
>> >> geologist? In other words, on what grounds?
>>
>> He seems to have a bit of common sense, more than can be said of
>> the scientists with vested interests.
I don't understand what you mean by common sense. Surely it is the evidence that matters. And what vested interests do scientists have?
|
>> Funding.
Who are the scientists who according to you corrupt themselves, and where does the money come from, and what do they do with the money?
|
I have sympathy with the view that climate change* is happening, it cant be changed, and we need to live with it and adapt.
*dont care if we did it, or its just a natural cycle, it matters not - stable door and all that.
|
>> I have sympathy with the view that climate change* is happening, it cant be changed,
>> and we need to live with it and adapt.
>>
>> *dont care if we did it, or its just a natural cycle, it matters not
>> - stable door and all that.
Given that there are huge numbers of us, and reducing atmospheric C02 levels would require massive lifestyle changes and huge investment in all countries, I agree with you. Invest in makers of sun tan lotion, not thermal underwear.
|
>> Given that the vast majority of climatologists accept climate change, why do you choose to
>> accept the views of one of the small minority of sceptics, in this case a
>> geologist? In other words, on what grounds?
Ah, if he's a geologist, he'll be more interested in the million year view, he won't be concerned with the primates currently running around on the planet will he?
|
I have always thought that whatever view you take on climate change, AGW and the rest, encouraging people to tread more lightly on this earth is a good thing in itself.
(That is one of the reasons why I do not think it is right that I can fly to somewhere like Manchester for less than half the cost of going on the train - electric train all the way, too.)
Sadly all that ever happens with this is
a) governments across the world use it as an excuse to pick people's pockets (again)
b) loads of half-baked tosh gets chucked about to justify a)
c) serious scientists trying to put across a well-argued point one way or another find themselves being drowned out or their views hijacked
d) the pathologically intolerant at the extremities of each viewpoint shriek and spit abuse at each other.
Maybe one day we'll learn. Maybe not.
|
The reason I doubt climate change is simply that governments apparently know all this and quite simply, they wont make the huge changes across the board that are required to genuinely halt climate change.
Theres alot of handwringing as ever, but the only result has been tax adjustments and investment in green business, but lets be honest, it isnt making much difference is it?
So if no government in the western world takes it seriously, why would anyone else?
|
|
stunorthants29: It sounds like you do not doubt climate change per se, but you are cynical of the response of governments and our ability to respond e.g. governments increase air fares under the pretext of countering climate change, but they will pocket the revenue. I tend to share that cynical viewpoint. Never mind, it'll all kick off - if it does - well after I'm dead and buried.
|
|
One big asteroid hit and we are all toast anyway.
|
Im cynical about the motivations of people in governments and lobby groups. You could never have a reasoned debate like this one on climate change in the public arena - the media have a bias that tried to paint any report that isnt pro-climate change as the work of nutjobs. That makes me very wary, esp since the BBC does it and that is supposed to be impartial.
Im not a scientist, but I dont trust the media or governments to tell us if any new science comes to light - imagine the backtracking! Governments and organisations can quite easily suppress any notion of doubt, even if there is reason for it as they wield the levers of propoganda.
|
stunorthants29: To be honest the media have little understanding of science, and how it works. They want black and white stories, good versus evil, that kind of thing. Science is usually not like that. But my impression is that there is a widespread concensus among scientists that climate change is real, and it is probably man-made. A lot of the opponents are indeed nut jobs, who put forward conspiracy theories with little evidence. Some had connections with the oil industry and lobby groups. Some are genuine scientists of course, and it is always good to have people who question 'orthodoxy'. But we now see almost anything bad ascribed to climate change, and it is even used to market products. Various special interest groups - bunny huggers if you wish - exploit climate change to push their own agenda.
Regarding new science, I don't think science can be suppressed that easily. Witness Dr. David Nutt who resigned from the drugs committee when the government tried to bully him into submission. If climate science really was controlled by governments, in countless organisations, in countless countries, I am sure there would be a lot of scientists voicing concerns. Some would keep shtum of course, for fear of losing a job. It is well known that school and university exam standards have dropped due to government pressure. The information got out very quickly.
|
" If climate science really was controlled by governments, in countless organisations, in countless countries, I am sure there would be a lot of scientists voicing concerns. "
Leif,
It's not "controlled" by Governments - they know b.....r all about it. What does Buff Huhne know about anything? They just go along with certain things because it suits them.
There ARE "countless scientists voicing concerns".
