politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Brace yourselves for the impending train wreck of the Brexit n
Options
Comments
-
Mr Acieeed appears to have been banned. I can only assume he was a returning bannee as his contributions seemed rather good.0
-
You're into GILFS?GeoffM said:
I like the sound of your old ma. My type of gal..We_Call_It_Acieed said:
Rave on, comrade. You sound like my old ma when it snows. "Call this global warming eh?"GeoffM said:
I agree that it's absurd. And yet that is what you Warmists do.DavidL said:
No, it means that you look at the average, not freak weather events. Eg:GeoffM said:
And that of course is the simple way to wriggle out of it:DavidL said:
You need to differentiate between weather and climate. Southern Europe is currently enduring record temperatures but that is not significant in the overall sense either. What is important is the average and the average is rising. It is not rising as fast as the models predicted which suggests to me that there is something in the solar minimum hypothesis but for the reasons I have said that is a cause for concern not comfort. Things are likely to be worse than we think, not better.hunchman said:
Weather = Stuff that doesn't fit the AGW religion
Climate = Things that echo the agenda.
It's just a different version of playing the Because/Despite Brexit game.
"A new study published this week in Geophysical Research Letters by Robert Graham at the Norwegian Polar Institute shows that warm winters in the Arctic are becoming more frequent and lasting for longer periods of time than they used to. Warm events were defined by when the air temperatures rose above -10 degrees Celsius (14 degrees Fahrenheit). While this is still well below the freezing point, it is 20 degrees Celsius (36 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average. The last two winters have seen temperatures near the North Pole rising to 0 degrees Celsius. While an earlier study showed that winter 2015/2016 was the warmest recorded at that time, the winter of 2016/2017 was even warmer."
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
It is frankly absurd to ignore this material because it is not convenient.
Fits the wishlist = Climate change
Inconvenient dataset = Hide The Decline (© Michael Mann)
Is she fit? Photographs please. Topless or they don't count.0 -
-
A man who can ride all the horses at once!Scott_P said:
But like all men who ride more than one horse, you've got to wonder for quite how long...0 -
There is a conspiracy, just not a very interesting one. Anyone not just down from the trees realises that something very iffy is probably happening to the climate, and that it is bloody difficult to impossible to say with any certainty what it is. What Big Science has decided is to boldly lie about the certainty of the data. You can see why: the evidence for AGW is at most one hundredth part as strong as the evidence that, let's say, smoking causes cancer - because we have lots of smokers and cancer victims to look at, but only one earth. Tell that to a world leader like, let's say, Donald Trump, who probably isn't convinced about the smoking-cancer link, and nothing will get done about AGW, ever. Hence the exaggerated claims, the tricks to hide declines, and the terminally embarrassing bollocks about 97% of scientists blah blah blah. The conspiracy is not to misstate, merely to overstate the strength of the evidence..We_Call_It_Acieed said:
The only thing crazier than conspiracy theories is trying to reason with conspiracy theorists.
You can see their point, of course, but previous instances of things being so utterly certain that one can discard the usual rules for proving them have tended to backfire - remember how it was so obvious that Saddam had WMDs that we could ignore the bleatings of that deluded old fart Hans Blix? And that keeping out of the sun to prevent skin cancer was so obviously the only sensible hing to do that professors lost jobs for suggesting, as everyone now agrees, that the advice was simply wrong? By all means adopt and disseminate the party line, but realise that in doing so you are being a (no offence!) useful idiot.0 -
Scott retweeted a story about a 33 year old grandfather a few days ago.Sean_F said:
You're into GILFS?GeoffM said:
I like the sound of your old ma. My type of gal..We_Call_It_Acieed said:
Rave on, comrade. You sound like my old ma when it snows. "Call this global warming eh?"GeoffM said:
I agree that it's absurd. And yet that is what you Warmists do.DavidL said:
No, it means that you look at the average, not freak weather events. Eg:GeoffM said:
And that of course is the simple way to wriggle out of it:DavidL said:
You need to differentiate between weather and climate. Southern Europe is currently enduring record temperatures but that is not significant in the overall sense either. What is important is the average and the average is rising. It is not rising as fast as the models predicted which suggests to me that there is something in the solar minimum hypothesis but for the reasons I have said that is a cause for concern not comfort. Things are likely to be worse than we think, not better.hunchman said:
Weather = Stuff that doesn't fit the AGW religion
Climate = Things that echo the agenda.
It's just a different version of playing the Because/Despite Brexit game.
"A new study published this week in Geophysical Research Letters by Robert Graham at the Norwegian Polar Institute shows that warm winters in the Arctic are becoming more frequent and lasting for longer periods of time than they used to. Warm events were defined by when the air temperatures rose above -10 degrees Celsius (14 degrees Fahrenheit). While this is still well below the freezing point, it is 20 degrees Celsius (36 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average. The last two winters have seen temperatures near the North Pole rising to 0 degrees Celsius. While an earlier study showed that winter 2015/2016 was the warmest recorded at that time, the winter of 2016/2017 was even warmer."
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
It is frankly absurd to ignore this material because it is not convenient.
Fits the wishlist = Climate change
Inconvenient dataset = Hide The Decline (© Michael Mann)
Is she fit? Photographs please. Topless or they don't count.
His mother could be late 20's on that basis. And probably is.
We'll never know now that the Ban Hammer has descended.0 -
So....Jeremy is a follower, not a leader. Oh well, just another bland politicianMyBurningEars said:
A man who can ride all the horses at once!Scott_P said:twitter.com/jack_blanchard_/status/889955217650974721
But like all men who ride more than one horse, you've got to wonder for quite how long...
0 -
Personally the bigger danger I believe is pretending we know what is causing it or that we can do anything about it. We have already seen this in some small scale with the devastation of areas of rain forest to grow biofuels. If they start being serious about things like climate manipulation as some of the fanatics suggest then we really are in trouble.Benpointer said:@GeoffM - pretending global warming isn't happening won't make it go away. Just saying.
Meanwhile we have an underlying major problem. The majority of our population live in a zone that has been well below sea level in the past due to natural causes and pretending that anything we can do will stop that happening again is just going to make the eventual problem even worse.
New Orleans was a perfect example of this. Whilst the climate alarmists were running around claiming it was due to warming, the real reason - the disruption of the normal balance between basin sinking and sediment build up due to canalisation of the Mississippi and the sediments being pushed further out into the basin where their isostatic effects were even more pronounced - was generally ignored. New Orleans needs to be abandoned as it is only going one way.0 -
0
-
Risk assessment has two factors: Probability of event, and impact of event.Ishmael_Z said:
There is a conspiracy, just not a very interesting one. Anyone not just down from the trees realises that something very iffy is probably happening to the climate, and that it is bloody difficult to impossible to say with any certainty what it is. What Big Science has decided is to boldly lie about the certainty of the data. You can see why: the evidence for AGW is at most one hundredth part as strong as the evidence that, let's say, smoking causes cancer - because we have lots of smokers and cancer victims to look at, but only one earth. Tell that to a world leader like, let's say, Donald Trump, who probably isn't convinced about the smoking-cancer link, and nothing will get done about AGW, ever. Hence the exaggerated claims, the tricks to hide declines, and the terminally embarrassing bollocks about 97% of scientists blah blah blah. The conspiracy is not to misstate, merely to overstate the strength of the evidence..We_Call_It_Acieed said:
The only thing crazier than conspiracy theories is trying to reason with conspiracy theorists.
You can see their point, of course, but previous instances of things being so utterly certain that one can discard the usual rules for proving them have tended to backfire - remember how it was so obvious that Saddam had WMDs that we could ignore the bleatings of that deluded old fart Hans Blix? And that keeping out of the sun to prevent skin cancer was so obviously the only sensible hing to do that professors lost jobs for suggesting, as everyone now agrees, that the advice was simply wrong? By all means adopt and disseminate the party line, but realise that in doing so you are being a (no offence!) useful idiot.
We can roughly calculate the impact of an event, such as Sea levels rising a few metres, flooding Bengal etc, the difficulty is the probability of the event. Is it 10% or 90%?
To my mind the risks of the warmists being right far outweighs the risk of them being wrong. How certain do we have to be of disaster before the deniers wake up?0 -
Best news I've seen in a long time, maybe ever:
"Sperm count drop 'may lead to human extinction'"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40719743
Let's leave the earth to those species that won't feck it up.0 -
Mine is already zeroSandyRentool said:Best news I've seen in a long time, maybe ever:
"Sperm count drop 'may lead to human extinction'"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40719743
Let's leave the earth to those species that won't feck it up.
0 -
You can be 100% certain and they will still disbelieve. Has Brexit taught you nothing?foxinsoxuk said:To my mind the risks of the warmists being right far outweighs the risk of them being wrong. How certain do we have to be of disaster before the deniers wake up?
0 -
They all do.SandyRentool said:Best news I've seen in a long time, maybe ever:
"Sperm count drop 'may lead to human extinction'"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40719743
Let's leave the earth to those species that won't feck it up.0 -
Can he ride the goat?MyBurningEars said:
A man who can ride all the horses at once!Scott_P said:
But like all men who ride more than one horse, you've got to wonder for quite how long...0 -
It depends on what you plan to do. I am quite happy for the world to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Oil is a finite resource which still has many very important applications outside of energy and it seems dumb to waste it by burning it and to base our whole world economy on it when there are viable alternatives. The problem for me is when you go beyond that and start trying to do stuff to change the climate as has been suggested or, as I mentioned previously, when you destroy large swathes of our environment for the sake of biofuels.foxinsoxuk said:
Risk assessment has two factors: Probability of event, and impact of event.
