Save the world, install an LPG tank.

[Jeremy Harris]

The idea of a conspiracy by scientists can only have been dreamt up by someone with no knowledge of the behaviour of scientists!  Getting scientists to collaborate on anything is damned difficult, and one reason that the few successful collaborations tend to attract media attraction.  One of the programmes I ran shortly before I retired was aimed at encouraging better collaboration within the same lab, as it was recognised that there was a strong tendency to not wish to work with others, a tendency that was hampering an interdisciplinary approach to research.  The process of peer review prior to publication encourages scientists to be as critical as possible when looking at the work of others, and builds  up a level of healthy scepticism, where there is virtually no implicit trust; everything has to be checked and proven to be valid before it's accepted.

 

As for young people protesting, then frankly protesting is cheap and easy.  Anyone can stand on a soapbox and be critical of others; what's needed is for dedicated people to get off their protest soapboxes and make the effort to get into government to bring about the changes they want.  That's nowhere near as easy as just creating sound bites for the media, as it takes hard work and dedication for years.

[epsilonGreedy]

9 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

As for young people protesting, then frankly protesting is cheap and easy.

 

 

True but what you omit is that it is often effective. Patrick Moore when reciting his 15 years at Greenpeace claims:

1. Within a year of protesting US atmospheric atomic bomb tests the US president at the time cancelled the rest of the test program.
2. The same for France following that protest.
3. Greenpeace then moved onto whales and seal culls and achieved similar spectacular global change.

The activists will hit a brick wall with energy policy because there are no easy wins. The 2050 co2 reduction targets are impossible to achieve and trying to move the target date to 2025 is lunacy.

[epsilonGreedy]

17 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

The idea of a conspiracy by scientists can only have been dreamt up by someone with no knowledge of the behaviour of scientists!

 

 

One thing I know about scientists is that they are human beings and we know a lot about how humans behave.

 

Scientists like fast cars and travel to exotic places, so offer a juicy big salary career position for on-message scientists and some will discover that message. Offer podium time at an international conference in Cancun for on-message papers and the result is new papers with appropriate discoveries.

 

Of more concern is the systematic hostility formulated at western universities against rebel academics, did you watch the video about the ousted physicist in Australia?

[Jeremy Harris]

17 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

One thing I know about scientists is that they are human beings and we know a lot about how humans behave.

 

Scientists like fast cars and travel to exotic places, so offer a juicy big salary career position for on-message scientists and some will discover that message. Offer podium time at an international conference in Cancun for on-message papers and the result is new papers with appropriate discoveries.

 

Of more concern is the systematic hostility formulated at western universities against rebel academics, did you watch the video about the ousted physicist in Australia?

 

Having spent ~35 years working in science I'd be the first to say that scientists are all different, with a few observations as to the sort of people that are attracted to a career in science.

 

Firstly, the pay is pretty poor.  People don't generally become scientists to earn a decent salary, most decide on a career in science because it's fascinating, probably one of the most interesting jobs going, as you have no way of knowing what may lie ahead.  As a consequence I'd say that the majority of scientists I knew weren't really interested in money.

 

Secondly, as a part of the programme we ran to try and understand why scientists were so reluctant to collaborate with each other, our psychologists (who were running this programme) found that ~75% of the thousand or so that we looked at in our lab were on the autistic spectrum.  I think we probably already knew that this might be the case, from anecdotal tales of behaviour, but having it confirmed did go some way towards explaining why collaboration was so difficult and also why communicating with non-scientists was often far less effective than it could be.

 

I'm not convinced that the offer of either money or fast cars would be that tempting to the majority, to be honest.  An offer of enhanced status over their peers would be more enticing, I'm sure, as we had far more heated debates about job titles than we ever did about pay.  As an example of just how daft the job title thing can get, before I shifted into management my job title was Senior Principal Scientific Officer.  Before that I'd been a Scientific Assistant, Scientific Officer, Higher Scientific Officer, Senior Scientific Officer, and Principal Scientific Officer, how mad is that?  I should add that as a PSO in the 1990s I was paid around £28k, so not exactly a high earner.

