Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,236
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
OK, cheap joke, but I couldn't resist.
- Thread starter Flyfisher
- Start date
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
This is no joking matter. Here is the real weather forecast:Flyfisher said:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=142450265411265667#
LadyArowana
Member
- Messages
- 3,694
judrop said:
Perhaps some killjoy wiped the smile off their faces ?
I can only encourage you all to visit this link
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/climategate-30-years-in-the-making/
And download the PDF which is the best demonstration of the corruption (and that is what it was) which occurred at CRU. As I've said before, I don't believe this proves/disproves global warming....but it does demonstrate whay some of us are not immediately inclined to believe the so-called experts.
Systematic lies, deception and fitting data to pre-made conclusions.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/climategate-30-years-in-the-making/
And download the PDF which is the best demonstration of the corruption (and that is what it was) which occurred at CRU. As I've said before, I don't believe this proves/disproves global warming....but it does demonstrate whay some of us are not immediately inclined to believe the so-called experts.
Systematic lies, deception and fitting data to pre-made conclusions.
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,236
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
Oh yes it is, oh no it isn't . . . .
Let's face it, AGW has become a faith issue. The general public doesn't have time to wade through all the science to form a truly independent conclusion and the people in power, i.e. world governments, who have access to the latest and greatest information perfectly summarised by the worlds leading experts, are still not taking the whole thing seriously. All that 'last chance to save the world' guff in the run-up to Copenhagen seems to have made little or no difference to government's behaviour or, as far as is possible to tell, public opinion.
I can understand Biff's Troll Spray in exactly the same way as I can understand creationists denouncing Dawkins - neither side can remotely understand the idiocy of the other side's position, even in the full light of the available 'evidence' and, despite the claims of both sides to the contrary, the debate rumbles on - regardless of which side is right or wrong.
As I've said before, I no longer regard AGW as a scientific issue - anymore than adequately feeding all the people in the world is a scientific problem. It's far more complicated that that and I fear it is similarly insoluble in practical terms.
I'm currently about a third of the way through Hanson's recent book and much of the content so far has recounted his various failures to adequately communicate the dangers of AGW to those who might be able to help fix it. If "the world's greatest climate scientist" is regularly ignored by senior governmental figures around the world then . . . . well, you figure it out.
Let's face it, AGW has become a faith issue. The general public doesn't have time to wade through all the science to form a truly independent conclusion and the people in power, i.e. world governments, who have access to the latest and greatest information perfectly summarised by the worlds leading experts, are still not taking the whole thing seriously. All that 'last chance to save the world' guff in the run-up to Copenhagen seems to have made little or no difference to government's behaviour or, as far as is possible to tell, public opinion.
I can understand Biff's Troll Spray in exactly the same way as I can understand creationists denouncing Dawkins - neither side can remotely understand the idiocy of the other side's position, even in the full light of the available 'evidence' and, despite the claims of both sides to the contrary, the debate rumbles on - regardless of which side is right or wrong.
As I've said before, I no longer regard AGW as a scientific issue - anymore than adequately feeding all the people in the world is a scientific problem. It's far more complicated that that and I fear it is similarly insoluble in practical terms.
I'm currently about a third of the way through Hanson's recent book and much of the content so far has recounted his various failures to adequately communicate the dangers of AGW to those who might be able to help fix it. If "the world's greatest climate scientist" is regularly ignored by senior governmental figures around the world then . . . . well, you figure it out.
FamilyWiggs
Member
- Messages
- 3,452
- Location
- Flintshire, N Wales.
Big freeze could signal global warming 'pause'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6965342/Big-freeze-could-signal-global-warming-pause.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6965342/Big-freeze-could-signal-global-warming-pause.html
Its (sorry Penners - it's) a little while since I have felt compelled to comment on this issue but in that relativelty short time, it does seem that Biff's viewpoint is now in the descendency. Up until Climategate, I think people were uneasy about believing in climate change but, in true British, post colonial, guilt ridden style, we felt that it must be all our fault and we jolly well ought to apologise and take some action that would be painful to our self interest. The right thing to do is surely the most painful thing to do.
Now, people have the feeling there may be cracks in theories that the scientists have come up with. (Oh no - ending a sentence with with. Twice. Sorry again Penners) Predictions of barbecue summers and warmer than average winters don't help. I accept the weather vs climate argument but its not what they say, its the way they say it. Predicting the weather appears to be pretty impossible but they don't admit it. People therefore cease to believe them.
Interestlingly, (to me at any rate) I think that climate change has that lost cause, surely we can make a better world, think of your fellow man (then do as I say for your own good), idealistic, socialist agenda. As such it is very attractive to young idealistic, individuals in much the same way as communism was in the 30s. But superficaially attractive and altruistic aims don't necessarily make our actions right in the long term. However, their youthful enthusiasm can also mean they ignore some facts that don't tie in with their view of the solution.
As Flyfisher states it comes down to faith. Which reminds me of a poem...
The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.
Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.
Which in broad terms, I think is the view of Flyfisher previously expressed in prose. However, feel free to counter that one if I miss the mark.
Finally, can anyone tell me what a troll really is? It seems to me that a troll is someone who posts controvertial views on a site that are contrary to the cosy beliefs of the majority of the forum. I think we need to be open minded or ignore them. Personally simply branding someone a troll becuase their point of view is contrary to yours is censorship of the worst kind. In some senses, it seems the climate change lobby have done just that to the sceptics/ deniers. I think their arrogance in doing so may well turn them into modern day Cassandras.
