Jurassic coast gets climate fund
 Charmouth has been named as a vulnerable area to erosion |
Parts of Dorset's Jurassic Coast have been selected for a share of funding to help meet the challenges of rising sea levels and coastal erosion.
Dorset County Council has successfully bid for £365,500 from a government fund to adapt to climate change. It formed a partnership with Devon County Council under the banner of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site.
Vulnerable areas include New Swanage, Charmouth, Seatown, Ringstead, Sidmouth and Preston Beach Road, Weymouth.
'Dynamic change'
The money has been offered by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) through its Coastal Change Pathfinder Fund.
Work is set to start on preparing outlined work, must be completed by spring 2011.
Ideas proposed include developing a network of coastal change champions to shape debate around coastal change.
The council is working as part of a partnership with authorities including the Environment Agency and National Trust.
Councillor Hilary Cox, from Dorset County Council, said: "We are delighted that our bid has been successful.
"The coastal communities of Dorset and East Devon have lived with dynamic change for generations but it is clear that the risks and impacts from erosion, storms and rising sea levels are going to increase in future.
"The pathfinder funding will help take the future discussions we are having with the communities most at risk from these changes to a new level, helping us to visualise what change may look like and develop options to adapt."
Posts
67 comments:
Is that before climategate or after? More taxes to be taken from the great unwashed probably based om some dodgy data.
'Tilting at windmills' springs to mind.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/jo-nova-finds-the-medieval-warm-period/
Is a good read.
Alternatively
http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=274
http://www.realclimate.org/
is another one worth reading.
It's amazing how many of the leading nay-sayers receive money from Exxon.
Its wonderful how climate change denial has been taken up by the right. There is a terse description in the Indie at http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/joss-garman-climate-change-deniers-cost-the-earth-1835058.html
"an entire class of right-wing leaders has hitched its wagon to an outlandish conspiracy theory...
(it) "goes like this: several thousand leading scientists, seeking to secure research funding, have corrupted global temperature data to stay in the pay of governments bent upon extorting higher taxes through the dissemination of scare stories about so-called global warming. Climate change is a hoax propagated by greedy academics and greens, better described as "the new reds
Clearly this theory is undiluted lunacy, but its adoption by great swathes of the right is the most significant strategic blunder by a political movement in my lifetime."
That about sums it up.
A quote from Margaret Thatcher (remember her) calling for a global treaty on climate change n 1989.
"We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere... The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto."
If it was good enough for her...
Or was she part of the conspiracy - after all she had a science degree.
Ahha the lefties saying its all the rightwingers denying climate change, ohh don't forget the exxon bit as well. Im not denying climate change just some of the causes, and therfore why I and millions of others have to pay punitive taxes, now and in the future on what could be incorrect data.
Is the earth flat ?
I always thought that I pay taxes to fund: NHS, Schools, road building, Pensions, the Police, the Forces etc etc - but hey ho!
Now, all this incorrect data, I'd love to see it, mind you, I'm not suggesting that I'd understand it; as most of the nay-sayers seem to imply.
Please don't mention the 'hockey stick' - QW is based on far far more than that.
Sorry, GW!
Its the usual right wing something for nothing fantasy. You know, We would have the best public services in the world for free if it wasn't for these people who run them being frightful incompetents. Really you wonder whether these people get up in the morning with the task of believing another impossible thing before breakfast snd another two mutually impossible things by teatime. The Great Scientific Conspiracy theory is a corker though. I wonder who is funding it.
The right seems to define itself entirely by what it is against. Socialism, taxation etc. Having run out of bolsheviks to demonise its climate scientists who are getting turned into the great threat to our way of life, apple pie, motherhood etc.etc. Oh and yes, it is the right who have embraced this conspiracy theory nonsense.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/12/6/climate-of-fear.html#comments
What about chewing on this one?
Chewed upon and spat out.
Having realised they have no hope of winning the scientific argument these people are making smoke and trying to move the discussion to where they feel stronger. Its much easier to sound good posturing about liberty than it is to overthrow 50 years science. If they could point to a body of peer reviewed work showing how the relationship between CO2 output, its level in the atmosphere and temperature was all a sheer coincidence they would have a case but they can't so they don't.
