|
|
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
Bill, and fellow climate change sceptics,
Did you watch the Andrew Marr programme this morning? Nigel Lawson has written a book questioning the science and politics of global warming. I mention this because I know that Bill, myself and several others here are sceptical about the issue ("bad science and hysteria", to quote Bill). Bearing in mind Lawson has had other books published already, and is a high profile figure, he couldn't find ONE publisher in the UK to publish the book! In the end he had to find a publisher in America to take it on. I went to WHSmith this morning, but there's no sign of it there (although they are famously selective about what they will carry). They didn't mention the title but a quick search on Amazon brings it up.... An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming I've pre-ordered it. In fact there are quite a few other interesting-looking books questioning the science and politics of global warming - they are listed in Amazon in the "other readers also bought..." section. SteveT |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
Steve Thackery wrote:
I've pre-ordered it. In fact there are quite a few other As opposed to just ordering it no doubt. :-) -- Chris Green |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
|
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
I've pre-ordered it. In fact there are quite a few other
As opposed to just ordering it no doubt. :-) Amazon-speak for saying it's not in stock yet, and they'll ship it when it is. SteveT |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
The review in the Times is disappointed that he doesn't really tackle the
underlying premise very much. Instead, he tackles all the stuff that sits on top of it. Still, might well be worth reading. I don't like the bloke much, but he is undoubtedly intelligent and well-informed. SteveT |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
"Steve Thackery" wrote in message ... The review in the Times is disappointed that he doesn't really tackle the underlying premise very much. Instead, he tackles all the stuff that sits on top of it. Still, might well be worth reading. I don't like the bloke much, but he is undoubtedly intelligent and well-informed. Or being in the pay of the polluters of course... Grins, ducks and runs for his life I have serious miss giving about how "Climate Change" has had so many 'do-gooders' jumping on the bandwagon (to the extent that it is now becoming the 'new Socialism') rather than allowing the scientists to do their work in a calm and collected way. "Climate Change" is real and happening, the only question is why, as for pollution - that's not good for anyone and should be reduced regardless if it's a cause of CC or not. |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
"Steve Thackery" wrote in message ... Bill, and fellow climate change sceptics, Did you watch the Andrew Marr programme this morning? Nigel Lawson has written a book questioning the science and politics of global warming. I mention this because I know that Bill, myself and several others here are sceptical about the issue ("bad science and hysteria", to quote Bill). I'm surprised the BBC would broadcast anything that challenged the Global Warming faith. It's not PC. They'll broadcast jokes about C of E vicars and RC priests but not about Muslim religous men. An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming I think I'll buy it. Bill |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 14:42:21 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
wrote: (in the interests of logic, original quotes out of order) Nigel Lawson has written a book questioning the science and politics of global warming. Perhaps he needs some money to keep himself in the style to which he has become accustomed? he couldn't find ONE publisher in the UK to publish the book! Perhaps in contrast to the author, UK publishers thought it might lose money rather than make any? Bill, myself and several others here are sceptical about the issue ("bad science [snip]", to quote Bill). Neither Nigel Lawson, nor Bill, nor others here, are a climate scientists, so none are qualified to speak on such issues. In this group there have been frequent complaints that the BBC is run by "bean counters" rather than "technical people" - etc, etc - with few, if any, voicing disagreement with such posts. How strange, therefore, that certain members of the group should rush to buy a book on a scientific topic written by someone whose training was not that of a scientist, not even that of a bean counter, but, even worse, a bean counter journalist! (And let's not forget that he was the Chancellor who, when Britain was raking it in from North Sea oil revenues, squandered it all away by paying over 3 million people to rot unemployed on the dole!) "hysteria" Global warming, like Princess Diana's death, Big Brother, corrupt TV shows, and every other goddamn thing that finds its way into the media headlines, is subject to hysteria, because that is the way the media work. It's not the fault of any of those issues; it's arguably not even the fault of the media; it's our, that is the public's, fault for not demanding from them decent, sober, accurate, balanced standards of reporting. I've pre-ordered it. 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 - like those who deny The Holocaust read mainly Nazi propaganda, or racists selectively quote some of the work of Hans Eysenck out of context. This thread seems to be a case in point. |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
