Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I said it in my only other post in this thread. Editec said it again most recently about 4 posts ago. It's about money. Yes, it's a simple answer, and one that you appear to have heard and dismissed. Why?
I said it in my only other post in this thread. Editec said it again most recently about 4 posts ago. It's about money. Yes, it's a simple answer, and one that you appear to have heard and dismissed. Why?
Because I don't see how the UK Conservative Party is making money out of climate change. I would have thought it would have been potentially costing them money as they piss off the coal industry with their new policies.
How do thre Conservative Party make money out of this?
Possibly - but doing nothing while oceans rise to threaten the likes of London, LA and New York doesn't seem like a smart plan to me.
Every major business has a contingency plan for terror, sire, earthquake and flood.
Good governance in relation to climate change would surely be to follow suit.
I'm all for preparing for floods, earthquackes, droughts, etc.
But that is very different from basing fundamental policy decisions on some hysterical fad.
Indeed - but I don't really see institutions like the UK Royal Academy of Sciences or the US Society of Physics as being very keen on fads.
I think sceptics need to be a little sensible about these things - the likes of the American Geophysical Society and the EU Federation of Geologists aren't a bunch of dropout hippies - they are amongst the most reputed and respected scientific voices on the planet.
Disagree with them by all means, but pretending they are acting according to some kind of fashion is to suggest Justin Beiber may soon be named head of one of them.
Wen the peer review is all based upon the original work (which, oh by the way, has been destroyed) of charlatans and frauds, then you don't have a popcorn fart.I'm not sure how much you know about peer review, but it is a brutal and exacting process. It's well worth going to watch a dissertation defense to get an idea of how it works. (They are usually open to the public to help ensure transparency).
Any links to credible sources? Didn't think so.
Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:
Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.
The statement about data storage is balderdash. They got the records from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the worlds surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979.
Here's one reason why......I don't see science as being a political issue.
Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.
While I think the use of nuclear vs renewables is a political issue around the world, only in the US (and to a lesser extent, Australia) does climate change seem to be political.
The Conservative parties of the UK, France, Germany, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand and host of others ALL accept that human acitivty may be playing a role in climate change, and have developed policies to suit.
In many cases, this means nuclear.
But why do some Americans seem to think climate change is left wing conspiracy, when most conservatives around the world are saying the opposite?
Some people who fell for this fad:
Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of 32 countries.
InterAcademy Council
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
Network of African Science Academies
Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Polish Academy of Sciences
National Research Council (US)
American Chemical Society[41]
American Institute of Physics[42]
American Physical Society[43]
Australian Institute of Physics[44]
European Physical Society[45]
European Science Foundation[46]
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies[47]
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
There are 50 major organisatins here - would anyone like to post a list of scientific bodies who DO NOT accept human involvement in climate change?
Artevelde -
All 50 of the names bodies (and there are more on the list, I just took the first 50) has stated that they believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change.
This, I think we can assume they looked at the evidence before they made their statements.
If climate change is a "fad" - why would 50 such august bodies throw their weight behind it?
After reading your link from National Review Online, which I hope everyone reads, I am left wondering whether the pro- "global warming" crowd didn't intentionally record data from data centers next to parking lots, which would bring a harvest in higher global temperatures than if temperature recordings would have been fairly distributed between locations that were random between global locations obtained by the roll of the longitudinal and latitudinal dice, if such a thing were possible.Wen the peer review is all based upon the original work (which, oh by the way, has been destroyed) of charlatans and frauds, then you don't have a popcorn fart.
Any links to credible sources? Didn't think so.The Dog Ate Global Warming - Patrick J. Michaels - National Review OnlineRoger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:
Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.The statement about data storage is balderdash. They got the records from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the worlds surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979.
Translation: The dog ate my homework.
This is science... not a popularity contest. If popularity mattered to objective reality, that asshole jock in High School elected prom king would rule the universe with that trophy cheerleader girlfriend.Some people who fell for this fad:
Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of 32 countries.
InterAcademy Council
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
Network of African Science Academies
Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Polish Academy of Sciences
National Research Council (US)
American Chemical Society[41]
American Institute of Physics[42]
American Physical Society[43]
Australian Institute of Physics[44]
European Physical Society[45]
European Science Foundation[46]
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies[47]
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
There are 50 major organisatins here - would anyone like to post a list of scientific bodies who DO NOT accept human involvement in climate change?
Artevelde -
All 50 of the names bodies (and there are more on the list, I just took the first 50) has stated that they believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change.
This, I think we can assume they looked at the evidence before they made their statements.
If climate change is a "fad" - why would 50 such august bodies throw their weight behind it?
That said, do you believe in plate techtonics? You may want to look at how long it took that theory to take hold AND who laughed it out of the auditorium before the science was no longer able to be ignored.
Phrenology, perpetual motion machines and snake oil have always been problems in the scientific community.The concept of "ether" was popular too at one point and they had consensus too!
Homeopathy was popular and they had consensus!
Astrology still has consensus!
WooT!
Money and power seem to be good enough for 99% of mankind to be motivation.If I see anyone come up with a really strong argument as to why 50+ of the most respected scientific bodies in the world should be ignored, I will respond to it.
That said, do you believe in plate techtonics? You may want to look at how long it took that theory to take hold AND who laughed it out of the auditorium before the science was no longer able to be ignored.
Exactly my point - new science (and climate change dates back to only 1860) takes a long time to win over the establishment. It's only natural that there is cynicism, but eventually some kind of near-consensus is reached.
And looking at that list of bodies, that time is very much upon us.
Oh, the irony.Maybe this fat, energy guzzling, hypocrite is part of the reason "Climate Astrology" is so political in the USA...????
