|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is "climate change" being used to bring in a global Govenment?
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
The latest alarming news.
quote:
The world is now firmly on course for the worst-case scenario in terms of climate change, with average global temperatures rising by up to 6C by the end of the century, leading scientists said yesterday. Such a rise – which would be much higher nearer the poles – would have cataclysmic and irreversible consequences for the Earth, making large parts of the planet uninhabitable and threatening the basis of human civilisation.
snip
This means that the most extreme scenario envisaged in the last report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published in 2007, is now the one for which society is set, according to the 31 researchers from seven countries involved in the Global Carbon Project.
snip
Their chilling and remarkable prediction throws into sharp relief the importance of next month's UN climate conference in Copenhagen, where the world community will come together to try to construct a new agreement to bring the warming under control.
For the past month there has been a lowering of expectations about the conference, not least because the US may not be ready to commit itself to cuts in its emissions. But yesterday President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao of China issued a joint communiqué after a meeting in Beijing, which reignited hopes that a serious deal might be possible after all.
snip
On average, the researchers found, there was an annual increase in emissions of just over 3 per cent during the period, compared with an annual increase of 1 per cent between 1990 and 2000. Almost all of the increase this decade occurred after 2000 and resulted from the boom in the Chinese economy. The researchers predict a small decrease this year due to the recession, but further increases from 2010.
In total, CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have increased by 41 per cent between 1990 and 2008, yet global emissions in 1990 are the reference level set by the Kyoto Protocol, which countries are trying to fall below in terms of their own emissions.
Any thoughts on what a 'serious deal' must consist of? ISTM given this most recent most dire prediction the kid gloves are going to have to come off.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Any thoughts on what a 'serious deal' must consist of? ISTM given this most recent most dire prediction the kid gloves are going to have to come off. [/QB]
I've read bits of the Montreal Protocol (1978, "banning" CFCs), and it was absolutely riddled with get-out clauses. As far as I could see, no government had to do anything they didn't want to do at the end of the day.
I give this as an example of a treaty that worked - CFC replacements were found, production of the most harmful CFCs decreased drastically, and the concentration in the atmosphere is now slowly falling - not bad, for compounds which are so stable their lifetime in the atmosphere is almost geological.
The point being, if you want bondage and discipline in a treaty, you're always going to be disappointed. What matters is the will and ability to act: the treaty is just an outward and visible sign of an inward and political will to do something.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
This chap is certainly on to something:-
Global Warming as a religion
He's on something.
He writes:
"The activists now prefer to call it [AGW] “climate change”."
Whereas we have seen earlier in this thread the evidence that it was AGW deniers who started using it.
Yawn. Any science, Aumbry?
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
This chap is certainly on to something:-
Global Warming as a religion
He's on something.
He writes:
"The activists now prefer to call it [AGW] “climate change”."
Whereas we have seen earlier in this thread the evidence that it was AGW deniers who started using it.
Yawn. Any science, Aumbry?
It is not really anything to do with science it is a chapter in the history of mass hysteria.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
Wrong! The argument depends completely on scientific evidence. If you don't know that by now, you've learned nothing and have nothing to contribute on the subject. You can assert your opinion as Myrrh does, also with nothing useful to say.
If you could present evidence which overturns the current overwhelming body of evidence accepted by climate scientists, it's going to be pretty damn good.
You got nothing? Thought so.
.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
Not so long ago leading microbiologists were telling us that hundreds of thousands of people would develop Kreuzfeld-Jakob disease and die due to eating British beef. As far as I can see this turned out not to be the case.
There have been endless other scares of recent years and all of them have shown little sign of developing into the doomsday scenario which is always put forward. we probably are doomed but my bet is that this is not it.
I am not contending that there is no evidence for global climate change, that would be a ridiculous stance to take as there is plenty of geological and archaeological evidence of the earth's constantly changing climate. There is unfortunately a form of primitive fetishism with the current Man Made Climate Change hysteria which has all the aspects of a new age religion. A religion with its own priesthood - environmentalists and climate scientists who order the tribe to make sacrifices to the great climate deity. This is indeed a puritanical religion which sees human existence - let alone himan happyness as a taboo. Its totems are windfarms and low-energy light bulbs - things which are of little real use if the climate change is manmade.
Its real danger, and I am repeating myself here, is that it damages other environmental causes - a classic example of which is it having caused the need to have biodiesels in European fuel which in turn has caused forest destruction to make room for palm oil plantations.
Unfortunately if politicians want to delegate their responsibilities to the environmental priesthood that will be their and our loss in the long run.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Not so long ago leading microbiologists were telling us that hundreds of thousands of people would develop Kreuzfeld-Jakob disease and die due to eating British beef. As far as I can see this turned out not to be the case.
