The Stand- By demon

[Mary Fisher]

...

I don't need to have faith!

...

Not clever enough to spell plausible.

[Mary Fisher]

...

Other shiny unnecessary things :-(

Mary

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:41:57 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry wrote this:-

Incorrect. The CEGB carried out the test, using a locomotive and coaches they had bought from BR for their scrap value. The test was carried out on the BR Old Dalby test track and the CEGB paid for the use of that and certain modifications to be made to it. These modifications consisted largely of making the trackwork alterations to provide a site for the crash, providing a means of stopping the test train if necessary using AWS magnets and the grandstand.

Incorrect. There was a claim was that the bolts holding the engine to the floor had been deliberately weakened, so that the engine would fly up in the air and thus the test was invalid. I can't recall who made that claim, but it was incorrect.

Incorrect. They made a mistake with a set of calculations. When they found out about it they immediately called a press conference and told the press what the mistake was, failing to open a valve as I recall.

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:12:11 +0000 someone who may be Frank Lee Speke-King wrote this:-

It is entirely possible that the different computer models are correct.

It is also entirely possible that there was no collusion or wanting to get the "right" answer.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Mary, hang yourself, reduce your needs to zero, and save the planet, and do us all a favour ;-)

[Frank Lee Speke-King]

There is a fine line between colluding to get acceptable results, and 'tweaking' one's model to get similar answers for climate change to everyone else's. Both are scientifically dishonest.

And to spend a trillion bucks based on this is also dishonest.

[Frank Lee Speke-King]

That's a laudable aim for all of us. But the dishonest part is for the politicians to force us to do that, on an unproved agenda that links it with global warming and which may have more to do with one man's 'legacy' now that the war in Iraq and the warren turr have failed.

[Andy Hall]

Is that it?

The burden of proof would need to be a lot stronger than "entirely possible" to persuade that there is a political and economic justification to do anything

In the short to medium term, the only things that will make a difference are

a) sell a bill of goods to the gullible - the guilt/feel good sell.

b) poltical capital/money to be made by governments

c) money to be made in the commercial marketplace.

For b) and c) there will be first of all the amenable punter who will respond on an emotional basis and do or buy something because it's the "right thing" This is not a big market.

The next step is to demonstrate genuine saving for a give technology - not in greeny terms but in terms of hard cash.

The final step is to convince the intelligent that the science is solid

*and* that there is a business case.

Until the last of these is satisfied, none of this is going anywhere in any meaningful way other than to convince the gullible that *something* (doesn't matter what) is being done and they can sleep soundly at night. The argument that if I satisfy myself with less it must be a good thing for mankind as a whole.

That is not a lot more convincing than argument (a).

[Andy Hall]

If it were based on sound evidence, possibly

You don't mean Dubya, do you?

Previous US presidents have always built a library. The trouble here is that there are only so many Janet and John books.

[Mary Fisher]

Nobody is forcing us to do anything.

What unproved agenda are there?

I don't understand what that means.

[Frank Lee Speke-King]

Not really, it does make sense to become more energy-efficient as technology allows; that has nothing to do with climate change in itself. The drawback is the linking of that with climate change that we must spend a trillion bucks to deal with.

I was thinking of his lap-dog....

ROFL!

[John Rumm]

Bit of proof reading from your "garage rood" I suppose?

(why is it that whenever you lose the plot on a discussion you move onto spelling?)

[Andy Hall]

Preacher's argument.

Weak point, therefore shout and bash lecturn to distract the punters.

Spelling is not hugely important as long as the meaning is conveyed in a non ambiguous way.

I spend a lot of my time communicating with people whose first language isn't English (Americans - that kind of thing :-) ) Seriously, though, I have come to a realisation of how tough a language it is to learn and use because of all of the inconsistencies of pronunciation.

Think about:

- cough

- through

- though

- slough (place)

- slough (skin)

- plough

All of this is before you get to parts of the country where people have a speech impediment (i.e. north of Solihull).

[Mary Fisher]

Don't you have a rood on your garage?

I haven't lost a plot. Nor even the discussion. You were the one who claimed to be clever.

[Peter Parry]

Are these not the same models (differently tweaked of course) which in the 1980's predicted the coming of a new ice age

[John Rumm]

Don't even have a garage... rood or otherwise

I think it was you who accused me of being clever... As for spelling, (which apparently neither of us can do) it can't be related to how clever one is can it?

[Brian Sharrock]

IIRC; it was in the early~mid seventies; salesmen from double-glazing, roof insulation, cavity wall insulators and such suppliers were distributing leaflets warning of the on-coming ice-age ... Tomorrows World / Panorama / Horizon / even Blue-Peter featured the awfulness of the future .... :)

[Andy Hall]

20 years..... Hmm.... isn't this the life cycle of some of these things, at least in people's minds.

I wonder when we'll see the first air conditioner powered by a roof top windmill?

[Frank Lee Speke-King]

Perhaps you haven't been hit yet with the bludgeon of the Building Regs, complete with official snoopers paid to ensure your compliance.

The 'evidence' for carbon-dioxide linked global warming is far less certain than the evidence for previous episodes of climate-change; none of which was human-activity related. So why should we spend a trillion bucks to try and avoid something that isn't the result of what they are saying causes it? Even Blair said in his speech at the launch of the Blair-commissioned Stern report, "....if the science is right...".

That's a flaky base to spend a trillion bucks on.

Tony Blair wants a legacy. It was going to be his sorting out of Afghanistan, but that kinda went belly-up so he went for Iraq. That went belly-up too, so he's gone for Afghanistan again, but it's kinda gone belly-up again. The NHS computer scheme is a disaster; few people want his expensive ID card scheme; the immigration scheme is a shambles; no-one believes in his war on terror (warren turr as his master pronounces it), so he's gone for spending an astronomical sum on what is seen as a problem caused by something he believes he can tax out of existence. Judging by many commentaries on radio and TV, few people believe him on this, either.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Nothing clever about that - there inevitably will be another ice age. Just when is a different matter.