[epsilonGreedy]

17 hours ago, ProDave said:

So what DO you want?

 

You want us to take climate change seriously, but when we do and there are loads of wind farms you start complaining they are unreliable.

 

What is your proposal?  Back to the reduce the human population theory?  Who do you propose we start with?

 

I don't want further polarization of wealth globally and so far the thermogeddonists have triggered panic policy responses that have amplified polarization of wealth.

 

I propose we continue to refine the material and manufacturing science behind low co2 energy production so that if there comes a point in the next 100 years when the human race needs to control the climate we have the ability to do so.

 

What troubles me is that on current trajectories the global economy will be damaged while we attempt to implement impossible co2 reduction targets. If in that same period a true threat to humanity appears we will not have the spare capacity to respond, for example it we discover in the next 10 years that emulsified plastics in the oceans are triggering a collapse of ocean biology there won't be the $ trillions available to fund the clean up.

[epsilonGreedy]

46 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

Firstly, the pay is pretty poor.  People don't generally become scientists to earn a decent salary, most decide on a career in science because it's fascinating, probably one of the most interesting jobs going, as you have no way of knowing what may lie ahead.  As a consequence I'd say that the majority of scientists I knew weren't really interested in money.

 

 

You are basing your claim on a regional historic anomaly that existed in a scientific sector which is numerically minor from a global perspective. Climate Change is a gravy train even the "PA to the Director of Centre for Climate Change Engagement" at Cambridge University can expect £31k to £36k according to the current job advert.

 

The cost of a university education has gone up by multiple factors in the western world and this is reflected in salary and position inflation. In the US where professors sprout all over the place due to their different grading scheme here are the current average salary levels:

 

https://academicpositions.com/career-advice/phd-professor-and-postdoc-salaries-in-the-united-states

 

Assistant Professor $67,231 to $70,791

Associate Professor $75,284 to $81,274

Professor $93,830 to $104,820

 

Edited April 25, 2019 by epsilonGreedy

[Jeremy Harris]

Yes I was.  I lived and work in the UK for most of my career, and even when working overseas on detachment was paid the same UK salary, so naturally my experience is of science in the UK. 

 

Cherry picking high-level salaries from what is probably the highest paid country in the world is another "regional historic anomaly", isn't it?  How many scientists are ever going to become professors?  Out of the couple of thousand that worked in the last lab where I worked I think we had two associate professors, both of whom were paid less than I was (there's more money in management than there is in science, by a pretty large factor).

 

For many years I sat on one of the many interview panels we held each year as a part of our graduate recruitment programme, and over that time I did see modest increases in starting pay for new graduates.  Unfortunately I also saw a marked decline in general competence and literacy amongst new graduates, so much so that we moved our minimum acceptance criteria upwards, to sift out more candidates before the interview stage.  Whether the decline in educational standard was linked to the very large increase in the number of graduates over this period I cannot prove, but I strongly suspect that quantity has won out over quality.  I can also guess that commercial pressure in the higher education sector may have some bearing on this, too.

[epsilonGreedy]

41 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

Cherry picking high-level salaries from what is probably the highest paid country in the world is another "regional historic anomaly", isn't it?

 

 

Academia is an international market there will be leveling influences, a bit like medicine.

 

I had a quick look at Aus professor salaries they are similar to the US.

 

Also in the UK average prof salaries are higher, looking at this report and allowing for inflation the average is £70k to £80k. I imagine a senior academic aged 50 at a Russel Group uni is looking for £100k plus, so about the same as a GP which seems fair.

 

http://www.economic-policy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/996_Academic-Salaries-and-Public-Evaluation-of-University-Research.pdf

 

58 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

How many scientists are ever going to become professors?  Out of the couple of thousand that worked in the last lab where I worked I think we had two associate professors, both of whom were paid less than I was (there's more money in management than there is in science, by a pretty large factor).

 

 

There are 1/3 million tenured academics in the US and possibly 1.3 million if non tenured positions are included. You might need to adjust your perception of what professor means. British Universities have re-calibrated job titles to remain competitive with the US so there are many more profs about these days.

