China's property bubble has now burst and the economy is slowing down as global demand for its exports falls, particularly from Europe. But China is still growing at 8-10pc a year not 10-20pc a year. Not exactly a contraction. So China still needs more energy YoY and this will come from fossil fuels.
With stories like this The Register Australia is a branch of Greenpeace. Facts please Simon not eco-propaganda.
"China understands that capping energy use may cause its economy to slow, but is apparently willing to take that hit in order to preserve its own, and the world’s, environment.
And if you believe that, you believe anything.
Two new coal power stations are being built in China every week, and it isn't going to slow its economy for Simon, the Earth Goddess Gaia, or anyone else.
"... worst of all, the fuckers drive their tractors, at rush hour, down single lane roads, managing to bring massive detriment to the countries economoy by wasting countless man hours making people let and causing mass pollution by forcing people to chug along the roads for longer periods."
Pandas are crap at driving, but are too obstinate to take the lessons.
As a UK citizen and taxpayer, if the NPG fails to pursue this suit I will be raising it with National Audit Office for negligence.
The gallery has fulfilled its public duty by making the originals accessible for free and making the images available for the entire world to see. Anyone using a browser can already see them. Here is no "free the art" argument to be made here. It also appears to have successfully recouped much of the taxpayer's investment in digitization.
So there is no moral justification for Wikipedia or any other leeching organisation hosting these images without compensating the British taxpayer for loss of revenue.
As a good Ayn Rand disciple, Jimmy Wales and the Foundation should know all about the mediocre leeching off the wealth creators, and about the appropriation of property.
He appears too cowardly to put his beliefs into practice.
"The $elfish Gene (clever use of the $ there, echoing the pioneering 'Micro$oft' - what is your doctorate in, Linux fanboi-ism?) is about genes being selfish, not about humans being selfish."
Quite. See my earlier post for why this was an incredibly stupid title.
"Richard Dawkins / seems to be prone to have viewpoints projected onto him"
Funny, that.
So a man writes a book called The $elfish Gene, in which he describes humans as mere "lumbering robots for genes", and which is then used as proof that humans are inately selfish. Now whose fault is that?
Even Dawkins now says he should have called The $elfish Gene something else. But that wouldn't have sold many copies. Dawkins couldn't resist the $$$.
"I never realised the environment was so simple, can you let me know where you got your PhD ... You should probably also get in touch with the Stern review people and IPCC to let them know that they are mislead."
Stern is not a scientist, he's an economist.
As for the IPCC, the lead author William Schlesinger admitted that only "something on the order of 20 per cent have had some dealing with climate".
Your willingness to believe non-scientists is reflected in your careless use of English.
Your ability to evaluate evidence eludes you, as well as logic. Your citation illustrates one potential contributory factor that may affect the Atlantic Conveyor. That's all.
The only "evidence" of the Conveyor causing a change in European climate exists in ... computer models. I dealt with computer models earlier in this thread: search for "Garbage In, Garbage Out".
"The overflow of cold, dense water from the Nordic seas, across the Greenland–Scotland ridge1 and into the Atlantic Ocean is the main source for the deep water of the North Atlantic Ocean"
You didn't even read your own link. The Atlantic conveyer isn't in danger.
Nic has been caught out trying to scare people with a proposition that has no scientific basis in science.
@Nic: Hopefully you will learn from the experience and will think twice before peddling unsupported, non scientific assertions to a technical audience.
@Nic: "more long-term cooling for the UK is a distinct possibility in climate models where the North Atlantic circulation shuts down "
And crushed cars are a distinct possibility in a Godzilla or a King Kong movie. That's the point of a "model" - it can produce anything you want it to. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Since the goal of climate models is to scare people (as in a Hollywood CGI spectacular) into demanding policy changes, the models need to be really scary.
Meanwhile the North Atlantic conveyor moving or shutting down is not a "distinct possibility" back on Earth:
"The burden of proof is on the person advancing the hypothesis. In this case, you must prove that it does. Shouting insultings like "denialist" at all counter arguments does not cut it."
Now Mark writes:
"CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We produce a greenhouse gas when burning fossil fuels. That's the start. Proven. Now, you counter."
No, this does not help you. Mark you do not appear to realise that the hypothesis being advanced is not the greenhouse effect, but the unproven notion that human emissions add to the greenhouse effect to produce catastrophic climate change. Repeating a) dozens of times in a thread a day does not get you to b).
Perhaps you see this now.
You argue like a bad-mannered junior school pupil. Perhaps you have some adult learning problem? If it's the latter then I apologise, you do not have adequate supervision and that's not your fault.
If you really are employed at a climate institute this reflects very poorly on climate science and your employer.
By "we" do you include India and China? If so, do you mean right now this second?
If so, then we are asking them to accept a slower rate of economic development - which means more poverty and misery, and more lives lost through disease and avoidable infant mortality rates.
