Hari Seldon is a great character.... If this guy is truly achieving his goals, we wouldn't know it. That's part of psychohistory.
An academic who promised several years ago to use a new form of mass hypnosis to get the public motivated to fight climate change claims that he's done it. In fact the claim is bogus: it is itself part of his attempt to carry out his plan of manipulating public opinion. The academicis, as regular readers of these pages will …
"psychohistory", a set of methods which could be used to manipulate the behaviour of large populations without their knowledge
LOLNO!! "psychohistory" was not about "manipulating populations" at all. It was about predicting what history has in store given the present political "state of things".
This is of course fanciful to the utmost as one cannot even predict the weather pattern one week out, and, as anyone how has glanced at von Mises realizes, history or economics are not physical system allowing scientific predictions, let alone tests. So stuff that. But this is Sci-Fi, so why not.
Now, if your psychohistory was working, you could position yourself NOW so that natural development of events lead to a preferred outcome in THE FUTURE. Thus, setting up a gaggle of archivists at the edge of the Galaxy would lead to new Galactic Empire in a few thousand years with high probability.
This probability being not 100%, it turns out that one has to finagle things behind the scenes using the "Second Foundation". In modern parlance, hack. Sadly, this is underwhelmingly done using another magic device, telepathy.
If suspension of disbelief is used, one could consider that psychistory sees history as a cellular automaton. One can then do a few billion runs of "history in the box" and select an outcome advantageous to oneself, then change a couple of cells at the NOW...
IIRC Sheldon could do the predictions using a slide ruler. Talk about "underspecified boundary conditions" doesn't even being to describe this kind of Mathematical Magic.
Actually it was. Yes, the first part was predicting what would happen. But the second part was about resetting the foundations of society by manipulating it. As eventually revealed, the First Foundation is about the hard sciences while the Second Foundation is about the soft sciences, that is, exactly the sort of thing Professor Fruitcake is involved in.
Yes it was all very fanciful in Asimov's writings. But you should still get it correct.
He's not a scientist, he's not a boffin and he's not a psychohistorian as much as he may want to be one or all of them.
Generally I disagree when I read statements and comments about 'scientists' at the government trough but this one is definitely trying to get his undeserved snout in the trough.
The prof's bullshit might be a factor in producing greenhouse gasses though.
Asking the public their views on climate change is fairly pointless. A better way to gauge the importance of an issue would be to ask actually scientists (you know, the people who have an in depth knowledge on these matters) who are screaming from the rooftops.
Unfortunately (and ironically), their voices are being deliberately ignored, thanks in part to the efforts of the fossil fuel and associated industries, who really do use underhand tactics in order to influence policymakers and the media, who are far more important than the public.
> Asking the public their views on climate change is fairly pointless.
Actually, this is one of the most important aspects of the whole debate.
The climate debate, whether or not you think climate change is preponderantly man-made, should be focussed on what we the public want to do about. The current political opinion on this issue is clouded by partisanship and political oneupmanship.
It's about time the populous was asked what they are willing to do if the climate changes.
Mostly it seems rather one-sided in terms of cutting emissions, raising taxes and other pointless agendas.
Has anyone considered that we might be happy to just move our houses from the coast?
The possibilities are not nearly as narrow as the politicians and climatologists like to paint it.
>> Asking the public their views on climate change is fairly pointless.
> Actually, this is one of the most important aspects of the whole debate.
No, because it's like asking people what to do about benefit fraud when they've been been repeatedly primed with the "scrounger narrative" by millionaire politicians who want to divert attention away from the *billions* of pounds of lost tax revenue that their rich mates have dodged.
Your average Joe and Josephine Public have little idea about the arguments, potential causes and suggested solutions, so asking them is pointless and counter-productive.
> Your average Joe and Josephine Public have little idea about the arguments, potential causes and suggested solutions, so asking them is pointless and counter-productive.
I would agree that the staggering lack of information or public discourse is a big problem.
That people remain ignorant and disconnected from public discourse is the main reason that our political masters manage to get away with so much of their bullshit.
That so many people are so ignorant is the real problem and there is little incentive to change this.
climate change is a vague concept for the public as a whole that don't realise that the science has being going on since the 70's - good, bad or badly done, its there. Most people won't believe it until it directly affects them: modern distractions aside, our little mammalian brains need a jolt to engage thinking beyond the meat puppet level.
You have to remember that people form their opinions on the basis of information received, and that usually means from the mainstream media.
The dolts in the mainstream media have swallowed the baseless claims from the IPCC and UNFCC hook, line and sinker, and now they think they'd lose face if they changed their minds. The trick is to go quiet on the subject for a few months and then start to have their journalists question everything said by both the warmists and the sceptics. Over time it will be seen that sceptics have far more data on their side than the alarmists.
So you are saying that Democracy "is pointless and counter-productive" because the average Joe isn't as bright as you think you are? Maybe, but it is the best substitute for a Dictatorship we've developed so far. When you have something better, let me know.
As for benefit fraud, I know people owning millions of dollars worth of rental property, living in a mansion, who through the magic of negative gearing qualify for every welfare payout in the book. Rich people don't pay income taxes, so we should reduce income tax rates on the rest of us and increase GST/VAT: it is the only tax rich people cannot avoid.
In the meantime, if 70% of the voters think Global Warming isn't happening, or isn't important if it is, then they have more intelligence than you give them credit for.
Oh dear, here we go back around the Mulberry Bush with the same old same old...
