Global Warming... a hoax?

[doc80905]

Easy to label it as leftist yoghurt-knitting nonsense.

What would you propose to do about the global population?

Stop paying people in this country to have children. Stop dishing out IVF on the NHS. Stop propping up failed states in far flung shiteholes with hundreds of millions of aid. Those are things the UK could do (Cyclops is after all always going on about setting an example to the rest of the world regarding the environment).

Remember, you have a risible government who set out to massively increase UK numbers in order to change the make up of the country. Hardly a responsible policy, sustainability wise don't you think?

[shape.when.wet]

Won't make any difference what we do in the UK, although I'd agree that 50% of my taxes are pished up the wall by this Government.

China, India, the African continent, Asia and South America are responsible for the vast majority of population growth, and unfortunately by it's nature it is exponential.

[doc80905]

Won't make any difference what we do in the UK, although I'd agree that 50% of my taxes are pished up the wall by this Government.

China, India, the African continent, Asia and South America are responsible for the vast majority of population growth, and unfortunately by it's nature it is exponential.

So no matter what we do, we're all doomed then. In fact, making the planet a bit hotter might get numbers down.

[Schleswig-Holstein]

Lads

I have kept out of this debate, as it heads like all the ARRSE threads on climate change (we call it CC not global warming - as the subject was studied, it became rapidly aware that not all the changes will be to do with temperature). I work in the field, mostly trying to work out what the fark will happen to the fish/aquatic beasties as things change.

An excellent guide to what we can do in terms of energy policy can be found here: http://www.withouthotair.com/

The guy who wrote this isn't pro-military (he suggests that funding that goes to the military could be used in better ways, but that's his opinion), but he does a very good job of pointing out the issues facing us as a nation.

The website looks a bit odd, but spend some time reading it - it is well worth it.

From a very wet and horrible Belfast
S-H

[scoobish]

Yes, scoobpish and by those numbers only 152 out of 31468 are atmospheric scientists. That's less than 0.5% who would know even the very basics of the systems involved. Would you ask your dental hygienist for his medical opinion about your floppy cock?

My science quals? Over 10 years as an atmospheric physicist at both Oxford and Cambridge. If I sound like an arrse then that's because I know more about it than you do. You're entitled to your opinion, but if you're going to spout utter shite from the t'interweb you can stick it up your hoop.

Nice site though, frequently gets a giggle from my colleagues. :D

So you work for the "state" your research is funded by the "state".

http://www.cam.ac.uk/admissions/unde...e/support.html

Forgive me then, we know what the "state's" view is on science. I do, of course, refer to the case of the "state" v Professor Nutt on this one.

Political ambition supresses scientific evidence in order to achieve it's aims

[Schleswig-Holstein]

I still can't believe there isn't a decent tidal energy scheme in the Severn yet - only a government as unimaginative as ours could miss a source of clean free energy like that.

It's a case of Rio v Kyoto.
The government has signed up to conserve biodiversity (Rio) and by dropping a tidal barrage into the Severn (Kyoto) there will be major environmental impacts. e.g. on migratory fishes (eels/salmon/shad/trout) and birds.

Personally - I think nuclear is the right option.

[ashie]

Lads

I have kept out of this debate, as it heads like all the ARRSE threads on climate change (we call it CC not global warming - as the subject was studied, it became rapidly aware that not all the changes will be to do with temperature). I work in the field, mostly trying to work out what the fark will happen to the fish/aquatic beasties as things change.

An excellent guide to what we can do in terms of energy policy can be found here: http://www.withouthotair.com/

The guy who wrote this isn't pro-military (he suggests that funding that goes to the military could be used in better ways, but that's his opinion), but he does a very good job of pointing out the issues facing us as a nation.

The website looks a bit odd, but spend some time reading it - it is well worth it.

From a very wet and horrible Belfast
S-H

Interesting stuff. Another interesting article this morning in The Times by Richard Lambert, DG of the CBI about how British business is ready for a low-carbon future.

Business people are not scientists or politicians. But they are paid to evaluate risk and to recognise opportunity. That’s why business has a strong interest in a successful conclusion to next month’s climate change conference in Copenhagen.

Either the world moves together in an orderly fashion to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by way of the legally binding obligations of an international treaty, or it risks a disorderly transition, with countries moving at their own pace and making their own arrangements. At the extreme lies the risk of belated — and therefore very costly — reactions to sudden shifts in climate conditions around the world.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6922243.ece

Read it. There are even opposing comments. One at least might have been written by an ARRSEr.

[ashie]

Yes, scoobpish and by those numbers only 152 out of 31468 are atmospheric scientists. That's less than 0.5% who would know even the very basics of the systems involved. Would you ask your dental hygienist for his medical opinion about your floppy cock?

My science quals? Over 10 years as an atmospheric physicist at both Oxford and Cambridge. If I sound like an arrse then that's because I know more about it than you do. You're entitled to your opinion, but if you're going to spout utter shite from the t'interweb you can stick it up your hoop.

Nice site though, frequently gets a giggle from my colleagues. :D

So you work for the "state" your research is funded by the "state".

http://www.cam.ac.uk/admissions/unde...e/support.html

Forgive me then, we know what the "state's" view is on science. I do, of course, refer to the case of the "state" v Professor Nutt on this one.

Political ambition supresses scientific evidence in order to achieve it's aims

I see so we believe Prof Nutt because he is a scientist whose research disagrees with the government. But we don't believe other scientists whose research agrees with the government.

Good. I'm glad that's clear.

[vvaannmmaann]

I still can't believe there isn't a decent tidal energy scheme in the Severn yet - only a government as unimaginative as ours could miss a source of clean free energy like that.

It's a case of Rio v Kyoto.
The government has signed up to conserve biodiversity (Rio) and by dropping a tidal barrage into the Severn (Kyoto) there will be major environmental impacts. e.g. on migratory fishes (eels/salmon/shad/trout) and birds.

Personally - I think nuclear is the right option.

Not to mention the concrete for a barrage.
The production of that stuff is very polluting and wasteful.

[shape.when.wet]

So you work for the "state" your research is funded by the "state".

http://www.cam.ac.uk/admissions/unde...e/support.html

Forgive me then, we know what the "state's" view is on science. I do, of course, refer to the case of the "state" v Professor Nutt on this one.

Political ambition supresses scientific evidence in order to achieve it's aims

At the higher echelons some scientists do effectively become politicians.

I do however resent the implication that my research is led by Government aims. What you lazily imply is equal to civ pop suggesting all soldiers agree with going to war. We apply for funding from a pot depending on what we want to do, and our peers judge where the money is worthy of being spent. This goes across the board from biology to engineering. Lots of geeky little scientists happy in our own little world following where our work takes us and trying to explain what we see and how to see it better. It really is as benign as that. I'd like to say the same for those funded by the oil industry but that really isn't the case. Some will argue until blue in the face when presented with observations that don't match what they want you to hear, or rather what they're being paid to portray. I'm all for scepticism but a little oil in the water is enough to make nobody drink it, and that is what they count on.