Quote from Becky Rose :

Wind Turbines: Are so innefficient that they take around 14 years to generate enough power to pay for their cost of manufacture and installation. Sea based turbines (where we are headed) are even more expensive to install.

Would you please stop parroting this stupid line? Have you ever been off your own island? Half your neighbouring countries derive a significant portion of their energy from wind. In Denmark it was 20% the last time I checked. How do you match that fact with your statement? Are you talking out of your ass?

Quote from xaotik :

Indeed it is, however posting it in a sensationalist way as you did sort of made it appear like it was some sort of top secret indoctrination document.

I cited FOIA2009.zip as my source because that's where I found it. The content itself doesn't need any build-up from me. It's a policy document instructing scientists on marketing methods and effective methods of generating spin. It needs no sensationalism on my part at all.

Quote from SamH :

It's a policy document instructing scientists on marketing methods and effective methods of generating spin.

It's not aimed at scientists, it's a handbook outline for employees of the UK Department for Environment's marketing department (they'll call it "Communication Group" or something stupid like that).

And it's nothing new as a principle or approach: one of my clients is the local state-run waste disposal service and they had quite a similar approach when they first got their recycling plant up and running, they had communications experts find a way of getting people to actually think about recycling and had similar .pdf circulating around their staff.

Quote from SamH :

If the truth is that it's impossible to determine if AGW is an actuality, I want to know that because it's important. If GOOD science, conducted properly, determines that AGW is a reality, I want to get behind that science with confidence and determination. I want real science, not a new religion.

That's simple. No, nobody on this planet is or can be sure wether AGW is actually happening or not.

You're not gonna get certainty in science. Everyone is entitled to doubt wether the earth is round or flat, or wether gravity exists or not or wether birds are able to fly due to aerodynamics or solely by the devine command of the hindu god Shiva. Nobody knows for sure.

And you're right: When somebody is certain of something that means he believes in it, just like you can believe in Shiva. From a scientific point of view absolutely nobody should believe in any climate predictions or they enter the realm of religion. However, you don't have to believe in something with absolute certainty in order to be able to make an educated decision of what is best for yourself or society in general.

Vain

Quote from Vain :

Everyone is entitled to doubt wether the earth is round or flat, or wether gravity exists or not or wether birds are able to fly due to aerodynamics or solely by the devine command of the hindu god Shiva. Nobody knows for sure.

In an age and culture that everything has a value based on a price tag if there is a chance for new markets to emerge then old and new players will squabble over first dibs. So it's most probable that you'll have an equal amount of fanatic pro- and anti- divine poultry propulsion advocates ambling about shouting while unknowingly being lead by highly trained marketing demagogues. And since there's 6.7Gpeople around that's an awfully big mess.

This thread makes me lol HARD. Why is there even any conflict about this? It's been apparent from the start that these climate change opinions have been manufactured to panic people, and so the governments can up "green tax" when it's not needed.

Shotglass, seeing what you post here makes me realise that every time you are arguing with Tristan you must be wrong because in THIS instance, you couldn't be MORE wrong. If you buy this "science" then you know nothing.

It's only a manufactured fact yet dope smoking hippys like you obviously think it's the truth. Do you realise how unbelievably ignorant it is to think that humans can change the climate of the planet?

The same people who feed you this bullshit are the same people that come up with stories like this.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

If Mars is suffering a climate change, what is causing it? No humans live on Mars as far as I know, so it's purely geophysical behaviour, and infact, Mars doesn't have any volcanic activity as far as I know either where as Earth DOES. Clearly both "facts" contradict each other as Mars is apparently suffering a climate change but only the universe is to blame for it's behaviour. Why is Earth's behaviour treated differently to other planets JUST because it has humans on it? It's bloody ignorant to use a different logic for our own planet to suit certain people JUST because it's OUR planet.

Most probably the reason for Mars' demise is us humans, shit the o-zone layer must have a hole in it lets bag some oxgyen before we all die.

Sure the reasons behind Mars' changes are quite different to the proposed causes of Earths problems, but surely this should put it into perspective. If a planet can heat up on it's own with no humans on it, then why do people insist it is the humans at fault on Earth just because they don't like the smell of diesel smoke and want to tax us more whilst making people feel guilty.

Do you think your government propelled recycling programs actually recycle anything? No, your bags, boxes, glass and cans all get stored in a warehouse. I've seen it for myself (albeit in England).