"Now, do you have any concrete evidence that says that the CO2 put up there doesn't cause warming - Mark
The burden of proof is on the person advancing the hypothesis. In this case, you must prove that it does. Shouting insultings like "denialist" at all counter arguments does not cut it.
I suggest you go back to nursery school and learn how science is done.
Yes it has got warmer in the UK over the past 40 years. Now is that because of the solar cycle, greenhouse gases, or giant invisible squid in the upper atmosphere holding hands?
There's a gap between your observation and what causes the phenomenon that you are unable to explain. All you seem to have is hunches and intuitions.
Maybe that's good enough and all the scientists in the world can retire - science is not necessary when we have Wonderkid's feelings!
So you completely missed this because - you weren't reading? You were reading mitigation-only propaganda? Or .... you heard the argument ...but stuck your fingers in your ears?
People who want to "change our behaviour" can cry all the way to the yurt.
I'm surprised there's any time left after teaching the core curriculum of "Climate Change" for anything else.
Commenters who (justifably) start venting about myths and pseudo-science being taught as "fact" in schools should check their own shoes are clean first.
Is this the same Mark who post on environmental threads, posts 10 times an hour and ends up calling everyone else a f**cking idiot or f*ckwit after about 3?
Anger-management issues and serious problems with deductive logic a speciality. Probably an eco-activist. I'm just guessing but it could be different Mark.
- tim: "I get strawberries and the farmer gets my money."
- mark: "No, he doesn't. He gets a miniscule fraction of your money.""No, He gets a miniscule fraction of your money you spent on strawberries."
Again you have agreed that the farmer gets Tim's money. Could you get a grown-up help you?
tim: "I get strawberries and the farmer gets my money."
mark: "No, he doesn't. He gets a miniscule fraction of your money."
So you've agreed, the gets your money. A transfer of wealth has taken place and value has been added. The qualification in your next sentence is just that - a qualification and not a contradiction.
You really aren't very good at this rational debate thing, are you?
Thanks for revealing your nasty little agenda for us, Dave:
"Let me get this straight? You are saying that the earth's resources are NOT limited? That this planet can continue to support more and more people infinitely?"
Resources are whatever we invent, that we need at any given time. We can feed the world already, and once energy is nailed with renewable and fusion/fission, we can save the recoverable oil for useful things like flying and plastics production.
As for population, the only worry is that it fails to reach fertility levels to keep the economy going.
So there's a good chap: put your chlorine pellets away, and shove off.
Google knows that these days pork barrels are painted a tasteful green. Since Google is the most tasteful company on the planet, the pork must go to Google.
Not that the US will have any spare money after bailing out the bankrupt bankers, so hurry boys, hurry!
First the Google fanboys say date search is "impossible" and/or requires Artificial Intelligence - quite hilarious. Then the fanboys admit that it's possible, but isn't very good, so why bother?
Maybe they will eventually get round to RTFA and asking why Google omits this useful service. But I'm not holding my breath.
@AC: "It is impossible to intuit this sort of information from what is essentially a free-format file."
It's quite evidently NOT impossible, because somehow AltaVista manages to do this for both general web pages and news stories. Google doesn't. Got it yet?
Even for pages with no date or time stamp, because search engines crawl the news sites so frequently, they have the time of publication to within a few hours (or however often the robots visit).
It's as well that you chose to remain anonymous, because I don't think anyone could recommend hiring you for any software development work if you find simple exercises so difficult. Or are you just trying to talk up your hourly rate?
"Ooh, dunno. I might need AI to work out where the date field is on this page! That's another £1000 a day, mate"
Good article, by the way - even if flies over the fanboys heads.
Kevin Whitehead - Do you really think "serious AI" is required to find a date in a text file in the format "dd Month yyyy" and for the searchbot to record the time of indexing? Really?
Can I interest you in some attractive Mortgage Backed Securities?
Most of this article seems to have gone right over your head - my guess is you were speed reading, not thinking, and got confused, but decided to comment anyway. Instead of trying to break the world speed record for typing, why not have a look?
"The Register seems to love posting Global Warming sceptic stories. I like the 'bad science' angle, which is valid, but I'm dubious about the motives."
You owe me a new keyboard.
Do you apply your political correctness test generally? For example, say a publication exposes fraudulent accounting / Windows security hole / virus / etc. Are you dubious about the publication's motives then, too?
@AC: "Would you rather that they only send you good papers to read?"
One would expect that Open University tutors can distinguish between a good paper and a bad paper. It is far from clear that whoever is responsible for M885 can, or even cares in the slightest.
This course should be suspended from the OU syllabus and the competence of the tutors independently investigated. Once they have been dragged from the golf course.
"Who are our members? A broad church of researchers
When BERA was first formed in 1974, psychologists predominated in education, then the sociologists surfaced, to be followed by the action researchers. Today BERA encompasses psychologists, sociologists, historians, and philosophers among the discipline-oriented members; a strong contingent of educationists with special interests in curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, or management; and those taking either a theoretical, or evaluative or action-research perspective on education.