What we are seeing is a re-run of the way the tobacco lobby realised it had lost the scientific argument and ran much the same style of campaign as we are seeing now.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/
Is well worth a read to see what the nay-sayers stoop to.
I had a look at the bishophill site, in his Bill of Rights "Each individual owns themself and the product of their labour."
Good God, the man's a Marxist!
Or maybe just confused!
DOESN'T CLIMATE ALWAYS CHANGE?
Yes. Temperatures have risen and fallen throughout history. Natural variations in temperature are caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit, changes in the Sun’s intensity, volcanic eruptions which fill the atmosphere with dust and natural weather cycles such as El Nino.
SO WHY DO SCIENTISTS BLAME MANKIND FOR GLOBAL WARMING?
They argue that natural variations can only account for some of the recent warming. The orbit of the Earth should be propelling us to a cooler spell, not a hotter one. And solar cycles cannot explain warming since the 1960s. The Met Office says the warmth of the last half century is 'unprecedented' in the last 1,300 years.
Computer climate models can only explain warming of the last half century if human activity is included. The most recent report from the United National Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 says human activity is 'very, very likely' to be contributing to global warming - and that burning of fossil fuels is contributing to the 'greenhouse effect'.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1233622/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Q-A.html#ixzz0YwgwSuGE
Interesting...and who do we find beavering away at all this stuff? Steve Milloy for example, a man with a long track record as a lobbyist and advocate of a number of dubious causes, tobacco, the drug industry, oil, even DDT and he is now the man behind the Junk Science website. Always nice to see the work of a professional.
I wonder if these campaigners have picked up any real supporters. There are usually a few mugs who get suckered in by the rhetoric and don't realise its just a modern form of corporate PR masquerading as a pretend libertarian movement. They are working overtime at the moment to ward off any chance of profits being hit by companies having to actually do something about the atmosphere.
You can almost admire the perspicacity in picking up the reference to the Echo story on here and throwing in the demotic comments.
Thank you for that, I'm surprised that it's the Daily Mail - but that probably says more about me than ....
I'm 9;30
dear 9;29
were we reading the same article. or are you commenting on something else?
This is 9.29. We wee all writing at once. I had followed up 5.25's references not the Daily Mail.
The latter may simply be showing it is different from the Express but its specialist writers don't seem to be under the cosh particularly. The article is very middle of the road and non-commital though.
Does anyone think American libertarianism is anything more than corporate PR. It always leads back to the right of corporations to make money unhindered by states, TUs, or indeed any other organisation. Apart from a few fruitcakes what real existence does it have?
The DEFRA fund is about ways of supporting places which are affected by rising sea levels. The denialist goons who have tried to hijack this thread are fixated with the question of whether fossil fuels are the cause but even if they are not the consequences still have to be dealt with. Sticking your head in the sand and saying it may never happen is not a credible option.
Denialist goons, wow how adult. Im reading both sides, I will make up my own mind, but to call someone a goon because they want to see/hear both sides of an argument is a tad silly.
I would not want you on a jury of my peers, you would pass a verdict after only hearing one side of the arguement.
What makes you think the GW science is correct? are those people more suitably qualified than the naysayers? Please produce eveidence, after all I have an open mind, more than can be said for most on here.
"What makes you think the GW science is correct? are those people more suitably qualified than the naysayers?"
Climate scientists are the most qualified. They are overwhelmingly in agreement. Yes they are more suitably qualified that is obvious. If I want to know about poetry I ask a poet, of I want to now about the climate I ask a climate scientist, if I want to now about toenails I ask a chiropodist.
I called the denialists goons not anyone who wants to see both sides of the argument. However, if you want do do this you have a problem or possibly several problems. Unfortunately you will not see a mass of scientific evidence disproving the hypothesis to weigh up against the supporting evidence. All you will see is a smoke screen and attempts to divert us away from the science. I would like to see credible evidence that global warming has a non-human human causation but the stuff I have seen so far is nonsense.
Needless to say part of the smoke screen is putting forth the supposition that that for every piece of evidence in favour of the hypothesis there must exist by some strange dialectical process a balancing piece of evidence pointing the other way and that one needs to find this to form a "balanced" judgement.
