# Schools



## Digit (1 Sep 2008)

I read on the Sky net today that as part of a new curriculum climate change is to be taught in schools from the new term.
Anyone know anything about it?

Roy.


----------



## Rich (1 Sep 2008)

Who, I wonder in the current establishment of the education system, is qualified to teach on this subject?,
the most eminent scientists in the world can't agree as to the cause or reason for CC,Environmentalists accuse humans, naturalists and the like claim we are going through another natural weather cycle, ie the ice age, if these calibre of people can't prove things one way or the other, how on earth can teachers be expected to argue the case and pass on hard evidence to students, another stunt by Ed Ballsup, I fear.

Rich.


----------



## woodbloke (1 Sep 2008)

Rich":11um8nr5 said:


> another stunt by Ed Ballsup, I fear.
> 
> Rich.


...political comment, second post in [-X ...wow! - Rob


----------



## Rich (1 Sep 2008)

woodbloke":2dumfr82 said:


> Rich":2dumfr82 said:
> 
> 
> > another stunt by Ed Ballsup, I fear.
> ...



It was NOT intended to be inflammatory, just an opinion, do you have an opinion? if so, why not air it? or are you content to sit on the fence and chide me for having the guts to do so?
I make no apologies for airing my views although I go out of my way not to offend anyone on the forum who'se views differ from mine, I like to hear other views and so further understand what's going on in the world, I don't know everything and am always keen to hear the other side.  

Regards,

Rich.


----------



## Digit (1 Sep 2008)

Well I have to agree with Rich on one point, what version are they going to teach? Remember Al Bore's version has already been the subject of a legal challenge.
Who actually sets the curriculum, is it individual schools, education authorities, education ministry?

Roy.


----------



## Rich (1 Sep 2008)

Roy, regardless of who sets the curriculum, most teachers, at best are well versed in 2/3 disciplines, I doubt very much that they are qualified to lecture on climate change other than a personal opinion, no harm in that I'd say in a "discussion group" but to install the subject as a curriculum without the proper grounding is asking for trouble when students need more practical education such as woodworking/metalworking instruction. :lol: 

Regards,

Rich.


----------



## Peter T (1 Sep 2008)

This is probably a really bad idea as it’s my first post on this forum and I’m probably going to alienate a bunch of people. I was planning to introduce myself with a piece about the nice little Record No. 4 with the Stay Set backer that I got off E Bay, but I simply couldn’t let this pass, so here goes.

Climate change is a CON. There I’ve said it.

It’s a myth that’s perpetrated by pseudo-scientists, greedy for huge grants to continue their research, and by politicians ever eager to find new ways to raise taxes.

The Earth’s climate has been changing since the Earth came into existence, and will continue to do so, regardless on human intervention.

Peter.

PS. Great forum, by the way.


----------



## Rich (1 Sep 2008)

Good evening Peter, I don't think you'll alienate anyone just for stating a point of view, good for you, wether or not we agree or disagree at least members will know where they stand with you, there's a lot to be said for that.

Happy posting and good luck with your No 4.

Regards,

Rich.


----------



## Digit (1 Sep 2008)

Evening Pete, welcome to the mad house.
Correction, climate change isn't a con. Man made climate change is a different matter. Our climate is ALWAYS changing, year on year, century on century, age upon age.
Sea levels rise and fall, ice comes and goes, rain belts move north and south.
It's a fact of life.
The history of science is full of mistakes, hoaxes and downright fraud. Tin hat on!
And yes, a great forum.

Roy.


----------



## Peter T (2 Sep 2008)

You're absolutely right, I should have stipulated Man-Made climate change.

Thanks for the correction, and thanks for the welcomes.

Peter


----------



## BradNaylor (2 Sep 2008)

Digit":1udpmzrp said:


> Evening Pete, welcome to the mad house.
> Correction, climate change isn't a con. Man made climate change is a different matter. Our climate is ALWAYS changing, year on year, century on century, age upon age.
> Sea levels rise and fall, ice comes and goes, rain belts move north and south.
> It's a fact of life.
> ...



I'm coming round to this point of view too.

I watched a news item recently about coastal erosion in Norfolk - houses falling into the sea etc. It was being blamed on 'global warming'. 

Yet last week I was on holday in North Wales and visited Harlech Castle. It stands on a hill 1/2 a mile from the coast. When it was built 700 years ago though, the sea lapped at its walls. So what caused the sea to receed?

Advocates of the man-made climate change theory seem to choose their evidence carefully.

A client of mine who worked all his life at the Met Office told me that actually we are at the tail end of the most recent ice-age. _That_ is why the planet is warming up!

And when the next ice age comes it will cool down again.

Having said all that, I've no truck with pollution. So the measures being taken against it are to be welcomed, if not the rationale.

Its a bit like the smoking ban. I never believed that passive smoking was actually much of a health hazard. Sitting in a smoky room however, was bloody unpleasant. So banning smoking is good!


Cheers
Dan


----------



## gatesmr2 (2 Sep 2008)

Ok how to make friends and influence people :shock: 

It seems to me that every time we get anyone harping on about CC they always seem to have loads of letters after there name and a leading authority on the subject.
Now when someone says its not man made etc etc they get branded a silly person, surely to have a balanced discusion on any subject you have to have at least two points of view :?: 

So how come is it that the governments and leaders all jump on the CC band wagon maybe i'm being a little cynical but the word easy chance to tax comes to mind.

I do believe in CC but as a normal natural change that happens every so often with our planet. But the one thing that does bother me is if it is a normal change and we do in our infinite wisdom find a way to stop it what then !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
It happens for a reason. Nature holds populations of animals etc at levels where they can live happily in co-exsistance and the same for forrest fires etc where it cleans and begins again who are we to think we know better.

Martin


----------



## tnimble (2 Sep 2008)

Putting it on the curriculum seems to me as tenderising the youths for tomorrows tax rises and product bans that accidentally are finiacial beneficial to some large companies.

We we western (so called) democratic countries do that its called social engineering, environmentally aware, industry lobby etc, when others do it its called oppression, disrupting world economics, corruption etc. It basically comes down to all of the same.


----------



## MikeG. (2 Sep 2008)

I hesitate to join in on the fearsome General Chat (Off-Topic) forum, but I can’t let this line of discussion go un-answered.

To say that the human impact on climate is controversial amongst scientists is analogous to saying that there is controversy amongst humans about the shape of the earth. Roughly the same percentage of scientists working anywhere near the field view human driven climate change to be a myth as people on the planet who believe the earth to be flat.

Given that the media always represent both sides of the argument as being of equal merit, they give as much air-time to the nay-sayers as to the vast majority. This leads to some of the general public expressing views as we have already seen in this forum. If every time the planet was discussed in the media they interviewed someone from the Flat Earth Society, then the public could be forgiven for thinking that that this was a 50/50 split view. It isn’t, and neither is climate change.

A prime example of this was the MMR scare. One scientist............yes, just one......claimed he had found a link from the jab to autism. He got to put his view every time the subject was raised, and got as much air-tiime as the people who were right. The fact is, media represent an argument as a balance of opinion, when there may a thousand to one weighting on either side of the fence. If climate change sceptics were given air time in proportion to numbers who held the view, then we would almost never hear from them. *I say again, climate change is not controversial amongst scientists. *

Where there is doubt and discussion amongst scientists, it is on the amount and impact of climate change, not on its existence. These arguments lead to a range of predictions for the future, but all of them are for some degree of impact, not on whether there will be any impact in the first place. 

Twenty years ago, the United Nations gathered together a collection of the very best scientists in the world, (I think there are over a hundred of them in the group) and formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC). This body reports every 5 years. Their report is issued to the politicians first, who go through it line by line and argue the text, demand explanations from the scientists, and adjust the nuances to suit their views. The Bush government, loaded with oil people and famously sceptical of climate change, agree fully with the published report, as does every other government. They (the Americans) managed to have every reference to the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions removed, but the science was so overwhelming that they couldn’t argue with the conclusion that *over 90% of the observed changes to the climate had come about as a result of human activity.
*
Please see this link http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm for an explanation of the work of the IPCC, and its reporting and re-writing process. You will see how nothing that is controversial to any government could get through to the final report.

I wonder how many of those criticising the Al Gore film have seen it, and have seen the details of the court case? There were 12 places in which the judges found against Gore, and almost every time it was where he had said “correlates” instead of “closely correlates” or “exactly” rather than “almost exactly”. They also concluded that their findings didn’t criticise the broad thrust of the film.