We can roughly calculate the impact of an event, such as Sea levels rising a few metres, flooding Bengal etc, the difficulty is the probability of the event. Is it 10% or 90%?
To my mind the risks of the warmists being right far outweighs the risk of them being wrong. How certain do we have to be of disaster before the deniers wake up?
I am not concerned about the tax issues nor about the economic issues. The steps being taken in the name of AGW are small fry compared to the big stuff concerning emerging nations.
From a personal point of view the one thing that really bothers me is the debasement of science. At some point it will become clear that the AGW scare is at least massively exaggerated if not complete garbage. That is when people turn away from science. When you have staked the whole basis of the scientific principle on something that turns out to be false, and which at least in part was due to massive politicisation by people claiming to be scientists, it will not be easy to convince people that science is not itself utterly corrupted and untrustworthy0 -
Well, if as you implicitly concede there is no certainty at this stage, calling people deniers who need to wake up is a bit question begging for starters. And I thought things were going the warmists way? One certainly hears a lot about Paris agreements and stuff. The sad thing is that there is so much that could be done which is sensible on other grounds, like for instance directing all the additional spending to convert the car industry to electric (which would sort out air pollution as well) and instead so much is spent on moronic scams like shipping wood pellets around the world where the fuel used in shipping outweighs the savings from burning the pellets.foxinsoxuk said:
Risk assessment has two factors: Probability of event, and impact of event.Ishmael_Z said:
There is a conspiracy, just not a very interesting one. Anyone not just down from the trees realises that something very iffy is probably happening to the climate, and that it is bloody difficult to impossible to say with any certainty what it is. What Big Science has decided is to boldly lie about the certainty of the data. You can see why: the evidence for AGW is at most one hundredth part as strong as the evidence that, let's say, smoking causes cancer - because we have lots of smokers and cancer victims to look at, but only one earth. Tell that to a world leader like, let's say, Donald Trump, who probably isn't convinced about the smoking-cancer link, and nothing will get done about AGW, ever. Hence the exaggerated claims, the tricks to hide declines, and the terminally embarrassing bollocks about 97% of scientists blah blah blah. The conspiracy is not to misstate, merely to overstate the strength of the evidence..We_Call_It_Acieed said:
The only thing crazier than conspiracy theories is trying to reason with conspiracy theorists.
You can see their point, of course, but previous instances of things being so utterly certain that one can discard the usual rules for proving them have tended to backfire - remember how it was so obvious that Saddam had WMDs that we could ignore the bleatings of that deluded old fart Hans Blix? And that keeping out of the sun to prevent skin cancer was so obviously the only sensible hing to do that professors lost jobs for suggesting, as everyone now agrees, that the advice was simply wrong? By all means adopt and disseminate the party line, but realise that in doing so you are being a (no offence!) useful idiot.
We can roughly calculate the impact of an event, such as Sea levels rising a few metres, flooding Bengal etc, the difficulty is the probability of the event. Is it 10% or 90%?
To my mind the risks of the warmists being right far outweighs the risk of them being wrong. How certain do we have to be of disaster before the deniers wake up?0 -
I once had access to the Shockwave codebase (Shockwave was a compatriot of Flash owned by the same company). The code was hideously poor. (*)Beverley_C said:Maybe there is a God after all
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40716304
Flash had been bought in from another company so it might have had a slightly better history, but not if the coders who worked on Shockwave got to touch it.
I wasn't surprised to learn that Flash is an insecure mess.
(*) I still have nightmares about dancing bees singing in Japanese.0 -
The debasement of science, by scientists, is the key point. Anyone who believes that it is a scientific argument to say that 97% of scientists believe something should be deprived of the right to vote, and actual scientists peddling the fallacy should be summarily dismissed from their jobs.Richard_Tyndall said:
It depends on what you plan to do. I am quite happy for the world to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Oil is a finite resource which still has many very important applications outside of energy and it seems dumb to waste it by burning it and to base our whole world economy on it when there are viable alternatives. The problem for me is when you go beyond that and start trying to do stuff to change the climate as has been suggested or, as I mentioned previously, when you destroy large swathes of our environment for the sake of biofuels.foxinsoxuk said:
Risk assessment has two factors: Probability of event, and impact of event.
We can roughly calculate the impact of an event, such as Sea levels rising a few metres, flooding Bengal etc, the difficulty is the probability of the event. Is it 10% or 90%?
To my mind the risks of the warmists being right far outweighs the risk of them being wrong. How certain do we have to be of disaster before the deniers wake up?
I am not concerned about the tax issues nor about the economic issues. The steps being taken in the name of AGW are small fry compared to the big stuff concerning emerging nations.
From a personal point of view the one thing that really bothers me is the debasement of science. At some point it will become clear that the AGW scare is at least massively exaggerated if not complete garbage. That is when people turn away from science. When you have staked the whole basis of the scientific principle on something that turns out to be false, and which at least in part was due to massive politicisation by people claiming to be scientists, it will not be easy to convince people that science is not itself utterly corrupted and untrustworthy0 -
Here's another issue:Drutt said:Thread header: Almost anything at all. Below the line: BREXIT
Thread header: Brexit. Below the line: EMPIRES AND STUDENT DEBT AND GLOBAL WARMING
Never change, PB.
A good header from Alastair Meeks, though I have rather more confidence than he that a deal, however imperfect, will be struck; history shows there is rather more pragmatism (and an inclination for fudge and can-kicking) on both parties' parts than their respective public utterances suggest.
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/jul/25/large-rise-takeaway-shops-highlights-dominance-fast-food-deprived-areas-England
So why do the most deprived areas have the worst and worst value food ?
Food in this country is IMO remarkably cheap and its not difficult to do basic cooking yourself yet deprived areas are home to endless numbers of grotty and expensive takeaways.0 -
I think the 97% was from the number of scientists that bothered to reply to the poll, and of those who replied most were excluded from the count.0
-
Thank you for mentioning the infamous Michael Mann. He was in contempt of court earlier this month for refusing to hand over his (fraudulently manipulated) weather data set on which the 'hockey stick' was based:GeoffM said:
I agree that it's absurd. And yet that is what you Warmists do.DavidL said:
No, it means that you look at the average, not freak weather events. Eg:GeoffM said:
And that of course is the simple way to wriggle out of it:DavidL said:
You need to differentiate between weather and climate. Southern Europe is currently enduring record temperatures but that is not significant in the overall sense either. What is important is the average and the average is rising. It is not rising as fast as the models predicted which suggests to me that there is something in the solar minimum hypothesis but for the reasons I have said that is a cause for concern not comfort. Things are likely to be worse than we think, not better.hunchman said:
Weather = Stuff that doesn't fit the AGW religion
Climate = Things that echo the agenda.
It's just a different version of playing the Because/Despite Brexit game.
"A new study published this week in Geophysical Research Letters by Robert Graham at the Norwegian Polar Institute shows that warm winters in the Arctic are becoming more frequent and lasting for longer periods of time than they used to. Warm events were defined by when the air temperatures rose above -10 degrees Celsius (14 degrees Fahrenheit). While this is still well below the freezing point, it is 20 degrees Celsius (36 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average. The last two winters have seen temperatures near the North Pole rising to 0 degrees Celsius. While an earlier study showed that winter 2015/2016 was the warmest recorded at that time, the winter of 2016/2017 was even warmer."
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
It is frankly absurd to ignore this material because it is not convenient.
Fits the wishlist = Climate change
Inconvenient dataset = Hide The Decline (© Michael Mann)
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/07/05/fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/
And what a surprise, mention of it was nowhere to be found in the mainstream media. I wonder why not?0 -
Given the regularity that issues creep up with Flash, I have always suspected that the code quality was dreadful. These days I worry about Java Runtime but the sooner Flash is gone the better.JosiasJessop said:
I once had access to the Shockwave codebase (Shockwave was a compatriot of Flash owned by the same company). The code was hideously poor. (*)Beverley_C said:Maybe there is a God after all
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40716304
Flash had been bought in from another company so it might have had a slightly better history, but not if the coders who worked on Shockwave got to touch it.
I wasn't surprised to learn that Flash is an insecure mess.
(*) I still have nightmares about dancing bees singing in Japanese.0 -
It depends on what you plan to do. I am quite happy for the world to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Oil is a finite resource which still has many very important applications outside of energy and it seems dumb to waste it by burning it and to base our whole world economy on it when there are viable alternatives. The problem for me is when you go beyond that and start trying to do stuff to change the climate as has been suggested or, as I mentioned previously, when you destroy large swathes of our environment for the sake of biofuels.
I am not concerned about the tax issues nor about the economic issues. The steps being taken in the name of AGW are small fry compared to the big stuff concerning emerging nations.
From a personal point of view the one thing that really bothers me is the debasement of science. At some point it will become clear that the AGW scare is at least massively exaggerated if not complete garbage. That is when people turn away from science. When you have staked the whole basis of the scientific principle on something that turns out to be false, and which at least in part was due to massive politicisation by people claiming to be scientists, it will not be easy to convince people that science is not itself utterly corrupted and untrustworthy
The debasement of science, by scientists, is the key point. Anyone who believes that it is a scientific argument to say that 97% of scientists believe something should be deprived of the right to vote, and actual scientists peddling the fallacy should be summarily dismissed from their jobs.
