Socialism has over three decades rebranded itself into environmentalism, seeking to interfere in every aspect of our lives and tax us to fund their ideologue big government schemes. The earth’s temperatures have risen and fallen to the extent that lush green forests have become submerged by the sea and later resurfaced, we’ve had ice ages, all sorts. The earth’s temperature has always been in a fluctuating cycle, that’s not a conspiracy, that’s a fact. Again, if temps are on the rise, just turn up the air con. As for the GW believers, well, each time there’s a hot summer’s day and i’m driving past in my v8 getting 12mpg I think to myself (applying their beliefs) you’re very welcome!’.
My point regarding the Batagaika crater is that, for those unconcerned with climate change due to it having done so many times over the previous tens of thousands of years, why is it only now that two hundred thousand year old permafrost is melting?.
Must be something different happening now, i.e., human interference!
|
|
Must be something different happening now, i.e., human interference!
Or something else is happening like the earths axis is moving causing a shift in the mantle and other things to occur, including influence by the solar system (unless you think were the only planet around the sun?) we don't have to be doing anything to cause global warming, the earth is shifting all the time, always has done- always will do
you could check out Nasa web site as its better explained on there. and although its really not been proven as yet(may never be) unless we become gods, I don't think we can really do any damage to earth without nuking it
|
Or something else is happening like the earths axis is moving causing a shift in the mantle and other things to occur, including influence by the solar system (unless you think were the only planet around the sun?) we don't have to be doing anything to cause global warming, the earth is shifting all the time, always has done- always will do
This sounds like a desperate search for alternative places for blame. Perhaps a reminder of Ockham's razor might be in order?
|
|
This sounds like a desperate search for alternative places for blame
Possibly, though not enough is known about how the earth works so anyone can place the blame on whatever they want, personally I am happy for EVs and alternative fuels to be invented and clean the air up a bit (if it happens)
people will need educating to keep the place clean and tidy instead of making the place look like a tip, which is a regular occurrence in London, which doesn't help pollution one bit
|
|
|
|
|
The science community believe that by running ever more complex climate models that people will be increasingly convinced of its accuracy. I'm not sure this is true although it is a good way of securing funding and jobs.
However at a far more simplistic level, fossil fuels were laid down over hundreds of millions of years. We are burning them in a few centuries - a million times faster than they were laid down. A simple practical experiment will show the impact of changing the composition of gases in the atmosphere.
The climate is also affected by a number of other cycles (eg: Milankovich) which is fairly predictable and cause warm periods and ice ages. The earth does not have an unchanging circular orbit around the sun, but is impacted by gravity and orbits of other planets.
Very simple observation shows what a mess homo sapiens are making of the planet - a major part of the solution is a much lower population. Malthus (published 1798) identified two solutions - population and birth management (relatively painless) or famine, war disease (unpleasant but it may be too kate to do the former)
|
The science community believe that by running ever more complex climate models that people will be increasingly convinced of its accuracy. I'm not sure this is true although it is a good way of securing funding and jobs.
However at a far more simplistic level, fossil fuels were laid down over hundreds of millions of years. We are burning them in a few centuries - a million times faster than they were laid down. A simple practical experiment will show the impact of changing the composition of gases in the atmosphere.
The climate is also affected by a number of other cycles (eg: Milankovich) which is fairly predictable and cause warm periods and ice ages. The earth does not have an unchanging circular orbit around the sun, but is impacted by gravity and orbits of other planets.
Very simple observation shows what a mess homo sapiens are making of the planet - a major part of the solution is a much lower population. Malthus (published 1798) identified two solutions - population and birth management (relatively painless) or famine, war disease (unpleasant but it may be too late to do the former)
Anyone familiar with" the scientific method" which has been the basis of almsot all major discoveries in the past 100 years will know that it works like thsi~:
you develop a theory of how something works.
You test it agianst observations
If it does not work, you change the theory
Anyone who critcises climate change theiory becuas eits models keep changing is cklealry and demonstrably ignorant that is the way science works.
And it has been very successful. It may take 80 or so years before Einstein's theories about gravity bending light was proven.. but it eventually was when we could measure the bending of light.
