Col, I was actually pointing out to Bonmot that I thought there was more than a little evidence of a conspiracy among our academic elites.

I do find it strange that they did not agree with Howard, with his work choices. I saw that as the first step in reducing the ridiculous amount of money we pay ourselves today. It is not possible for Oz to survive, long term, with our income structure.

In this way, to some degree, I agree with those who want to reduce our consumption, & I believe Howard was taking a first step in this direction, but perhaps only to avoid a major shock, when the stuff hits the fan for us, which it inevitable will. I did not like his trying to do it sideways

However my hackles rise when our not too bright academics try to to be cunning, & con us. They fail to realise that those in universities stopped growing when they entered those hallowed halls. The rest of us, those who bother at least, kept on growing. We now find much greater savvy out in the street, than in universities.

If they keep up this rubbish the Oz public, slow to anger will extract their vengeance. Mao's cultural revolution will be rather mild to what will happen when the public stop despising & start hating these con artists.

It is now time for them to come clean, & share their true worries with us. If they did so, & had sound reasons, they would be amazed at how well the public would respond

Hasbeen, by jeez you were quick to reply with 'that list' - musta been in your arsenal eh?

Yes, I thought I had seen 'that list' before so I did a google search on the initial few names - bingo!

It seems 'that list' surfaced in 2009 from anti-global warming vested interests and lobby groups and has been doing the rounds with shock-jocks, blogs and forums ever since.

I don't know where RObert stands on AGW but clearly, he acts as a true sceptic would - he checks the primary source. You on the other hand, don't even want to act like a real sceptic. You just believe what you want to believe - apparently with the same ideological fervour as our esteemed resident sophist.

For example, the very first "quote" from Professor Stephen Schneider (sadly died last year) RObert correctly says was/is taken out of context.

Moreover, the "quote" is deliberately taken out of context (or cherry-picked) to give a complete different meaning to what was intended. Bob Carter and Ian Plimer do this constantly to push their own agenda.

Don't believe me? Just fact-check their footnotes and citations in their books. My guess, you won't - even though it would bring this whole article's commentary back on topic.

To answer your question:

Schneider's "quote" is being quote-mined by sophists to give weight to their specious arguments.

For example, if you had provided the whole quote, or even the last sentence - then everyone would have a clearer understanding of what the professor was trying to convey.

Cont'd

Ergo:

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.

On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change.

To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.

This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

End quote

See page 5 in the following link for more context.

http://www.americanphysicalsociety.com/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf

Let me help if you won't go to the primary source:

"Vested interests have repeatedly claimed I advocate exaggerating threats.

Their "evidence" comes from partially quoting my Discover interview, omitting the last line and phrase "double ethical blind" (do you know what that is, Hasbeen?)

They also omit my solution ..."

now we're reduced to the usual alarmist Google wars .. I can Google more than you and up-Google you. So clever.

yes, we know some people have too much spare time and no substance already and is reduced to merely sniping at anyone else who posts.

hi bonmot

whether the quotes are recycled or not, makes no difference.

"The usual alarmist Google wars" says rpg, implying that all references are equal (but some are more equal than others.)

This is standard polemical stuff, designed to cast dust in the eye of the enquirer. Google is a wonderful resource, but undiscriminating. If rpg considers that all references have equal credibility, it only reflects on rpg's failure to understand the nature of science, and the nature of probability.

Anyone can assemble a vast list of blog references to support their cause. It takes some critical intelligence, and a freedom from preconceptions, to assess the credibility of these references. As rpg must be aware, there is a system in place, called peer-review, which attempts to impose some measure of quality control on scientific publication, but which has little relation to blogs or journalism. It's not infallible, but it offers a degree of confidence in research results, and it also offers the opportunity for anyone to refute the science in question - if they have the evidence.

And the quotes? Not just re-cycled, ad nauseam, but selectively edited and taken out of context. In fact, many of them, looked at objectively, make perfectly good sense on their own. It's the compilation and editing which turn them into a blunt instrument. As, of course, rpg is aware.

Nicco, some people just can't understand Hasbeen's "quotes".

They read into the recycled "quotes" what they want to believe - rpg is typical in this regard.

Hey "engineer" (civil, mechanical, structural, whatever?) - why can't you show me (everyone) where I claimed “the world is going to hell”.

Answer? You cannot admit to telling porkies.