Now, people have the feeling there may be cracks in theories that the scientists have come up with. (Oh no - ending a sentence with with. Twice. Sorry again Penners) Predictions of barbecue summers and warmer than average winters don't help. I accept the weather vs climate argument but its not what they say, its the way they say it. Predicting the weather appears to be pretty impossible but they don't admit it. People therefore cease to believe them.
Interestlingly, (to me at any rate) I think that climate change has that lost cause, surely we can make a better world, think of your fellow man (then do as I say for your own good), idealistic, socialist agenda. As such it is very attractive to young idealistic, individuals in much the same way as communism was in the 30s. But superficaially attractive and altruistic aims don't necessarily make our actions right in the long term. However, their youthful enthusiasm can also mean they ignore some facts that don't tie in with their view of the solution.
As Flyfisher states it comes down to faith. Which reminds me of a poem...
The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.
Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.
Which in broad terms, I think is the view of Flyfisher previously expressed in prose. However, feel free to counter that one if I miss the mark.
Finally, can anyone tell me what a troll really is? It seems to me that a troll is someone who posts controvertial views on a site that are contrary to the cosy beliefs of the majority of the forum. I think we need to be open minded or ignore them. Personally simply branding someone a troll becuase their point of view is contrary to yours is censorship of the worst kind. In some senses, it seems the climate change lobby have done just that to the sceptics/ deniers. I think their arrogance in doing so may well turn them into modern day Cassandras.
philpjuk100
Member
- Messages
- 1,145
- Location
- newark nottinghamshire
skier-hughes
Member
- Messages
- 3,414
- Location
- Staffs, UK
A troll is someone who purposefully posts oposing views to encourage arguement.
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
But for the first time in human history, 192 nation states all agreed that anthropogenic global warming was real and that something needs to be done. Pity they didn't agree what exactly to do.Horace said:
The trouble Horace, is that if we continue to burn the fossil carbon till it's all gone this planet will no longer support human life, and will probably no longer support any life. You might not believe that but what you believe won't make a jot of difference, except in so far as you have influence on policy makers who can make a difference. That's what makes the deniers so dangerous. They are putting life, all life, for ever, at risk.
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,236
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
Just to clarify my position, I'm not denying AGW or trying to argue against it. In that respect I'm with Biff. Where I differ from Biff is in believing that the solution is simple. Scientifically it may be simple (i.e. stop burning fossil fuels :roll: ) but practically it most certainly is not and, as I've said, I suspect it will prove to be impossible to solve. I suspect we're doomed, by intrinsic human behaviour and our history of nation states, to being forced to adapt to inevitable climate change.
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
I'm not sure that we differ at all - except that when you say "being forced to adapt to inevitable climate change", I suggest that might involve all life dying. Have you read the penultimate chapter, 'the Venus Syndrome' yet?Flyfisher said:
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,236
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
No, I've not read that far yet, but I'm aware of the 'Venus Syndrome' and if that really does happen then I agree there may not be too much adaptation going on.
My bet is that we won't burn sufficient fossil fuel for that to happen because economics and energy-security issues are going to force us down the renewables route sooner rather than later. My guess is that it'll be sooner than completely screwing the planet (as in the Venus syndrome) but later than that necessary to head off some effects of AGW (indeed we're probably already too late), which will hopefully allow us adequate latitude to adapt. Even so, I doubt it'll be pretty. And all that's assuming we don't blow ourselves up in WW3 brought on by energy/water wars anyway.
Perhaps I'm rather schizophrenic in that I'm pessimistic about heading off AGW but am optimistic that we'll adapt to the changed climate. Perhaps there really will be some sort of 'Silent Running' outcome? After all, even if we survive AGW, the sun will eventually burn up the entire solar system anyway - what are we going to do about that? :wink:
My bet is that we won't burn sufficient fossil fuel for that to happen because economics and energy-security issues are going to force us down the renewables route sooner rather than later. My guess is that it'll be sooner than completely screwing the planet (as in the Venus syndrome) but later than that necessary to head off some effects of AGW (indeed we're probably already too late), which will hopefully allow us adequate latitude to adapt. Even so, I doubt it'll be pretty. And all that's assuming we don't blow ourselves up in WW3 brought on by energy/water wars anyway.
Perhaps I'm rather schizophrenic in that I'm pessimistic about heading off AGW but am optimistic that we'll adapt to the changed climate. Perhaps there really will be some sort of 'Silent Running' outcome? After all, even if we survive AGW, the sun will eventually burn up the entire solar system anyway - what are we going to do about that? :wink:
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Gosh we really are in a lot of agreement 
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,236
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
You see - it's good to talk! 
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
If we are to avoid catastrophic global warming we have to avoid burning most of the fossil carbon. As you say, getting people to change their spots is tricky. Economic collapse resulting from the post peak oil energy shortage is a possibility. If the economic collapse is disastrous enough it could be the species' saving.
As Chris put it in hisblog
As Chris put it in hisblog
Just for the record, I do not deny climate change. I am agnostic. I just don't think the climate change lobby are going about convincing the world in the right way. Hence the reference to Cassandra. She was right in fortelling disaster but her curse was that no one believed her.
Re the troll definition. If the definition is correct, why are they necessarily a bad thing? Surely, argument is better that apathy? I think for a lot of people the global warming debate does engender apathy. I don't buy the line that that we musn't let those who deny climate change have their say because they are dangerous. You need an open debate or trust is lost.
Re the troll definition. If the definition is correct, why are they necessarily a bad thing? Surely, argument is better that apathy? I think for a lot of people the global warming debate does engender apathy. I don't buy the line that that we musn't let those who deny climate change have their say because they are dangerous. You need an open debate or trust is lost.