Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:07:07 +0100, ":Jerry:"
wrote:

There's so much evidence, much of it contradictory.

That's why, not being an expert myself, I believe what 95% of those
who are, are telling me. The only alternative is to pick a prejudice
and stick to it.

No, the alternative is to study both side, go in search of the
alternative explanations, educate yourself and not take anyone's words
as gospel.

Given that I'm not an expert, what I said is true. Of course, in
theory at least, I could become an expert. But why keep a dog and bark
yourself?

Basically you are behaving like sheep do, one or two
decides to throw themselves off a cliff so the whole flock does. Again
this is why those who, like Lawson, question the 'science' it should
*always* be welcomed and not dismissed as the words of a crank (i.e..
non believer).

A friend of mine is an expert in ecological economics, and wrote the
first book on the economics of global warming. I run his website,
http://www.clivespash.org At one time I worked for another friend, a
professor in the same field. I was a researcher in environmental
economics, working in university economics and environmental science
departments (at different times). I never worked on climate change,
but I know people who do, and I've talked to them about it. I'm sorry,
but given my experience, there's no way I can take the anthropogenic
climate change deniers seriously. I'm convinced that most of those who
do are politically motivated (eg, those who associate concern for the
environment with "political correctness" and other "modern rubbish"),
and have never looked at the evidence with a genuinely open mind.

Why not visit the environmental science department of your nearest
university and go round the lecturers asking each one "Did Sir David
King get it right when he said that global warming is a bigger danger
to us than global terrorism"? Or do you think that scientists are too
worried about funding to tell the truth? If that's generally true we
might as well close down all the universities.
--
http://www.robinfaichney.org/

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:

All evidence is contradictory, otherwise it would be fact, and that is
true for both sides of the argument.

Yes but it would be possible for all the evidence to be in favour of a
yet unproven hypothesis.

An infinite number of things might be "possible". Fortunately, the standard
scientific and academic methods are designed to deal with such matters.
:-)

Alas, my repeated impression from reading threads like this one is that
most people have no real understanding of the scientific method, or how
such academic work is assessed/done. Nor, indeed, appreciate the body of
evidence for the topic in question, or the scope and complexity of the
level of academic understanding of it. Glaring examples of this in 'the
media' when a 'celeb' like Lawson can push his opinions on TV. For some
reason Andrew Marr didn't discuss any of the papers Lawson has had
published in peer-reviewed scientific journals on the topic. ;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

"Robin Faichney" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:07:07 +0100, ":Jerry:"

wrote:

There's so much evidence, much of it contradictory.

That's why, not being an expert myself, I believe what 95% of
those
who are, are telling me. The only alternative is to pick a
prejudice
and stick to it.

No, the alternative is to study both side, go in search of the
alternative explanations, educate yourself and not take anyone's
words
as gospel.

Given that I'm not an expert, what I said is true. Of course, in
theory at least, I could become an expert. But why keep a dog and
bark
yourself?

No, what you are suggesting is having a dog and allowing the dog to be
*your master*, regardless as to who does the barking...


Basically you are behaving like sheep do, one or two
decides to throw themselves off a cliff so the whole flock does.
Again
this is why those who, like Lawson, question the 'science' it should
*always* be welcomed and not dismissed as the words of a crank
(i.e..
non believer).

A friend of mine is an expert in ecological economics, and wrote the
first book on the economics of global warming.

Good for him, but his views are only his opinion of the facts, being
an expert doesn't automagically make someone right (or indeed wrong).

I run his website,
http://www.clivespash.org At one time I worked for another friend,
a
professor in the same field. I was a researcher in environmental
economics, working in university economics and environmental science
departments (at different times). I never worked on climate change,
but I know people who do, and I've talked to them about it. I'm
sorry,
but given my experience, there's no way I can take the anthropogenic
climate change deniers seriously.

See above as to why you are being a sheep, and not holding a balanced
point of view (not surprisingly, as you seem to have only courted 'pro
climate change' points of view by your own admission).

I'm convinced that most of those who
do are politically motivated (eg, those who associate concern for
the
environment with "political correctness" and other "modern
rubbish"),
and have never looked at the evidence with a genuinely open mind.

....and many of the eco' pushers have political motives too, are you
seriously suggesting organisations like Friends of the Earth are not
political? As I said elsewhere (in this group I think), IMO "ecoism"
is becoming the new socialism, people are using 'climate change' to
penalise those who have the money (for example) to drive large
expencive vehicles whilst doing nothing to stop those who drive more
polluting 1980/'90s 'old bangers'.