Ambry, I don't doubt your memory, but a quick bit of Googling has only turned up articles like this which don't make any such doomsday predictions. However, that's only in the UK. If you have a particular reference in mind, I'd be grateful if you could post it, as I'm interested in the representation of scientific data in the mass media.
At the start of something like the BSE scare, not a lot is known, and that uncertainty translates to a wide error band. The upper figure for this band will look quite scary, and may attract headlines for that reason. When more is known and the worst-case estimates scale rapidly down, the scientists will probably be ignored by the mainstream media, as their figures aren't sensational enough to make a good story. The public ends up with the impression that the scientists were scaremongering, when in fact it was all media sensationalism and selective reporting.
Many thanks,
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Not so long ago leading microbiologists were telling us that hundreds of thousands of people would develop Kreuzfeld-Jakob disease and die due to eating British beef. As far as I can see this turned out not to be the case.
Ambry, I don't doubt your memory, but a quick bit of Googling has only turned up articles like this which don't make any such doomsday predictions. However, that's only in the UK. If you have a particular reference in mind, I'd be grateful if you could post it, as I'm interested in the representation of scientific data in the mass media.
At the start of something like the BSE scare, not a lot is known, and that uncertainty translates to a wide error band. The upper figure for this band will look quite scary, and may attract headlines for that reason. When more is known and the worst-case estimates scale rapidly down, the scientists will probably be ignored by the mainstream media, as their figures aren't sensational enough to make a good story. The public ends up with the impression that the scientists were scaremongering, when in fact it was all media sensationalism and selective reporting.
Many thanks,
- Chris.
I think you will find any number of predictions were made by experts that there would be quite likely tens of thousands of deaths. A noted one was Dr John Patterson who on Newsnight told Jeremy Paxman that we could expect up to half a million sufferers within a few years.
The result was the destruction of several million cattle at a cost to the taxpayer of £3.5 billion. As far as I know there has not even been a spike in the number of CJD cases since.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Not so long ago leading microbiologists were telling us that hundreds of thousands of people would develop Kreuzfeld-Jakob disease and die due to eating British beef. As far as I can see this turned out not to be the case.
During the BSE scandal, scientists warned us that many people could die if no counter-measures were taken. Early counter-measures protected us from the worst case scenario:
"...the models [predicting a high number of deaths] take no account of the improved enforcement of existing regulations and the introduction of new countermeasures, and so give an indication of the maximum number of lives that would have been at risk in the absence of the countermeasures introduced after 31 March 1996" (source, under the heading 'The risks of contracting vCJD...')
Some people may interpret that as a useful lesson about the value of listening to scientists and taking early action to protect ourselves from real risks. The implications for the climate science debate are obvious.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The result was the destruction of several million cattle at a cost to the taxpayer of £3.5 billion. As far as I know there has not even been a spike in the number of CJD cases since.
So it worked.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
Oh come off it!
The microbiologists were claiming that several million people who had eaten beef would have already been infected with the prion so even if the countermeasures had been 100% successful there would still have been a massive increase in the disease.
There wasn't.
(By the way the latest figure for the millenium bug's cost (on those countries that took measures against it) is put at £35 billion).
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
Re: CJD, what sanityman says sounds likely to me - early media hype with no later correction leading the public to believe the scientists had been wrong. Sometimes they will be proven wrong but it's MUCH more likely they were very cautious in their predictions and misquoted by numpty journalists to make it sound more exciting.
I'd also expect that when scientists are proven wrong it's some individual study or flawed new research, (or someone sponsored to publish conclusions favourable to the sponsor), not some well-established body of knowledge based on very large quantities of data from numerous experiments and studies, with many opportunities to iron out mistakes, leading to most people in the relevant field to agree on something to the extent that (AFAIK) all national science bodies, almost all university departments with a climate science research group concur, as on AGW.
Of course the real only way to counter such a widely accepted scientific opinion is to try to cast doubt on the science or claim it's all a conspiracy. This is really hard when you know nothing at all and don't trust anyone to help you learn the basics. This is the Myrrh approach of denying anything involving actual established, uncontroversial science or facts or expertise of others, while meekly accepting anything critical of real science without question or the slightest understanding of why it's complete rubbish.
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I am not contending that there is no evidence for global climate change, that would be a ridiculous stance to take as there is plenty of geological and archaeological evidence of the earth's constantly changing climate.
Good. Very sensible.
quote:
There is unfortunately a form of primitive fetishism with the current Man Made Climate Change hysteria which has all the aspects of a new age religion. A religion with its own priesthood - environmentalists and climate scientists who order the tribe to make sacrifices to the great climate deity. This is indeed a puritanical religion which sees human existence - let alone himan happyness as a taboo. Its totems are windfarms and low-energy light bulbs - things which are of little real use if the climate change is manmade.
This is where you don't make any sense. As soon as you use emotive words like primitive, fetishism, hysteria, "puritanical religion" your views look far from thoughtful, as though you aren't being completely open-minded about it.
