You leave Timmy alone!
Who better to prophesise about non-filling dams than a Mammologist
Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)
- Thread starter RobbieGray17
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
You leave Timmy alone!
Who better to prophesise about non-filling dams than a Mammologist
- Banned
- #27
Facepalm at Billy Hunt, Jakeeboy, jtromin, Kim Hagdorn, lincsPJ, luthor, RIOLIUSTAR, Ruck Machine and scottyt2
- Banned
- #28
Has science become an alternative religion?
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion...atter-for-change/story-e6frfhqf-1226302713529
THE three wise monkeys of Australian climate science, professors Will Steffen, Matthew England and David Karoly, posted a self-justifying report on the Climate Commission website last week linking recent floods, heavy rain and low temperatures to global warming.
"The science behind southeast Australia's wet, cool summer" is their explanation for why the much-ridiculed predictions of endless drought by fellow climate activists, such as Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery, failed to materialise.
"The wetter conditions experienced in southeastern Australia in the last two years are consistent with scientists' knowledge and understanding of how the climate is changing in the long term," they write.
It's just the media that got it wrong.
"Most parts of Australia have experienced exceptionally heavy rains over the past two years, filling many dams around the country ... There has been much confusion in the media about what this means for climate change."
It's a pity these scientists weren't so proactive when the media was lapping up Flannery's Armageddon forecasts.
And no, contrary to Malcolm Turnbull's claims last week, Flannery wasn't "verballed".
It's a matter of public record that Flannery has warned of endless drought for years.
In 2007 he predicted, "rainfall across eastern Australia will reduce until a semi-permanent El Nino-like (drought) state is induced".
"Blind faith in alarmist predictions has serious consequences"
He urged desalination plants be built within 18 months.
He claimed, "even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems".
He was wrong.
But through his best-selling book The Weather Makers, the Climate Commissioner influenced a lot of Australians.
Blind faith in alarmist predictions has serious consequences.
In last year's floods in Brisbane, for instance, we now know that engineers at the Wivenhoe dam chose to believe the doomsayers rather than the evidence of their own eyes and the actual weather forecast that told them the drought had broken and Dorothea Mackellar's "flooding rains" were back.
Conditioned to believe permanent drought was the new reality, the engineers hoarded water.
Instead of releasing it slowly and early, they waited until it was too late, and huge volumes of water escaping from the dam flooded Brisbane, engulfed 15,000 homes and businesses.
The hapless engineers, now facing criminal charges, are the scapegoats.
But the real culprits are opportunistic politicians and mad greenies, whose apocalyptic warnings supersede prudence and common sense.
With just four months left until the advent of the carbon tax, the alarmists have regrouped.
Without admitting any errors of the past, they blithely explain away the inconvenient truth of all that rain and ramp up Armageddon scenarios that justify the tax.
With the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report due next year, the hyperbole meter is set to screech.
Historian Geoffrey Blainey, speaking last week, suggests science has become an "alternative religion".
Research into his new book, A Short History of Christianity, leads him to think our attitude towards science in an era of technological advances is akin to religious faith, with gods to worship, a vehemence of belief, good and evil, heretics and saints.
He says alternative religions have taken the place of Christianity, including communism, and nature worship.
The third alternative religion is "science, its cousin technology and its god, reason".
"Science has become incredibly powerful and influential, which is understandable.
So much of our increased standard of living in the last 150 years has come from science and technology and understandably science is worshipped by a large number of people."
MIT atmospheric physicist Professor Richard Lindzen also views climate alarmism as "quasi-religious".
Climate alarmists want science to act as the servant of politicians pushing for carbon control.
That is not the role of science.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion...atter-for-change/story-e6frfhqf-1226302713529
THE three wise monkeys of Australian climate science, professors Will Steffen, Matthew England and David Karoly, posted a self-justifying report on the Climate Commission website last week linking recent floods, heavy rain and low temperatures to global warming.
"The science behind southeast Australia's wet, cool summer" is their explanation for why the much-ridiculed predictions of endless drought by fellow climate activists, such as Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery, failed to materialise.
"The wetter conditions experienced in southeastern Australia in the last two years are consistent with scientists' knowledge and understanding of how the climate is changing in the long term," they write.
It's just the media that got it wrong.
"Most parts of Australia have experienced exceptionally heavy rains over the past two years, filling many dams around the country ... There has been much confusion in the media about what this means for climate change."