However I prefer to avoid the whole silly, childish, sneering arguments entirely, so please let me explain my position, which I've stated in these Forums before:
I don't know whether we're causing Global Warming or not. What I *DO* know is that we are, as a planetary civilisation, using more and more energy and expanding that usage at a rate which will become unsustainable at some point in the future.
So what we *need* to do is to find better ways of using that energy which, to save the expected straw-man responses, doesn't have to involve everyone wearing thicker sweaters or living in yurts or being forced to walk or cycle everywhere etc etc, but can be done by building more efficient vehicles, putting more insulation into buildings and finding better ways to manufacture goods etc to mention just a few examples.
Once we start doing that, we will, also, incredibly, be producing fewer greenhouse gasses and so on, which means that we win either way.
Now, do you want to keep on with the "Tis!" "Tisn't!" "Tis so!" arguments, or actually do something about the problem?
"So what we *need* to do is to "
No, it isn't. Reducing our consumption will only work so far, and at enourmous cost to our poor. Every year you read about how poor citizens in the UK and Europe are freezing to death in their homes because they can't afford to heat them.
A much better approach would be to extend our use of nuclear fission and develop new sources, such as fusion and satelite-solar that will increase our energy supply at an affordable rate.
"or actually do something about the problem?"
This is a big one. What, exactly, is the problem? Is it global warming, because I can show you graphs that show the planet hasn't warmed in 18 years. From real data, not that "homogenised" fudge they spout constantly in the media. Global warming hasn't been a problem for so long that the term had to be replaced with "climate change" - a good one, that because that's exactly what climates do - change.
Or is the problem more closely related to a political/religious argument to force us down a particularly hard green path that would see tens of millions die from cold because they couldn't heat their homes?
Brilliant! You've gone straight from "we should use energy more efficiently" to "you're going to make the poor freeze to death" what a fantastic Straw Man!!
How about, instead, we ensure that all houses are properly insulated, so the heat that the poor (and everyone else) uses is kept *in* the house instead of leaking out through the walls, roofs etc? There are already schemes which will give discounted cavity wall and loft insulation, but they should be free for the least well off. That would let them both stay warm and save money *and* use less energy!
And whilst I'm sympathetic to a lot of the politicies of the Greens, I don't agree with their idea of getting rid of nuclear fission plants, however I *do* think we need to put a lot more money and effort into renewables etc until we achieve the long-term aim of getting fusion to work, but that is still a long way down the line.
> This is a big one. What, exactly, is the problem? Is it global warming?
No, it is, as I said at the start of my post, that we are using more and more energy and that rate of increase cannot keep on going because we will hit a limit at some point which is not sustainable.
So we need to find ways of reducing our consumption which do *NOT* result in people freezing to death, but which will, co-incidentally, result in reduced emissions, ie a win-win situation whatever the case.
Rather amusingly, the one set of taxes that are pretty much designed for the rich to avoid are the cuddly climate ones. It's the rich who can afford that new hybrid or electric vehicle (or both for that matter), it's the rich who can afford to cover their mansions with solar panels to the extent that the rest of us pay for their power use, etc ad nauseum.
You have to suspect that it's the usual suspects behind all this crap and it's the eco-Nazis dancing to their tune rather than the sceptics.
" if climate change is preponderantly man-made"
Anyone who evens asks this question should be mocked and ridiculed.
Take a look from space, and image man having a "predominant" affect on the climate
via trace CO2 gases. While your out there, look out behind you for that enormous ball of burning gases.
Such gullibility, it's almost as if you are hypnotized.
At some point it will actually get a LOT hotter. Fortunately for us, we believe that is several million years in the future. In the meantime, sometimes it does, sometimes it cools. Oddly enough, these changes are on the same order of magnitude as the temperature changes on Earth although I haven't checked for correlation.
We will not need to move from the coast. Yes, ocean levels are rising -- as they have for hundreds of years. But tide gauges reveal little concern; the rate of increase is manageable. A more pressing problem is land subsidence in some areas -- often caused by human activity. We would be much better served to put our resources on the issue of land subsidence rather than "global warming."
climate sceptics are in the pay of big oil/fossil fuels are we?
Great... I'll write to BP, shell and exxon asking "Wheres my bloody money?"
Im a sceptic , not because of all the opinions that are thrown about, its because I believe in the scientific method such as
Then even after we've run through this with global warming (or cooling or climate change or whatever its called this week to match the weather we're having), theres still the thing that could be discovered to overturn said theory so its vital to keep testing said theory.
Without dissent, this will never happen.
But assuming mankinds emission of CO2 is the cause of climate change , we seem to have picked a very strange way of curbing the emission , such as building wind turbines that need a gas powered generator built to back them up, and turning off the nuclear power stations.
Mandating domestic appliances to be 5% more energy efficient would save a whole bunch more CO2, but lets rather raise power bills so that those who can afford and site solar power panels can have a feed in tariff.
And lastly , you hear of daft idea of if everyone installed a wind turbine on their house we could be micro generators and break the power of the fossil fuel lobby... except.... how big would the businesses supplying 200 000 wind turbine blades a year become, and it then start to lobby that we never even dream of building any other energy source.......
"So us climate sceptics are in the pay of big oil/fossil fuels are we?"
Without wanting to put words into his mouth I guess he'd say that you and the other unimportant ones are in their thrall rather than their pay.
All this taking of sides, self-elevation into the an assumed elite, and the assumption that any statement that appears to favour the other side or denigrate the true cause is a personal slight is tedious and stupid and not even much fun in a football ground where at least it has some element of comedy.
