The Forum > Article Comments > Global warming. It's not worth the risk > Comments
Global warming. It's not worth the risk : Comments
By David Young, published 5/1/2009The world weather system is chaotic and transitive, and could flip to a completely different pattern that would make human life on this planet impossible.
- Pages:
- ‹
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 11
- 12
- 13
- ›
- All
Even to a casual observer it must seem that weather dynamics are changing. On New Year's day I drove through a snow flurry when a cloudless 35C might have been more likely. The 'system' has other unpredictable turns such as the economy which only a year ago was supposed to be on a runaway boom. Therefore intuitively a climate flip seems quite plausible. If the current cool spell continues it might lead to calls for more coal burning not less. In effect that is what we have got since Australia is building more coal export capacity and brown coal fired electricity producers have been been granted immunity from serious emissions cuts. I think we may have to be traumatised before seriously thinking of genuine action by which time the climate horse may have bolted. Happily the world is running out of fossil fuels and Australia will be leaned on to share its reserves with others. Whether that will arrive too late is something we will find out.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 5 January 2009 8:57:57 AM
| |
It is 2009 and the flat earth society are still preaching doom and gloom when it comes to climate change. A change in climate will come when/if Israel is nuked by its enemies. Many of the professional protesters are now giving climate change a rest while they protest in favour of the terrorist (Hamas). The whole gw crap was a hoax from the start. It is a pity so many scientist took the bait fearing that any sensible debate might affect their funding and jobs. They seem as credible as the economist who insisted we were in for a 50 year boom and then seeing people's superannuation halved in 6 weeks. Sooner or later people will stop listening to the earth worshipers.
Posted by runner, Monday, 5 January 2009 9:12:59 AM
| |
Runner, why do you continually defy God?
You keep telling us the planet is His creation and deny that humanity is adversely impacting it. Sorry, but you just appear to be a misinformed hypocrite. Posted by Q&A, Monday, 5 January 2009 9:30:15 AM
| |
"Denial" of AGW is now "defying god"?
AGW as a religion - right here on OLO. Posted by Jai, Monday, 5 January 2009 10:18:13 AM
| |
Ah Q&A “Runner, why do you continually defy God?”
Of course, when it comes to God and Science, one cannot go past Galileo and the Papists demand he denounce his theory of the earth orbiting the sun. Now here is Q&A denouncing someones "heresy" for not worshipping AGW. From the Article “The events I have described may not happen. The weather system may not flip over to a dead sea system. In which case there will be an economic cost in avoiding an event that was not going to happen anyway.” And then came the conceited deception “The up side to that is that we will all live in a cleaner healthier world and we will never know if it would have happened or not. If it does flip it will not take years, it will happen as an event.” At what price? Well “It comes down to risk management. What is the risk against the cost?” “My vote is that the risks are far too high to worry about the cost," And my vote is otherwise. “Risk management” is like any other form of “insurance”, there becomes a point at which the insurance premium outweighs the insurable risk and when governments are supposedly managing the risk on our behalf, I am even more suspicious of the real reason for the level of premiums being paid, look at any other government monopoly to see how likely corruption is going to occur. Only when we start to talk about “probable’s”, should we start to consider “premiums” Until then, all things are possible, including the view that the whole thing is a huge scam And just because huge scams (like Divine Right of Kings and the Authority of the Pope) have successfully been pulled off before, it makes no sense to sign up to this one now. Leaving people with the right to exercise their own discretion is the better way to proceed, rather than thinking that any benefit is ever going to come from governments or worse the UN (the governments supposed government) it is simply Socialism by Stealth Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 5 January 2009 10:35:55 AM
| |
An excellent article David. I believe nature has a track record of making dramatic changes to reach a new equilibrium. Two alarming trends are the rapid rate of polar ice erosion threatening the movement of major ocean currents and the huge areas of melting tundra permafrost that is releasing billions of tons of methane. I anticipate the weather flip will occur within 20 years unless substantial cuts occur to greenhouse gasses in the next 10 years.