It's a pity these scientists weren't so proactive when the media was lapping up Flannery's Armageddon forecasts.
And no, contrary to Malcolm Turnbull's claims last week, Flannery wasn't "verballed".
It's a matter of public record that Flannery has warned of endless drought for years.
In 2007 he predicted, "rainfall across eastern Australia will reduce until a semi-permanent El Nino-like (drought) state is induced".
"Blind faith in alarmist predictions has serious consequences"
He urged desalination plants be built within 18 months.
He claimed, "even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems".
He was wrong.
But through his best-selling book The Weather Makers, the Climate Commissioner influenced a lot of Australians.
Blind faith in alarmist predictions has serious consequences.
In last year's floods in Brisbane, for instance, we now know that engineers at the Wivenhoe dam chose to believe the doomsayers rather than the evidence of their own eyes and the actual weather forecast that told them the drought had broken and Dorothea Mackellar's "flooding rains" were back.
Conditioned to believe permanent drought was the new reality, the engineers hoarded water.
Instead of releasing it slowly and early, they waited until it was too late, and huge volumes of water escaping from the dam flooded Brisbane, engulfed 15,000 homes and businesses.
The hapless engineers, now facing criminal charges, are the scapegoats.
But the real culprits are opportunistic politicians and mad greenies, whose apocalyptic warnings supersede prudence and common sense.
With just four months left until the advent of the carbon tax, the alarmists have regrouped.
Without admitting any errors of the past, they blithely explain away the inconvenient truth of all that rain and ramp up Armageddon scenarios that justify the tax.
With the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report due next year, the hyperbole meter is set to screech.
Historian Geoffrey Blainey, speaking last week, suggests science has become an "alternative religion".
Research into his new book, A Short History of Christianity, leads him to think our attitude towards science in an era of technological advances is akin to religious faith, with gods to worship, a vehemence of belief, good and evil, heretics and saints.
He says alternative religions have taken the place of Christianity, including communism, and nature worship.
The third alternative religion is "science, its cousin technology and its god, reason".
"Science has become incredibly powerful and influential, which is understandable.
So much of our increased standard of living in the last 150 years has come from science and technology and understandably science is worshipped by a large number of people."
MIT atmospheric physicist Professor Richard Lindzen also views climate alarmism as "quasi-religious".
Climate alarmists want science to act as the servant of politicians pushing for carbon control.
That is not the role of science.
Didn't know he posted at Big Footy. What team does he barrack for?
Pie eyed
Premium Platinum
- Jun 26, 2007
- 42,593
- 23,344
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Magpies
When Goldmans invested in the Climate Exchange, Horizon Wind Energy etc it was merely doing God's work.
Why move first if there is no advantage to do so? There is no great risk / reward pay off at play here.
TheStinger
Brownlow Medallist
- Apr 23, 2009
- 12,748
- 1,352
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Penguins, Aston Villa, Adel Utd.
Yes, let's show that great spirit to never give up and never think things through!
- Apr 1, 2008
- 3,525
- 638
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore, St Alba
Kim Hagdorn
Club Legend
Facepalm at Billy Hunt, Jakeeboy, jtromin, Kim Hagdorn, lincsPJ, luthor, RIOLIUSTAR, Ruck Machine and scottyt2
Facepalm at the big Bob Brown toy boy
I would assume that his role as climate commissioner would be to explain such an extreme weather event and how that relates to the issue of climate change.
We are told these events are to be expected, when one such event occurs and the commish is nowhere to be seen, I'd question what the Australian taxpayer is actually paying for?
sigh.
More left wing crap.
This is about the science. There is no point "moving first" if what we are doing is irrelevant. Don't you get that?
This climate "consensus" (it's not a consensus anymore anyway) is also killing millions by diverting billions of dollars from helping the poor to enriching governments, bureaucrats, bankers, landowners, windfarm scamsters, and environmentalist racketeers, and by denying to the Third World the fossil-fueled electricity it so desperately needs.
The climate models have ALL bene wrong. Every single one of them. EVERY ONE. The warming to be expected from a doubling of CO2 is closer to 1 degree. But even if 21st-century warming is 3 degrees (which it probably won't be), it would still be 100 times cheaper and more cost-effective to do nothing now and adapt in a focused way later than to try to stop the warming by controlling CO2.