You hit a big part of the problem. Right now it seems that what we hear is the beliefs and BS by those with the loudest voice. Politicians, ad men, and snakeoil types have known for eons that if you shovel enough BS long enough, people will eventually believe it.
The problem here is that the BS is being shoveled and the science is still in process. I'm only a skeptic until the science is in and someone shouting at me that I'm in denial and a nutcase isn't going to change the science. Do the damn science to it's extreme limit and then let's debate if debate is necessary.
You are soooo out of date. The scientific method was changed at the turn of the century. The new method is:
1. find an opportunity
2. promote relentlessly
3. suppress counter-evidence (the pal-review process is really helpful here)
4. intimidate opponents
5. when your predictions fail, return to step 2.
> I believe in the scientific method.
Great. Go find a thermometer. Drive into the country at night. Record the temperature. Drive into the city and do the same. Repeat until you have what you believe to be an adequate data set.
Congratulations. You have just validated the urban heat island effect for yourself. This is an example of mesoscale anthropogenic climate change.
So now you have validated to your own satisfaction that ACC is a fact, up to at least the city scale. This doesn't complete the global warming picture but I think you would have to be determinedly obtuse to maintain that ACC exists up to a certain (quite large) scale but suddenly stops at larger scales.
Carbon dioxide forcing is also readily provable. If you can solve an integral and can look up the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide, you don't have to leave your kitchen table otherwise you might need a bit of equipment and a bottle of CO2. If someone can't do one and is unwilling to do the other that's fine but to use that as a justification for telling the people who can that they're wrong (or even just not right) takes a special kind of stupid.
Rooftop wind is just silly. There are good reasons why real wind turbines are made as large as physically possible.
Large scale wind is a good interim solution as solar ramps up. The biggest gas turbine in the world generates no CO2 while it is off. If a wind project reduces the duty cycle of the peak plants that's an environmental win.
Your idea would have merit only if we could exclude scientists with vested interests.
Let's see how that works... A climate scientist wants a job and the only funded jobs are those who research proposals show that the intention is to try to prove or otherwise support the IPCC/UNFCCC claims. Do you think the scientist will rock the boat? Do you think his or her employer will allow him or her to rock the boat? Do you really think that the opinion of this scientist is worth anything at all?
Your claims about the "fossil fuel and associated industries" are so mendacious that it makes the claims of politicians seem positively angelic. Still, what do mendacity and ignorance matter in climate science given what "experts" say on the subject.
No matter which way you slice it a significant proportion of the world's largest publically traded companies operate fossil fuel industries. So if scientists were so easily bought by the lure of grant money you would think business like Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP Billiton, et al. could afford to buy a few.
Shell and BP are two of the founders of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia. Those are the miscreants promoting CAGW. Who do you think are getting the billions of dollars being spent on wind and solar systems? They are energy companies, not simply fossil fuel companies.
They managed to get billions of taxpayer dollars by creating a non-existent problem, and having the 'solutions'. They are laughing at us thinking they are evil for fighting global warming when they are the major beneficiaries.
"A climate scientist wants a job and the only funded jobs are those who research proposals show that the intention is to try to prove or otherwise support the IPCC/UNFCCC claims."
Very cute. Even assuming that was true, what's stopping the scientist from concluding at the end of the study "my research doesn't prove or otherwise support the IPCC/UNFCCC claims"? The funding is already used at that point, so there's no reason to lie.
I'll tell you what stops him/her. The lack of evidence for the denier point of view.
In fact, climate research was funded by the Koch brothers, in an attempt to prove their denier claims. Can you guess what happened? Surprise! The study concluded the temperature increases are real and have no other explanation than the CO2 emissions caused by humans.
So no, the issue is not the funding. The issue is all the evidence points against the denier claims.
Furthermore, scientists love to prove other scientists wrong. See this video showing how happy this scientist is after recently finishing a study proving that chemists were wrong for many decades about how alkaline metals interact with water: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmlAYnFF_s8
And a study proving the climate scientists are wrong and the deniers are right would earn you a Nobel price, so there's a lot to win by going against the consensus that climate change is real and caused by humans.
The only pesky thing stopping you from doing it is lack of evidence, not your bullshit conspiracy theories.
Sorry for using "denier" instead of "skeptic" during the comment, but your use of "alarmists" makes that fair game.
>>"Very cute. Even assuming that was true, what's stopping the scientist from concluding at the end of the study "my research doesn't prove or otherwise support the IPCC/UNFCCC claims"? The funding is already used at that point, so there's no reason to lie."
Right or wrong about whether this is the case, your logic is faulty. Research scientists live from grant to grant and the previous one is a determinant on whether you get the next. Publish a paper that gets damned by your peers, your chance of the next grant is reduced.
Asking the general public their views on climate change is pointless to you only because the results don't favor your argument.
If the situation were reversed, public demand for action would be your main argument.
Scientists are NOTscreaming from the rooftops, or from the tops of anything else. There are thousands of scientists producing tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies refuting CAGW, and demonstrating that the current climate is neither extreme or unprecedented.
In fact, thousands of scientists are producing papers clearly demonstrating that there is and will never be any negative impacts from the level of CO2 and temperature projected by climate models.
There is no consensus that we are facing CAGW, if anything, the consensus is just the opposite, i. e., the slight improvement in warmth and CO2 levels are beneficial for all living organisms.