"Java Jive" wrote in message ... On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 14:42:21 +0100, "Steve Thackery" Neither Nigel Lawson, nor Bill, nor others here, are a climate scientists, so none are qualified to speak on such issues. We are all entitled to discuss this, because the way the alleged climate change is being allowed to degrade our lives and affluence owes more to politics, band-wagoning, and career-building than it does to science. 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 - like those who deny The Holocaust read mainly Nazi propaganda, or racists selectively quote some of the work of Hans Eysenck out of context. This thread seems to be a case in point. In fact, it's quite hard to find anything to read that takes an even-handed view of the alleged climate change because everyone in the media is **** scared that if they are seen to be backing something that goes against the pseudo-religious orthodoxy their career will be affected adversely. I've seen this all before. A few years ago you couldn't get a sensible discussion about immigration because the media collectively found the topic too hot to handle, in case someone said they were being racist. It's still a bit touchy in that respect. In the 70s and 80s we all sat watching endless programmes about global cooling -- how the world was going to end up in a big lump of ice. What you lot in your twenties and thirties need to know is that my generation have been around long enough to have heard so much bull**** from the media and from the powers-that-be that we are total cynics. All the media people do is keep their noses clean and look forward to their pensions. And I've been privvy to many indiscretions from members of the de facto ruling class that would really open your eyes. Basically they're all looking after No. 1, and ******** to the rest of us, who most of them have the greatest contempt for. As long as global warming fears can be used to give spurious 'respectability' to commercial concerns they'll all shout how green they are. Look, the other day I was in M & S at York, in the café. There were huge notices boasting about how green M & S is, all about how they recycle their bags and so forth. We had a simple meal for two (just sandwiches and a bun) and at the end we had a tray absolutely full of plastic wrappers. In other words, they pay lip service but that's all, because they know that if they wrap things less well people will eat elsewhere. I took some pictures of the rubbish and the notices, and there were quite a few other people of my age around, so we ended up talking about it. We all agreed that the greeny craze is just a con on the public to tax us more and reduce our standard of living. The concensus was that it's a craze that fools younger people because they are so naive. My generation were brought up in the spirit of the Beveridge Report. We were brainwashed to be bolshie! By God we're going to be a problem in the years to come! For one thing we all think we're middle class, so we aren't going to be kicked around the way our parents were. We won't lay on a trolley in a hospital corridor for hours without kicking up some ****! And we won't let any government **** up our retirement years by using greeny ******** as an excuse to take away our hard-earned standard of living. And don't forget, there are a hell of a lot of us. In the elections of 2010-2030 the retired vote will be massive. Of course in the elections of 2030-2050 the Muslim vote will be very significant. So after that there most likely won't be elections. Thank God I'll be dead. Bill |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
... "Java Jive" wrote in message ... On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 14:42:21 +0100, "Steve Thackery" Neither Nigel Lawson, nor Bill, nor others here, are a climate scientists, so none are qualified to speak on such issues. We are all entitled to discuss this, because the way the alleged climate change is being allowed to degrade our lives and affluence owes more to politics, band-wagoning, and career-building than it does to science. 