Take wind power - brilliant, it will provide "cheap" power. Except of course that the windmills only operate at best at about 25% of their stated output and Britains coldest spells, when most power is needed, are during lengthy spells of High Pressure when we have clear skies and calm winds. So, for all these windmills, you need coal/gas/nuclear power stations as back-up during the coldest spells. And of course, you can't just switch on a coal fired power station when you need it - they have to run all the time basically, so where is the CO2 saving?
(And that's assuming that you need to save CO2 - what is Britain's contribution to world CO2 production? B.....er all - if UK disappeared from earth's surface it would make no difference to world CO2 production or "global warming" yet we each pay "loads'a money" per year towards "saving the world" through our power and fuel and VED bills)
Another rant over - sorry again - must go to bed, got to get up early and drive through a few feet of global warming - oops, I mean snow.
Phil
|
PhilW said:
>> Leif,
>> It's not "controlled" by Governments - they know b.....r all about it. What does Buff
>> Huhne know about anything? They just go along with certain things because it suits them.
>> There ARE "countless scientists voicing concerns".
There are not countless scientists voicing concerns. When you look at the vast majority of climate scientists, they are not saying "we're being coerced" or "we're being conned". There is a small number who dispute the science.
As regards the rest of your post, it seemed reasonable. Wind can be coupled with pumped storage thereby smoothing out the delivery. It's a bit costly, but our main problem is security of supply. We don't want Russia saying "No, no more gas, unless you do us some favours ...".
|
Governments don't look any further into the future than the next election. If they're elected.
John
|
"This year is one of the warmest on record. Just because some cold air comes down from the north does not mean that the climate is cooling. "
Strange isn't it that when a serious hurricane occurs (they will occur with increasing frequency, like Katrina 5 years ago and Haiti last year! - in between the lowest number of hurricanes per year for nearly 100 years), or a drought in Africa (very unusual!), or a flood in Cumbria or Pakistan (even more unusual), or a crop failure in the Sahel (we are really getting into the realms of extremely unusual!) or a heat wave in Russia (that's never happened before except ......) that they are, the "warmists" say, the result of "global warming", "climate change" or "climate disruption". However, when we have a cold spell in Britain that's just "weather" and nothing to do with climate change?
I would just remind all the "warmists" of the dire warnings of "A New Ice Age" that we were all threatened with in the late '60s and '70s.
I would also remind them of the fact that they are basing their predictions on the fact that "Global Warming" Theory/Hypothesis says that the earth's temp has increased by 0.6 degrees + or - 2 degrees since 1880 because the "average" temp was 14 degrees + or - 2 degrees in 1880. They don't even know what the base temp was against which we are measuring "warming"! Wow, that's accurate science
Anyone who says that they can state precisely that Global temps have risen by 0.6 degrees in 130 years is talking rubbish.
And another thing (or 3). The models they use for predicting temps in 50 or 100 years are the same ones they used for predicting the long range (3 month!!) weather forecasts that they abandoned a few months ago because they were too inaccurate (barbecue summer, mild and wet winter last year and this etc etc)
And if you want sources for these figures/statements, I can provide them.
Climate change, if it is happening is natural - it has happened many times in the past and will always happen.
As for suggesting that man is affecting climate, it beggars belief - Google the CO2 content of the atmosphere and how much is "man-made".
If it was that important why are they all (15,000 of them) flying to Cancun? Is it because Copenhagen was a bit chilly last time?
Don't tell me to reduce my carbon footprint when you can jet off to Cancun - and Cameron flew to Zurich yesterday for "World Cup Talks", flew back to London for PM Questions and then back to Zurich again.
And if we took every car in the world off the roads? No effect on CO2 content of atmosphere (sorry would reduce it by about 0.003%)
It's the biggest con ever - mark my words
Sorry, rant over
|
|
There is now a lot of business that exists because of climate change. And many earning good money are the academics. Maybe a bit of a conflict of interest now?
|
>> "This year is one of the warmest on record. Just because some cold air comes
>> down from the north does not mean that the climate is cooling. "
>>
>> Strange isn't it that when a serious hurricane occurs (they will occur with increasing frequency, [snip]
Your basic message is that whenever a severe weather event consistent with climate change occurs, we blame it on climate change, but when something not consistent with climate change occurs we say "oh no, it is the big picture not small events". You are quite right. But it is usually if not always the media and bunny hugger organisations that make such statements. In the latter case it is to push their own agenda. Unfortunately almost everyone is now using climate change as a political weapon. However, whenever the media interview knowledgeable scientists about events such as Katrina, the response is "we cannot say whether or not Katrina was due to climate change". At least that is what I hear on R4 and in newspapers and magazines. Climate change is based on huge amounts of long term research and modelling, not on 'small' events such as a hurricane in America, or snow falls during one month in Northern Europe.
|
Lets see: The Met Office has one of the biggest and best supercomputers..