 

Anyhow back to the original theme, Climate Change is a gravy train that pays believers well and there are many non research positions. For example Canada sent 140 delegates to the big climate change shindig in Poland last year. Here is a single page of job titles pulled off their delegate list:

1. Negotiator - Indigenous Engagement Environment and Climate Change Canada Government of Canada
2. Minister Environment and Climate Change Strategy Government of British Columbia
3. Policy Analyst Environment and Climate Change Canada Government of Canada
4. Senior Policy Advisor, Pan-Canadian Framework Implementation Office Environment and Climate Change Canada Government of Canada
5. Negotiator - Technology Natural Resources Canada Government of Canada
6. President Native Women's Association of Canada
7. Communications Advisor Environment and Climate Change Canada Government of Canada
8. Assistant Deputy Minister, PCFIO (MLA Presenter) Environment and Climate Change Canada Government of Canada
9. Negotiator - Markets Environment and Climate Change Canada Government of Canada.

https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/PLOP.pdf

 

I doubt if more than a handful of the 140 Canadians could articulate the difference between proof by deduction v. proof by induction.

[Jeremy Harris]

Arguably any job or profession is in an international market, but, like any career, only a small minority ever choose to work outside their own country.  Academia isn't, by any stretch, the only, or even the most popular, choice for scientists, either.  In fact there's a well-known saying in labs outside of academia that goes "those that can do, those that can't teach", which tends to sum up the views of many scientists working outside academia.

 

Anyway, as far as the UK is concerned, climate science has been effectively part of government for years, as historically the Met Office (and hence the Hadley Centre) has always been a part of the Ministry of Defence (hence the reason for one of the Hadley Centre scientists being seconded to work with me).

 

The MoD has no reason or cause to try and direct the outcome of UK climate research in any particular direction, as the reason that it's funded by defence is because it helps to inform future decision making, in pretty much every area, from future equipment requirements to tactics and predictive war gaming. Procurement and training changes take a long time from the research stage to operational readiness, usually a couple of decades, maybe longer in some areas, where equipment replacement may only happen every 30 years or more.

 

 

[jack]

4 hours ago, epsilonGreedy said:

Anyhow back to the original theme, Climate Change is a gravy train that pays believers well and there are many non research positions.

 

So are the scientists conspiring to make sure all these non-scientists continue to get paid?

 

I'm trying hard, but I just can't follow your logic in any of this. 

[ProDave]

The thing that bugs me about this global warming thing. is there cannot be a person in the civilised world who is not aware of the problem and what we need to do.  And from where I sit we ARE dealing with the problem.  Just look at how the big coal power stations are just about gone in this country, how very much better cars are now than they used to be, and getting better.  Yet we are still being talked to like "naughty school children" telling us we are polluting and evil and it has to stop.

 

At the same time we see some other countries still burning huge amounts of very dirty coal in their power stations, whenever you see the likes of Beijing on the tv, you can't see very far because of the visible pollution.  One feels exasperation that the UK and a lot of other countries are cleaning up our act, but unless everybody does, we might as well not bother.

 

Up to now, electricity generation and transport have been the "targets" of improving things.  But Housing has largely "escaped".  That can't continue.  Unless the dire state of much of the UK housing stock is not addressed and the fuel used to heat those poor houses is not reduced then we will reach a point where we can't improve any more.

 

We are sort of smug at now living in a very energy efficient low energy house, but such houses are only a tiny, almost insignificant fraction of the total housing stock in the UK. And attempts to educate people by sticking an EPC rating on every house has proved almost a waste of time. Unless you are buying to let, it would appear most people totally ignore the EPC when buying a house.  Surely a time will come when a house with a poor EPC will be worth less because of the money that needs to be spent on it to improve it?

 

 

[Jeremy Harris]

Good point, @ProDave, as I think we generate around 1% of the world's CO₂, and the problem is really the USA.  In terms of per capita CO₂ we're around 1/3rd of the CO₂ of the USA (5.7 tonnes per head, versus 15.7 tonnes per head).  China is less than half the per capita figure of the USA, and not that much greater than the UK, at 7.7 tonnes of CO₂ per head.