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 t - like those who deny The Holocaust read mainly Nazi propaganda, or racists selectively quote some of the work of Hans Eysenck out of context. This thread seems to be a case in point. In fact, it's quite hard to find anything to read that takes an even-handed view of the alleged climate change because everyone in the media is **** scared that if they are seen to be backing something that goes against the pseudo-religious orthodoxy their career will be affected adversely. I've seen this all before. A few years ago you couldn't get a sensible discussion about immigration because the media collectively found the topic too hot to handle, in case someone said they were being racist. It's still a bit touchy in that respect. In the 70s and 80s we all sat watching endless programmes about global cooling -- how the world was going to end up in a big lump of ice. What you lot in your twenties and thirties need to know is that my generation have been around long enough to have heard so much bull**** from the media and from the powers-that-be that we are total cynics. All the media people do is keep their noses clean and look forward to their pensions. And I've been privvy to many indiscretions from members of the de facto ruling class that would really open your eyes. Basically they're all looking after No. 1, and ******** to the rest of us, who most of them have the greatest contempt for. As long as global warming fears can be used to give spurious 'respectability' to commercial concerns they'll all shout how green they are. Look, the other day I was in M & S at York, in the café. There were huge notices boasting about how green M & S is, all about how they recycle their bags and so forth. We had a simple meal for two (just sandwiches and a bun) and at the end we had a tray absolutely full of plastic wrappers. In other words, they pay lip service but that's all, because they know that if they wrap things less well people will eat elsewhere. I took some pictures of the rubbish and the notices, and there were quite a few other people of my age around, so we ended up talking about it. We all agreed that the greeny craze is just a con on the public to tax us more and reduce our standard of living. The concensus was that it's a craze that fools younger people because they are so naive. My generation were brought up in the spirit of the Beveridge Report. We were brainwashed to be bolshie! By God we're going to be a problem in the years to come! For one thing we all think we're middle class, so we aren't going to be kicked around the way our parents were. We won't lay on a trolley in a hospital corridor for hours without kicking up some ****! And we won't let any government **** up our retirement years by using greeny ******** as an excuse to take away our hard-earned standard of living. And don't forget, there are a hell of a lot of us. In the elections of 2010-2030 the retired vote will be massive. Of course in the elections of 2030-2050 the Muslim vote will be very significant. So after that there most likely won't be elections. Thank God I'll be dead. Bill Written from a totally cynical standpoint - and I agree with every word of it! Well trousered that man. -- Woody harrogate three at ntlworld dot com |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
"Java Jive" wrote in message ... On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 14:42:21 +0100, "Steve Thackery" wrote: (in the interests of logic, original quotes out of order) Nigel Lawson has written a book questioning the science and politics of global warming. Perhaps he needs some money to keep himself in the style to which he has become accustomed? he couldn't find ONE publisher in the UK to publish the book! Perhaps in contrast to the author, UK publishers thought it might lose money rather than make any? Bill, myself and several others here are sceptical about the issue ("bad science [snip]", to quote Bill). Neither Nigel Lawson, nor Bill, nor others here, are a climate scientists, so none are qualified to speak on such issues. Nor are political activists and politicians but they are the ones who are steamrollering through ever more ridicules 'environmental' legislation. :~( In this group there have been frequent complaints that the BBC is run by "bean counters" rather than "technical people" - etc, etc - with few, if any, voicing disagreement with such posts. How strange, therefore, that certain members of the group should rush to buy a book on a scientific topic written by someone whose training was not that of a scientist, not even that of a bean counter, but, even worse, a bean counter journalist! But he is (like others, including you) entitled to his views, can you not see the difference between someone airing personal opinion and someone in a position of authority acting on personal/party opinions - the classic example of this is the mixed up thinking on recycling, political dogma has over taken the pure science of what needs to be done and how in the UK. If his book makes people think, even if his (personal) end conclusions are woefully wide of the mark, he will have achieved something worthwhile - in fact just making people discuss the subject he has gone some way towards that and the book hasn't even been published in the UK yet! |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
"Woody" wrote in message ... "Bill Wright" wrote in message ... Written from a totally cynical standpoint - and I agree with every word of it! Ohh, it's wonderful to find out I'm not the only one in the world! You always think it's just you don't you? Then you realise there are other boys in the playground with similar dispositions . . . Well trousered that man. Not sure what that means, but thank you. Bill |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
