Farmed fish?

tazzymtb – Member
Whales, there's loads of the f*ckers and they're dead smug, all they do is swim around and fart out of the top of their heads and everybody loves 'em. They've got it comming I tell ya!

They taste good too. The Japanese have an ongoing research programme. Many of their leading scientists are in consensus about this.

epicyclo- has their menu had a peer review?

They are the experts, we have just got to take their word on it. Our palates are not refined enough to appreciate the full flavour.

Tazzy,

Surely that would be a pier review?

Kramer,

You ask a reasonable question "what else is running out?"

I give a reasonable answer "fish"

You have another go at showing me, and everyone else, that you really are stupid.

epicyclo,

A while back you said

I was hoping for a simple and reasonable answer to my questions that a simple but reasonable person would accept.

I manage to answer a question in one word, and apparently that's still not quite simple enough for you?

rightplacerighttime,

I was impressed by how little energy you used to condense the answer into an abbreviation. Alas, I failed to understand the latter part being alternately lazy, simple, or a goldfish…

I must commiserate that you have to deal with so many stupid people on this forum, it's amazing they can even write, let alone earn a living. Still it is a comfort to me to know that I have a peer group.

I envisage you pedalling your cycle powered generator to power a flickering screen, shivering because the power generated should be going to heating your leaky ethical home made of natural materials all found within walking distance, instead of having to waste it thumping your religion* beliefs into the heads of so many idiots and goldfish. Indeed a prophet is without honour in his own country.

It would be cruel of me to deprive you of your hot air in such weather, so just to provide you with some comfort in these disastrous times, I'm off to make a carbon free journey on my bike. I will dress lightly because maybe if I have faith, global warming will happen for me too.

* You said it was too complex to understand for us foolish and ignorant types, therefore if we are to accept it, it can only be on a basis rooted in faith. I think that's how religions work. Ignore the anomalies, and trust in god/Allah/Thor, and yes the priesthood is above reproach.

I meant the "fish" answer.

MTFUYYSA isn't a word.

And my answer – 'farmed fish' would suggest my alternative to the fish that are running out. We're only just starting to explore the potential of the sea for intensive farming to feed the world.

What do you think they feed farmed fish?

Which species of fish do you think can be farmed?

Which species of fish are currently farmed with no knock-on ecological problems?

+1 for prety much everything rightplace is saying though I cant be @rsed with them anymore

Epi you said

Assertions, consensus, complicated graphs etc don't do that job, they just confuse

and then

You said it was too complex to understand for us foolish and ignorant types

😯
As said then if you dont understand best listen to someone who does. There is near universal acceptance* of global warming these days and doubters are generally at the margins of science.

and why the religous references ?
*debate in science is a good thing as long as it is informed and has evidence and data and graphs and other confusing things to back it up.Invective is worthless.

As said then if you dont understand best listen to someone who does. There is near universal acceptance* of global warming these days and doubters are generally at the margins of science.

and why the religous references ?
*debate in science is a good thing as long as it is informed and has evidence and data and graphs and other confusing things to back it up.Invective is worthless.

As mentioned before, there is a huge incentive in scientists who look at global warming to actually find it, and very little incentive in disproving it. A significant number of people find this disturbing, because it is not a situation that is conducive to conducting good science. As you admit yourself, the people who debate it are on the margins, probably because if you do debate it, that is where you find your career, no matter how good your science.

FWIW, this phenomenon is not limited to climate change, it is also occurring in particle physics, and has been happening in medicine for years.

The reference to religion is that there becomes a time when a theory ceases to be a theory, and starts to become dogma – sacred and unchallengeable, beyond debate. Some might say that this is what has happened with global warming.

There are parallels with the Millenium Bug here…

Kramer – Member
….There are parallels with the Millenium Bug here…

I was excoriated for being an unbeliever in that too 🙂

there is a huge incentive in scientists who look at global warming to actually find it, and very little incentive in disproving it.

People on your side of the argument keep saying this, but I really don't get it.

What are the incentives to scientists for proving global warming?

BTW, you can forget my fish questions if you like. Lets concentrate on this.

Global warming has become a huge industry in itself – lots of funding, a great area to make a name for yourself. If you help disprove it, that funding disappears because nowhere near as many global warming scientists are needed for a problem that isn't there. It's fairly simple economics, part of the madness of crowds.

1. Who are the mysterious people/organisatiom that have persuaded the world scientists in a number of divergent fields to manipulate their divergent data to suggests the world is heating up ?
2. how have themanaged to contirl all this data nd make it look like it is heating up when it is not?
3. What exactly is their purpose for doing this?

PS

If you help disprove it, that funding disappears

Not for you it does not. You are world famous, a Noble winner able to work where you want and command money for reseach just by your name, you would be intelectually and academically without equal …yeah why would any scientist want that eh? 🙄

Similarly the 'simpler life' becomes much less attractive when one has no choice about living it.

Well we'd better get used to it… it's coming, possibly sooner than you think. Unless you know a way to make more oil?

As for global warming and energy efficiency being some sort of meal ticket for the people who promote it, maybe in some cases (although I doubt Al Gore would be homeless if he hadn't gone on to become and environmental crusader). But as a whole the amount of money pumped into alternative technologies and "green" research is tiny, and has been for many years.

In who's interests (other than a few wind turbine manufacturers) would it be to invent global warming?

