Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Not a bloody clue...

  1. #1

    Not a bloody clue...

    ...probably best to simply look out of the window:

    BBC News - UKs future climate to be all sorts

  2. #2
    I know, what a laugh! This is the Met Office that in November predicted that the winter would be drier than normal, and the Met Office that predicted that "man made global warming" would mean droughts in the UK. I also seem to remember a BBQ summer a while back.

    One wet winter and all of a sudden they are predicting wet winters :-)

    They also predicted that children would, by this time, not know what snow was. I was out on ground today that had up to 14 feet of snow on it this day last year! No one has seen so much in living memory and people living in the area where coming in going from their houses through upstairs windows.

    The great man made global warming scam was pretty much over when they had to change it's name to "climate change" in order to cover every possible type of weather. One of the best descriptions I heard of Tony Blair when he was still on his throne was "with the Labour Party the future is certain, it's the past that keeps changing" and the Met Office don't seem to realise that people have seen through this sort of thing a long time ago.
    For self catering accommodation on the Isle of Lewis please visit:
    http://www.7south.co.uk/




  3. #3
    You may think they're trying to fool us. They're not. They're fooling themselves.

    They can only tell you with any degree of accuracy what the weather will be like today, perhaps tomorrow.

  4. #4
    I'm curious: if anthropogenic climate change is a hoax or a scam, what would the motivation be?

    I think people on both sides of this argument make the mistake of expecting clear, continuous trends with no noise and no variation - which seriously fails to understand the level of unpredictability already in the system. The key point is that a single year tells you precisely nothing - you need to look at averages across 10 years or more.

    Whether any of the 'abnormal' weather events of the last few years are human driven or not, there is one underlying fact that is inescapable: the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased. We also have very good reason to believe that this CAN lead to more heat being trapped in the atmosphere. It is, in fact, almost irrelevant whether or not it actually is: we are in a situation where we know there to be risk associated with our behaviour. We also know what decisions to take to reduce that risk. For that simple fact, it is worth thinking very hard about actually doing things that reduce that risk - many of which make long term sense anyway. For instance: we know that fossil fuels are running out and have significant negative qualities that have nothing to do with climate (sulphur dioxide, for instance), so it makes sense to look for alternatives anyway. We also know that a lot of the fossil fuels we rely on are held by people who, it turns out, are rather difficult to deal with (oil in the middle East; gas by that nice Mr. Putin), so again, it makes sense to figure out ways to avoid having to be reliant on them.

    I used to be convinced that anthropogenic climate change WAS definitely happening. I am much less sure now, but I am still very much convinced that there are extremely compelling reasons to behave AS IF it was. The long term costs of acting as it was real, and being wrong are probably higher than the long term costs of acting as if it was not and being wrong.

    In many ways climate change deniers are like people who refuse to use a seat belt: sure, you may be a terribly good driver, and unlikely to crash, but there is still a very real probability that you will, and wearing that seat belt may make all the difference.

    I will add that this latest headline is not news at all - it's just the media reccycling something that's been around for quite some time. The majority of projections for the UK have been predicting an increase in uncertainty and extreme events for some time, with a tendency to project wetter conditions overall.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Pedro View Post
    You may think they're trying to fool us. They're not. They're fooling themselves.

    They can only tell you with any degree of accuracy what the weather will be like today, perhaps tomorrow.
    Behave! Lmao

    They can only tell you with any degree of accuracy what the weather will be like yesterday.

  6. #6
    Hi Mungo, I think that the motivation was money. People go to the authorities with an idea, receive a grant to research the subject, produce a report stating that the idea has credence. At the end of the report it states that more research is needed. Hence, more money for more research = a comfortable living.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by techman View Post
    Hi Mungo, I think that the motivation was money. People go to the authorities with an idea, receive a grant to research the subject, produce a report stating that the idea has credence. At the end of the report it states that more research is needed. Hence, more money for more research = a comfortable living.
    Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    Ok - first, if you really were just in it for the money, why research a topic that has considerable public opposition? It would be considerably easier to persuade a sceptical Treasury to give you money if your research wasn't arguing that we needed to restrict industrial activity in ways that may hurt the economy. Think about it: climate scientists are telling the government things the government (and in particular the Treasury) REALLY don't weant to hear. They'd much prefer to be told: go right ahead, business as usual, there are no negative effects of they way we do things, there's no need to restrict industrial/commercial activity at all.

    Second - if only it were that easy to get research money at all! No one makes money out of climate science research. If you want to actually make money in science, you go into commercial biotech.