Quote from BlueFlame :

Madman's rant.

Yep. You've cracked it. No climate scientists even thought about the sun or volcanoes, much less incorporated their effects in their science. No sir, that completely slipped their minds.

Whops. Myth busted.

Quote from wien :

Yep. You've cracked it. No climate scientists even thought about the sun or volcanoes, much less incorporated their effects in their science. No sir, that completely slipped their minds.

Whops. Myth busted.

It clearly has slipped their mind, what is the point holding back a change in our climate we can't ultimately control until a Volcano eventually DOES erupt. All it does in the mean-time is give more money to our governments... Oh yea... Get it now?

Quote from xaotik :

It's not aimed at scientists, it's a handbook outline for employees of the UK Department for Environment's marketing department (they'll call it "Communication Group" or something stupid like that).

Then I'd suggest that the fact that it was lifted from the computers at UEA CRU is actually far more significant. What purpose does this kind of literature serve research scientists?

Quote from Vain :

That's simple. No, nobody on this planet is or can be sure wether AGW is actually happening or not.

Then I think there's some concern, because according to the UEA CRU and their affiliates' public statements over the last 15 years, they ARE certain that it's happening and we must act immediately if, according to Phil Jones (head of the UEA CRU on 24th Nov) "we are to continue to live on this planet".

Religious conviction has no place in scientific research. Religious conviction can be described as faith or belief, despite the absence of proof or fact.

Quote from SamH :

Yet, just as in religion, in climate science different "leaders" say different things. Not all scientists studying climatology are supportive of the assertions made by the IPCC or the UEA CRU.

again read what i write before you post unrelated drivel
i was talking about stopping to post stupidity when you dont know anything about how writing a thesis really works

Quote :

I can't believe you even said that . I've attached a hint. This is one of the documents released by the mole (the security industry seems satisfied this was an "inside job"), created by the British government's DEFRA, as an instruction manual on how to coerce public opinion on AGW. Absorb.

defra is obviously a highly regarded research group...

Quote :

You clearly have no clue who the UEA CRU is, nor have any comprehension of how much influence it has, worldwide, on the climatology industry.

industry? what industry?
is this one of your worldwide conspiracies again?

Quote :

Then you, of all people, should be the most offended by the activities of these "pre-eminent" scientists. Scientists do, or should, expect all scientists to be above reproach. Any science conducted in the manner it's been conducted at the UEA CRU should make you, as a scientist irrespective of your own field, absolutely furious with these so-called scientists for dirtying the integrity of science in the broadest sense.

welcome to the world
youre acting like massaging data isnt something that happens everywhere every single day
why are you acting so surprised its happening in science?
yes it shouldnt happen and yes they will rightfully lose their job for doing it on such a large scale
that doesnt mean however that the methods have thus far been completely unheard of and i doubt that there are many thesises around that dont have at least one graph that brushes aside some of the cases where things dont work properly in it

just because you have some silly world view with people who cant do wrong doesnt mean its anywhere realistic

Quote from Electrik Kar :

A lot of scientists would be and are very appalled and surprised at the attitudes shown by these researchers at EAU CRU. That they are acting more as advocates than scientists. There is a lot of concern from them about how best to present their research in terms of how it's going to affect policy. There's ample evidence of this in the email conversations.

allright allright ill have to concede that point
still my point about this haveing been blown out of proportion stands and every one of sams posts makes clear that his throughts are based on a very skewed and unrealistic world view

thank vain for pointing it out btw your last post really brought a few things ive been noticing about his posts in context

Quote from BlueFlame :

Do you realise how unbelievably ignorant it is to think that humans can change the climate of the planet?

I'm venturing a guess that it results in the same level of ignorance as to not contemplating that humans could change the climate.

On a more serious note: we'll have to buy Shotglass a new S2 license so he can be renamed to Roach now that his dope smoking hippiness has been exposed.

Quote from xaotik :

I'm venturing a guess that it results in the same level of ignorance as to not contemplating that humans could change the climate.

You can still care about the planet and not believe in Global Warming, that's where alot of people who buy that shit fail, they think the people who don't follow it are the ones that are ignorant, but in actual fact, they are the ones that are doing the research.