Whilst the majority of Australians would share your views on good risk management to avoid catestrophic consequences of climate change, the leaders of our major political parties continue to serve powerful sectional interests which have locked us into increased coal exports, excessively generous assistance to gross polluters and little more than token support for renewables. It's a certainty that if other countries took the same approach as Rudd, our planet will accellerate to 550ppm CO2, and a 3 degree plus in warming that will eventually trigger several disasterous feed-back loops leading to mass extinctions and a decimation of human kind. The right risk management in 2009 may come in the environmental and public investment decisions of President Obama and with the strong support from other intelligent and couragous leaders who appreciate the urgency of quick action to re-engineer the way we use energy. Rudd and Turnbull are clearly not up to the diabolical challenges and should be replaced with leaders that we can be proud of. Posted by Quick response, Monday, 5 January 2009 11:13:32 AM
| |
Quick response
Since you state Rudd and Turnbull are clearly not up to the diabolical challenges and should be replaced with leaders that we can be proud of, I would like to know who you would be talking about, what would be their policies, and how long would they last in power if they offered dramatic solutions (albeit they are necessary). After all, successful politicians are merely a reflection of their societies. Posted by Chris Lewis, Monday, 5 January 2009 12:11:18 PM
| |
What's worse?
1. Acting on the premise that there is a humanity-induced factor in climate change, causing a degree of economic inconvenience and later finding out you were mistaken or 2. Ignoring advice, doing nothing and later finding out the premise was correct when it's too late to do anything about it? Caution vs arrogance? A short period of economic upheaval or a longer period of economic devastation? Runner, Israel is actually the one with the nukes, not her enemies and I know what industries are funding the GW Skeptic scientists but who funds the others? Posted by wobbles, Monday, 5 January 2009 12:21:50 PM
| |
no surprise the economic section is so slight. The writer doesn't have a clue. Whatever the cost, ay? Let's pull all the money out of health, education, aid, everything, and spend it on AGW mitigation. Perhaps we could start with the Hollows Foundation and immunization programs and fresh water. And to suggest all we get is a cleaner, healthier world! What we spend here, we lose there. There may be OTHER risks to life out there - war, viruses... The 'we' he uses clearly doesn't include the poor, cold and starving.Open your eyes. To continue the religious theme, this is the guy who chooses to believe in God, 'just in case'. It is also another example of the AGWists repositioning themselves - yet again - in the face of failure. The chaos stuff, presumably from Young reading Gleik over the Xmas holidays, is just to camouflage the flaws that leap from the page and that Col picks up on above. Laughable and dangerous rubbish.
Posted by fungochumley, Monday, 5 January 2009 12:57:04 PM
| |
When are you going to join me in lobbying for giant springs to be constructed across the country, just in case the sky falls on our heads? Better to be safe you know...
Posted by Jai, Monday, 5 January 2009 4:35:17 PM
| |
Two little comments. First of all to Col Rouge. Does everything have to be isms? It makes no difference when you are dead.
