Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Game_Over

  1. For what it's worth, if we're going to pick and choose selective quotes from Lovelock, here's another one from him:

    'He [Lovelock] displays equal disdain for those who do not accept science on climate change: "They've got their own religion. They believe that the world was right before these damn people [the greens] came along and want to go back to where we were 20 years ago. That's also silly in its own way." '


    Personally I agree with him about nukes but disagree with him with windmills, he can have his opinion - I have mine.

    As I said before, the climate is changing, it always has and always will.

    The question is to what extent, if any, the changes that are occurring are due to human activity.


  2. Well quite... which is why, to use a technical term, I think we are f*ucked.

    Personally I welcome a switch to nukes (as well as solar and wind, natch) but I think we've left it a bit too late to build them as they take nearly a decade before they are up and running.

    Meanwhile the CO2 in the atmosphere is accumulating. If the intended target is 80% reduction in CO2 emissions below 1992 by 2050, there's no point in doing it on New Year's Eve 2049!... we have to get them down in the near term to have any effect

    Seriously, you should stop worrying so much and I genuinely don't mean this in a patronising or condescending way.

    All my life politicians have been creating false threats and crises which they then use as cover for their own corruption and incompetence.

    When I was in my teens, twenties and thirties I took all these scams as seriously as you are taking MMGW because I genuinely believed that if the government or scientists said something was true, then it was true.

    As I have said, I even read some of the earliest books written about Lovelocks Gaia hypothesis.

    In my forties and fifties, however, I realised that 99% of what I am told is propaganda and outright lies.

    Trust me, the World will not end in my lifetime, or yours, or my kids, or our great, great, great etc grandchildren's.

    The World will end when the Sun dies and that will be Billions of years after every last trace of humanity has been eroded to dust and subducted into molten rock by plate tectonics.


  3. not anymore; this is his paper from 2012:


    The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. CE 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century.

    I admire your persistence, but, as Lovelock himself now realises, this theory has replaced religion for many people.

    You might as well argue with Christian or Moslem fundamentalists as try and debate with these people

    I only do it when I am a bit bored because their reactions are hilarious


  4. At the end of the day this argument is now entirely academic

    because all major nations are now either building coal fired stations or nuclear

    or they are planning on investing heavily in shale gas extraction, of which there is a couple of hundred years supply.

    More wind turbines will be built, where contracts have been signed

    but in the majority of the World the game is up for green subsidy chasing


  5. What this actually means is that the interest rate on these loans is so punitive that most people will not clear the principle within the 30 year 'cut off'

    Of course, over the course of those 30 years the interest paid back will far exceed the original loan amount.

    What they are also not saying is that at some point in the next 30 years they will probably extend the period from 30 to 40 years, they may even deduct the outstanding amount form your estate if you die.

    I also think that if someone emigrates, they won't let them take any capital out of the country if they still have a loan outstanding.

    Basically, student numbers have dropped as a result of this policy and they are now trying to plant a seed in peoples minds that they will be somehow 'let off' this money at some point in the future.

    That isn't going to happen - quite the reverse.

    Going to Uni is now a mugs game I'm afraid - unless your parents can afford to pay up front.

    My daughter has got on a training scheme with a blue chip company that pays her a salary whilst giving her day release to study a professional qualification.

    After 2 years she will go onto the Graduate programme and will be on the same scheme as people who have left university with a degree, only she will be a year younger and instead of being 10's of k in debt she will have 10's of k saved towards the deposit for a house (after prices have crashed).

    The problem is, positions like this are as rare as hens teeth and getting it was ten times more difficult than getting my sons into Russell group Unis before the fees went up.

    I really do feel extremely sorry for anyone leaving college with good A levels now whose parents aren't filthy rich because the new fees regime is just debt slavery.


  6. Here's some maths:

    The product of the above is 0.001%

    So correct me if I'm wrong but we're proposing to spend something in the region of £100bn to reduce global CO2 output by an amount so miniscule that it could not even be described as a rounding error.

    Yes but think of the money people could make from Government subsidies.


  7. So, global warming is happening and powering modern economies entirely from renewables is hard.

    Fair enough.

    Just thought I'd point out that one of the founders of the green movement shares exactly the same views that I have been ridiculed for here on Wind Turbines, 'renewable energy', shale gas, nuclear power and climate modeling.