(partially funded by the MOD).
To do climate change work you need supercomputers and programmers and LOTS of money.
The Government is NOT funding climate change sceptics..
So if you don't have lots of resources, you have zero chance of disagreeing with your opponents on equal terms...
Does that make sceptics wrong? No.
Does it make them right? No.
|
|
I worry that if they cant really predict the weather with genuine accuracy just 5 days ahead ( check the 5 day forecast, then so how it changes as the day approaches ), quite why we assume any computer model can make such huge sweeping predictions with any accuracy I dont know. Im not sure they can.
|
Perhaps think of it more like roulette, Stu.
Can you say what the next five colours are going to be? Hard to do.
Can you say roughly how many red and blacks will occur over the next month? About 50/50?
It's possible to be able to draw some sensible conclusion in the long term but not be able to in the short term.
Roulette isn't anything like an analogy to weather and climate of course, just an example of where long/short term predictions might work in a similar way.
Last edited by: Crankcase on Thu 2 Dec 10 at 10:46
|
>>www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpcsYQND_UM
STu said "quite why we assume any computer model can make such huge sweeping predictions with any accuracy I dont know. Im not sure they can"
Easy: Ignore pollution (latest reason for cooling), volcanos (they happen - on a large enough scale to affect climate - every 100 years or so), and btw the sun's output has Zero impact - so they say..
|
>> scale to affect climate - every 100 years or so), and btw the sun's output
>> has Zero impact - so they say..
>>
Answers in one place, for all of you sceptics
www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Last edited by: Suppose on Thu 2 Dec 10 at 11:08
|
>> Easy: Ignore pollution (latest reason for cooling), volcanos (they happen - on a large enough
>> scale to affect climate - every 100 years or so), and btw the sun's output
>> has Zero impact - so they say..
Without the sun's output we'd be dead, without a climate ...
|
>> I worry that if they cant really predict the weather with genuine accuracy just 5
>> days ahead ( check the 5 day forecast, then so how it changes as the
>> day approaches ), quite why we assume any computer model can make such huge sweeping
>> predictions with any accuracy I dont know. Im not sure they can.
Crankcase is correct. You cannot say with certainty what will happen next week, because the system is too chaotic. But the long term average is much easier to work out. As another example, you cannot say that tomorrow there will be a car crash in the road outside my house. But you can say that on average there will be N car crashes per year on the road outside my house. The more years you record, the more accurately the figure matches the prediction, assuming constant traffic, and so on. So you might be able to say there is a 25% probability of snow next week, and a 50% probability of sub-zero temperatures on 24 December 2010.
|
>> Lets see: The Met Office has one of the biggest and best supercomputers..
>> (partially funded by the MOD).
>>
>> To do climate change work you need supercomputers and programmers and LOTS of money.
>>
>> The Government is NOT funding climate change sceptics..
Firstly a large part of the research has nothing to do with computers e.g. measurements of the C02 levels, and historical temperature measurements.
Secondly I explained earlier in the thread how science in the UK (and the US, and much of Europe) is funded. I know it is easy to make a pat statement that "government funds scientists therefore it controls what they say" but it does not work like that. It is quite possible that there is now a bias in favour of climate change, due to personalities, but research is based on evidence, not opinion. Scientists are working very hard to research and understand the climate and not support climate change. They do not know what the research will find. When they take the readings (or whatever) and if they find they contradict climate change, then that will be the conclusion of the research, assuming they have integrity, and any scientist who commits fraud is taking a huge risk. There was a big case in the US a few years back of a very famous scientist who fabricated data. I doubt he will ever work in science again.
|
>>. I know it is easy to make a pat statement that "government funds scientists therefore it controls what they say" but it does not work like that. It is quite possible that there is now a bias in favour of climate change, due to personalities, but research is based on evidence, not opinion>>
So the UK policy on drugs is evidenced based and not objective..and the resignation of UK drugs advisers is in my mind?
|
>> So the UK policy on drugs is evidenced based and not objective..and the resignation of
>> UK drugs advisers is in my mind?