And fungochumley . You make the assumption that I know nothing of the science of scarcity (Economics to you). There is a current line of economic thinking that says that by going green in the present economic climate is a perfect way of stimulating the economy and creating jobs. It could be an economic shift akin to the sedan chair makers moving aside for the industrial revolution. If you look at the current economic trends in the USA there are enormous amount of venture capital going into green/sustainable projects. If the home of greed is going green a very fast rate that must mean something. If Australia does not get going soon we are going to lag behind America and have to by our systems from them. The economic cost of not going green/sustainable in Australia could mean we get left behind. The point of the article was precisely that we do not know. There are no experts on climate change because experts come after the event and it hasn't happened yet (and may not). Is it worth the risk? David Young Posted by Daviy, Monday, 5 January 2009 6:12:45 PM
| |
Col,
Galileo was up against the fundamentalists – much the same as today’s climatologists are up against those with their heads stuck in the sand. There are extreme fundamentalists on both sides of the fence – you are representative of one. Smart and intelligent people of the world realise that there is no logic or sense in having extreme views from the Right or the Left. There is a better way of solving real problems – by working together in mutual respect ... if you want to call it “Socialism by Stealth” so be it, it really is a no-brainer. Over a year ago I sought your input on risk assessment/management – you declined. Science is about probabilities (the Sun may not exist tomorrow) and those with more expertise than you are very well aware of the risks. http://www.munichre.com/en/ts/geo_risks/climate_change_and_insurance/default.aspx or this from the Financial Times http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fa034360-d612-11dd-a9cc-000077b07658.html You want absolute certainty before you will act ... like, you are really stuck in the mud. _____________ David We have only one test tube to experiment with and we are conducting an experiment that has never on Earth been tried before - it would be prudent to tread carefully. This in itself explains why the smart and intelligent different "isms" of the world are working together in the lead-up to Copenhagen later this year. Unfortunately, economics muddy the waters. Posted by Q&A, Monday, 5 January 2009 7:22:22 PM
| |
david, thank you for your reply. I now realise you wrote a similar post to which I responded recently. I agree we know little and chaos holds that tiny unknowns can lead to wildly divergent results over time, which makes me all the more baffled by the extent of your risk analysis. Does it not make it all the more vital to examine the costs and risks of taking certain actions, that will have consequences on wellbeing independent of climate, relative to the proposal of 'whatever it costs' on a big and poorly evidenced 'maybe'. I would rather allocate resources to areas where benefits can be readily measured and weighed against competing goals, over unlimited spending on a self-acknowledged unknown, bearing in mind the known unknowns and unknown unknowns of the future, that may demand those resources we waste. Jai is spot on with his post above on the illogical basis of such survivialist irrationality and obsession. Call me immoral for wishing to see money going to cure blindness and illness and hardship over Messianic delusions of saving the planet while costing humanity, bearing in mind again that you say we don't know.
Posted by fungochumley, Monday, 5 January 2009 7:41:27 PM
| |
“If we keep pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere the weather could flip to another set of rules.” Or not; the probability might be infinitesimally small, perhaps smaller than the probability of increased carbon dioxide ameliorating a global cooling episode. Ditto “The weather system may not flip over to another system, but we need to make certain it doesn’t.” What if it flipped to a system more favourable to human well-being? There is no basis for action in your article.
Similarly, Daviy posts “There is a current line of economic thinking that says that by going green in the present economic climate is a perfect way of stimulating the economy and creating jobs.” Such thinking probably doesn’t involve economists. At present going green appears to use more inputs to produce lower output; i.e., productivity and standards of living fall. We can create any amount of jobs if we don’t care if they are wealth-destroying rather than wealth-creating; but what’s the point? Posted by Faustino, Monday, 5 January 2009 9:22:06 PM
| |
The trouble with arguments based on unpredictability (aka 'The Precautionary Principle') is that they can be used to justify doing (or not doing) ANYTHING.
"Eating that hamburger could cause a hurricane in China in six months, so why do it?" "Turning the Sydney Harbour Bridge upside down could break the drought in the Sudan, so why not try it?" Well, there are lots of reasons... Ignorance is ignorance. All that chaos theory can do is to explain how and why some subjects are more difficult to provide explanations and predictions in than others. It cannot provide any way to predict events that are essentially unpredictable. Our best hope for predicting the future of climate or anything else is to rely on the standard model of cause and effect, with the onus of proof resting heavily on anyone who claims that tomorrow will be very different from today. "Things could go haywire!" Sure they could. Tell us how, and when, and why, and we'll be in a position to do something about it. But until then this claim is nothing but hysteria thinly disguised as science. Posted by Jon J, Monday, 5 January 2009 9:32:15 PM
| |
Jon
Von Neuman tried standard cause and effect to predict/influence the weather for over 20 years spending billion upon billions of dollars, and he failed miserably. All science is probability. Testing a hypothesis against a null hypothesis to determine the degree of probability. Looking at the degree of probabilities involved with GW it is time to do something. Posted by Daviy, Monday, 5 January 2009 10:46:24 PM
| |
The human population has greatly increased because of the use of fossil fuels to make food, medicines, and shelter, on which hundreds of millions of lives now rely.
