Village is doomed, wanna buy really cheap houses with sea views?

[Paddywack]

But professors who publish papers don't do so bad financially. BUSBY??

But they can publish papers on any topic and still be paid.

 

[busby]

But they can publish papers on any topic and still be paid.

Would have thought you could or would only publish a paper on a subject you were either qualified or knowledgeable on or probably not listening to some of them spout.
BUSBY,,

 

[PeteH]

So it`s not just all about Research Grants?. Or funding?. After all for years now "Big Oil" was forever being accused of selectively funding research, into the effects or not of their operations?. Before them, of course, it was the Tobacco giants who spent millions on research to prove that their product was not a danger to health?.

Now, the minute you accept funding from an "interested" source, you are compromised. Yet the climate scientists are exempt from suspicion?. Sorry, I don`t buy it.

 

[MattR]

So it`s not just all about Research Grants?. Or funding?. After all for years now "Big Oil" was forever being accused of selectively funding research, into the effects or not of their operations?. Before them, of course, it was the Tobacco giants who spent millions on research to prove that their product was not a danger to health?.

Now, the minute you accept funding from an "interested" source, you are compromised. Yet the climate scientists are exempt from suspicion?. Sorry, I don`t buy it.

So who is funding scientists to report their findings on climate change to support the view that humans have accelerated climate change? Can you prove it is a conspiracy to keep us taxed and under control or is that just your conspiracy theory?

 

[PeteH]

So who is funding scientists to report their findings on climate change to support the view that humans have accelerated climate change? Can you prove it is a conspiracy to keep us taxed and under control or is that just your conspiracy theory?

It`s no conspiracy. ALL political organisations like to control. The level and Pressures used vary, BUT the "bottom line" is that If a politician is in favour of something we all have an obligation to be suspicious. In this case, selective taxation is being used as by vested parties a "blunt instrument", to coerce the Taxpayer into believing that "its good for you", or it`s "for your benefit / best interest". (Like medicine, if it dont taste horrible it aint doing you any good!) The same politico/power interests will still be the same. You and I will be paying (more) for them, and getting less. It does not matter who or if the climate scientist is being funded or by whom. The suspicion based on past efforts, is enough to make one cynical.

I could just as easy ask. Where is the proof that they dont?. BUT if you wish to believe?, that is after all your prerogative. I Don`t, never will, All I see is an increasing (stealth) tax bill.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[MattR]

It`s no conspiracy. ALL political organisations like to control. The level and Pressures used vary, BUT the "bottom line" is that If a politician is in favour of something we all have an obligation to be suspicious. In this case, selective taxation is being used as by vested parties a "blunt instrument", to coerce the Taxpayer into believing that "its good for you", or it`s "for your benefit / best interest". (Like medicine, if it dont taste horrible it aint doing you any good!) The same politico/power interests will still be the same. You and I will be paying (more) for them, and getting less. It does not matter who or if the climate scientist is being funded or by whom. The suspicion based on past efforts, is enough to make one cynical.

I could just as easy ask. Where is the proof that they dont?. BUT if you wish to believe?, that is after all your prerogative. I Don`t, never will, All I see is an increasing (stealth) tax bill.

The proof that they don't is that there isn't any verifiable, peer reviewed evidence that humans are not causing climate change. There would be a fortune for those that could find it, plus significant kudos in the scientific community.

I see that there is no point trying to convince you otherwise and I won't get drawn further into a debate about political conspiracies or tax controls; it isn't something that I am knowledgeable enough about beyond the knowledge that scientists wouldn't just sit back and let their credibility be hammered by politicians. The science is generally correct. What politicians do with it is a different matter.

 

[The Wino]

Back to the op just looked and property in fairbourne isn't a lot cheaper than in other poorer areas in the UK

 

[PeteH]

The science is generally correct. What politicians do with it is a different matter.

??????????. Exactly, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ".

 

[StephDeLux]

The proof that they don't is that there isn't any verifiable, peer reviewed evidence that humans are not causing climate change.

This is a fallacious argument. If one posits that humans cause warming, then the burden of proof is on the one making the proposition. There is no burden of proof to prove it wrong, of course, otherwise anyone could say anything and it would be deemed true unless proved false.

 

[MattR]

This is a fallacious argument. If one posits that humans cause warming, then the burden of proof is on the one making the proposition. There is no burden of proof to prove it wrong, of course, otherwise anyone could say anything and it would be deemed true unless proved false.

