Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
The problem faced by scientists is that their funding is determined to a
large extent by politics (in the larger, human sense). At the moment we
DO have a degree of cultural hysteria about global warming. And the
problem is that - if a scientist wants funding - they've pretty well got
to jump onto that bandwagon.

This, sadly, has so often been the case for science, but this current
situation is certainly pretty severe. For instance, suppose a scientist
asked for funding to study.....

"The breeding habits of tree squirrels"

...they may well find it quite tough to get funding. Now imagine they
reworded their study to.....

"The effects of global warming on the breeding habits of tree squirrels"

...they would be FAR more likely to get funding. (Admit it - you know
that's true).

So OF COURSE most scientists are jumping on the global warming bandwagon!
The "market" for their research is hungry for ANYTHING to do with global
warming, so that is where they target their "products". This does NOT in
itself make global warming a big problem.

Can you see that crucial difference?

Let me finish by saying that I am NOT a head-in-the-sand global warming
naysayer. At the moment I am unconvinced but open-minded. However, I get
VERY concerned when I see the scientific community so powerfully in thrall
to what is, essentially, a political fervor. In these circumstances we
CAN expect to see some bad science. Why? Because scientists are human,
and science is hard. And science progresses by stumbling in and out of
numerous blind alleys on its way forward.

Just because lots of scientists are banging on about human-induced global
warming doesn't make it true. It just means they are responding to the
political climate and the "market" for their research. Which they must,
if they want more funding.

Good sensible post that.

Bill

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

My concern is that because of the global warming craze decisions are being
taken that will affect the prosperity of the whole of mankind. Now that
might annoy us a bit, but it's a bloody sight worse for people at the arse
end of the prosperity scale, both in the UK and overseas. The starving and
disadvantaged people of the world need the quickest, most efficient,
scientific and industrial solutions to the problems of health, agriculture,
and industrial growth. They need the quickest bestest fix possible, and a
lot of the greeny ideas go against that.

Bill

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...
There is nothing alleged about Climate change,
There never has been,

So why did *you* use the word (alleged) yourself?

because the climate has always been changing. It's
been a topic of interest for thousands of years.


Do you really need everything spelt out in Janet & John style?! When
people refer too "Climate Change" they are referring to the
accelerated changes that the world has seen in the last 30 to 50
years, no one has ever suggested that climate doesn't change over time
anyway. As I said elsewhere, the only question is - basically - 1/.
Are these changes natural acceleration, 2/. Are/could they be caused
by solar events or 3/. Are they caused by mankind and how we are
(miss)using the earth.

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

":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.


You're racist too then! Hope you don't have any Nordic bold in your
ancestry Bill, people would hate to think of you as a hypocrite...
Never mind the fact that you don't seem to be objecting to the fact
that it seems to have been OK for 'us' to have inflicted a culturally
alien life-style on others.

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"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.


Clever dishes (never mind the cutlery), just think, these bits of
innate china can somehow manage to get from table to dishwasher and
from dishwasher to storage place all by themselves - FFS Bill you are
one sure dim-**** at times, does it come natural or do you have to
practice?...

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

My concern is that because of the global warming craze decisions are
being taken that will affect the prosperity of the whole of mankind.

If (accelerated) CC is real, being caused by mankind, and mankind
doesn't do something to (try) and reduce the rate at which any such
changes take place, the (financial) prosperity of the whole of mankind
will be the least of mankind's worries!

Now that
might annoy us a bit, but it's a bloody sight worse for people at
the arse end of the prosperity scale, both in the UK and overseas.
The starving and disadvantaged people of the world need the
quickest, most efficient, scientific and industrial solutions to the
problems of health, agriculture, and industrial growth. They need
the quickest bestest fix possible, and a lot of the greeny ideas go
against that.


Assuming that they still have an inhabitable home/land left, that it's
not under water or in the middle of a desert...

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

OK, lets open another can of worms.

A recent TV program gave some simple data: the CO2 (carbon dioxide, not
CARBON as the Meeja insists on calling it) 'handling' of this planet on
which we live is around 160Gtonnes per annum. CO2 produced by man
accounts for around 6.4Gtonnes per annum - even 50 years ago it was
about 4Gtonnes. The oceans handle around 85Gtonnes, vegitation and
animals produce around 40Gtonnes.

That's it - the answer. Kill all of the animals and do away with all
vegitation and we can do what we like ;-))



--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

In article ,
Woody wrote:
OK, lets open another can of worms.

A recent TV program gave some simple data: the CO2 (carbon dioxide, not
CARBON as the Meeja insists on calling it) 'handling' of this planet on
which we live is around 160Gtonnes per annum. CO2 produced by man
accounts for around 6.4Gtonnes per annum - even 50 years ago it was
about 4Gtonnes. The oceans handle around 85Gtonnes, vegitation and
animals produce around 40Gtonnes.

surely vegetation absorbs CO2 ?

That's it - the answer. Kill all of the animals and do away with all
vegitation and we can do what we like ;-))

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:52:34 GMT, "Woody" wrote:

OK, lets open another can of worms.

No, let's not, it only contains another PLONKer ...

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

"Woody" wrote in message
...
snip

That's it - the answer. Kill all of the animals and do away with all
vegitation and we can do what we like ;-))


If we did away with all the vegetation the problem would be even
worse, in fact it would be setting a death sentence for the world,
vegetation absorbs Co2 - that's why burning fuel made from (natural)
wood products is 'carbon natural', the burning of it only releases
what it has absorbed in it life.