2030 fossil fuel ban costs in the UK

Status
Not open for further replies.
The paper is by a locum General Practitioner (medical doctor)
dated April 11th 1998

The references cited by the paper are dated
1. 1997
2. 1993
3. 1997
4. 1996
5. 1995
 
It is easy to get onto the OSS website to see the data on "31000 scientists say no evidence for global warming"
Just click on the link provided. Not hidden at all.

Of the 31000
10,102 were engineers
3,046 were in medicine
2.965 were in biology, biochemistry or agriculture
4,822 in chemistry or chemical engineering

Only 12 % (3720) indicated they have affiliation with atmosphere, earth and environmental science.

No Indication on how many work in the field of environmental science.

The summary of the OSS article is that 97% of working climate scientists say the temperature is rising
and human activity is a significant contributory factor

Again rather old data from 2009

The OSS web site is operated by Montreal's McGill University to debunk pseudo-scientific myths and
improve scientific literacy.
 
Staytite said:
It is easy to get onto the OSS website to see the data on "31000 scientists say no evidence for global warming"
Just click on the link provided. Not hidden at all.

Of the 31000
10,102 were engineers
3,046 were in medicine
2.965 were in biology, biochemistry or agriculture
4,822 in chemistry or chemical engineering

Only 12 % (3720) indicated they have affiliation with atmosphere, earth and environmental science.

No Indication on how many work in the field of environmental science.

The summary of the OSS article is that 97% of working climate scientists say the temperature is rising
and human activity is a significant contributory factor

Again rather old data from 2009

The OSS web site is operated by Montreal's McGill University to debunk pseudo-scientific myths and
improve scientific literacy.
Click to expand...
I found it easy also it just didn't share for me
 
Staytite said:
It is easy to get onto the OSS website to see the data on "31000 scientists say no evidence for global warming"
Just click on the link provided. Not hidden at all.

Of the 31000
10,102 were engineers
3,046 were in medicine
2.965 were in biology, biochemistry or agriculture
4,822 in chemistry or chemical engineering

Only 12 % (3720) indicated they have affiliation with atmosphere, earth and environmental science.
Click to expand...

Usually, to qualify as a 'scientist', one has to possess a PhD in one of the sciences, and be engaged in a research capacity in that science. This paper reduces to an opinion of all except the 12% engaged in the atmosphere, earth and environmental sciences, and of those, only ones who hold a PhD are relevant.

Slick

I am a scientist in aerodynamics, but that does not qualify me to give professional testimony re: global climate change. My opinion: the climate has changed significantly several times over recorded history, and perhaps hundreds of times over the past hundred millenia. The question one does not need to be a scientist to ask...... why should it stop changing now?
Next question .... is man's activity driving the change? Obviously, it did not millennia ago, so why now? Well perhaps it is not driving it now, but is it contributing to it? Most likely, that activity IS contributing ..... next question HOW MUCH? .... is it significant? To my knowledge, there has been NO scientific paper that has put a number on it ..... If that number is 2%, there is no need to worry about it, because nature is in control. If it is 20%, there is cause for concern, but Nature is still the dominant force. If it is 50%, then the alarm raised by the global climate change advocates is valid, and man should curtail his contribution. But until that number is FIRMLY established, I refuse to support the draconian measures that are advocated. Especially a tax that raises billons, or perhaps trillions, and will line the pockets of some global elitists who will throw a few hundred million (chump change) at the problem to justify such a tax. With a cash cow like that, do you think they will WANT to solve the problem?
 
Last edited:
KiwiShane said:
Agenda 20/30
Unsustainable greeny looney logic at work with no peer reviewed viability studies to back up their crap....
If Tawain falls not only will electric vehicles be affected ...gasoline powered vehicles will be too...plus we will all struggle to be able to get a new fridge or any other smart electric appliance ...(another supply chain issue coming)...Unless of course you get it from Chyna ....Our current government is also subsidizing ev sales with our tax money at a time when they need to pull the purse strings tight...and once people realize they are not just incompetent and wake up to the fact they want to crush the working man to become more dependent on...you guessed it....the bloody government 🙃
Click to expand...
We is woke and paranoid. So do not worry. Ddl
 
texasSlick said:
Usually, to qualify as a 'scientist', one has to possess a PhD in one of the sciences, and be engaged in a research capacity in that science. This paper reduces to an opinion of all except the 12% engaged in the atmosphere, earth and environmental sciences, and of those, only ones who hold a PhD are relevant.