You are confusing goverment policy, and research. The government tried to coerce a group of scientists into parotting their line on drugs. The consequence was that the head of the group of scientists resigned, and others followed. They then set up their own independent advisory group. In other words, the scientists could not accept that members or the group were not allowed to state research findings.
For years the American goverment under George W. Bush was trying to coerce US scientists into denying climate change. The scientists made it clear that the goverment was interfering, and effectively presenting a false impression of their views, by taking their statements, and editing them to fit the government's desired message. I don't recall climate change sceptics getting all hot under the collar about that attempted suppression of scientists, despite the evidence being clear cut.
|
I can understand how people outside science can easily get the wrong end of the stick - the way the media portrays science is at best misleading.
The subject was, however, given a reasonable airing in this programme;
www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00wfnqg/Royal_Television_Society_Lecture_2010/
Ben Goldacre's book on bad science provides more information on the subject, and among other causes he blames the fact that the media is dominated by arts graduates who can't or won't understand science, and hence are doomed to present it badly.
Last edited by: Number_Cruncher on Thu 2 Dec 10 at 11:59
|
>> Ben Goldacre's book on bad science provides more information on the subject, and among other
>> causes he blames the fact that the media is dominated by arts graduates who can't
>> or won't understand science, and hence are doomed to present it badly.
Tell me about it! And the government is largely composed of non scientists with far too many lawyers and professional politicians who have never done an honest day's work.
|
"the media is dominated by arts graduates who can't or won't understand science, and hence are doomed to present it badly."
Please don't bring George Monbiot into the discussion!!
|
One thing I recall most about science, is that it never stands still.
The other thing is that predicting the future is always an educated guess because you never know what will happen, until it happens.
.*******
The problem with most of these folk is they dont believe their own hype. Thats why I write them off. I wonder how many of them drive cars? None if they are serious.
I wonder how many lead carbon neutral lives? Very few no doubt.
I fully respect those people who have given up cars, attempted a carbon neutral existance and made serious sacrifices in their quality of life in order to do their bit for the cause they believe in.
I expect there are a few climate change scientists who have one all this, but I somewhat doubt they are a majority.
|
Stu
Only too correct.
The current (next) Climate Change Conference is in Cancun..
The delegates are all videoconferencing of course to avoid the carbon footprint of flying there?
Nope
And they will be discussing the fact that agriculture contributes between 18 and 50% of all greenhouse gases? (www.huffingtonpost.com/mia-macdonald/at-cancun-wheres-the-beef_b_790836.html)
Nope.
Bunch of hypocrites.
It will be a failure - like Kyoto.. There is NO incentive to act.
|
>>One thing I recall most about science, is that it never stands still.
Yes, this is true. The world wasn't handed to us with a handbook.
The other thing to bear in mind is that science is simply a method of working;
- asking a question
- formulating a hypothesis
- trying your best to knock down the hypothesis
Those hypotheses which withstand the onslaught of not only the originating scientists, but also other research groups only too keen for making a name for themselves by demonstrating flaws represent the best available consensus.
None of this is saying that science is ever truly correct - all it is saying that the scientific consensus represents the best we can do.
So, the scientists worrying about global cooling were simply reporting the best they could see at the time.
Those who knock science would do well to consider the alternatives, and ask why they are living in a wonderful technical age with remarkable modern medicine supporting us into old age - the thousands of generations who went before us were probably similarly intelligent, and similarly (if not more) motivated.
|
>> The problem with most of these folk is they dont believe their own hype. Thats
>> why I write them off. I wonder how many of them drive cars? None if
>> they are serious.
If you are referring to scientists, then you misunderstand the nature of science. Scientists do not choose to believe climate change because of emotional reasons. Those that accept the fact of climate change do so on the basis of the research i.e. evidence. That does not imply that they must live extreme lives, walking instead of driving, eating lentils and so on. It just means that they are aware of the consequences of our collective actions. I am sure some are as cynical as you and me. It would not surprise me if most thought we were on a one way path, since there is no political will to act. There is not much point in one person driving less, for example. Current initiatives to reduce energy use in homes are pathetic. What is needed is a sea change, and I cannot see that happening. The billions of Chinese have as much right as us to a nice house, a nice car, nice holidays and so. As do the billion odd Indians. In fact a black death like plague which wiped out most of the world's population might be the only solution. A tad extreme though.
|
Im talking about those self-important types who stand on a podium, sneering down at the masses.
Any scientist who publically declares we should all drive a Prius should be prevented from further research and made to work in McDonalds - they would clearly be an idiot.
|
>> Any scientist who publically declares we should all drive a Prius should be prevented from
>> further research and made to work in McDonalds - they would clearly be an idiot.
