Captain Caveman wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Grim...'s life hints #64: When on holiday near a pool and a bar / other source of alcohol, stop posting on the Internet.
Very true mate.
Still, the same could also be said of train toilets.
BOOM!
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Trooper wrote:
whereas if you really planned and worked on it, you could find a way to embarrass them their whole life 
...like destroying the planet's environment with a carbon-belching fast car! I prefer to think of them as carbon-purring...
Grim... wrote:
I'm certainly glad I don't have Australian kids.
Well..... Fuck
http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/ ... pe=article
"The radical decline in sea ice around the Arctic is at least 70% due to human-induced climate change, according to a new study, and may even be up to 95% down to humans – rather higher than scientists had previously thought."
"The radical decline in sea ice around the Arctic is at least 70% due to human-induced climate change, according to a new study, and may even be up to 95% down to humans – rather higher than scientists had previously thought."
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/26/arctic-climate-change?cat=world&type=article
"The radical decline in sea ice around the Arctic is at least 70% due to human-induced climate change, according to a new study, and may even be up to 95% down to humans – rather higher than scientists had previously thought."
"The radical decline in sea ice around the Arctic is at least 70% due to human-induced climate change, according to a new study, and may even be up to 95% down to humans – rather higher than scientists had previously thought."
Don't let evidence-based scientific theory get in the way of a good old bluster!
The Last Salmon Man wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/26/arctic-climate-change?cat=world&type=article
"The radical decline in sea ice around the Arctic is at least 70% due to human-induced climate change, according to a new study, and may even be up to 95% down to humans – rather higher than scientists had previously thought."
"The radical decline in sea ice around the Arctic is at least 70% due to human-induced climate change, according to a new study, and may even be up to 95% down to humans – rather higher than scientists had previously thought."
Don't let evidence-based scientific theory get in the way of a good old bluster!
Doomed! Doomed I tells ya!
metalangel wrote:
The Last Salmon Man wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/26/arctic-climate-change?cat=world&type=article
"The radical decline in sea ice around the Arctic is at least 70% due to human-induced climate change, according to a new study, and may even be up to 95% down to humans – rather higher than scientists had previously thought."
"The radical decline in sea ice around the Arctic is at least 70% due to human-induced climate change, according to a new study, and may even be up to 95% down to humans – rather higher than scientists had previously thought."
Don't let evidence-based scientific theory get in the way of a good old bluster!
Doomed! Doomed I tells ya!
When sid Davpaz appear in the simpsons?
Sid DavPaz? I didn't realise he had a brother.
The Last Salmon Man wrote:
Sid DavPaz? I didn't realise he had a brother.
yeah,no autocorrection on this phone keyboard.the s is meant to be a d.
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature results prove that climate change exists and is completely man-made. Now we shall watch ring-wing lunatics argue that climate change is a good thing.
Those darn ring-wings.
*insert pic of Aaron Lennon*
As much as Climate Change has been triggered by thousands of small acts, action against Climate Change could be triggered by small acts from large entities that could afford it. Here are a few examples that could inspire others.
Supermarkets: How about you stop teasing and start charging for carrier bags already? An extra few quid on the bill every time you forget to bring your burlap sack is enough of a motivator to remind people, is it not? Sure, you might annoy some people for a while, but what are they going to do? Shop on the high street? I think not.
Coffee Chains: Charge extra for disposable cups. Sell resuable cups that people bring back every morning, swap for a fresh one and wash the returns in-house. Better and more energy efficient than recycling, surely?
Ban Toast: Eat Bread.
Watch TV in shop windows.
There you go, I've saved the world.
Supermarkets: How about you stop teasing and start charging for carrier bags already? An extra few quid on the bill every time you forget to bring your burlap sack is enough of a motivator to remind people, is it not? Sure, you might annoy some people for a while, but what are they going to do? Shop on the high street? I think not.
Coffee Chains: Charge extra for disposable cups. Sell resuable cups that people bring back every morning, swap for a fresh one and wash the returns in-house. Better and more energy efficient than recycling, surely?
