The lights are going out in France from July 1st, apparently.
Here's what one respected physicist thinks:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/02/france-bans-light-at-night.html#more
Well, I guess I tend to judge information it on its merits rather seeking and accepting it because it fits my views.
Two points Chris. Feynman is being cherry picked very badly and with utmost disrespect given that he has been dead for too many years to put what he was doing and saying in a 2013 context. Isaac Newton, for instance, is still respected, but his principles are the equivalent of the first week of learning reading at primary school. Cherry picking pseudo-science by sticking famous names in it and calling them evidence is dilettantism of the grossest kind. So forget that.
Monckton entirely proves my point about political puppets. He was a Thatcher bright boy, a House of Lords buffoon who rejects everything that is TOO liberal but above all else he is NOT a scientist. He thinks he is cleverer than science but then I think I am clever than a rock in our field!
I read it earlier Bruce. Yes, can see why it converted you. I was something of a don't know about it, therefore do not care until I went to a presentation by a group of people from various disciplines over a whole day. I came out of it shell shocked and really do not need much further persuasion. I have learned much more since.
And I thought I'd post this here, which rather serves to confirm my belief that AGW is a scam and a con:
I thought I'd repost this here. It changed my mind about global warming and is written by an actual scientist.
Not at all, big mistake and there is a rather 'eccentric' fringe in the world quite capable of using such an expression. On the other hand anthropogenic theories are being expounded by some oddballs. It is, on the other hand, quite striking that eminent scientists such as the late Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins who were intellectually opposed to each other's theories, were quite unanimous about the effects of industrial pollution on the living environment. Then take those who are using a fossil based study of climate change. They have been able to piece together oxygen, carbon and faunal data to make a fairly reliable picture of how, when and why our climate has changed so drastically over geologic history. Furthermore, investigations into the deep past of the Earth have important implications for understanding and tracking the potential drastic repercussions of modern, human-induced climate change. So evolutionary theories of both Gould and Dawkins schools of thought are supporting man-made views rather than those that are considered natural theories.
The majority of scientists across numerous disciplines accept that climate change is taking place on a planet-wide scale. The precise causes of climate change, however, are subject to a great deal debate within the scientific community. Some people support the view that climate change is a man-made phenomenon while others believe it is a natural part of the Earth's cycle of heating and cooling. Meanwhile, a variety of theories have emerged to explain the various changes that can be seen taking place with climatic conditions throughout Earth.
There is theory of climate change that involves the sun. The sun's magnetic field and solar wind both serve to modulate how much high-energy cosmic radiation reaches the Earth. Fluctuations might only be measured over thousands of years, so it remains a hypothesis.
The most widely accepted theory at present is that of climate change. The claim is that burning fossil fuel on a large scale for well over a century has resulted in greenhouse gases that include carbon dioxide, water vapour, nitrous oxide and methane. They are being released into the atmosphere. These gases trap heat and light from the sun in the atmosphere. Consequently, the overall temperatures rise. Burning fossil fuels increased significantly with the advent of the Industrial Revolution and we have scientific that the volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by more than 25% since the first climatological studied its volume and ratio in 1860.
The jury is out on why and how it is coming about, but the vast majority of the 'respected' scientific community who work independent of the influences of politicians or industrial concerns with vested interests are convinced there is change and that the median rate of temperature increases is at present projected to be a degree more than originally predicted for 2020.
The essay by Prothero linked by Bruce is scientifically far better than my lay version as a non-scientist but also reflects the differences between non-political scientists and those who are bought by big business. The do not bite the hand that feeds principle is for the greedy and often not very good ones, the best class and genuinely clever ones are warring factions of individuals who do not give a f*** about politicians and big business. They put their work first and take it seriously. I tend to believe them.
Anthropogenic - a case of more haste, less speed on my part, but I suspect you knew exactly what I meant, Brian. There's a faux "Latin term", I believe, for this pedantry - Nittus Piccus.
You still have not explained to this anthropologist what 'anthropological climate change ideology' is because I can find no anthropological reference to it.
Also, there is a distinct political slant to scepticism, whereby many of the sceptics appear to be from mildly to extremely right wing and occasionally have very close links to large industrial concerns or industries like nuclear power generation. On the other side of the fence, despite there being a lot of 'greens' supporting climate change theory, most of the scientists collecting evidence are apolitical and neither green nor left wing although their opponents quickly accuse them of either or both. Do you have an explanation for that too? I hope so, it intrigues me as much as the 'anthropological climate change ideology'.
I think you'll find, with a modicum of research, that tornadic activity, hurricane landfall, and other noteworthy weather (which everyone now seems to want to call "extreme" these days) is far less in severity and frequency than it has been for some considerable time. Likewise the irrational fear of sea level rise.
"Sandy" was no more than a category 1 storm, and the effects were exacerbated by a cold front, but otherwise unremarkable, and sustained windspeeds were not that high. Damage and injury (or death) from any of these events is largely down to where humans choose to locate. The weather (and climate) was around (and changing) long before we came on the scene. Apart from being solar-driven, there are a number of different cycles at play in the pattern of climate change. The CO2 "connection" is unproven (indeed, it has been demonstrated that there is no connection between it and global temperature) the present situation indicates this, with no warming for around sixteen years, and a slow rise in CO2 levels (which have been far higher in the past).
It's an unmitigated scam.
The natural, evolutionary changes in climate that you describe have occurred ever since there's been a climate, and will continue to do so without any interference from us.
The following links may well be worth a read, particularly from a historical point of view, and may help to put today's unwarranted alarmism into some sort of perspective.
This article changed my mind and made me a believer on climate change.
;-)
Exactly. The Torygraph write something positive about France... I mean, come on get real people. We don't need nutcases to tell us the power is being switched off, EDF do that all on their sweet own without telling us and often too ;-)
Celeste, it was featured quite extensively on French news a couple of weeks ago, most thionk it's a good idea including me ;-)
just looked at the link - why would anyone want to read his site, he seems a bit of a prat, extremely rude and I think I can make my own mind up based on what I hear and read here in France rather than from foreigners...! same goes for the british press too who are often totally misinformed or have a political objective to their articles...!
C'est vrai.
Bruce, go back a page and I was saying some of the same. In lay language, the man is a 'raving madman'. To amuse myself I looked at Matrix String theory and other physicist's views on it and just about all of the ones of respected international status and reputation laugh at it. I am not a scientist, so I have no idea. But a goofball is a goofball is a goofball.
I wouldn't exactly call this guy a respected physicist. This is a quote from his bio on Wikipedia:"His political comments include comparing Islam to Nazism and expressing sympathy for Anders Breivik's idea of a necessary war to prevent Europe from "becoming a part of the Islamic civilization", though he disagreed with Breivik's methods and his respect for Al-Qaeda"
According to this Wiki bio he promotes something called "Matrix String theory"
One of his blogs points out he is "non-Jewish". Normally I'd stop right there but here are a couple of links:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-12-14/
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Luboš_Motl
If you're a global warming denier, he's your man.
The idea of itself is not unreasonable. The nutcase is another matter.
I don't see it as eco madness. Rather it is a modest proposal to save energy. It has the additional benefit that we will be able to see the night skies. Even here "in the countryside" light pollution has increased to a noticeable level such that the Milky Way is far less distinct than thirty years ago. The jury is still out on man-made global warming as far as I'm concerned and if anything I'm inclined to scepticism but I'm a definite fan of dark skies.
Chin-chin