Whats a greater threat to Australia Climate Change deniers or terrorists?

[Long Live HFC]

so no, the dozen reconstructions not good enough then? SHOCKING!

You realise the bolded could be directed at you...

well it could, but would be totally wrong. you're just making ill-informed assumptions on my position(s)- I don't actually give a shit about AGW. not gonna be my problem! i'm not some greenie idiot that wants to hug the whales or save the trees. really couldn't care less.

what I do care about however is the anti-science bullshit from partisan hacks and their denial of reality. in the same way I hate 911 conspiracy theorists or fluoride idiots or vaccine clowns. people that hold opinions that run contrary to reality just shit me. so no, it's not political. it's scientific for me.

 

[telsor]

it's a meta data analysis of ~12,000 published papers. the deniersphere is obsessed with the deniers that dispute the classification of their handful of papers. nobody gives a shit.

source/link?

It comes from the either the 'doran survey', the methodology for which was so bad that the participants made comments such as “This was a very simplistic and biased questionnaire.” and “..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..” They asked over 10,000 to fill out a survey, 3146 did, and from that they selected 77 who 'fit their criteria' of whom 75 'agreed'

A further survey, which may be the one you refer to was 'weighted' according to how many people cited each paper...So if 1 paper is cited 10 times, it's 10 times 'better' than one that's only cited once....As if Science is one big popularity contest.

 

[telsor]

so no, the dozen reconstructions not good enough then? SHOCKING!

Did those reconstructions reveal their models?

Could there have been a vested interest in shoring up the credibility of 'their science'?

well it could, but would be totally wrong. you're just making ill-informed assumptions on my position(s)- I don't actually give a shit about AGW. not gonna be my problem! i'm not some greenie idiot that wants to hug the whales or save the trees. really couldn't care less.

what I do care about however is the anti-science bullshit from partisan hacks and their denial of reality. in the same way I hate 911 conspiracy theorists or fluoride idiots or vaccine clowns. people that hold opinions that run contrary to reality just shit me. so no, it's not political. it's scientific for me.

That's my problem too...When people make up facts, it makes the argument weaker.

I agree the climate is generally warming.
It makes sense that mankind has an influence on that.

The degree of that influence, and end result are, in my view, still being determined. Claims that "The science is settled" are crap.

 

[Long Live HFC]

source/link?

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

 

[Long Live HFC]

Did those reconstructions reveal their models?

i'm sure you could find out if you really wanted to.

Could there have been a vested interest in shoring up the credibility of 'their science'?

that's not how science works.

Claims that "The science is settled" are crap.

perhaps you're unaware of what that phrase refers to. it merely means that the world is warming and the primary driver is green house gases. nobody is claiming we know absolutely everything about the climate or more research isn't needed or that models are perfect or whatever. i'd find the quote in the IPCC report if i could be bothered.

 

[Lebbo73]

Lebbo it's endearing that you even use Andy Bolt's phrases "the so called science lie" - its cute.

Why do you continue with this? I don't watch or read Bolt's work. The only people who do follow him seems to be the ones like you around here that complain about his work.

 

[Portsmeff]

Have you seen where that 97% figure comes from?

It's complete crap.

oh ofcourse its crap, its not like over the past 100 years humans have made a couple of internal combustion engines and factories that omit heat. Where on earth do scientists get these weird ideas that humans maybe affecting heat omissions into our atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Have you also been past an airconditioning unit outside on a hot day. They're absolutely freezing, lots of people stand near them while walking down a street to catch their fresh air.

Personally I would love to have a house in the middle of a 10 laned freeway. Ive heard the cool breezes and fresh air is beautiful, especially with the reflection off the black bitumen.

btw has god realised the earth isn't flat anymore, has he graduated from high school?

 

[Forward Press]

Any suggestion on why it's occurring?

After all, the world has been warming (generally) since the end of the little ice age.

The CIMP3 and CIMP5 models are just that - models. Models by their very definition can never be 100% certain. No matter what model you use, though (and there are several competing ones, each with their own 'worst case' and 'best case' scenarios etc), all of them point to general warming. There is no real doubt that the causes are mainly anthropogenic and not mainly attributed to natural warming. There is no disagreement that CO2, methane, NO2 emissions etc are increasing, well above and beyond any natural cycle, and that the main contributor to this is human activity. There is also no dispute that those gases are greenhouse gases. What is there to argue?