[Ed Davies]

54 minutes ago, ProDave said:

At the same time we see some other countries still burning huge amounts of very dirty coal in their power stations, whenever you see the likes of Beijing on the tv, you can't see very far because of the visible pollution.  One feels exasperation that the UK and a lot of other countries are cleaning up our act, but unless everybody does, we might as well not bother.

 

China's making huge efforts to clean up, though. Not primarily for CO₂, though partly that, but mostly for particulates, NO_x, etc. E.g., Shenzen has more electric buses (16,359) than London has buses (9396).

 

https://qz.com/1169690/shenzhen-in-china-has-16359-electric-buses-more-than-americas-biggest-citiess-conventional-bus-fleet/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_emission_buses_in_London

 

I did read Shenzen introduced more electric buses in one year than London has buses in total but that's not immediately obvious in my search results. However, for the whole of China there's this: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/04/china-is-adding-a-london-sized-electric-bus-fleet-every-five-weeks/

[Jeremy Harris]

Just to illustrate that there are a wide range of views about climate change, this has appeared in The Times today: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/aliens-are-already-here-and-breeding-with-us-says-oxford-lecturer-ck9xp8pbc

 

Quote

Aliens are already here and breeding with us, says Oxford lecturer

Asking how aliens would combat climate change sounds like a fittingly left-field question for an Oxbridge admissions interview.

It is one that sixth-formers will not have to tackle, however, as it has already been answered by a lecturer at Oxford, who says that aliens share our biosphere and intend to colonise the Earth. They are interbreeding with humans to create a new hybrid species that will save the planet from annihilation by climate change, according to Young-hae Chi, an instructor in Korean at Oxford’s Oriental Institute. These hybrids may already be walking unobserved among us, he said in a lecture several years ago, and he has now written a book on the subject.

Dr Chi has tried to debate his subject at the Oxford Union but his proposal was rejected last year. He believes in a strong correlation between climate change and alien abductions, the Oxford Student newspaper reported. His lecture, Alien Abduction and the Environmental Crisis, outlined his theory concerning the presence of aliens on Earth. He cited an “abduction researcher” in the US, who argued that aliens’ primary purpose is to colonise the planet by interbreeding with humans to produce a new hybrid species.

Dr Chi said it was “not only scientists and theologians, but also non-human species who appear to be greatly concerned about the survivability of the human species”. The timing of the aliens’ appearance coincides with the Earth facing significant problems — climate change and nuclear weapons in particular — and he concluded: “It may be more or less assumed that the hybrid project is a response to this impending demise of human civilisation.”

Acting now on climate change would have the double advantage of not only saving the world but proving aliens wrong in their low estimation of humans’ moral capacity, he said. His book, written in Korean, is called Alien Visitations and the End of Humanity.

Dr Chi has identified four types of aliens: small; tall and bold; scaly with snake eyes; and insect-like. The insect aliens appear to give orders to the lower ranks. They exist within a comprehensive biosystem that we cannot experience because our perception is limited by our organs, he said.

People abducted by aliens had reported that the hybrids were of very high intelligence so he posited that they could be the problem-solvers and leaders of the future. He said: “So, they come not for the sake of us, but for the sake of them, their survival, but their survival is actually our survival as well — the survival of the entire biosphere.”

Dr Chi said he was “still looking for more evidence to support my view”

 

[ProDave]

^^ was that published on April 1st?

[Jeremy Harris]

16 minutes ago, ProDave said:

^^ was that published on April 1st?

 

 

Doesn't look like it.

 

Nowt so strange as folk....

[scottishjohn]

sounds like script for a film .

 we might as well talk about aliens  its about as valid as saying climate change is not happening

Edited April 27, 2019 by scottishjohn

[Onoff]

1 hour ago, scottishjohn said:

sounds like script for a film .

 we might as well talk about aliens  its about as valid as saying climate change is not happening

 

...or earthing therapy. Mind you why not, only a logical extension of the Gaia Theory that I happen to buy in to.