For those of you who don’t understand the science, don’t fall into the trap of saying “I don’t understand, therefore it must be wrong”. 

There is a general problem of all things being blamed on climate change, when they are clearly not. Norfolk and Suffolk aren’t suffering from sea-level rise (but Vanuatu is……the islands will have to be abandoned soon). No, they are suffering from falling land levels. When the ice age had mile-thick ice piled on top of Scotland, it tilted Britain downwards in the North, and like a see-saw, upwards in the South. The ice melted, the weight therefore lifted, and the south is gently settling back downwards. Climate change is leading to increased sea levels, but the rapid destruction of the East Anglian coast is much more about rebound from the ice-age.

If you are to espouse the view that Climate Change is a con, then you have to ask who is doing the conning, and why? In whose interest is it to con the planet into action to reduce carbon emissions? Obviously the normal suspects, oil companies, car manufacturers and the American Government aren’t to blame. They patently would have wished that climate change had never been heard of. I can’t think of any government or multinational company who benefit from “conning” the world into accepting climate change………..so come on, who is supposed to be conning us, and why? 

Discussions on science shouldn’t come down to “I believe”……..and that phrase crops up in almost every post here with an anti-climate change message. I don’t do “belief”. I go and read the research. I suggest that instead of “believing” you guys go and do some reading. I don’t know, next you’ll be telling me that Elvis is dead!!


Mike

This is easy reading......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report


----------



## Paul Chapman (2 Sep 2008)

Mike Garnham":2tvspjct said:


> next you’ll be telling me that Elvis is dead!!



He can't be - I hear him every week on 'Steve Wright in the afternoon'  

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Peter T (2 Sep 2008)

Governments "Con" their constituents all the time. Climate change is a heaven sent opportunity for our ridiculous politicians to dream up ever more creative ways of extracting more taxes from hard working people, and all under the pretext of "Saving the planet". 
Climate change "Experts" jump on the band wagon so that they can extract huge grants from the aforementioned governments to "Research" the subject.

Mind how you go,


----------



## RogerS (2 Sep 2008)

Mmmm..scary given that, from what I can gather, most education is now slanted in favour of passing SAT tests with multi-choice questions and any concept of evaluating the pro's and con's of the why's and wherefore's of anything has long gone out of the window.

So climate change will be taught stating alleged 'facts' and hardly any attempt made to put a different point of view and encourage debate.


----------



## StevieB (2 Sep 2008)

Why does that surprise you Roger - there has been religious education in schools since schooling began but if you made the suggestion that pupils got 2 hours a week on the science of evolution and the debunking of a belief system based on the absence of evidence I think you would meet with some pretty fierce resistance unfortunately.

Steve.


----------



## tnimble (2 Sep 2008)

Its all politics Mike including the IPCC.

Years back it was acid rain caused by smog. they changed legislation which caused $$$ to be pumped in the the industry (mainly due to extra work for people installing all kinds of measurement equipment and filters on factory chimneys, huge increases in the availability of gypsum which provided more profits in the building industry, lots of extra work for the car industry, local garages etcetera)

Then it was halide ions (they about only targeted the CFKs) thinning the ozone layer. Again due to world wide legislation changes many $$$ where pumped into the industry (more work in the plastic expansion and extrusion industries, the, smaller but still significant increases in the cosmetics, cleaning product and paint industries, lots of work in the coolant industrie etcetara)

Then it went to the green house effect and now just when the oil and gas resources in the Western operated area's reach the tip point of supply versus demand its changed to Climate Change caused by carbon emission. Ans of course the first loads of money are already pumped into industry by governments. (Philips Lighting pops to mind as one of the first, but also think of companies like Xerox, Panasonic, Mitchibitchi, General Electric etc who already receive loads due to a change out of power plants, new opertunities in subsidized product research)


People do have a large impact on the planet but not on the currently hot Climate Change by carbon emission. Think of deforestation, exhausting natural resources, environmental impact by the bio industry, destroyed environments by toxic industries in parts of the world we don't care about, by Reservoir and il plants and spills of gas and oil etcetera. Not to mention the harm we to to people and animals for our profits and pleasure (including taking pleasure in harming them for some who are more than just a few).


----------



## Digit (2 Sep 2008)

Mike, as regards the media giving equal credit to both sides, are you aware that recently some thousands of scientist signed a different view at a convention?
Did you see any such report?
I spoke to an ex-reporter some time ago about errors in National Geographic, of all mags. She explained that reporters have to rely on what they are told by people on a list held by each paper. How do you get on that list? Be well known as a famous name draws more readers.
Are you aware Mike that nature, amongst others, has been accused of censorship as they will not publish anything anti man made CC. They were similarly accused some years ago by those who argued against some Einstein's ideas.
Maggie Thatcher kicked off this debate years ago and the first team leader was the head of the British Meteorological Office. The graph that they produced showed the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, both well documented. When the IPCC finished with the graph both had vanished!
Their graph ended with the notorious 'Hockey Stick'. If you check you will find that their graphs have now removed that feature as being obtained by 'dubious methodology' and is no longer mentioned in their papers. But the MWP and Little Ice Age are still absent I note.
When they stop fiddling the figures I may start to believe what they have to say.
In addition not one of the major computer scenarios predicted the current downward temp trend.

Roy.


----------



## tnimble (2 Sep 2008)

Digit":1rnov94w said:


> In addition not one of the major computer scenarios predicted the current downward temp trend.




And yet a week or so ago it was on Dutch television it was said this year the Dutch weather was considerable warmer than previous years, and the European temperature is rising the fastest compared to the *rises* measured globally.

Mind that the global temperature has dropped more than considerable!

This year we had pretty cold summer. Following all the weather reports (where they show the average temperature for that day of year over the last 100 odd years) this years winter was a little warmer, the spring was considerable cooler, late spring the temperature was abnormal high, the first part of summer was normal the rest of summer has been considarable cooler..

How does that all add up? NOT. It all depends on who is speaking for who and what agenda.


----------



## MikeG. (2 Sep 2008)

Roy,

I was just going to post then ignore responses, but I can't let your last line go by.

The current global temperature trend is *upwards*, not downwards as you stated. Since records began in 1870, the hottest eleven individual years have been in the last 12 years. Don't confuse global temperatures with UK temperatures.

Given that there is currently a natural trend for slightly cooler climate (wobble in the earth's axis, solar activity), the *fact* that we are currently in the warmest period for the last 140 years should lead even the most sceptical to start thinking.

Furthermore, all of the climate modelling has erred on the optimistic side so far. We are at the top end of the ranges of predictions for the rate of temperature rise etc.

Now, however spurious your arguments you cannot goad me into any further responses.......there's none so blind as those who won't see.

Mike


----------



## Smudger (2 Sep 2008)

gatesmr2":1dlzfu3m said:


> It seems to me that every time we get anyone harping on about CC they always seem to have loads of letters after there name and a leading authority on the subject.
> Now when someone says its not man made etc etc they get branded a silly person, surely to have a balanced discusion on any subject you have to have at least two points of view :?:
> 
> Martin



But Martin, this is a fallacy.
If you go to a doctor because you are ill, do you choose one who is well qualified and eminent in his field, or a man off the street who has no knowledge but strong opinions? Which one would give you advice you could trust?

Remember how those people got the letters after their names - they don't come from cornflake packets.

Why does there have to be a 'discussion' on every topic? Should there be a discussion on whether or not robbery and murder are good or bad things? Or do we agree that they are bad things and discuss what we are going to do about it?


----------



## Smudger (2 Sep 2008)

RogerS":2ixetpqy said:


> Mmmm..scary given that, from what I can gather, most education is now slanted in favour of passing SAT tests with multi-choice questions and any concept of evaluating the pro's and con's of the why's and wherefore's of anything has long gone out of the window.



Not true.


----------



## Peter T (2 Sep 2008)

Why only go back to 1870?

If you go back far enough this part of the world was sub-tropical!

People like Paul Ehrlich and Lowell Ponte have been predicting global catastrophe since the 60's, all of which has proved to be nonsense, and yet we are still expected to take heed of idiots like these.