Look, in the end I think we have to defer to the scientists -the real ones - on this issue. I'm not a climatologist, and although I teach this stuff and follow it closely, I don't think my expertise approaches anywhere near the expertise of those whose livelihoods are centred around it. And the climatologists say that anthropogenic global warming is happening. The journal article which some are using to peddle their 'arguments' actually does nothing to dispel that - it merely states we have to revise our modelling methods.

The denialists will say 'well those climate scientists have to say there is global warming otherwise they have no job' and 'global warming is a myth perpetuated by all powerful green groups' - but you cannot rebut that because no amount of facts will ever dissaude a conspiracy theorist. And that is what they are - spouting conspiracy theories to try and make it seem like it is even a debate. It is not.

 

[Forward Press]

2 things need to be done to regain credibility.

1. Stop idiots making massive, unsupportable claims (like 100m sea level rises, droughts 'forever', every extreme weather event being due to warming, etc). If some 'facts' get made up to 'sell the argument', why should anyone believe the rest of the 'facts'?

2. Open up the models, show the working. This will both allow the scientists to collectively develop a more accurate model by learning from each other and using the best of each, and reduce the skepticism that naturally occurs after it's revealed that the models that do get opened up (due to hacking...) are completely stuffed and have a pre-defined 'prediction' (e.g. the 'hockey stick' ).

A 100m sea level rise is predicated on the entirety of the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps melting - which won't happen for a long long time. Things like eternal droughts and any storm being attributed to global warming is nonsense. I do agree that you have to stop scaremongering but if people believe everything they read on internet forums we can't exactly help that. It's the new reality of scientific discourse that you can easily find 'evidence' to support your theory no matter how fringe it might be.

The modelling is actually fairly transparent - the journal article hints at it but in essence there are many factors used to make models of how global temperatures may change, and it's very complicated. The general public though don't give two shits about the methodology and the climate change denialists will then use the inevitable flaws in modelling that will arise due to its sheer complexity, to apparently support their 'argument' that it's all wrong. And what is wrong with the 'hockey stick' graph?

 

[Lester Burnham]

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Oh lordy! He's quoting the John Cook survey. Start the Benny Hill music!

 

[Long Live HFC]

Oh lordy! He's quoting the John Cook survey. Start the Benny Hill music!

yes yes, im aware of the deniersphere's crazy bollocks over cook's study. do note that i was merely answering the question re where the 97% figure came from, dickhead.

 

[Lebbo73]

so no, the dozen reconstructions not good enough then? SHOCKING!



well it could, but would be totally wrong. you're just making ill-informed assumptions on my position(s)- I don't actually give a shit about AGW. not gonna be my problem! i'm not some greenie idiot that wants to hug the whales or save the trees. really couldn't care less.

what I do care about however is the anti-science bullshit from partisan hacks and their denial of reality. in the same way I hate 911 conspiracy theorists or fluoride idiots or vaccine clowns. people that hold opinions that run contrary to reality just shit me. so no, it's not political. it's scientific for me.

911 and especially fluoride isn't a conspiracy. Read the side of your toothpaste tube next time you clean your teeth champion. When you do this at Easter, get back too me!

 

[Long Live HFC]

911 and especially fluoride isn't a conspiracy. Read the side of your toothpaste tube next time you clean your teeth champion. When you do this at Easter, get back too me!

i see you failed high school science.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Why do you continue with this? I don't watch or read Bolt's work. The only people who do follow him seems to be the ones like you around here that complain about his work.

Its convergent evolution - is that a theory as well in which the jury is still out?

 

[blackcat]

shadow gov'ts and thinkw@nks. Biggest threat to Australian government. Murdoch in Manhattan and Gina are still the most powerful people in Australia.

thinktanks do have a place, but the position they now occupy is somewhere between K-Street lobbying, Single Issue Voter Parties, and Organisational Wing of respective parties. They have transmogrified to the US political beltway K-Street thinkW@nkery double handed K Y - K - Street lubes up staccato onanism.

Chris Berg or Alex Hawke? Who do you be if you wanna wield influence. Or Howles. If I want power I know I join the IPA.

 

[Contra Mundum]

shadow gov'ts and thinkw@nks. Biggest threat to Australian government. Murdoch in Manhattan and Gina are still the most powerful people in Australia.

thinktanks do have a place, but the position they now occupy is somewhere between K-Street lobbying, Single Issue Voter Parties, and Organisational Wing of respective parties. They have transmogrified to the US political beltway K-Street thinkW@nkery double handed K Y - K - Street lubes up staccato onanism.

Chris Berg or Alex Hawke? Who do you be if you wanna wield influence. Or Howles. If I want power I know I join the IPA.