It is widely agreed that the over-arching research concern of these educationists is the critically informing of educational judgements and of decisions aimed at improving educational action. This concern makes for a duality of policy/practice-focused research, with a concern to advance practical wisdom in educational matters, and of discipline-focused research, with a concern to advance theoretical knowledge in educational settings, in terms of psychological or sociological phenomena and/or philosophical, economic or historical issues.
The potential audiences for both aspects of research are practitioners, policy-makers and academics. Methodologically, many policy/practice-focused researchers are engaged in studies of singularities (ie studies enclosed in narrow boundaries of space and time), while many discipline-focused researchers are searching for general statements. BERA aims to embrace all of these researchers and audiences, and provides opportunities at its conferences and in its publications for all to contribute."
"I'm getting mine if the spitefulness against people wanting to achieve positive change doesn't let up in the comments."
Why is environmentalism "positive" change? Is it positive when the lights go out, because the Greens have stopped us building coal, gas or nuclear power stations?
Is it positive that we will have to sacrifice so much of our leisure time for pointless gestures if they get their way?
Is it positive that developing countries are denied economic development, to take their populations out of poverty (and charity), and the high infant mortality rates that go with poverty?
Funny definition of "positive" you have there.
Maybe the eco-critics are not being spiteful, but rational - and you've just backed a lousy cause? "Get Poorer For Gaia" is an idea that most people find revolting, and will never be accepted in a democracy.
In all, it just sounds like you want a free pass from criticism.
"How long do we expect to continue growth on a planet with finite resources?"
Easy. We invent some more.
You could have asked the same eco-alarmist question in 1500, when all the forests were being chopped down. Panic everyone! - what will we use for fuel? Fossil fuels done us nicely, we're at the stage when we can use nuclear and renewables, and we'll never have to worry about an energy crisis again. Similarly with food technology and agricultural production. They may not be evenly distributed, but no one needs to go hungry.
"Its about the fact that the planet is quickly becoming and may already be overpopulated."
That's not a fact, that's a prejudice. And this "optimum" population is defined by... er, you?
"Roger is a formidable force in science journalism. He has immense knowledge and wisdom and is brimming with new ideas," said Jeremy Webb, New Scientist's editor-in-chief. The magazine is right at the centre of all these efforts and we need a strong, creative editor to lead it."
http://www.journalism.co.uk/8/articles/531914.php
I think the chlorine article demonstrates what Webb means by "creative" - makestuffup.
My subscription lapsed a few years ago - I won't be renewing it.
....It sounds like his favourite hobby horse has been shot. Humour is usually wasted on the humourless, Cade.
While most of the media couldn't get far enough up Jimmy Wales back passage, The Register has done an outstanding job explaining the fatal flaws in the project. Cade Metz's description of "cult" is very appropriate indeed. Wikipedia is harmless if no one believes it - but then why bother?
Chris, it sounds like you're the one in Wonderland. Maybe you should start your own.
The point is that a hypothesis needs evidence if it is to be taken seriously as a basis for public policy. It must be demonstrably "better" than rival theories. The hypothesis is specifically that the human contribution to CO2 levels is causing dangerous warming. The policy implications are mitigation, adaptation, or a combination of the two.
My argument is that the hypothesis is "not proven" - and you have a variety of responses to that.
One is to appeal to a general theory, which is widely accepted.
"The physics is that CO2 absorbs IR re-radiated from the earth If you have any observations to disprove that, I'd be intrigued..."
Of course that doesn't advance your case. (Clue: human element missing).
Another is to say that "warming" doesn't imply "warming". An analog to the rebranding exercise of "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".
Then, perhaps realising you haven't found the smoking gun, you appeal to emotion:
"So, if I worry about AGW I have: Basic physics + predictive theory + measured data on imputs + observed (if noisy data) on outputs confirm causaility" => all of which confirm why I ought to be worried. I would describe that as 'a rational response to a quantifiable risk'"
And I would describe that as a laundry list of reasons to be worried, with the primary reason missing. No one ever calls themselves irrational, but some people are psychologically prone to worry. Some people stay at home on Friday 13th. Others run around unplugging the school WLAN. But there's no basis for policy making there, "eg close schools and workplaces on Friday 13th".
Ultimately you're arguing that it doesn't need proof at all. In which case why bother at all? Because worrying is theraputic?
"The level of blatant ignorance, people who can't / won't think for themselves, or even try to understand basic science."
I agree, Rupester. Before the enlightenment, social policy was set by authority from interpretations of the word of God. Then rationality and deduction came along, and we demanded that theories require evidence before use them as the justification for policy.
"Lets start with the simple facts: CO2 absorbs infra-red. More CO2 => more heat aborbed and the temperature goes up. CO2 levels have gone up 50% and are accelerating, so heat will go up more."