----------



## Digit (2 Sep 2008)

I am not mistaking UK with world temps my friend. The climate IS warming, no argument.
Man made? 
Of course the world is warming, it has been warming since the middle of the 19 Century.
According to NASA, and others, the world's temp is now no different to the mid 1980s. This using satellite info.
BUT that does NOT alter the fact that the seas haven't risen by anywhere near the doom sayer's predictions, the temp figures, along with sea level predictions have repeatedly been down sized.
The Earth has been colder and warmer in the recent past, it has had higher CO2 levels also.
Are you aware that two European settlements have recently been revealed by retreating glaciers. This means that within modern European history mountains were occupied to higher levels than they currently are.
To me that argument is NOT whether the planet is in a long term warming trend, it is are we responsible?
But to return to my original question. What are the schools going to teach? Al Bore's DVDs were banned from schools by the British courts recently as being biased and based on poor science, the challenge was mounted by those who produced sufficient evidence to win the case.
I also repeat that the IPCC fiddled the original graphs to eliminate known climate variations, that they have had to withdraw the 'Hockey Stick'. Are these the people you wish to believe?

Roy.


----------



## tnimble (2 Sep 2008)

Mike Garnham":1ak9gqe7 said:


> The current global temperature trend is *upwards*, not downwards as you stated. Since records began in 1870, the hottest eleven individual years have been in the last 12 years. Don't confuse global temperatures with UK temperatures.
> 
> Given that there is currently a natural trend for slightly cooler climate (wobble in the earth's axis, solar activity), the *fact* that we are currently in the warmest period for the last 140 years should lead even the most sceptical to start thinking.


No it aint, yes it is, don't have to and no it should not strictly.

There is a gradual rise in temperature, however such rises in temperature have cured throughout the history (there has been a lot of study on that subject to see how life evolved on earth, etcetera) Also the much more significant rises have cured in the past without us being there with all our stress on the environment. The extremeness of the last decade, the rate of metling of polar ice seems to have a very direct relation to the enormous amount of solar activity with temperature spikes just after large eruptions on the sun.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that there is no CC, there is, but its less related or even not related at all to the terrible things we do on this platen than what politicians and some scientists claim. If you want to change (ad we have to, we're barbaric) do it for the right reasons.


----------



## Digit (2 Sep 2008)

Peter. When I first started to study this matter, back in the 70s, the same people were using the same info to argue for an ice age within a human lifetime!
The Russians were even planning to melt the northern polar cap to prevent it!
This may interest posters...

http://symonsez.files.wordpress.com/200 ... arison.gif

The upper one is the IPPC's fiddled version and the lower one is the original.
Here is my source.
David R. Legates is Director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware and an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Roy.


----------



## Jake (2 Sep 2008)

He seems to be from the usual big-oil funded circle so beloved of the Republican political elite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Legates


----------



## MIGNAL (2 Sep 2008)

Jake":1gz41ygz said:


> He seems to be from the usual big-oil funded circle so beloved of the Republican political elite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Legates



Him n' George W. Still, rather them than all those thousands of scientists picking the pockets of various goverments. I guess if they weren't in receipt of these grants they'd all be signing on the dole.


----------



## Digit (2 Sep 2008)

That doesn't make him wrong Jake or anybody else right. I have other authors if you wish and do you have any evidence for that?

Roy.


----------



## Peter T (2 Sep 2008)

Jake":1xq51gzy said:


> I guess if they weren't in receipt of these grants they'd all be signing on the dole.



We can only hope!!


----------



## Jake (2 Sep 2008)

I didn't write that /\

It doesn't of itself make him wrong, but I always find it amusing that MMCC 'disbelievers' view MMCC as a big business/government conspiracy, ignoring the fact that the minority of scientists who have lost the argument are almost entirely funded by erm big business and (US) government.

Evidence? I don't think it is much of a secret that Marshall and so on are funded by big oil. They have a right to fund whatever research they like - it's a shame (in my view) that they were allowed to have such a poisonous hold on government policy in the states- but thankfully that looks likely to change even under McCain.


----------



## Good Surname or what ? (2 Sep 2008)

I can hardly believe some of what I have read on this thread.

I've been 30 years in the oil business. I currently sell software used to model the earth and help find/produce oil & gas. My customers are the world's leading oil companies.

Let me assure you that even in "big oil" the consensus amongst scientifically educated people is that the production of CO2 by burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) contributes to the greenhouse effect which contributes to "global warming". The naysayers are so few as to be statistically insignificant.


----------



## Digit (2 Sep 2008)

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/glo ... 051607.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... rming.html

Insignificant?

Roy.


----------



## Good Surname or what ? (2 Sep 2008)

Roy,

Note I said that amongst scientists in "big oil" the naysayers are *statistically* insignificant. There will continue to be some vested interests that deny it. No doubt some believe, but publicly deny for their own reasons.

Whether you or anybodyelse "believes" in man-made climate change is largely irrelevant. If it's true, we probably can't do anything much to slow or stop it now. But that doesn't mean we should not try.

Whatever happens "we" will continue to exploit the world's fossil fuels until they are exhausted because the cost of change is too great. However, I believe we have already reached "peak oil" so change will soon be forced on us. You might find this interesting http://www.chrismartenson.com/peak_oil

For what it's worth I try to use the earth's resources sparingly - though I do drive a 3.2L car . I drive it sensibly, turn off the tap when I clean my teeth and compost and recycle my waste - much as I have since the early '80s. On the other hand I fly to Africa monthly - so have a HUGE carbon footprint.   

Perhaps overall your lifestyle may be "greener" than mine. However, in my experience, with climate change naysayers it's often a desire to avoid change in their own behaviour/contribution that drives the denial, rather than rigorous scientific analysis, and they search for evidence to support their entrenched view.

I sincerely hope you are right and I am wrong; for our grandchildren's sake.
Phil


----------



## Digit (2 Sep 2008)

I look at this way Phil. Climates will change whatever we do, I do not believe that we are the prime movers in the present trend.
Aside from all of that I can give a thousand good reasons for reducing pollution, litter and waste in general.
What I object to is governments, and other bodies, jumping onto a revenue raising band wagon.
An example, we must re-cycle X percentage of household waste 'cos we are running out of landfill sites.
That is a direct lie!

Roy.


----------



## tnimble (2 Sep 2008)

Jake":22ab09be said:


> He seems to be from the usual big-oil funded circle so beloved of the Republican political elite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Legates



I hope I don't spoil the suprice, but each and every scientist and scientific body is and has been funded by industry. The only chnage is that nowadays also universities are partle / about mainly funded by industry. The current amout of bias on the research done is less than before. To name of the peaksare the high days of Bell Labs, AT&T, Xerox Parc, Philips Natlab etcetera.

Its when government starts to fund research and form study groups we must start to be aware. Their funds are only put into action is they really really need to have it researched or need a 'scientific' result to back something up or sway away something that not fits in the 'bigger plan'.


----------



## tnimble (2 Sep 2008)

Digit":gthxxfnj said:


> I look at this way Phil. Climates will change whatever we do, I do not believe that we are the prime movers in the present trend.
> Aside from all of that I can give a thousand good reasons for reducing pollution, litter and waste in general.
> What I object to is governments, and other bodies, jumping onto a revenue raising band wagon.
> An example, we must re-cycle X percentage of household waste 'cos we are running out of landfill sites.
> ...



Hear hear!

Mind i'm vegan, don't own a car and don't want to, i've the least amount of household garbage of the whole street (and that includes shavings, trowing them away I find a difficult task, but I have to at the moment due to circumstance I can't use them or recycle them).

I've a long list of thing that should change in this world. A world in which I'm ashamed of being a member of mankind. And that not only because of the gross environmental misdoings.


----------



## gatesmr2 (2 Sep 2008)

Think you misunderstood or i did not put it quite right Smudger  

What i meant was simply if you see anyone on TV or in a newspaper talking about how CC change affects us, how we are all doomed etc etc they are certified un-questionable world leaders on the subject.

Then they tend to offer up some poor sod from a big oil, manufacturing or some other large compamy with an equally large carbon footprint to reply.

Just think it would be nice to have an even discusion, with figures you can make it seem like the moon is in fact father away than the sun, rabbits are planning world domination, or in fact the government really does do what they think is best for us.

Why does it seem we that the more we find out the less we really know :? 

Think the term divide and conquer comes to mind :?: 

Martin


----------



## Digit (2 Sep 2008)

I own a car Laura because I have little choice. I actually live on a bus route with a bus shelter immediately opposite my home.
Bus into town every hour on the hour with a return on the half hour, so I either have half an hour to accomplish what I need to do or one and half hours.
I like public transport but with osteo arthritis of the spine, being bounced up and down in a bus is murder!
The government pays lip service to cleaner/greener living only, I'm afraid.
I am not knocking you when I point out that Vegan living is not a sustainable life form in a truly 'green' world. Animal bye products are pretty well the only alternative to artificial fertilisers.
In addition animal bye products are again the only alternative to certain other oil based products.
The first essential to a truly 'Green' existence would be to take all necessary steps to reduce our population, on our own land we can only support about one third of our present population with something approaching our present standard of living.
Can you see our governments doing that?
Teaching in schools about climate change without a sense of responsibility won't make much difference, and I doubt that it will aid many into employment either.