Slick

I am a scientist in aerodynamics, but that does not qualify me to give professional testimony re: global climate change. My opinion: the climate has changed significantly several times over recorded history, and perhaps hundreds of times over the past hundred millenia. The question one does not need to be a scientist to ask...... why should it stop changing now?
Next question .... is man's activity driving the change? Obviously, it did not millennia ago, so why now? Well perhaps it is not driving it now, but is it contributing to it? Most likely, that activity IS contributing ..... next question HOW MUCH? .... is it significant? To my knowledge, there has been NO scientific paper that has put a number on it ..... If that number is 2%, there is no need to worry about it, because nature is in control. If it is 20%, there is cause for concern, but Nature is still the dominant force. If it is 50%, then the alarm raised by the global climate change advocates is valid, and man should curtail his contribution. But until that number is FIRMLY established, I refuse to support the draconian measures that are advocated. Especially a tax that raises billons, or perhaps trillions, and will line the pockets of some global elitists who will throw a few hundred million (chump change) at the problem to justify such a tax. With a cash cow like that, do you think they will WANT to solve the problem?
Click to expand...
How very dare you try and bring objectivity and logic into the debate sir…

That’s SO last century…

;)
 
I was a fan of hydrogen till I read this. Now I can only imagine them coming after my bikes to convert them to fuel for somebodys Toyota. :p :oops:

energy.mit.edu

Using aluminum and water to make clean hydrogen fuel—when and where it’s needed

In brief MIT researchers have produced practical guidelines for generating hydrogen using scrap aluminum and water. First, they obtained specially fabricated samples of pure aluminum and aluminum alloys designed to replicate the types of scrap aluminum typically available from recycling sources...
energy.mit.edu energy.mit.edu
 
texasSlick said:
Usually, to qualify as a 'scientist', one has to possess a PhD in one of the sciences, and be engaged in a research capacity in that science. This paper reduces to an opinion of all except the 12% engaged in the atmosphere, earth and environmental sciences, and of those, only ones who hold a PhD are relevant.

Slick

I am a scientist in aerodynamics, but that does not qualify me to give professional testimony re: global climate change. My opinion: the climate has changed significantly several times over recorded history, and perhaps hundreds of times over the past hundred millenia. The question one does not need to be a scientist to ask...... why should it stop changing now?
Next question .... is man's activity driving the change? Obviously, it did not millennia ago, so why now? Well perhaps it is not driving it now, but is it contributing to it? Most likely, that activity IS contributing ..... next question HOW MUCH? .... is it significant? To my knowledge, there has been NO scientific paper that has put a number on it ..... If that number is 2%, there is no need to worry about it, because nature is in control. If it is 20%, there is cause for concern, but Nature is still the dominant force. If it is 50%, then the alarm raised by the global climate change advocates is valid, and man should curtail his contribution. But until that number is FIRMLY established, I refuse to support the draconian measures that are advocated. Especially a tax that raises billons, or perhaps trillions, and will line the pockets of some global elitists who will throw a few hundred million (chump change) at the problem to justify such a tax. With a cash cow like that, do you think they will WANT to solve the problem?
Click to expand...
Slick whilst I agree with your overall point, I’m not sure I agree that a scientists opinion is entirely invalid because they‘re in a different field.

Being trained in the scientific process allows you to interrogate and understand scientific papers and at least ascertain whether or not the hypothesis, and hypothesis tests, are sound and soundly conducted and presented.
 
One problem is that too much 'science' has become tainted by taking the government shilling. When you think, "oh that is at best a small minority" think again. How many of us have any faith in any government after the last three years? One step further, how many of us trust 'science' at this point?
Sadly, not I.
 
Onder said:
One problem is that too much 'science' has become tainted by taking the government shilling. When you think, "oh that is at best a small minority" think again. How many of us have any faith in any government after the last three years? One step further, how many of us trust 'science' at this point?
Sadly, not I.
Click to expand...
Which is part of my point. Someone trained in scientific thinking would easily spot and weed out such biased fake science.

The bigger problem IMHO is that we, the public, are generally not trained like that. Plus we don’t see the actual papers. We simply get bombarded with biased headlines pushing the biased fake science. All this does is make half of the population concede and think ‘well it must be true’ and the other half, who instinctively ‘smell a rat’ rail against it and develop ‘conspiracy theories’.

Its one of my strong beliefs that the best thing we could do for humanity, and the planet, is to start teaching kids critical, logical thinking and problem solving skills. Sadly, IMHO the education system (on the whole) is terrible at this.
 