The facts pertain to a hypothesis, which is an interesting one. But there is no indication that that recent rapid rises in CO2 have *caused* the predicted effects: the CO2 and temperatures are out of phase. Your challenge is to demonstrate proof that human agency has significant effects on climate that cannot be explained by variance in natural phenomena. (The key here is significant). Correlation does not equal causation, however, and unless your hypothesis can find this evidence to support it, then it's as useful or worthless as any other hypothesis.
For example, I challenge you to disprove *my* hypothesis that the cosmos is turtles all the way down. Can you prove me wrong? But then it's incumbent on the person advancing the hypothesis to provide compelling evidence. Anecdotes ("I think I saw a turtle…" will not do. Nor will computer models that produce turtle shapes.
Without this evidence, you're navigating entirely using Belief.
"I do not have a scientific model to prove my house will burn down this year but I still pay buildings insurance"
Well, this shows you haven't been entirely convinced by anecdotal evidence or computer models - or perhaps you've taken a close look at the IPCC's summary of scientific understanding and discovered that scientific knowledge of natural forcing factors is officially classed as "LOW". In other words, much more research needs to be done.
But in saying "maybe, maybe not, don't matter" then trying to justify that position, you're getting confused. Taking out insurance is a rational response to a quantifiable risk.
The rational response here is a) find out whether there is a problem b) whether we need to do anything about it and c) dependant on a) and b, then weigh the costs and benefits of both mitigation and adaptation strategies.
Agreed? You've simply flown from a) to c) using Belief as your guide, to gloss over the missing logic. Presumably because you find the End-Times myth making compelling.
"... but the message they are telling you and the manufacturers is the current human activity is not sustainable."
Human activity is sustainable, provided we do what we have always done.
People like you were probably sitting around when man first invented fire, complaining that was "unsustainable" too, and could we all go back to the caves and freeze?
Some things don't change with greens: superstition, primeval
earth-worship, hatred of science, and hatred of people. Greenpeace just wear more clothes today. They're just as miserable as they always have been.
To Mr Vile, and whoever commissioned this poll at The Register:
Your defence of this statistical garbage is even more troubling than Tebbutt's original article. May I suggest you learn something about self-selection bias before wasting our time with further polls?
Surveys which fail to account for self-selection bias are meaningless. Would you publish a poll on attitudes to the Police, without first finding out how many respondents are in the Police force?
"How many brown people we are going to have to bomb/invade/kill/starve in each scenario to maintain our inefficiencies and profligate abuse of energy?"
Don't worry, Al Gore's probably working on it.
But remember - people have long memories and may one day remember your attempts to prevent them having decent living standards, health and education.
Register
96 posts • joined Wednesday 11th July 2007 11:05 GMT
Page:
Agreed
The BBC is the news source for superstitious numpties. It tells 'em exactly what they want to hear.
Re: The Tooth Fairy is real
China's property bubble has now burst and the economy is slowing down as global demand for its exports falls, particularly from Europe. But China is still growing at 8-10pc a year not 10-20pc a year. Not exactly a contraction. So China still needs more energy YoY and this will come from fossil fuels.
With stories like this The Register Australia is a branch of Greenpeace. Facts please Simon not eco-propaganda.
The Tooth Fairy is real
"China understands that capping energy use may cause its economy to slow, but is apparently willing to take that hit in order to preserve its own, and the world’s, environment.
And if you believe that, you believe anything.
Two new coal power stations are being built in China every week, and it isn't going to slow its economy for Simon, the Earth Goddess Gaia, or anyone else.
Re: Between 1 and 5 degrees
"Better go back and tweak the models until they sound compelling."
I think you mean "sound alarming".
Or alarming enough for Richard Chirgwin to write a story that tells us we're all doomed, unless we follow his political program.
Re: Oh, look
Garbage in, garbage out.
I'm surprised you haven't heard of it.
The same models that got the temperature trend wrong over 15 years do not inspire confidence over a 60 year period.
Re: Not mentioned in this article, but Dr Braganza also said...
Of course he would.
His job depends on it.
Oh, look
It's a computer model.
Submit your taxes to the The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and say three "Hail Gaias" as penance.
The panda menace
"... worst of all, the fuckers drive their tractors, at rush hour, down single lane roads, managing to bring massive detriment to the countries economoy by wasting countless man hours making people let and causing mass pollution by forcing people to chug along the roads for longer periods."
Pandas are crap at driving, but are too obstinate to take the lessons.
Citizens lawsuit
As a UK citizen and taxpayer, if the NPG fails to pursue this suit I will be raising it with National Audit Office for negligence.
The gallery has fulfilled its public duty by making the originals accessible for free and making the images available for the entire world to see. Anyone using a browser can already see them. Here is no "free the art" argument to be made here. It also appears to have successfully recouped much of the taxpayer's investment in digitization.
So there is no moral justification for Wikipedia or any other leeching organisation hosting these images without compensating the British taxpayer for loss of revenue.