.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The microbiologists were claiming that several million people who had eaten beef would have already been infected with the prion so even if the countermeasures had been 100% successful there would still have been a massive increase in the disease.
Which part of ...
"...the models [predicting a high number of deaths] take no account of the improved enforcement of existing regulations and the introduction of new countermeasures, and so give an indication of the maximum number of lives that would have been at risk in the absence of the countermeasures introduced after 31 March 1996" (source, under the heading 'The risks of contracting vCJD...')
... do you find difficult to understand?
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I think you will find any number of predictions were made by experts that there would be quite likely tens of thousands of deaths. A noted one was Dr John Patterson who on Newsnight told Jeremy Paxman that we could expect up to half a million sufferers within a few years.
The result was the destruction of several million cattle at a cost to the taxpayer of £3.5 billion. As far as I know there has not even been a spike in the number of CJD cases since.
Thanks for your response, ambry, and for the quote. Looking it up, I find a review of the book Scared to Death: from BSE to Global Warming by Christopher Booker and Richard North. Is this where you're getting you're figures from? The number you mentioned seems close to that given in the review. I note that the context of your quote is
quote:
... under pressure in the Newsnight studio to reveal his worst fears, one of the government’s scientific advisers, Dr John Patterson, suggested that half a million Britons could be dead of the disease by 2005
Now I don't have a transcript, but someone being pressurised into giving a worst-case figure seems to fit my scenario pretty well. Do you have any examples from a print interview that gives a little more context? I find it's very easy to parley media hyteria (which there undoubtedly was) into "any number of experts." A similar thing was responsible for the current rumours of "experts predicted a new ice age in the 70s," which is blatantly untrue. If you're going to get angry about the misinformation, get angry at the right people.
- Chris.
PS: with things like the BSE crisis and to a lesser extent the Millennium Bug, what would you have people do? Sit on their thumbs and wait and see how bad it gets? I would certainly agree that there was over-reaction and some blatant profiteering associated with the millennium bug. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a real problem, with potentially serious and far-reaching consequences. Why does it have to be either-or?
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
The word Myrhh was grasping for is 'logarithmic' - the radiative forcing (in watts per square meter, W/m^2) of CO2 is approximately proportional to the logarithm of its concentration. This means that the effect is actually "less than proportional" in the sense that the increase of 10 parts per million from 380 ppm to 390 ppm results in less additional forcing than the same size increase from 280 to 290 - the more CO2 there is, the less each additional amount adds to the forcing.
But the form of the log function is such that it does give equal increments in output for equal percentage changes in input. Typically this is quoted as the increase in forcing for a doubling (100% increase) - according to the IPCC report I linked to above, every doubling of CO2 concentration results in an increase in radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m^2. So going from 280 ppm to 560 ppm would cause an increase in radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m^2, but to get another increase of the same size we'd need to go all the way from 560 ppm to 1120 ppm.
This decreasing effectiveness of CO2 with increasing concentration (which Myrhh seems to think is so fatal to the notion of AGW) is, of course, included in the climate models.
Thanks for this Dave W.
Do you or Alan Cresswell (or anyone) know of a good description of how peoples lives would have to change to prevent further, or reverse where necessary, man made climate change?
What I see are statements at a gross level about reducing emissions and 'solutions' such as carbon sequestration and nuclear power replacing coal power electricity generation. Or else there is encouragement to do things at a household level such as installing solar power and efficient lighting, and using more fuel efficient vehicles; which seem to me to make hardly a dent in the problem.
The assumption or hope seems to be that our lifestyles will not need to change dramatically because some technical solutions will be found.
I suppose this is a tangent from the 'global government' of the OP, but we are already on a tangent.
If the hosts think this subject should be a different thread then I would be happy with that.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Do you or Alan Cresswell (or anyone) know of a good description of how peoples lives would have to change to prevent further, or reverse where necessary, man made climate change?
What I see are statements at a gross level about reducing emissions and 'solutions' such as carbon sequestration and nuclear power replacing coal power electricity generation. Or else there is encouragement to do things at a household level such as installing solar power and efficient lighting, and using more fuel efficient vehicles; which seem to me to make hardly a dent in the problem.
The assumption or hope seems to be that our lifestyles will not need to change dramatically because some technical solutions will be found.
Well, I suspect that reversing AGW, or even halting it where it stands now, is not in the cards. Even if we stop CO2 emissions almost entirely in fairly short order (which seems unlikely to me) we may struggle to keep global temperature change down to the oft-cited 2C above pre-industrial level, and a large fraction of the sea-level rise now predicted under "business as usual" scenarios is essentially unstoppable. I think climate policy proposals are mostly about trying to minimize the chances of even larger, more damaging changes. (Here's a simplified model which can give you a rough idea of what different policies might achieve in the way of CO2 concentration, temperature, and sea level, based on current understanding of the climate system.)