All I read from most - not all - critics of global warming is the profound ignorance of many of those who criticise....based on reading other critics - most of whom have axes to grind - usually headed with $$$$signs..By all means criticise if forecasts and facts disagree.. but when forecats of rising global temperatures and melting glaciers are real, then the critics should either come up with a separate and convincing scientific explanation..
As few of them do, I treat them as liars or people who are easily led .
.
.
|
|
Here is a scientific paper detailing how the models used to compute global temperature are flawed.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
Their conclusion.
We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
Low loud cover affecting global temperature makes sense- insulating blanket etc.
Edited by focussed on 29/08/2019 at 10:48
|
|
A lot of this thread simply demonstrates that even a lot of reasonably intelligent people are in denial.
That some elements of climate models are imperfect is not justification to ignore all the evidence - the challenge is to develop a new theory which better fits observed data.
Climate has varied in the past and there is some understanding of the reasons. But there is no good reason to believe that somehow a pre-industrialisation climate (1800 - 1850) is some sort of optimum that should never change.
Assuming expectations of climate models come to pass - higher temperatures, sea level rise, ice caps melting - we need to understand what actions need to be taken to either:
- minimise any of the impacts - eg: reducing greenhouse gases (which will impact petrol heads) and population
- adapt - ~50% live in low lying or coastal areas, agriculture needs to adapt to higher temperatures and possible water shortages, desertification of equatorial areas, etc
|
|
lot of this thread simply demonstrates that even a lot of reasonably intelligent people are in denial.
There are 8 bitllion humans on the planet and rising. A large proportion of these will aspire to the achieve the living standards of the rest of us. Who will deny them the right to do this and at what "cost" to the so called spike in CO2.
Onwards and upwards is the goal of all countries and just a dip in growth sends panic through the system and the word recession is like kryptonite to superman.
Climate change is the current excuse to expand into new technology and keep the worlds economy expanding.
|
Climate change is the current excuse to expand into new technology and keep the worlds economy expanding.
Sorry, I don't buy that one. The simple fact is that the only system which has clearly improved the lot of most human individuals is capitalism, but that only works when economies continue to grow. That is why we keep hearing the mantra word GROWTH so often. Just now most effort is into inventing daft devices which no-one really needs, such as vehicles which drive themselves. Vanity projects which employ quite a few who see it as a challenge. Also HS2, but that's another story.
What is needed is for someone to design a zero-growth economy, a bit of flat-lining should not really do us much harm. The problem will be persuading all the others.
|
|
|
|
Climate has varied in the past and there is some understanding of the reasons. But there is no good reason to believe that somehow a pre-industrialisation climate (1800 - 1850) is some sort of optimum that should never change.
There is plenty of evidence to show large fluctuations in global temperature on a geological timescale. But the current rise in temperature is happening much faster, which is the main reason for believing it is probably caused by a fast-growing population adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. You can include cows too I suppose.
|
|
"Anyone familiar with" the scientific method" which has been the basis of almsot all major discoveries in the past 100 years will know that it works like thsi~:
you develop a theory of how something works.
You test it agianst observations
If it does not work, you change the theory"
How does that fit then with the oft repeated claim that the science is settled?
Settled acience seems at odds with the many predictions that have turned out to be wrong.
Random example - according to acientists the artic should have been ice free years ago. It isn't.
Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm
|
"Anyone familiar with" the scientific method" which has been the basis of almsot all major discoveries in the past 100 years will know that it works like thsi~:
you develop a theory of how something works.
You test it agianst observations
If it does not work, you change the theory"
How does that fit then with the oft repeated claim that the science is settled?
Settled acience seems at odds with the many predictions that have turned out to be wrong.
Random example - according to acientists the artic should have been ice free years ago. It isn't.
Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm
One scientist and one theory does not make a scientific consensus.
The consensus is that climate change is happening due to humans.
|
One scientist and one theory does not make a scientific consensus.
The consensus is that climate change is happening due to humans.
Consensus does not make it a fact, many established consensus have been torn to shreds at a later date. For many years there was a scientific consensus that the earth was flat and anyone who said differently was ridiculed. Im not saying we should ignore the advice being given, far from it, I fully support the reduction of our dependance on carbon fuels and stopping the release of pollutants in the atmosphere, thats all good stuff to do.
Climate change is happening, the measurements taken make it a fact but then the earth has never had a period when the climate was not changing and for many of these sometimes dramatic changes we have no idea why they happened.
|
One scientist and one theory does not make a scientific consensus.