The article simply assumes that governmental action to significantly reduce the use of these resources is not going to cause people to die as a result. But this assumption is not tenable. We need to get real. Plug into your assumptions that the lives of people may have to be sacrificed, as resources, technology and the proposed policies now stand. Now run the program and tell us what the read-out says. The problem with applying these kinds of positivist models to human affairs is that it risks serious errors, and serious abuses. Ultimately the question in issue is the balance of human values in the status quo, versus the balance of human values in the detriments or benefits of governmental action. The first error is that these values don’t occur in aggregate or balance, they occur in individual human beings, with different values, with different time preferences, and many yet unborn. The relevant data sets are entirely missing from the calculations, namely, the values and time preferences of each individual one way versus the other. But how could such a data set ever be known? The answer is, it can’t. The critical data are subjective intensive evaluations, not objective extensive quantities. The critical data cannot be measured or reduced to a common standard of value. There is no way of knowing, in a general aggregate sense, what would need to be known for the argument to make sense. The premise is a complete fallacy. The second problem is that the positivist model assumes that the data are objective quantities to be manipulated impartially by authority. But the data are the values and lives of human beings to be forcibly manipulated by others with a vested interest in the outcome. What gives anyone the right to decide whether even one other person should die? Surely you need to establish your assumptions on that score first? Posted by Diocletian, Monday, 5 January 2009 10:51:52 PM
| |
Even if only one person were to die as a result of the deliberate decision say to ban the use of a certain resource which now supplies food or medicine, and even if we were to know that more would die without such a decision, still that couldn’t justify the positive decision to deliberately kill someone, if the alternative number of even greater deaths were not to result from a deliberate decision to kill someone.
And that is without even dealing with the physical uncertainties involved, which do not permit even that most favourable assumption to be made for governmental action. The fact is, we don’t know, and have no way of estimating the different possible positive and negative physical and ecological outcomes, which are astronomically complex. The entire approach is fatally flawed. It presumes to see the task as being to decide what to force everyone else into doing. It assumes that the majority of people are too stupid to make the right decision, but a majority of people acting through government magically comes into superior wisdom. There is not the slightest shred of evidence for this assumption. The method being applied is not science, it is superstition, it is voodoo. Our new Established Religion requires human sacrifice, only the economic ignorance of its new puritan adherents does not enable them to recognize the connection between their systematic repression of productive activity in one country on the one hand, and the resulting deaths and sickness in another country and time on the other. ‘Some people are just going to have to die on our quest to engineer the perfect society.’ The arguments in favour of governmental action are a mere display of spoilt ignorant self-opinionated evil hysteria. ‘Other people will have to go without food or medicine for their children so I can enjoy my modern western lifestyle while also having the luxury good of ostentatious pious concern over an imaginary doomsday scenario at some unknown time in the future. Posted by Diocletian, Monday, 5 January 2009 10:57:45 PM
| |
There seems to me one or two things that most climate change "skeptics" have in common with each other. They are often right wingers who believe that the free market,economic growth, technology and human ingenuity will lead to a better world for themselves and possibly others or they are religious believers who regard God as the ultimate decider of the future.