As for how any necessary reductions would change our lifestyles, opinions run the gamut (as you've probably noticed) from those who claim even modest limits would cripple the world's economies, to those who say large changes could be achieved at little or no cost. I'm afraid I don't have a favorite trusted resource to recommend on this, Latchkey Kid, though you might find some material of interest in the reports of the 2nd and 3rd Working Groups of the IPCC.
At present, I'm leaning toward the opinion that whatever measures we adopt won't be too onerous for the average citizen, because I don't think we'll be willing to make painful sacrifices to solve a problem that a) doesn't appear in the form of an acute crisis, and b) won't show obvious signs of prompt improvement in response to our actions. In this view, our lifestyles won't be dramatically affected by our policy choices directly because we'll only attempt relatively inexpensive things. Whether those things are effective or not is a different question - if not, our lifestyles will be more drastically affected by the climate changes we fail to avoid.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
At present, I'm leaning toward the opinion that whatever measures we adopt won't be too onerous for the average citizen, because I don't think we'll be willing to make painful sacrifices to solve a problem that a) doesn't appear in the form of an acute crisis, and b) won't show obvious signs of prompt improvement in response to our actions. In this view, our lifestyles won't be dramatically affected by our policy choices directly because we'll only attempt relatively inexpensive things. Whether those things are effective or not is a different question - if not, our lifestyles will be more drastically affected by the climate changes we fail to avoid.
Thanks Again, Dave W.
I try to find alternatives to my pessimistic outlook, but it does seem as though we won't be motivated to take timely action, if it is still possible. Perhaps we can't help being like Easter Islanders on a global scale with our resources.
Paul Simon's Have a Good Time (applied globally) comes to mind:
quote:
So God bless the goods we was given
And God bless the U. S. of A.
And God bless our standard of livin'
Let's keep it that way
And we'll all have a good time
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Wrong! The argument depends completely on scientific evidence. If you don't know that by now, you've learned nothing and have nothing to contribute on the subject.
Actually, that's going to depend entirely on which argument we're talking about. I'm not sure a discussion on whether or not there's an intention to develop a global government, or give existing national governments more power, using climate chnage as a lever to forward that aim has anything at all to do with science.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
... I find a review of the book Scared to Death: from BSE to Global Warming by Christopher Booker and Richard North.
Well spotted. A review of this book (on the web site of what has been described as a 'Conservative-leaning think tank') commented that, while this "isn't exactly a bad book and it has its merits", it also has some drawbacks:
"Hanging over this book there is a sense that 'official' science is always wrong. But that's about as batty as saying that it is always right. [...]
Our authors turn their scepticism filter on and off according to who happens to be in range [...]
Towards the end of the book there is a big section on climate change. This is included presumably on the grounds that it is another giant scare. But in almost every respect climate change doesn't fit their bill or make their case. [...]
This is not a book one could pick up for a decent assessment of such matters."
[ 20. November 2009, 08:43: Message edited by: Alwyn ]
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Odd how the only satellite sent up to measure CO2 crashed, so soon after showing what?
Myrrh, when challenged you changed this to...
quote:
You didn't understand crashed as in crashed data?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) That's blatantly dishonest. You didn't mean crashed data, you meant NASA (or someone else inside the conspiracy) crashed the satellite.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not sure a discussion on whether or not there's an intention to develop a global government, or give existing national governments more power, using climate chnage as a lever to forward that aim has anything at all to do with science.
I think there are two ways to interpret the OP's question:- Is man-made climate change simply a lie, fabricated to bring in global Government?
- AGW is real, but are political organisations using it as a way to further their own agendas - e.g. global Government?
Science is entirely relevant to the first interpretation, and less so for the second. I think it's fair to assume the OP is suggesting #1, especially it mentioned Lord Monkton. He's currently touring the U.S. championing his "scientists are big fat hairy liars" views.
IMO the second interpretation is a more interesting question - or at least, a less frequently asked one.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
Alwyn, thanks for finding that review. Without wishing to derail further into BSE etc, I did think that the criticisms of government actions made were pretty well balanced: you don't have to look further than the recent drugs furore to see the uneasy relationship between public policy and scientific advice. To blame the government's actions on "scientists" seems to be missing the mark a little. Also, the point that at the start of these scares, no-one is really sure what they're dealing with and mistakes are made is a good one.
One point on which I do agree with Booker and North is that there seems to be a positive-feedback mechanism with pressure groups and newspapers pushing their agendas, and the government trying to be seen to be responding to these pressures.
Ironically, these same mechanisms that they point out are at work in the anti-global warming lobby. Far from being the voice of reason, they're an (unwitting?) part of the campaign of media manipulation which result in the general public being far less sure about global warming than any of the science community.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not sure a discussion on whether or not there's an intention to develop a global government, or give existing national governments more power, using climate chnage as a lever to forward that aim has anything at all to do with science.
