Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 12:50:27 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

Of course people determined to take a biased position on an issue will
always ignore the body of evidence, however large, that contradicts
their views, and select only that evidence that seems to support it.......

I disagree. My position (and, I believe, Bill's), is simply that I am
unconvinced but open-minded. I am also concerned.

Already answered elsewhere in the thread.

My concern is that much of the science is driven by political hysteria,
which is a VERY bad way to ensure good science gets done.

If that was true, it would be of great concern, but while there is
certainly more political control over the direction of scientific
research than formerly, funding is several steps removed from the
everyday "political hysteria" both in terms of control and in terms of
timescale. I suggest you take a look around some of the websites of
funding bodies such as the UK Research Councils:
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/default.htm

The "body of evidence" you refer to is astonishingly weak. There is plenty
of evidence that the globe is getting warmer, but the evidence that it is
HUMANS WHO ARE CAUSING IT is extremely weak, and almost all of it is arrived
at by climate modelling.

Not so (Topic 2):
http://tinyurl.com/6zkb9w
.... standing in for ...
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...yr/ar4_syr.pdf

Climate modeling is certainly used to make predictions for the future,
but the majority of the historical evidence comes from quantitative
measurements such as ice cores.

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

Climate modeling is certainly used to make predictions for the future,
but the majority of the historical evidence comes from quantitative
measurements such as ice cores.

You miss my point. I'm not saying the evidence for global warming is weak.
I'm saying that the evidence that HUMANS ARE CAUSING IT is weak.

Historical evidence from ice cores doesn't address the last-century-or-so
timescales we are talking about.

SteveT

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

Quote: "Bill, and fellow climate change
sceptics." Anyone here who has read even a tenth of Bill's output on
the subject would immediately take that as meaning *you* also have a
particular axe to grind.

Well, only in that I'm sceptical about the current global warming scare, and
I feel the need to rebalance the one-sided coverage it gets. Does that
count as an axe?

If so, then surely every "opinion" becomes an axe to grind.

SteveT

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

Actually, I think there is a much better reason for Britain to invest in
alternate energy sources. Simply, we are dangerously in thrall to Russia
and the Middle East for our energy. Neither of which is a beacon of
political stability.

Greater energy independence for Britain is a worthwhile thing to aim for,
regardless of any arguments about global warming.

SteveT

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 17:24:59 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

Quote: "Bill, and fellow climate change
sceptics." Anyone here who has read even a tenth of Bill's output on
the subject would immediately take that as meaning *you* also have a
particular axe to grind.

Well, only in that I'm sceptical about the current global warming scare, and
I feel the need to rebalance the one-sided coverage it gets.

Only a few years ago the coverage was mostly "balanced".
Unfortunately, that meant that the 95% of climate scientists who
believe in man-made global warming got about half of the TV time or
newspaper space, and the lunatic fringe 5% got the other half. Since
the politicians got on board, and it became a bandwagon, the 95% of
climate scientists get about 99% of the coverage, which is admittedly
unbalanced, but it's a helluva lot better than it used to be.
--
http://www.robinfaichney.org/

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 17:22:35 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

Historical evidence from ice cores doesn't address the last-century-or-so
timescales we are talking about.

(Re)read the link I gave ...

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

snip

So after that there most likely won't be elections. Thank God I'll be
dead.


That rather sums up the head in the sand "Climate Change doesn't exist"
mentality of some of the older generations...

I can't see how. At that point I was complaining about the demographic fact
that we natives will be in a minority in our own country before too long.
Successive governments have totally dropped us in the **** by allowing all
this immigration by people who are culturally alien to us.

Bill

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...
There is nothing alleged about Climate change,
There never has been, because the climate has always been changing. It's
been a topic of interest for thousands of years.

Bill

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
They're probably right. Would you like to wash dishes for £2 an hour?

No-one washes dishes. All these places use huge machines to do it. And the
national minimum is over a fiver now.

Bill

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...

That's the point. At £5.75 an hour it's cheaper to use disposable
utensils.

That's the point. Firms like M & S make a big thing about how green they are
then they go for the cheapest option.

Bill