Really the argument for these people is not about the scientific veracity of the actual observations or the underlying physical and chemical attributes of the substances that make up the earth's atmosphere, its land and oceans and the human induced changes to these. Nor is it about the models derived from the foregoing which seek to give some idea of the consequences of these man-made changes to global climate, sea levels, river flows etc. No it is not the science at all (or lack of it) that leads the right wingers and religious fundimentalist to their view. The science is settled and the models of serious climate change carefully formulated and the probabilities (risks) of each potential scenario quantified as best as can be done. In the case of the right wingers it's the values they place on there own material (and those about them) well-being as opposed to that of those unknown people now or in the next few decades who are most likely to suffer as a result of the effects of our actions today. For the fundimentalists it is their faith in the All Powerful Creator and the value they attach to that faith that gets in the way of any rational thought on the matter. There is simply no point in arguing with people whose beliefs and value systems automatically block out a rational and evidence based approach to understanding stresses that an ever-expanding human population and economic footprint place on finite global resources and sinks. Posted by kulu, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 1:02:52 AM
| |
Does Australia have leaders capable of delivering a sustainable, low-carbon future that could be a role model for many countries? You bet.
There are many Australian scientists, academics, CEOs and politicians with truck loads of knowledge and experience to chart a new course. How long would they last in power if they offered dramatic solutions that are necessary to re-engineer our energy, transport and livestock industries? Rising to and meeting the challenges could make our nation's leaders a legend. I believe that history will harshly judge our timid, conservative Prime Minister and our uninspiring Opposition Leader - their disappointing strategies are pro-fossil and not worth the risk. A good politician should be able to communicate the vision and plan a comprehensive transition plan that sensibly manages the all important employment impact of winding down polluting industries and creating new renewable industries. Posted by Quick response, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 8:20:51 AM
| |
Based on some of the theories proposed and wildy popular here - That doing something now is the right thing to do, JUST IN CASE there are consequences later, regardless of whether there might not be consequences - is most enlightening to me, as now I realise you must have been supporters of the invasion of Iraq, since they MIGHT have had WMDs - they didn't but, they could have!
Mind you I don't understand why you haven't been out there demanding the UN now invades North Korea and Iran - why is that? Surely there is a risk that these countries might one day use atomic weapons, so let's stop them now - JUST IN CASE. (how does the chant go .. the cost of doing it now is less than the cost of doing it later) BTW - the science is not settled, another red herring by the religious AGWers who deny the natural course of climate (I don't add change to that anymore as it is redundant I've been told - the word climate, includes the understanding that it changes) As I've sid before, I'm not nor will many other, be bullied into "believeing" so Kulu, put your vague insults away - go find some real science, not the cliched mantras of your high priests of AGW. Posted by rpg, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 8:48:02 AM
| |
Daviy “First of all to Col Rouge. Does everything have to be isms?”
Everything does not have to be an “ism” But this most certainly is And I call it “Socialism by Stealth” As for “It makes no difference when you are dead.” I sincerely believe the world, which my daughters and (yet to be born) grand children will inherit from people who see and understand the dangers of socialism / communism / Marxism and challenge such views by promoting the greater virtues of libertarian capitalism (with its reward and recognition for risk, effort and innovation etc), will ensure that- whilst I may be dead, my progeny will be better off, spiritually, emotionally and experiencing a better quality of life than if arrogant politicians and the luddite left of the environmentalist movement succeed in expropriating more of our individual discretion and freedom through pointless regulation, legislation and tax expropriation. Q&A “Galileo was up against the fundamentalists” The way the pro-AGW lobby is, “fundamentalism” seems second nature, having made heretics of anyone who dares challenge their dogma. Kulu “They are often right wingers who believe that the free market,economic growth, technology and human ingenuity will lead to a better world for themselves and possibly others” And such wisdom is never found in the left(overs). Quick Response “There are many Australian scientists, academics, CEOs and politicians with truck loads of knowledge and experience to chart a new course.” Then let them stand for parliament or better still Let me see them put their money where their mouth is, by funding their ‘schemes’ with risk capital, to compete in the market for my custom, rather than looking for the soft option of taxpayer guarantees and handouts. “A good politician should be able to…..” I always treat such generalizations with deep suspicion, especially when “good politician” is an oxymoron. Like rpg said and I plagiarize here “As I've said before, I'm not nor will many other, be bullied into "believing". So, Q&A, go find some real science, not the clichéd mantras preached by your high priests of AGW.” Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 9:39:09 AM
| |
Kulu writes
'The science is settled and the models of serious climate change carefully formulated and the probabilities (risks) of each potential scenario quantified as best as can be done.' If the science was settled why have so many ridiculous predictions made by the true believers be shown to be totally fraudulent. Your idea of science being settled is simply crap. The science is as settled as those who claimed the aboriginals were the missing link. Stop allowing your dogmas to blind you from the lack of any real evidence for gw. Posted by runner, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 9:46:17 AM
| |
Well said Kulu!