The denialists cover themselves both ways as they suggest the reason for the lack of evidence for a non human cause is a successful conspiracy by the climate scientists to suppress evidence contradicting their findings and as a result they would not expect you to be able to weigh up the evidence for and against the way you want to. Their position enables them to explain everything to their complete satisfaction which is a little odd for people who pose as sceptics.
I am sad to see that your blog comments have been overrun by people who sign themselves as "Anonymous" (so it is impossible to reply to any specific response).
On to the subject matter.
The South-East of England and East Anglia suffers from isostatic rebound; in other words, since the last ice age, the melting of the ice sheet has caused the British Isles to tilt, with Scotland moving upwards and the South of England gradually sinking. This has NOTHING to do with climate change. It may be worth pointing out here that any melting of sea ice does not affect sea levels as ice displaces the same amount of water as water itself. The next time you leave a drink with ice in to melt you'll see that that the water level is unchanged. Only the melting of land ice can affect seal levels.
I hope you get funding, as Swanage is a wonderful part of our coast. Remember that the village of Dunwich is now offshore and, if you ever visit Mundesley in Norfolk, you'll see the road opposite the High Street (across the junction with the Coast Road), the tarmac stops abruptly where the road has disappeared. Isostatic rebound is a fact of life, but its effects can be mitigated.
The "Anonymous" drivel from AGW alarmists I see in your comments sadly cannot be contained so easily, as they don't understand science.
Ho hum.
CRU seeks funding from Shell, whatever next.
Dear 12.18
it's actually very easy to respond to individual posts!
As I understand isostatic rebound the SW of England actually rises and falls, pivoting around Southampton.
Yours
Anon
Ah, yes, it pivots around the refineries at Fawley!
I don't think you will have any problem identifying my comments, if only from their length.
I started looking at the "sceptics" stuff after seeing the first reactions posted in this topic. For what it is worth here are my reactions. The sceptics have a heads I win tails you loose argument. When you ask for references to research showing non human causation for warming they say there isn't any because suppressing it is part of a conspiracy by the climate scientists. In my book thats having your cake and eating it.
The whole campaign is being run as a cyber age equivalent of the lobbying campaigns for things like the tobacco industry, with an echo of ant-communism thrown in as well. We see the concern of climate scientists presented as an attempt by the left to find a new role, post "end of history".
Thats a very strange smear tactic. The left, the proper left I mean, took the view that the way capitalist economies were organised was a restraint on production and socialism would allow it to increase. Now apparently they have performed a volte face and want to restrict production. Strange that China, with a communist government, is one of the greatest polluters. The sceptics haven't managed to shoe-horn that into their schema yet.
In short, when you look at climate change scepticism sceptically you discover its a put up job, part of a PR campaign on behalf of businesses that feel threatened. The tactic is simply to sling mud and hope some of it sticks. This is not part of a reasoned debate, its a thinly disguised propaganda effort.
While China might be among the worlds biggest polluters, they're also developing things such as photovoltaic panels at a rate that leaves us standing.
Whether they meet their plans or not remains to be seen, but they hope that each district will have green electicity production sorted by 2020.
Sorry if I'm being a bit vague, but Googles having one of those mornings where it just refuses to find what I want!
Yes, the Chinese say they are taking this seriously but having become the workshop of the world they scent export possibilities. Presumably the sceptics think there is no need for them to invest their money in this technology and they can just to on burning coal.
Anonymous - the long winded warmist one.
I am neither rightwing, in the pay of Exxon nor stupid. I question things rather than just taking what I am told on trust. Especially when I am being told something by a politican, especially one like Al Gore.
What always concerned me about the pro AGW lobby was how short of good data their argument seemed to be. Then I saw the the name calling being thrown at people asking awkward questions about AGW, always the sign of someone pushing something with no real foundation.
Now we see the lengths CRU went to to hide their data and modelling methods. As well as thier bullying tactics towards people who disagreed with them. If their case was strong why hide their data and methods?
I see questions are also being asked about the accuracy of the pro warmist data produced by NASA and "climate researchers" in New Zealand. So CRU are likely not the only ones fidling the data.