Spending billions on faulty models and propagandizing is a total waste and condemns the poorest to perpetual poverty and miserable living conditions. CAGW proponents should stop denying the science and rethink their elitist inclinations-- they are never the ones reducing their standard of living, in fact, jet setting around the world to climate "conferences" uses more hydrocarbon fuel than most of the world's poor use in a lifetime.
You wouldn't care, ZThomm, to provide some links to those «tens of thousands of peer reviewed [sic !] studies refuting CAGW,, and demonstrating that the current climate is neither extreme or unprecedented», now would you ? Or are you perhaps referring to «studies» in a journal run by yourself and Mr Page and reviewed by the Koch brothers ?... ;-)
WTF, there is no consensus from scientists!?! What kind of comment is this: "thousands and thousands of scientists are producing papers thet <insert my viewpoint here>"? In the same way I can claim (but not with straight face) that "thousands and thousands of scientists" support unicorns. Here: "thousands and thousands of scientists are producing papers that confirm existance of unicorns". Done, next question.
Maybe you heard about NASA:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ (with references at the bottom of the page)
Problems with the Reg article itself, as I see it:
1. Saying that Professor XY wants to manipulate people to think that there is a man made climate change, does not mean that man made climate change does not exist (if I read the article correctly, that is the conclusion that the author is trying to manipulate readers to understand). The two statements (about the professor, and about the existance of man made climate change) are logicaly unrelated.
In the same way you can write for example:
- "Professor XY says that lizard people do not exist." Ha, isn't that exactly the kind of statement that a lizard person would want us to believe? Therefore lizard people exist. (again, if I understand the article correctly, this is the logic from the author)
2. As somebody already pointed out, polling general population on a scientific question is meaningless. The answer to any scientific question can be given only by science, and science is no democracy. After the answer is established, then can the general public be asked what to do about it, do they want to spend their tax money on it or not. (in my opinon even that is not so simple, because CO2 produced by one country affects all people of earth (if the GW theory is correct), but it would be too optimistic from me to expect majority of people in todays world to accept any inconvenience from them to reduce harm to others, unless it is punishable by law)
At the end, I see that a lot of people think that scientists are falsifying their research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial ) in order to continue their projects, so they can continue receiving their salaries. Here I do not understand 2 things:
a) That point of view assumes that scientists are tweaking their results towards the conclusion that will bring them the most money. Since I think that Oil/Gas/Coal lobby has more money than Wind/Solar lobby, I would expect that those money greedy scientist, if anything, would be working for CO2 producers. (i admit i did not check how much money these industries are giving to influence politics and science, that is just my assumption)
b) if scientists were really just looking for some crisis to extort more research money, they could find dozens of other critical issues, and would leave climate because of so much resistance from various industries, just to make their life easier. Like bacterial resistance to antibiotics (superbugs), overfishing, polution of water (sea, rivers, lakes), deforrestation and destruction of soil... There are positive goals to research, not only crisis points, but looks like people think that scientists need to invent CRISIS in order to EXTORT money which, according to that logic, they would not otherwise receive.
Total disclosure: as I studied science, my strong opinion is that the the arguments coming from scientists are correct, and therefore I agree that there is a man made rising temperature. I am not 100% sure how it will end (it might make fantastic climate for trees, which will grow like crazy, and soak all extra CO2, acting like negative feedback), but I have a feeling that it will not end up well.
>>"1. Saying that Professor XY wants to manipulate people to think that there is a man made climate change, does not mean that man made climate change does not exist (if I read the article correctly, that is the conclusion that the author is trying to manipulate readers to understand). "
I've just re-read the article. Nowhere does it say whether AGW is or isn't real. Every statement in this article on the subject directly relates to whether or not the survey says what the professor says it does. Here's one for you - re-read the article, see if you can find any part that says or implies what you say it does above, and if not, retract your statement.
Human contributions to "climate change", although you may wish to assign a great level of responsibility to such, are more akin to a child peeing in an Olympic swimming pool.
The sun, the cyclical, and the ever changing power of nature is the true culprit.
Burning all the fossil fuel on earth wouldn't have delayed or diminished any of the past ice ages, or their melting cycles one bit.
A single major volcano erupting does more in a day than man in 50 years.
The hysteria over climate change today is merely a means for corrupt leadership to seize ever more wealth ftom the average citizen, and for the globalist elites to reduce developed nations to the level of third world shitholes.
Certainly, don't pollute unnecessarily, and don't consume wildly, but when you're told to radically change your standard of living (usually through taxes, fees, or higher costs), have the brains to realize you are being fooled and robbed to finance with your money, your own enslavement at the hands of the globalist elite. If they get to use your money at a zero interest rate while risking none of theirs...guess who gets even richer. Hint: not you.
Wize up folks. A few years ago it was "Global Warming", but when the "best scientific minds" were shown to be suffering recto-cranial-inversions, as it was demonstrated to be untrue, they changed their story to "climate change", allowing any weather event to serve as "proof" of their latest theory...whichever way it might lean. Scientists, by the way, indebted to government elites for their funding.
Stop being fooled.
Nothing you do has an offsetting effect against the wanton pollution and waste of 4 billion chinamen and indians. Clean them up first, then chase the already diminishing returns in the first world nations...much more effect for the money spent.
Tell the elites to sell a couple jets, mansions, yachts or bugattis before telling you to hide in the dark, shivering.
A better way to gauge the importance of an issue would be to ask actually scientists (you know, the people who have an in depth knowledge on these matters) who are screaming from the rooftops.