Roy.


----------



## Good Surname or what ? (2 Sep 2008)

Digit":1f4zpwn2 said:


> The first essential to a truly 'Green' existence would be to take all necessary steps to reduce our population



Now your talking my language! I'm a believer in the need for a minimum 25% (but preferably 80%) reduction in world population across the board - no national/ethnic/religious or socio-economic preferences or exceptions.

But back to the the CC debate. I'm as cynical as (perhaps more than) the next man. But I don't believe it's governments jumping on a bandwagon to raise taxes. Quite the opposite, I said earlier that I thought people who believe in it may deny to serve other purposes. Leaving aside my personal feelings regarding George Bush (to avoid political conflict), it's clear that he is an intelligent man. I believe he sees and understands the issues of CC but knows the importance of the string-pullers in big oil; he wouldn't do anything to upset them too badly.

Phil

PS: Landfill sites ARE running out. I used to work for geological consultancy in Usk. One of our branches was environmental geology - an important aspect of finding sites to dispose of waste without icrap leaching into our valuable water resources.


----------



## Digit (2 Sep 2008)

Granted about water course Phil, but not the rest.
If you have recently purchased some glass, sand, cement, bricks, tiles, lead, putty, coal, clay, terra cotta, Aluminium, copper, tin, porcelain, steel etc, somewhere in this country you have contributed to a hole in the ground.
Currently extraction of all kinds is running at slightly more than 100000 cubic metres/annum.
That's a big hole!
Prior to the EU directive this would have been back filled, topped off with soil and returned to farming, now we are producing a lot of angling sites.

Roy.


----------



## Dave S (2 Sep 2008)

Peter T":2wl30frl said:


> This is probably a really bad idea as it’s my first post on this forum and I’m probably going to alienate a bunch of people. I was planning to introduce myself with a piece about the nice little Record No. 4 with the Stay Set backer that I got off E Bay, but I simply couldn’t let this pass, so here goes.
> 
> Climate change is a CON. There I’ve said it.
> 
> ...



Most people tend to get a few posts under their belts before they start slagging off other members. Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to your own vocation - maybe someone would like to question your own professional integrity.

Dave


----------



## Good Surname or what ? (2 Sep 2008)

Digit":2dh2kglc said:


> Currently extraction of all kinds is running at slightly more than 100000 cubic metres/annum.
> That's a big hole!
> Roy.



Agreed that's a big hole. I trust your statistics but would ask if you know the equivalent volume of household and industrial waste that currently goes to landfill. I don't and truthfully I can't be bothered to find out.

On the other hand, to me, it's intuitive that you can't just keep chucking stuff (particularly in the unregulated way it happened in the past) in holes in the ground. Remember 15 years ago when the government suggested mapping all the old brown-field sites and landfills for hazardous waste - it was stopped by the vested interest for fear of land-blight!


----------



## Dave S (2 Sep 2008)

Rich":ir4xrzhs said:


> Good evening Peter, I don't think you'll alienate anyone just for stating a point of view, good for you, wether or not we agree or disagree at least members will know where they stand with you, there's a lot to be said for that.
> 
> Happy posting and good luck with your No 4.
> 
> ...


Yes, but he hasn't just stated a point of view - he has made a fallacious and highly insulting comment about the professional integrity of a very large number of people, a small percentage of whom may belong to this forum.

Dave


----------



## Dave S (2 Sep 2008)

gatesmr2":3eqt17pw said:


> So how come is it that the governments and leaders all jump on the CC band wagon maybe i'm being a little cynical but the word easy chance to tax comes to mind.


Whatever it may be, 40 odd years hardly seems like jumping on the bandwagon.

Dave


----------



## Digit (2 Sep 2008)

The answer to that question Phil is what do we want to dump?
The amount of energy required to recycle many materials, glass, metals, plastics etc is often much less than to process them from the base materials. If we really meant what we say and recycled the economic ones we would apparently still end up with plenty of boating ponds! 
Without any great effort we could change over to heavy paper bags from the supermarkets, there would be an energy profit there as against the plastic bag, we could easily go back to waxed cartons or glass bottles for milk, with again an energy profit
I could run a considerable list.
Let me give you just one example of the present lunacy. My wife and I recycle all that we can and have done so since before the present bandwagon. To do so we have to take the stuff to the local recycling centre.
Why?
Simple.
If we put our domestic waste into separate plastic sacks, as supplied by our council, it is collected on a Friday morning, when the dustmen tip all the bags into the back of the same crusher!
You tell me. Do you honestly think that the sacks survive that intact?
And again, does nobody else see the irony of recycling waste into plastic bags that will still be around after I'm gone?
And yet again, how many millions of tonnes of rubbish are we currently shipping abroad?
Save the planet my foot!

Roy.


----------



## Rich (2 Sep 2008)

Roy, I could have thought of a better part of ones anatomy to describe your displeasure.

However, no one seems to have addressed your OP? concerning CC being part of the national curriculum.

Regards,

Rich.


----------



## Rich (2 Sep 2008)

Dave S":i30lrj3i said:


> Rich":i30lrj3i said:
> 
> 
> > Good evening Peter, I don't think you'll alienate anyone just for stating a point of view, good for you, wether or not we agree or disagree at least members will know where they stand with you, there's a lot to be said for that.
> ...



Then prove him wrong, Dave, That's what the forums for.

Regards,

Rich.


----------



## Good Surname or what ? (2 Sep 2008)

Roy,

I agree we have too much, wasteful packaging and that the implementation of recycling is patchy at best. But that doesn't mean dumping iour waste in the ground is right. Perhaps incineration will get a boost.

What we need is a good recession with the associated drop in consumption!
Phil


----------



## Digit (2 Sep 2008)

You mean we're supposed to stay on topic Rich? Blast! :lol:
All that's missing here is a few pints. 

Roy.


----------



## Good Surname or what ? (2 Sep 2008)

Rich,

Ok I'll respond to the OP.



Digit":2wp48fep said:


> I read on the Sky net today that as part of a new curriculum climate change is to be taught in schools from the new term.
> Anyone know anything about it?
> 
> Roy.



If this is right, it's wrong! The 3 R's, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, History, Geography, French and Latin. that's all we need in a National Curriculum. :lol:


----------



## Digit (2 Sep 2008)

Based on the complaints down south of me Phil I think I would prefer a landfill site to an incinerator.
Unless rubbish is burnt at high temperatures dioxins, amongst other undesirables, are produced.
And again Phil, it takes a lot of energy to run a high temp incinerator!
Energy equates to pollution.

Roy.


----------



## Rich (2 Sep 2008)

Hi, Phil, a good reply to the OP, however I would add English lit.

Rich.


----------



## Good Surname or what ? (2 Sep 2008)

It's a tough problem, Roy. Let's hope at least some of our leaders are far-sighted and have something other than their own interests at heart.

When Kennedy set his moon-landing goal in the '60s he challenged the best engineers in the world to solve incredible problems. In another job I knew some of them. One commented to me in 1994 that nothing had seemed so exciting since 1969. He was then, in 1994, number 2 in a $4billion enterprise.

If Bush/Obama/McCain were to set the appropriate goals for the 20teens who knows what problems we might solve.

Night - I'm back to watching the news and thinking about router templates :? 
Phil


----------



## Digit (2 Sep 2008)

Absolutely! I had a very small part in the race but there will never be another time like it. But as you say, it shows what we can do.
I was particularly impressed when JFK commented that we should do this, not because it is easy, but because it is difficult.
Mars here we come! I hope!

Roy.


----------



## Rich (2 Sep 2008)

Digit":a4d2xc3w said:


> Absolutely! I had a very small part in the race but there will never be another time like it. But as you say, it shows what we can do.
> I was particularly impressed when JFK commented that we should do this, not because it is easy, but because it is difficult.
> Mars here we come! I hope!
> 
> Roy.



No fear, I reckon Mars is where our politicians originate from.