I am convinced that AGW is a political movement with no science behind it. The Earths climate changes, it always has done and hopefully always will or the planet is doomed. The largest driver of the climate should be obvious to everyone, it's that big yellow shiny thing that appears in the sky every morning.
"The largest driver of the climate should be obvious to everyone, it's that big yellow shiny thing that appears in the sky every morning."
It would be comforting if that was all there was to it, however, a study and review of existing literature published in Nature in September 2006 suggests that the evidence is solidly on the side of solar brightness having relatively little effect on global climate, with little likelihood of significant shifts in solar output over long periods of time. Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2007, find that there "is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century," but that "over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.
Are you maintaining that this is factually untrue? Are Lockwood and Fröhlich telling a porky? Where would I see evidence that trends in the sun have really been in the other direction to what they say?
"I am convinced that AGW is a political movement with no science behind it."
This is a puzzling thing to say. What is its political programne? If it is not based on what the science shows what is it based on. Why did climate scientists come up with a political programne that is so hard to get accepted. It makes no sense at all. On the other hand, the sceptical position is clearly a political campaign to protect profits and part of that campaign is making claims like this as a way of distracting attention from the science. If you are genuinely open-minded look behind the claims made by both sides and at their motives.
A lot of the GW debate seems to me to revolve around a chronic lack of understanding of what Science is.
Science is about describing what we see, hear, feel, experience, think and wonder about.
It used to be heresy to suggest that God didn't create the universe.
Science has had an uphill battle to explain the world and the universe. Since, I'm not sure, ?WW2? We have begun to 'believe' the Science - which is blindingly stoopid!
On a basic level, most people believe in a thing called Centrifugal force - oh, what silly people!
Most people believe in gravity and that Newton was a genius - I do; but if Newtons theories were absolutely spot then the rate of expansion of the Universe would now be slowing - and it aint.
Probably.
Most people believe that Einstein was the first person to think, and publish, about relativity - silly people!
Most people think that a triangle can only have 180 degrees - silly people!
GW is in a similar place, many many Scientists are working on this problem, they have slightly different opinions/theories, but the majority, whatever their political leaning or funding regime, believe that GW is accelerating cuz of us.
Now, d'you listen to the majority of experts? Or do you listen to the few (experts) who reside on the edge of the bell curve?
Now, d'you listen to the majority of experts? Or do you listen to the few (experts) who reside on the edge of the bell curve?
So its my experts are better than your experts, a bit kids playground stuff?
I'm willing to listen to both sides but when I question the GW peeps I'm called all sorts of names, not very adult is it.
I think you're missing the point.
The nay-sayers and the radical pro GWers are on the (opposite) edge of the bell curve.
As with all human behaviour that makes them complete and utter raving nutters - technical term! - or complete and utter geniuses.
The VAST majority believe that GW is enhanced by us.
I don't have the education or knowledge to interpret the data, but I do have the common sense to make balanced rational judgements.
We're to blame for the rate of GW.
Its an interesting gamble. Do we take a chance that all these scientists are lying or know less about their subjects than non-specialists or do we accept they may be right and reduce CO2 output, albeit at great expense?
To go with the former we have to decide either (a) the evidence points to an international conspiracy of scientists to change the direction of the world's economy for no apparent reason. Why are they doing it? Why go to all that trouble to get governments do do something they don't need to do. Baffling.
Or (b) they are simply worse at their jobs than a raft of people with no great knowledge of climatic science. Thats like expecting a team of vets to develop a better atom bomb than nuclear physicists can manage. Which would you employ?
That leaves some sort of collective ADHD, it can never happen to me, dissociation between actions and consequences but thats for the fruitcake element isn't it?
Yet another "Anonymous" wrote:
"Do we take a chance that all these scientists are lying or know less about their subjects than non-specialists or do we accept they may be right and reduce CO2 output, albeit at great expense?"
Let me point out this email discussion between two such scientists:
"Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know fuck-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all)."
Sorry about the language, but it's a verbatim quote.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/12/7/quote-of-the-day.html
Yep, they are certainly sure of their stuff!!!
Laughable, frankly.
Dear 11.49
please can explain what
"the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year extra-tropical NH temperature variability"
specifically.
Y'know, what is "tropical NH temperature variability"
How important is it to GW theory?