[Stones]

Dragging this back from aliens, there is I think an issue with the way the arguments about climate change are presented, that makes people wary - how many times have we heard we are at tipping point / point of no return / only have x years to save the planet? The media (at least in part) do bear responsibility for this as they tend to sensationalise doomsday scenarios in their never ending hunt for audience share.

 

On the other hand are the warnings being  made intentionally so terrible / dire as there is an understanding or even acceptance that governments and individuals are not going to put in place extreme measures, but may be willing (and able) to make small changes which gradually make a difference ? - think the large run into speed limits at roadworks - the spped limit is there to protect the workforce but really isn't needed (for that purpose) half a mile back from where the work is being carried out - lengthening the run in makes it more likely drivers will have lifted off the gas and their speed reduced by the time they reach the critical point.

 

 

 

 

[epsilonGreedy]

On 27/04/2019 at 09:40, JSHarris said:

Just to illustrate that there are a wide range of views about climate change, this has appeared in The Times today: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/aliens-are-already-here-and-breeding-with-us-says-oxford-lecturer-ck9xp8pbc

 

 

This is odd because climate change skeptics use aliens to demonstrate that association is not causation. Statistics show there is an association between UFO sightings and sea temperature, this analogy is then used to question the occasional statistical link between co2 and global temperature.

[Jeremy Harris]

It's also possible that the author of that paper is conducting an experiment related to the way his apparent views are received, and he may well be monitoring the reaction as part of some other study he's undertaking.  If so, then it wouldn't be the first time that something off the wall has been published, just to see how others react to it.

[Stones]

Talk about jumping on the bandwagon...

 

[epsilonGreedy]

7 minutes ago, Stones said:

Talk about jumping on the bandwagon...

 

 

All part of the narrative that co2 is a nasty poison instead of a raw material for life.

 

There is some sense to the deeper message about smarter consumption.

[Jeremy Harris]

30 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

All part of the narrative that co2 is a nasty poison instead of a raw material for life.

 

There is some sense to the deeper message about smarter consumption.

 

The snag is that "smart" meters have been proven to not make any significant changes to patterns of usage, for the simple reason that the major energy consumption devices in the home have to run when they have to run (typically heating and hot water).  Consumers can nibble around the edges and make tiny changes, but overall these don't appear to make any significant difference.

 

"Smart" meters aren't being introduced to reduce CO₂, anyway, the reason for rolling them out is everything to do with grid peak demand management.  The idea is that once there are enough of them installed, then variable rate tariffs can be rolled out, to increase and decrease the price on the fly.  The hope is that using dynamic pricing will drive consumers (more likely drive appliance manufacturers in reality) to change their pattern of use so that they consume less energy at peak times and more energy at off-peak times.  There isn't expected to be a net reduction in energy consumption, if anything the chances are that energy consumption may rise slightly, as a consequence of the use of storage systems to allow time-of-use offsetting.

[epsilonGreedy]

On 27/04/2019 at 19:50, Stones said:

Dragging this back from aliens, there is I think an issue with the way the arguments about climate change are presented, that makes people wary - how many times have we heard we are at tipping point / point of no return / only have x years to save the planet? The media (at least in part) do bear responsibility for this as they tend to sensationalise doomsday scenarios in their never ending hunt for audience share.

 

 

I think we are at peak climate change alarmism because it is looking more like a desperate plate spinning publicity exercise where climatic reality is not conforming to the alarmist predictions.

 

Eventually normality will resume, quiet sensible science will continue and climatic models will improve. When the marginal effect of man made co2 is quantified properly free of political agenda, people will relax.

 

There are problems ahead because unlike the past when neolithic humans coped with rapid climatic change, today humanity has run amok on planet earth and our society is vulnerable to any climatic change, natural or otherwise. We now need climatic stability to survive at present population levels and this will give birth to a new science call man-made climatic tuning. Some centuries the boffins will call for more co2 and in others they will switch on the windfarms or explode trillions of biodegradable mirrored particles at high altitude.

 

Today's climate change frenzy will delivery long term benefits as material science and field engineering acquire skills in diverse energy production.