Mini Ice Age on the Way?

[hawk20]

So far in my life, eminent experts have told me, one way and another, that I'll be lucky to be alive in 5 years due to

Nuclear war.
Germ warfare.
Ice Age.
Running out of oil and gas.
Ozone layer.
Acid rain.
GM crops.
Global warming.
Mad cows.
Swine flu.
Bird flu.
Various economic crisis.
One thing is certain, though, we will become extinct one day - its all in the timing

Absolutely. And of course there is real money for research in scaring the pants off people, getting your half-baked theory in the Press, and getting politicians exited. Then various state sponsored bodies hurl money at you to research the problem.

And anyone who disagrees finds it very hard to get funding for research and if they get it from the private sector then they are told it biases their research, which is therefore no good.

 

[camerafodder]

and getting politicians exited.

Now there's an idea I like!

 

[MOCAŠ]

So far in my life, eminent experts have told me, one way and another, that I'll be lucky to be alive in 5 years due to...

Really?

Have these "eminent experts" been sending you marketing emails along the lines of 'Carpe diem nam cras moriemur, so buy some of our lovely Viagra'? Or perhaps you've been placing an interpretative reading on Nostradamus?

I can safely say that with the possible exception of nuclear war, none of these has been used to claim that the world is likely to end within five years; or even that it will end within our lifetimes. They have either been used to warn of a potential risk to a percentage of the population, or a long-term impact on future generations. The fact that they haven't had the predicted worst-case outcome is often due in some part to the fact that the progress of the threat has been closely monitored and controlled by government action, alongside which public awareness has been raised and, where appropriate, behaviour changed.

One man's health scare is another man's call to action. Each report has to be assessed on its merits, and responded to (or ignored) accordingly. It also usually helps if one takes one's advice neat, rather than relying on hyperbole from certain elements of the press.

 

[Ratz]

Absolutely. And of course there is real money for research in scaring the pants off people, getting your half-baked theory in the Press, and getting politicians exited. Then various state sponsored bodies hurl money at you to research the problem.

And anyone who disagrees finds it very hard to get funding for research and if they get it from the private sector then they are told it biases their research, which is therefore no good.

I can certainly vouch for most of this having worked in University research for 14 years (I left 2 years ago). I spoke to one of our Profs who had just become part of the funding approval committee for one of the major scientific funding bodies in the UK. He said that he'd always thought the system was skewed by politics but had been shocked at just how brazen it was, that there was no effort to conceal the lack of due process. One particular instance cited was a proposal from another 'eminent' Prof working in a trendy area of research; As the process dictates the proposal goes out to 3 referees for review and comment and is rejected by 2 of the 3 on scientific grounds. Despite the process saying that all 3 had to approve - the proposal was rubber stamped by the committee and the funding given.

 

[ant1]

So far in my life, eminent experts have told me, one way and another, that I'll be lucky to be alive in 5 years due to

Nuclear war.
Germ warfare.
Ice Age.
Running out of oil and gas.
Ozone layer.
Acid rain.
GM crops.
Global warming.
Mad cows.
Swine flu.
Bird flu.
Various economic crisis.

Those I can remember, I sure I've survived more

One thing is certain, though, we will become extinct one day - its all in the timing

Somes it up nicely

But it won't be in my time!

 

[Colin_b]

Really?

Have these "eminent experts" been sending you marketing emails along the lines of 'Carpe diem nam cras moriemur, so buy some of our lovely Viagra'? Or perhaps you've been placing an interpretative reading on Nostradamus?

I can safely say that with the possible exception of nuclear war, none of these has been used to claim that the world is likely to end within five years; or even that it will end within our lifetimes. They have either been used to warn of a potential risk to a percentage of the population, or a long-term impact on future generations. The fact that they haven't had the predicted worst-case outcome is often due in some part to the fact that the progress of the threat has been closely monitored and controlled by government action, alongside which public awareness has been raised and, where appropriate, behaviour changed.

One man's health scare is another man's call to action. Each report has to be assessed on its merits, and responded to (or ignored) accordingly. It also usually helps if one takes one's advice neat, rather than relying on hyperbole from certain elements of the press.

Many of those were pre-email and Viagra, so I hardly think the internet deserves all the blame

The problem is that rational discussion is subsumed by scaremongering from the press and pressure groups, driving the government into a something-must-be-done reaction. Mostly though, sanity prevails, and the status quo returns, and we bumble on.

Some threats are serious, such as the ozone layer and CFC pollution. That one was easy to fix, and had immediate results.

Global warming is still in the hyperbole stage, and the public hasn't yet decided if they are being conned yet. We can't even agree on a name for this yet!

On one side they see scientists predicting doom and gloom with various degrees of gloom. Conversely there are other scientists predicting different outcomes and causes, and governments putting up taxes.

Add the pressure groups on both sides, and clarity goes out the window.

Your comment is rational, sensible and right. Sadly, it can't compete with the lurid stuff in the influence stakes