Ban Toast: Eat Bread.
Watch TV in shop windows.
There you go, I've saved the world.
Save trees: Eat beaver.
DavPaz wrote:
Supermarkets: How about you stop teasing and start charging for carrier bags already? An extra few quid on the bill every time you forget to bring your burlap sack is enough of a motivator to remind people, is it not? Sure, you might annoy some people for a while, but what are they going to do? Shop on the high street? I think not.
Come to Wales, where that's been the law for nearly a year now and it's worked well. Ireland's been doing it even longer. If you shop at Sainsbury's, though, get your reusable bags from another supermarket: Sainsways ones are fucking crap.
Quote:
Coffee Chains: Charge extra for disposable cups. Sell resuable cups that people bring back every morning, swap for a fresh one and wash the returns in-house. Better and more energy efficient than recycling, surely?
Will Barfbucks pour your Fappucino Volante into one of those big truck driver thermos mugs if you ask them to? I ask as we have 'office mugs' at work for those who don't have their own. They have gotten increasingly grotty and unpleasant, even with regular washing.
DavPaz wrote:
Coffee Chains: Charge extra for disposable cups. Sell resuable cups that people bring back every morning, swap for a fresh one and wash the returns in-house. Better and more energy efficient than recycling, surely?
Hmmm... i'm not sure the environment cost of producing paper cups is much greater than the cost of producing and washing re-usable cups. It wouldn't surprise me if it was better for the environment to do the former, once you take whole lifecycle cost into it.
Dimrill wrote:
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature results prove that climate change exists and is completely man-made. Now we shall watch ring-wing lunatics argue that climate change is a good thing.
No, they'll continue to deny it exists. They have the same pro-ignorance mentality that young Earth Creationists and Holocaust deniers do. They'll fart on about "dubious science" whilst only having a secondary school level education.
Hero of Excellence wrote:
Dimrill wrote:
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature results prove that climate change exists and is completely man-made. Now we shall watch ring-wing lunatics argue that climate change is a good thing.
No, they'll continue to deny it exists. They have the same pro-ignorance mentality that young Earth Creationists and Holocaust deniers do. They'll fart on about "dubious science" whilst only having a secondary school level education.
... Ooof!
Ooh, put those claws away and have a saucer of milk. Assuming you were referring to people like me, then yes, I do indeed lack a university education (not from choice, I might add), but so what? I have the intelligence and discernment that I was born with at least, and have garnered knowledge via other means, principally via the 'real world' as it were. I could mention here that I seem to have done okay out of this approach; without wishing to be unduly immodest, the 'fruits of my mind' so to speak have benefited many and I am proud of my technical, as well as commercial achievements. I'd add of course that plenty of people I know don't know their arse from their elbow from having received the benefit of going to Uni, albeit that is not to say that I am anti-education, far from it. I've talked about little else these last 5 years. But on the other hand, why should I go on the defensive? I've nothing to prove, not here at least.
I scanned that article and suffice to say that that it "proves climate change exists and is completely man-made" is an exaggeration. Of course, for my part, I've never claimed that climate change itself does not exist; I merely question the assertion that it is man made, as opposed to via some other process such as the variability of the sun, which is understood to a rudimentary extent. I mean, the Romans grew vines and made wine in what is now the UK some 2,000 years ago; we've had Ice Ages of course and much more recent, but pre- Industrial Revolution climate change as well. No-one was trundling around in 4x4s back then; Perkies mentions and links other stuff in his post and there is yet further evidence of the historic variability of polar ice caps on Mars etc. etc.
Even if we accept accept the global warming hypothesis in its entirety and also that it is entirely man made, precisely what good would be achieved by the UK unilaterally shooting itself in the foot as a 'moral example' to the Chinese, Indians and Americans, let alone a whole bunch of developing nations who, quite understandably, would like to have their own share of refrigerators, power stations etc.? Does anyone who has the slightest understanding of fundamental human nature honestly believe that this will be effective? Even if you subtracted the entire CO2 output of the UK from the global total, then even according to current theory, this will still make bugger all difference. So yeah, I guess the recognition of these basic, pragmatic truths, as opposed to the milk-and-honey cloud cuckoo wishlist of some quarters, makes me 'right wing scum' or whatever.
I would continue but there's precisely no point. I really can't be arsed with the whole hysterical, pseudo-religious zealotry that comes with it.
So, we should definitely doom the planet so as not to let Johnny Foreigner get a potential advantage?
What's to say that investing in more renewables and a lower carbon economy won't be beneficial? It certainly will be in the long term, but, alas, the long term is rarely considered by politicians
What's to say that investing in more renewables and a lower carbon economy won't be beneficial? It certainly will be in the long term, but, alas, the long term is rarely considered by politicians
Curiosity wrote:
... the long term is rarely considered by politicians
It is in China. Who funnily enough are massively investing in renewable energy sources (they've calmed it a bit recently, but still). Curiosity wrote:
So, we should definitely doom the planet so as not to let Johnny Foreigner get a potential advantage?
That's a total caricature of what I'm saying, Curio. (I particularly dislike the implied xenophobia, which again, is an example of the emotive baggage that comes with any such attempted discussion, and is why I wish to avoid it).
It's clear enough what I am saying. If it truly is the case that global warming is largely or wholly man-made, why is it do you suppose that the Chinese, Indians, Americans and a whole bunch of other nations refuse to come on side? Are you suggesting that they're really that stupid? Clearly, if this was the case, they would be dooming the fate of their own peoples as well as everyone else.
Quote:
What's to say that investing in more renewables and a lower carbon economy won't be beneficial? It certainly will be in the long term,
It'll be beneficial if the man-made global warming hypothesis is correct, yes. (Albeit, if only the UK and a few others actually do it, the benefit will be so tiny as to be immeasurable, if I understand the basic premise correctly).
In terms of other "benefits", the low carbon economy has, in part, lead to a big increase in energy bills, including via taxation/tax-take. For those on marginal incomes who have to decide whether to eat or heat their homes, I'm guessing this IMO ephemeral, unproven benefit is greeted with a wry smile at best.
Quote:
but, alas, the long term is rarely considered by politicians
Agreed, ain't that the truth.
Wullie wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
... the long term is rarely considered by politicians
It is in China. Who funnily enough are massively investing in renewable energy sources (they've calmed it a bit recently, but still).Is that for their own use, or to sell to the like of us? I honestly don't know, but do recall that they were throwing up a coal fired power station per week 4 years ago or some similar stat.
I liked it when we did this last time and someone posted that 'what if this is just a hoax and we make this a better world for nothing?' cartoon.
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
Wullie wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
... the long term is rarely considered by politicians
It is in China. Who funnily enough are massively investing in renewable energy sources (they've calmed it a bit recently, but still).Though I'm sure they'll happily sell us a few as well when their own needs are met, so we have energy to continue using the stuff they make for us. Good business sense.
* Fuel (availability) cost, population cost, health cost, people-stop-doing-business-with-them cost. All the costs.
Oh but if we don't!!!!
What kind of bizzarro London is that? Global warming will significantly rearrange major landmarks so that you can see Tower Bridge from the bank opposite Westminster Palace?
Dimrill wrote:
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature results prove that climate change exists and is completely man-made. Now we shall watch ring-wing lunatics argue that climate change is a good thing.
Which journal was that published in? The register seems to suggest it wasn't peer reviewed.
Squirt wrote:
What kind of bizzarro London is that? Global warming will significantly rearrange major landmarks so that you can see Tower Bridge from the bank opposite Westminster Palace?
Yes, as part of the same cataclysm that'll make the Thames half the width it currently is! DOOOOOOMED!
MaliA wrote:
Dimrill wrote:
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature results prove that climate change exists and is completely man-made. Now we shall watch ring-wing lunatics argue that climate change is a good thing.
Which journal was that published in? The register seems to suggest it wasn't peer reviewed.
... LoL. Thanks Mali; very interesting reading for anyone who's actually bothered. Too many things to quote here - people can read it for themselves - but the closing paragraph of that piece is particularly amusing:
Quote:
All in all, it would seem that BEST's stated goal - to produce absolutely undisputable climate data and science, for all that this would mean a regrettable absence of simple, clear soundbites - has been abandoned.
Hey, I might be a stupid, uneducated, Flat-Earthing, evil 'right wing scum' and all of that, but 'dubious science' would seem to be positively charitable? And yet, stuff like this is routinely paraded as unequivocal 'proof' of global warming and its supposed wholly (or very largely) man-made origins?
Pfft. Pity there's no 'egg-on-face' dimlie. 
And on that bombshell etc.
Captain Caveman wrote:
In terms of other "benefits", the low carbon economy has, in part, lead to a big increase in energy bills, including via taxation/tax-take.
Another thing that's going to cause a big increase in energy bills: when we run out of fuel (natural gas, coal, oil) in the UK and are almost entirely reliant on imports. Or we could invest in wind, solar, tidal and nuclear now before it's too late, despite having to take a short-term hit on bills/taxes.
CraigGrannell wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
In terms of other "benefits", the low carbon economy has, in part, lead to a big increase in energy bills, including via taxation/tax-take.
Another thing that's going to cause a big increase in energy bills: when we run out of fuel (natural gas, coal, oil) in the UK and are almost entirely reliant on imports. Or we could invest in wind, solar, tidal and nuclear now before it's too late, despite having to take a short-term hit on bills/taxes.
But wouldn't we need shed-loads of those generators (nuclear aside) to actually get a usable amount of energy from them?
I'd love Cavey's posts in this thread to be put in a time capsule for his grandkids and their kids to read. Unless 95%+ of all climate scientists are utterly incompetent and/or lying for some reason that's never been clearly explained to me, then they'd made for comforting reading as they contemplate the fucked planet and wait to die in hurricanes, droughts, flash fires, and famines.
So Cavey's not doing anything about it because he doesn't think it'll help, I'm not doing anything because I'm lazy, and you're not doing anything about it for, I assume, other reasons. So, we're all as bad as each other then? Good.
In fact, considering I do think it's a man-made problem, I'm should probably get more blame.
In fact, considering I do think it's a man-made problem, I'm should probably get more blame.
We are really reliant on government to deal with this problem. Presumably cavey would oppose measures to tackle climate change and Gaywood would support them. There are other things which we can do as individuals but that's one of the main ones.
RTd this last night. Yies might find it interesting.
http://grist.org/article/why-climate-ch ... -it-could/
http://grist.org/article/why-climate-ch ... -it-could/
Grim... wrote:
and you're not doing anything about it for, I assume, other reasons.
I recycle. I drive a diesel car that gets 60 mpg, and when I change it I'm hoping to be able to afford a hybrid. I drive less than 6,000 miles a year. I would like to get solar panels on the house roof, but I'm moving in the next year or so, so I'm deferring that until the next house. The same argument has deterred me from wall or loft insulation, but again, I will look to resolve that in the next house. I pay attention to food miles where practical (less than I'd like, admittedly). My house has mostly energy saving lightbulbs (track lighting in the kitchen won't take them; I should replace the fitting but haven't). My house heating is set low, as is the hot water temperature. We very rarely run the dishwasher or washing machine anything other than full to the brim. I do tumble dry clothes, that's not ideal; I blame the Welsh changable weather. Both fridges, my freezer, washing machine, and dishwasher are all modern units that are A rated for efficiency (and yes, that was a factor in my decision to choose those models). Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
I'd love Cavey's posts in this thread to be put in a time capsule for his grandkids and their kids to read. Unless 95%+ of all climate scientists are utterly incompetent and/or lying for some reason that's never been clearly explained to me, then they'd made for comforting reading as they contemplate the fucked planet and wait to die in hurricanes, droughts, flash fires, and famines.
Again Doc, that's needlessly emotive. If I'd come on here and said, d'you know what, 'I don't give a rat's arse because I'll be dead before the nasty stuff really starts to kick in', that comment might be fair enough, but I absolutely haven't. The point is, I don't know, or claim to know, I am a self-confessed layperson. (Again, I haven't claimed any knowledge). Whenever this comes up, the heat has to be turned up to max (pardon the pun) and I just cannot be bothered with that anymore.
As far as this latest 'proof' is concerned, it doesn't look like it even remotely stacks up to me - even little old me, when issuing a most humble report, have to get it peer reviewed, including all data and calculations, before issue/sign off. I mean, given the potential gravity of these supposed findings and their implications, does this not raise an eyebrow or two at your end? Sanctity of data and all that; this looks to be no more than polemic, let alone 'science'. Global warming/climate change is, of course, an immensely politicized arena with all sorts of conflicts of interests, including from the scientific community itself IMO, as far as I can tell.
I'd seriously like someone to explain to me the basic mechanisms and causations of repeated pre-industrialisation climate change events within geologically speaking very recent timescales on Earth (and even elsewhere in the Solar System). I'd like someone to tell me how we can assert man-made causation with such absolute confidence when we demonstrably know so little about the sun and how it works, apart from the fact that we do know it is deeply cyclical in the short and medium term, and I'm not simply referring to sunspots. (Or the Earth's atmosphere, long terms effects of oceanic currents and all the rest - immeasurably complex, chaotic systems of course). The consequences of mistakenly not using readily available fuel sources for humanity as a whole, on the back of a false premise, would be almost as dire as the predicted outcomes of global warming. Plus, I don't know about anyone else, but the thought of en masse use of nuclear power, with *no* way of storing the intensely toxic fission byproducts and reactor components etc. for hundreds of thousands of years, and the clear and present danger to life, particularly in genetic terms, sends a shiver down my spine. These dangers are real and demonstrable, unlike those supposed by man-made global warming?
But anyway, there's no point to all this as it always ends up the same way and as I've said, I can't be arsed
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Grim... wrote:
and you're not doing anything about it for, I assume, other reasons.
I recycle. I drive a diesel car that gets 60 mpg, and when I change it I'm hoping to be able to afford a hybrid. I drive less than 6,000 miles a year. I would like to get solar panels on the house roof, but I'm moving in the next year or so, so I'm deferring that until the next house. The same argument has deterred me from wall or loft insulation, but again, I will look to resolve that in the next house. I pay attention to food miles where practical (less than I'd like, admittedly). My house has mostly energy saving lightbulbs (track lighting in the kitchen won't take them; I should replace the fitting but haven't). My house heating is set low, as is the hot water temperature. We very rarely run the dishwasher or washing machine anything other than full to the brim. I do tumble dry clothes, that's not ideal; I blame the Welsh changable weather. Both fridges, my freezer, washing machine, and dishwasher are all modern units that are A rated for efficiency (and yes, that was a factor in my decision to choose those models).I do this apart from the car thing. And recycling. I try to, but only glassware. I don't understand the council system. I put the insert in the bin and it disappears. I don't eat fish.
I think Doc's more concerned with your assertion that "no-one can prove to me, so I should carry on living as if it's definitely disproved" is irresponsible, that an attitude of "Hey, maybe not being so wasteful is a good idea anyway" is better.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Grim... wrote:
and you're not doing anything about it for, I assume, other reasons.
[some stuff]I though prevention wasn't going to be enough any more? Also:
Quote:
I pay attention to food miles where practical
I'm fairly sure you can ignore food miles, due to the fact that we use more carbon in some cases trying to get things to grow in the UK that it would take to ship them in from abroad.
BikNorton wrote:
I think Doc's more concerned with your assertion that "no-one can prove to me, so I should carry on living as if it's definitely disproved" is irresponsible, that an attitude of "Hey, maybe not being so wasteful is a good idea anyway" is better.
