Scientists hit by climate doubt fallout

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » 02 Mar 2010, 20:53

biffvernon wrote: To my way of thinking, the climate denialists are either ignorant, stupid, or evil.

All the great thinkers in history, Bentham, Hume, Mills to name but a few. They never failed in their argument to such an extent that they had to resort to abuse.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 02 Mar 2010, 21:31

stumuzz wrote:
biffvernon wrote: To my way of thinking, the climate denialists are either ignorant, stupid, or evil.
All the great thinkers in history, Bentham, Hume, Mills to name but a few. They never failed in their argument to such an extent that they had to resort to abuse.

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.

- Albert Einstein

(he really slipped up there, didn't he)

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 03 Mar 2010, 07:00

stumuzz wrote: All the great thinkers in history, Bentham, Hume, Mills to name but a few. They never failed in their argument to such an extent that they had to resort to abuse.

Did these great thinkers in history never regard anyone as ignorant, stupid or evil?

I don't regard describing someone as ignorant or stupid as abuse. I regard myself somewhere in the centre ground of the spectrum of stupidity to cleverness and I am completely ignorant of the Mongolian language and the relative skills of English football players. But I don't think I am evil.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 05 Mar 2010, 04:14

The Guardian - 04/03/10

Evidence from a respected scientific body to a parliamentary inquiry examining the behaviour of climate-change scientists, was drawn from an energy industry consultant who argues that global warming is a religion, the Guardian can reveal.

Article continues ...

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 05 Mar 2010, 08:59

Nice to see the IoP scrabbling to distance itself from itself. The last line in the Grauniad article is neat:

"Members of the Institute of Physics … may be concerned that the IOP is not as transparent as those it wishes to criticise."

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 06 Mar 2010, 02:34

Someone, somewhere, I can't remember who, made the comment that the deniers were a lot more media savvey than the Climate scientists and were running rings around them. This IoP saga reinforces that point. The IPCC needs to employ a publicity firm, unfortunately. (I'd usually say that they are a waste of space and money)

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 06 Mar 2010, 08:24

Yes, but as soon as scientists employ publicity firms they will be accused of employing publicity firms and spinning and such like. Can't win. You saw Chris's piece in January? http://chrisvernon.co.uk/2010/01/science-and-the-media/

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » 06 Mar 2010, 09:26

What would the message be if you employed a publicity firm?

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 06 Mar 2010, 10:46

stumuzz wrote:What would the message be if you employed a publicity firm?

Give us yer ****ing money!

(In an Irish accent of course)

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 06 Mar 2010, 11:32

stumuzz wrote:What would the message be if you employed a publicity firm?

We're all Doomed, and the science says so.

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » 06 Mar 2010, 12:04

Seriously, considering the majority of people live either urban or suburban in the UK and earn roughly 20-25K a year. What exactly do you want them to do in the face of AGW/CC?
Also, take into account that most of them are in debt up to the eyeballs because of inflated house price, no wage policy etc, what would the message be?

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 06 Mar 2010, 17:28

stumuzz wrote:what would the message be?

'prepare for an energy poor future'

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 06 Mar 2010, 18:07

stumuzz wrote:Seriously, considering the majority of people live either urban or suburban in the UK and earn roughly 20-25K a year. What exactly do you want them to do in the face of AGW/CC?
Also, take into account that most of them are in debt up to the eyeballs because of inflated house price, no wage policy etc, what would the message be?

Seriously, I'm struggling to find an answer.

The science says we need to get CO2 down below 350 again PDQ.

Basically that seems to mean we all have to stop shopping, with the result that civilization as we know it collapses.

Maybe it will be enough to just stop shopping for stuff that involves a lot of energy. That's perhaps what Transition Towns are about. Minimising our carbon footprint. Some people are keen, a very few manage it, and the vast majority couldn't give a damn.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 07 Mar 2010, 02:13

We need the government to order the insulation of all houses to Passivhaus levels of insulation and air tightness, paid for by the government printing the money and then taxing it back from the fuel payments saved. That would be non inflationary but would kick start the economy for a while, increase the through put of money through the banks, reduce gas use considerably and allow some spare capacity to be used for electricity generation until demand could be reduced and renewable sources introduced.

In the long term it would eradicate fuel poverty, reduce the balance of payments deficit considerably, reduce our carbon emissions and decrease our reliance on foreign fuel suppliers, increasing our security.

The only losers would be the fuel supply companies, but that's tough!

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » 07 Mar 2010, 08:27

Could not agree more. Double win on every point.