    As for comfortable living - you're kidding right? How many other professions do you have to go through up to 7 years of training (degree plus PhD), with zero garuntee of a job at the end? Where it can take 10 or more years after a PhD to get any sort of permanent position, and where you have to apply for temporary positions and funding at least every three years (often more frequently)? Where every single step (both funding and job) is done in open (often international) competition, with assessment conducted by external committees (often composed of people in direct competition with you)? Where the odds at each stage are 1 in 10 AT BEST? Where by the time you're 35, the people you went to uni with are making twice to 3 times what you are?

    The idea that anthropogenic climate change is a scam or hoax makes no logical sense. It is not in anyone's interest to advocate restricting industrial activity without very compelling reasons to do so. Sure - there are the usual Quango and NGO parasites that jump on the bandwagon, but they generally aren't the ones driving the research, and they appear everywhere anyway.

  8. #8
    Hi Mungo,

    I agree the climate is changing but wholly disagree with all the climate scientists (who couldn't get a job otherwise) about the anthropogenic part. If we were having this conversation at the end of the last ice age, I doubt anyone would be worried about a changing climate.


    The individual scientists themselves may not be in it for the money, but when looking at the bigger scenario money is indeed a huge motivator, from so called 'renewable' energy (bear in mind, most of this energy comes from the sun in one way or another, which is NOT a renewable source) to the people employed by the varous quangos, envireonmental charities and energy saving concerns and even educational insti, there would be a huge swath of people unemployed if it were ever proved that climate change has very little to do with humans.

    From a government perspective employed people = revenue form tax and NI, companies in existence = more tax and revenue from NI and both of these mean the jobless figures would be less.

    I know people (including family members) who work in 'science' at government institutions and although they are not 'well off' by ay standard, they are in employment and manage to survive.

    If you want a similar career to compare, try lecturing in engineering, a lot of the points you make also apply to lecturers at universities and indeed the pay is even worse at colleges (I came from offshore to education and most of my friends make even more than 3 times what I'm on).

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by procee View Post
    I agree the climate is changing but wholly disagree with all the climate scientists (who couldn't get a job otherwise) about the anthropogenic part. If we were having this conversation at the end of the last ice age, I doubt anyone would be worried about a changing climate.
    Of course we would - sea levels rose dramatically then!

    Quote Originally Posted by procee View Post
    The individual scientists themselves may not be in it for the money, but when looking at the bigger scenario money is indeed a huge motivator, from so called 'renewable' energy (bear in mind, most of this energy comes from the sun in one way or another, which is NOT a renewable source) to the people employed by the varous quangos, envireonmental charities and energy saving concerns and even educational insti, there would be a huge swath of people unemployed if it were ever proved that climate change has very little to do with humans.
    I'm not really convinced there's all that much money in it. The number of people employed and the revenue generated is negligble in comparison to, say, the oil and gas industry. Again: why on earth would anyone, least of the government, want to fund a tiny minority sector of the economy whose primary (if not only) goal is to restrict the activity (and hence profitability) of one of the largest sectors of the economy? As I said: there is absolutely no incentive for anyone to want to restrict industrial activity unless there are very compelling reasons to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by procee View Post
    From a government perspective employed people = revenue form tax and NI, companies in existence = more tax and revenue from NI and both of these mean the jobless figures would be less.
    Except that the number of people employed by the alternative energy sector + all the researchers is tiny, and their revenue is almost entirely dependent on government support. The government has very good reasons to NOT want to support them: they cost money and are trying to convince everyone that one of the primary engines of economic growth needs to be restricted.

    Quote Originally Posted by procee View Post
    If you want a similar career to compare, try lecturing in engineering, a lot of the points you make also apply to lecturers at universities and indeed the pay is even worse at colleges (I came from offshore to education and most of my friends make even more than 3 times what I'm on).
    Sure - and people didn't 'make up' gravity, or the principles of structural engineering, or the tensile limits of steel (or whatever) just to creat jobs for themselves!

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Pedro View Post
    You may think they're trying to fool us. They're not. They're fooling themselves.

    They can only tell you with any degree of accuracy what the weather will be like today, perhaps tomorrow.
    I'm not so sure about that, I think they would struggle to tell us what the weather was like yesterday
    Wingy

Similar Threads

  1. bloody annoyed at myself
    By Scots_stalker in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 23-04-2012, 21:48
  2. Bloody Brilliant!!
    By re'M'ington in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 23-04-2012, 08:08
  3. Bloody ticks
    By Rake Aboot in forum Diseases, Welfare and Biology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 22-04-2012, 09:56
  4. Fart and give me a clue
    By SWR in forum Jokes & Funnies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-12-2007, 21:27
  5. Bloody BBC!
    By Beowulf in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-07-2007, 20:10

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •