Post by marchesarosa on Dec 5, 2009 22:18:25 GMT
Gordon stands by the "science" and calls dissenters "Flat Earthers". He also says we're anti-change, anti-reform and anti-science. All the climate boards I frequent are peopled mainly by scientists and engineers or people like me who are VERY fascinated by the science and/or the statistical techniques.
Hmm.
There are a lot of us. Gordon should be careful who he alienates. But perhaps he believes (wrongly, like Aubrey) that we are all on the "other side" and he can afford to be tough-minded.
If the nation weren't so scientifically illiterate the public would not be so easily led by the nose. CO2 trading is not going to do ANYTHING at all to the climate. It's just pie in the sky, just a money-spinner, most of which will end up in the usual pockets. It is effectively a tax on the air we breath - the subject in times past of endless jokes by the little man about the rapacity of government.*** We are naive to think otherwise.
Let's hope the litigious Yanks do their bit on the other side of the pond. The IPCC/CRU clique are very well embedded in the political elite here in the UK - in the government, the BBC, the Research Councils, the Royal Society AND in the Energy and oil companies and emissions traders.
The radio4 News tells me that tens of thousands of demonstrators were on the march today with "demands to curb global warming" and demands for "action". I wonder how they think that will be achieved? Or don't they ask themselves? Maybe the feel-good effect of mass participation is a sufficient end in itself?
Still, it's early days yet. Only two weeks since the Climategate leak. It took two years before Watergate toppled the President. Maybe some scientifically literate campaigning journalist will get to grips with the leaked files and realise what has actually been done. Sadly I think most journalists are just too lazy to dig deep but there's certainly a lot of info out there if you're willing to put yourself out to absorb it.
I couldn't see the wood for the trees myself for at least eighteen months after I started seriously reading on the subject of AGW. But I just blundered about without guidance until stuff started to make sense.
It's only fairly recently that it has dawned on me that the treemometers and other proxies are rubbish for accurate temperature measurement, that the surface station data are mostly flawed because of UHI effect, that the temperatures are no higher than historically, and that ascertaining whether or how much the world is actually warming (either naturally or anthropogenically) is just a matter of checking the raw historical thermometer data in rural areas. Not rocket science at all. Most records show a trivial amount of warming over the last century.
But all this stuff about Polar bears! It just confuses the tender hearted!
***Lord Stern, the British government's leading adviser, has warned that 10 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions must be taken out of the atmosphere by 2020.
That's one helluva lot of breaths.
Hmm.
There are a lot of us. Gordon should be careful who he alienates. But perhaps he believes (wrongly, like Aubrey) that we are all on the "other side" and he can afford to be tough-minded.
If the nation weren't so scientifically illiterate the public would not be so easily led by the nose. CO2 trading is not going to do ANYTHING at all to the climate. It's just pie in the sky, just a money-spinner, most of which will end up in the usual pockets. It is effectively a tax on the air we breath - the subject in times past of endless jokes by the little man about the rapacity of government.*** We are naive to think otherwise.
Let's hope the litigious Yanks do their bit on the other side of the pond. The IPCC/CRU clique are very well embedded in the political elite here in the UK - in the government, the BBC, the Research Councils, the Royal Society AND in the Energy and oil companies and emissions traders.
The radio4 News tells me that tens of thousands of demonstrators were on the march today with "demands to curb global warming" and demands for "action". I wonder how they think that will be achieved? Or don't they ask themselves? Maybe the feel-good effect of mass participation is a sufficient end in itself?
Still, it's early days yet. Only two weeks since the Climategate leak. It took two years before Watergate toppled the President. Maybe some scientifically literate campaigning journalist will get to grips with the leaked files and realise what has actually been done. Sadly I think most journalists are just too lazy to dig deep but there's certainly a lot of info out there if you're willing to put yourself out to absorb it.
I couldn't see the wood for the trees myself for at least eighteen months after I started seriously reading on the subject of AGW. But I just blundered about without guidance until stuff started to make sense.
It's only fairly recently that it has dawned on me that the treemometers and other proxies are rubbish for accurate temperature measurement, that the surface station data are mostly flawed because of UHI effect, that the temperatures are no higher than historically, and that ascertaining whether or how much the world is actually warming (either naturally or anthropogenically) is just a matter of checking the raw historical thermometer data in rural areas. Not rocket science at all. Most records show a trivial amount of warming over the last century.
But all this stuff about Polar bears! It just confuses the tender hearted!
***Lord Stern, the British government's leading adviser, has warned that 10 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions must be taken out of the atmosphere by 2020.
That's one helluva lot of breaths.