Rich. :lol:


----------



## Peter T (2 Sep 2008)

Dave S":2bza1q1v said:


> Rich":2bza1q1v said:
> 
> 
> > Good evening Peter, I don't think you'll alienate anyone just for stating a point of view, good for you, wether or not we agree or disagree at least members will know where they stand with you, there's a lot to be said for that.
> ...



But this is my strongly held belief; should I not be allowed to express it? And why is it a fallacy? It could well be true.

Are we so politically correct that we must temper our beliefs and opinions so as to avoid causing offence to anyone?

If that's the case, maybe the advocates of man-made CC should do the same!


----------



## Smudger (2 Sep 2008)

Rich":36yywjeo said:


> Roy, I could have thought of a better part of ones anatomy to describe your displeasure.
> 
> However, no one seems to have addressed your OP? concerning CC being part of the national curriculum.
> 
> ...




Well, if I may - it *has* been included in the Geography national curriculum for some time. Geography teachers are the people who can teach it. And do.

I'm not sure what the story is actually about - perhaps some new angle. But as a topic, it has been there for years and has been enthusiastically taught (along with a range of 'eco-issues') by geographers for some time.

But now I expect that we will be told that teachers are, like 'scientists' a bunch of useless twits who ought to be drawing the dole...


----------



## Smudger (2 Sep 2008)

Peter T":1u4abqwq said:


> Dave S":1u4abqwq said:
> 
> 
> > Rich":1u4abqwq said:
> ...



We try not to insult people gratuitously on the basis of prejudice and ignorance. Generally.


----------



## Rich (2 Sep 2008)

Smudger":1e0bf34t said:


> Peter T":1e0bf34t said:
> 
> 
> > Dave S":1e0bf34t said:
> ...



Have you no thoughts on the OP Smudger? :lol: 

Rich, (AKA) The village silly person, gratuitously accorded me by DT. :lol:


----------



## Dave S (2 Sep 2008)

Peter T":1140g41l said:


> But this is my strongly held belief; should I not be allowed to express it? And why is it a fallacy? It could well be true.
> 
> Are we so politically correct that we must temper our beliefs and opinions so as to avoid causing offence to anyone?
> 
> If that's the case, maybe the advocates of man-made CC should do the same!


Nowhere did your post indicate that it was your _belief_ - instead you presented it as if an indisputable fact.

I have no problem with you (or anyone else) expressing scepticism or even disbelief in MMCC. I have no problem with you (or anyone else) challenging the arguments that scientists have been making for decades (long before CC became 'in vogue'). 
But I do have a problem with your offensive remarks about the integrity of the scientific profession, in the same way that many here were offended last year when someone implied that all tradesman are rip-off merchants.

Dave

MMCC - man made climate change


----------



## tnimble (2 Sep 2008)

Digit":2p51j4u3 said:


> I own a car Laura because I have little choice. I actually live on a bus route with a bus shelter immediately opposite my home.
> Bus into town every hour on the hour with a return on the half hour, so I either have half an hour to accomplish what I need to do or one and half hours.
> I like public transport but with osteo arthritis of the spine, being bounced up and down in a bus is murder!


Nothing you can do about, you have a real reson to own a car *AND* use it all the time Many don't, they have a multiple hout commute (including time ill spend in traffic jam) just because they have a car, so thay can't be bothered to move or seek a job nearer to home. And then there's the status symbol that is still present for many.



> The government pays lip service to cleaner/greener living only, I'm afraid.
> I am not knocking you when I point out that Vegan living is not a sustainable life form in a truly 'green' world. Animal bye products are pretty well the only alternative to artificial fertilisers.


 And that is just fine,. Its where animal has taken a dump or its last breath where the flowers grow. What is wrong is putting animals in stables packed side to side, engaged and lock them up in metal bar harnasses to first harvest their sh*t and food for their children, and then harvest their bodies.



> In addition animal bye products are again the only alternative to certain other oil based products.
> The first essential to a truly 'Green' existence would be to take all necessary steps to reduce our population, on our own land we can only support about one third of our present population with something approaching our present standard of living.
> Can you see our governments doing that?
> Teaching in schools about climate change without a sense of responsibility won't make much difference, and I doubt that it will aid many into employment either.
> ...


The hole of our society is based upon a constant growth in population and economics. Both are unsustainable. They won't change that, because that hurts and makes them look bad. 'Our' benefit from this growth is another's misery. if this *is* our nature, then we will "even out the playing field" and let us die of hunger and rising water levels. If its just the nature of some, we can change and mentally evolve beyond the I want it all and i want it now at any expense.


----------



## Maia28 (3 Sep 2008)

I'm a scientist and have found nothing insulting in any of the comments on here. Indeed, I think that it is always important to challenge the integrity of scientist as we are, by the nature of our work, partisan. If you accept MMC, then it axiomatic (to me) that the only response that could possibly be effective is extreme population reduction combined with reduced consumption. 

As to whether CC should be taught in schools and the competence of geographers in doing so, I'm not sure. This is exactly why more and more of us are sending our children to independent schools to avoid the politically driven curriculum. I doubt whether CC could be "taught" in a meaningful way or what purpose it would serve. IMO, schools should be there to provide a foundation for learning through establishing the fundamentals as others have said. You only have to see the gibberish in the PSHE curriculum to understand that schools have become less of a place of teaching and more of a factory for processing raw materials (badly).

Andy


----------



## Digit (3 Sep 2008)

I can't disagree with any of that Laura

Roy.


----------



## Digit (3 Sep 2008)

Brave man Andy! :lol: 

Roy.


----------



## seanybaby (3 Sep 2008)

I think we should teach polotics in skools :tongue9:


----------



## seanybaby (3 Sep 2008)

As well as inglish to teeech peepol to spel :roll: hehe

(hammer) 

I'm off to buy an over priced plane :roll:


----------



## Smudger (3 Sep 2008)

Rich":2bl1dg81 said:


> Smudger":2bl1dg81 said:
> 
> 
> > Peter T":2bl1dg81 said:
> ...



Yes. Expressed on p5.


----------



## tnimble (3 Sep 2008)

Thank you for your very contributing post Andy!


----------



## RogerS (3 Sep 2008)

Smudger":mlvg604h said:


> RogerS":mlvg604h said:
> 
> 
> > Mmmm..scary given that, from what I can gather, most education is now slanted in favour of passing SAT tests with multi-choice questions and any concept of evaluating the pro's and con's of the why's and wherefore's of anything has long gone out of the window.
> ...



Guess it depends who you speak to. My information came from one of the youngest Scale 4's (at 26) in the country and also from an English teacher of some 30+ years of teaching. And also the subject...I'll grant you that.


----------



## Digit (3 Sep 2008)

A 56 yr old retired art teacher of my acquaintanceship holds the same view Rog.

Roy.


----------



## Smudger (3 Sep 2008)

Digit":1baki8oi said:


> A 56 yr old retired art teacher of my acquaintanceship holds the same view Rog.
> 
> Roy.



Let me see some evidence.

I think you are confusing SATs with National Curriculum tests.

What subjects, what levels, what parts of what tests?


----------



## Smudger (3 Sep 2008)

By the way, I was a Scale 4 at 26 (in 1975), but there haven't been Scale 4s for years now.


----------



## Digit (3 Sep 2008)

Strangely enough Smudger I don't know as we generally find other subjects to talk about!



> Let me see some evidence.


DNA or finger prints?
Like Roger I simply passed on another's views, they don't necessarily accord with my own.

Roy.


----------



## Dave S (3 Sep 2008)

Maia28":7wnyqi23 said:


> I'm a scientist and have found nothing insulting in any of the comments on here. Indeed, I think that it is always important to challenge the integrity of scientist as we are, by the nature of our work, partisan.


Suggesting someone is partisan is one thing, stating that they are dishonest is another.

This may not offend you, but it does offend me.


> Climate change is a CON. There I’ve said it.
> 
> It’s a myth that’s perpetrated by pseudo-scientists, greedy for huge grants to continue their research, and by politicians ever eager to find new ways to raise taxes.



Dave


----------



## Maia28 (3 Sep 2008)

Dave S":nphn8zgp said:


> This may not offend you, but it does offend me.
> 
> 
> > Climate change is a CON. There I’ve said it.
> ...


Then I would suggest that you are being a touch sensitive Dave. I'd agree with much of the sentiment that it is a con and perpetrated by pseudo-scientists keen to attract further grants. When quality of science is measured by research income and many of the ESRC, NERC and EPSRC awards in this area are targetted programmes, the whole thing becomes self-perpetuating. I also think that there is quite a lot of dishonesty in the scientific world, not least in producing results that do not match the data but will satisfy reviewers - I say this as an editor of a journal. Also remember that quality of a researcher is generally judged by the number, impact factor and citation rates for their papers and says nothing about the actual content of their published work. 

