The Forum > Article Comments > We need to look more closely at the science behind climate > Comments
We need to look more closely at the science behind climate : Comments
By Dennis Jensen, published 18/11/2010We need a royal commission to sift fact from wishful thinking in the climate change debate.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Page 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
-
- All
Posted by Atman, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 11:05:53 AM
| |
Could it be satire? Is Altman a very black comic, creating a great inflated bouncing bogeyman? Alas, it seems that he is serious. Every cliche from the anti-science lexicon, every false attribution, every scary non-scenario ... oh dear. To start at the beginning: there is robust debate, in the scientific literature, and in the blogs, and anyone can take part (even Altman). All you have to do is produce a rational argument and you are ahead of the game. The point of scientific publication is that your facts and figures are laid out for public scrutiny. Nothing is faked, and everything can be challenged. Debate is alive and well.
Altman objects when/if individuals make a profit (Gore, Garnaut) - isn't that what capitalism is all about? Shouldn't he be praising them for seizing the opportunity? Apart from that, I have no interest in Gore and little in Garnaut, or Pachauri. It's the science that matters. "Climate alarm is driven by the left-leaning UN" says Altman. More conspiracy! In fact climate alarm is driven by good science, and has been for decades. Australian researchers like Graeme Pearman and Barrie Pittock have been investigating atmospheric CO2 since the 1970s. In 1988 Pearman edited a major book, Greenhouse, Planning for Climate Change, based mainly on refereed papers from the 1987 Greenhouse conference at Monash University. A lot has been learned since then, and the IPCC was created to supply the best scientific information to all governments. "Scientists are set to receive megabucks" says Altman. Go and have a look in a CSIRO carpark and count the limos and SUVs. But CSIRO announced this morning that it was sacking about three dozen scientists, mainly in the environmental sector, to save money. Where are those megabucks? Perhaps it is all satire after all ... perhaps Altman is just a huge noir joke. Ha. It's certainly ridiculous. Posted by nicco, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 1:48:59 PM
| |
Nicco said->
"Altman objects when/if individuals make a profit (Gore, Garnaut) - isn't that what capitalism is all about? Shouldn't he be praising them for seizing the opportunity? Apart from that, I have no interest in Gore and little in Garnaut, or Pachauri. It's the science that matters." The fact that you have "no interest in Gore and little in Garnaut, or Pachauri" is my very point. You are happy to ignore rampant corruption and deliberate factual distortions such as falsifying scientific data and carry on like it doesn't matter. To say you're just 'interested in the science' but not in the head of the top scientific body from where "the Science" (IPCC) is emanating, is simply odd. As is your lack of concern about who profits, whether the truth is being told and what the other side of the argument is about. Again, simply astounding willingness to bury your head in the sand. There is no conspiracy, just out and out fraud. Perhaps the greatest misuse of science we have ever seen. Posted by Atman, Thursday, 25 November 2010 4:09:12 PM
| |
@altman you either do not understand science or are being obtuse. Whereas in some areas of intellectual endeavour one can point to vested interests as an indication that the conclusions are suspect with science one can only come up with testable conclusions. You do not have to consult the IPCC report. The Club of Rome in the early seventies came up with very similar predictions. The CSIRO examined these (Turner (2009). A comparison of the limits of growth with thirty years of reality.)and found them to be accurate. The club of Rome was likewise accused of having some sort of vested interests in its outcomes - whether those vested interests were a fiction or true is ultimately irrelevant all that ultimately matters is whether or not the science stacks up. Given that the peer reviewed climatology literature supports the arguments that the likes of Gore promote I would have thought Gore pecuniary interests is of little relevance to whether or not we should heed the science.
Posted by BAYGON, Thursday, 25 November 2010 4:34:28 PM
| |
Altman, you are refusing to do your homework. In the first instance, the IPCC is not a scientific body, but an organisation set up to collate the latest in climate research and report on this, for the benefit of national governments. The IPCC carried out no research. Its conclusions were signed off by all member governments, including such "sceptical" nations as Saudi Arabia. The science is not "emanating" from the IPCC. The science, and the very robust and continuing debate, is to be found in the scientific literature, where researchers show their work to all comers, for anyone to refute if they can. If you wish, you can study the science of climate without ever having any contact with the IPCC; in fact the science has been studied for far longer than the IPCC has been in existence.
Secondly, your views about corruption and fraud are not supported by any evidence. Your statements are profoundly insulting to members of the scientific community, to whom integrity is fundamentally important. And I fail to see why I should be interested in Al Gore, a middle-aged American politician of middle class, middle-of-the-road views and little relevance to Australia. Posted by nicco, Thursday, 25 November 2010 5:33:30 PM
| |
Baygon and Nicco
It is of grave concern that you would not seek to examine alternative views. There are HUNDREDS of scientific papers challenging the notion of AGW but you are blissfully unaware of these believing that there is only one side to this debate. (Please feel free to ask for some links to these, as it is clear you have not expended much energy searching for them) Your religious like adherence to one view without examining the other, is quite scary and very unscientific. You should read this resignation letter from an esteemed scientist. http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/reasonmclucus/15835660/professor-emiritus-hal-lewis-resigns-from-american-physical-society/ Surely, you won't discount this out of hand? And don't tell me this is 'only one opinion'. It would only mean you have conveniently avoided reading about the others. My goodness, Nicco you said: "In the first instance, the IPCC is not a scientific body, " Pity you didn't look at the IPCC site first. http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml. May I quote from the IPCC site. "The IPCC IS a scientific body. " I think its you who hasn't done his homework! You then said: "Secondly, your views about corruption and fraud are not supported by any evidence. Your statements are profoundly insulting to members of the scientific community, to whom integrity is fundamentally important." I suppose eliminating unfavourable data, making wild unsubstantiated predictions and developing mathematically unsupportable 'hockey stick' graphs is not fraud to you. Then what is it? History shows us that Scientists views and results are easily swayed when there is possible funding on the horizon. Posted by Atman, Friday, 26 November 2010 10:04:01 PM
|
Manufactured statistics, the faked Hockey Stick graph and the rise and fall of the CRU all seem to have had little effect upon the fervour of Climate worriers. Al Gore's investment in a Carbon Trading company does not seem to concern them, nor does Ross Garnaut's history of mining and pollution of third world ecosystems. They seem to be unperturbed by David Suzuki's rallying cry to jail non-believers and seem blissfully unaware of how politics and power games are subverting science.
Climate alarm is driven by the left leaning UN whose clear agenda is one of wealth redistribution through stealth. They are entirely unconcerned about Climate change, a fact demonstrated by their willingness to reward a totalitarian regime, China, to pollute at will in order to 'catch up' economically to the West while the rest of us pay for years of democracy, human rights and civilisation.
Western governments are keen to reap the benefits of a tax grab which is otherwise difficult to extract from people without losing votes. Leftists want to punish the West for its success and reward the failures of Communism and Greenies are so full of the Save the Earth ideology they are completely unable to view the world in an objective manner.
In addition, barely average Scientists are set to receive megabucks and academic promotions for research into the effect of 'Climate Change' on anything you can name.
And where is all this money coming from? You and me of course. Hang on to your wallets , Ladies and Gentlemen.