    The fact that he cannot bring himself to go the final step is understandable under the circumstances


  8. Sorry, but that I believe that is a myth.


    According to this 1939 report (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/VSUS_1937_1.pdf)(warning: pdf) the death rate in the U.S. actually remained pretty steady from 1929-1937, between 10.7 (in 1934) - 11.9 (in 1929) per 1,000. Compare that to 1928, when the death rate was 12.1/1,000.

    In fact, the death rate from 1932-1935 was actually lower than previous or subsequent years.

    There was a pretty steady decline in live births during those years, but the population continued to grow from 116.3 million in 1929 to 129.2 million in 1937.

    Hunger, yes. But "millions starving?" The data don't reflect it.

  9. They've fiddled the data, selected the models, used very suspect "peer review" and they still have not got a working climate model that can explain the ice ages.

    Personally I do not believe that it will ever be possible to model the climate, no matter how powerful computers become

    because clearly the Sun's energy output varies considerably over time and unless this happens in some type of stable cycle, any kind of prediction will always be completely unreliable.

    In fact output could vary in a stable cycle for millions of years, then just change unpredictably

    so even if stable cycles could be identified any model could only predict based on a balance of probabilities.

    Even extremely simple systems where all starting conditions are known behave entirely unpredictably, let alone systems as complex as the Earth's climate.


  10. Most of the citizens in America have no hope of competing in the new capitalism with the advanced state of robotics and computing. My family has a successful accounting practice.. when recruiting people even people well above average intelligence just can't make it today. You end up looking for the top couple percent who also happen to be interested in business.

    The other 98% are useless, because the computers do all the routine tasks. Its only the deep abstract tests that the computer cannot do (yet). We have seen many smart people try to make it over the years.. and they just can't do it. Your average person doesn't have a hope in hell. Some of those people we had to let go because they couldn't make it are still unemployed years later! And these are above average people for their generation, like successfully got through a professional degree program.

    Ok so this capitalism is great for me, like yesterday I completed start to finish two fiscal year ends, one bills for £1400, the other for £900. I have to pay for a secretary and costs like rent, professional dues, software, computer related expenses, etc..

    But what about those people we had to let go over the years. One plays World of Warcraft basically 'professionally' now. Another has worked for 3 weeks in the last 2 years. His wife and him have some serious issues.. which isn't terribly surprising considering they are home all day as she is unemployed too, with no money.

    So Romney's plan of efficient leadership and lower regulations appeals to guys like well me. But it has no meaning to the majority of the population who is either unemployed or working at minimum wage. (btw this total devastation of the working and middle class also shows the idiocy of thinking that house prices won't crash).

    Surely true capitalism is self regulating

    because if everything we need is produced without human intervention

    who will buy what is produced and with what will they buy it?


  11. Is capitalism likely to recover in the USA, which has really been the sole standard bearer for it (if only in name rather than deed perhaps) for some time? Recent polls show support waning for the very notion of capitalism in the younger cohorts with the most strong support for it being concentrated in the cohorts about to kark it. Likewise the ethnic minorities (destined of course to become the ethnic majority this century) appear to have rejected it also (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/mitt-romneys-class-problem/2012/11/07/f082c60e-2897-11e2-b4e0-346287b7e56c_blog.html).


    I don't think it is worth quibbling over the definition of capitalism of free markets here either. Ultimately these words have just been totems, standing for some set of concepts, ideas and assumptions. Many have observed that these totems have been able to stand in the US regardless of whether what they stand for has actually been implemented or not. That is after all what a totem pole is about.

    That said the difficult thing here for people who would agree with the above is what the new totem is. Ultimately, there has to be one. And I don't think that "socialism" in itself as an idea, can function in this way.

    And I do think that these totemic concepts are very deeply entwined with the institutions and operation of the social fabric. It'll be fascinating to see the commentary from the US from both sides of the aisle on this subject.

    We haven't had capitalism in the West since the end of WW2

    and what happened in 2007 was the inevitable consequence.

    What we have had is people voting for whichever politician promised them the most free stuff

    until we have reached the point where there are more people taking out than paying in.

    This is why IMO the electorates in most western democracies are split almost 50/50, because this is the tipping point where those taking out bankrupt the system but have the electoral numbers to vote against any politician brave enough to propose doing anything to reform the system.

    If you think about it logically, the only way out of this impasse is some sort of collapse.

    I really don't like this conclusion, because it is very 'tinfoil hat' and I am not a 'tinfoil hat' type of person

    but try as I might, I really can't see any other possible outcome.



  12. Obama won this election with astounding ease and didn't even need to win the 'must win' States of Ohio, Florida or Virginia.