Also, if you read the whole ALLLEGED (unedited!) email, you'll find things such as "7) Publish, retire, and don't leave a forwarding address".
An ALLLEGED (unedited!) personal chat between two colleagues, I don't know about you but when I'm talking to colleagues I use very different language than when I'm talking to clients.
You also seem to be one of these people who 'believe' the Science. As I pointed out above Science is just the best description we have for a bunch of things. As we learn so the description changes.
If you want certainty then we have to stop observing, stop thinking and 'believe' what we're told, 'praps you should go back to the Middle Ages, when it was nice and warm and God created the Earth.
However partial the knowledge possessed by climate scientists is its a lot more than the rest of us have. Those who like a gamble may think it best to hope they are wrong. I would rather not take the chance.
That quote from the stolen email is being touted as saying the exact opposite of what it actually does say. Simply put it says they have a good idea of what will happen in the next hundred years but not after that. Read it for goodness sake. < is maths speak for less than and > is maths speak for more than. Whoever posted the quote is either ignorant of this or is presuming on the innocence of other readers who are not familiar with how scientists express themselves unless they simply cannot understand what they read that is.
Since the debate is about what will happen in the next 100 years not after that we can either take the advice of those who have a "fair idea" based on observations or that of those who have no idea at all.
Its about probability and balancing risk. Its not about having CW established beyond doubt or even on the balance of probabilities. The science simply shows there is an unacceptable risk. The counter arguments are nothing more than a smoke screen intended to obscure this very straight forward fact.
Putting it in more tangible terms, would you rather insulate your house properly or take a chance on much of the town centre being underwater whenever we have a high tide combined with an easterly?
Flippin' 'eck!
I feel I am in the company of real 'egg-heads' by reading all these well constructed comments.
Yes, I believe the climate is changing, but there may be some over-hype and the situation has brought certain 'windfalls' into various Government coffers, planned or accidental, who knows?
It's hard to completely refuse the evidence of erosion and current (records of extremes in recent years) weather patterns, but what do those sceptics think they will gain by total denial?
Paul.
If you owned a business that was threatened either with costs rising or extinction you would fund campaigns that you hoped would avert or at least delay this. One aspect of such a campaign is the blogosphere and lo and behold we have a rash of contributions aimed at casting doubt in various ways. Coincidence? Decide for yourself.
We wear seat belts in cars because of a very, very low probability of extremely unpleasant consequences if we don't. We also compel car makes to build safer cars than they did a few decades ago and this is nothing but a cost for the overwhelming majority of us. GW is similar. There is a risk and a cost to reducing it. You have to question the motives of anyone who denies that.
Carbon taxes mean other taxes are lower as the form a tax takes has nothing to do with the amount a government needs to raise. They are imposed in the hope they will be less resented. Drunkenness also brings in tax but it is not encouraged.
I believe that GW is happening and that we're causing it, but to take a slightly different view - whoever controls the energy source is in a position of great power.
If there's a global conspiracy, which I doubt, it's to create an alternative to Fossil fuels.
Ok, for once, a conspiracy that should protect the world.
I can go with that, how 'bout you?
Several papers are carrying a story which says those pesky russkies and their secret service are behind the hacking of the famous emails. The rationale is that Russian energy companies will save a bundle of money if the permafrost melts and they can get to Siberian oil and gas more easily hence they want to put a spoke in the works. It would seem the emails are now on a server in Tomsk. Its in the Mail on Sunday for those who can't bring themselves to look at the papers more usually associated with this sort of story. Wonder what the flat earthers make of this.
Ohh dear our socilaist masters, giving away more money we dont have, what the hell is wrong with the man? I hope the gaurdian readers are really proud today more money we have to find!
Hi
I was wondering which country you're talking about?
The one with Socialist Masters, that is.
"our socilaist masters" (sic)
In the anti-factual world all sorts of strange people are socialists. Its a well known unfact that the aim of socialism is to support the banking system. Look at Lenin for example, they don't come any more socialist and he did nothing but support bankers didn't he? Why the Soviet Union was the very epi-centre of world finance capital.
An award for imaginative fiction has to go to anyone who described Brown and Darling as socialists though. Do you think gravity works backwards in this guy's alternative reality and he walks upside down on the ceiling. Cue for a limerick there.