Having seen no evidence that green taxes or carbon trading schemes have done anything but raise costs for the consumer - they certainly haven't translated into further research funding for example - then I'm not surprised that they give the impression of just being a new way to raise tax. 

Andy


----------



## Rich (3 Sep 2008)

Thanks for posting that review Andy, it's certainly opened my eyes as to how the taxpayer is being ripped off, as regards to scientists, I can't comment as I'm not one, but I have no doubt that they are ensuring that their financing is covered, I don't blame them for that, but at the end of the day, if I am funding research, then the TRUTH must be told.

Regards,

Rich.


----------



## StevieB (4 Sep 2008)

Speaking as a scientist (although not a climate change one) I DO take offence at the suggestion that most scientists are concerned only with self-perpetuation of their own careers and are dishonest Andy



> I'd agree with much of the sentiment that it is a con and perpetrated by pseudo-scientists keen to attract further grants. When quality of science is measured by research income and many of the ESRC, NERC and EPSRC awards in this area are targetted programmes, the whole thing becomes self-perpetuating. I also think that there is quite a lot of dishonesty in the scientific world, not least in producing results that do not match the data but will satisfy reviewers - I say this as an editor of a journal.



As an editor of a journal it is your job to try and ensure only good quality peer reviewed articles do make it into print. Whether this is through editorial control or assessing comments from peer reviewers before making a final accept or reject editorial decision, you are the guardian of what is published and as a consequence what the media pick up on. 

Having published in Science, Nature Genetics, and the Lancet among others I truly believe in the work that I do and the validity of the work I produce. Your asscertion of there being quite alot of dishonesty in the scientific world does nothing to enhance the already low standing of scientists among the wider populance and is I suggest an opinion that does not exactly chime with your role as an editor.

Your gripe seems to be with the measurement of success by research output and grant income. That is not the fault of the scientists, that is the result of government policy. Lobby to get the RAE assessment changed, speak to the research charities that fund research, develop an alternative measure of progress etc etc but you cannot blame people in the system for the way the system works - thats like moaning about commuters crowding trains instead of getting the train operators to run more services.

Steve


----------



## StevieB (4 Sep 2008)

> Thanks for posting that review Andy, it's certainly opened my eyes as to how the taxpayer is being ripped off, as regards to scientists, I can't comment as I'm not one, but I have no doubt that they are ensuring that their financing is covered, I don't blame them for that, but at the end of the day, if I am funding research, then the TRUTH must be told.



How are you funding scientific research Rich? And how do you judge what the truth is? How do you decide whether you are being ripped off or not as a taxpayer? Is it as simple as whether you agree with the results of the scientific evidence produced?

There seems to be a general consensus that there is a huge pot of money just sitting in a pile waiting for scientists to dip into to fund their latest research project or explore their latest pet theory, the results of which will match the most favourable result to allow said scientist to dip into the pot again in the future. Its a sad indictment of the publics perception of science that scientists are seen in this way. I don't know whether to laugh, cry or explode to be honest. Produce a hand cut dovetail and I am a hero. Spend six months writing a detailed scientific proposal to a peer reviewed competitive funding body and get awarded £1 million and I am a self serving results fudging finance covering scientist who is playing the system.

I need to get a proper job, clearly.

Steve.


----------



## MikeG. (4 Sep 2008)

Steve,

PM sent

Mike


----------



## wizer (4 Sep 2008)

StevieB":n3qonfh5 said:


> I need to get a proper job, clearly.



It's over-rated. :wink:


----------



## tnimble (4 Sep 2008)

It indeed seems to be the 'public' oppinion at times scientists are receiving loads of money both from taxes and from companies (also see one of my previous posts on that). This is not the case, its hard to get funding and even harder to hold that funding. Sometimes this leads to excursive and/or ill spend funds. If the granted funds where used to backup another project or subject of used for the next year with longer projects/studies, the upcoming funds will be most certainly cut.

The only things that are questionable about some scientific research done is who funds the reseach for what reason, who is given the research (not all research is done by (proper) scientists), how are the results used and mangled by the funders and media (sections might have been removed, conclusions twisted, side observation presented as full thruths, random figures presented as correlations, etcetera).

None are the fault of the scientists!

(I'm not a scientist, however I worked for a short while on the R&D department of one of the mayor scientific institutes, providing the scientists with the equipment they need to do their thing)


----------



## Digit (4 Sep 2008)

Correct me if I'm wrong gentlemen but are not funds apportioned by the Science Council?
The number of outright frauds that have been perpetrated in science is apparently considerable over the years, but mere money has not always been the cause.
Imagine your grant is up for review, you feel that you are THAT close to an important result, but those in control are impatient for you to come up with something concrete.
What do you do?
You fiddle the results hoping that your results will cover it for you. If you win it's a Nobel, wrong and you are a fraud!
Even Einstein fiddled his figures to fit what Whipple told him, fraud or justified by the end result?

Roy.


----------



## tnimble (4 Sep 2008)

Digit":1nef40ni said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong gentlemen but are not funds apportioned by the Science Council?
> The number of outright frauds that have been perpetrated in science is apparently considerable over the years, but mere money has not always been the cause.



There is both general / fundamental scientific research on an ongoing basis with a pool of subjects to studie and an arbitrary amount of fund to assign to some of these. And also there is scientific research on a commision basis. A company or government hires an institute / group of scientists to deliver them a report or a part / ingredient for a product. The latter has little to nothing to do with any council. Examples of this are for instance the development of new semiconductor fabrication techniques, plastic sheets that emit light, is the radiation from a cellular phone antenna harmful? are we destructing the earth by buring coal and gazoline? etcetera



> Imagine your grant is up for review, you feel that you are THAT close to an important result, but those in control are impatient for you to come up with something concrete.
> What do you do?
> You fiddle the results hoping that your results will cover it for you. If you win it's a Nobel, wrong and you are a fraud!
> Even Einstein fiddled his figures to fit what Whipple told him, fraud or justified by the end result?
> ...


----------



## StevieB (4 Sep 2008)

No such thing as a Science Council as a single all encompassing entity Roy, but then again 'Science' is such an all encompassing term, covering R+D for industry, through pharmaceutical research, medical research, private research and governement and state sponsored research to name but a few. Then there is charity sponsired medical research (BHF, Wellcome Trust) and small groups that give small amounts of money for things like travel grants and equipment grants. Alot of science is also tied up in education now, particurlaly anything worked on in a university environment.

Sadly the days of Nobel or bust are long gone - any scientific endeavour of the magnitude likely to earn a Nobel prize are long term, multi-centre and comprise tens if not hundreds of researchers at a minimum over a period of many years. Falsifying a grant result for the reward as you postulate is possible on an individual level for short term single grant gain I guess, but not to anything like the reward of a Nobel prize.

Most science presents a conclusion, arrived at on the basis of investigation. It is the methodology of that investigation that is really under scrutiny when examining results - is the result reported feasible or expected based on the methodology used to arrive at it. This applies to climate change, landing on the moon or cloning a sheep. Most scientific fraud is exposed when the same experiment cannot be repeated using the methodology stated to achieve that result. This in itself tends to put a limitation on scientific fraud since someone is always going to repeat/investigate further what you have reported. Reporting something and then hoping nobody questions what you have done is not going to get you very far as a scientist I am afraid.

Steve.


----------



## Maia28 (4 Sep 2008)

Roy: Research is funded in a number of different ways. I have held grants from charities, research councils, MoD and industry. In academia, most research is funded by the research councils which have different budgets depending on the areas, e.g. Engineering and Physical Sciences Reseach Council, Natural Environment Research Council, etc. The umbrella for all these is Research Councils UK, www.rcuk.ac.uk. Most of the funds were awarded in responsive mode, i.e. you submit a costed proposal that is peer reviewed and then assessed by a panel who may or may not make an award. The success rate varies per council and the individual area but is not high, say between 15 - 20%. Quite a large chunk of the money available is through targetted calls for proposals in specific areas that aim to tackle particular problem areas. The research budget has been shrinking in recent years. A common criticism of the funding mechanisms is that they tend to encourage safe research as it is much harder to be confident of more adventurous ideas. There are very few rolling grants. EU funding is much greater, but would take too long to describe. By the very nature of research, it will often focus on such a specialist area that its worth may often not be apparent to a non-expert. I generally believe that good quality research is funded in the UK and represents good value for the tax-payer, but it is often misrepresented in the press. However ...

