Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

gingerjon

Climate change

87 posts in this topic

If you think that big money means that various academic labs are grinding big oil interests into the dust, then you are very stupid. If you think that all the scientists around the world are in it together in a huge cabal, then you are very stupid.

It is happening, the extent is uncertain. However, as people think the climate can be altered by banal arguments to try and make it fit their political viewpoint, then it seems odd to believe that pumped lots if industrial gases in the air should make no difference.

On the other side of the argument, the planet is not in danger, only being able to carry on the way we are. Small islands might be lost and bits of land that might get rather salty. It should also be said that big cars and planes are rather fun, so giving them up is bad news and probably not going to happen.

Don't believe what you are told = stupid. Thanks for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'®ed'

Anyone know what this is about?

yes . Eds subriquet now he has promised tp bring back socialism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greenpeace et al painted themselves into a corner with the unilateral rejection of nuclear. Instead of embracing it and trying to work with the nuclear industry to move the technology forward they very effectively politicised it. As a consequence government after government delayed/ rejected nuclear power as too political and a vote looser ( after all the issue was never going to come to a head within their 5 years).

Now we are reaping the fruits of the green lobby's effective and misguided campaigning. However there is hope, some of true environmentalists have recognised this and are trying to open up the nuclear debate

The solution is exactly as Bedford Roughyed said Renewables are not the solution, they are part of the solution but there is a finite proportion of the country's energy that they can supply. Above that level the environmental case is zero unless we are going to accept power cuts when the wind stops.

P.S I've just had the advert at the top of my screen asking me to join Greenpeace :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't believe what you are told = stupid. Thanks for that.

 

Now, now.

 

But the point is broadly valid.  You're concerned that the scientists are finding results that match the results of big business interests.  The funding has largely gone the other way though.  If that's the issue you have you should be wondering about the motives of those who have spent a very long time firstly denying any climate change, then moving the goalposts to deny any man-made influence and who now are moving them again to go:  well, what can we do now, I mean, look at China ...

 

Or to put it another way: one comment I read was to say that if your doctor was 95% certain of something you'd probably believe him rather than going to check what a Telegraph columnist had to say.  I'd go slightly further.  If you go to your GP you're going to follow his advice because the odds are he's right and the odds are that what is being prescribed is what will be best for you ... and even if it isn't then it's going to do no harm.

 

And the odds are that the GP will be broadly right, the treatment broadly correct ... and that's despite the fact that the GP will have received funding from pharma companies from pretty much the day he joined med school.

 

The 'solutions' to climate change in reducing energy and consumption, investing in renewable and more efficient energy -- these are good things regardless if that 95% certainty turns out to be wrong ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, now.

But the point is broadly valid. You're concerned that the scientists are finding results that match the results of big business interests. The funding has largely gone the other way though. If that's the issue you have you should be wondering about the motives of those who have spent a very long time firstly denying any climate change, then moving the goalposts to deny any man-made influence and who now are moving them again to go: well, what can we do now, I mean, look at China ...

Or to put it another way: one comment I read was to say that if your doctor was 95% certain of something you'd probably believe him rather than going to check what a Telegraph columnist had to say. I'd go slightly further. If you go to your GP you're going to follow his advice because the odds are he's right and the odds are that what is being prescribed is what will be best for you ... and even if it isn't then it's going to do no harm.

And the odds are that the GP will be broadly right, the treatment broadly correct ... and that's despite the fact that the GP will have received funding from pharma companies from pretty much the day he joined med school.

The 'solutions' to climate change in reducing energy and consumption, investing in renewable and more efficient energy -- these are good things regardless if that 95% certainty turns out to be wrong ...

That's a reasonable analogy but....

Pretty sure my GP has not much to *gain* by telling me if I have the correct illness or not. They would however have a lot to lose by diagnosing people wrongly; reputation etc.

Governments and big business have plenty to gain by taxing people in new ways or making them use their particular brand of energy.

Put it this way, I may be stupid but I know that if the government wanted to produce a bunch of respected scientists with impressive looking charts to prove that black was, actually, white (and was I really so stupid as to not see that?) then they could do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I understand the skepticism, and governments have jumped on this as a new "acceptable" tax method. The way I understand it is that all the research points towards climate change and there is a very high probability that man made emissions are contributing to this.

At the moment there is no research available that does not show this. That is the key arguement.

Having said all that the politiicising of the debate into an almost religious arguement doesn't help the general public to appriciate the complexities of this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and incidentally the whole thing about the global temperatures not rising for the past 17 years is a lie. See here

 

Interesting. I'll have a read of those...

 

Whether climate change is man-made is, for the UK, irrelevant because China and India will continue to ignore western pleas and will carry on their industrial programmes to serve two billion people, occasioning a  great increase in their carbon footprints.