The consensus is that climate change is happening due to humans.
Consensus does not make it a fact, many established consensus have been torn to shreds at a later date. For many years there was a scientific consensus that the earth was flat and anyone who said differently was ridiculed. Im not saying we should ignore the advice being given, far from it, I fully support the reduction of our dependance on carbon fuels and stopping the release of pollutants in the atmosphere, thats all good stuff to do.
Climate change is happening, the measurements taken make it a fact but then the earth has never had a period when the climate was not changing and for many of these sometimes dramatic changes we have no idea why they happened.
Even back in history the Earth was not generally thought to be flat - that's a myth - there will be people that thought that as they do now but it was not generally accepted.
|
|
"Anyone familiar with" the scientific method" which has been the basis of almsot all major discoveries in the past 100 years will know that it works like thsi~:
you develop a theory of how something works.
You test it agianst observations
If it does not work, you change the theory"
How does that fit then with the oft repeated claim that the science is settled?
Settled acience seems at odds with the many predictions that have turned out to be wrong.
Random example - according to acientists the artic should have been ice free years ago. It isn't.
Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm
Anyone who thinks modelling climate is easy and the wearly modles are going to be correct just demonstartes their total ignorance of teh complexity of teh issue..
To make daily weather forecats accurate for teh nest day requires LOTS of models, and radings ans super computers..
Now change days to years.. and imagine foreasting weather (note wetaher not climate).. siix months out ...
I can produce a paper forecatsing anything but unless it is peer reviewed it is meaingless.
So anyone linking to non peer reviewed papers is wasting their time (and ours) as all it demonstartes is trheir ignorance of how science works..
I am a beekeeper and there are LOTS of scientific papers on beekeeping.. Unless peer reviewed they are bull excrement...
Rather like the anti vaccine campaigns... And David Icke - and of a simialr quality.
|
|
<< I can produce a paper forecasting anything but unless it is peer-reviewed it is meaningless. So anyone linking to non peer-reviewed papers is wasting their time (and ours) as all it demonstrates is their ignorance of how science works.. >>
That's a ridiculous statement for a scientist to make: peer-reviewing is not a guarantee of credibility. Any paper may contain good sense. The peer review adds a lot of validity of course, but the absence of it simply means we should keep more open minds.
Yes, I have co-authored one or two papers in the very distant past.
|
|
|
Climate has varied in the past and there is some understanding of the reasons. But there is no good reason to believe that somehow a pre-industrialisation climate (1800 - 1850) is some sort of optimum that should never change.
There is plenty of evidence to show large fluctuations in global temperature on a geological timescale. But the current rise in temperature is happening much faster, which is the main reason for believing it is probably caused by a fast-growing population adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. You can include cows too I suppose.
Cows produce significant amounts of methane when they break wind (the word I wanted to use will be blocked, no doubt). Unfortunately it is a far more effective greenhouse gas than CO2. So, we fell forest to create fields and then fill them with cows. Not a good idea.
As you know the issue is the unprecedented increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not in dispute, it is a scientific fact not a theory. What is in dispute is the exact process of GW. There are too many factors. We might see permafrost melt, releasing massive amounts of methane, we might see ocean currents stop or change direction, we will see sea ice melt, and changes in cloud cover changing the amount of sunlight reflected back into space. All of these things will significantly change the speed of GW. That GW is taking place is not in doubt, determining when we will be screwed is not so easy.
Edited by Leif on 29/08/2019 at 14:29
|
|
|
|
|
"the challenge is to develop a new theory which better fits observed data"
That's been the problem all along !
|
|
|
|
Here is a scientific paper detailing how the models used to compute global temperature are flawed.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
Their conclusion.
We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
Low loud cover affecting global temperature makes sense- insulating blanket etc.
That paper isn't even peer reviewed which means that it is completely worthless. They can claim anything and get away with it. It does have serious flaws that make it worthless, you can easily discover that for yourself.
Respected journals have a mechanism called peer review, whereby several respected scientists review the paper, to find any glaring flaws or omissions. It can only be published when the reviewers agree that it is of a sufficient standard. I have had papers reviewed, and I have been asked to review papers though I declined as they were not in my area of knowledge.
|
|
Just because nobody looked at it and gave it a round of applause, doesn't devalue it in the slightest - it's still a report of valid research.
