One for the climate change sceptics

Define "normal".

If you mean "boring" - how much fun would that have been?

 

Well yes, although personally I find being in fear of my life, getting
covered in shit, hiding in hedges[1] as 'not fun'

[1] *after* having spent much time hiding in a hedge if memory serves

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 GTV TS GT 3.2 V6
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

"I didn't get where I am today..."

<SNIP>

Makes me glad that I never worked anywhere more bucolic than South
Staffs DC (very briefly) and certainly not the seaside.

Being in a heavily industrialised area brings its own hazards.

Climbing up cold blast cupolas, via rickety vertical fixed ladders with
hoops further apart than half my height, to check the wet arrestors
while the cupolas were actually operating - "just keep upwind our kid".

Balancing in the wind holding a grit a sampling device ( a square of
fablon taped to a board on a stick with the adhesive side exposed) in
front of the outlet from a rotoclone or bag filter. That's after having
made a direct ascent of the foundry north face on a long ladder and
traversing the entire length of a roof valley before cautiously creeping
up the last summit roof sheets - "They'll take your weight OK young
'un".

Teetering on the top of a ladder propped up against the back of three
pass super economic boiler with a flue gas thermometer inserted in a
hole when the commissioning engineer switched to high fire. The boiler
shuddered alarmingly and the thermometer[1] shot past my ear. As I
shinned down the ladder I could see the engineer and my EHO tutor
legging it. Luckily the boiler operator had hit the panic button and the
plot didn't go up. "Shouldn't we have hard hats and safety shoes", I
asked. "You'd have only needed a harp if that bastard had gone up lad".

As we don't pay them anymore it's hard to get them to do anything except
some boring inspection that will get them a tick in their practical
training log book.

[1] It acquired a big dent in the bezel and was part of our rogues
gallery of old kit for years, along with a falling ball noise meter
calibrator and the smokeless fuel samples.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Yamaha WR250Z/Supermoto "Old Gimmer's Hillclimber" |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

 

The Beagle was an estate. In a state too, usually.

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Grimly Curmudgeon

Wozzit ****. It was a Viva van with windows cut in the back and a rear
seat fitted.

"Estate", indeed.

 

Haha, I'd dispute the rear seat being 'fitted' too - more like lobbed
in and screwed down where it touched.

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Lozzo

Quite handy for kipping in the back on the way home from the Norfolk
coast on our weekend family jaunts, mind.

<sigh> I suppose that's be "Reckless Child Endangerment" these days.

 

You were lucky, me and my lil sis always got the boot of the Moggy
Minor Traveller, cos the rear seat was taken up with two elder sisters
(one of whom had a fat arse) who took priority by deint of age, and a
lil bruv who had to sit between them so he didn't try to escape via a
window. I cheered a fucking huge one when eldest sister left home and I
got a seat.

 

What is fascinating to watch is how easily people are duped into believing
that because some errors in data and analysis have been uncovered the whole
global warming proposition has been disproved. Additionally, climate
scientists are frequently presented as having vested interests that are
influencing their research such the need for continued funding. Strange how
little attention is given to mega industries such the oil, gas and
automotive companies who are funding much of the opposition to the global
warming research. When their trillions of pounds/dollars are lined up
against a bunch of universities and research organisations it is hardly an
equal contest. These mega industries really exemplify the concept of
"vested interests". Additionally, those hostile to the idea of global
warming are preaching to a very receptive audience. None of us really want
to make any sacrifices NOW in order to improve our chances in the longer
term. Our economic system is based on the "expand or die" principle so we
can't get off the train even if there is a high probability that it will run
ito the buiffers at high speed sometime fairly soon.

The bottom line for me is that that global warming is very probaly real and
is very likely to cause planet-wide catastrophes for humanity. However, I
also think that attempts to control or halt it are almost certainly futile.
People will only be striired to action when there is a very real chance of
their house/village/town/country being fucked over by drought, floods,
hurricanes etc. Of course it will be too late then - but in the meantime
enjoy the good times while they last and drive or ride whatever you like and
you can afford.

 

While one or two may have posited this view, what seems much more
common is the perfectly reasonable demand that claims made by the CC
activists are backed up by real data, gathered and processed in a
controlled and transparent fashion, and made available to anyone who
wants it.

The recent revelations about apparent manipulation and suppression of
data and analyses have at best served to put the 'cause' of climate
change activists back be some years, at worst they've thrown the whole
scientific community into a shadow of mistrust in the eyes of the
general public.

So the press and other scientists are, IMO, quite right to continue to
pillory those responsible, and ensure a healthy scepticism of any more
statements or conclusions made thereby in the absence of quality,
peer-reviewed data and results.

 

Er, I didn't think there was a single scientist saying anything of the
sort?

Again, I didn't think anyone had sad that, only that humans can have an
effect on the speed of those fluctuations.