Yes but. The but is that scientific journals have become politicised and they now are not as reliable as they once were. If this is lost not too much you can do. Data first, conclusions next, not the back to front approach.
The yes part is the very basis of what was the 'liberal education' the ability to do the old a+b=c routine. Now it is back to a faith
based system which didn't end well back in the early 1500's.
I guess I have some hope that enough young people can smell BS as well as we can and the ship of state will get its course corrected when enough people feel the pain of foolish policies.
 
I don’t think the education system was much better in recent history was it?

I’m ‘only’ 54 but even my classroom days were spent looking at the back of the teacher as they wrote stuff out on the blackboard that we copied down.

Zero learning in that process !!

But then again, where I grew up 99% of lads like me were either going down the pit, or into hosiery factories.

I guess the education system elite had concluded that you simply don’t have to be taught much in those circumstances…
 
As much as I hated The Nuns I arrived a age 17 with enough tools in my box to survive the next ten years of seriously misspent
youth and with the ability to recover to go on to finish a BA and after five more misdirected years another degree to enable me to get a job for which I was not educated for but was able to learn just fast enough to keep my position. It was the basic three R's
which made the difference. So the chalk and blackboard with the black and white habits of Sister Merciless somehow did it.
 
I’d guess that applies to most on this forum, we’ve all survived with at least enough to be able to waste money on old Nortons!

But I still think it (education) would benefit hugely from the additional focus I mentioned.
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie said:
Which is part of my point. Someone trained in scientific thinking would easily spot and weed out such biased fake science.

The bigger problem IMHO is that we, the public, are generally not trained like that. Plus we don’t see the actual papers. We simply get bombarded with biased headlines pushing the biased fake science. All this does is make half of the population concede and think ‘well it must be true’ and the other half, who instinctively ‘smell a rat’ rail against it and develop ‘conspiracy theories’.

Its one of my strong beliefs that the best thing we could do for humanity, and the planet, is to start teaching kids critical, logical thinking and problem solving skills. Sadly, IMHO the education system (on the whole) is terrible at this.
Click to expand...
This is the nail squarely on the head
Who do you believe?
The mainstream media are incapable of telling the truth
For every theory there is a counter theory
Who do we believe?
When I was at school the hot topic was how long will oil last
My teacher estimated 30 years tops and that was in 1972
 
baz said:
This is the nail squarely on the head
Who do you believe?
The mainstream media are incapable of telling the truth
For every theory there is a counter theory
Who do we believe?
When I was at school the hot topic was how long will oil last
My teacher estimated 30 years tops and that was in 1972
Click to expand...
When I was at school the collective body of knowledge reliably informed us that we were on the verge of entering a man made ice age…
 
Fast Eddie said:
When I was at school the collective body of knowledge reliably informed us that we were on the verge of entering a man made ice age…
Click to expand...
There were many predictions back then that thankfully still haven't come to fruition "yet"
 
Fast Eddie said:
Slick whilst I agree with your overall point, I’m not sure I agree that a scientists opinion is entirely invalid because they‘re in a different field.

Being trained in the scientific process allows you to interrogate and understand scientific papers and at least ascertain whether or not the hypothesis, and hypothesis tests, are sound and soundly conducted and presented.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct, FE! In fact, for 10 years of my professional career, the principal part of my job was to read scientific papers and separate the wheat from the chaff.
I once took about 200 papers, and reduced them to about a dozen that had merit. We can extrapolate that to papers in other fields of science.
Onder said:
Yes but. The but is that scientific journals have become politicised and they now are not as reliable as they once were. If this is lost not too much you can do. Data first, conclusions next, not the back to front approach.
The yes part is the very basis of what was the 'liberal education' the ability to do the old a+b=c routine. Now it is back to a faith
based system which didn't end well back in the early 1500's.
I guess I have some hope that enough young people can smell BS as well as we can and the ship of state will get its course corrected when enough people feel the pain of foolish policies.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct, Onder! Follow the money..... the politically compliant scientific researcher gets the grant.

Slick
 
Fast Eddie said:
Its one of my strong beliefs that the best thing we could do for humanity, and the planet, is to start teaching kids critical, logical thinking and problem solving skills. Sadly, IMHO the education system (on the whole) is terrible at this.
Click to expand...
I agree 100 % with your last sentience. Here in the U S of A a lot of politicians are pushing the exact opposite philosophy by limiting access to information and ideas in public schools.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top