UK treasury climate change report- implies? 1

[davefitz]

Based on the 700 page report issued today from the UK treasury, what tehcnologies are expected to ramp up in the next 5 yrs?

a) BS meters?
b) IGCC and CTL
c) common rail diesel cars ( ie, 75 mpg toyota Yaris)
d) nuclear next generation power plants
e) distributed gen using rooftop solar collectors
f)multifamily housing displacing single homes
g) mass transit

 

[oldfieldguy]

jmw--

A poll of the same group would also likely decide that there is a real basis for astrology and that Nessie is alive and well...

old field guy

 

[jmw]

Oldfieldguy,
You're probably right.

You know the rules of the "big Lie" ... say it often, say it loud and never answer criticisms.

Do you suppose these 1618 adults have done any internet research before they did the survey?

Belief depends not on what was said but who said it and how and how often.

If anyone wonders why Al Gore chose, unusually for a politician, to make a film rather than use the usual politician propaganda means, its probably because he has recognised the power of films in promoting the big lie.

Sadly most people now believe the multiple gunmen conspiracy theory about JFK's assassination simply because all they they now know about it is what was in the Oliver Stone film.
The facts are irrelevant. What they knew or thought before is supressed.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

On Thursday, Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, compared climate sceptics to advocates of Islamic terror. Neither, she said, should have access to the media.

Actually, what she probably meant were "climate change" sceptocs.
And the link to the follow up article is:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/12/nclim12.xml

Do also follow the link to

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/11/12/dl1202.xml

Corus, please have your coffee first.
I appreciate your comment that this author and the newspaper are not ones you would trust, though otherswill trust him more than, say, the National Enquirer, and that is indeed the problem we face with all reports both pro and con; that the author introduces bias and may be selective in what the report and how they interpret it. That applies to both sides of the argument.
Since we, and the public in general, are not climatologists, it is obviously important that we are able to "trust" the experts (just as many have to trust engineers).
Comments such as Margaret Beckett's are precisely what we don't want. What we do want to see is each argument resolved based on the science and data not emotion and guesswork.

Please post links to any adverse comments on these articles. Let us assess each post as to the science Vs Rhetoric and emotion and try and find where the truth might lie. In the original Christopher Monkton article he linked to his "Calculations". I thought that he did well in presenting evidence and largely avoided the emotiovie rehtoric.

He may well have been selective in the evidence he produced and in the sources he quoted but the only way we will know that is to see the response of the opposing lobby.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[SomptingGuy]

Science reporting in newspapers?

Has anyone ever read a newspaper article covering their own field of expertise? Kind of puts things into perspective.

 

[LCruiser]

Realclimate.org has a thread on it. It's worth mentioning though that Realclimate viciously attacks any people or evidence that link back to a Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age. That is, after all, why Realclimate was founded - to defend the irrationally produced (some would say intentionally deceptive) hockeystick from the TAR Summary for Policymakers (SPM), which eliminated them to heighten the alarm that the changes we are seeing now are far beyond natural variability. The SPM is not to be confused with the real science done by the real scientists though, who had no say in what the SPM reported.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/

 

[oldfieldguy]

SomptingGuy--

Reading a newspaper article on just about any area in which I have some amount of expertise usually leaves me shaking my head in amazement and dismay at the ignorance and disinformation. Worse than not knowing something is "knowing" something that just isn't so.

It's especially bad in a democratic society when you realize that THIS is the information used by some of our electorate to make what they assume is an informed decision on their voting.

As somebody once pointed out, HALF the population out there is BELOW average... And they'll take the word of a Hollywood celebrity on technical matters more rapidly than they will an expert who's devoted his life to the field.

old field guy

 

[SomptingGuy]

leaves me shaking my head in amazement and dismay at the ignorance and disinformation

My point exactly. I find myself swearing at the TV sometimes too. Even the BBC. Even BBC2.

 

[jmw]

SomptingGuy,
don't you mean "Especially the BBC. Especially BBC2".
And granted the comments about the press but in this case it is the web site article to follow up and especially the calculation file.

If on the latest link I posted you can read the correspondance file where you will discover a number of climatologists writing in support and with supporting information.
You will also find some ill-mannered Global Warmers who have lost the plot as regards discussing data and have resorted to being rude (one of whom even says he didn't read the article).

For those who didn't read it yet, it doesn't say that global warming isn't happening, just that a significant proportion is probably due to solar activity for which there is some good evidence. It also provides many references.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[4Pipes]

The so called global warming crisis is the complete creation of green pseudo scientists and green politians on both sides of the water.
a) By destroying (i.e. exporting) our local industries with rules to improve our green credentials.
b) By trading with India and China using their fixed exchange rates rather than sorting things out with hard nosed common sense.
c) By fueling their economies by buying their "cheap" goods. (Not cheap if the true costs were included and currencies were allowed to float - they have become major economies so don't need the support of fixed currencies).
d) By borrowing the money back that India and China have made trading with us to buy more cheap goods thus growing their economies and energy consumption even more.
China and India are indeed swamping any energy savings we make. However, it is trade with with us in the west that is paying for it.

Definitely, the economics of the mad house.

 

[moltenmetal]

4Pipes: a problem, definitely. But one which can be fixed by tarrifs. Trouble is, just as there is no real political will to deal with global warming or the myriad other problems caused by wasteful fossil fuel consumption, there is no political will to do anything which might annoy China. We'll continue to lose $10 in local production because some politically powerful people are worried about their $0.50 in trade with China- and its potential to grow to $1, netting them a huge bonus.