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=27941
might be worth a read.
Dear Troll,
Not really.
Now now, there's no need to suggest that 12.06 is a troll.
The person who posted that may indeed believe that site to have scientific worth, may indeed believe it to be the voice of reason.
That doesn't make them a troll, it makes them a lot of things, but not necessarily a troll!
http://www.informationliberation.com/ is a strange mish-mash. There is a documentary on the collapse of the Argentine economy in 2001 after they apparently introduced neo-liberal economic policies of the sort conservatives often advocate here. Theres stuff about how awful "socialised" medicine is and stuff about CIA private armies bumping people off and committing various atrocities ascribed to terrorists by the media. Theres something called the Obama Deception "The Obama phenomenon is a hoax carefully crafted by the captains of the New World Order. He is being pushed as savior in an attempt to con the American people into accepting global slavery." and of course there is something saying the international banks control America. Its right about one thing though. Dropping an atom bomb on Hiroshima was the worst sort of atrocity.
The CIA stuff took me back to various left wing fruit cakes I knew in the 70s who would look carefully over their shoulders before assuring you that almost everything was a conspiracy by The CIA, the bankers etc etc. Anyway, thats enough fun for now, I am going back to read their take on the Kennedy assassination which is bound to be entertaining.
Well, interesting in a sort of way. They have an article saying it was a conspiracy involving vice president Johnson, the CIA etc. Thats an old one.
some of the readers comments on there are wonderful. How about this:
"This United States has become the fourth reich. Aside from the Bush Nazi crime family, just take a look at Coronado air station in San Diego Ca. with google earth and look at the south end near the inland waters and you will see the swaztica building. A giant tattoo on the planet in the form of a building saying we're here! The thing is the points of the swaztica are aligned perfectly with N,S,E,and W. and that's no accident."
at http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=26766
I know its judging a dog by its fleas but this seems pretty typical.
This next one is brilliant, it is quoted from the Runcorn Weekly News, a journal we should all look out for although I don't recall seeing it in Swanage News.
"COULD secret military planes be flying over Halton as part of an experiment to control the weather?
Mid Cheshire-based researcher Phil Morris says he has spotted unmarked aircraft flying over the Silver Jubilee Bridge, Fiddler's Ferry power station and the industrial areas of Widnes and Runcorn, leaving thick, white, rapidly expanding 'chemtrails' which behave differently from normal condensation trails.
There is growing speculation that the chemtrails are deposited by unmarked planes flying from the USA, seeding the sky with chemicals - possibly in a bid to supress global warming, to trap pollution or for some sinister military purpose.
Mr Morris has shot hours of video footage of what he says are the strange planes in action over Cheshire and Merseyside, along the M62 corridor and beyond.
He says normal condensation trails left by commercial jets usually disappear within one minute, but the chemtrails slowly expand and leave a whispy white haze in the sky, which causes noticeable atmo-spheric changes at ground level."
This is wonderful. Can you suggest any other sites with stuff this funny? It must have taken weeks of research to find it.
http://catosays.blogspot.com/
what about this one then, still beleive in GW?
Why, why, oh why would I give any more credence to catosays than 'a bloke in the pub told me'?
'Catosays something that I agree with, therefore he's a genius' - FAIL - as younger than me people have been known to say.
As with this blog it's opinion, not fact.
If you're really concerned about disproving GW then start using your Degree properly. Do the research, write a paper, get it peer reviewed, I'm sure that you can pick enough pro and anti GW's to get a balanced view. Then publish.
Rant over.
Why, why, oh why would I give any more credence to catosays than 'a bloke in the pub told me'?
Typical, watch the video and then say the research has not been done. I now beleive that GW is a falacy, we have been conned. I have read articles on various web pages, scientific as well as "blogs" and I'm of the the opinion that we have been conned. Thats my opinion if you dont agree post some corrobarated eveidence that GW excists. Dont rant, debate all I can see is arogance on your part.
The more of these silly websites we are referred to the clearer it becomes that they are part of a PR campaign on behalf of energy companies to con us into supporting their efforts to poison the atmosphere. They are simply a pitch aimed at selling us a particular view hiding behind a libertarian rhetoric
"...PR campaign on behalf of energy companies..."