I think there are two ways to interpret the OP's question:- Is man-made climate change simply a lie, fabricated to bring in global Government?
- AGW is real, but are political organisations using it as a way to further their own agendas - e.g. global Government?
Science is entirely relevant to the first interpretation, and less so for the second. I think it's fair to assume the OP is suggesting #1, especially it mentioned Lord Monkton. He's currently touring the U.S. championing his "scientists are big fat hairy liars" views.
IMO the second interpretation is a more interesting question - or at least, a less frequently asked one.
You're probably right that there is a voice expressing position #1, and in that case the science is relevant.
I'd tend towards a much more nuanced categorisation of views, however. There are at least two dimensions on the science and response positions.
Along one axis we could have a value expressing how much someone agrees with the "scientific consensus" - ranging from "science is totally wrong, there is no climate change/climate change is entirely natural" to "science has categorically proved beyond doubt that human activity has screwed with the climate" (with probably most people, certainly most scientist, somewhere in the middle towards the acceptance end but knowing there are parts of the scientific picture which are unclear or potentially wrong).
Another axis could relate to opinions about what we should be doing. This could range from "stop burning fossil fuels, cutting down trees, immediately and completely" to "there's no need to do anything". My guess would be that most people who score highly on the acceptance of the science would also advocate significant action. There would be some who would say human activity is affecting the climate, but that the consequences of that are not sufficient to warrant any action. There would be others who would advocate reduced consumption of fossil fuels even though they reject the scientific consensus (there are reasons other than greenhouse gases to conserve fossil fuels).
The question then becomes, if we take a third axis for attitudes towards government is there any correlation between 'climate science scepticism', 'non-action to mitigate climate change (if accepted it's happening)' and 'opposition to big government/internationalism'?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
sanityman - I agree.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... is there any correlation between 'climate science scepticism', 'non-action to mitigate climate change (if accepted it's happening)' and 'opposition to big government/internationalism'?
Maybe - and, if so, will action on climate change be delayed by a 'culture war'? I agree with the concerns of Australian economist Dr Brett Parris who wrote:
"For the poor and for today’s children who will inherit our legacy, these are not abstract debates. They are not opportunities for political point scoring, or for fighting left-right culture wars. The science of climate change matters and it deserves to be taken seriously.
When the British economist John Maynard Keynes was derided for changing his position on economic policy he replied: “When the facts change, I change my position. What do you do, sir?” Keynes’ response reflects the open-minded attitude of a genuine inquirer, a true skeptic, willing to change his mind when new information emerges, or when the weight of evidence, the balance of probabilities and the risks and consequences of being wrong become overwhelming.
Not everyone approaches the issue of climate change in this open-minded way. Some come to the science through the lenses of political ideologies or economic interests, maintaining positions dogmatically in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and endlessly recycling views that have been repeatedly debunked by scientists. We have seen this approach before with those who continue to deny the moon landings, the link between HIV and AIDS and the link between smoking and cancer..."
[ 20. November 2009, 11:35: Message edited by: Alwyn ]
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
... I find a review of the book Scared to Death: from BSE to Global Warming by Christopher Booker and Richard North.
Well spotted. A review of this book (on the web site of what has been described as a 'Conservative-leaning think tank') commented that, while this "isn't exactly a bad book and it has its merits", it also has some drawbacks:
"Hanging over this book there is a sense that 'official' science is always wrong. But that's about as batty as saying that it is always right. [...]
Our authors turn their scepticism filter on and off according to who happens to be in range [...]
Towards the end of the book there is a big section on climate change. This is included presumably on the grounds that it is another giant scare. But in almost every respect climate change doesn't fit their bill or make their case. [...]
This is not a book one could pick up for a decent assessment of such matters."
Booker is, after all, considered by quite a lot of us to be a pretty well-known long-term paranoid nutter.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[QUOTE]
The question then becomes, if we take a third axis for attitudes towards government is there any correlation between 'climate science scepticism', 'non-action to mitigate climate change (if accepted it's happening)' and 'opposition to big government/internationalism'?
Alan - I was almost tempted to post a new thread on this subject as it seems to me that the denialism of those who seek to disparage the 'scientific consensus' is based in ideology.
As you have probably noticed often the argument doesn't seem to be about science at all. You can correct their scientific misunderstanding and it still doesn’t mean that they change their position. There are significant numbers of people on forums who seem to think that they are pointing out things that the 'experts' (almost always used in a derogatory way) haven't thought of or haven't noticed.
I often read on forums that it is all a conspiracy to raise taxes or bring in global government. From my experience the vast majority of the 'deniers' are libertarians and the issues for them is control even more than it is money and taxes. They see government as (always?) impinging massively on their personal freedom - it often seems to give a focus for their frustrations. How many Brits of this ilk believe that over 70% of laws are now made in Brussels and yet ask them for examples of how this impinges on their everyday life and they are either speechless or they come up with urban myths.