Steve: I was responding to the comment about pseudo-science of which I have certainly come accross quite a number of practitioners for whom the usual rigour does not seem to apply. I really do think that dishonesty is a problem and we shouldn't stick our heads in the sand about it. As an editor I make every effort to ensure it does not occur for the articles I approve. However, there are many people who are prepared to publish the same material more than once to improve their RAE rating or even misrepresent results - this is often impossible to detect. I probably have the same feelings about my work as you, but this sadly is not always the case with some of my colleagues. The RAE is a funny thing, it works very well for me. It will change with more emphasis on individual measurable performance and I worry that will increase the temptation for some people to be less rigorous as well as discouraging the adventure of research.

Andy


----------



## Digit (4 Sep 2008)

> Reporting something and then hoping nobody questions what you have done is not going to get you very far as a scientist I am afraid.



Which is the manner in which most frauds have been caught out in recent years of course. But as far as I can ascertain nobody ever investigated Einstein's maths well enough to detect or disprove his 'fudge factor', he owned to it years later and said that it was his biggest mistake.
Mistake or fraud though?

Roy.


----------



## MikeG. (4 Sep 2008)

Roy,

it was neither mistake nor fraud. 

His "biggest mistake" was in removing the number (I think he called it the cosmological constant) from later versions of his work, because it has since been shown that he was indeed correct to include it in the first instance. The inclusion or not of that number amounts (I think) to a decision on whether the universe will go on expanding forever, or will one day collapse back in on itself in a "big crunch". 

Serendipitously, his constant was 42.......followers of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy will recognise that number as the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything.

Einsein's field was *theoretica*l physics. He postulated general laws of the Universe, but didn't experiment. Essentially he said....."this is the way I think the Universe operates" and left it to others to test and prove or disprove his theories. He was so far ahead of his time that testing his theories were virtually impossible in his day, but since then he has been shown to be right in almost every area he theorised about above the size of an atom.

Mike


----------



## Digit (4 Sep 2008)

When I used the phrase 'fudge factor' it was because those were his words according to my readings Mike.
He was a German citizen working as a Swiss custom's officer when he had his original ideas I understand.
His maths apparently only worked if the universe was expanding, but the wisdom of that day was that the universe was static.
So here we had a lowly custom's official with little academic standing about to challenge the 'known' principles of the universe.
If he had attempted to have that published, in Nature for example, it would have gone out to peer review.
This is the problem with that system, his chances of getting his ideas past those who had probably helped to build the established view was about zero. So he changed the maths to fit.
You tell me Mike, which would have the best chance of obtaining funding today, a proposal entitled_ 'The effects of non gaseous aerosols as a major contributor of Polar warming',_ or _'Stellar radiation as the major cause of periodic climate change'._
I am not saying that the system is wrong, it does at least stop papers on _'Atlantean History, an eye witness account!'_ or _'Proposals for a perpetual motion machine',_ but it's equally true to say that Darwin's chances of funding or publication would have been pretty poor.

Roy.


----------



## MikeG. (4 Sep 2008)

Roy, 

he wasn't a customs officer, he was a patents clerk. 

His maths required a constant to work if the universe was expanding, and he worked out what that constant would be and put it in.........then because of his own uncertainty took it out again. Then years later put it back in. He wasn't fiddling figures, or doing fraudulent work..........he was postulating. He absolutely did not change the maths to fit to get published, and I am getting tired of hearing twisted "facts" used to justify bias against science. He was actually world famous by the time he had anything to do with the cosmological constant, and would have had no problem getting anything at all published anywhere.

Darwin didn't publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal, he published a book. That option is open to any scientist. 

Mike


----------



## big soft moose (4 Sep 2008)

Digit":r1m9cr9o said:


> You tell me Mike, which would have the best chance of obtaining funding today, a proposal entitled_ 'The effects of non gaseous aerosols as a major contributor of Polar warming',_ or _'Stellar radiation as the major cause of periodic climate change'._



I would suspect that as *proposals *neither would get funding as both appear to have already reached a conclusion before carrying out any research - those read more like *paper* titles - which are traditionally published and subject to peer review after the research has been done


----------



## MikeG. (4 Sep 2008)

Roy,

you dismissed the "hockey stick" previously, I believe. Well, you may well be wrong......http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7592575.stm


----------



## Digit (4 Sep 2008)

I didn't Mike The UN did. I have no bias against science either Mike, quite the opposite in fact. I know that Darwin didn't publish in peer reviewed publications, my point was that he would almost certainly never have been accepted under peer review as he was kicking off basically a new branch of the natural sciences.

Roy.


----------



## Digit (4 Sep 2008)

This is what I was referring to Mike



> Cosmological constant
> 
> In theoretical physics, when Einstein originally tried to produce a general theory of relativity, he found that the theory seemed to predict the gravitational collapse of the universe: it seemed that the universe should either be expanding or collapsing, and in order to produce a model in which the universe was static and stable (which seemed to Einstein at the time to be the "proper" result), he introduced an expansionist variable (called the Cosmological Constant) whose sole purpose was to cancel out the cumulative effects of gravitation.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudge_factor

In other words he altered his ideas to fit. I'm not condemning him Mike nor anybody else nor science. I was attempting to show that had he not been generally accepted he would have had that alteration thrown at him and accusations of fraud. Nothing succeeds like success.
Checking I find that I was wrong about his employment, memory being what it is.

Roy.


----------



## tnimble (4 Sep 2008)

Mike Garnham":28i4jofy said:


> Roy,
> 
> you dismissed the "hockey stick" previously, I believe. Well, you may well be wrong......http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7592575.stm



If I may:



> A new study by climate scientists behind the controversial 1998 "hockey stick" graph suggests their earlier analysis was broadly correct.



The same people, saying their previous falsified work has some fault but not as a whole.



> Michael Mann's team analysed data for the last 2,000 years, and concluded that Northern Hemisphere temperatures now are "anomalously warm".



As I understand English correct, this is a very special team of scientists, would he be related to Methusalem or Dracula?



> Different analytical methods give the same result, they report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.



So different methods over the same set of data give the same result? Good for the methods but what about the data and are the two methods correct?



> ...




The above does not say anything about these sientists but it does on how the press reports. How the press reports about things has large influence on public and governmental view on a subject.

The same holds for educational books and other study materials. Presentation, simplyfing, ill writing, leaving out of things.


----------



## Digit (4 Sep 2008)

> How the press reports about things has large influence on public and governmental view on a subject.



Regrettably true. A National Geographic article posted on another forum that I post to stated that the Earth's climatic changes were due to changes in its orbit. Reading on, the article was clearly referring to the changes in the Earth's inclination.
The ensuing discussion on the forum showed that many either did not appreciate the difference or simply used the two words interchangeably.
There's nothing like a good sound bite it seems.
I see the picture of the Polar Bears stranded on a melting ice flow miles from land is another instance of people bending facts for a good headline.

Roy.


----------



## andycktm (4 Sep 2008)

Strange that money is involved,as ultimately this will be the 
thing that ends up causing the most damage.If we do infact 
have any effect on mother earth.


----------



## Rich (4 Sep 2008)

I can quite clearly see that I am out of my depth here, no shame in that, horses for courses, as they say, but WHAT about the OP.?

Regards,

Rich.


----------



## filsgreen (4 Sep 2008)

No shame in that Rich, I was out of my depth by about the third page :lol:


----------



## Digit (4 Sep 2008)

The original post died I think. 
What was it again?

Roy.


----------



## Rich (4 Sep 2008)

Well if I remember rightly it raised the question of wether teachers are competent enough to lecture on CC, reading the highbrows on this forum, I think not, and that's NOT being rude or derogatory to teachers at present, merely practical in my view.

Rich.


----------



## filsgreen (4 Sep 2008)

To quote Python " I think you've finished!"


----------



## Digit (4 Sep 2008)

Actually Rich the question was which version were they going to teach?

Roy.


----------



## Rich (4 Sep 2008)

filsgreen":3qrlefia said:


> To quote Python " I think you've finished!"



Okay, I can take a hint, :lol: 

Rich.


----------



## Smudger (5 Sep 2008)

Rich":1fmfje9t said:


> Well if I remember rightly it raised the question of wether teachers are competent enough to lecture on CC, reading the highbrows on this forum, I think not, and that's NOT being rude or derogatory to teachers at present, merely practical in my view.
> 
> Rich.