As a good Ayn Rand disciple, Jimmy Wales and the Foundation should know all about the mediocre leeching off the wealth creators, and about the appropriation of property.
He appears too cowardly to put his beliefs into practice.
@ misc. Dawk fanboys
"The $elfish Gene (clever use of the $ there, echoing the pioneering 'Micro$oft' - what is your doctorate in, Linux fanboi-ism?) is about genes being selfish, not about humans being selfish."
Quite. See my earlier post for why this was an incredibly stupid title.
"your comprehension skills may be lacking"
Pot. Kettle. Etc.
@anonymous Dawkins fanboys
"Richard Dawkins / seems to be prone to have viewpoints projected onto him"
Funny, that.
So a man writes a book called The $elfish Gene, in which he describes humans as mere "lumbering robots for genes", and which is then used as proof that humans are inately selfish. Now whose fault is that?
Even Dawkins now says he should have called The $elfish Gene something else. But that wouldn't have sold many copies. Dawkins couldn't resist the $$$.
Maybe being a publicity whore is in his genes?
@Fraser
"I never realised the environment was so simple, can you let me know where you got your PhD ... You should probably also get in touch with the Stern review people and IPCC to let them know that they are mislead."
Stern is not a scientist, he's an economist.
As for the IPCC, the lead author William Schlesinger admitted that only "something on the order of 20 per cent have had some dealing with climate".
Your willingness to believe non-scientists is reflected in your careless use of English.
@Steen
Your ability to evaluate evidence eludes you, as well as logic. Your citation illustrates one potential contributory factor that may affect the Atlantic Conveyor. That's all.
The only "evidence" of the Conveyor causing a change in European climate exists in ... computer models. I dealt with computer models earlier in this thread: search for "Garbage In, Garbage Out".
Got that?
Brains of a rocking horse.
@Steen
>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6840/abs/411927a0.html
"The overflow of cold, dense water from the Nordic seas, across the Greenland–Scotland ridge1 and into the Atlantic Ocean is the main source for the deep water of the North Atlantic Ocean"
You didn't even read your own link. The Atlantic conveyer isn't in danger.
Is your programming as faulty?
Atlantic conveyer
Nic has been caught out trying to scare people with a proposition that has no scientific basis in science.
@Nic: Hopefully you will learn from the experience and will think twice before peddling unsupported, non scientific assertions to a technical audience.
You're out of your depth, basically.
@Nic Brough
@Nic: "more long-term cooling for the UK is a distinct possibility in climate models where the North Atlantic circulation shuts down "
And crushed cars are a distinct possibility in a Godzilla or a King Kong movie. That's the point of a "model" - it can produce anything you want it to. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Since the goal of climate models is to scare people (as in a Hollywood CGI spectacular) into demanding policy changes, the models need to be really scary.
Meanwhile the North Atlantic conveyor moving or shutting down is not a "distinct possibility" back on Earth:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/314/5802/1064a?ck=nck
So you fail on that specific point. To sum up the rest of your argument...
warming == global warming
cooling == global warming
wetter == global warming
dryer == global warming
"Heads I win, Tails you lose"
@Nic: "It's comments like that which show why people talk about "climate change".
It's arguments like yours which explain the public is ignoring people like you.
Absence of evidence
Answering a simple question with more questions is typical of your immaturity Mark.
Your hypothesis remains unproven.
Is this official climate science, then?
Earlier I wrote:
"The burden of proof is on the person advancing the hypothesis. In this case, you must prove that it does. Shouting insultings like "denialist" at all counter arguments does not cut it."
Now Mark writes:
"CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We produce a greenhouse gas when burning fossil fuels. That's the start. Proven. Now, you counter."
No, this does not help you. Mark you do not appear to realise that the hypothesis being advanced is not the greenhouse effect, but the unproven notion that human emissions add to the greenhouse effect to produce catastrophic climate change. Repeating a) dozens of times in a thread a day does not get you to b).
Perhaps you see this now.
You argue like a bad-mannered junior school pupil. Perhaps you have some adult learning problem? If it's the latter then I apologise, you do not have adequate supervision and that's not your fault.
If you really are employed at a climate institute this reflects very poorly on climate science and your employer.
Is this him?
Andrew - do you think is our man?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Ozgur-Yigit/712352209
He's "friends" with Henry Kissinger, so maybe not.
@ Colin
By "we" do you include India and China? If so, do you mean right now this second?
If so, then we are asking them to accept a slower rate of economic development - which means more poverty and misery, and more lives lost through disease and avoidable infant mortality rates.
Burden of proof
"Now, do you have any concrete evidence that says that the CO2 put up there doesn't cause warming - Mark
The burden of proof is on the person advancing the hypothesis. In this case, you must prove that it does. Shouting insultings like "denialist" at all counter arguments does not cut it.
I suggest you go back to nursery school and learn how science is done.
@Wonderkid
Yes it has got warmer in the UK over the past 40 years. Now is that because of the solar cycle, greenhouse gases, or giant invisible squid in the upper atmosphere holding hands?