Why not visit the environmental science department of your nearest
university and go round the lecturers asking each one "Did Sir David
King get it right when he said that global warming is a bigger
danger
to us than global terrorism"? Or do you think that scientists are
too
worried about funding to tell the truth? If that's generally true we
might as well close down all the universities.

That is irrelevant to the point I was making, if someone only reads
Mincemp (sp) it would be no surprise if they came out the other end
thinking that Nazism was the best thing since sliced bread but it
doesn't mean it is - it's just one point of view, and an unbalanced
point of view.

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

In article ,
:Jerry: wrote:

"Robin Faichney" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 20:42:37 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:

There's so much evidence, much of it contradictory.

That's why, not being an expert myself, I believe what 95% of those
who are, are telling me. The only alternative is to pick a prejudice
and stick to it.

No, the alternative is to study both side, go in search of the
alternative explanations, educate yourself and not take anyone's words
as gospel.

Indeed. That would mean understanding the relevant scientific and academic
methods, and studying the relevant evidence. Not simply listening to a
series of 'for' and 'agin' opinions using some media idea of 'balance' that
assumes all ideas should have 'equal time' regardless. :-)


Basically you are behaving like sheep do, one or two decides to throw
themselves off a cliff so the whole flock does. Again this is why those
who, like Lawson, question the 'science' it should *always* be welcomed
and not dismissed as the words of a crank (i.e.. non believer).

The snag is that some - like Lawson - might be in a weak position to
criticise the 'science'.

Maybe I am missing something, but I can't actually recall that Lawson ever
worked as an academic scientist in a physical or bio science, or worked on
any of the relevant fields in science. Does he even have even basic
qualifications, or a background, in such topics?

Afraid I don't agree that we should *always* 'welcome' doubts from everyone
- regardless of if they might have the slightest clue or not about what
they are giving their opinions upon. Decisions should be based on
understanding the evidence, and how it can be assessed by relevant methods.
Not on the basis that someone is a 'celeb' who can push their latest book
on TV, or that they doubt - or support - as we might prefer to believe.
Opinions are not evidence, and may be worthless if the person giving them
has no real clue about the topic. Tossing a coin might be a more reliable
guide.

That said, if someone has not got the time (or ability) to study the topic,
then they might feel they have to be guided by 'opinions'. However when
doing so, it would make sense to also assess how likely each opinion-giver
might be to be able to offer well-founded ones. Also, it is worth noting if
the situation is that the vast bulk of those well-versed in the topic tend
to one view.On this basis the level of 'welcome' I'd give to give an
opinion would vary on a case-by-case basis.

But - as above - I agree that if you really want to form a reliable view
you need to study the evidence, etc, for yourself, and not rely on
opinions. Personally, I would be as wary of choosing Lawson as a guide to
climate change as I would choosing Posh Spice as Chancellor... However
YMMV. ;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

"Bob Latham" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:

Alas, my repeated impression from reading threads like this one is
that
most people have no real understanding of the scientific method, or
how
such academic work is assessed/done. Nor, indeed, appreciate the
body of
evidence for the topic in question, or the scope and complexity of
the
level of academic understanding of it. Glaring examples of this in
'the
media' when a 'celeb' like Lawson can push his opinions on TV. For
some
reason Andrew Marr didn't discuss any of the papers Lawson has had
published in peer-reviewed scientific journals on the topic. ;-

So where do you draw a line on this one? Should people who are not
experts
on a topic not have an opinion? Or perhaps they shouldn't voice that
opinion? And if non expert opinions are so useless does it not
follow that
democracy itself (if it exists anywhere) should be stopped as voters
cannot be experts on all topics if any?

More fundamentally, how would anyone become an expert in anything that
wasn't the accepted scientific (or more likely, as we would still be
in the 'flat earth' era, the church) version - it wasn't so many years
ago that claims of global warming and climate change was the work of
cranks, those who are dismissive of part or all of climate change held
the high ground!

Basically all "Jim" was saying is "Believe me, I'm a scientist", sorry
but that doesn't cut the mustard anymore...


I suspect you disapproved of Mr. Lawson's opinion more because you
disagreed with it rather than because it was not expert. I doubt
anyone
would have criticized him for being non expert if he had agreed with
the
current PC bandwagon.