Their screaming always appears to be 'give us more money' or 'we are right even if we can't prove it' or both.
When they actually produce something that stands up to a rigorous engineering quality examination and not the standard pal review of some paper that relies on if, maybe or possibly people might begin to think they have something to offer by way of insight. Until then they need to go back and try to get their models to actually look something like what is happening in the real world and I don't mean tweaking the data and/or fiddling with obscure variables in the model to get it to almost fit the past.
It is very important to ask the people what they are thinking. This will steer the politicians to enact policies which are democratic. That is, reflect the will of the people. There are a lot of people out there who would love to subvert this, I'm not one of them.
Unfortunately the scientists have lost credibility. That's why no one is listening any more.
I'm sure there are people doing good work in this area but unfortunately they are drowned out by the vocal few who keep telling us it is the end of the world. Well we've been listening to that for 30 years and it is getting a bit stale.
Global temperature is not behaving as predicted
Global sea ice is not doing too badly
We haven't seen mass extinctions (a snail that miraculously did a regeneration from nothing as I recall)
The climate refugees seem to be staying put
The planet is actually getting greener
Crop yields are looking good, they'd look better if we weren't turning food into biofuel
Gav and his mates would have got away with the '2014 hottest year ever' guff 50 years ago. It is largely the work of public opinion that brought to the fore the admission that there is a 72% uncertainty to the claim and that difference was well within the error bars.
So aiden, given these failures who do you think should make the decisions for you and yours? I think it should be you. Not a scientist with tenure to protect on the other side of the world.
Of course policy makers should listen, but listen critically. Which is in their heart of hearts is what they do. Sure they will turn up to climate conferences and make promises they have no intention of keeping but that's part of the job description.
Ultimately if you want to sit in the dark, waiting for the wind to blow, that's your choice, but not one you should force on me and mine.
"who are screaming from the rooftops."
No they aren't, they're goign about their day jobs manicaly trying to paper over any cracks that have constantly appeared in the 'theory'.
This reminds me of......
"You have made some observations and calculations, which show that humanity is doomed unless it changes its ways. You have total belief in the accuracy of your predictions. Do you:
(a) Announce your results, but keep your workings secret for fear that someone will criticise them.
(b) Announce your results, but set up a group of companies to make yourself mega-rich on the back of the scare you have created.
(c) Drop everything, including secrecy and profit, and devote yourself to saving the human race."
LOL. The money spent fighting the myth of global warming pales in comparison to what power grabbing governments are spending to promote it.
Those espousing their fears of global warming took over 1700 private jets to attend their latest conference. Do they seem that fearful over global warming? Look at what they do, not what they say.
How would you like to cross a bridge or ride on a large ship or airliner that was designed and built using 'junk' science like the fake science being used to hype the 'man-made' global nonsense? I wouldn't - If engineers don't use REAL science, then their projects would fail big time. If I had been using the same level of 'science' as these climate alarmists, all of my projects in large manufacturing plants would have failed miserably and I would have been looking for a new line of work decades ago. I can remember my High School geology teacher talking about global climate over the ages, and that the Medieval, Roman, Minoan and Egyptian periods were ALL warmer than now. If one looks at the rise and fall of temperatures and CO2 over the ages, it is clear that CO2 changes FOLLOW temperature changes. In fact, during one of the many ice ages, the CO2 levels were about 8 times higher than now. How can that possibly be if CO2 is the temperature control valve the alarmists claim? It is all utter nonsense, used to further their agenda of more and more control over every aspect of our lives.
'be to ask actually scientists' - Which scientists do you ask? The ones saying that climate change is due to human activity or the ones saying it isn't. Or the ones who made claims 20 years ago that were treated as absolute proof and now are seen as completely incorrect. Asking the man in the street may not give you a absolute result but one on par with the experts.
PT Barnum said it all..."You can fool some of the people all of the time!" Clearly, this Floridian didn't see the headline "Coldest decade in US recorded history...and it's only half over!" Of course IPCC would do anything to keep that news from us! The people in Massachusetts would tell you it's true, though!
Yes indeed, but it's been cold in a lot of other places, Try Europe, Siberia, China.... and polar sea ice is expanding rapidly past record levels.
But wait! The Oracle at NOAA says its the warmest year ever, by 1/100th degree (with a margin of error of +/-50/100ths!), and blithely ignored the fact that the WORLD AVERAGE temperature hasn't really changed for 20 years, refuting their models. They also failed to mention that the "WORLD AVERAGE" is actually not real, since they apply computer corrections that appear to systematically increase the number! And a growing number of scientists cite bias in the measurements towards locations that ARE being warmed by human activity, such as concrete parking lots.
"Polar sea ice is expanding rapidly past record levels" -
Errr, no it's not.
Arctic sea ice, as of December 2014, was "about a standard deviation below average for the month" (source). Where sea ice is expanding is in the Antarctic, and the reason for that is simple and obvious: it's sliding off the land. (Again, source.)
This is not a good thing.
Yes, the USA is the GLOBAL leader of the free world and still the largest economy. What they think matters. What it proves is that depending on where you live, the Global Warming is not experienced as warming by large numbers of people, but as cooling. This makes selling the Global Warming message (You're all going to fry and drown!) somewhat difficult.
Right, global does mean something. Most of the globe has no stations to measure the temperature, so the temps at both poles, Siberia, Greenland, and over the oceans are just made up.