There is also a strong argument that C02 is GOOD for the atmosphere. Plants grow quicker, global food production increases. Yes, it has a minor warming effect but so what? Not as much of a warming effect as water vapour. Why would we want to stop it when there is NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT HUMAN C02 EMISSIONS CAUSE DANGEROUS WARMING It's not pollution. it is plant food.
The left wing have fallen for the alarmism hook, line and sinker.
Why have the left-wing fallen for it?
Because left-wingers wrongly they feel they should be alarmists. It's is the left-wings new "faith."
Well, I have a message for everyone who is a left-wing voter. You don't have to be an alarmist. You can still believe in left-wing politics and be a climate sceptic.
*sfellows*
No proof of carbon dioxide causing the world to trap more solar energy and hence heat up the world?
*chuckles and shakes head*
No proof of carbon dioxide causing the world to trap more solar energy and hence heat up the world?
*chuckles and shakes head*
Listen to me very closely so that you don't trip up on the facts:
Humans are contributing to the atmosphere having more C02 in it, than it otherwise would
This C02 is having a warming effect. We know this because C02 is a greenhouse gas and it has been empirically measured in greenhouses that it has a warming effect.
Therefore humans are contributing to warming to some extent. DUH!!!!
THAT IS NOT THE DEBATE.
The debate is whether human C02 emissions are DANGEROUS, whether they are significant, whether they are even a bad thing at all (there is lots of evidence that they might be good) and if they are bad, whether it is cost effective do to anything about it (and no, it's not cost effective at all)
There is categorically NO empirical evidence anywhere by aynone that human c02 emissions cause dangerous warming. None. Zippo. You can search the internet all day for that one peer-reviewed paper that doesn't exist that shows that human C02 emissions cause dangerous warming. You won't find it. All the "evidence" is based on models, assumptions, graphs, and ALL of them have been wrong about predicting the climate.
- Apr 1, 2008
- 3,525
- 638
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore, St Alba
....or ignore just them if they are counter to your own?
...or swallow any unsupported theories from pretenders that supports your particular political inclination?
Why should we believe you over any other self-appointed guru?
Your science/meteorology/climatology or physics background is...?
I agree with your general argument but this bit is dodgy. Glass greenhouses work by preventing convection of hot air; greenhouse gases work by blocking radiative heat.
It's about looking at the evidence. That's what I implore you to do.
You don't have to be a scientist. No one is asking you to DO the experiments, just look at the results. You know how to read a graph don't you?
The politics of the debate has clearly overwhelmed the science. The "consensus" is nearly all government funded scientists, who have their funding to lose if they go against the theory.
Look at the evidence. Why is it that the sceptical scientists are nearly all retired or independent scientists? Is that a coincidence? I think not.
What are you talking about?
- It's a fact that there is no empirical evidence that human emissions cause DANGEROUS warming.
- It's a fact that alarmist scientists witheld important information, distorted or witheld facts and figures, and blatantly ignored evidence. That was the basis for the climate-gate emails, all of which are readily available to read.
- it's a fact that ALL of the computer models have bene wrong in their predictions.
- It's a fact that temperatures have not risen over the last 10 years (although on a wider time scale they have been rising since about 1650)
- It's a fact that during the medieval warm period, temperatures were warmer that what they are today. And crops thrived.
- It's a fact that Tim Flannery made alarmist predictions about the rain that falls not filling our dams, and now he has been made to look like an idiot.
- It's a fact that water vapour is a far more important greenhouse gas for warming than C02
- It's a fact that C02 does have a warming effect, but it's also a fact that there is NO evidecne that it is "THE" main driving factor behing temperature rises. There are far more important factors out there.
What's Al Gores?
It's about the evidence. Look at it. DO. YOUR. RESEARCH!
Consensus is not evidence, but it's worth noting that there is no longer a consensus. The "97% of climate scientists agree" bullshit was really only 75 people out of 77 answering two questions.
I can name 30,000 sceptical scientists with 9,000 PHD's here. http://www.petitionproject.org/
Not that the new consensus in favour of NON-alarmism proves anything, but it does prove that the debate is not over.
Consensus have never proven anything. It only takes one person who is right to dissprove 100 who are wrong.
- Apr 1, 2008
- 3,525
- 638
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore, St Alba
I am and I have. We see generally different conclusions from the same pool.
We were talking about gaining the right information, not about producing it. The scientists are unquestionably authorities and they differ in their opinions. Overall, the majority opinion has a greater chance of being right. Because majority opinion has been proven incorrect on some occasions, it does not follow that it must always be fallible.