Remember when you wrote reports of lab tests, any tests?
Just because nobody thought they were great didn't alter or devalue what you reported did it?
You are conflating social approval of work with validity of said work.
|
Just because nobody looked at it and gave it a round of applause, doesn't devalue it in the slightest - it's still a report of valid research.
Remember when you wrote reports of lab tests, any tests?
Just because nobody thought they were great didn't alter or devalue what you reported did it?
You are conflating social approval of work with validity of said work.
No he isn't.
|
|
|
Just because nobody looked at it and gave it a round of applause, doesn't devalue it in the slightest - it's still a report of valid research.
Remember when you wrote reports of lab tests, any tests?
Just because nobody thought they were great didn't alter or devalue what you reported did it?
You are conflating social approval of work with validity of said work.
Nonsense. Peer review is a process of scientific validation. It does not prove the work is correct, but it does allow experts in the field to check that assumptions and conclusions are reasonable. Science is a communal process, generally it requires multiple groups to replicate work before it is accepted as valid, as mistakes can and do happen.
Unreviewed research could be complete d*****. So as far as non specialists are concerned it is worse than useless as you and I have absolutely no way to know if it is valid. In fact they have made huge mistakes, as you can verify easily enough.
|
|
|
|
Here is a scientific paper detailing how the models used to compute global temperature are flawed.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
Their conclusion.
We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
Low loud cover affecting global temperature makes sense- insulating blanket etc.
That paper isn't even peer reviewed which means that it is completely worthless. They can claim anything and get away with it. It does have serious flaws that make it worthless, you can easily discover that for yourself.
Respected journals have a mechanism called peer review, whereby several respected scientists review the paper, to find any glaring flaws or omissions. It can only be published when the reviewers agree that it is of a sufficient standard. I have had papers reviewed, and I have been asked to review papers though I declined as they were not in my area of knowledge.
It's all well and good for people to talk about 'peer-reviewed science', but the problem is that climate science is still very new and undeveloped, rather like many aspects of science were 150-200 years ago.
Yes, we may have supercomputers and better standard of general scientific knowledge, but there are many areas of science that have also been studied for some time now, with access to the same expertise and equipment and yet they don't claim to know everything about their field, many knowing very little.
All I'm saying is that we should be VERY wary of this current trend of scientific 'hearding' towards 'concensus' because its easier to be in agreement with others in your field than be the outsider.
Personally, I think there's a long way to go, perhaps well over 50 years, maybe a lot more, until we have this science cracked as much as we do other aspects. The problem is that it may be too late then to do something about the (irreversible) problems we may well have and still are causing by our way of life.
I don't think we should listen to those who are using this new science to try and bring back discredited political ideologies, but we do need to make some hard choices about how we as a species consume the resources of this planet and to what end. That does mean that we should NOT listen to the idiots who are often driving the so-called debate at both ends of the spectrum, often for political purposes or for personal/national wealth and/or power. 'Activists' are the last people we should listen to - most of them already made up their minds before seeing any information.
|
|
There are some clear parallels with the Brexit (can I mention this word?) debate here.
We have what are generally regarded as world class experts in their field:
- for climate science this includes people with doctorate level qualifications in physics, mathematics, computer modelling, simulations, chemistry, biology, atmospheric processes etc etc
- for Brexit impacts we have (again) doctarate level experts in economics, banking, foreign exchange markets, law, international trade etc etc
Both groups have what are colloquially called "brains the size of planets".
What binds the two groups is the willingness of some to prefer the product of generally ill-informed non experts (or their own imagination) over those who actually have proven credibility and knowledge.
This is not to suggest experts are always right, or that consensus is proof of a theory. But failing to give their views appropriate weight is like betting on a horse based on the colour of the tail and not bothering with the form book.
|
|
Let's just suppose for a minute that climate change is a real danger to life on earth and we choose to ignore the warnings.
Who amongst us here is going to want to look their grandchildren in the eye in 25 years time and say "sorry kids, the planet is f****d because we we thought it more important to maintain our high carbon lifestyle rather than thinking about your future"
As I said earlier, "do you feel lucky? well do you?"
|
|
Who among the experts so eloquently described above is going to take the real initiative to save the planet and tell the truth, that overpopulation caused by overbreeding, particularly in the third world where they haven't been able to feed themselves properly for generations, is the biggest danger to the west who generally, wars apart, tried its best to manage and has done pretty well, face.