Amazingly, the places with no thermometers have temperature anomalies of +2° to +6° C! Thus the 38% confidence that 2014 is the hottest year ever recorded, by 0.02° C, +/- 0.1°C. There are plenty of names for those who believe such tripe; Mother of Crom, how does "gullible" sound?
Really? There's a ring of flags at the South Pole, and the thermometers are outside them, is that what you mean?
That the base at (where at means within actual walking distance of) the South Pole, where people stay in large numbers all summer, and small numebrs all winter doesn't have a thermometer - everyone agreed perhaps to stick a hand outside and say "we scientists don't nbeed a thermometer to tell us that is COLD, and we don't care how cold it is"?
They are actually on the Internet these days.
I'm amazed you can type.
not on the engine cooling water intakes, and not dipped into buckets from the time of the Royal Society founding onward (one of the early exercises of the R. Soc was to make thermometers, and one of the early uses was to put them on HM ships, and write the readings in the logs which sit in the Admiralty.
ZThomm, were you drunk when you wrote that, or what?
If drunk, then tomorrow you may be sober and enlightened or appalled, if not drunk then is it money, or sheer appalling stupidity?
Yeah Well, like the New YouTube Hit of the guy on phone missing the whale, I and others have watched people doing the same to the climate, me for last 35 years, with people missing the obvious .....!, but, look @d pretty whale, arwwhh !!
Climate deniars should be recycled ....
Yes, retreating and disappearing glaciers, large sections of Antarctic ice breaking off and floating away -- are all circus tricks.
I suggest you read the latest IPCC report more thoroughly. It admits that climate models exaggerate the influence of greenhouse gases, that 111 or 114 predicted warming from 1998 to 2012 but it didn't occur, that the models don't seem to have fundamentals correct.
Dig a bit deeper and you find that the same models are used to estimate the human influence on temperature. (It's a bit of a joke really because all the models do is what they are told to do, so running them with and without greenhouse gases ONLY indicates how sensitive the models are to GHG's). My point is that the estimates of human influence have no credibility whatsoever.
"The facts about human-caused CO2 emissions", to use your words, are (a) the "experts" have no clear idea about the influence of CO2 in the real world and (b) predictions of future temperatures have no credibility. In fact it's not even clear that we should do anything at all to limit CO2 emisisons.
It was really good of him and his colleagues to reveal their opinion of the values of objectivity and truthfulness.
It shouldn't be about manipulation - it should be about establishing what is true (to a high degree of certainty) and explaining that to the public along with why the proposed solutions are necessary.
That those things haven't apparently been achieved is a problem, but manipulating public perceptions isn't the solution.
2014 is read the truth at http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/5/2015/01/19/no_scientific_consensus_on_2014_hottest_year_on_record_claims/
"Our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01 C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty (0.05 C). Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year."
So the truth is: No significant warming, since at least 2005.
Okay, climate hoo-ha aside, people really think that floods were caused by having insufficient 'flood defences'?
That might result in a flood causing more damage but doesn't cause the flood itself. (Which I would have though would be something that didn't need pointing out . . .)
Even then, saying that the reason the floods were worse was that the defences were inadequate still doesn't mean much. The question to ask is why were the flood defences inadequate. Was it because they had deteriorated and were not fixed? That would be one thing. Or is it because they are temporary defences, put in place as-needed and this was not done as well as last time? But it could also be because the defences were in designed to deal with a certain level or severity of flooding and this flooding exceeded the normal extent known from previous events.
So the fact that a bunch of people think inadequate preparations caused the flooding speaks more to the average quality of persons available to survey than it does to any underlying truth about the event itself - whatever that truth may be!
"Hardly anyone wants political action on climate change. Just 14 per cent thought it likely they would ever even write to their MP on climate matters."
I don't think the assertion that the majority of people don't want political action can be reasonably inferred from the fact that the majority of people wouldn't write to their MP about it.
Perhaps your MPs are super-politicians: tireless advocates for the people, accessible to all and willing to break ranks and cross party lines to do what their constituents want, caring neither for patronage nor pension.
Or perhaps they are something like the ones we have here in Australia - self-important, self-serving, self-congratulating rubber-stamps from whose offices one can expect a wide range of considerate, thought-out, legally-filtered, party-approved boilerplate non-answers to any and all questions and concerns one might venture to put to them. If you get any specifics at all then they will be about some media-friendly project of the party, which is only tangentially related to the question asked.
As an example, I (relatively) recently contacted my local member about the increasing crowding on public transport in the area and how this was worsening as more high-density housing was being built, asking what their target loading was for peak hour trains departing the local station, what their maximum acceptable loading was, how they were monitoring this, what their projections were for these numbers in the near future, considering the several high-rises under construction and already selling, one of which nearly abuts the station, what their plans were to prevent the trains reaching the loading limits and what they would do if they exceeded them.
It was a detailed, well-worded and considered letter that asked specific, unambiguous questions of particular relevance to the electorate and requested well-defined answers with examples provided to make it perfectly clear the nature to the information I was requesting.
The answer I received thanked my for my interest in the party's public transport road-map, and told me that they were committed to building an efficient public transport network for the city. The listed their existing successes and finished projects (which amounted to a re-branding, complete with new uniforms and colour scheme) and then went on to gush about their progress on a new train line dozens miles away, making sure I new how exciting it was that one of their diggers had dug something somewhere that will have zero impact on any of the concerns or questions raised. It finished off by thanking me again for my interest in their party's plans and reiterating their commitment to "the future" of public transport and their excitement at all the great stuff they had done, while failing to acknowledge that not one word in the preceding four paragraphs had addressed any of my concerns or answered even one of my questions.