You are also utterly and completely wrong.

As I have said before, but no-one seems to have bothered to read it, preferring prejudice to knowledge, geography syllabi have included this for years, and geography teachers are very aware of climatological issues, which are taught at all levels.

Do I need to say it again?

I would really like to see a debate in which people speak from knowledge, rather than some half-baked supposition or something they vaguely remember someone saying.

I'm surprised that no-one has yet told us that the world will end next week when CERN turns on the Large Hadron Collider...


----------



## Digit (5 Sep 2008)

Well aware of the collider turn on Smudger, we mentioned it weeks/months ago when it was originally intended to fire it up.
The turn on also has nothing to do with the first run, apparently that is weeks away according to the scientific press.
A point here is the same as with CC, one group of, presumably qualified experts say 'we're doomed' and another, presumably equally qualified group say 'rubbish'!
You pays your money and takes your choice.
One thing I will say that I suspect NO one will be able to argue about, is that one group is going to be wrong!

Roy.


----------



## RogerS (5 Sep 2008)

Smudger":ekutinuk said:


> .
> 
> I'm surprised that no-one has yet told us that the world will end next week when CERN turns on the Large Hadron Collider...



We did, Dick, here :wink:

Well, maybe not 'end ' as such.......


----------



## Smudger (5 Sep 2008)

Digit":13lxoiq5 said:


> Well aware of the collider turn on Smudger, we mentioned it weeks/months ago when it was originally intended to fire it up.
> The turn on also has nothing to do with the first run, apparently that is weeks away according to the scientific press.
> A point here is the same as with CC, one group of, presumably qualified experts say 'we're doomed' and another, presumably equally qualified group say 'rubbish'!
> You pays your money and takes your choice.
> ...



No, no no no no.
A group of very adequately qualified scientists say it is probably very safe (proper science never allows for 100% certainty) and a load of know-nothing conspiracy theorists say it isn't.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/bigbang/asktheexpert.shtml

Not all opinions are equally valid...


----------



## Digit (5 Sep 2008)

> Not all opinions are equally valid...



Very true! So in CC which do you believe. As I said, you pays your money...

Roy.


----------



## Smudger (5 Sep 2008)

If you 'pays your money' - what does that mean? That it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, that you just choose the one that suits your preconceptions? Or do you actually LOOK at the weight of evidence and the science behind it, which is much harder?


----------



## Digit (5 Sep 2008)

> Or do you actually LOOK at the weight of evidence and the science behind it, which is much harder?



Have been since the 1970s, as I have posted on two occasions.
Also, as I have posted, in that period the same experts have gone from an ice age is around the corner to we are all going to fry, using much the same data.
I also posted that as well.


----------



## Smudger (5 Sep 2008)

So the 'scientists' (presumably climatologists) should have been 100% certain before they published? Never going to happen. And having come up with a theory they should never have tested or modified it? Abysmal science.

This is a straw man argument. You set a series of criteria which are impossible to meet and then decry the efforts of 'scientists' because they can't meet them. It's a common ploy, but not convincing.

By the way, which university or research institute were you doing your research at, since the 70s? 

Not being snotty, but one bloke doing a bit of reading is not the same as a major international scientific effort.


----------



## Digit (5 Sep 2008)

> So the 'scientists' (presumably climatologists) should have been 100% certain before they published?



Never suggested that.



> And having come up with a theory they should never have tested or modified it? Abysmal science.



Nor that!



> This is a straw man argument. You set a series of criteria which are impossible to meet and then decry the efforts of 'scientists' because they can't meet them. It's a common ploy, but not convincing.



Where did I do that?



> By the way, which university or research institute were you doing your research at, since the 70s?



See below.



> Not being snotty, but one bloke doing a bit of reading is not the same as a major international scientific effort.



Granted, so the next best is to at least read some of their reports. Anything else?


----------



## Smudger (5 Sep 2008)

I give in.


----------



## tnimble (5 Sep 2008)

Indeed, following their research, reader some (all would be almost impossible) of their report and following whats picked up by media and politics is not he same as doing the actual research, but it does make you knowledgeable of what's going on, how things are represented and what's chanings over the years.

What's for sure is that the climate is changing, what's also for sure is that the last couple of decades our climate has been politically debated and measures ibeen taken. What is also noticeable is that for these decades they have not been concerned for the same scenerio nor for the same causes. They have made U turns and jumped from bandwagon to bandwagon.

In science there will always be groups that have different theories which can fully contradict each other, but both theories are sound. However one or neither theories may reflect the actual situation present in real live.


About CERN, we have little idea what is going to happen after taking the facility operational. This does not mean when it's 'switched on' he thing may explode, the world converted into a black hole or anything ehrm stupid like that. If all is successful and operation we will be able to do tests at levels not possible before. We can try to verify some theories, we might be able the generate (reveal would be a better word) particles we had no knowledge of that they could exist. (not to brag or anything but my work a few years back was on the data acquisition unit for a exit port measurement device for one of the experiments goi to be performed.)


----------



## MikeG. (5 Sep 2008)

Guys,

this isn't the first particle accelerator in the world!! This has all been done before on a smaller scale (and therefore slower speed). They aren't guessing here, you know!

Mike


----------



## andycktm (5 Sep 2008)

Man creates Black Hole........... :roll: 
beam me up Scotty :lol: :lol:


----------



## Rich (5 Sep 2008)

Smudger, if it's already part of the geography syllabi, why bring it into the national curriculum when the kids already have enough to worry themselves with, does that mean a degree in CC?, I personally can't see the benefit of yet another subject to have to worry about that is most unlikely to get them a position of employment, far better to concentrate on the 3rs, once you have THOSE under your belt, the rest is easy.

Rich.


----------



## adzeman (6 Sep 2008)

I am with Rich on this one but can I ask the original question again aimed at any teachers out there who may be teaching this subject? What will you be teaching on this subject? How are you going to cover it?


----------



## Smudger (6 Sep 2008)

Geography KS2

Geography KS3

Science KS3

Science KS4


----------



## Digit (6 Sep 2008)

> The teaching of climate change and global warming in schools is dogged by "omission, simplification and misrepresentation", leading scientists have claimed.
> 
> Richard Pike, the chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry, is calling for a review group to help look at how the issues should be tackled in the classroom - and avoid flawed presentations to pupils.


----------



## Rich (6 Sep 2008)

Digit":1hlmytcz said:


> > The teaching of climate change and global warming in schools is dogged by "omission, simplification and misrepresentation", leading scientists have claimed.
> >
> > Richard Pike, the chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry, is calling for a review group to help look at how the issues should be tackled in the classroom - and avoid flawed presentations to pupils.



What say you now Smudger? I don't ask this because I am trying to get your back up or anything like that, but as a parent, who with one lad in 6th form and the other 2 years behind, what's the point of making it part of the NC, Has Ed balls nothing better to do?

Regards,

Rich.


----------



## tnimble (6 Sep 2008)

Having CC as part of the NC is something different than having it in a topic within for instance science when appropiate. I do find it good if they review the classes thought by teachers (applies for any subject) to improve on the quality and correctness. If put on the NC (why the hell in the first place) what is it going to be about? The causes of CC (what version), the mechanisms in our climate (would be a bit advanced I believe), how to counter CC and improve our environment (very very bad in my view (propeganda springs to mind)).


----------



## Digit (6 Sep 2008)

Having slogged my way through Smudger's links Christian I feel that the scope is far too large for any in depth learning. Whether that is good or bad I know not.

Roy.


----------



## Peter T (7 Sep 2008)

In teaching CC, I wonder how teachers will explain why our wonderful government has refused to abolish parking changes at hospitals because it would be "Contrary to the government's climate change objectives".

You couldn't make it up!!


----------



## Digit (7 Sep 2008)

> You couldn't make it up!!



How true!

Roy.


----------



## Smudger (7 Sep 2008)

Digit":3e7did91 said:


> Having slogged my way through Smudger's links Christian I feel that the scope is far too large for any in depth learning. Whether that is good or bad I know not.
> 
> Roy.



Can't win, can we?

Give the teachers a bit of credit, eh?


----------



## Digit (7 Sep 2008)

> Give the teachers a bit of credit, eh?



Where exactly in my statement was any form of anti teacher remark?
Try reading it again with perhaps a more open mind Dick!
I questioned the breadth of the curriculum did I not, and also admitted that I was undecided whether that breadth was good or bad.
Where was there _any_ criticism of teachers?

Roy.


----------