"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... |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
In article , Bill Wright wrote:
Look, the other day I was in M & S at York, in the café. There were* huge notices boasting about how green M & S is, all about how they recycle* their bags and so forth. We had a simple meal for two (just sandwiches and a* bun) and at the end we had a tray absolutely full of plastic wrappers. In* other words, they pay lip service but that's all, because they know that if* they wrap things less well people will eat elsewhere. Twenty-five years ago in any works canteen you would be served using china crockery, metal cutlery and tea out of a real teapot. Now it's nearly all throwaway plastic (unless you're management of course). Perhaps some bean- counter has worked out that it's cheaper to discard plastic which has had a useful life of a few hours than to pay human beings to wash the dishes. Rod. |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
I've already plonked Bill, so I'll let most of his rubbish go straight
through to the trash, where it belongs ... On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 06:36:07 GMT, "Woody" wrote: "Bill Wright" wrote in message ... "Java Jive" wrote in message ... On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 14:42:21 +0100, "Steve Thackery" Neither Nigel Lawson, nor Bill, nor others here, are a climate scientists, so none are qualified to speak on such issues. We are all entitled to discuss this Of course you are, but not here, find yourselves a more appropriate forum where such posts are on-topic. I was merely pointing out that neither you nor Nigel Lawson should be considered experts, that being cynical doesn't make you an expert. (I grant that the 'speak' above should perhaps have been actually written 'speak with authority', as by common parlance it was intended to be read.) In fact, it's quite hard to find anything to read that takes an even-handed view of the alleged climate change because everyone in the media is **** scared that if they are seen to be backing something that goes against the pseudo-religious orthodoxy their career will be affected adversely. I've seen this all before. So have I. The difference between us is that when I see a report that doesn't make scientific sense, I try to find a better report or go back to the original source, and if I see an example of business 'greenwash', I try to spend my money elsewhere. A lack of counter-global-warming viewpoint probably simply reflects the increasing consensus of the scientific community(*). I am probably even more cynical than yourself on issues such as business 'greenwash, but such practices shouldn't be allowed to distract from the facts that MMGW is now accepted as fact by the scientific community, and that we need to address it, and address it adequately. What you lot in your twenties and thirties Stereotyping is not thought, it's the lazy man's substitute for thought, it is not being arsed to think. Anyway, I am in my 50s. Written from a totally cynical standpoint As was my post. and I agree with every word of it! You need to be more discriminating. * As far as the reporting of scientific issues is concerned, probably the BBC are more even-handed than most. Ignoring the big story news bulletin headlines and concentrating on their Tech/Science RSS feeds, and programmes such as 'Science In Action', they are *mostly* quite good. The worst things about them and science reporting in general a 1) Dumbing down and over-simplification. 2) The atrocious journalese now prevalent, which conveys less meaning and is more tiresome to read than the good English of former years. 1 has been mentioned many times here, here's a current example of 2: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329444.stm If you read the first six paragraphs of the original report, I hope you would agree that they would convey better meaning, flow more naturally, and be easier to read, if paragraphed and presented in a logical order, such as: """ A controversial theory of physics may explain some aspects of galaxy behaviour better than more widely accepted ideas. Astronomer Garry Angus, from St Andrews University, presented details of a study of eight 'dwarf' galaxies at the UK National Astronomy Meeting in Belfast. The study proposes Modified Newtonian Dynamics (Mond) effects, as an alternative to the widely accepted theory of dark matter, to explain the dynamics of such galaxies. """ |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
I've already plonked Bill, so I'll let most of his rubbish go straight
through to the trash, where it belongs ... Hah! Obviously you're an open-minded kind of guy, without prejudice and willing to listen to dissenting points of view. (NOT). I don't claim to know much about climate science. However, I am old enough and experienced enough to recognise when something smells dodgy. 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. SteveT |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
Bill Wright wrote:
In fact, it's quite hard to find anything to read that takes an even-handed view [...] I thoroughly recommend David MacKay's forthcoming book "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air". You can download a draft version from http://www.withouthotair.com/. -- Andy |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