Quote from SamH :

Religious conviction has no place in scientific research. Religious conviction can be described as faith or belief, despite the absence of proof or fact.

you have this increadibly silly world view with fact and science on one side and religion and fait on the other
what you completely fail to understand is that any ongoing science ie any sceince that isnt yet at the point where its predictions are unanimously accepted by everyone in the field is very much about faith and believing in your theory

on a related topic there was a great scene in the big bang theory about loop quantum gravity vs string theory

Quote from SamH :

Then I'd suggest that the fact that it was lifted from the computers at UEA CRU is actually far more significant. What purpose does this kind of literature serve research scientists?

All this because it was in a .zip file?
By Vishnu, I wish they had put schematics of the WTC in that so we could at least get a Zeitgeist reference rolling.

Who's to say that those scientists didn't visit the futerra site on their own? Who's to say that there was also pornographic material on the UEA CRU computers that wasn't included in the .zip file? Of all the things lifted off of those computers, I think this .pdf is easily the most pointless thing to point out.

Quote from BlueFlame :

You can still care about the planet and not believe in Global Warming, that's where alot of people who buy that shit fail, they think the people who don't follow it are the ones that are ignorant, but in actual fact, they are the ones that are doing the research.

"Thinking" is not "believing" - if people think about the possibility of humans affecting climatic change then they are not automatically believing it. You assailed the option of thinking. However now that I type that out it does seem fitting.

Quote from Shotglass :

again read what i write before you post unrelated drivel
i was talking about stopping to post stupidity when you dont know anything about how writing a thesis really works

You're obviously confused about the difference between practice and acceptability. It's a fact that students plagiarise, but it's not acceptable. Moreover, it's certainly not acceptable for eminent scientists to be conducting themselves in this way at such high levels and with such influence.

Quote from Shotglass :

defra is obviously a highly regarded research group...

It's a government ministry, Department for Environment and Rural Affairs.

Quote from Shotglass :

industry? what industry?
is this one of your worldwide conspiracies again?

How is climatology not an industry? Money comes in, money goes out, salaries are paid.

Quote from Shotglass :

just because you have some silly world view with people who cant do wrong doesnt mean its anywhere realistic

Your blasé attitude towards scientific integrity is saddening, but if that's where you're at then that's where you're at. I don't share your attitude and I'm grateful that it's not the norm in the scientific community either.

Quote from Shotglass :

my point about this haveing been blown out of proportion stands and every one of sams posts makes clear that his throughts are based on a very skewed and unrealistic world view

Can you explain how? I'm pretty passionate about stopping dirty science being propagated as if it were entered into law (and actually being entered into law). Is that wrong? Twisted? Unacceptable? What? I just don't get how someone who's shooting for an academic grade can possibly be accepting of such shoddy scientific work.

Quote from xaotik :

"Thinking" is not "believing" - if people think about the possibility of humans affecting climatic change then they are not automatically believing it. You assailed the option of thinking. However now that I type that out it does seem fitting.

Yea, it does make sense doesn't it.

Quote from SamH :

Then I'd suggest that the fact that it was lifted from the computers at UEA CRU is actually far more significant. What purpose does this kind of literature serve research scientists?

There's other material on there which looks like nothing more than political spam, probably being sent to CRU because the spammers reckon they'll get a sympathetic response. Since it's not written by the CRU people themselves, it's the least noteworthy material in the folder. You can infer anything from it, but I would probably just ignore it.

Quote from BlueFlame :

It clearly has slipped their mind, what is the point holding back a change in our climate we can't ultimately control until a Volcano eventually DOES erupt. All it does in the mean-time is give more money to our governments... Oh yea... Get it now?

How about you run along an do a little of that math you were requesting others do earlier? The effects of volcanoes are insignificant compared to the amounts of CO2 people are worrying about. The warming effect of that CO2 is even believed to be offset by the cooling effect of the aerosols produced by the gases and particulate matter spewed from a volcanic eruption.

That's right, volcanoes result in global cooling if their effects are taken on their own. As such they actually prevent global warming and are not the cause of the warming we're seeing.

Quote from Electrik Kar :

There's other material on there which looks like nothing more than political spam, probably being sent to CRU because the spammers reckon they'll get a sympathetic response. Since it's not being written by the CRU people themselves, it's the least noteworthy material in the folder. You can infer anything from it, but I would probably just ignore it.

You're right, I'm sure. The cynic in me questions the presence and purpose of the document, but the clearly coercive tone of the document itself is really the offensive aspect to my mind. But I never did like the underhandedness of spin, no matter its source.