They seem to instinctively believe - and here I think they are right - that to tackle this issue will mean more co-operation at an international level and that will mean more politics and more regulation.
As they believe in small government they cannot countenance an issue which actually would undermine their ideology: one which would need government action to deal with it. Indeed to them preventative health care initiatives are suspect, attempts to protect fishing stocks will always prove to be counterproductive or unnecessary. Etc etc
In the end the scientific community have to persuade a public many of whom cannot see how it is in their self-interest to take GW seriously and a bunch of ideologues who have the inevitable attendant blindness
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yes, I tend to agree that the driving force for the correlation between 'climate change sceptics' and 'small government idealists' is from political ideology to science. I don't think that's true in all cases, but it seems very difficult to start with a disagreement with the scientific conclusions and work to a particular political ideology ... you could logically argue for big government to keep these pesky scientists in their place as easily as argue against big government imposing faulty science on everyone.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, I tend to agree that the driving force for the correlation between 'climate change sceptics' and 'small government idealists' is from political ideology to science. I don't think that's true in all cases, but it seems very difficult to start with a disagreement with the scientific conclusions and work to a particular political ideology ... you could logically argue for big government to keep these pesky scientists in their place as easily as argue against big government imposing faulty science on everyone.
Tiptoeing around the dead horse, this seems to me to be exactly the same attitude towards science that YECs exhibit. It frequently presents as complaints about the perversion of science in the service of atheistic materialism - but in reality, those arguing don't give a damn about good science: they are against it purely because their [th/id]eology is being challenged.
I do wonder whether the opponents of AGW couldn't use the same argument, though: "you uncritically accept the consensus because you are a pro-European, Communist, New World Order-supporting, cheese-eating pinko," or some such. The motives games tends to be a level playing field.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Chris - that is exactly what many do claim. It seems to me that whilst there are some that fit your desciption, a great many who are relatively hard to pidgeon hole politically, do accept the scientific consensus providing they are scientifically literate.
Being someone who some would say fits that description and who is instinctively sypmathetic to organic farming as probably a force for good - I still accept that there was a substantial study recently that cast doubt over many of the positive claims made for organic farming. Put simply my ideology isn't impermeable to good science.
[ 20. November 2009, 16:25: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Chris - that is exactly what many do claim. It seems to me that whilst there are some that fit your desciption, a great many who are relatively hard to pidgeon hole politically, do accept the scientific consensus providing they are scientifically literate.
Being someone who some would say fits that description and who is instinctively sypmathetic to organic farming as probably a force for good - I still accept that there was a substantial study recently that cast doubt over many of the positive claims made for organic farming. Put simply my ideology isn't impermeable to good science.
Luigi, that was of course a self-description[1] ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) (I'm sympathetic with you on the organic farming thing, btw). From the study I keep on quoting, it seems that scientific literacy is by far the best predictor of agreement with AGW. On the other side, I feel Alan is right: the common ground is a political viewpoint. I hope this moves it out of the realms of pure Bulversim!
- Chris.
--
[1]: mmm, cheese...
[ 20. November 2009, 16:42: Message edited by: sanityman ]
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
this seems to me to be exactly the same attitude towards science that YECs exhibit.
I recall a thread discussing that exact parallel a year or so back.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
this seems to me to be exactly the same attitude towards science that YECs exhibit.
I recall a thread discussing that exact parallel a year or so back.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) Sorry, was probably trying to stay out of it at that point! It's interesting that those two subjects have the ability to get me annoyed more than any others that spring to mind - and hence arguing and thinking emotionally rather than rationally. I think it's because of the "reckless disregard for truth" angle, as thinking about Max Clifford or Karl Rove tends to provoke the same reaction. Or for that matter, someone unthinkingly repeating urban legends (especially if they have a dodgy subtext).
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
The big climate change news story right now is that servers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit have been hacked, and thousands of private emails between the scientists have been leaked.
This is causing great glee for the sceptics, and no small embarrassment to the scientists involved. The main talking points seem to be:- When discussing how to present temperature reconstructions, one scientist (Phil Jones) said “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
- One scientist suggests to another that they delete some email before responding to a Freedom of Information request.
- Some of the researchers are pretty scathing (and even unpleasant) about the sceptics.
Real Climate responds here. They admit it doesn't look great, but it's an edited selection of thousands of emails (stretching back to 1996) and...
quote:
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords.
I doubt this will make much difference either way to people with strong opinions on climate change, but it could influence some people who are undecided. We'll be hearing about it for a long time.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
I read that too. My reaction was that I was staggered that they managed to come up with so little.