Our grandchildren in 25 years time are going to live in a completely different west, and global climate panic isn't going to be the main reason for the changes, it will be demographs changing their countries into places entirely different...which is fine if that's what you wanted, and many do, just be aware that the people responsible for what is coming (current inner city issues a mere taster of what we about to receive) arn't going to live with the long term consequences because they have the means to escape and are the protected elite anyway.
Don't any of the climate warriors, (no better represented as by legion of celeb/royalish virtue signallers jetting around the globe in private planes and living in multiple remote gated guarded estates) try and lecture me on their idea of my blame for what might happen to the climate, when the increasing exponentially population explosion and resulting soaking up of the worlds resources, coupled with deforestation to feed the increasing numbers of mouths, takes its obvious and irreversible toll.
If i'm around in 25 years, doubtful cos i've been fool enough to graft hard for the past 50, i shall explain to my (gt) grandchildren (to try and counter the increasing stages of indoctrination they suffer from ever lower ages of being removed from the parents to be educated by paid strangers, themsleves all reading from the hymnsheet of the day) that this wonderful country, England, that i grew up in free and safe was sold out from under our feet, and a willing populace of fools welcomed its concreting over and it's doubling of population, as it surely will be double what it was in 1955, in my lifetime.
Don't get me wrong, if i lived in a city and could see what was happening, i too would be happy to get out and buy a new identihouse built on the former ''Meadows''.
What are areas like Brazil, almost quadrupling its population since the 60's and climbing, and Africa, i don't how much more human explosion that continent can stand...whilst it systematically kills off the means of producing its own food, Zimbabwe the perfect example and SA going down the same path to self destruction, whilst bands of the most corrupt people in the world fill their overseas bank accounts with wagonloads of loot, anyone told them that there are no pockets in shrouds?
Edited by gordonbennet on 30/08/2019 at 09:28
|
|
I rather share your pessimism, GB, but lack the eloquence to express it :-)
As standards of living have improved in the West, people have become more 'self-sufficient' (for want of a better word) which has gradually led to the 'me-me' rights-of-the-individual attitudes of today, and loss of responsibility towards 'society' on which those individuals less immediately depend. A significant part of that is every woman's right to as many children as she wants (rather than the number she is made to produce). As always, 'one more won't make any difference' - at least until scaled-up a millionfold.
TV has shown us an English family which has become minor celebrities by accumulating 20 children. They are admired because they manage to support themselves rather than needing benefits, but I wonder how they envisage those children's futures - if they even consider it.
|
|
Said with conviction GB. I have a similar view but for some reason it is seen as un PC to express it. Shortage of space, food and other resources are what wars and revolutions are made of.
|
|
There are some clear parallels with the Brexit (can I mention this word?) debate here.
We have what are generally regarded as world class experts in their field:
- for climate science this includes people with doctorate level qualifications in physics, mathematics, computer modelling, simulations, chemistry, biology, atmospheric processes etc etc
- for Brexit impacts we have (again) doctarate level experts in economics, banking, foreign exchange markets, law, international trade etc etc
Both groups have what are colloquially called "brains the size of planets".
What binds the two groups is the willingness of some to prefer the product of generally ill-informed non experts (or their own imagination) over those who actually have proven credibility and knowledge.
This is not to suggest experts are always right, or that consensus is proof of a theory. But failing to give their views appropriate weight is like betting on a horse based on the colour of the tail and not bothering with the form book.
No, Sir, the two issues cannot be equated in the way you say. They can be, by saying that people with agendas are using their standing in certain circles to promote that agenda, incluing manipulating factual information to suit or making up stuff and presenting it as factual, as opposed much of it, which is OPINION and estimates, often the worst case but presented as the 'norm' (see the 'Operation Yellowhammer story, or the OBS 'expert preidtcions' of a huge recession and 750k more unemployed 'just for voting for Brexit' for an example of that).
Note that an academically intelligent person can have either no common sense or be naive and be blinded by certain ideology. I've seen enough of these people in person to know that is true, including for many so-called 'experts'.