I can also remember a time when the IPA was regarded as a Right Wing Fringe organisation. The right wing equivalent of the Democratic Socialists. The Institute of Paid Advocacy is now the go-to organisation for commentary of all media. How did it happen?

 

[blackcat]

I can also remember a time when the IPA was regarded as a Right Wing Fringe organisation. The right wing equivalent of the Democratic Socialists. The Institute of Paid Advocacy is now the go-to organisation for commentary of all media. How did it happen?

take the lead off the Beltway.

Mimicry is not a compliment but a symptom of antendiluvianism and lacking originality and ideas and vision.

 

[clogged]

yes yes, im aware of the deniersphere's crazy bollocks over cook's study. do note that i was merely answering the question re where the 97% figure came from, dickhead.

Don't worry, cancat is someone who mistakenly believes Gaia theory is religious yet at the same time thinks technological singularity dreamers have something to say. i.e. he's not to be taken seriously.

 

[CountryRace]

The CIMP3 and CIMP5 models are just that - models. Models by their very definition can never be 100% certain. No matter what model you use, though (and there are several competing ones, each with their own 'worst case' and 'best case' scenarios etc), all of them point to general warming. There is no real doubt that the causes are mainly anthropogenic and not mainly attributed to natural warming. There is no disagreement that CO2, methane, NO2 emissions etc are increasing, well above and beyond any natural cycle, and that the main contributor to this is human activity. There is also no dispute that those gases are greenhouse gases. What is there to argue?

Look, in the end I think we have to defer to the scientists -the real ones - on this issue. I'm not a climatologist, and although I teach this stuff and follow it closely, I don't think my expertise approaches anywhere near the expertise of those whose livelihoods are centred around it. And the climatologists say that anthropogenic global warming is happening. The journal article which some are using to peddle their 'arguments' actually does nothing to dispel that - it merely states we have to revise our modelling methods.

The denialists will say 'well those climate scientists have to say there is global warming otherwise they have no job' and 'global warming is a myth perpetuated by all powerful green groups' - but you cannot rebut that because no amount of facts will ever dissaude a conspiracy theorist. And that is what they are - spouting conspiracy theories to try and make it seem like it is even a debate. It is not.

99.99%


http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...s-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/

 

[Xsess]

Thread title is arse about. Should read;

Whats the greatest threat, climate change or terrorist deniers?

Much simpler to answer..

 

[CountryRace]

Bit of a cross over of people

Denying climate change and promoting Muslim fear mongering innit

 

[romeoh]

Thread title is arse about. Should read;

Whats the greatest threat, climate change or terrorist deniers?

Much simpler to answer..

Not really a big deal to answer.. Yes, climate change is a major threat to our future (and not to distant one at that). The consequences of it are already affecting the world and it will continue to escalate and impact significantly in my lifetime.
Terrorism, is of world wide concern, but I am not personally exposed to it or affected by it. And when you get down to it, not many people are. How has terrorism impacted on your life Xeey?

 

[CountryRace]

It's had to push extra women over for the audacity of wearing headscarves

 

[Slax]

The only way this has become a debate topic is because of the short sightedness of over recent governments in being willing to be puppets for USA policy. If Australia had cared to develop her own foreign policy based upon what is solely in the interests of Australia then we would never of become involved in the Iraq war.

Terrorism can be controlled by getting a government that is interested in creating an inclusive sense of community, something Abbott, Gillard & Howard were not interested in doing. Make feel people welcome and safe and they will repay your kindness, ostracise them and they will resent you.

Climate change deniers are killing this country on multiple levels.

1. We are seen oversees as a backwater full of redneck hicks who have the heads stuck in the ground because we are seen as not caring. Every other major nation in the world now acknowledges it, even the USA has come to accept it, yet we don't.
2. Economically disadvantaged due to denial. If we were interested in green energy we would of continued supporting it not the coal industry. We as a country are in an amazing position to explore the possibilities due to our geographical features that provide plenty of coastline, lots of sun & wind and large tracks of land that can be used to explore geothermal options, but we don't want to. Instead we are seeing that being done overseas. We are missing out on the knowledge generation from it as our scientist are going overseas to work in countries more receptive to listening to ideas, which also means that we are missing out on possible high end manufacturing.
3. Leaving us in an unprepared position. The longer you deny the more dire the position becomes when you admit to the truth.

 

[Xsess]

What’s the definition of an IS millionaire?
Someone with 8 relatives living in Australia..

A federal investigation into the welfare status of Australian foreign fighters, shows 96 per cent had been on welfare benefits when they fled to the Middle East.