There's a gap between your observation and what causes the phenomenon that you are unable to explain. All you seem to have is hunches and intuitions.
Maybe that's good enough and all the scientists in the world can retire - science is not necessary when we have Wonderkid's feelings!
Don't worry
By the time NASA's James Hansen has finished cooking the results, the Scientific Consensus (tm) will be that Things Are Really Scary (tm).
@ "Tom Paine"
The very fact you don't see adaptation as an option speaks volumes.
Even hardcore greens are now talking about what the best adaptation practices might be:
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12208005
So you completely missed this because - you weren't reading? You were reading mitigation-only propaganda? Or .... you heard the argument ...but stuck your fingers in your ears?
People who want to "change our behaviour" can cry all the way to the yurt.
They still teach science??
I'm surprised there's any time left after teaching the core curriculum of "Climate Change" for anything else.
Commenters who (justifably) start venting about myths and pseudo-science being taught as "fact" in schools should check their own shoes are clean first.
I'll go slowly for Mark's benefit
Is this the same Mark who post on environmental threads, posts 10 times an hour and ends up calling everyone else a f**cking idiot or f*ckwit after about 3?
Anger-management issues and serious problems with deductive logic a speciality. Probably an eco-activist. I'm just guessing but it could be different Mark.
- tim: "I get strawberries and the farmer gets my money."
- mark: "No, he doesn't. He gets a miniscule fraction of your money.""No, He gets a miniscule fraction of your money you spent on strawberries."
Again you have agreed that the farmer gets Tim's money. Could you get a grown-up help you?
Counselling probably won't help Mark
tim: "I get strawberries and the farmer gets my money."
mark: "No, he doesn't. He gets a miniscule fraction of your money."
So you've agreed, the gets your money. A transfer of wealth has taken place and value has been added. The qualification in your next sentence is just that - a qualification and not a contradiction.
You really aren't very good at this rational debate thing, are you?
@Eddie Edwards
"New Scientist accepts only empirical science as a valid way of describing the world."
I think you meant to write:
"New Scientist *should only* accept empirical science as a valid way of describing the world."
So you're ignoring the 20 pages of groundless, politically-motivated speculation that magazine has just published?
Nu Sci lost its credibility a long time ago. Long before the eco-nutters took over.
Malthusians are already out
Thanks for revealing your nasty little agenda for us, Dave:
"Let me get this straight? You are saying that the earth's resources are NOT limited? That this planet can continue to support more and more people infinitely?"
Resources are whatever we invent, that we need at any given time. We can feed the world already, and once energy is nailed with renewable and fusion/fission, we can save the recoverable oil for useful things like flying and plastics production.
As for population, the only worry is that it fails to reach fertility levels to keep the economy going.
So there's a good chap: put your chlorine pellets away, and shove off.
Never say sorry
Ms.Dillon seems as incompetent as the OU's Computer Science staff.
From this story, the main criteria for securing employment at the Open University appear to be:
a) Lie with a straight face
b) Never say sorry
Corporate welfare for the Big G.
The punchline:
"We must dramatically increase federal R&D"
Google knows that these days pork barrels are painted a tasteful green. Since Google is the most tasteful company on the planet, the pork must go to Google.
Not that the US will have any spare money after bailing out the bankrupt bankers, so hurry boys, hurry!
(Which explains the timing).
Some progress!
First the Google fanboys say date search is "impossible" and/or requires Artificial Intelligence - quite hilarious. Then the fanboys admit that it's possible, but isn't very good, so why bother?
Maybe they will eventually get round to RTFA and asking why Google omits this useful service. But I'm not holding my breath.
Fanboys apologise for Google
@AC: "It is impossible to intuit this sort of information from what is essentially a free-format file."
It's quite evidently NOT impossible, because somehow AltaVista manages to do this for both general web pages and news stories. Google doesn't. Got it yet?
Even for pages with no date or time stamp, because search engines crawl the news sites so frequently, they have the time of publication to within a few hours (or however often the robots visit).
It's as well that you chose to remain anonymous, because I don't think anyone could recommend hiring you for any software development work if you find simple exercises so difficult. Or are you just trying to talk up your hourly rate?
"Ooh, dunno. I might need AI to work out where the date field is on this page! That's another £1000 a day, mate"
Good article, by the way - even if flies over the fanboys heads.
RTFA
Kevin Whitehead - Do you really think "serious AI" is required to find a date in a text file in the format "dd Month yyyy" and for the searchbot to record the time of indexing? Really?
Can I interest you in some attractive Mortgage Backed Securities?
Most of this article seems to have gone right over your head - my guess is you were speed reading, not thinking, and got confused, but decided to comment anyway. Instead of trying to break the world speed record for typing, why not have a look?
http://www.altavista.com/web/adv
Everyone's fault except Google!
I see the Google fanboys have found this.