    Interesting to note that Obama has now gotten over 300 electoral college votes twice and you need to go back 24 years (will be 28 years) to 1988 to find when a Republican candidate managed that (Bush didn't get above 290 in both his elections).

    I suggest this means that the Republican party is in a bit of trouble in the USA...

    Not in as much trouble as Obama

    As he will now get the blame as the US economy implodes.

    It seems to take at least 2 or 3 electoral cycles for crises like this to play out.

    After 1929 the Sh*t didn't hit the fan until the late 1930's and 1940's

    and the same thing is happening now.



  13. Anyone fancy a quick sweepstake on how long it'll take one of our resident wind farm lobbyists to describe him as a senile old fool?

    He isn't senile and he's no fool.

    I read about the Gaia hypothesis decades ago in Nigel Calders Spaceships of the Mind (published 1978).

    Prior to Lovelocks recent statements, I argued here that MMGW had all the hallmarks of a religious cult.

    He also shares my views on nuclear power, shale gas and wind turbines - which make no sense in the UK either economically of environmentally.

    Regarding MMGW itself, he acknowledges that the computer models have completely failed to predict what has actually happened to the climate which is another of my 'hobby horses'.

    He also acknowledges that it is a 'theory' not the 'truth'.

    I think the problem is that many scientists, including Lovelock are relying on data produced by other scientists who have actually 'fiddled the figures' to varying degrees.

    Under these circumstances you can hardly blame many people for believing the theory, but you also cannot blame people for questioning it either.


  14. Here's an interesting article about James Lovelock - for those who lie awake at night worrying about 'Global Warming'


    Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.

    The implications were extraordinary.

    Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory.

    Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic.

    His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations.

    Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement.

    Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.

    Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.

    He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.

    Among his observations to the Guardian:

    (1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.

    As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)

    (2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.

    “It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”

    (3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.

    As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”

    (4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”


  15. You guys are completely mental.

    When I was a teenager people were worrying about us having another mini ice age because it was getting colder.

    And a few hundred years ago people were making human sacrifices otherwise the sun might not rise.

    If you want to worry about something, worry about a massive asteroid strike, because that could happen at any time and potentially could kill billions.

    And if you think politicians are really engaged in a struggle to save the planet for future generations

    then you really do need your heads examined.


  16. Well that depends doesn't it? As in any field, reasonably argued criticism based on sound logic is certainly acceptable and indeed desirable. Endless repetition of the same unfounded and easily refutable claims might, however, be taken as in indication of idiocy.

    I don't think so. If anything, over the last couple of years, as I have learned more about the topic, I have come to feel that the problem of anthropogenically induced climate change is an increasingly urgent one. Previously, I thought that if we could limit our emissions of GHGs to a reasonable level, mankind wouldn't suffer too badly in the future. Now, having read around more, it seems that the 2007 IPCC predictions were obviously far too optimistic and that there is a real chance of actually rendering the Earth uninhabitable in a few centuries if we do not cut back urgently on fossil fuel use. The record Arctic ice melt this summer and increasing methane emissions from the Arctic tundra are very worrying developments.

    I did used to be quite sceptical about nuclear power, primarily because of the unsatisfactorily solved problem of what to do with the waste and the risk of radiation releases. Now, though, the scientific arguments have convinced me that the risk of radioactive contamination pales beside the risk of initiating runaway global warming, and is a risk worth taking if it will help to stabilise CO2 levels more quickly.

    There is, by the way, no shame in changing one's views in the light of new evidence. Adopting a particular opinion and then refusing to budge regardless of evidence to the contrary is, however, irrational.

    Brilliant, because one of the main reasons the TPTB are continuing to flog this dead pony is because they are using it to overcome previous ecomentalist objections to nuclear power.


  17. your paper is from 2005; my paper is from 2012; it is called the scientific progress; there is clearly no trend in 20th century


    That's apparently because all the Sulphur from Chinese coal fired power stations is causing a cooling effect which is exactly balancing out the warming effect of the additional CO2 !!!!

    But when this effect ceases Global warming will resume at an even faster rate - apparently.

    So when temperatures stop falling and start rising again, as they inevitably will

    we will be treated to a second round of MMGW propaganda.


  18. I haven't finally acknowledged anything. Any scientist will tell you that science is inherently uncertain. Theories stand until they are disproved or improved. There are no final answers in science. For someone who reads so widely, you seem to have a remarkably limited understanding of the scientific process.

    I would also like to add that my recent experiences of academia are that scientific integrity and academic excellence now take a very poor second place to the pursuit of money.


  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.