It's all about the carbon tax. Many/Most "scientists" are whores who follow what the corporations (viz the real government) want.(I find "Professor" TV Pundit Cox a complete Tommy Tanker)

When someone call themselves a "scientist", I find it a contemptible pathetic affectation. All of us human beings make our way in the world , observing , formulatng ideas and depending on intelligence, adjusting what we believe.

You nailed it. 

Excellent thread Elroch. 

Yeah, it's outrageous those guys at CERN claiming they have some special expertise: surely anyone could build a particle accelerator out of toilet rolls and tin foil and discover the Higgs boson?  Likewise the so-called "scientists" who sequenced the human genome: wouldn't a knife and fork, a magnifying glass and a bit of patience suffice? And don't get me on to the people who reckon they're "scientists" because they successfully sent a probe to Pluto and made observations: surely any of us could strap a few fireworks to a washing up liquid bottle and a mobile phone and do the same!

If I could like that comment as if it were a facebook post, I would!

Some of us have solar panels! 

But, none of those guys and gals would refer to themselves as scientists.  If I'm a physicist or biologist and you asked me what I did for money, I wouldn't say, "I'm a scientist!"

The 'scientist' covers a wide variety of expertise. A physicist, biologist or chemist would not refer to themselves as scientists because it doesn't tell someone as much as a "physicist" would. But then, they wouldn't even call themselves physicists. One may call himself "plantary core expert" or "expert analyst in the MESSENGER mission". It completely depends who you're talking to. A planetary core expert wouldn't call himself a planetary core expert in a talk to 10 year-olds, because they have no idea what that means. He'd call himself a scientist, wouldn't he?

Question: What is "IT"? 

Astronomers do IT all night.
Chemists do IT by bonding. 
Newton did IT with force. 
Eighteenth century physicists did IT with rigid bodies. 
Maxwell did IT with magnetism. 
Volta did IT with a jolt. 
Watt did IT with power. 
Joule did IT with energy. 
Ohm did IT with resistance. 
Pascal did IT under pressure. 
Hooke did IT using springs. 
Coulomb got all charged up about IT. 
Hertz did IT frequently. 
Boltzmann did IT in heat. 
Ampere let IT flow. 
For Franklin, IT was an electrifying experience. 
Edison claims to have invented IT. 
When Richter did IT, the Earth shook. 
For Darwin, IT was natural. 
Freud did IT in his sleep. 
Mendel studied the consequences of IT. 
When Wegener did IT, continents moved. 
Classical physicists do IT in perfectly uniform harmonic motion. 
Heisenberg was never sure whether he even did IT. 
Bohr did IT in an excited state. 
Pauli did IT but excluded his friends. 
Schrödinger did IT in waves. 
Bose did IT with partners. 
Einstein did IT on a curved surface. 
Oort did IT in a cloud. 
Hubble did IT in the dark. 
Watson and Crick got all wound up about IT. 
Cosmologists do IT in a big bang. 
Theorists do IT on paper. 
Wigner did IT in a group. 
Richter and Ting did IT with charm.
Astrophysicists do IT with young starlets. 
Planetary scientists do IT with Uranus. 
Electron microscopists do IT 100,000 times. 
Feynman did IT in fields. 
Hawking wrote a brief history of IT. 
And supersymmetric theorists do IT with sleptons. 

IT = science

IT is Information(al) Technology... ;)

Good point.  I'm rather used to being wrong about stuff.  Just needed someone, like you, to point it out.

Bloomberg: the complete causes of global warming

(a beautifully interactive presentation)

While they have all of the above I bet the biggest single reason for their low emissions per capita lies in geography. Conditions for hydroelectric are excellent. Combined with sparse population this allows Norway to generate close to 100% of their electricity by hydro. In Sweden the share of hydro is above 50% and most of the rest is nuclear which is also zero carbon. Pretty sure they don't burn any coal.

(I know these are very old posts but they just caught my eye and I want to get the facts straight).

Global mean temperatures rose about 8 degrees centigrade over roughly 10,000 years (that's about 0.08 degrees per century) after the last ice age then pretty much stabilised. Temperatures have risen about 12 times as fast in the last century, much faster over the last few decades and are calculated to be very likely to increase faster still this century.

Not only is it nothing to do with an Ice Age that ended before modern civilisation, it's not even in the same ball park.

Remotely controlled power stations on the moon?  Man! it would be expensive to ship all that coal to the moon just to lighten up the dark side.

No worries.  There isn't much around here to take seriously.

I was wondering how anyone could be stupid enough to think the rise in temperatures after the last Ice Age could stop for thousands of years, and then suddenly rise to more than ten times as fast as normal, but this revelation explains even the most stupid of comments!

89ben98 wrote:

Firstly, do you realise your graphs only show a period of 1,000 years, which is 10 times less than I was saying.  The point I was making is that global temperatures change quicker than you might imagine and making  conclusions without proper evidence isn't very sensible.

Even if pollution is the cause, we should have remotely controlled power stations on the moon or use oil from other planets/moons.

Also have you realised your England's membership has dropped by 61 since I volunteered to leave.

What other moons have oil? Did they find life on someof our moons?

His comment was daft way beyond anything worth treating seriously. As he admitted, he is a wind-up merchant.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-winkles/winter-is-coming-scientis_b_7787664.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Winter is Coming: Scientist Says Sun Will Nod Off in 15 Years

Professor Vlentina Zharkova of Northumbira University presented the frigid findings at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, Wales. Modern technology has made us able to predict solar cycles with much greater accuracy, and Zharkova’s model predicts that solar activity will drop by more than half between 2030 and 2040.

Solar activity was thought to be caused by a turbine-system of moving fluid within the sun. In search of a more accurate system of prediction, Professor Zharkova and her team discovered fluctuating magnetic waves in two layers of the sun. By studying the data of the dual waves, she says, predictions are far more precise.

“Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 percent,” said Zharkova, whose findings were published by the Royal Astronomic Society.