And on the flip side, in who's interests (other than the oil companies) would it be to show that there was no global warming?

rightpalcerightime- "pier review" LOL, sheer genius 😀

Let's take another tack.

Assuming global warming is true, why are we concentrating purely on its negative attributes?

There are many potential benefits for this country.

I have lived in warmer climates – it's better. Really! Less old folk die from hypothermia each year.

The sea level may rise a bit, but we have time to prepare for that, and the resulting engineering projects would provide an incredible economic stimulus for this country. Even if it rose a lot, there is more than sufficient land for the population.

Our climate would become Mediterranean, so think of the CO2 no longer emitted by Brits heading overseas for a bit of sun cancer.

You might need to consider the effect of the removal of the gulf stream/mid atlantic drift and get your head round the fact that global warming will more likely make our wonderful isle cooler…its why it is more acurately termed climate change.

Keep digging 😆

1. Who are the mysterious people/organisatiom that have persuaded the world scientists in a number of divergent fields to manipulate their divergent data to suggests the world is heating up ?
2. how have themanaged to contirl all this data nd make it look like it is heating up when it is not?
3. What exactly is their purpose for doing this?

As I said in my post, it's not a conspiracy, it's part of the madness of crowds and a function of unintended consequences.

Not for you it does not. You are world famous, a Noble winner able to work where you want and command money for reseach just by your name, you would be intelectually and academically without equal …yeah why would any scientist want that eh?

But in the current scientific climate that wouldn't happen, you'd be ridiculed and castigated, and your funding would dry up. You'd have to be exceptionally powerful to be able to survive that.

The same thing happens to particle physicists who propose working on something other than 'M' theory (or whatever the latest iteration is).

You have an answer for everything but it has no weight, meaning or evidence.
Madness of crowds – wishy washy specious phrase
Unintended consequences – not even a law or principle
It would have to be a conspiracy by definition as it clearly involves a

huge industry

decieving the world for some ill defined aim. I suggest you google what one is*
A cabal of powerful scientist who cannot be swayed with evidence and they can make your funding dry up if you voice opinions counter to theirs. I think you could get some support from the carbon heavy industries [oil, motor, construction]to help with funding.
Just more unsubstantiated assertions to support your view.

Each to their own.

*Conspiracy (civil), an agreement between persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights, or to gain an unfair advantage

Keramer – the "no global warming" side of the debate has plenty of funding from the oil companies and if anyone gets good evidence teh oil companies will fall over themselves to fund them

For example a very quick google gave http://www.desmogblog.com/oil-companies-funding-friends-of-science

Unintended consequences are a well described phenomenon in economics, which is when an action has unforeseen consequences.

The Madness of Crowds is a little vaguer I admit, but it refers to the situation where a large group of people act in a way that would be illogical on an individual basis, mostly because they are going with what everyone else is doing – again a well described behavioural phenomenon in economics.

Once again, just because I'm arguing against your position, if you don't understand what I'm trying to say, please ask for me to simplify it for you, and I will happily do so, rather than trying to claim that it has no meaning – poor debating tactics do neither you, nor yourself any favours.

Tandem Jeremy – I agree, and because of their association with the oil companies, their opinions are rightly regarded as tainted, but it doesn't automatically follow that there is no truth to what they're saying.

Junkyard – was the recent sub-prime bubble a conspiracy then?

I do understand what you are saying so please do not patronise me or suggest your argument is beyond my grasp i just think it has no relevance.
I think we have reached the point of arguing for the sake of it so I am out.
At least we did not insult each other we ae really letting STW down 😉

Junkyard, Reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy does not indicate a conspiracy, it simply indicates a fundamental limitation with how observational science is applied, ie. that we form a theory then look for evidence to support it, rather than looking at the evidence then drawing a conclusion.

There are many areas where we prop up the scientific orthodox, a good example being vivisection, its very difficult to validate a replacement, due to the complexity of the model, along with the sheer amount of established experience, knowledge and data formed within the orthodox, which means that the benchmark for reliable validation is remarkably high.

In just the same way as in the era of Galileo, anyone who questions Anthropogenic warming is labelled a heretic, the mails released from CRU prove that there was a deliberate effort to undermine and remove "problematic" opponents of the established science – to restrict their access to data, to remove them from the peer review process, and even to remove them from their positions within universities.

That, quite simply, is not the process of a robust and valid scientific process.

In just the same way as in the era of Galileo, anyone who questions Anthropogenic warming is labelled a heretic

Yeah anyone who questions Anthropogenic warming is arrested for heresy. Like that Telegraph blogger.

Also in science, it's quite normal for just about everyone to be in agreement, until one of the outsiders comes up with something that changes the status quo.

One of the problems with science in general these days is the system of patronage that exists in academia, and the way that this is the method for allocating funding to up and coming trainees.

Junkyard, apologies for the patronising, would have been better to use the word clarify rather than simplify. In my defence it's been a long day, and my brain isn't working too well.

grumm – that's not what he was saying.

Kramer again we are letting the STW side down with intelligent unabusive debate – no offence taken.

I do have some sympathy with your/z-11 general position in terms of the limits of scientific methodology, the nature of change and your general view of science/funding.
Clearly something we all take as gospel at the minute will be proved to be nonsense – possibly lots of it even. I am just not convinced that that issue is global warming.