 

For me, this is key. There are far too many human beings on this planet and nobody will admit it. It is the same argument in this country when people are discussing housing, infrastructure etc. No politician would ever say such as it all boils down to politics in the end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are far too many human beings on this planet 

 

Off you go then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put it this way, I may be stupid but I know that if the government wanted to produce a bunch of respected scientists with impressive looking charts to prove that black was, actually, white (and was I really so stupid as to not see that?) then they could do.

 

But it's not just one government.  It's every single nation's scientific bodies, the World Met office, etc, etc.

And even the majority of the sceptics will agree (grudgingly for some) that the green house effect is real and CO2 will make it warmer.  They disagree with how warm it will be, if warmer world = bad or just object to the counter measures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets look at it another way! Does anyone disagree that the composition of gasses in the atmosphere don't effect the temperature of a planet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these scientific predictions can offer no vision of our climatic future than the same predictions on the Y2K phenomenon. 

 

Using the existent state of carbon as a measure for climate change is disingenuous because the earth has a level of equilibrium for all it's elements and major compounds. This equilibrium swings over millions and millions of years. Our existence on the planet provides nothing more than a blip in the balance of the earth's constituent elements. 

 

What annoys me is that issue is presented as an issue for the planet, when it is an issue for mankind and it's ability to utilise the resources of the earth in a sustainable fashion.

 

The only FACT is that mankind's main sources of energy will need to change. The planet has demonstrated that it can sustain life regardless of what has been thrown at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these scientific predictions can offer no vision of our climatic future than the same predictions on the Y2K phenomenon. 

 

Using the existent state of carbon as a measure for climate change is disingenuous because the earth has a level of equilibrium for all it's elements and major compounds. This equilibrium swings over millions and millions of years. Our existence on the planet provides nothing more than a blip in the balance of the earth's constituent elements. 

 

What annoys me is that issue is presented as an issue for the planet, when it is an issue for mankind and it's ability to utilise the resources of the earth in a sustainable fashion.

 

The only FACT is that mankind's main sources of energy will need to change. The planet has demonstrated that it can sustain life regardless of what has been thrown at it.

 

The informed predictions on Y2K were pretty spot on, eg one prediction was that the organisation I worked for at the time would have had to cease trading if it had not dealt with the shortcomings in its software.

The concern about climate change is the potential problems for human civilisation rather than life on the planet. I'm sure having the human population reduced to a few million hunter-gatherers would be beneficial to the biosphere but that is not the goal we're chasing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The informed predictions on Y2K were pretty spot on, eg one prediction was that the organisation I worked for at the time would have had to cease trading if it had not dealt with the shortcomings in its software.

The concern about climate change is the potential problems for human civilisation rather than life on the planet. I'm sure having the human population reduced to a few million hunter-gatherers would be beneficial to the biosphere but that is not the goal we're chasing. 

Y2K had no effect on me whatsoever so essentially predictions of armageddon were unfounded. If we all had a collective sigh of relief then I wouldn't have made the comparison.

 

On the other point, no-one has made it clear what the goal of tackling climate change is. Does anyone know? Is it to reduce temperature? Is it to reduce sea levels? Is it to have more ice?

 

Or as I suspect, is the argument for tackling climate change the same as tackling masturbation to avoid loss of eyesight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe most of the disasters of Y2K were avoided because we actually... you know... prepared for it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y2K had no effect on me whatsoever so essentially predictions of armageddon were unfounded. If we all had a collective sigh of relief then I wouldn't have made the comparison.

 

On the other point, no-one has made it clear what the goal of tackling climate change is. Does anyone know? Is it to reduce temperature? Is it to reduce sea levels? Is it to have more ice?

 

Or as I suspect, is the argument for tackling climate change the same as tackling masturbation to avoid loss of eyesight?

 

Y2K had little effect on anyone, but that is only because billions of pounds and years of effort were spent identifying and rectifying the affected software. Many of us involved did experience a sigh of relief once it was obvious that the fixes had worked. As it turned out, the only problem experienced by the organisation I worked for happened because a few lines of software in a sub-routine, in an obscure piece of application software, for an even more obscure product, were not identified and corrected. Fortunately, only a handful of people were offered a renewal quote for 99 years of car insurance for one year's premium.

And the point I made was about informed opinion. If you believed the hysteria about planes dropping out of the sky then you would have been confused about the issue.

 

As for your points on climate change, I'm sure someone with more scientific knowledge could explain it better than me (or you could read through the previous thread someone has provided a link to). The point is that the scientific community has discovered a link between the amount of carbon mankind has been pumping into the atmosphere and the rate of climate change. As I understand it, steps are being taken to reduce present and future carbon emissions in attempt to help stop a process that could be disastrous for human civilisation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe most of the disasters of Y2K were avoided because we actually... you know... prepared for it!

 

My point is more about the hype and the catastrophic predictions of not dealing with "something unknown" that might create an "unknown outcome".

 

No-one knew what Y2K would do, however the earth has a good track record of not imploding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is more about the hype and the catastrophic predictions of not dealing with "something unknown" that might create an "unknown outcome".