The link to the Petition site is an example of the sceptics trying to change the dynamic by giving the illusion that sceptics are actually the mainstream. That simply is not true.
The site assiduously avoids identifying who it represents. It lacks credibility because is trying to hide its identity. That arouses much suspicion.
I can read a graph - and I can certainly design quite a few types if it will amuse you. So what?
The politics has clouded the facts as there is capital to either prove or disprove. Government has a vested interest in keeping industry happy. Industry has a vested interest in playing down C.C. because it threatens profitability. It also has the resources to obfuscate. This experience punctuates much of the last century and famous cases involve the tobacco industry, lead, timber production, mining of almost any sort, inter alia! That is the source of my scepticism. Yours appears to be a manic suspicion of anything left.
Retirement implying the end of a useful career? Independent scientists need a source of income. Producing propaganda for one cause or another could be quite lucrative. It has been done in the past. A classic example is lead. TEL was pioneered by a scientist Charles Kettering and he staunchly defended his invention despite it killing thousands. When eventually the truth emerged, hundreds had died and millions more were seriusly affected. The oil companies conspired to suppress it using scientists, the courts and public misinformation. Kettering grudgingly moved on. Not long after, he discovered the wonder gas, CFC!
The 'evidence' you refer to, is actually a search for confirmation of a given stance. You have NOT provided evidence, simply opinion. There is no path to evidence, no source and no examination.
Opinion without evidence is NOT FACT! You assume that each of your succinct statements is beyond dispute. They aren't. Even less convincing when they form part of a strident rant.
?
I don't take seriously the opinion of outraged amateurs as evidence. Becoming increasingly suspicious of your ideas, though.
It certainly isn't. It is the polarity of opinions that will keep that fire stoked. That polarity is fuelled by vested interests - both personal and fiscal.
Still, I have done a bit of reading and followed the path of this topic for over four decades. I am not a scientist, but I learnt whose opinions to trust. I also know personally that even great scientists can produce imperfect results on occasions - as with my internationally esteemed late father-in-law. I don't think all scientists (including my dear, late f-i-l are seriously flawed as a result.
But you're asking us to take the consensus of 30,000 of your scientists? Does it mean anything to you that many times that amount of practising scientists think the contrary? While it is possible one groundbreaker can shatter the beliefs of others, it is not practical to give full credence to every dissenting voice. It can't just be that 'he thinks different, so the rest of the world is wrong"!
Being a climate sceptic could be no different from being a 'round earth' sceptic, if it has its root in ignorance and gullibility. It is, therefore, not TRUE SCEPTICISM!
True scepticism is based on a questioning of established knowledge, opinions, facts and beliefs - not an outright rejection of it! To this end, true scepticism requires an open, enquiring mind that can process available evidence and establish clear empirical data that challenges established thought. Scepticism is not a closed mind that has coalesced through preconceptions and emotive opinion. Ignorance seeks affirmation of ONLY its own preconceptions.
OldBlueFan
Premiership Player
- Sep 23, 2009
- 3,027
- 3,142
- AFL Club
- Carlton
You sure you want to look at models vs reality?
Temperatures:
Sea Level:
Arctic minimum ice extent:
Pie eyed
Premium Platinum
- Jun 26, 2007
- 42,593
- 23,344
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Magpies
I think that Dan is trying to make the point that the "outcomes" of the proposed forecast changes are far from a given let alone understood and that even in a best case scenario is the cost of action worth any of the hoped for abatement.
Regardless of how stridently he/she or anyone for that matter, supports which side of the argument, these are extremely relevant questions being asked by many, including many climate scientists.
That does not in my mind equate to denial.
Hi Gina.
Have you finalised your purchase of the Liberal party yet?
I reckon so. Because they seem to do exactly as you tell them, including getting involved in your personal life and telling your children to back off
Also Lord Munkton is the worlds greatest scientist, and you are correct in aping his opinion against all the experts on climate, who are really commies funded by the CIA and hell bent on global destruction.
Based on? Countless examples across many fields could show that premise to be wrong. Advances in sciences are often an occasion for overturning the previous prevailing wisdom.
That is precisely what happened with the IPCC when they so very conveniently whitewashed the MWP out of history.
"If I were wrong, it would only have taken one." --Albert Einstein, commenting on the book 100 Authors Against Einstein
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