But no, it would be totally worth repeating the exercise so all involved could replace 'public transport' with 'climate change'.
But none of this speaks to whether climate change is real or whether it has a relevant human-induced factor. Probably the best conclusion it's possible to draw from this stat is that people don't think it's worthwhile writing to their politicians, which is not all that surprising, really.
Or does letter writing in the UK actually result in 'political action'?
What else you need to know? You got yer climate change. You got yer ebola. You got yer Chelyabinsk. You got your missing children pictures on milk cartons. You got yer alien abductions. You got yer hypochondria. You got yer mass hypnosis. You got yer panic voters.
Woe to those who have scared the bojangles out of young kids with threats of imminent world wide catastrophes. The public may not be able to scrutinize every factor involved in climate predictions but niether do the academics who rely on obviously flawed computer models. GIGO. The public and laymen do sense that the clmate scientists can be steered by personal pride, prestige,academic acceptance and even money. Because of the climate scam scientists in every profession are now suspect as never before. Did I see a.college course that suggested that Shakespeare's writing was effected by increased dryness in his inkwell - caused by global warming? Just wait.
Also don't forget that most of those that have swallowed the greenwash were not about in the 70s when the then climate scientists were claiming that we would all freeze because of the impending ice age. When that didn't materialise they switched over to global warming but since they can't prove that it has changed again to climate change.
I'm not going to argue either side here, because too many people are already doing so
I'd just like to address the ongoing myth that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans do
I don't mind people arguing either side, I just get frustrated when people use easily disproved facts as key parts of their argument
(no working hyperlinks, not posted enough yet)
Don't we think that this is actually a really nasty, manipulative and on the face of it quite frightening thing to attempt?
Emotion is an integral part of our thinking ... Emotion creates the abiding commitments needed to sustain action on difficult problems, such as climate change ... appropriately framed emotional appeals can motivate action, given the right supporting conditions (in particular a sense of personal vulnerability ... and [a sense of] the support of others).
So what you're saying is that in order to make people think in the way the government wants them to think it should deliberately frighten them? I don't know, by - say - screaming about "Terrorism" all the time and responding to your own hysteria by pumping up police powers that the public were opposed to in the first palce? Never mind if there's any real chance of getting eaten folks, it's waaaay easier to move the herd when they're frightened of the dogs.
Nothing good comes of this sort of behaviour.
Don't we think that this is actually a really nasty, manipulative and on the face of it quite frightening thing to attempt?
Yes we do. It once even achieved its archtype on this planet. But it isn't PC to reference those events in this debate, especially as so much of the rest of the Warmist agenda matches that regime's agenda.
Nothing good comes of this sort of behaviour.
No it doesn't. Alas, not much ever changes in the world. I do have to give him props for openly admitting to his evil plan. But then so did those guys we're not allowed to reference in this debate.
The best bit about man made co2 alarmist whinging is they like to say that any species having a significant impact on the makeup of atmosphere is unnatural. but you look at any school book on geology / paleontology it will tell you that the early Earth resembled Venus today and the environment we can cope with only exists because of hundreds of millions of years of different species altering their environment to their liking!
When you are lied to, what is your reaction? Most people don't like it. Climate change is the nature of the planet. Mass growth of human population puts people in lowlands and places that always flooded but now people are living there. It is a temporary discomfort for them but not for those who live a more prudent life.
People (like government and 'professors') who rely on mass fleecing of the public for their income use public hysteria to advance their financial profit. To claim that taxing energy to the max to profit the professors and other government employees to stop the rain, start the rain, cool the air, heat the air, or whatever is necessary to have idyllic conditions is a lie. You are being lied to, cheated, and robbed by liars, cheats, and thieves in government that rely on stealing from the public for their own personal profit.
The media should be looking out for the public good but they don't. The media is wholly staffed by ex-government or future government employees. The media has become the mouthpiece for the government. There is a revolving door of liars, cheats, and thieves who control the methods of communication
What do the Climate Worshipers want? Money, Power, Control. At the heart of their argument is the claim that YOU are the cause of occasional discomfort for those who live in the swamps and on the beaches. They want you to pay them massive salaries to 'fix' the 'problem'. In the essence, they want YOU dead. Since your cause the rain or the drought or the cold or the heat, YOU must die to correct the 'problem'.
(it's not a peer-reviewed publication or anything, just a lengthy pseudoscientific polemic written by [Page, with or without the aid of] pals*) to the actual survey results, we find out the following things» :
1) Climate change doesn't exist, or if it does,
2) It's actually getting colder, rather than hotter, or if it is actually getting hotter,
3) Man-made emissions have nothing to do with it, as
4) It's the sun wot done it and not our fault at all....
The amusing thing is that El Reg insists in listing Mr Page's bloviations under «Scientific News»....
I wonder what the kind professor's view of Dr Goebbels is ? What about his manipulation of the German people? I wonder if he thinks it would have been best to put him down prior to him having influence and averting millions of lives lost. Could it be he is not doing the same thing? Maybe it would be best for all of us if he took the heroic approach and reduced his carbon footprint to 0
‘‘‘The Psychohistorical-Dialectical Equations’’’ -- an Earthly Actualization of Asimov’s Fictional Psychohistory?