@Kevin - try RTFA.
If Altavista could offer search-by-date in its main search index 12 years ago, why can't Google offer search-by-date today?
They can, obviously - but they don't want to.
@ Julian's political correctness
"The Register seems to love posting Global Warming sceptic stories. I like the 'bad science' angle, which is valid, but I'm dubious about the motives."
You owe me a new keyboard.
Do you apply your political correctness test generally? For example, say a publication exposes fraudulent accounting / Windows security hole / virus / etc. Are you dubious about the publication's motives then, too?
Since when was debunking bad science conditional?
Garbage in, Garbage out
@AC: "Would you rather that they only send you good papers to read?"
One would expect that Open University tutors can distinguish between a good paper and a bad paper. It is far from clear that whoever is responsible for M885 can, or even cares in the slightest.
This course should be suspended from the OU syllabus and the competence of the tutors independently investigated. Once they have been dragged from the golf course.
NuLab quango
About BERA:
"Who are our members? A broad church of researchers
When BERA was first formed in 1974, psychologists predominated in education, then the sociologists surfaced, to be followed by the action researchers. Today BERA encompasses psychologists, sociologists, historians, and philosophers among the discipline-oriented members; a strong contingent of educationists with special interests in curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, or management; and those taking either a theoretical, or evaluative or action-research perspective on education.
It is widely agreed that the over-arching research concern of these educationists is the critically informing of educational judgements and of decisions aimed at improving educational action. This concern makes for a duality of policy/practice-focused research, with a concern to advance practical wisdom in educational matters, and of discipline-focused research, with a concern to advance theoretical knowledge in educational settings, in terms of psychological or sociological phenomena and/or philosophical, economic or historical issues.
The potential audiences for both aspects of research are practitioners, policy-makers and academics. Methodologically, many policy/practice-focused researchers are engaged in studies of singularities (ie studies enclosed in narrow boundaries of space and time), while many discipline-focused researchers are searching for general statements. BERA aims to embrace all of these researchers and audiences, and provides opportunities at its conferences and in its publications for all to contribute."
http://bera.caret.cam.ac.uk/blog/2008/09/mobile-phones-help-secondary-pupils-to-connect-with-their-lessons/
So no teachers, and nobody who has ever had a real job.
And what was that about singularities?
Back to the caves
The Greenies won't be satisfied until they've destroyed all industry, not just data storage.
Then we can sit around trying to fend off malaria with organic, homeopathic "medicine", while we contemplate the wickedness of our ways.
Praise be to Gaia!
@Jon: "Positive Change"
@Jon:
"I'm getting mine if the spitefulness against people wanting to achieve positive change doesn't let up in the comments."
Why is environmentalism "positive" change? Is it positive when the lights go out, because the Greens have stopped us building coal, gas or nuclear power stations?
Is it positive that we will have to sacrifice so much of our leisure time for pointless gestures if they get their way?
Is it positive that developing countries are denied economic development, to take their populations out of poverty (and charity), and the high infant mortality rates that go with poverty?
Funny definition of "positive" you have there.
Maybe the eco-critics are not being spiteful, but rational - and you've just backed a lousy cause? "Get Poorer For Gaia" is an idea that most people find revolting, and will never be accepted in a democracy.
In all, it just sounds like you want a free pass from criticism.
@bart
"How long do we expect to continue growth on a planet with finite resources?"
Easy. We invent some more.
You could have asked the same eco-alarmist question in 1500, when all the forests were being chopped down. Panic everyone! - what will we use for fuel? Fossil fuels done us nicely, we're at the stage when we can use nuclear and renewables, and we'll never have to worry about an energy crisis again. Similarly with food technology and agricultural production. They may not be evenly distributed, but no one needs to go hungry.
"Its about the fact that the planet is quickly becoming and may already be overpopulated."
That's not a fact, that's a prejudice. And this "optimum" population is defined by... er, you?
Malthus was wrong then, and he's wrong now.
Roger Highfield ...
... is the new editor of New Scientist.
"Roger is a formidable force in science journalism. He has immense knowledge and wisdom and is brimming with new ideas," said Jeremy Webb, New Scientist's editor-in-chief. The magazine is right at the centre of all these efforts and we need a strong, creative editor to lead it."
http://www.journalism.co.uk/8/articles/531914.php
I think the chlorine article demonstrates what Webb means by "creative" - makestuffup.
My subscription lapsed a few years ago - I won't be renewing it.
Poor Chris Bidmead
....It sounds like his favourite hobby horse has been shot. Humour is usually wasted on the humourless, Cade.
While most of the media couldn't get far enough up Jimmy Wales back passage, The Register has done an outstanding job explaining the fatal flaws in the project. Cade Metz's description of "cult" is very appropriate indeed. Wikipedia is harmless if no one believes it - but then why bother?
Chris, it sounds like you're the one in Wonderland. Maybe you should start your own.