The point of peer reviewing is to check that the work stands up to scrutiny. If the work is flawed, it will be rejected from publication or if it does get through to print, issues will be debated and editing made. The fact that so many papers are published showing the impact of human activities on climate change and so few saying these changes are not human accelerated shows the vast majority of findings support man-made climate change.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[MattR]

??????????. Exactly, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ".

Science watchers or politicians watchers?

The former are checked by their peers and knowledge developed from making improvements. Politicians? Not my area of knowledge.

 

[Paddywack]

This is a fallacious argument. If one posits that humans cause warming, then the burden of proof is on the one making the proposition. There is no burden of proof to prove it wrong, of course, otherwise anyone could say anything and it would be deemed true unless proved false.

That is what the smoking lobby used to say, look how many people died inconsequence of the delay there.

In science the precautionary principle is utilised, hence why those that are appropriately qualified are (well 97% of them!) stating categorically that action needs to be taken now.

 

[tonyidle]

Another myth.

<Broken link removed>

A Most Reliable Source (my highlights):

Principia Scientific International
Background
Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organization based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. PSI was formed in 2010 around the time they published their first book, titled Link Removed. [1]

PSI <Broken link removed> it provides its members with a “reliable port of call to ascertain the facts behind the news stories to better judge whether information being presented by third parties is accurate information and reflects a balanced view of all facets of the subject.” [2]

The <Broken link removed>says the organization is “for everyone who supports the traditions [sic] scientific method against the rise of sinister and secretive government funded 'post normal science'.”

As of 2014, PSI described itself as a “not-for-profit community interest subsidiary of PSI Acumen Ltd. That statement has since been removed. [2]

PSI Acumen was registered with Companies House in the UK in March 2013 <Broken link removed>as a private company, with an address in Battersea Park Road, London. In July 2013, the business address of PSI Acumen was <Broken link removed>to an address in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, which is the same as the home address of John O'Sullivan, the organization's founder and chief executive officer. PSI Acument LTD was <Broken link removed> on October 15, 2014. [3], [4], [5]

The two named directors were John O'Sullivan, of the UK, and a Walter James O'Brien, with a US address listed in Fargo, North Dakota. Emails published by climate skeptic blogger Pete Ridley suggest that Walter James O'Brien no longer has any connection to the PSI Acument company. [3], [6]

Principia Scientific reports that one of their “proudest endeavors is the ongoing support given to world-leading independent climatologist, Dr Tim Ball,” who is also a founding member and former chairman of PCI. [7]

Stance on Climate Change
PSI regularly publishes commentary which claims that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas and that it could actually cool the planet. For example, in an article published in November 2013, “PSI Staff” wrote: [8]

Scientists at Principia Scientific International (PSI), who peer-reviewed Nahle's paper, are currently advising colleagues that the most reliable data available now confirms that CO2 is shown to act as a coolant in earth's climate. As such, the notion of a so-called 'greenhouse gas' warming effect may be regarded as refuted, while environmental measures by governments and individuals to reduce “carbon emissions” to combat climate change are, in turn, rendered pointless.

In 2013, PSI also began to promote unfounded claims that wind turbines make people sick and that childhood vaccines were “one of the largest most evil lies in history.” [9]

 

[busby]

So who is funding scientists to report their findings on climate change to support the view that humans have accelerated climate change? Can you prove it is a conspiracy to keep us taxed and under control or is that just your conspiracy theory?

The point of peer reviewing is to check that the work stands up to scrutiny. If the work is flawed, it will be rejected from publication or if it does get through to print, issues will be debated and editing made. The fact that so many papers are published showing the impact of human activities on climate change and so few saying these changes are not human accelerated shows the vast majority of findings support man-made climate change.

Dont recall Lord Dennings report on the Profumo Scandal being rejected and there were more lies and cover ups in that report than a fairy tale.And he was Master of the Rolls..BUSBY..

 

[Paddywack]

Dont recall Lord Dennings report on the Profumo Scandal being rejected and there were more lies and cover ups in that report than a fairy tale.And he was Master of the Rolls..BUSBY..

Have you got anything less prehistoric that us youngsters (56) might relate to?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[PeteH]

Science watchers or politicians watchers?

The former are checked by their peers and knowledge developed from making improvements. Politicians? Not my area of knowledge.

Or Both?

 

[PeteH]

Have you got anything less prehistoric that us youngsters (56) might relate to?

You might want to keep an eye on the Grenfell enquiry?. An awful lot of potential "bum covering" to be had there?. And I would like to be still alive when (if) the papers from the Warren Report are ever released. There is only one reason why they are still under wraps!.