Agreed. If you regularly do long journeys with few stops in a Prius, then it is worse than a normal car. The weight of the batteries will hit fuel consumption, the volume of the batteries hits internal space, and the resources needed to make them (and hence the cost) wipes out any gains. I've never understood why they don't sell a Toyota Smug, sorry I mean Pious, err Prius, ahem, minus the electric motors and batteries. It'd have fantastic long haul fuel consumption. Ah, but it would not appeal to the inner bunny hugger in the aspiring middle classes.
Basically our society is led by technically illiterate politicians and meeja peeps.
|
"In fact a black death like plague which wiped out most of the world's population might be the only solution"
Didn't Malthus suggest that 150 years ago, and Paul Ehrlich in the '70s? In fact, I vaguely remember Ehrlich predicting that by 2000 (if technology allowed it) the whole solar system would be "overpopulated" and we would be looking for new solar systems to populate!
" Those that accept the fact of climate change do so on the basis of the research i.e. evidence."
Also not sure about this. How much has the earth warmed since 1880? Figures they use (as I have said before!!) is that earth's average temp in 1880 was 14 degrees + or - 2 degrees. Since then it has "risen" by 0.6 degree which would appear to be well within the margin of error of the base figure.
I wonder how many accurate weather stations there were in Antarctica in 1880, or in the depths of Africa, Asia, Siberia or even the USA let alone Amazonia? I read a report recently which pointed out that one of the main reasons that the earth appears to be warming is because the Arctic is "warming". This is based on a few weather stations within the Arctic from which the temp for milllions of square miles was "extrapolated". I'll try to find the reference.
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/22/arctic-isolated-versus-urban-stations-show-differing-trends/
Tree ring evidence? Yes, if you choose the right 2 trees in Yamal (?).
CO2 causes temp increase as evidence? Oh hang on, haven't several scientists said that we have this the wrong way round? Historically over millions of years, CO2 has increased after earth's temp has increased!
The only figures which show a rise in temp since those days are those in cities (Urban Heat island effect??) or those that have been "adjusted". How they have been adjusted we don't know because UEA (and HADCrut and GISS and Noaa) for a long time refused to release the original readings which have been "adjusted".
Sea levels rising? Not according to this bloke
the-daily-politics.blogspot.com/2009/12/climategate-dr-nils-axel-morner-on-sea.html
Of course, the real question is not whether the climate changes (It does, always has and it always will) but whether man is responsible via adding CO2 and whether we can do anything about it.
Odd that CO2 is not even the major "greenhouse gas". Water vapour is, but then we can do nothing about that and I don't think it is taxable or that a "multi-billion dollar" market could be set up for water vapour credits.
|
PhilW:
>> " Those that accept the fact of climate change do so on the basis of
>> the research i.e. evidence."
>>
>> Also not sure about this. How much has the earth warmed since 1880?
I am always amazed by the numerous people who think that they know more about climate change than climate specialists, who have spent decades carrying out very detailed research in order to gain an understanding of the underlying processes.
By the way, scientists can determine past temperatures using many techniques including examination of tree growth rings, pollen deposits and algal deposits. Thus they can determine whether or not one area was warm whilst another was cold. This requires huge amounts of time and effort, but it does provide reliable figures.
|
>> the media is dominated
Media is a plural NC.
Note though that I am resisting the temptation to generalise cheaply and inaccurately about people with technical qualifications.
|
Here is a link about the carboniferous period, and how CO2 levels/temperatures have fluctuated over earths history:
www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
|
>> >> the media is dominated
>>
>> Media is a plural NC.
I am pretty sure I have heard "the media is" and "the media are", as well as "the government are" and the "government is" on BBC R4 no less.
|
Shouldn't that read "media are plural"?
|
>> Shouldn't that read "media are plural"?
No.
|
Sorry Leif, I was aiming at the somewhat smug AC.
|
Leif is right though.
How dare you of all people call me smug.
Nice to see you back though.
|
>> Sorry Leif, I was aiming at [snip] AC.
I know. I was attempting to be smug. ;)
|
...The media is dominated...
Using the word 'the' suggests the writer is talking about the media as one amorphous lump, which would be singular.
It's yet another example of acceptable usage which is technically incorrect.
Sports clubs are another.
The name of a club is singular, but the accepted correct usage is plural.
'Manchester United are hopeful of signing a new striker,' is deemed to be correct.