Please leave Brexit out of this debate. All you are doing is just flaming to shut any meaningful debate down.
|
|
|
There are some clear parallels with the Brexit (can I mention this word?) debate here.
We have what are generally regarded as world class experts in their field:
- for climate science this includes people with doctorate level qualifications in physics, mathematics, computer modelling, simulations, chemistry, biology, atmospheric processes etc etc
- for Brexit impacts we have (again) doctarate level experts in economics, banking, foreign exchange markets, law, international trade etc etc
Both groups have what are colloquially called "brains the size of planets".
What binds the two groups is the willingness of some to prefer the product of generally ill-informed non experts (or their own imagination) over those who actually have proven credibility and knowledge.
This is not to suggest experts are always right, or that consensus is proof of a theory. But failing to give their views appropriate weight is like betting on a horse based on the colour of the tail and not bothering with the form book.
Regarding Brexit, economics is known as the 'dismal science' for good reason. Very few so-called experts predicted the 2008 crash. Even Gordon Brown was talking about an 'end to boom and bust' and he had Treasury experts at his beck and call. But he subsequently had to eat a very large portion of humble pie. And the crash is still being felt throughout Europe especially in the UK due to our dependence on banking and financial services. When Eastern European countries entered the EU, and freedom of movement was allowed, most senior figures did not predict the massive movement of people that has occurred, and which has had a very large impact on many countries. Note that I'm not making a value judgement here, just commenting that it was and is a significant factor in predicting the economics of EU countries.
So, had we made big decisions on the basis of predictions by the consensus opinion of economic 'exerts' in the years before the crash, we would have been up a certain well known creek without a means of propulsion.
|
Regarding Brexit, economics is known as the 'dismal science' for good reason. Very few so-called experts predicted the 2008 crash. Even Gordon Brown was talking about an 'end to boom and bust' and he had Treasury experts at his beck and call. But he subsequently had to eat a very large portion of humble pie. And the crash is still being felt throughout Europe especially in the UK due to our dependence on banking and financial services. When Eastern European countries entered the EU, and freedom of movement was allowed, most senior figures did not predict the massive movement of people that has occurred, and which has had a very large impact on many countries. Note that I'm not making a value judgement here, just commenting that it was and is a significant factor in predicting the economics of EU countries.
So, had we made big decisions on the basis of predictions by the consensus opinion of economic 'exerts' in the years before the crash, we would have been up a certain well known creek without a means of propulsion.
Precisely. Its like the so-called experts in newspapers telling us plebs what shares to buy - why would anyone want to disseminate that knowledge when they could keep it to themselves, buy shares at lower prices and make a fortune? Reason - they aren't really experts. And besides, very few parts of our lives these days are black and white 'good or bad' - more like very complex systems with shades of grey.
And if we believed all these 'experts' in economics, we'd be up to eyeballs in sharing the EU's debts because we'd be in the Euro. When things get heavily politicised, as science has become in the last 20 years (especially in the last 5), reasoned debate and discovery goes down the pan, because we can't easily differentiate the genuine from the embellished and made-up.
It's affecting my line of work in engineering, thought not as bad or at the same rate, and why I left it a couple of years ago,a dn, to be honest, why I haven't found an alternative as yet - they are currently even worse.
|
And if we believed all these 'experts' in economics, we'd be up to eyeballs in sharing the EU's debts because we'd be in the Euro.
Andy, can you please explain how we have benefited from being out of the Euro, when out Pound has lost 36% of its value against said currency in the last 19 years since it's peak of approx 1.73 in May 2000? If the Euro is a basket case, what does that make GBP?
I'm not advocating the Euro to be good, bad (or indifferent)! This is an honest question I've asked may people previously and never had answered, (I'm an engineer not an economist).
|
And if we believed all these 'experts' in economics, we'd be up to eyeballs in sharing the EU's debts because we'd be in the Euro.
Andy, can you please explain how we have benefited from being out of the Euro, when out Pound has lost 36% of its value against said currency in the last 19 years since it's peak of approx 1.73 in May 2000? If the Euro is a basket case, what does that make GBP?
I'm not advocating the Euro to be good, bad (or indifferent)! This is an honest question I've asked may people previously and never had answered, (I'm an engineer not an economist).
The UK economy is the worst basket case in Europe.