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. 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. Bearing in mind how unreliable our weather forecasts are (which also use computer models), we should be sceptical (but not entirely dismissive) of computerised climate models. So, "sceptical" is the way to be about the evidence; and "concerned" is the way to be about the political pressure on the scientific community (because it can lead to bad science). SteveT |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
There were huge notices boasting about how green M & S is, all about how
they recycle their bags and so forth. We had a simple meal for two (just sandwiches and a bun) and at the end we had a tray absolutely full of plastic wrappers. Hear, hear! I was nauseated when Gordon Brown announced he wanted to ban carrier bags. What a complete load of ********. OK, we can all agree that there is too much landfill going on, especially of materials which won't bio-degrade. IF we want to take this issue seriously, then we should undertake a SERIOUS review of all the sources. In particular, the massive overuse of packaging materials in most walks of life. I could live with discouraging the use of carrier bags IF it were part of a much larger, and properly serious, initiative to reduce packaging waste throughout the retail industry. Indeed, I suspect we would all welcome that. But to think that banning carrier bags is a worthwhile thing, whilst completely ignoring every other source of packaging waste, is stupid and inane, and is nothing other than lip-service. SteveT |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
That rather sums up the head in the sand "Climate Change doesn't
exist" mentality of some of the older generations... And where, exactly, has Bill said that? SteveT |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. . In article , Bill Wright wrote: Look, the other day I was in M & S at York, in the café. There were huge notices boasting about how green M & S is, all about how they recycle their bags and so forth. We had a simple meal for two (just sandwiches and a bun) and at the end we had a tray absolutely full of plastic wrappers. In other words, they pay lip service but that's all, because they know that if they wrap things less well people will eat elsewhere. Twenty-five years ago in any works canteen you would be served using china crockery, metal cutlery and tea out of a real teapot. Now it's nearly all throwaway plastic (unless you're management of course). Perhaps some bean- counter has worked out that it's cheaper to discard plastic which has had a useful life of a few hours than to pay human beings to wash the dishes. They're probably right. Would you like to wash dishes for £2 an hour? -- Max Demian |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
"Steve Thackery" wrote in message ... That rather sums up the head in the sand "Climate Change doesn't exist" mentality of some of the older generations... And where, exactly, has Bill said that? SteveT quote (My emphasis) "We are all entitled to discuss this, because the way the *alleged climate change* is being allowed to degrade our lives and affluence owes more to politics, band-wagoning, and career-building than it does to science." /quote There is nothing alleged about Climate change, the only (non cranks) debate is about what is causing it - heck even Pres. Bush Jnr. now accepts that "Climate Change" is real. |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
"Max Demian" wrote in message ... "Roderick Stewart" wrote in message .. . snip Twenty-five years ago in any works canteen you would be served using china crockery, metal cutlery and tea out of a real teapot. Now it's nearly all throwaway plastic (unless you're management of course). Perhaps some bean- counter has worked out that it's cheaper to discard plastic which has had a useful life of a few hours than to pay human beings to wash the dishes. They're probably right. Would you like to wash dishes for £2 an hour? Don't you mean £5.75 (or what ever the NuLabour minimum wage is now)?... |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
"Steve Thackery" wrote in message ... There were huge notices boasting about how green M & S is, all about how they recycle their bags and so forth. We had a simple meal for two (just sandwiches and a bun) and at the end we had a tray absolutely full of plastic wrappers. This has more to do with over the top food hygiene regulations, not a lot they can do about it, other than stop selling the food. Hear, hear! I was nauseated when Gordon Brown announced he wanted to ban carrier bags. What a complete load of ********. Indeed, he knows that there most people will just view the 'charge' that will be imposed as a tax on shopping, this means that HMG will (through the tax/VAT system) have a large amount of"ring fenced" money to hand out to the chosen NGOs, this in turn will allow HMG to reduce the amount handed out via HMG departments by the Treasurery As you say, it's ********, just more stelth taxation. |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 10:24:38 +0100, ":Jerry:"