Indeed, and as for his point about peer review, that will surely come
when scientists and others review the book, just as they would review
articles in scientific journals.

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

"Robin Faichney" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:07:07 +0100, ":Jerry:"
wrote:
I'm sorry,
but given my experience, there's no way I can take the anthropogenic
climate change deniers seriously. I'm convinced that most of those who
do are politically motivated (eg, those who associate concern for the
environment with "political correctness" and other "modern rubbish"),
and have never looked at the evidence with a genuinely open mind.

There's a 'human nature' side to this. What annoys me about the greenies is
the fact that so many of them seem to take a positive pleasure in pointing
out the sins of others. There have always been little ****heads like that
around, but now they have environmentalism to justify poking their noses
into other people's business.

My own human nature dictates that when one of these people (or one of the PC
rabble) has a go at me I automatically go on the offensive (and I can be
very offensive). I feel that their bad manners justifies an antagonistic
response, even where the issue is debatable.

Bill

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

Let's face it, the 'environment' has become a fabulous excuse for higher
taxes. Not so long ago they were saying that green taxes would be revenue
neutral, but in fact that isn't what's happening.

Bill

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

Bill Wright wrote (apparently) in uk.tech.digital-tv on Wed 09 Apr
2008 12:06:11:

"Robin Faichney" wrote in message
...
The reason being that the water companies won't invest in
infrastructure. This is one of the things we ought to be
spending money on, not buggering about with totally impractical
means of making leccy that will only result in taxation and
leccy bills going up.

And of course impractical in that context doesn't mean "seems
strange to me because it's not what I'm used to".

Wind turbines are impractical because
(a) a genuine environmental audit shows that their CO2 production
is significant
(b) every kWh they produce costs five time the wholesale price in
the market. Hence the huge subsidy paid by the taxpayer.

Turbines are just green totems. A highly visible object that
people can look at and get a warm glow of happiness because it
lets them think we are 'doing something about the environment'.

Bill

The four they've put up between Harrogate and Blubberhouses just by
the A59 are very nice to look at. In fact, in December they were
marvellous. Newly installed, not turning, but shiny. Mid-February
until they got going. Well, one did. Nearly mid-April now. Only one
going still.

A sign that we are "doing something about the environment" but only
at 25% capacity there.
--
MrGuest
Always, seemingly, on the road to nowhere

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

On 9 Apr, Bill Wright wrote:

Let's face it, the 'environment' has become a fabulous excuse for higher
taxes. Not so long ago they were saying that green taxes would be revenue
neutral, but in fact that isn't what's happening.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/janusg/hgf/tax/tax.htm
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/janusg/hgh/stax.htm

--
Stewart Goldwater
http://janusg.co.nr

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

On 8 Apr, Bill Wright wrote:

there is a culture that is found in Britain (this has been fact since
before the Vikings came over from the Nordic countries!), the culture of
Britain has been changing and adapting like a rivers flow ever since.
Yes, of course, but the essential difference is that throughout history the
influxes have been manageable. The numbers haven't been so great that there
has been serious strife. There's nothing wrong with migration as long as the
migrants can be assimilated within the host culture. The present problem is
two-fold. Firstly, the numbers are frightening. Secondly, one group of
immigrants have made it plain that they do not intend to join mainstream
society. I seriously wonder if we could end up in twenty or thirty years
with a sectarian civil war in England. A Northern Ireland-type situation in
fact.

Throughout our history the influxes have *at the time* been thought to
be unmanageable. There has often been serious strife. The numbers HAVE
been seen as frightening. More than one group of immigrants have *at the
time* made it plain that they did not intend to join mainstrem society.

I remember the signs on B&Bs that said "no blacks" "no dogs" "no Irish".
I know the how badly we treated the Jews in the 1930's fleeing Nazism.
I know we turned away boatloads/trainloads of Jewish children.
I know how we exported "problem" children by the boatload to Australia;
lying to them that their parents were dead.
I know that in the 1900's the Jews *rightly* feeling persecuted wanted
to setup Jewish Hospitals et al.

I have experienced in every decade of my life an ever changing group of
people "responsible" for all the ills of our society.

You Bill I believe have too. Please reflect before being so certain that
this time it's different.

With Regards
Ron

--
Re-live the CCl4 VIEWDATA BBS http://www.ccl4.org/
That's cc L 4

"If any question why we died,Tell them because our fathers lied" Rudyard Kipling