@Rupester
The point is that a hypothesis needs evidence if it is to be taken seriously as a basis for public policy. It must be demonstrably "better" than rival theories. The hypothesis is specifically that the human contribution to CO2 levels is causing dangerous warming. The policy implications are mitigation, adaptation, or a combination of the two.
My argument is that the hypothesis is "not proven" - and you have a variety of responses to that.
One is to appeal to a general theory, which is widely accepted.
"The physics is that CO2 absorbs IR re-radiated from the earth If you have any observations to disprove that, I'd be intrigued..."
Of course that doesn't advance your case. (Clue: human element missing).
Another is to say that "warming" doesn't imply "warming". An analog to the rebranding exercise of "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".
Then, perhaps realising you haven't found the smoking gun, you appeal to emotion:
"So, if I worry about AGW I have: Basic physics + predictive theory + measured data on imputs + observed (if noisy data) on outputs confirm causaility" => all of which confirm why I ought to be worried. I would describe that as 'a rational response to a quantifiable risk'"
And I would describe that as a laundry list of reasons to be worried, with the primary reason missing. No one ever calls themselves irrational, but some people are psychologically prone to worry. Some people stay at home on Friday 13th. Others run around unplugging the school WLAN. But there's no basis for policy making there, "eg close schools and workplaces on Friday 13th".
Ultimately you're arguing that it doesn't need proof at all. In which case why bother at all? Because worrying is theraputic?
@Rupester
"The level of blatant ignorance, people who can't / won't think for themselves, or even try to understand basic science."
I agree, Rupester. Before the enlightenment, social policy was set by authority from interpretations of the word of God. Then rationality and deduction came along, and we demanded that theories require evidence before use them as the justification for policy.
"Lets start with the simple facts: CO2 absorbs infra-red. More CO2 => more heat aborbed and the temperature goes up. CO2 levels have gone up 50% and are accelerating, so heat will go up more."
The facts pertain to a hypothesis, which is an interesting one. But there is no indication that that recent rapid rises in CO2 have *caused* the predicted effects: the CO2 and temperatures are out of phase. Your challenge is to demonstrate proof that human agency has significant effects on climate that cannot be explained by variance in natural phenomena. (The key here is significant). Correlation does not equal causation, however, and unless your hypothesis can find this evidence to support it, then it's as useful or worthless as any other hypothesis.
For example, I challenge you to disprove *my* hypothesis that the cosmos is turtles all the way down. Can you prove me wrong? But then it's incumbent on the person advancing the hypothesis to provide compelling evidence. Anecdotes ("I think I saw a turtle…" will not do. Nor will computer models that produce turtle shapes.
Without this evidence, you're navigating entirely using Belief.
"I do not have a scientific model to prove my house will burn down this year but I still pay buildings insurance"
Well, this shows you haven't been entirely convinced by anecdotal evidence or computer models - or perhaps you've taken a close look at the IPCC's summary of scientific understanding and discovered that scientific knowledge of natural forcing factors is officially classed as "LOW". In other words, much more research needs to be done.
But in saying "maybe, maybe not, don't matter" then trying to justify that position, you're getting confused. Taking out insurance is a rational response to a quantifiable risk.
The rational response here is a) find out whether there is a problem b) whether we need to do anything about it and c) dependant on a) and b, then weigh the costs and benefits of both mitigation and adaptation strategies.
Agreed? You've simply flown from a) to c) using Belief as your guide, to gloss over the missing logic. Presumably because you find the End-Times myth making compelling.
@ Jeremy: sustainability
"... but the message they are telling you and the manufacturers is the current human activity is not sustainable."
Human activity is sustainable, provided we do what we have always done.
People like you were probably sitting around when man first invented fire, complaining that was "unsustainable" too, and could we all go back to the caves and freeze?
Some things don't change with greens: superstition, primeval
earth-worship, hatred of science, and hatred of people. Greenpeace just wear more clothes today. They're just as miserable as they always have been.
Self-selection bias
To Mr Vile, and whoever commissioned this poll at The Register:
Your defence of this statistical garbage is even more troubling than Tebbutt's original article. May I suggest you learn something about self-selection bias before wasting our time with further polls?
Surveys which fail to account for self-selection bias are meaningless. Would you publish a poll on attitudes to the Police, without first finding out how many respondents are in the Police force?
Bombing brown people
@Steen:
"How many brown people we are going to have to bomb/invade/kill/starve in each scenario to maintain our inefficiencies and profligate abuse of energy?"
Don't worry, Al Gore's probably working on it.
But remember - people have long memories and may one day remember your attempts to prevent them having decent living standards, health and education.
It's those evil corporations again!
@Jamie - "It has also been suggested that ExxonMobil's seismic surveys caused whales to beach off Madagascar."
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/06/huffing-and-puffin-on-isle-of-maybe.html
If the Greenies can't find something to bash their favourite targets, they'll just make it up.
Excellent article - just one question
Why do Americans pay NASA to lie to them?
Page: