Today (1 December 2009) Professor Chris Rapley CBE, Director of the Science Museum and Professor of Climate Science at UCL said:
“More work needs to be done to convince people of the reality of human-induced climate change and of the urgency with which we must agree an international solution. Public organisations, like the Science Museum, have a responsibility to lay out the evidence and open up public discussion.”
He added:
“Over the past month the Science Museum has provided a channel for people to engage with the scientific evidence for climate change through a temporary exhibit and accompanying website called ‘Prove It!’. There is currently plenty of debate around climate change research and I believe it is important for the Science Museum to provide a means for people to engage with the issues. Prove It! has created a space for visitors, to the Museum and website, to consider the scientific evidence, come to their own conclusions and express their opinion. The indications from Prove It! are consistent with a recent Pew Centre survey and a 2007 Ipsos Mori poll: a large proportion of people do not believe in the reality of man-made climate change.
Furthermore, Professor Rapley said:
“The Science Museum is uniquely placed to engage with people about climate change, facilitating discussion and decision making based on evidence. I look forward to launching a new dedicated climate change gallery next June as the culmination of our Centenary year.”
The statement was made to coincide with the revealing of the results of a poll carried out by the Science Museum to tie in with the Prove It! project. The poll suggested that a significant number of people are not convinced by the evidence for man-made climate change so do not support strong action by the UK government at the forthcoming Copenhagen conference.
Prove It! remains open until January 2010 and is free to visit.
For further information please contact Andrew Marcus, Science Museum Press Office, on 020 7942 4357 / andrew.marcus@sciencemuseum.org.uk
OT The Daily Show can’t decide which side of the argument they are on – interesting
John Stewart and Daily Show
I didn’t take their silly poll but I did shoot off an note to them that this line at the beginning of their web climate change site put me off immediately given that it is demonstrably false: “Noticed anything different about the weather recently? Scientists now agree that global climate is changing – and humans are to blame”
Whatever that institution is, it is not scientific.
Possibly the good professor is a slow learner.
Doggy Geezer (07:11:11) :
”
On a seperate, though associated subject, I have just had a response from the UK Advertising Standards Agency.
These are the people you complain to if you believe an advert is wrong in some way. I was complaining about the Times’ advert indicating that the North East passage had been opened by Global Warming. …”
My first step would be to discover whether they had any legal standing to require it to be kept confidential. They are probably afraid of the bashing they’ll get if the global warming cabal hear.
AdderW (05:58:04) :
“Why isn’t Mr Mann making any statements? He definitely must have something to say?
I would like to here his excuses.”
Mr. Mann is busy hiding behind his university now and won’t come out to play.
Count me out as well. On to Copenhagen??
http://en.cop15.dk/
Clicking on “Climate Thoughts” (Lomborg has commented) affords anyone to comment on Copenhagen or express support for any thoughts already there. Note that commenter “Cancel Copenhagen” now has two supporters (me included), who give recent CRU revelations as a reason.
It would seem that the One World siren has (ouside my awareness anyhow) become more than a passing meme. Having entering the “Climate Thoughts” page, one is strangely unable to exit from it as there are no links back to reality. I had to hit Control / Alt / Delete.
Would that their proposed policies were so easily navigated.
This might seem off topic but I believe it is fundamental to understanding the religious beliefs of global warming zealots.
My background is economics. It is the bizarre obscuring of economics that raised my eyebrows over this whole thing. Why would the science museum have a page like this: http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/economics/growth_sustainable.aspx
Economist are perfectly capable of understanding the world is round and therefore finite but if asked the good economist will tell you there is no theoretical limits to economies… why?
Because unlike scientist who measure physical things economist measure benefit with our ruler of price. For example, an ecologist would have an important job to do to measure how much physical inputs go into producing the steak at the grocery store. Let’s say that the steak, packaged and ready for sale cost $10.00. An economist would measure 10. If the same steak was prepared by a chef, seasoned perfectly, paired with the right wine, in a softly lit restaurant with soothing music you might pay $100.00. Did the restaurant use any more electricity to cook the steak than you would have at home? The music was shared, the grills may be more efficient if used repeatedly and not have to allow for cooling and heating. I’ve just increased the price of the steak by tenfold without an increase in resources or energy or anything else.
I could keep this example going because another factor in price is preference. What if you prefer the steak rare but it’s cooked well done. More heat less benefit. How much does the carbon footprint change if the server is courteous and versus rude or the steak is delivered after ten minutes versus one hour.
Much of the new value in stock markets and business are not companies that make steaks or steal or physical resources. They are Microsoft, Google, Facebook and Ebay. These companies make us more efficient smarter, more connected and networked and have very little carbon footprint. In the case of Ebay we sell the same stuff back and forth over and over again. If not for transaction costs and taxes (and the fact that it would serve no purpose) we could sell each others stuff back and forth to each other for infinity increasing the numerical value of the economy but having no real benefit. The only carbon footprint would be in the transportation.
Innovations in health are tremendously valuable and have little carbon footprint either. Good economist understand these relationships well. However, some Enviro’s want you believe we just greedily watch the GDP numbers cheering growth and mindlessly thirsting for more physical goods.
Some ecologist assume that the way you increase the economy by ten is by making ten steaks and ten times the environmental impact and physical resources. They then wrongly extrapolate that it isn’t fair and that you should share your steaks… or not eat them at all.
It is correct to assume that economies need a base amount of physical inputs in the same way that people need calories in their food. Once these base needs are met the other luxuries I discussed can develop from that without necessarily incurring more environmental degradation. The spread of knowledge can actually reduce it.
If you can begin to understand the above relationships then you can start to understand how an easy way for countries to increase GDP per unit energy (or co2) is to incentivize computer and healthcare industries and ship their heavy industry to Africa. No change in energy efficiency or effect on the environment but the country might look like heros to the ill-informed.
There are some economist with PHD’s that do not understand this. Remarkably they all seem to work at the U.N.. This is also a key reason why so many economist like those of Cato and Heartland can see through the bizarre nature of so much of this even if they don’t start out understanding the science. By the way if you think John Holdren knows nothing about science you should know how perverted his views on economics are.
Unfortunately, my point about it being a bad thing for sceptics that the BNP leader is anti-AGW is already becoming apparent:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/dec/02/climate-denial-far-right
See how many straw men, gratuitous slurs and flat out lies we can spot in this piece by Bob Ward.
Bill Marsh (07:44:15) :
> Why do people insist on starting sentences with conjunctions?
But isn’t that exactly what conjunctions are for?
Just like using prepositions to end sentences with. 🙂
From their natural effects can’t be the cause of warming page.
How @ur momisugly%^&ing stupid do they think we are!?
Thank God for AGW is all I can say coz who knows how damned cold it could get without it!
DaveE.
jmbnf (10:45:05) :
This is a good point you make, and you have highlighted the fallacy of the Malthusian mindset. They believe that continued economic growth means more physical stuff is consumed, but they do not understand the concept of value added.
Your example of the steak at home versus the steak in the restaurant, is an example of value added. As economies grow wealthier, more meals will be consumed in restaurants, but the total quantity of stuff consumed would not necessarily increase. You can also take an iPod and work out that there is a huge amount of value added to the raw materials (silicon and plastic) compared to say a briefcase or a bicycle.
jmbnf (10:45:05) : So you went to the root of the issue. Ok. But what about carbon markets?, nothing will be produced, no goods at all. If you have a private land with trees somebody will come and give you a carbon credit, then, that somebody will sell that carbon share say at 10 times the price of the original carbon credit. That is chemically pure speculation, like pouring the empty into the void and make a big profit out of this. This simple operation will devaluate not only currencies but work itself. There will always be a differential, this translates into the following: Everybody will perpetually owe that “somebody” this “spread”. This is what the liberal revolution meant for the world since it was invented many years ago. but this time it will literally mean:
I owe my soul to the company store but to the Nth. power.
….and then we realized we have been turned into the “gamma” class.
However their compassion allow us to take some “soma” to forget and forgive.
Stephen Shorland (01:52:27) : “Thinking about my flyer design. (THIS BOARD COULD DO WITH A FAQ)!”
Second. At least a summary of talking points suitable for dissemination to friends, etc. A lot of propagandized people need to know the facts. I can remember most of the results of studies and summarized data, but there’s a lot to cover. I still think the deck of cards is a good idea.
hunter (05:05:46) :
Once people know it is OK to recognize that the Emperor has no clothes, it all comes together pretty quickly.”
And man-o-man, that is one ugly emperor!
Bill Marsh (07:44:15) : “Why do people insist on starting sentences with conjunctions?”
And why shouldn’t we?
“But sorft! Wot light through yonder winder breaks?” –Jakesbeer
Has anybody here actually been to the museum and seen who was punching the buttons? Could they push IN or OUT more than once? Did they do so?
Also, are the on-line results being shown in the museum exhibit?
Spence BC.
LOL. No innies here. We’re all outies here. Nice to be part of a group!
Bill Marsh (07:44:15) :
Why do people insist on starting sentences with conjunctions?
And just writing in fragmentary sentences, too.
Reply: Or being grammar nazis. ~ ctm
“If you think Britain should leave the EU, then by all means campaign for UKIP. But consider this. If Britain did leave the EU, the tariffs that would be erected against this country would be swift, brutal and crippling, for such is the spiteful mindset of these bureaucrats.”
So Britain should sell out its sovereignty for cheaper French wine?
SIGH.