h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Central Scotland. Yes, all the people involved had received their winter fuel allowance and I sorted out leaflets for the cold weather payment too. A report was passed on about the social worker but I have no idea what became of it.

So these old folk may still be not keeping themselves properly warm? Did you not chase up what action, if any was taken against this social worker? Could you not still check on it now, as another winter approaches?

If you care to give the address of who to contact I shall make inquiries myself, because it is absolutely outrageous.

It's been dealt with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmBnVjy4vag&feature=player_embedded

Aaaah - a world without children. Future generations will thank us.

Good on you swl

You did a good job to sort that out. I know myself how depressing it is to be cold indoors in winter..and for an old person that's so much more so, plus the physical danger of hypothermia.

Such people shouldn't be allowed to abuse vulnerable people with their theoretical ideology.

That vid was done by Cyriak Harris of B3ta who does the intro to Dave Gorman's Genius show.

Yes it's funny.

I wonder if Poppy Eugenie and Drippy get the joke?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqT4gIZuaq8

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqT4gIZuaq8

Oof! Oof! Oof! Strawmen ahoy!

a) Cutting 10% of CO2 use has nothing whatsoever to do with "Utopianism".

b) The "Ethiopia" thing is a reference to a nonsense argument, ie that by reducing our reliance on CO2 our economy will somehow collapse. Unless people seriously believe that by driving ten minutes to work each day and not insulating their lofts people are *literally* keeping the West afloat.

c) "The science is settled" is a strawman term. Science is never settled by its very nature; what is true is that the scientific evidence, researched for more than 35 years and peer-reviewed, suggests that human-created CO2 output is exacerbating climate change.

d) The questions the kids ask are standard denialist boilerplate. They've been dealt with time and time again. The "evidence" bit at the end is preposterous, denialists aren't interested in proper scientific debate or evidence, they're interested in poking (usually spurious) holes in climatologists' theories without providing a suitable counter-theory (where's *their* evidence?) of their own; in this regard they are much like 9/11 "truthers".

So, yes, the video is funny. But not in the way SWL suggests.

But, on the other hand, well done for dealing with those idiot social workers.

"they're interested in poking (usually spurious) holes in climatologists' theories without providing a suitable counter-theory (where's *their* evidence?) of their own"

Um... no. That's what Creationists do. Instead, the present unfalsifiable myths. "Denialists" do, in fact, propose several reasonable sounding theories. (They're not "counter-theories", just other theories.) And I use the word theory in its layperson sense. What I actually mean is hypothesis.

Examples:
1. Sunspot activity.
2. Natural (i.e. non-anthropogenic) variation
3. Er...
4. That's it.

Don't know of the others. However... I'm NOT a climatologist. I don't know enough to disprove either of (1) or (2). Thing is... I've not seen anyone who does know clearly disprove them either. I'm not saying they haven't, just that I haven't seen a clear, well communicated piece which falsifies those hypotheses.

Do provide a link...

I never suggested anything! I just posted it with a smiley because I found it funny.

Um... no. That's what Creationists do. Instead, the present "unfalsifiable myths. "Denialists" do, in fact, propose several reasonable sounding theories. (They're not "counter-theories", just other theories.) And I use the word theory in its layperson sense. What I actually mean is hypothesis.

Examples:
1. Sunspot activity.
2. Natural (i.e. non-anthropogenic) variation
3. Er...
4. That's it.

Don't know of the others. However... I'm NOT a climatologist. I don't know enough to disprove either of (1) or (2). Thing is... I've not seen anyone who does know clearly disprove them either. I'm not saying they haven't, just that I haven't seen a clear, well communicated piece which falsifies those hypotheses."

The problem with this though is that 1) climatologists have taken-on and considered these possibilities because *that's how science works* and subsequently rejected them.

There's lots about sunspots here:

http://tinyurl.com/377oxy7

Now, this brings me onto something else which is why I tend to compare denialists to truthers. If you say "look, science works by trying to disprove theories, so if someone with a blog has considered this stuff then you can be sure climatologists have as well" then you usually get back the claim that the climatologists are "cooking the books" or "inventing their own facts and suppressing information which doesn't fit". In order for this to happen in a scientific field there would have to be a conspiracy, a global one. Science doesn't work by taking a theory and then saying "so we all agree, right?"; you have to be peer-reviewed, have to convince everyone else. So in order for climatologists worldwide to be in on this there has to, by default, be a massive worldwide conspiracy where naive newcomer climatologists regularly present this "unwanted" data and get phone calls in the middle of the night telling them to stop it or else!

So, assuming we even accept this highly unlikely scenario, what is the purpose of this conspiracy? Why do such a difficult, risky, thing? There seem to be two claims. The first is that it's "needed" to secure "funding" but if that were the case why all the stuff about having to cut CO2? Why not just say "well, the earth seems to be warming up but we're not certain of the reason so we need more funding"? Surely agreeing on the issue and advocating solutions means *less* funding is needed, not more; and scientists drive cars, take planes and pay taxes like the rest of us, why inconvenience themselves? The other is that scientists are part of a massive elite group who hate the West and are trying to undermine and destroy it from within. I think it's fair to say there's no point in engaging with that one.

>I never suggested anything! I just posted it with a smiley because I found it funny.

I know, which I referenced in my last line. The rest of my post was a point-by-point argument with the claims the video was making. I didn't say you necessarily agreed with them all.

Additionally, Tiggy, if someone presents a hypothesis as a counter to a theory (in the scientfic sense) then they're going to need quite a lot to back it up. AGW theory has been arrived at after over 35 years of research, data-collection, peer-review and the usual "test the theory by trying to disprove it" stuff. If someone *disbelieves* (not is sceptical of) AGW based on nothing but a hypothesis then science isn't really coming into it. It's much like "ah, but science can't *prove absolutely* that God didn't create the world, therefore I choose to believe God created the world".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/F14321350?thread=6800993 The best link possible, I think, for this issue. It�s worth reading, for many reasons.

forgot to add: sort of
sorry