'Manchester United is hopeful of signing a new striker,' is deemed to be incorrect.
|
>> ...The media is dominated...
>>
>> Using the word 'the' suggests the writer is talking about the media as one amorphous
>> lump, which would be singular.
>>
>> It's yet another example of acceptable usage which is technically incorrect.
>>
>> Sports clubs are another.
>>
>> The name of a club is singular, but the accepted correct usage is plural.
>>
>> 'Manchester United are hopeful of signing a new striker,' is deemed to be correct.
>>
>> 'Manchester United is hopeful of signing a new striker,' is deemed to be incorrect.
>>
>>
Go and play in the pedants thread.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 3 Dec 10 at 12:24
|
...Go and play in the pedants thread...
No.
It's not pedantry, it's correct or incorrect usage.
And I didn't raise the question about 'media' being singular or plural.
You may not be interested in the use of written English, but others are.
|
'Media' may have originated as the plural of 'medium' but it has taken on a meaning if its own as a non-countable noun, like 'press', so I think a singular verb is OK. 'Agenda' is the plural of the Latin 'agendum', meaning a thing to be done, but it has come to mean a list of things to be done, so we can now have multiple 'agendas' - hidden or otherwise.
If you want an inappropriate singularization to get upset about, try 'panini'. Not only can you buy one 'panini', but if you want more you have to ask for 'paninis'. I'll have a cheese toastie instead.
}:---)
|
>> Stadium and stadia.
And stadiums.
|
>> an inappropriate singularization to get upset about,
Interesting point WdeB. The press is one medium though; 'the media' usually refers to broadcast as well as printed 'information', if such it can be called. It's a plural. But NC doesn't need to be miffed; the Queen herself referred to 'a free media' in a speech not long ago. Of course I sent her to the back of the class until she had had the speechwriter executed.
Another case is 'the military', which many now think of as a singular. To me though it's a plural, until our military are reduced to a single security guard.
|
It's the sort of error that I would weed out during proof reading of my professional work, and I have a particular bee in my bonnet when people present work to me suggesting that data is singular. However, we have been sidetracked into a tedious discussion of pedantry, where we should be talking about the awful job the media do of presenting science.
A few years ago, a prominent member of our company's staff went on the Horizon programme. He had done some really good work, explaining the mechanism behind otherwize unexplained maritime accidents. However, the programme makers felt that the public wouldn't be able to understand the work in its raw form, and he endied up doing some completely inappropriate "experiments" to show the effect - he might has well have been wearing high heels, stockings, and suspenders he had prostituted himself so far. The show didn't come anywhere explaining what he had actually done, and the public would have had their misaligned view of what science is reinforced. Great!
|
Maybe it's me but I do think that Horizon was once a good science programme. Today I wouldn't bother switching it on. The content is utterly dumbed down and half way through it is, effectively, finished. The remainder is repetition and summary of what has already been said.
Bring back Raymond Baxter. Well, maybe a clone.
John
|
>> Maybe it's me but I do think that Horizon was once a good science programme.
I used to like it but having been a research scientist, I consider it to be simplistic romanticised nonsense, the sort of rubbish a media graduate would think up. Someone once said that science is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration and I think that is right. Also an awful lot of research turns out to be worthless, but you cannot know that until you do it.
|
|
Was that a Horizon episode on the loss of the MS Derbyshire NC ?
|
No, it wasn't that one.
PU, you have mail.
thanks !
Last edited by: Pugugly on Fri 3 Dec 10 at 22:15
|
>> the awful job the media do of presenting science.
Can't help agreeing NC. Not just science but anything remotely complex and, er, counter-intuitive. Urinates me off every day.
|
I'm quite sure you're an exception to my sweeping generalisation above AC - some time ago, your question about the HRG went further than some 3rd year physics students of mine got in a satellite design project shortly afterwards.
Going back 30 years or so, Open University programmes were about serious subjects - I owe my understanding of some important mathmatical techniques to them. Now, all you see of the Open University is fluffy programmes presented by the likes of Kate Humble (whom of course is quite lovely, but, that particular line of study isn't academically respectable!).
|
And, by the way, the French are worse than the worst of us. They refer habitually to 'les medias'.
Tchah!
|
Hers's another one for you Iffy - "Man Utd are all in red and Man City are all in blue" Well I would expect all the members of same team to be in same colour (except perhaps goaly).
Shouldn't it be "Man Utd are in all red......."
|
Surely that's just a SOBO rather than a grammatical error?
John
|
Lack of extremists. - John H
