Global Warming... a hoax?

[amazing__lobster]

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.

I've never heard anything more ludicrous, that we are effectively producing state propaganda because our research is often funded by the government

shape.when.wet - you've pretty much summed it up - research is essentially made up of lots of geeks who are content with receiving a salary in exchange for practicing their hobby all day long.

Nobody cares where the money comes from, and the source of that money certainly doesn't influence our results.

edit to say: I'm not a climatologist btw (I'm a neuroscientist), but some funding is still provided by the government.

[Banker]

Edited to save half a page

Not since the industrial revolution, there's been yo........but no yoyo (a unidirectional trend).......atmospheric concentrations have only been increasing. The phonomena we are observing are deeply outlying events in the geological time frames you refer to.

I am aware of that Banker, I did also emphasise that these changes aren't rapid.
All the data shows at the moment is that we have been on an upward trend since the industrial revolution. An upward trend of a couple of centuries is not a conclusive pattern as to how our atmosphere has worked over thousands of years, never mind since the planet was created.

You have to be joking. It's not just an upward trend. You pootle along for centuries until you hit the industrial revolution, but from then on it's very nearly perpendicular.

[doc80905]

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.

Very ironic Ashie, considering you believe the complete opposite i.e. scientist disagrees with govt = bad, scientist agrees with govt = good.

If new labour issued a diktat tomorrow telling us that emitting loads of CO2 is a good thing and we should all burn as much fossil fuel as possible I'm sure you'd agree 100% with it.

By the way I was just out for a run there and there is definately no fucking global warming in West Lothian today.

[scoobish]

Other predictions for the year 2000 by doom and gloomers over the previous 30 or so years…

Actually Oil may be onto something here

Other things we were promised

Jet Packs and rocket boots for everyone

Robots doing ALL the housework

World Peace

Food capsules the size of a pill that filled you for a full day

DAMN YOU TOMORROWS WORLD _ DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!!

TW also predicted that the biggest problem facing the population of Britain in 2000 would be what to do with all their leisure time when the working week had shrunk to 16 hours.

and jaunt belts, I REALY wanted one of those!!!!

[ashie]

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.

Very ironic Ashie, considering you believe the complete opposite i.e. scientist disagrees with govt = bad, scientist agrees with govt = good.

If new labour issued a diktat tomorrow telling us that emitting loads of CO2 is a good thing and we should all burn as much fossil fuel as possible I'm sure you'd agree 100% with it.

By the way I was just out for a run there and there is definately no fucking global warming in West Lothian today.

Bull. In the case of Prof Nutt, you will find nowhere that I say anything approaching that which you allege. Yet another fact-free post.

[doc80905]

Yet another fact-free post.

Well that's me well and truly slapped down

[Chef]

The arguments puzzle me a little, we have spent the last umpty years improving our lot, and in this country even the poorest family lives in a style which would astound a Victorian poor family.
Yet the last mayor of London was quoted as saying 'If it's yellow let it mellow, if it's brown flush it down'
There is an advert to cut down driving by five miles a week to save a Polar bear.
The appalling credit card advert with the kid 'saving' the planet ,priceless

We have 50 days to save the world says Mr Brown, but he and the others are FLYING to Copenhagen, rather like the daft bint Sienna Miller, none of them heard of video confrences?

I feel that this is another case of do as I say not as I do

As far as the El Nino La Nina why can't the science bods predict how powerful the next one will be? Or is it like our chief medical officer make up a figure for the publicity?

In 2050 the winner of the Derby will be Yorkshire Lad anyone off to Ladbrookes?

[Schleswig-Holstein]

As far as the El Nino La Nina why can't the science bods predict how powerful the next one will be? Or is it like our chief medical officer make up a figure for the publicity?

that is a huge ask Chef - are you aware of the size of the Pacific ocean/atmospheric cells?

Trying to link together the different processes that drive the ENSO is mind-numbing, but they do try: http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/ana...y/ensodisc.pdf

[doc80905]

The arguments puzzle me a little, we have spent the last umpty years improving our lot, and in this country even the poorest family lives in a style which would astound a Victorian poor family.
Yet the last mayor of London was quoted as saying 'If it's yellow let it mellow, if it's brown flush it down'
There is an advert to cut down driving by five miles a week to save a Polar bear.
The appalling credit card advert with the kid 'saving' the planet ,priceless

A while ago I'd just came off the motorway and was heading towards work when I got stopped in what I thought was a Police spot check. But no it wasn't at all, because out jumped an apparatchik to quiz me on my journey, could I not travel 'smarter' he asked. Now I live 30 miles from work, stay in the middle of nowhere and work shifts and weekends - surely driving is the smart way to travel. So I pointed out there is no public transport at the times I need it. "Can you not walk, or cycle?...eh no you fcuking idiot, it's a 60 mile round trip, and there's work to do in between". And there in lies the problem with the tree huggers, don't do x/y/z because it melts the Polar bears....but they don't tell you what to do to get about your day to day life because most of them live in some fcuking detatched from reality dream world.

[Banker]

As far as the El Nino La Nina why can't the science bods predict how powerful the next one will be? Or is it like our chief medical officer make up a figure for the publicity?

that is a huge ask Chef - are you aware of the size of the Pacific ocean/atmospheric cells?

Trying to link together the different processes that drive the ENSO is mind-numbing, but they do try: http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/ana...y/ensodisc.pdf

What he said.........plus..........you can take a fair stab by plotting the impact by correlating rainfall (eg. in Australia) with ENSO (particularly NINO4). After all, it's the impact you want to predict, not the ENSO index itself.

The results would surprise you in the clarity of their direction and increase in severity. Suffice to say you don't want to be growing wheat on the S.E. coastal zone of Australia.