It has perpetual - since 1997 - trade deficits .. ie every year since then we have imported more than we have exported.
We have funded that by selling assets.. (electricity companies, gas companies, houses, companies etc.. ).. When teh music stops, expect a BIG drop in sterling, and a big surge in inflation as food and oil and cars and... computers,TVs etc all become much more expensive..
Strangely enough experts know this but it is politiclaly unacceptable..
At teh same time we are importing people which increases our imports to feed, clother and emply them..
Madness.
Edited by madf on 30/08/2019 at 16:54
|
|
<< It has perpetual - since 1997 - trade deficits .. ie every year since then we have imported more than we have exported. >>
That is partly a consequence of our kick-starting the Industrial Revolution. Since the mid-18th century we have dug up most of our natural resources, exporting much of them and burning or processing the rest. That allowed our population to grow into large industrial 'powerhouses', steadily reducing our better agricultural areas. We were then able to pay for much imported exotic food - starting with oranges and bananas - which we all now expect to find in every supermarket.
We have to try to pay for them somehow with a shrinking technical industry and a (fortunately) fairly profitable finance sector. If that decides to base itself in the EU instead we shall have to think of something quickly.
|
We have to try to pay for them somehow with a shrinking technical industry and a (fortunately) fairly profitable finance sector. If that decides to base itself in the EU instead we shall have to think of something quickly.
Involuntary euthanasia, (starting in Westminster) ;)
|
And if we believed all these 'experts' in economics, we'd be up to eyeballs in sharing the EU's debts because we'd be in the Euro.
Andy, can you please explain how we have benefited from being out of the Euro, when out Pound has lost 36% of its value against said currency in the last 19 years since it's peak of approx 1.73 in May 2000? If the Euro is a basket case, what does that make GBP?
I'm not advocating the Euro to be good, bad (or indifferent)! This is an honest question I've asked may people previously and never had answered, (I'm an engineer not an economist).
The UK economy is the worst basket case in Europe.
It has perpetual - since 1997 - trade deficits .. ie every year since then we have imported more than we have exported.
We have funded that by selling assets.. (electricity companies, gas companies, houses, companies etc.. ).. When teh music stops, expect a BIG drop in sterling, and a big surge in inflation as food and oil and cars and... computers,TVs etc all become much more expensive..
Strangely enough experts know this but it is politiclaly unacceptable..
At teh same time we are importing people which increases our imports to feed, clother and emply them..
Madness.
You obviously have read nothing about Italy, Greece, etc. We may have many serious problems, but they have adbsoluetly zippo to do with our being in or out of the EU or the Euro, but the qaultiy of our political class and business 'leaders' (mainly the big multinationals) and management style more generally. Not helped by the people generally borrowing just to buy frivolous 'stuff' and not personally l;iving within their means and thinking they deserve lots of free stuff from the government, which WE PAY FOR.
|
And if we believed all these 'experts' in economics, we'd be up to eyeballs in sharing the EU's debts because we'd be in the Euro.
Andy, can you please explain how we have benefited from being out of the Euro, when out Pound has lost 36% of its value against said currency in the last 19 years since it's peak of approx 1.73 in May 2000? If the Euro is a basket case, what does that make GBP?
I'm not advocating the Euro to be good, bad (or indifferent)! This is an honest question I've asked may people previously and never had answered, (I'm an engineer not an economist).
Its a bad idea to have a common currency amongst nations that are very different economically and polticially, especially when their economic fortunes are different at any given time. Its the reason why we dropped out of the ERM (forerunner to the Euro) in 1992, where our currency was fixed in relation to a basket of ther EU (EC) currenciews and not able to float up as well as down to account for changes in economic fortunes.
The only way to have a true Euro is to make the EU the European United States with one government, one set of laws, tax rates etc. And even if that was wanted, it would only have a chance in success when the economies all converged, which they have no chance in doing for a LONG time, especially the huge differences between North and Southern European economies and government debt levels.
Its why the Euro isn't working.
|
|
Thank you.
Doesn't say much for GBP then to lose 36% in 20 years against a currency that's "not working"!
|
|
Precisely. Its like the so-called experts in newspapers telling us plebs what shares to buy - why would anyone want to disseminate that knowledge when they could keep it to themselves, buy shares at lower prices and make a fortune? Reason - they aren't really experts. And besides, very few parts of our lives these days are black and white 'good or bad' - more like very complex systems with shades of grey.