So where, pray tell, has Cavey even mentioned his living habits, or his plans for the future?
BikNorton wrote:
I think Doc's more concerned with your assertion that "no-one can prove to me, so I should carry on living as if it's definitely disproved" is irresponsible, that an attitude of "Hey, maybe not being so wasteful is a good idea anyway" is better.
At the very least, refusing to acknowledge even the possibility appears to me to be a terrible gamble. And when the lifestyles of your offspring hang in the balance, well, that just seems to make the consequences of losing the gamble far worse, to my mind. But perhaps I wouldn't understand. Captain Caveman wrote:
It's clear enough what I am saying. If it truly is the case that global warming is largely or wholly man-made, why is it do you suppose that the Chinese, Indians, Americans and a whole bunch of other nations refuse to come on side? Are you suggesting that they're really that stupid? Clearly, if this was the case, they would be dooming the fate of their own peoples as well as everyone else.
Well, not quite. There are three things at work here (probably more, bu, y'know, time).
1) You simply cannot underestimate the political swing that the energy lobbies hold, especially in the States. They will oppose anything that doesn't bring in the green.
2) The uncomfortable truth; nobody wants to change their comfortable way of life. It's much easier to hope for the best and not plan for the worst.
3) Too many people subscribe to your dogma of 'You first'. You've said pretty much that even if it's all true we shouldn't bother to change if we are to go it alone. If everyone thinks that, humanity loses, like some weird playing out of the prisoner's dilemma.
Ultimately, we will have to do this at some point. The earlier we start, the more people we might convince. If the US went first then maybe that would convince us to follow suit; so of we go first maybe Europe tags along, and bit by bit we build a better world.
Wildly optimistic? Yes, but the alternative is too horrible to really contemplate.
It wouldn't have happened had we kept the empire, you know.
Grim... wrote:
So where, pray tell, has Cavey even mentioned his living habits, or his plans for the future?
He said, repeatedly and vehemently, he would oppose government policy to cut carbon emissions on economic grounds. Supporting such a policy would be probably the single biggest change any of us could hope to make. BikNorton wrote:
I think Doc's more concerned with your assertion that "no-one can prove to me, so I should carry on living as if it's definitely disproved"
Nope, I never said that. (Besides, I've certainly never talked about me personally; I spend most of my time in a well serviced, new, 55mpg modern small hatchback with working particulate filter; we recycle as a matter of course, every appliance is A-rated, all bar very few lightbulbs are longlife energy-saving. We have masses of loft insulation too; cannot double glaze though as it is a Listed property that's 500 years old).
What I said was, why should the *UK* shoot itself in the foot, so as to set a 'moral example' to China et al which, I assert, would surely go unheeded anyway, and besides, the UK's CO2 reduction (despite the economic damage that would ensue), would be demonstrably insignificant anyway. I also question the supposed "proof" that global warming is man-made - see above for the latest example, which surely any reasonable person would agree.
I really am buggering off now, so I'll just call myself a cunt and save everyone time and effort. I already note it's getting yet more personal and as I've said, I cannot be arsed guys, honestly.
We should all move into blocks of flats. I didn't switch the heating on once in two years.
The UK should be in a prime position for this sort of thing now. Denmark is currently a leader in green power generation, and we most have more engineering resources than them. Regardless of environmental concerns, it totally makes sense to try to insulate ourselves from potential fossil fuel price variations, which are bound to get more common. What would we do if Saudi Arabia and Kuwait broke out into the same sort of fighting that is currently affecting Syria?
It's an inference I took from "Why should the UK give a fuck if no-one else does?" amongst other general tone and phrasing. If I done wrong, then sorry.
Grauniad
From the comments:
From the comments:
Quote:
What is not good for science is a researcher who submits his paper for peer review, has it rejected on grounds of 'serious shortcomings' in the methodology and who then trumpets his research to the media. This is what Muller has done and which is probably why one of his earlier co-authors has declined to put her name to this piece of research
Page 2 of 10 [ 474 posts ]