I don't think that they need a PR campaign. There are enough numpties to do their work for them; they must be rubbing their, cash laden, hands with glee.
Now, making an assumption, that the people who post the nay-sayer sites actually do some research and then post catosays etc as an example, one of my starting places is
http://www.realclimate.org
They are scientists and they link to loads of other scientists.
If they're a conspiracy then they're a much more believable, and subtle, one than ALL the nay-sayers.
I wonder if catosays is influenced by the Cato Institute, a right wing think tank in the good old US of A which is financed in part by energy companies.
"I don't think that they need a PR campaign."
Whether they need one or not they are mounting one. Its entirely money driven, from the absurd Monckton to the loopy libertarian websites. There may be innocent dupes who post on blogs but as there no way of distinguishing them from the less well intentioned we have to treat them all as part of the PR campaign and treat what they say as advert rather than actuality.
By the way, the flat earth society is still going. They are pretty good at alternative explanations for things we all think are scientific facts, like saying the earth is a disk, as is the sun, the latter being only 32 miles across.
Wonder what their posture on GW is.
7.12 please feel free to pay my families contribution to gordons 1.5 billion he has just promised. That will leave me and mine free to pay private health care and private edukation, as the ones this usless govt: give us are not fit for the purpose.
TY
I think I'm going to join the Flat Earthers - they're an absolute hoot!
How about this one;
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
"Conspiracies and Coverups.
This page is currently under construction. Please come back when we have our act together".
The ULTIMATE cover up!
Welteislehre (World Ice Theory) is a lot more bizarre than flat earth, although it fell out of vogue with the defeat of Germany in 1945. It was advanced as an alternative aryan alternative to the alarmingly Jewish relativity.
Here is a flavour:
According to the theory, the solar system had its origin in a gigantic star into which a smaller, dead, waterlogged star fell. This impact caused a huge explosion which flung fragments of the smaller star out into interstellar space where the water condensed and froze into giant blocks of ice. A ring of such blocks formed, which we now call the Milky Way, as well as a number of solar systems among which was our own, but with many more planets than currently exist.
Interplanetary space is filled with traces of hydrogen gas, which cause the planets to slowly spiral inwards, along with ice blocks. The outer planets are large mainly because they have swallowed a large number of ice blocks, but the inner planets have not swallowed nearly as many. One can see ice blocks on the move in the form of meteors, and when one collides with the Earth, it produces hailstorms over an area of many square kilometers, while when one falls into the Sun, it produces a sunspot and gets vaporized, making "fine ice," which covers the innermost planets.
Unfortunately the proponents of this view threw in their lot with the late unlamented A Hitler and so were consigned to the overflowing dustbin of history of unfashionable ideas, but to my mind if you are looking for something off the wall its a corker.
Possibly even more off the wall ....
Well, there's this geezer who made the world - the rest don't matter, in 6 days!
Pretty amazing, eh!
Shock! Horror! There appears to be more than one flat earth soc. The authentic UK one is at http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/.
The Alaska.net one is either a factional split of a spoof. I like the idea of a split in the flat earth.
I blame global warming on Swanage Town Council and the Town Clerk!
Councillor Hilary Cox, from Dorset County Council, said: "We are delighted that our bid has been successful.
Local county councillor for Swanage Bill Trite urged members to consider the “adverse economic impact on 10,000 people in Swanage of losing secondary education”.
Purbeck Hills councillor Mike Lovell added: “I believe that the people who are already disenfranchised in Swanage in several ways are going to be even worse off.”
Council leader Angus Campbell responded: “I do have sympathy with the social community issues but I certainly feel it is our job as an authority to provide the best education possible for the children of Dorset.”
Cllr Hilary Cox added: “A very strong case is made now to go forward with the single school in Wareham.”
Now that funding has been found for (a) 'new Swanage' is it possible that our amenities will be saved after all.
Experts have talked about this before. How many times have you read about the importance of ‘adding value’ for your audience? How many times have you read about ‘building trust’ with your readers/prospects?
Many, many times. You know it well. Every marketing guru has spoken about this topic. I’m sick of hearing it. But it STILL bears repeating.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Post a Comment