 

[busby]

Have you got anything less prehistoric that us youngsters (56) might relate to?

Prehistoric,,,it's just been on telly in a 6 part series..You can't trust The Establishment..Something very fishy because all the papers on Dr Steven Ward are secret until 2046..Doubt I will ever read them.BUSBY.??

 

[Norfolk Red]

Looks like the village was built on naturally reclaimed land.... Flat as a pool table.

You obviously haven't played pool in my local.

 

[MattR]

Dont recall Lord Dennings report on the Profumo Scandal being rejected and there were more lies and cover ups in that report than a fairy tale.And he was Master of the Rolls..BUSBY..

Are you referring to Peers or peers?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[MattR]

Or Both?

Scientists check out the work published by others and will highlight inconsistencies, errors etc.

I don't know about politicians.

 

[MattR]

Are you referring to Peers or peers?

busby I'm referring to the checking of scientific papers / reports by people who are experts in their fields - peers of the author rather than Peers of the Realm.

 

[busby]

busby I'm referring to the checking of scientific papers / reports by people who are experts in their fields - peers of the author rather than Peers of the Realm.

Governments must hold Senior Judges as EXPERTS as they regularly put them in charge of Major Enquiries,,,Personally not a big fan of so called Experts,,usually academics and not hands on..Incoming fire any minute.BUSBY.???

 

[busby]

Scientists check out the work published by others and will highlight inconsistencies, errors etc.

I don't know about politicians.

Lord Denning was a senior judge,not a politician..BUSBY.

 

[PeteH]

Scientists check out the work published by others and will highlight inconsistencies, errors etc.

As a "member of the health community" once said "Doctors Bury their mistakes." What makes anyone so sure the the "Science Community", Who for many hundreds of years "toed the "party line" with the Church, even though they knew the world was not made in 7 days?. Are any better at "openness"?. If you want a recent example of how pressure works. How about The death of David Kelly?.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[MattR]

As a "member of the health community" once said "Doctors Bury their mistakes." What makes anyone so sure the the "Science Community", Who for many hundreds of years "toed the "party line" with the Church, even though they knew the world was not made in 7 days?. Are any better at "openness"?. If you want a recent example of how pressure works. How about The death of David Kelly?.

If you messed with the church in the past, excommunication etc followed. The scientific community is global. There are many ways they can report their findings and most no longer fear of being kicked out of the church


It seems that you are determined to find a conspiracy in a community that I know a reasonable amount about. There isn't one at I am aware of and I cannot conceive it possible - there are too many scientists seeking the truth and too many skeptics trying to undermine valid research; they would have found verificable evidence if there was any. If I haven't been able to assure you that there isn't a conspiracy, please don't worry about trying to explain why you think that there is one. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Rosemary1]

Back to the op just looked and property in fairbourne isn't a lot cheaper than in other poorer areas in the UK

Did the same - have rightmove open all the time as presently looking for our next house - I was surprised too at the prices although I suppose they think that there is still 30 years left. Can’t say I would purchase unless a lot cheaper with the view of treating it like a caravan that greatly deprecates every year.

 

[The Wino]

Did the same - have rightmove open all the time as presently looking for our next house - I was surprised too at the prices although I suppose they think that there is still 30 years left. Can’t say I would purchase unless a lot cheaper with the view of treating it like a caravan that greatly deprecates every year.

I suppose that the caravan option though also has the site fees every year and the possibility of having to buy and sell through the site owner. I could never see the attraction.

 

[bigtwin]

Personally not a big fan of so called Experts,,usually academics and not hands on..Incoming fire any minute.BUSBY.???

We were taught exactly the same..But can you trust Experts,,700 years ago they believed the world was flat although sailors told them different,,When steam trains appeared the experts said going above 20 mph would kill humans,,in the 50s a certain Mr Beecham decided we didn't need branch lines or The Gt Central Railway,,a little later the Experts stated oil was the future and we scrapped trams and trolley busses..90s experts told us diesel not petrol was the future now it's back to what we used years ago Electricity.and then of course we now have those Smart motorways, another idea by an expert who has probably never driven 50 miles in his or her life..Never believe an EXPERT.BUSBY.

What, not even those that are EXPERT at dissing EXPERTS?

Ian

 

[busby]

What, not even those that are EXPERT at dissing EXPERTS?

Ian

Not even those,,??? BUSBY..

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}