If I watched 1000s of hours of French football I am sure I could come to the conclusion that all french footballers cheat all the time. And that they have never deservedly won anything.
But it would be wrong.
Luigi
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
I don't find the content of the emails (as summarised in the linked article) surprising. If I was a scientist, I would likely be tempted to be scathing of some of the more extreme and less reality-based sceptics. Scientists, and indeed academics in general, can sometimes present data in such a way that it more clearly illustrates the science they think is true, especially when there are outside spoilers who will seize on any supposed ambiguities or contrary results. Making private emails public under FoI could be misguided, as it causes real frank discussion to move from private written correspondence to informal and unminuted meetings and conversations.*
The problems shown in these emails seem to be fairly small. But if they were shown to be serious and endemic then I'm not sure how much that would help the denialists' case; if anything, it would show that even ill informed and dishonest criticism, mostly from outside academia, can have a negative impact on the thinking and conduct of academic scientists. In an open society which values free speech and free enquiry as well as accurate scientific knowledge this could pose something of a dilemma.
Hopefully it would motivate the genuine sceptics to be honest in their scepticism, not to engage in personal attacks, to realise that uncertainty regarding climate change likely necessitates more funds for research, not less, and to examine their own motives and honesty, and think about what would happen if their own private correspondence was made public. I'm not especially hopeful.
*Everything I know about organisational politics I learnt from Yes, Minister. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 21. November 2009, 11:35: Message edited by: Zwingli ]
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
Making private emails public under FoI could be misguided, as it causes real frank discussion to move from private written correspondence to informal and unminuted meetings and conversations.*
Agreed. Someone could suggest deleting an email for various reasons, including:- To conceal important information.
- Because the email wasn't important, your research field has become a political football, it'd be misleading to take your remarks out of context, and you're sick of being selectively quoted.
Because I'm not a sceptic, I tend to gravitate towards #2 in this case. Still, if I'd heard about (say) a tobacco company's scientists suggesting the same I'd be sure it was because of #1. This reflects my preconceptions. I can quite see why sceptics are offended and/or excited.
quote:
The problems shown in these emails seem to be fairly small.
We don't know how many emails were nicked. There might have been hundreds of thousands - 60mb doesn't seem a lot for a 13 year period in a busy research establishment. The hackers also seem to have edited them to an extent - perhaps not deceptively, but there's no personal information or general chit-chat in them. It's not just a random chunk of email data.
quote:
if anything, it would show that even ill informed and dishonest criticism, mostly from outside academia, can have a negative impact on the thinking and conduct of academic scientists.
Very true. As far as I can see climate scientists can be a bit defensive about their research sometimes - for instance, it took a big fuss for NASA to release code to one of their climate models. In my (admittedly superficial) opinion, some of the sceptic criticisms about a lack of transparency are partially valid.
Still, I can also see why the scientists are cautious. Everything they say gets pored over to find the worst possible interpretation, and even clear data gets blatantly misrepresented.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Still, I can also see why the scientists are cautious. Everything they say gets pored over to find the worst possible interpretation, and even clear data gets blatantly misrepresented.
This.
Leaving aside the violation of privacy etc (if there was some valid whistle-blowing justification, I wouldn't complain), how many organisations would emerge from hostile parties picking over their inner workings unblemished? (answer - look at the house of commons recently! I can pretty much guarantee worse abuses of expense accounts happen at every major company in the country).
If you data-mine that amount of data, seeking to interpret any unguarded language in the worst possible light, you will find something.
quote:
60mb doesn't seem a lot for a 13 year period in a busy research establishment.
You message text was around 1.9k; a 60Mb archive could contain over 32,000 such plaintext messages. Having said that, you're right: this is still on the low side for a complete archive.
There's a quote which bears repeating here: quote:
If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him
- Cardinal Richelieu
- Chris.
[ 21. November 2009, 13:04: Message edited by: sanityman ]
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
As far as I can see climate scientists can be a bit defensive about their research sometimes - for instance, it took a big fuss for NASA to release code to one of their climate models.
Actually, scientists can be a bit defensive about their research - it's not just climate scientists. Part of that's just human nature, of course - I suspect that film makers are equally defensive of their product when they read some outrageous review from a critic who seems to have not even sat down to watch it.
But, more importantly, scientists make their living from their intellectual property. Especially in the funding climate that's been developing over the last few decades. If someone has spent considerable amounts of money developing a climate model then they're not going to just turn that code out to the public for anyone and everyone to run, they're going to want to retain rights to use it so that they can earn the service income from running it for other people and the future research projects to further refine that code. Individual researchers may be willing to release that sort of property, but if they're part of a university or other large organisation then their business administration people would have a total fit at the idea.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
Yesterday I heard a radio program on Climate change and the psyche about the psychology and the mythologies behind our various reactions to climate change. Note: This is not about any myths of climate change.