Seconded. Great point and Mr Tyndall spot on as usual.0 -
I haven't got the link here, but the editor of the Lancet a couple of years ago said that he thought that 50% of the science published at the moment is complete bollocks, so the 97% figure presumably cashes out as 48.5% pro, 48.5% con.PAW said:I think the 97% was from the number of scientists that bothered to reply to the poll, and of those who replied most were excluded from the count.
0 -
Is it my imagination, or has HTML5 video led to an enormous amount of disruptive autoplay video?
I used to like Flex.0 -
Plenty of debasement of science all round. The question remains as to what level of risk (probability times impact) is acceptable for the only known planet that we can inhabit?
I agree that there are many foolish schemes to reduce the impact amongst the serious ones, but there is also a lot of people in the fossil fuel economy doing special pleading to do nothing.
In particular schemes mitigating flood risk should be prioritised. In the meantime, only buy houses on hills.
0 -
Correct, it was a double cut of replies to 2 questions. IIRC the first was 'do you believe that climate changes' - well anyone without an ounce of sense would answer yes to that one. And then the 2nd question was something along the lines of climate change being largely caused by man.PAW said:I think the 97% was from the number of scientists that bothered to reply to the poll, and of those who replied most were excluded from the count.
Well on a good day around 5% of CO2 emissions are caused by man, with CO2 literally a trace gas of 4% of every 1% in the atmosphere. Termites emit a great deal more, and the ocean on an 800 year lag from temperatures acts as a carbon sink / emitter many times more vast that man made emissions. This 800 year lag of CO2 critically after temperature rises and falls is extremely important but is not fully understood. We are 800 years on roughly from the end of the Holicene optimum between 800 and 1200 AD, which was a period of rebuilding after the wreckage of the dark ages after the fall of the Roman Empire. Mann and other AGW proponents completely flattened out the Holicene warm period. No wonder Mann didn't want to hand over his data as his data from that period was clearly nonsense when the Vikings were farming on the eastern coast of Greenland in those times. Doesn't quite fit the 2017 warmest ever year nonsense does it?
On another point, the average CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the course of the 4.6 billion year history of planet Earth is around 1500 / 1600 parts per million (ppm) against around 400 today. That didn't lead to runaway warming as the AGW proponents would have you believe. You can make a very credible argument that the world is short of CO2, not the other way around. Indeed many greenhouses have CO2 pumped into them to raise the level in order to encourage all their carbon based plant life.
As the end of the Younger Dryas around 11,600 years ago when temperatures on earth shot up by around 10C in a very short time, water vapour is a much more potent greenhouse gas compared to CO2, when the 2nd cometary impact (after the first on the North American ice sheet around 12,800 years ago) landed on the ocean and sent up a huge plume of water vapour in the atmosphere.0 -
One story from that period: at the time Shockwave was owned by a company called Macromedia, who were in the top 10 visited websites.Beverley_C said:
Given the regularity that issues creep up with Flash, I have always suspected that the code quality was dreadful. These days I worry about Java Runtime but the sooner Flash is gone the better.JosiasJessop said:
I once had access to the Shockwave codebase (Shockwave was a compatriot of Flash owned by the same company). The code was hideously poor. (*)Beverley_C said:Maybe there is a God after all
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40716304
Flash had been bought in from another company so it might have had a slightly better history, but not if the coders who worked on Shockwave got to touch it.
I wasn't surprised to learn that Flash is an insecure mess.
(*) I still have nightmares about dancing bees singing in Japanese.
We once had some bigwigs from Macromedia visit us, and we took them into a room to show them progress. My boss entered their website on our browser, except he missed the 'a' off the end by mistake and wrote macromedi.com
It went to a porn site. The Yanks were rather concerned to discover that someone had cybersquatted a domain one letter off theirs and was using it for porn.
On the plus side, our browser displayed the porn correctly ... 0 -
Extremely good question and point. I remember reading some similar research saying the same in the USA. I think zerohedge had a graph showing % of income spent on food. UK came in one of the lowest around 8% along with the USA and Switzerland, and could be less if we rid ourselves of the worst of the Common Agricultural Policy.another_richard said:
Here's another issue:Drutt said:Thread header: Almost anything at all. Below the line: BREXIT
Thread header: Brexit. Below the line: EMPIRES AND STUDENT DEBT AND GLOBAL WARMING
Never change, PB.
A good header from Alastair Meeks, though I have rather more confidence than he that a deal, however imperfect, will be struck; history shows there is rather more pragmatism (and an inclination for fudge and can-kicking) on both parties' parts than their respective public utterances suggest.
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/jul/25/large-rise-takeaway-shops-highlights-dominance-fast-food-deprived-areas-England
So why do the most deprived areas have the worst and worst value food ?
Food in this country is IMO remarkably cheap and its not difficult to do basic cooking yourself yet deprived areas are home to endless numbers of grotty and expensive takeaways.
A key strategy in fighting food poverty and the many foodbanks that have sprung up is to make sure that people are educated in cooking to a basic standard at least. Funny that I never hear that obvious solution from across the political spectrum.0 -
While the government are pissing about promising to ban things that won't exist in any great numbers in 25 years time i.e. petrol cars...They need to be all over this disgusting crime.isam said:Talking of Acieeeed! More attacks in the epicentre
"If you thought it was a drug, now you know you're wrong"
twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/8899460504459223050 -
No, it wasn't a poll. Which you'd know if you could be arsed to actually find out rather than blindly repeating nonsense you read on some denier site. The source of the 97% is this review of the published scientific literature on global warming:PAW said:I think the 97% was from the number of scientists that bothered to reply to the poll, and of those who replied most were excluded from the count.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
The 97% refers to the proportion of papers whose abstracts express a position on AGW that endorsed the consensus position.
The consensus position as set out in the IPCC is endorsed by every single national and international scientific body in the world. There is absolutely no doubt among the vast majority of scientists, especially climate scientists, the AGW is a real and serious problem. The idea that there is any significant doubt about the fundamental basis of AGW is purely a political construct established by those who stand to lose out from action to combat AGW.0 -
This was shown to be utter garbage as well. The review decided that any climate paper that did not explicitly reject AGW should be taken as endorsing it. That is like claiming that any political post I make on here that does not explicitly reject the EU should be taken as endorsing it.FeersumEnjineeya said:
No, it wasn't a poll. Which you'd know if you could be arsed to actually find out rather than blindly repeating nonsense you read on some denier site. The source of the 97% is this review of the published scientific literature on global warming:PAW said:I think the 97% was from the number of scientists that bothered to reply to the poll, and of those who replied most were excluded from the count.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
The 97% refers to the proportion of papers whose abstracts express a position on AGW that endorsed the consensus position.
The consensus position as set out in the IPCC is endorsed by every single national and international scientific body in the world. There is absolutely no doubt among the vast majority of scientists, especially climate scientists, the AGW is a real and serious problem. The idea that there is any significant doubt about the fundamental basis of AGW is purely a political construct established by those who stand to lose out from action to combat AGW.
It is no wonder we hold you in such contempt. You are certainly not fit to be regarded as a scientist.0 -
Perhaps you could cite the part of the review in which you claim they "decided that any climate paper that did not explicitly reject AGW should be taken as endorsing it". Otherwise, I think an apology is due.Richard_Tyndall said:
This was shown to be utter garbage as well. The review decided that any climate paper that did not explicitly reject AGW should be taken as endorsing it. That is like claiming that any political post I make on here that does not explicitly reject the EU should be taken as endorsing it.FeersumEnjineeya said:
No, it wasn't a poll. Which you'd know if you could be arsed to actually find out rather than blindly repeating nonsense you read on some denier site. The source of the 97% is this review of the published scientific literature on global warming:PAW said:I think the 97% was from the number of scientists that bothered to reply to the poll, and of those who replied most were excluded from the count.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
The 97% refers to the proportion of papers whose abstracts express a position on AGW that endorsed the consensus position.
The consensus position as set out in the IPCC is endorsed by every single national and international scientific body in the world. There is absolutely no doubt among the vast majority of scientists, especially climate scientists, the AGW is a real and serious problem. The idea that there is any significant doubt about the fundamental basis of AGW is purely a political construct established by those who stand to lose out from action to combat AGW.
It is no wonder we hold you in such contempt. You are certainly not fit to be regarded as a scientist.0 -
Indeed. You asked earlier what the probability was of Bangladesh being flooded, 10% or 90%. It is neither. It is 100%. Whatever we do, whether you or I are correct or wrong about AGW, no matter what steps are taken to mitigate it, Bangladesh and most of the rest of the world's coastal strip will flood at some point in the future. Its called a marine transgression and it has happened literally hundreds if not thousands of times before.foxinsoxuk said:
Plenty of debasement of science all round. The question remains as to what level of risk (probability times impact) is acceptable for the only known planet that we can inhabit?
I agree that there are many foolish schemes to reduce the impact amongst the serious ones, but there is also a lot of people in the fossil fuel economy doing special pleading to do nothing.
In particular schemes mitigating flood risk should be prioritised. In the meantime, only buy houses on hills.0 -
FeersumEnjineeya - just wondering how much confidence you have with this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-40683302 ?0
-
The review concerned was published in 2004 by Naomi Oreskes in Science magazineFeersumEnjineeya said:
Perhaps you could cite the part of the review in which you claim they "decided that any climate paper that did not explicitly reject AGW should be taken as endorsing it". Otherwise, I think an apology is due.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686
It includes the sentence:
"None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position of anthropogenic global warming".