wrote: Neither Nigel Lawson, nor Bill, nor others here, are a climate scientists, so none are qualified to speak on such issues. Nor are political activists and politicians but they are the ones who are steamrollering through ever more ridicules 'environmental' legislation. :~( If you want to know what real scientists think about climate change try this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...2004/12/about/ -- http://www.robinfaichney.org/ |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
":Jerry:" wrote in message ... "Max Demian" wrote in message ... "Roderick Stewart" wrote in message .. . snip Twenty-five years ago in any works canteen you would be served using china crockery, metal cutlery and tea out of a real teapot. Now it's nearly all throwaway plastic (unless you're management of course). Perhaps some bean- counter has worked out that it's cheaper to discard plastic which has had a useful life of a few hours than to pay human beings to wash the dishes. They're probably right. Would you like to wash dishes for £2 an hour? Don't you mean £5.75 (or what ever the NuLabour minimum wage is now)?... That's the point. At £5.75 an hour it's cheaper to use disposable utensils. -- Max Demian |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
"Max Demian" wrote in message ... ":Jerry:" wrote in message ... "Max Demian" wrote in message ... "Roderick Stewart" wrote in message .. . snip Twenty-five years ago in any works canteen you would be served using china crockery, metal cutlery and tea out of a real teapot. Now it's nearly all throwaway plastic (unless you're management of course). Perhaps some bean- counter has worked out that it's cheaper to discard plastic which has had a useful life of a few hours than to pay human beings to wash the dishes. They're probably right. Would you like to wash dishes for £2 an hour? Don't you mean £5.75 (or what ever the NuLabour minimum wage is now)?... That's the point. At £5.75 an hour it's cheaper to use disposable utensils. Further to the point, there were plenty of people who *would* have washed dishes for £2 ph (part time) to give them some 'pin money' and a free meal each day they worked for two or three hours - now they don't work (because the jobs are not around), sit in front of the TV all day eating cheapo 'junk-food', claiming Tax Credit whilst waiting for their kids to get home from secondary school... |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
In article , Steve Thackery wrote:
But to think that banning carrier bags is a worthwhile thing, whilst* completely ignoring every other source of packaging waste, is stupid and* inane, and is nothing other than lip-service. Quite. It's not wrong, but it's not nearly enough. Rod. |
Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 12:37:10 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
wrote: I've already plonked Bill, so I'll let most of his rubbish go straight through to the trash, where it belongs ... Hah! Obviously you're an open-minded kind of guy, without prejudice and willing to listen to dissenting points of view. (NOT). The trouble is that Bill is not open-minded, and there's only so much OT bull**** a man can tolerate. The problem faced by scientists is that their funding is determined to a large extent by politics (in the larger, human sense). That is true, and is more so in recent years than it ever used to be. At the moment we DO have a degree of cultural hysteria about global warming. That is also true. It has been described as 'climate porn' and has even been the subject of scientific investigation in itself. It's decried by many scientists, for example because of the way it engenders a feeling of helpless doom in the general public, and this disempowering apathy translates into an unwillingness to face the problem and make any lifestyle changes. And the problem is that - if a scientist wants funding - they've pretty well got to jump onto that bandwagon. That is NOT true. Businesses such as Exxon, that have funded anti-MMGW politicians such as the ventriloquist's dummy that is currently trying to pass for a president, have also funded anti-MMGW research for the last decade or so. The "market" for their research is hungry for ANYTHING to do with global warming, so that is where they target their "products". A self-serving biased description. You could equally well present it as that scientists value their own potential contribution too highly to squander it trying to disprove a scientific consensus which they themselves have no quarrel with. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. This does NOT in itself make global warming a big problem. But equally it isn't an argument against those facts that *are* known, and those facts have led to said scientific consensus. 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. I think any fair-minded person with knowledge of this ng, reading your post that started this thread, would disagree with the above description of yourself. 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. |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com