Quote from SamH :

You're obviously confused about the difference between practice and acceptability. It's a fact that students plagiarise, but it's not acceptable. Moreover, it's certainly not acceptable for eminent scientists to be conducting themselves in this way at such high levels and with such influence.

welcome to reality?

Quote :

It's a government ministry, Department for Environment and Rural Affairs.

i knwo thats why i pointed outs its completely irrelevant and everyone but you seems to agree with me on this

Quote :

How is climatology not an industry? Money comes in, money goes out, salaries are paid.

again an example how someone whos never worked in science should better not flap their mouth
i sure would like to know where those scientific institutes that pay salaries high enough to be considered industry level are because id like to have a chance of making at least twice as much money as i do now

Quote :

Can you explain how? I'm pretty passionate about stopping dirty science being propagated as if it were entered into law (and actually being entered into law). Is that wrong? Twisted? Unacceptable? What? I just don't get how someone who's shooting for an academic grade can possibly be accepting of such shoddy scientific work.

1) im not accepting it in the least im just not surprised
2) scientists are humans
-short moment for you to finish your surprised gasp-
3) ive explained it a bit in my last post but ill do it again just for you
you seem have this silly idea in your head that the world is divided into good guys and bad guys and that being a member of a certain group automatically makes you one or the other
eg scientist- good
fia - bad
religious - bad
plus you tend to grasp onto certain topics with a death grip missing the larger picture like in this case being worried about policies and taxes your government imposes based on global warming entirely missing the reality that the vehicle they choose is completely irrelevant and that govemnment will always find a way to increase their spending money and their control

Quote from Shotglass :

i knwo thats why i pointed outs its completely irrelevant and everyone but you seems to agree with me on this

Ohhh.. didn't you know? DEFRA set up and fund the UEA CRU. Irrelevant? Really?!

Quote from Shotglass :

is this one of your worldwide conspiracies again?

Ahh.. satire. I get it. You're drawing a subtle parallel with those at the UEA CRU, who documented their own efforts to undermine sceptics, using their own influence to ensure they were treated in scientific journals as deniers and crackpots.

No, I'm not the conspiracy theorist you'd love me to be.

Quote from wien :

How about you run along an do a little of that math you were requesting others do earlier? The effects of volcanoes are insignificant compared to the amounts of CO2 people are worrying about. The warming effect of that CO2 is even believed to be offset by the cooling effect of the aerosols produced by the gases and particulate matter spewed from a volcanic eruption.

That's right, volcanoes result in global cooling if their effects are taken on their own. As such they actually prevent global warming and are not the cause of the warming we're seeing.

Why do you refer to CO2 as a pollutant? It's plant food, and plants convert CO2 into O2 thus canceling any 'pollution' out. Of course Volcanoe's aren't the CAUSE of "global warming" but notice how it USED to be called "global warming" but NOW it's "climate change" they are saying the planet is cooling now, rather than heating up as they used to say. If this alone does not show to you that it's bullshit you really aren't asking enough questions.

There is more change of hot air from your mouth talking shit about global warming, causing it than any amount of CO2.

Quote from Shotglass :

i sure would like to know where those scientific institutes that pay salaries high enough to be considered industry level are because id like to have a chance of making at least twice as much money as i do now

I think when people say that they sort of mean the general environmentalist trend and the products/services (which they often cannot afford) that revolve around it and not so much "climatology" as the study of climate being an industry. Sticking to my previous "oh woe is us in the age of pricetags" theme I think I can understand how peopl confuse the two - many branches of science seem to get intertwined immediately with the consumer products that result from their study.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Yea, it does make sense doesn't it.

That you'd do such a thing? Damn straight it does.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Why do you refer to CO2 as a pollutant? It's plant food, and plants convert CO2 into O2 thus canceling any 'pollution' out.

Over a certain percentage it is a pollutant because it's going to be detrimental to the process of photosynthesis which will indeed consume a certain amount of CO2. Also, the creation process of said CO2 by various means usually creates further complications to the system by either modifying other variables or introducing new ones.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Why do you refer to CO2 as a pollutant?

I couldn't find where he used the word pollutant in reference to CO2.

Quote from SamH :

Ohhh.. didn't you know? DEFRA set up and fund the UEA CRU. Irrelevant? Really?!

I'd like to know what makes a (presumably) German citizen assume he knows the way the UK man-made global warming lobby groups/government departments who are quids in with this work, better than UK citizens themselves. I've asked him to explain his arguments but so far there has been nothing, and the dismissive attitude is hard to believe.