Seriously OT - primarily for Bill

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:

"Robin Faichney" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:42:53 +0100, ":Jerry:"
wrote:

This is not about individual scientists, it's about a concensus within
the relevant scientific community. And just in case you take the same
attitude as some I've seen online: no, you don't need unanimity for a
concensus, a substantial majority is perfectly sufficient. And that's
what we have on man-made climate change.

There's no concensus at all about the severity of the effects of
man-made climate. To get a 'concensus' you have to lump together all
those who agree that there is an effect to some extent.

My impression is that the vast bulk of those who carry out scientific work
on climate agree that it is occuring, and for largely man-driven reasons,
and that the consequences are serious. Also, that there is a large amount
of evidence to this effect.

So far as I can tell, the parade has moved on in academic science. The
studies now are wrt to details and refining understanding. But I am not a
climate scientist, so you'd need someone who follows the field and is
involved to say.

Opinions amongst those who have never done any actual work as a research
scientist in the topic seem more divided.

Assuming for the moment that they are right, we come to an even more
contentious issue: should we attempt to reduce or even prevent climate
change, or should we prepare for it?

I would have thought that the rich west would be far better to prepare
for it than to waste time and money trying to persuade the Far East and
the Third World not to have their industrial revolutions. That's doomed
to failure. So we should concentrate on building defences against being
flooded with seawater and foreigners. Also, let's buy barbies and look
forward to the nice summers. I can't wait. Roll on Global Warming.

The problem is that 'global warming' is another term that is widely
misunderstood - as exampled in what you write above, Bill.

The primary measure of change that people pick up is 'warming'. Simpler
headline for the media to use. But if the bulk of evidence and scientific
analysis based on it *is* correct, the changes will be of many kinds. So,
we might get many more, and more severe, storms in the UK. And the sea
level may rise, flooding the living and farmlands of millions of people,
etc. In the UK we might also find that the 'Gulf Stream' fades or shifts,
causing our 'local' temperature to fall quite markedly. So climate change
wouldn't just mean we might have warmer winters and sunny summers.

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

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:37:11 +0100, ":Jerry:"
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Alan

wrote:
In message , 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.

You scare people in the hope that it will result in a lucrative
research
grant for next year. This is often achieved by sending out a
misleading
press release which is reported as fact by those highly skilled
journalists employed by the newspaper, TV and radio industries.

Thanks for giving evidence that I was correct. ;-

But that doesn't make him wrong, his point was about how scientists
obtain funding, not how they do research or peer review.

It demonstrates ignorance of how science works. It implies that those
in charge of allocating research funding are easily swayed by the mass
media, like politicians, when in fact these committees have
substantial numbers of scientists as members, and they have to justify
their decisions to the scientific community. And before you suggest
that all these scientists are in cahoots, I'll just point out that
would demonstrate your paranoia. In fact, there's a great deal of
competition in science -- the very thing that the economic
fundamentalists say is vital in commerce -- so that if the majority
were in the wrong, and a scientist had a chance to prove that, he'd
jump at it, and be rewarded with world-wide fame if he succeeded.
--
http://www.robinfaichney.org/

"Robin Faichney" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:37:11 +0100, ":Jerry:"
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Alan

wrote:
In message , 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.

You scare people in the hope that it will result in a lucrative
research
grant for next year. This is often achieved by sending out a
misleading
press release which is reported as fact by those highly skilled
journalists employed by the newspaper, TV and radio industries.

Thanks for giving evidence that I was correct. ;-

But that doesn't make him wrong, his point was about how scientists
obtain funding, not how they do research or peer review.

It demonstrates ignorance of how science works. It implies that
those
in charge of allocating research funding are easily swayed by the
mass
media, like politicians, when in fact these committees have
substantial numbers of scientists as members, and they have to
justify
their decisions to the scientific community.

No, what he was saying is that the people who give out funding are
swayed by other scientists than the opinions of the 'man on the
Clapham Omnibus', regardless as to how good the bus passengers case
is - which they are!

And before you suggest
that all these scientists are in cahoots, I'll just point out that
would demonstrate your paranoia. In fact, there's a great deal of
competition in science -- the very thing that the economic
fundamentalists say is vital in commerce -- so that if the majority
were in the wrong, and a scientist had a chance to prove that, he'd
jump at it, and be rewarded with world-wide fame if he succeeded.

My (and other peoples) point is that far to many scientists have a
"Trust me, I'm a scientist" attitude when they are nothing more than
the next person, someone trying to find out facts, no one holds the
high ground - as I said, at one time scientists believed in the 'Flat
Earth' but that was proved by someone else's "Mickey Mouse science",
at one time scientists believed that no one could travel by train
because if they went faster than a horse could gallop they would
suffocate but that was disproved by non scientists using "Mickey Mouse
science", at one time scientists themselves __*didn't*__ believe in
'Climate Change' but the facts that accelerated climate change was
occurring were proved by "Mickey Mouse science" and IIRC naturalists.

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

snip

high ground - as I said, at one time scientists believed in the
'Flat Earth' but that was proved by someone else's "Mickey Mouse
science",

disproved... Oops!

Bill Wright wrote:
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.


I read somewhere that after the plastic carrier bag ban in Ireland came
in sales of bin liners went up. And the Supermarkets profits will also
rise more by the savings on not buying in carrier bags! No wonder
they're all jumping on the green wagon.

Because, of course, we do recycle carrier bags by saving money on
buying bin liners (which would still be thrown away and are bigger) and
using carrier bags instead.

And on yesterday's journey down the M6, it wasn't just carrier bags in
the verges. Litter louts will continue to throw all sorts of stuff out
the car window!

In my local paper last week someone tried an experiment. They saved all
the plastic packaging their weekly shopping came packed in, including
the carrier bags.

Without cutting it up the plastic waste filled several carrier bags.
Cutting it into small pieces (a bit like pixels - back on subject :-) )
filled a couple of carrier bags.
Cutting the carrier bags it all came in into small pieces filled about
one tenth of one carrier bag.

So all this land fill space we're going to be saving by not using
plastic carrier bags would be many times more if the PC green police
concentrated on reducing packaging waste instead!

Richard

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:53:13 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

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.

How does onje become an "expert" on global warming/cooling? Exactly
what are Al Gore's qualifications in the subject? (to ask about one
such "expert")
--
Cheers

Peter

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:25:50 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

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.

Isn't he?

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.

That doesn't make it a good thing though, does it?

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.

And what was the outcome of that investigation?

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 to which (proven) problem do you refer?

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.

Is this an example of you being "open minded"?

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.

So exactly which facts are "known"?

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.

How sharp is your axe?
--
Cheers

Peter

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:12:35 +0100, Robin Faichney
wrote:

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.

Your description of the 5% of scientists who don't believe in global
warming being man made says more about you than I guess you would have
people know.
--
Cheers

Peter

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 10:35:34 +0100, ":Jerry:"
wrote:


"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...

Three questions for you -

1. Do you think climate change is happening?
2. If yes, why do you think it's happening?
3. Why did the problem suddenly become "climate change" instead of
"global warming"?
--
Cheers

Peter

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 11:37:40 +0100, ":Jerry:"
wrote:


"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

snip
Co2 (not CO2, that's something completely different)

Co is cobalt.

Carbon dioxide is CO [subscript] 2.


I stand corrected.

What else are you wrong about?
--
Cheers

Peter