It says that unless there was actual disagreement with the position then every one of the 928 papers were taken to be in favour.
When Oreskes then published a book on this in 2007 she revealed that in fact only 235 of the papers endorsed AGW whilst the rest were assumed to 'implicitly' endorse it. That included papers discussing "methods and techniques for measuring, monitoring, or predicting climate change", those discussing "potential or documenting actual impacts of climate change" and those looking at historical climate change. Even though the majority of those papers did not lay any claim to an anthropogenic cause and many were discussing natural climate change, they were all assumed to be endorsing the AGW hypothesis.
So no I won't apologise. You should do your research and stop making stupid unfounded claims. It is people like you who do indeed bring science into disrepute.0 -
No, the review I'm referring to is the one that I linked to in my post. It was published in 2013 by Cook et al. and is the source of the 97% figure. Here it is again:Richard_Tyndall said:
The review concerned was published in 2004 by Naomi Oreskes in Science magazineFeersumEnjineeya said:
Perhaps you could cite the part of the review in which you claim they "decided that any climate paper that did not explicitly reject AGW should be taken as endorsing it". Otherwise, I think an apology is due.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686
It includes the sentence:
"None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position of anthropogenic global warming".
It says that unless there was actual disagreement with the position then every one of the 928 papers were taken to be in favour.
When Oreskes then published a book on this in 2007 she revealed that in fact only 235 of the papers endorsed AGW whilst the rest were assumed to 'implicitly' endorse it. That included papers discussing "methods and techniques for measuring, monitoring, or predicting climate change", those discussing "potential or documenting actual impacts of climate change" and those looking at historical climate change. Even though the majority of those papers did not lay any claim to an anthropogenic cause and many were discussing natural climate change, they were all assumed to be endorsing the AGW hypothesis.
So no I won't apologise. You should do your research and stop making stupid unfounded claims. It is people like you who do indeed bring science into disrepute.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
From the abstract (my bold):
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
I suggest that you actually read my posts properly before resorting to abuse.0 -
The Cook review is much later and is even worse. It ignores the large majority of papers on climate change because they do not express a position and then claims that using the 35% that do express a position they represent the views of 97% of the scientific community. It is utter bollocks and again you should be ashamed.FeersumEnjineeya said:
No, the review I'm referring to is the one that I linked to in my post. It was published in 2013 by Cook et al. and is the source of the 97% figure. Here it is again:Richard_Tyndall said:
The review concerned was published in 2004 by Naomi Oreskes in Science magazineFeersumEnjineeya said:
Perhaps you could cite the part of the review in which you claim they "decided that any climate paper that did not explicitly reject AGW should be taken as endorsing it". Otherwise, I think an apology is due.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686
It includes the sentence:
"None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position of anthropogenic global warming".
It says that unless there was actual disagreement with the position then every one of the 928 papers were taken to be in favour.
When Oreskes then published a book on this in 2007 she revealed that in fact only 235 of the papers endorsed AGW whilst the rest were assumed to 'implicitly' endorse it. That included papers discussing "methods and techniques for measuring, monitoring, or predicting climate change", those discussing "potential or documenting actual impacts of climate change" and those looking at historical climate change. Even though the majority of those papers did not lay any claim to an anthropogenic cause and many were discussing natural climate change, they were all assumed to be endorsing the AGW hypothesis.
So no I won't apologise. You should do your research and stop making stupid unfounded claims. It is people like you who do indeed bring science into disrepute.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
From the abstract (my bold):
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
I suggest that you actually read my posts properly before resorting to abuse.
If 60% of declared Tory supporters think Theresa May is doing a good job you cannot extrapolate that to claim 60% of the population think that way.
If you abuse science in the way you do then I am happy to abuse you for it.0 -
Your analogy makes no sense. Cook states that 97% of those who expressed a position endorsed the consensus. So a better analogy would be, for example, that 52% of those who voted in the EU referendum voted to leave. Would you declare the leave vote invalid because it wasn't 52% of the entire electorate?Richard_Tyndall said:
The Cook review is much later and is even worse. It ignores the large majority of papers on climate change because they do not express a position and then claims that using the 35% that do express a position they represent the views of 97% of the scientific community. It is utter bollocks and again you should be ashamed.FeersumEnjineeya said:
No, the review I'm referring to is the one that I linked to in my post. It was published in 2013 by Cook et al. and is the source of the 97% figure. Here it is again:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
From the abstract (my bold):
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
I suggest that you actually read my posts properly before resorting to abuse.
If 60% of declared Tory supporters think Theresa May is doing a good job you cannot extrapolate that to claim 60% of the population think that way.
If you abuse science in the way you do then I am happy to abuse you for it.
Actually it's worse than that. Even though Cook doesn't assume that those who don't express a position support the consensus, it would actually not be unreasonable to do so. After all, while I imagine that the abstracts of very few papers on lunar geology expressly support the consensus that the moon is not made of green cheese, this does not mean that they oppose the consensus!0 -
-
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Your analogy makes no sense. Cook states that 97% of those who expressed a position endorsed the consensus. So a better analogy would be, for example, that 52% of those who voted in the EU referendum voted to leave. Would you declare the leave vote invalid because it wasn't 52% of the entire electorate?Richard_Tyndall said:
The Cook review is much later and is even worse. It ignores the large majority of papers on climate change because they do not express a position and then claims that using the 35% that do express a position they represent the views of 97% of the scientific community. It is utter bollocks and again you should be ashamed.FeersumEnjineeya said:
No, the review I'm referring to is the one that I linked to in my post. It was published in 2013 by Cook et al. and is the source of the 97% figure. Here it is again:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
From the abstract (my bold):
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
I suggest that you actually read my posts properly before resorting to abuse.
If 60% of declared Tory supporters think Theresa May is doing a good job you cannot extrapolate that to claim 60% of the population think that way.
If you abuse science in the way you do then I am happy to abuse you for it.
Actually it's worse than that. Even though Cook doesn't assume that those who don't express a position support the consensus, it would actually not be unreasonable to do so. After all, while I imagine that the abstracts of very few papers on lunar geology expressly support the consensus that the moon is not made of green cheese, this does not mean that they oppose the consensus!0 -
And why did Legates get such a different result? Perhaps you could provide a link to the paper in which he describes his methodology, as I did for the Cook paper.Richard_Tyndall said:
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Your analogy makes no sense. Cook states that 97% of those who expressed a position endorsed the consensus. So a better analogy would be, for example, that 52% of those who voted in the EU referendum voted to leave. Would you declare the leave vote invalid because it wasn't 52% of the entire electorate?Richard_Tyndall said:
The Cook review is much later and is even worse. It ignores the large majority of papers on climate change because they do not express a position and then claims that using the 35% that do express a position they represent the views of 97% of the scientific community. It is utter bollocks and again you should be ashamed.FeersumEnjineeya said:
No, the review I'm referring to is the one that I linked to in my post. It was published in 2013 by Cook et al. and is the source of the 97% figure. Here it is again:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
From the abstract (my bold):
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
I suggest that you actually read my posts properly before resorting to abuse.
If 60% of declared Tory supporters think Theresa May is doing a good job you cannot extrapolate that to claim 60% of the population think that way.
If you abuse science in the way you do then I am happy to abuse you for it.
Actually it's worse than that. Even though Cook doesn't assume that those who don't express a position support the consensus, it would actually not be unreasonable to do so. After all, while I imagine that the abstracts of very few papers on lunar geology expressly support the consensus that the moon is not made of green cheese, this does not mean that they oppose the consensus!0 -
What would you have them do?FrancisUrquhart said:
While the government are pissing about promising to ban things that won't exist in any great numbers in 25 years time i.e. petrol cars...They need to be all over this disgusting crime.isam said:Talking of Acieeeed! More attacks in the epicentre
"If you thought it was a drug, now you know you're wrong"
twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/8899460504459223050 -
Happy GDP day everyone!
0 -
Is that going to be in Labour's next manifesto?SandyRentool said:Best news I've seen in a long time, maybe ever:
"Sperm count drop 'may lead to human extinction'"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40719743
Let's leave the earth to those species that won't feck it up.0 -
Brexiters proving their anti-expert credentials was doing nothing for me or for their credibility, such as it is.Benpointer said:Blimey, I go off for a few hours to share a couple of glasses of wine with neighbours and when I come back the topic of discussion has changed from 1914 to global warming and sperm counts! What is it with this website?
And do the thread header writers wonder why they bother?0 -
you undermine yourself once by being wrong, and then again by not taking on board that it makes no odds anyway: science is not done by consensus. You think that is a picky get-out argument. and that shows more clearly than anything else that you are simply not qualified to take part in the debate. Perhaps google the great vitamin D and sunlight debate, and try to get your head round the extent to which that disproves "scientific consensus" arguments even for those who are unable to understand a fortiori why such arguments are wrong.FeersumEnjineeya said:
No, the review I'm referring to is the one that I linked to in my post. It was published in 2013 by Cook et al. and is the source of the 97% figure. Here it is again:Richard_Tyndall said:
The review concerned was published in 2004 by Naomi Oreskes in Science magazineFeersumEnjineeya said:
Perhaps you could cite the part of the review in which you claim they "decided that any climate paper that did not explicitly reject AGW should be taken as endorsing it". Otherwise, I think an apology is due.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686
It includes the sentence:
"None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position of anthropogenic global warming".