One of the interviewees has written a book Why We Disagree About Climate Change which I now intend to read. As I can't find any reference to this book in this forum I am posting the link for others who may be interested. This link is not to the book itself, but to Mike Hulme's page of reviews of his book, including at least one criticising it.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If someone has spent considerable amounts of money developing a climate model then they're not going to just turn that code out to the public for anyone and everyone to run
Steve McIntyre observes that in his field, mineral exploration, professionals are obliged to show duty of care when prospecting. They need to produce a publicly accessible package which includes all relevant data, plus proprietary code (documented), maps, and anything else relevant. This is expensive and a hassle, but it ensures transparency for investors and leaves an audit trail.
McIntyre suggests that climate scientists perhaps ought to do the same. I don't know enough about how science works to know whether he's right or not, but it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable. The money spent developing a climate model or drilling an ice core is trivial compared to the investment required in reducing CO2.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
60mb doesn't seem a lot for a 13 year period in a busy research establishment.
It wouldn't be a lot for 13 days. (I get paid for running a university email system among other things)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
60mb doesn't seem a lot for a 13 year period in a busy research establishment.
It wouldn't be a lot for 13 days. (I get paid for running a university email system among other things)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
This is not an uncommon phenomenon - the plot of William Boyd's excellent novel - Brazzaville Beach - includes a scientist who cannot accept any view that does not comply with his already established view. Whether or not the climate scientists are right or not the evidence is that their minds (certainly in East Anglia) have become closed and a certain amount of paranoia has come into play (especially with regard to their wanting to have the editor of a scientific journal that publishes both sides of the argument sacked).
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
(Naughty Andrew Bolt has a round up here.)
quote:
We’re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth system works… When we come to the last few years when we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend we don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate...We just don’t understand the way the whole system works… See, these people work with models, computer modelling. So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree you’ve got a very interesting problem… Sure for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend.
Skeptics: 1
ACC Believers: < 1
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
As far as I can see climate scientists can be a bit defensive about their research sometimes - for instance, it took a big fuss for NASA to release code to one of their climate models.
Actually, scientists can be a bit defensive about their research - it's not just climate scientists. Part of that's just human nature, of course - I suspect that film makers are equally defensive of their product when they read some outrageous review from a critic who seems to have not even sat down to watch it.
But, more importantly, scientists make their living from their intellectual property. Especially in the funding climate that's been developing over the last few decades. If someone has spent considerable amounts of money developing a climate model then they're not going to just turn that code out to the public for anyone and everyone to run, they're going to want to retain rights to use it so that they can earn the service income from running it for other people and the future research projects to further refine that code. Individual researchers may be willing to release that sort of property, but if they're part of a university or other large organisation then their business administration people would have a total fit at the idea.
Fair enough but they can then hardly claim to be disinterested.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
The climate change emails don't seem to be getting much air time on the ship. (Naughty Andrew Bolt has a round up here.)
Surely you are not surprised? Lot's of folks have already digested and passed the hook, line, and sinker of ACC.
It really hurts to have to pull all that tackle back through!
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
There are various shades of climate sceptic view, including:
- Scientists knowingly concocted a giant fraud - possibly to help raise taxes, perhaps for more sinister reasons.
- Climate scientists are primarily driven by greed and grant applications.
- Climate scientists are guilty of group-think, but are quite sincere in their beliefs.
For me, one of the interesting things about this theft is how utterly it demolishes the first two sceptic positions. In private conversation amongst themselves, the leading scientists consistently express concern at their findings and anger at people who (in their view) distort their results.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
As far as I can see climate scientists can be a bit defensive about their research sometimes - for instance, it took a big fuss for NASA to release code to one of their climate models.
Actually, scientists can be a bit defensive about their research - it's not just climate scientists. Part of that's just human nature, of course - I suspect that film makers are equally defensive of their product when they read some outrageous review from a critic who seems to have not even sat down to watch it.
But, more importantly, scientists make their living from their intellectual property. Especially in the funding climate that's been developing over the last few decades. If someone has spent considerable amounts of money developing a climate model then they're not going to just turn that code out to the public for anyone and everyone to run, they're going to want to retain rights to use it so that they can earn the service income from running it for other people and the future research projects to further refine that code. Individual researchers may be willing to release that sort of property, but if they're part of a university or other large organisation then their business administration people would have a total fit at the idea.
Fair enough but they can then hardly claim to be disinterested.
Why should they be disinterested, much less claim to be? When you're talking about professional career development, and even potentially future employment, then that usually automatically makes one interested. The days when scientists were independantly wealthy individuals who pursued scientific interests in their spare time are long since past. Today, just like the majority of people, scientists are paid for the work they do - we're often in the privilaged position of doing a job we enjoy and are interested in, but at the end of the day the mortgage needs to be paid and that doesn't happen by giving away for free means of getting money into the lab.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