For those inspired, by Asimov’s fictional science of psychohistory, to want to see it actualized on Earth, and who perceive analogies -- consciously intended by Asimov or otherwise -- between his decline of his fictional Galactic Empire, and the actual decline of our present civilization at the scale of this one planet, underway since even before Asimov wrote his first Foundation story, and more obviously underway today --
I have become aware of a new development in dialectical theory, using a new tool of “universal labor” -- a heuristic, ‘intuitional’, contra-Boolean, algebraic dialectical logic -- one that has enabled those who use it to develop a model of ‘‘‘The Dialectic of Nature’’’ -- of an unbroken, self-developing, mounting ‘meta-genealogy’, from pre-nuclear “particles” all the way up to the human, with a prediction as to what comes next: a model of the historical dialectic of natural history as totality.
Thus, this work differs in at least two ways from Asimov’s speculation -- its equations embrace all of cosmological evolution, and they are not “merely statistical”, but are based upon an undergirding, qualitative, ontological “scaffolding”, or “structure”, to the dynamics of Nature, including of human Nature, Nature’s latest self-development [at least locally], for which sample statistics can provide estimates for the values of the quantitative parameters.
“Inside” their totality-model, they have constructed models of the history of “the social forces of production”, and of the related history of “the social relations of production”, within “human pre-history”, culminating in the capital-relation/wage-labor relation, at the core of capitalist society, and the self-cleavage of that society into the wages-/salaries-class-vs.-capitals-class class struggle that this “social relation of production” imposes, until the capital-relation-incented growth of the “social forces of production” internally destabilizes that capitals-system, producing the decline, the “descendance-phase”, of global capitalist civilization.
Their models also predict/reconstruct the “lawful” emergence of a ‘HUMANOCIDAL’ capitalist-anticapitalist [totalitarian STATE-capitalist] ruling class in descendance-phase capitalism. They predict a terminal, descendance-phase ruling class ideology which is simultaneously ‘capitalist anti-capitalist’, ‘human anti-humanist’, and ‘anti-Marxian Marxianist’. Ruling-class ‘human anti-humanism’ was initially named “Eugenics”, but, after their Hitler-debacle, became their “Big Money” perversion of the global grass roots anti-pollution movement, into “People Are Pollution” ‘Earthism’. The “lawful” degeneration of capitalist, representative democracy into totalitarian, ‘humanocidal’ STATE-capitalism, in the “advanced” nations, is ENABLED by the hyper-concentration of capital-money in ever fewer hands, which, at length, totally obliterates the “checks-and-balances” among the political branches of government, as the descendant-phase plutocracy prostitutes all three branches, plus the news media. But the desperate, DRIVING MOTIVE behind the plutocracy’s rush to TOTALITARIAN HUMANOCIDE is a deep secret, still not discerned by most observers and theorists.
Using this model, they have derived detailed features of the probable higher successor system to capitalism, i.e., of the higher successor “social relation of production” to the capital/wage-labor relation, which they call the “generalized equity social-relation-of-production”, or “political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY” -- the “citizen externality equity / citizen birthright equity / citizen stewardship equity Human Rights”-relation. It is decidedly NOT a form of state-bureaucratic-ruling-class STATE-capitalism, a la Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Hitlerism, Maoism, Castroism, Ceaușescuism, Hoxhaism, ILism, UNism, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
The key is to revive checks and balances on political power, as well as to create new checks against concentrated economic power, by instituting unprecedented ECONOMIC CHECKS AND BALANCES.
The ‘Associations of [popularly elected, mandated, popularly recallable] Public Directors’ bodies, implementing the ‘Citizens EXTERNALITY Equity’ [‘GRASS ROOTS regulation of deadly local pollution’] Human Right, may be considered an ‘institution-ization’ of the historical experiences of the revolutionary, territorially/residentially-grounded “community councils”.
The ‘producers-democracies’ that are the MARKET-COMPETING ‘‘‘socialized producers’ cooperatives’’’ of the ‘Citizen STEWARDSHIP Equity’ [‘collective entrepreneurship’] Human Right [the ‘socialized venture capital’ right] may be considered an ‘institution-ization’ of the historical experiences of the revolutionary, workplace-grounded “workers’ councils”. Each citizen-steward producer, as such, enjoys, by constitutional and human right, two streams of income: (1) compensation for time worked, determined via the Skills-Markets, not necessarily equal in amount to that earned by other citizen stewards, and (2) an equal share in the net operating surplus of their Citizen-Stewardship enterprise.
The prescription is that the -- concentrated-economic-power-obviated -- POLITICAL checks and balances be “aufheben” retained, as revived by the new ECONOMIC checks and balances, in a new societal system of SUSTAINED QUADRUPLE POWER, with sustained, ‘inter-mutually’ checking-and-balancing conflict among the elected executive, the elected legislative, and the judiciary branches of [popularly-elected] POLITICAL government, and vis-a-vis the ECONOMIC-DEMOCRATIC institutions of ‘‘‘Equitism’’’ -- the social institutions of ‘Citizen Externality Equity’, ‘Citizen Birthright Equity’, and ‘Citizen Stewardship Equity’, described above.
This will require a VIGILANT social majority, that knows what it wants -- the better life for all of ‘Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY’ -- and that knows the horrors of the alternative -- Police-State, Totalitarian, Humanocidal State Capitalism, already rampant today in its ‘STEALTH EUGENICS’, ‘STEALTH HUMANOCIDE’ incipient mode.
For more about these historic breakthroughs, see --
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020