--
Veggie Dave
http://www.iq18films.co.uk

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim
that Jesus was not born of a virgin." Cardinal Bellarmine

 

Hear Hear

 

He started off well:

"The flawed prediction that Himalayan glaciers are likely to disappear by
2035 (Report, 21 January), after the leaked emails from UEA, will be
further ammunition to the deniers. But they mustn't get too excited. This
is not a lapse in climate science but a failure to implement the rigorous
procedures that ensure that only substantiated evidence is published."
-- Nick Reeves, Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

A pity he concluded:
"The IPCC must recover from its embarrassment, get a grip and redouble its
efforts to show that the evidence for human-induced climate change is real."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/27/challenging-times-climate-science

If you start research with a goal like that, your "efforts" are always
going to be suspect and the science flawed. E.g. everyone jumping on the
bandwagon to "prove" that Alzheimer's was caused by aluminium.

--
Ivan Reid, School of Engineering & Design, _____________ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Ivan.Reid@[brunel.ac.uk|cern.ch] Room 40-1-B12, CERN
GSX600F, RG250WD "You Porsche. Me pass!" DoD #484 JKLO#003, 005
WP7# 3000 LC Unit #2368 (tinlc) UKMC#00009 BOTAFOT#16 UKRMMA#7 (Hon)
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".

 

Quite so. Bad science exemplified. Whatever happened to the idea of a
null hypothesis?

We wouldn't last five minutes with that sort of approach to drug
development. Despite what some people may believe.

 

I scratched my head for a bit trying to thing of a boring science project
that may give some insight on these matters and found the PSMSL (srsly).

From their FAQ and data, they reckon that the mean tide level has risen
between 10 and 20 cm in the last century: [1]

"There are many complications. The sea level itself can change (sea level
is believed to have increased by between 10 and 20 cm during the last 100
years) and land levels can change due to geological reasons."

From sober statements like this, they defer any future predictions to the
IPCC [2]:

"Global-average sea level is believed to have risen by between 10-20 cm
during the past century and best estimates are that it will rise by
approximately 50 cm in the next 100 years (i.e. an acceleration of a
factor of 3 in the rate). Rising sea levels are largely a consequence of
the thermal expansion of the ocean, melting of low latitude glaciers
(Alps, Rockies etc.) and many other factors, each of which are reviewed
every few years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

So, every prediction falls back on the IPCC, it would seem. I think it's
safe to say that no-one really knows.

[1] <http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/puscience/#2>
[2] <http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/puscience/#5>

 

I don't argue with any of that. However, just because a few of the
researchers may have engaged in some manipulation of data doesn't invalidate
the whole proposition. Anyway, part of what has been claimed to be
deliberate manipulation of data is actually a malicious misrepresentation of
the situation. For example, when researchers refer to a statistical "trick"
they are usually using the word "trick" as shorthand for a "clever
technique" rather than meaning a deliberate deception. e.g:
http://eproceedings.worldscinet.com/9789812772466/9789812772466_0009.html

I also think there is much confusion about the kinds of science involved.
This isn't simple dependent and independent variable measurement in a
controlled environment. This is trying to use a wide variety of messy
real-world data from all kinds of sources. Any analysis will be imperfect
and open to challenge. This in turn leads to competition among theories and
their proponents in the scientific community. As we are talking about
humans here this inevitably leads to squabbles and occasional bad behaviour.
However, individual examples of poor practice don't invalidate the entire
proposition.

I also bear in mind that some researchers who seem to have manipulated their
data were still spot on in their conclusions - one of the most notable
examples being Mendel, who accurately described the basic principles of
genetics whilst publishing data that had almost certainly been manipulated
in order to support his proposition. eg
http://www.springerlink.com/content/ml76852275l66538/

I am quite willing into concede that global warming might not be a
significant issue. However, I still believe that the evidence shows that
the balance of probablities point to it being a potential major threat. I
think it is unlikely that in the space of the last 100 years or so we can
deforest much of the planet, burn the majority of the worlds oil deposits
and put countless varieties and quantities chemicals into the atmosphere and
somehow suppose that the climate won't be influenced. Anyway, we'll know
for sure in 20 years or so. Either the CC lobby will be proved wrong and we
will be able to fight over the dwindling oil reserves in the same old
weather that we have always had or we will be retreating to the high ground
whilst wondering how and why we let it happen.

 

And an estate car is what, exactly?

 

Too fucking right.
I no longer give a shit - official.

 

You miss a point there. Spending billions on tidal barrages, pumped
storage and windmills, solar panels and all that other shit, will create
jobs, income and happy smiling faces for millions of otherwise
unemployed and trouble-making dolemoles.
Every economy needs a war or two to stimulate it - major wars aren't
feasible any more since the advent of nukes and it's been noted that
from time to time wars don't generate enough economic activity, so
something else has to be dreamed up for when the wars end occasionally
(although credit due, Bush and Blair made a fair fist of it). Sigh -
reminds me of the old Happy Days of Vietnam - now that was a proper
'war' (not small case) where everybody made some money (except the poor
dead guys, of course).

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Lady Nina

Another little twist in the whole farce today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8484385.stm

"A university unit involved in a row over stolen e-mails on climate
research breached rules by withholding data, the Information
Commissioner's Office says."

I wonder why the climate-change industry is so committed to its agenda
that it's prepared to break the law?