 

No-one knew what Y2K would do, however the earth has a good track record of not imploding.

Again, I would make my point about informed opinion. By time we had investigated the extent of the Y2K problem we pretty much knew what the effects of inaction would be.

The hype and hysteria come from uninformed opinion, and from ****-stirring tabloids like the Mail and Express. You've got to develop some sort of method of distinguishing knowledge from bulls***.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y2K had little effect on anyone, but that is only because billions of pounds and years of effort were spent identifying and rectifying the affected software. Many of us involved did experience a sigh of relief once it was obvious that the fixes had worked. As it turned out, the only problem experienced by the organisation I worked for happened because a few lines of software in a sub-routine, in an obscure piece of application software, for an even more obscure product, were not identified and corrected. Fortunately, only a handful of people were offered a renewal quote for 99 years of car insurance for one year's premium.

And the point I made was about informed opinion. If you believed the hysteria about planes dropping out of the sky then you would have been confused about the issue.

 

As for your points on climate change, I'm sure someone with more scientific knowledge could explain it better than me (or you could read through the previous thread someone has provided a link to). The point is that the scientific community has discovered a link between the amount of carbon mankind has been pumping into the atmosphere and the rate of climate change. As I understand it, steps are being taken to reduce present and future carbon emissions in attempt to help stop a process that could be disastrous for human civilisation. 

 

I am a scientist and I believe there's an agenda for scientists to continually justify their research funding. Without evidence science can only postulate and if a man with a beard postulates then somehow it's believable.

 

My point on Y2K is about the hype. I've just re-read some articles which were hysterical and to be honest, getting an incorrect insurance quote doesn't quite deserve the worry and hand wringing. My car, washing machine, TV, clock, etc etc etc all worked fine. This was a commercial problem that a bit of overtime would have sorted. Something wears out, big deal. Fix it but there was a vested interest in ramping up the whole problem to line pockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is more about the hype and the catastrophic predictions of not dealing with "something unknown" that might create an "unknown outcome".

 

No-one knew what Y2K would do, however the earth has a good track record of not imploding.

So had many of the programs that were modified (though admitted not quite as much as the earth).

My point still stands regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a scientist and I believe there's an agenda for scientists to continually justify their research funding. Without evidence science can only postulate and if a man with a beard postulates then somehow it's believable.

 

My point on Y2K is about the hype. I've just re-read some articles which were hysterical and to be honest, getting an incorrect insurance quote doesn't quite deserve the worry and hand wringing. My car, washing machine, TV, clock, etc etc etc all worked fine. This was a commercial problem that a bit of overtime would have sorted. Something wears out, big deal. Fix it but there was a vested interest in ramping up the whole problem to line pockets.

 

I bet you're not really a scientist.  I bet you made that up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a scientist and I believe there's an agenda for scientists to continually justify their research funding. Without evidence science can only postulate and if a man with a beard postulates then somehow it's believable.

I'm curious which field of science you work in?

In the instance of climate change there is a LOT of supporting evidence. So it really doesn't matter whether they have beards or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a scientist and I believe there's an agenda for scientists to continually justify their research funding. Without evidence science can only postulate and if a man with a beard postulates then somehow it's believable.

 

My point on Y2K is about the hype. I've just re-read some articles which were hysterical and to be honest, getting an incorrect insurance quote doesn't quite deserve the worry and hand wringing. My car, washing machine, TV, clock, etc etc etc all worked fine. This was a commercial problem that a bit of overtime would have sorted. Something wears out, big deal. Fix it but there was a vested interest in ramping up the whole problem to line pockets.

Which makes my main point perfectly. You link to an unattributed, hysterical, web article and hold that up as a piece of informed opinion.

Getting an insurance renewal quote from an aging system is trivial, although it cost the company a few thousand in goodwill payments, but if nothing had been done about the Y2K then all computer systems, whether scientific, technical or commercial, that relied on date calculations on data fields of just 2 digits would have failed. It would have taken a little bit more than a 'bit of overtime' to fix and many organisations wouldn't, couldn't, have survived.

Again, the people who knew about the problem, who had investigated it and designed solutions, knew that washing machines and cars were not going to stop working. Those ideas were left to those with fertile imaginations or mischievous intent. The parallels with the climate change situation are clear. With Y2K some easily-confused people bought into the concept of planes falling out of the sky. With climate change, similar people take the most extreme speculation about what the effects might be, and then hold these up as being the definite predictions of all those who warn about man-made climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet you're not really a scientist.  I bet you made that up.

I tend not to believe men with beards (unless they're Frankie Boyle). What are they trying to hide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imo man made "climate change" is just a big purple hippopotamus, there simply isnt enough data to prove that humans are the driving force. Even if co2 levels were to rise as predicted the atmospheric levels would still be well below those that existed during the cambrian era (7000 parts per million against approx 400 ppm today) and life flourished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017