It says that unless there was actual disagreement with the position then every one of the 928 papers were taken to be in favour.
When Oreskes then published a book on this in 2007 she revealed that in fact only 235 of the papers endorsed AGW whilst the rest were assumed to 'implicitly' endorse it. That included papers discussing "methods and techniques for measuring, monitoring, or predicting climate change", those discussing "potential or documenting actual impacts of climate change" and those looking at historical climate change. Even though the majority of those papers did not lay any claim to an anthropogenic cause and many were discussing natural climate change, they were all assumed to be endorsing the AGW hypothesis.
So no I won't apologise. You should do your research and stop making stupid unfounded claims. It is people like you who do indeed bring science into disrepute.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
From the abstract (my bold):
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
I suggest that you actually read my posts properly before resorting to abuse.0 -
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.Richard_Tyndall said:
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.0 -
If you read the article, african and asian spermcounts are not dropping so fast, so fear not for extinctionCasino_Royale said:
Is that going to be in Labour's next manifesto?SandyRentool said:Best news I've seen in a long time, maybe ever:
"Sperm count drop 'may lead to human extinction'"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40719743
Let's leave the earth to those species that won't feck it up. 0 -
Can you point us to some other areas where a consensus forecast of "experts" as to the future behaviour of a complex and more or less chaotic system is more accurate than the purely random? In any sphere at all? Or where scientific arguments are assessed by reference to uninformed conjecture about the proponent's position on an unrelated political topic? Your view of science is somewhere between cargo cult (white scientists bringing 97% certainty in their big ships) and Harry potter - He Who Must Not be Named has cast a spell of Warmus anthropogenus.IanB2 said:
Brexiters proving their anti-expert credentials was doing nothing for me or for their credibility, such as it is.Benpointer said:Blimey, I go off for a few hours to share a couple of glasses of wine with neighbours and when I come back the topic of discussion has changed from 1914 to global warming and sperm counts! What is it with this website?
And do the thread header writers wonder why they bother?0 -
What a ridiculous (and telling) attitude. How you can expect to learn anything with a view like that?Ishmael_Z said:
Can you point us to some other areas where a consensus forecast of "experts" as to the future behaviour of a complex and more or less chaotic system is more accurate than the purely random? In any sphere at all?IanB2 said:
Brexiters proving their anti-expert credentials was doing nothing for me or for their credibility, such as it is.Benpointer said:Blimey, I go off for a few hours to share a couple of glasses of wine with neighbours and when I come back the topic of discussion has changed from 1914 to global warming and sperm counts! What is it with this website?
And do the thread header writers wonder why they bother?
The only silver lining is that we are inching back towards topic.
0 -
Or they didn't actually read the papers.rkrkrk said:
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.Richard_Tyndall said:
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.
To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.
0 -
I'm not seeing the relevance of the sunlight debate.Ishmael_Z said:
you undermine yourself once by being wrong, and then again by not taking on board that it makes no odds anyway: science is not done by consensus. You think that is a picky get-out argument. and that shows more clearly than anything else that you are simply not qualified to take part in the debate. Perhaps google the great vitamin D and sunlight debate, and try to get your head round the extent to which that disproves "scientific consensus" arguments even for those who are unable to understand a fortiori why such arguments are wrong.FeersumEnjineeya said:
No, the review I'm referring to is the one that I linked to in my post. It was published in 2013 by Cook et al. and is the source of the 97% figure. Here it is again:Richard_Tyndall said:
The review concerned was published in 2004 by Naomi Oreskes in Science magazineFeersumEnjineeya said:
Perhaps you could cite the part of the review in which you claim they "decided that any climate paper that did not explicitly reject AGW should be taken as endorsing it". Otherwise, I think an apology is due.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686
It includes the sentence:
"None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position of anthropogenic global warming".
It says that unless there was actual disagreement with the position then every one of the 928 papers were taken to be in favour.
So no I won't apologise. You should do your research and stop making stupid unfounded claims. It is people like you who do indeed bring science into disrepute.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
From the abstract (my bold):
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
I suggest that you actually read my posts properly before resorting to abuse.
It's not as though they showed that sun exposure is not causative of cancer, just that there was a countervailing protective mechanism (at a certain level of exposure).
Are you proposing a similar set of balancing forces for global warming ? We'd all be very interested.
0 -
Why not just answer the question? That is the most incompetent fail at ferreting out of an unwinnable argument I have ever seen.IanB2 said:
What a ridiculous (and telling) attitude. How you can expect to learn anything with a view like that?Ishmael_Z said:
Can you point us to some other areas where a consensus forecast of "experts" as to the future behaviour of a complex and more or less chaotic system is more accurate than the purely random? In any sphere at all?IanB2 said:
Brexiters proving their anti-expert credentials was doing nothing for me or for their credibility, such as it is.Benpointer said:Blimey, I go off for a few hours to share a couple of glasses of wine with neighbours and when I come back the topic of discussion has changed from 1914 to global warming and sperm counts! What is it with this website?
And do the thread header writers wonder why they bother?
The only silver lining is that we are inching back towards topic.
just one example. Please.0 -
For all the justifiable complaints about the flaws in our political system, it could be worse:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/25/china-future-president-ousted-xi-jinping-iron-discipline-sun-zhengcai0 -
Important to get back to the origins of WW1...IanB2 said:
What a ridiculous (and telling) attitude. How you can expect to learn anything with a view like that?Ishmael_Z said:
Can you point us to some other areas where a consensus forecast of "experts" as to the future behaviour of a complex and more or less chaotic system is more accurate than the purely random? In any sphere at all?IanB2 said:
Brexiters proving their anti-expert credentials was doing nothing for me or for their credibility, such as it is.Benpointer said:Blimey, I go off for a few hours to share a couple of glasses of wine with neighbours and when I come back the topic of discussion has changed from 1914 to global warming and sperm counts! What is it with this website?
And do the thread header writers wonder why they bother?
The only silver lining is that we are inching back towards topic.
Though, like tbe worlds approach to climate and environmental change, avoiding ctastrophe takes hard work and leadership rather than pettifogging and point scoring.0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Has Archduke Ferdinand been shot yet?0 -
97% of historians think so.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Has Archduke Ferdinand been shot yet?0 -
Mr. Z, I knew it.
Bloody global warming.0 -
Presumably they had more than one researcher!Nigelb said:
Or they didn't actually read the papers.rkrkrk said:
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.Richard_Tyndall said:
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.
To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.
You probably don't have to read all the paper either...0 -
Another set of examples of the total mess that the social care system is in:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-4729936/NHS-care-fund-don-t-tell-about.html0 -
Meanwhile in America:
"Republicans seem oblivious to those concerns, and to the danger that voters who lose access to health care could retaliate at the ballot box in the 2018 and 2020 elections. Some lawmakers may have decided that voters will in fact reward them for living up to their promises to repeal Obamacare, and that because actual repeal would be delayed two or more years, they will pay no price."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/opinion/senate-health-care-vote.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
The clock tick towards 2018...0 -
http://hastheresamayresignedyet.comMorris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Has Archduke Ferdinand been shot yet?0 -
Quick response from the government, we haven't even had a new thread and they have already taken up my suggestion that phasing out fossil fuel cars is the way forward on AGW. I am delighted, even given the cynicism in the move - if Volvo will not be making them after 2020, demand for them in 2040 will be on a par with the demand for 1.4mb floppy discs. Dem market forces at work again.rkrkrk said:
Presumably they had more than one researcher!Nigelb said:
Or they didn't actually read the papers.rkrkrk said:
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.Richard_Tyndall said:
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.
To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.
You probably don't have to read all the paper either...0 -
Isn't the Volvo decision about hybrids?Ishmael_Z said:
Quick response from the government, we haven't even had a new thread and they have already taken up my suggestion that phasing out fossil fuel cars is the way forward on AGW. I am delighted, even given the cynicism in the move - if Volvo will not be making them after 2020, demand for them in 2040 will be on a par with the demand for 1.4mb floppy discs. Dem market forces at work again.rkrkrk said:
Presumably they had more than one researcher!Nigelb said:
Or they didn't actually read the papers.rkrkrk said:
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.Richard_Tyndall said:
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.
To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.
You probably don't have to read all the paper either...0 -
Presumably there are some Serb nationalist radicals who maintain the Duke fell onto the bullet by accident :-)Ishmael_Z said:
97% of historians think so.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Has Archduke Ferdinand been shot yet?0 -
Didn't Corbyn say he was considering this a while back?Ishmael_Z said:
Quick response from the government, we haven't even had a new thread and they have already taken up my suggestion that phasing out fossil fuel cars is the way forward on AGW. I am delighted, even given the cynicism in the move - if Volvo will not be making them after 2020, demand for them in 2040 will be on a par with the demand for 1.4mb floppy discs. Dem market forces at work again.0 -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/25/great-brexit-betrayal-has-begun-tories-have-sold-british-people/
Is there a book on how long before Farage is back at the top of UKIP?0 -
Oh ffs: Volvo have not said they won't be making electric-only cars: they've said they'll be making only electric and hybrid cars, and electrics need IC engines.Ishmael_Z said:
Quick response from the government, we haven't even had a new thread and they have already taken up my suggestion that phasing out fossil fuel cars is the way forward on AGW. I am delighted, even given the cynicism in the move - if Volvo will not be making them after 2020, demand for them in 2040 will be on a par with the demand for 1.4mb floppy discs. Dem market forces at work again.rkrkrk said:
Presumably they had more than one researcher!Nigelb said:
Or they didn't actually read the papers.rkrkrk said:
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.Richard_Tyndall said:
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.
To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.
You probably don't have to read all the paper either...0 -
All hybrid by 2019, possibly all electric by 2027. The latter is speculation, but seems a safeish bet unless going hybrid bombs so badly that volvo goes out of business..rottenborough said:
Isn't the Volvo decision about hybrids?Ishmael_Z said:
Quick response from the government, we haven't even had a new thread and they have already taken up my suggestion that phasing out fossil fuel cars is the way forward on AGW. I am delighted, even given the cynicism in the move - if Volvo will not be making them after 2020, demand for them in 2040 will be on a par with the demand for 1.4mb floppy discs. Dem market forces at work again.rkrkrk said:
Presumably they had more than one researcher!Nigelb said:
Or they didn't actually read the papers.rkrkrk said:
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.Richard_Tyndall said:
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.
To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.
You probably don't have to read all the paper either...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/volvo-electric-cars-pledge-no-petrol-diesel-emissions-scandal-car-sector-a7825436.html0 -
Electric cars are an obvious way forward but I would not underestimate the infrastructure cost of providing adequate charging points. Charging also takes a lot longer than filling a tank so there will be a significant inconvenience factor.Ishmael_Z said:
Quick response from the government, we haven't even had a new thread and they have already taken up my suggestion that phasing out fossil fuel cars is the way forward on AGW. I am delighted, even given the cynicism in the move - if Volvo will not be making them after 2020, demand for them in 2040 will be on a par with the demand for 1.4mb floppy discs. Dem market forces at work again.rkrkrk said:
Presumably they had more than one researcher!Nigelb said:
Or they didn't actually read the papers.rkrkrk said:
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.Richard_Tyndall said:
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.
To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.
You probably don't have to read all the paper either...
But oil is far too valuable to just burn, particulates are killing far too many people and it will do a lot to improve the quality of life in urban areas. It will just be much more expensive than is being suggested.0 -
The government also raises a shedload from fuel taxes - a lot of it justified on environmental grounds. It can't do that with leccy. I wonder how the money will be replaced.DavidL said:
Electric cars are an obvious way forward but I would not underestimate the infrastructure cost of providing adequate charging points. Charging also takes a lot longer than filling a tank so there will be a significant inconvenience factor.Ishmael_Z said:
Quick response from the government, we haven't even had a new thread and they have already taken up my suggestion that phasing out fossil fuel cars is the way forward on AGW. I am delighted, even given the cynicism in the move - if Volvo will not be making them after 2020, demand for them in 2040 will be on a par with the demand for 1.4mb floppy discs. Dem market forces at work again.rkrkrk said:
Presumably they had more than one researcher!Nigelb said:
Or they didn't actually read the papers.rkrkrk said:
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.Richard_Tyndall said:
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.
To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.
You probably don't have to read all the paper either...
But oil is far too valuable to just burn, particulates are killing far too many people and it will do a lot to improve the quality of life in urban areas. It will just be much more expensive than is being suggested.
0 -
I wasn't actually making a point about the significance of the consensus; I was arguing against those, like Richard_Tyndall, who dispute the existence of the consensus. Given that you seem to have moved on to dispute the former, I take it that you now accept the latter? Perhaps you could have a word with Richard!Ishmael_Z said:
you undermine yourself once by being wrong, and then again by not taking on board that it makes no odds anyway: science is not done by consensus. You think that is a picky get-out argument. and that shows more clearly than anything else that you are simply not qualified to take part in the debate. Perhaps google the great vitamin D and sunlight debate, and try to get your head round the extent to which that disproves "scientific consensus" arguments even for those who are unable to understand a fortiori why such arguments are wrong.FeersumEnjineeya said:
No, the review I'm referring to is the one that I linked to in my post. It was published in 2013 by Cook et al. and is the source of the 97% figure. Here it is again:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
From the abstract (my bold):
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
I suggest that you actually read my posts properly before resorting to abuse.0 -
There are also problems with range and cost. Range may increase, and cost come down, but it's quite difficult. Time to invest in rare earths, perhaps?DavidL said:
Electric cars are an obvious way forward but I would not underestimate the infrastructure cost of providing adequate charging points. Charging also takes a lot longer than filling a tank so there will be a significant inconvenience factor.Ishmael_Z said:
Quick response from the government, we haven't even had a new thread and they have already taken up my suggestion that phasing out fossil fuel cars is the way forward on AGW. I am delighted, even given the cynicism in the move - if Volvo will not be making them after 2020, demand for them in 2040 will be on a par with the demand for 1.4mb floppy discs. Dem market forces at work again.rkrkrk said:
Presumably they had more than one researcher!Nigelb said:
Or they didn't actually read the papers.rkrkrk said:
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.Richard_Tyndall said:
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.
To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.
You probably don't have to read all the paper either...
But oil is far too valuable to just burn, particulates are killing far too many people and it will do a lot to improve the quality of life in urban areas. It will just be much more expensive than is being suggested.
There will also be negative and positive effects on the power grid that will need to be considered.
2040 is far enough in the future that it concentrates mind without harming the immediate economy one bit.0 -
What a dreadful piece of naked propaganda from Mr Meeks.
Compares leaving a protectionist trade cartel to a World War.
No betting implications- has this site given up on betting ?
It's like the Guardian without the laughs.0 -
Are you OK? Here are 10 current production model all electric carsJosiasJessop said:
Oh ffs: Volvo have not said they won't be making electric-only cars: they've said they'll be making only electric and hybrid cars, and electrics need IC engines.Ishmael_Z said:
Quick response from the government, we haven't even had a new thread and they have already taken up my suggestion that phasing out fossil fuel cars is the way forward on AGW. I am delighted, even given the cynicism in the move - if Volvo will not be making them after 2020, demand for them in 2040 will be on a par with the demand for 1.4mb floppy discs. Dem market forces at work again.rkrkrk said:
Presumably they had more than one researcher!Nigelb said:
Or they didn't actually read the papers.rkrkrk said:
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.Richard_Tyndall said:
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.
To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.
You probably don't have to read all the paper either...
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/recommended/best-electric-cars
0 -
F1: No Safety Car is 1.61. Still value.0
-
The Cook et al. paper has 9 authors and sets out the methodology used to assess the abstracts of the papers. It describes, for example, the criteria used for assessing an abstract as pro, neutral or anti. No-one has cited any such paper in which Legates sets out his methodology, so we have no way of knowing whether it is valid or not. That suggests to me that the dishonesty is more likely to be on Legates' side.Nigelb said:
Or they didn't actually read the papers.rkrkrk said:
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.Richard_Tyndall said:
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.
To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.0 -
That is not how science works, and it is frightening that scientists have persuaded you that it is. How many scientists in 1930s Russia do you think published papers questioning Lysenkoism?FeersumEnjineeya said:
The Cook et al. paper has 9 authors and sets out the methodology used to assess the abstracts of the papers. It describes, for example, the criteria used for assessing an abstract as pro, neutral or anti. No-one has cited any such paper in which Legates sets out his methodology, so we have no way of knowing whether it is valid or not. That suggests to me that the dishonesty is more likely to be on Legates' side.Nigelb said:
Or they didn't actually read the papers.rkrkrk said:
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.Richard_Tyndall said:
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.
To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.0 -
Dr Sox, what you describe is for where the facts are well known and easily available. In fact, in most complex systems, risk assessment also entails an assessment of one's confidence in the prediction of the consequence/impact, and an assessment of one's confidence in the prediction of the probability of its occurrence.foxinsoxuk said:
Risk assessment has two factors: Probability of event, and impact of event.Ishmael_Z said:
There is a conspiracy, just not a very interesting one. Anyone not just down from the trees realises that something very iffy is probably happening to the climate, and that it is bloody difficult to impossible to say with any certainty what it is. What Big Science has decided is to boldly lie about the certainty of the data. You can see why: the evidence for AGW is at most one hundredth part as strong as the evidence that, let's say, smoking causes cancer - because we have lots of smokers and cancer victims to look at, but only one earth. Tell that to a world leader like, let's say, Donald Trump, who probably isn't convinced about the smoking-cancer link, and nothing will get done about AGW, ever. Hence the exaggerated claims, the tricks to hide declines, and the terminally embarrassing bollocks about 97% of scientists blah blah blah. The conspiracy is not to misstate, merely to overstate the strength of the evidence..We_Call_It_Acieed said:
The only thing crazier than conspiracy theories is trying to reason with conspiracy theorists.
You can see their point, of course, but previous instances of things being so utterly certain that one can discard the usual rules for proving them have tended to backfire - remember how it was so obvious that Saddam had WMDs that we could ignore the bleatings of that deluded old fart Hans Blix? And that keeping out of the sun to prevent skin cancer was so obviously the only sensible hing to do that professors lost jobs for suggesting, as everyone now agrees, that the advice was simply wrong? By all means adopt and disseminate the party line, but realise that in doing so you are being a (no offence!) useful idiot.
We can roughly calculate the impact of an event, such as Sea levels rising a few metres, flooding Bengal etc, the difficulty is the probability of the event. Is it 10% or 90%?
To my mind the risks of the warmists being right far outweighs the risk of them being wrong. How certain do we have to be of disaster before the deniers wake up?
Only where confidence in both is high can you reliably use quantitative approaches to risk control. Otherwise, one has to rely more on semi-quantitative and more qualitative approaches.
The majority of the disconnect between warmists and the skeptics arises from differing assessments in our ability to predict.0 -
I'm fine, thanks.Ishmael_Z said:
Are you OK? Here are 10 current production model all electric carsJosiasJessop said:
Oh ffs: Volvo have not said they won't be making electric-only cars: they've said they'll be making only electric and hybrid cars, and electrics need IC engines.Ishmael_Z said:
Quick response from the government, we haven't even had a new thread and they have already taken up my suggestion that phasing out fossil fuel cars is the way forward on AGW. I am delighted, even given the cynicism in the move - if Volvo will not be making them after 2020, demand for them in 2040 will be on a par with the demand for 1.4mb floppy discs. Dem market forces at work again.rkrkrk said:
Presumably they had more than one researcher!Nigelb said:
Or they didn't actually read the papers.rkrkrk said:
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.Richard_Tyndall said:
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.
To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.
You probably don't have to read all the paper either...
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/recommended/best-electric-cars
It's just annoying when people get things utterly wrong, as you did. People seem to take tech as some form of magic altar that, if they pray at it enough, will solve all problems. More often than not they're disappointed.
I'm also aware of the market. But you might want to look at the prices of those cars and the ranges - some have under 100 miles range.0 -
Yes, if the future is going to be electric cars then we need to get building power stations!JosiasJessop said:
There are also problems with range and cost. Range may increase, and cost come down, but it's quite difficult. Time to invest in rare earths, perhaps?DavidL said:
Electric cars are an obvious way forward but I would not underestimate the infrastructure cost of providing adequate charging points. Charging also takes a lot longer than filling a tank so there will be a significant inconvenience factor.Ishmael_Z said:
Quick response from the government, we haven't even had a new thread and they have already taken up my suggestion that phasing out fossil fuel cars is the way forward on AGW. I am delighted, even given the cynicism in the move - if Volvo will not be making them after 2020, demand for them in 2040 will be on a par with the demand for 1.4mb floppy discs. Dem market forces at work again.rkrkrk said:
Presumably they had more than one researcher!Nigelb said:
Or they didn't actually read the papers.rkrkrk said:
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.Richard_Tyndall said:
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.
To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.
You probably don't have to read all the paper either...
But oil is far too valuable to just burn, particulates are killing far too many people and it will do a lot to improve the quality of life in urban areas. It will just be much more expensive than is being suggested.
There will also be negative and positive effects on the power grid that will need to be considered.
2040 is far enough in the future that it concentrates mind without harming the immediate economy one bit.
@SouthamObserver also makes a good point about fuel and road taxes, which generate far for than the government spends on roads. If we all move to electric cars tomorrow it's something like a £50bn hole in the Exchequer's wallet.0 -
Something I have always wondered: do all-electric cars still have a normal 12v car battery as well?JosiasJessop said:
I'm fine, thanks.Ishmael_Z said:
Are you OK? Here are 10 current production model all electric carsJosiasJessop said:
Oh ffs: Volvo have not said they won't be making electric-only cars: they've said they'll be making only electric and hybrid cars, and electrics need IC engines.Ishmael_Z said:
Quick response from the government, we haven't even had a new thread and they have already taken up my suggestion that phasing out fossil fuel cars is the way forward on AGW. I am delighted, even given the cynicism in the move - if Volvo will not be making them after 2020, demand for them in 2040 will be on a par with the demand for 1.4mb floppy discs. Dem market forces at work again.rkrkrk said:
Presumably they had more than one researcher!Nigelb said:
Or they didn't actually read the papers.rkrkrk said:
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.Richard_Tyndall said:
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.
To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.
You probably don't have to read all the paper either...
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/recommended/best-electric-cars
It's just annoying when people get things utterly wrong, as you did. People seem to take tech as some form of magic altar that, if they pray at it enough, will solve all problems. More often than not they're disappointed.
I'm also aware of the market. But you might want to look at the prices of those cars and the ranges - some have under 100 miles range.0 -
Charging times are coming down all the time. Already you can get 150 miles of range in 20 minutes through Tesla superchargers, and that's due to double when the new iteration is released next year.DavidL said:
Electric cars are an obvious way forward but I would not underestimate the infrastructure cost of providing adequate charging points. Charging also takes a lot longer than filling a tank so there will be a significant inconvenience factor.Ishmael_Z said:
Quick response from the government, we haven't even had a new thread and they have already taken up my suggestion that phasing out fossil fuel cars is the way forward on AGW. I am delighted, even given the cynicism in the move - if Volvo will not be making them after 2020, demand for them in 2040 will be on a par with the demand for 1.4mb floppy discs. Dem market forces at work again.rkrkrk said:
Presumably they had more than one researcher!Nigelb said:
Or they didn't actually read the papers.rkrkrk said:
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.Richard_Tyndall said:
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.
To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.
You probably don't have to read all the paper either...
But oil is far too valuable to just burn, particulates are killing far too many people and it will do a lot to improve the quality of life in urban areas. It will just be much more expensive than is being suggested.0 -
Science can only operate in open, free societies as Karl Popper pointed out.Ishmael_Z said:
That is not how science works, and it is frightening that scientists have persuaded you that it is. How many scientists in 1930s Russia do you think published papers questioning Lysenkoism?FeersumEnjineeya said:
The Cook et al. paper has 9 authors and sets out the methodology used to assess the abstracts of the papers. It describes, for example, the criteria used for assessing an abstract as pro, neutral or anti. No-one has cited any such paper in which Legates sets out his methodology, so we have no way of knowing whether it is valid or not. That suggests to me that the dishonesty is more likely to be on Legates' side.Nigelb said:
Or they didn't actually read the papers.rkrkrk said:
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.Richard_Tyndall said:
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.
To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.0 -
LOLJosiasJessop said:
I'm fine, thanks.Ishmael_Z said:
Are you OK? Here are 10 current production model all electric carsJosiasJessop said:
Oh ffs: Volvo have not said they won't be making electric-only cars: they've said they'll be making only electric and hybrid cars, and electrics need IC engines.Ishmael_Z said:
Quick response from the government, we haven't even had a new thread and they have already taken up my suggestion that phasing out fossil fuel cars is the way forward on AGW. I am delighted, even given the cynicism in the move - if Volvo will not be making them after 2020, demand for them in 2040 will be on a par with the demand for 1.4mb floppy discs. Dem market forces at work again.rkrkrk said:
Presumably they had more than one researcher!Nigelb said:
Or they didn't actually read the papers.rkrkrk said:
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.Richard_Tyndall said:
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.
To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.
You probably don't have to read all the paper either...
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/recommended/best-electric-cars
It's just annoying when people get things utterly wrong, as you did. People seem to take tech as some form of magic altar that, if they pray at it enough, will solve all problems. More often than not they're disappointed.
I'm also aware of the market. But you might want to look at the prices of those cars and the ranges - some have under 100 miles range.
Could you expand on the claim "electrics need IC engines" so that we can see who has "got things utterly wrong," and point and laugh accordingly?0 -
Not a great deal to bet on at the moment, now that Jezza is safe for years and Tezza is safe until, well, September.TGOHF said:What a dreadful piece of naked propaganda from Mr Meeks.
Compares leaving a protectionist trade cartel to a World War.
No betting implications- has this site given up on betting ?
It's like the Guardian without the laughs.
Impeachment of Trump seems to be the most live bet at the moment, although I guess German elections will be coming into the horizon shortly.
0 -
The 12V battery maintains power for critical systems when the main battery pack is damaged or disabled. It powers the hazard lights, airbags, door locking and unlocking operations, as well as other critical componets of the Model S. The 12V battery also ensures that electronics are “awake” and listening to the key FOB in order to automatically lock and unlock the vehicle based on proximity. It also allows the car to maintain its 3G connection for remote access when the rest of the vehicle is powered off. If the 12V battery happens to fail, it will isolate the main battery pack from the car and prevent charging. This is a safety feature of the Model S designed to help protect first responders in the event of an accident.rottenborough said:Something I have always wondered: do all-electric cars still have a normal 12v car battery as well?
http://www.teslarati.com/understanding-tesla-12v-battery-service-warning/
I've no idea if it's an old-style lead-acid battery or a lithium one.0 -
Actually, that is how science works. Scientific disputes are resolved on the basis of peer-reviewed, evidence-based papers published in the academic press, rather than by rhetorical argument on the internet or in the popular press. Why would you think otherwise?Ishmael_Z said:
That is not how science works, and it is frightening that scientists have persuaded you that it is. How many scientists in 1930s Russia do you think published papers questioning Lysenkoism?FeersumEnjineeya said:
The Cook et al. paper has 9 authors and sets out the methodology used to assess the abstracts of the papers. It describes, for example, the criteria used for assessing an abstract as pro, neutral or anti. No-one has cited any such paper in which Legates sets out his methodology, so we have no way of knowing whether it is valid or not. That suggests to me that the dishonesty is more likely to be on Legates' side.Nigelb said:
Or they didn't actually read the papers.rkrkrk said:
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.Richard_Tyndall said:
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.
To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.
Edit: Sometimes there is indeed political repression of science, as in 1930s Russia and, increasingly, in Trump's USA, but the process of science remains based on peer-reviewed publishing in academic journals.0 -
Yes it's a quiet time for betting... why can't Tory MPs get on with a leadership challenge to give us something to talk about?rottenborough said:
Not a great deal to bet on at the moment, now that Jezza is safe for years and Tezza is safe until, well, September.TGOHF said:What a dreadful piece of naked propaganda from Mr Meeks.
Compares leaving a protectionist trade cartel to a World War.
No betting implications- has this site given up on betting ?
It's like the Guardian without the laughs.
Impeachment of Trump seems to be the most live bet at the moment, although I guess German elections will be coming into the horizon shortly.
I was browsing Brexit markets the other day. Tempted by better than evens on us being out of the EU by March but didn't really understand all the terms and conditions betfair have placed on that market.0 -
Ishmael_Z said:
LOLJosiasJessop said:
I'm fine, thanks.Ishmael_Z said:
Are you OK? Here are 10 current production model all electric carsJosiasJessop said:
Oh ffs: Volvo have not said they won't be making electric-only cars: they've said they'll be making only electric and hybrid cars, and electrics need IC engines.Ishmael_Z said:
Quick response from the government, we haven't even had a new thread and they have already taken up my suggestion that phasing out fossil fuel cars is the way forward on AGW. I am delighted, even given the cynicism in the move - if Volvo will not be making them after 2020, demand for them in 2040 will be on a par with the demand for 1.4mb floppy discs. Dem market forces at work again.rkrkrk said:
Presumably they had more than one researcher!Nigelb said:
Or they didn't actually read the papers.rkrkrk said:
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.Richard_Tyndall said:
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.
To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.
You probably don't have to read all the paper either...
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/recommended/best-electric-cars
It's just annoying when people get things utterly wrong, as you did. People seem to take tech as some form of magic altar that, if they pray at it enough, will solve all problems. More often than not they're disappointed.
I'm also aware of the market. But you might want to look at the prices of those cars and the ranges - some have under 100 miles range.
Could you expand on the claim "electrics need IC engines" so that we can see who has "got things utterly wrong," and point and laugh accordingly?
Yep, I meant hybrids, obviously. But my points still stand.
You're praying at the altar of tech that's not there yet. That's dangerous, and you have to plan for potential failure as well as success.0 -
Thanks. I don't drive our car much and so I get problems on occasion with the car battery been run down. I was hoping an all-electric would get rid of that issue.JosiasJessop said:
The 12V battery maintains power for critical systems when the main battery pack is damaged or disabled. It powers the hazard lights, airbags, door locking and unlocking operations, as well as other critical componets of the Model S. The 12V battery also ensures that electronics are “awake” and listening to the key FOB in order to automatically lock and unlock the vehicle based on proximity. It also allows the car to maintain its 3G connection for remote access when the rest of the vehicle is powered off. If the 12V battery happens to fail, it will isolate the main battery pack from the car and prevent charging. This is a safety feature of the Model S designed to help protect first responders in the event of an accident.rottenborough said:Something I have always wondered: do all-electric cars still have a normal 12v car battery as well?
http://www.teslarati.com/understanding-tesla-12v-battery-service-warning/
I've no idea if it's an old-style lead-acid battery or a lithium one.0 -
It's a lithium one.JosiasJessop said:
The 12V battery maintains power for critical systems when the main battery pack is damaged or disabled. It powers the hazard lights, airbags, door locking and unlocking operations, as well as other critical componets of the Model S. The 12V battery also ensures that electronics are “awake” and listening to the key FOB in order to automatically lock and unlock the vehicle based on proximity. It also allows the car to maintain its 3G connection for remote access when the rest of the vehicle is powered off. If the 12V battery happens to fail, it will isolate the main battery pack from the car and prevent charging. This is a safety feature of the Model S designed to help protect first responders in the event of an accident.rottenborough said:Something I have always wondered: do all-electric cars still have a normal 12v car battery as well?
http://www.teslarati.com/understanding-tesla-12v-battery-service-warning/
I've no idea if it's an old-style lead-acid battery or a lithium one.0 -
On the plus side, the existence of all that distributed storage will make it easier to increase the proportion of intermittent sources of renewable energy.Sandpit said:
Yes, if the future is going to be electric cars then we need to get building power stations!JosiasJessop said:
There are also problems with range and cost. Range may increase, and cost come down, but it's quite difficult. Time to invest in rare earths, perhaps?DavidL said:
Electric cars are an obvious way forward but I would not underestimate the infrastructure cost of providing adequate charging points. Charging also takes a lot longer than filling a tank so there will be a significant inconvenience factor.Ishmael_Z said:
Quick response from the government, we haven't even had a new thread and they have already taken up my suggestion that phasing out fossil fuel cars is the way forward on AGW. I am delighted, even given the cynicism in the move - if Volvo will not be making them after 2020, demand for them in 2040 will be on a par with the demand for 1.4mb floppy discs. Dem market forces at work again.rkrkrk said:
Presumably they had more than one researcher!Nigelb said:
Or they didn't actually read the papers.rkrkrk said:
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.
To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.
You probably don't have to read all the paper either...
But oil is far too valuable to just burn, particulates are killing far too many people and it will do a lot to improve the quality of life in urban areas. It will just be much more expensive than is being suggested.
There will also be negative and positive effects on the power grid that will need to be considered.
2040 is far enough in the future that it concentrates mind without harming the immediate economy one bit.
@SouthamObserver also makes a good point about fuel and road taxes, which generate far for than the government spends on roads. If we all move to electric cars tomorrow it's something like a £50bn hole in the Exchequer's wallet.0 -
Is that 150 mile range under normal driving conditions or at a pedestrian 56 mph? I would imagine that hard accelaration and/or high speed would dramatically reduce the 150 mile range.rcs1000 said:
Charging times are coming down all the time. Already you can get 150 miles of range in 20 minutes through Tesla superchargers, and that's due to double when the new iteration is released next year.DavidL said:
Electric cars are an obvious way forward but I would not underestimate the infrastructure cost of providing adequate charging points. Charging also takes a lot longer than filling a tank so there will be a significant inconvenience factor.Ishmael_Z said:
Quick response from the government, we haven't even had a new thread and they have already taken up my suggestion that phasing out fossil fuel cars is the way forward on AGW. I am delighted, even given the cynicism in the move - if Volvo will not be making them after 2020, demand for them in 2040 will be on a par with the demand for 1.4mb floppy discs. Dem market forces at work again.rkrkrk said:
Presumably they had more than one researcher!Nigelb said:
Or they didn't actually read the papers.rkrkrk said:
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.Richard_Tyndall said:
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.
To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.
You probably don't have to read all the paper either...
But oil is far too valuable to just burn, particulates are killing far too many people and it will do a lot to improve the quality of life in urban areas. It will just be much more expensive than is being suggested.0 -
I guess we'll find out in the next year or so with the Tesla Model 3, where the new production line has just (slowly) started moving. Assuming all goes well and production ramps up as expected, there will be twice as many electric cars on the road next year as there are now. It will quickly become a test for the charging infrastructure required as well - no point being able to charge the car in 20 minutes if there's always a dozen cars in the queue when you pull in.JosiasJessop said:Ishmael_Z said:
LOLJosiasJessop said:
I'm fine, thanks.Ishmael_Z said:
Are you OK? Here are 10 current production model all electric carsJosiasJessop said:
Oh ffs: Volvo have not said they won't be making electric-only cars: they've said they'll be making only electric and hybrid cars, and electrics need IC engines.Ishmael_Z said:
Quick response from the government, we haven't even had a new thread and they have already taken up my suggestion that phasing out fossil fuel cars is the way forward on AGW. I am delighted, even given the cynicism in the move - if Volvo will not be making them after 2020, demand for them in 2040 will be on a par with the demand for 1.4mb floppy discs. Dem market forces at work again.rkrkrk said:
Presumably they had more than one researcher!Nigelb said:
Or they didn't actually read the papers.rkrkrk said:Richard_Tyndall said:.
To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.
You probably don't have to read all the paper either...
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/recommended/best-electric-cars
It's just annoying when people get things utterly wrong, as you did. People seem to take tech as some form of magic altar that, if they pray at it enough, will solve all problems. More often than not they're disappointed.
I'm also aware of the market. But you might want to look at the prices of those cars and the ranges - some have under 100 miles range.
Could you expand on the claim "electrics need IC engines" so that we can see who has "got things utterly wrong," and point and laugh accordingly?
Yep, I meant hybrids, obviously. But my points still stand.
You're praying at the altar of tech that's not there yet. That's dangerous, and you have to plan for potential failure as well as success.0 -
Dr Fox,
I think you're talking about the 'precautionary principle' where the effects of not legislating are so bad, you go ahead 'just in case'.
There are many confounding factors in AGW, so certainty and predictive ability will never be 100%. Science is never settled, it's always the best guess at the time. Some things are more certain than others - quantum mechanics being pretty close to certain.
The sperm count controversy is interesting. Far less complicated than AGW but like that, also has confounding factors. It gained prominence in the 1990s for a while (I refereed a paper on it for an environmental journal - I recommended publication). However we know there is confirmation bias in published papers. Like drug safety testing, there's a tendency for favourable papers to be published more often, or studies that show effect, rather than no effect.
Carbon dioxide causing the totality of global warming might be correct. It may exacerbate other things. Time will tell. The degree of precaution taken will be a subjective decision however. And may end up being correct ...
0
This discussion has been closed.