And if we believed all these 'experts' in economics, we'd be up to eyeballs in sharing the EU's debts because we'd be in the Euro. When things get heavily politicised, as science has become in the last 20 years (especially in the last 5), reasoned debate and discovery goes down the pan, because we can't easily differentiate the genuine from the embellished and made-up.
It's affecting my line of work in engineering, thought not as bad or at the same rate, and why I left it a couple of years ago,a dn, to be honest, why I haven't found an alternative as yet - they are currently even worse.
Science has not become politicised. There are problems with funding in many areas. For example much food science is done by the food industry, who suppress unwanted results. Anti GW research is funded by oil companies... You could publish anti GW reasearch but you’d need damned good evidence in a decent journal.
|
|
|
Here is a scientific paper detailing how the models used to compute global temperature are flawed.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
Their conclusion.
We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
Low loud cover affecting global temperature makes sense- insulating blanket etc.
That paper isn't even peer reviewed which means that it is completely worthless. They can claim anything and get away with it. It does have serious flaws that make it worthless, you can easily discover that for yourself.
Respected journals have a mechanism called peer review, whereby several respected scientists review the paper, to find any glaring flaws or omissions. It can only be published when the reviewers agree that it is of a sufficient standard. I have had papers reviewed, and I have been asked to review papers though I declined as they were not in my area of knowledge.
It's all well and good for people to talk about 'peer-reviewed science', but the problem is that climate science is still very new and undeveloped, rather like many aspects of science were 150-200 years ago.
Nope. For one thing 200 years ago science was largely the preserve of gentlemen scientists and industrialists. Today there are many thousands of scientists working in this field alone. And scientists do have an awareness of their own knowledge. That is why there are bounds on the estimates for the temperature rises.
Yes, we may have supercomputers and better standard of general scientific knowledge, but there are many areas of science that have also been studied for some time now, with access to the same expertise and equipment and yet they don't claim to know everything about their field, many knowing very little.
All I'm saying is that we should be VERY wary of this current trend of scientific 'hearding' towards 'concensus' because its easier to be in agreement with others in your field than be the outsider.
Personally, I think there's a long way to go, perhaps well over 50 years, maybe a lot more, until we have this science cracked as much as we do other aspects.
The key points behind climate change are well understood. The ability of CO2 to act as a greenhouse gas is very old and well established science. What is harder to model is the exact processes. Thus we don't know for sure how the jetstream will change, and how ocean currents will change.
The problem is that it may be too late then to do something about the (irreversible) problems we may well have and still are causing by our way of life.
I don't think we should listen to those who are using this new science to try and bring back discredited political ideologies, but we do need to make some hard choices about how we as a species consume the resources of this planet and to what end. That does mean that we should NOT listen to the idiots who are often driving the so-called debate at both ends of the spectrum, often for political purposes or for personal/national wealth and/or power. 'Activists' are the last people we should listen to - most of them already made up their minds before seeing any information.
Well said.
|
|
With the RED ARROWS touring the world why should I worry about buying an electric car or climate change? Where do you start in an attempt to save on CO2 pumping into the atmosphere?
It now appears like antibiotic resistance will see us off before climate change!
|
With the RED ARROWS touring the world why should I worry about buying an electric car or climate change? Where do you start in an attempt to save on CO2 pumping into the atmosphere?
It now appears like antibiotic resistance will see us off before climate change!
If someone does something that pollutes you then think you should not consider what you can do? Seems a stupid thing to think.
|
With the RED ARROWS touring the world why should I worry about buying an electric car or climate change? Where do you start in an attempt to save on CO2 pumping into the atmosphere?
You don't start by the sort of 'whataboutery' that compares metaphorical Bananas with Blue Whales.
We need our military pilots to be trained to a peak; the Arrows are a visible manifestation of that training.
The Reds have ten BAe Hawks; single engine advanced trainers. They display a few times a month during the Northern Hemisphere summer and occasionally elsewhere. Doing so they use N tonnes of fossil fuel (Jet A/Avtur) per annum.
Convert those tonnes to petrol/diesel and I doubt they'd run more than a few streets worth of cars for a year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