Runner, you are full of it. Show us the fraud! Where are your authoritative sources? Big accusation that: World wide scientists have abandoned their entire professional life to lie for ...Who? I've been following the climate change issues for over 15 years and the science *is* now settled...for those who know what science is. I believe you went for Kulu's statement because it is too close the truth! That profit motivated God botherers seem to make up the majority of the so called GW "skeptics" (Damn, another word ruined) is beyond doubt. I'm guessing "us and them" is just the way they think. Small minded folk need a pedestal to look down from, and being friends with the Big Guy and having access to highly technical truths *without any technical understanding at all* is part of the mindset. If they could keep their ignorance to themselves I'd happily ignore these nutters, but alas, the runners of the world are getting just too scary to ignore. Posted by Ozandy, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 10:28:08 AM
| |
Have any of you put HAARP into Google. If what I have read about this military weapon, then much global warming phenomena are generated by games being played with this monster.
It is claimed to be able to make clouds rain or not rain,the country freeze or not freeze as in Afghanistan. Freeze it for the Russians, warm it for the Yanks. Snow in Baghdad? The anecdotal reports from the Nothern Territory are scary. Maybe if we stopped HAARP, things would settle down. Posted by Peter the Believer, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 11:09:07 AM
| |
Quick Response
As this debate indicates, political leadership towards better environmental policies will only occur when the majority of society supports such policies; politicians are pragmatic and will only reflect public debate (Rudd and Turnbull). You may not like to hear it, but your ideas are yet to win the debate with real votes. Over 80% of Australians still give their primary votes to Labor or the Coalition to balance economic, social and environmental needs. In other words, a clear majority of Australians do not see the Greens as a plausible govt. You focus on what is desirable, although that is also debatable, I focus on what is likely. Posted by Chris Lewis, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 11:51:34 AM
| |
Ozandy,
"I've been following the climate change issues for over 15 years and the science *is* now settled...for those who know what science is." Unfortunately, the chief climate body, the IPCC, disagrees with you. They acknowledge huge gaps in knowledge on climate, such as the dynamics of water vapour. Moreover, their figures from one report to the next (a mere 7 years) vary, so something must not be "settled". In fact, science is never settled, it progresses, and our most robustly accepted theories, such as evolution, are still subject to testing and research. If the science is, as you say, settled, can we now stop funding all the ongoing research, as I can't see what purpose it is serving? I am neither motivated by profit, nor am I a "God botherer", but a believer in rational, or at worst, school level debate, so I invite and encourage you to challenge and refute any of the above statements instead of just hurling abuse in the hope it will hide your ignorance. Posted by fungochumley, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 1:49:17 PM
| |
Ah, we're all dead. We just don't know it yet:-)
So much doom and gloom, it really is exciting isn't it. Like the paperless office and the Y2K bug. As I heard in a song once, the real problems in life are those that hit you on an idle Tuesday. runner, 'A change in climate will come when/if Israel is nuked by its enemies. Many of the professional protesters are now giving climate change a rest while they protest in favour of the terrorist (Hamas).' That's quite funny. And possibly too true. Col Rouge, 'Socialism by Stealth', I don't know if I've heard you say that before? It does have a nice ring to it. Shhh, don't say it too loud or they might know we're on to them. AGW is a religion. One I enjoy watching. You get to see the earth worshippers get ever and ever more excited, the envious go tusk tsk to the rich, the self flagellation of the rich who then continue talking the talk without walking the walk, the hilariously inane and ridiculous inconveniences otherwise sane people put themselves through in order to grandstand how environmentally friendly they are, the joy of watching politicians try to please everybody with conflicting goals, the hypocrisy of those who say 'do something!', but 'it better not cost me MY job!', and 'Why is petrol so expensive?', the targets designed to just do enough to look like you’re doing something without actually having any real effect. Ah I can go on forever. It's a wonderful world. BTW: I am keen on stopping pollution even though I am AGW sceptic. I have the luxury of being able to financially afford this ideological position as I know it wont hurt me too bad personally. All the other heathens and holocaust (sorry AGW) deniers had better mend their ways too though, because if I can do it so can you! Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 2:50:27 PM
| |
Q&A,
- I think it is diabolical to suggest to a senior that their mind is failing them and not elucidate where. - I think it is diabolical to accuse someone of hatred for disagreeing with you. Until you address these comments with any integrity, don't expect me to pay a whole lot of respect to anything you say. Posted by fungochumley, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 10:49:05 PM
| |
Ozandy,
No doubt you were around in the 70's when the 'established science' insisted on global cooling. You seem to be full of it (gullibility that is). You need to come up with some evidence before insisting on it being disproved. If the predictions by the likes of Gore and Flannery are anything to go by you are in serious trouble. Posted by runner, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 11:41:42 PM
| |
Kulu
Don’t just ignore the fact that I have refuted your argument that the science is settled. The science you refer to does not contain the relevant data sets at all, which are human values. The entire positivist argument is based on a fallacy. To be rational, to be scientific, you need to accept or refute the argument that disproves you, not ignore it. Perhaps understanding it would be a good first step. Besides which, computer models (guesses) are not evidence. The computer models being used can’t even predict the *present*, let alone 50 or 100 years from now as they pretend to do. And if future generations live a better life than we do now, does that mean we have a credit as against them to use more natural resources now for reasons of inter-generational equity? Fallacies piled on fallacies. But even if the science were settled, which it isn’t, *nothing* follows from the science as a matter of policy. This is because science doesn’t supply value judgments, remember? Another refutation of your entire argument. People are already showing their values by their actions. That’s what you don’t like, remember? It’s human life and values that the anti-human dark greens have a problem with, not global warming. Government does not add reason or virtue, it adds force. The reason the dark greens ignore the arguments from economics, is precisely because economics shows their arguments to be irrational. Having failed to refute the arguments against them, the advocates of governmental action fall back to: • Appeal to absent authority • Assuming what is in issue • A welter of fallacies. The project of total control of the ecology is no less deluded than the project of total control of the economy. The advocates of government control of supposed AGW would require both, and are urging for a mere re-run of the Soviet disaster. Ostentatious religious piety has merely come back into fashion, that is all Posted by Diocletian, Wednesday, 7 January 2009 8:32:18 AM
| |
Houellebecq “I don't know if I've heard you say that before? It does have a nice ring to it. Shhh, don't say it too loud or they might know we're on to them.”
LOL Yes Houellebecq, you would have seen me use the phrase many times over the past year to 18 months and thankyou. It is designed to have a “catchy” ring. I think it is even catchier than its Cato inspiration “ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam” “I am keen on stopping pollution even though I am AGW sceptic.” On this matter we would concur but see you too have the wisdom to recognise and acknowledge the difference. PeterTheBeliever “HAARP” – somehow the hysteria site you listed is nothing but that… hysteria. The real site was quite interesting though and I doubt could ever produce the consequences the hysterics anticipated. Personally,. I would put any HAARP military significance (beyond radar and navigation) in the same category as “Star Wars” and whilst one of the most significant and a fabulously successful deterrent strategy’s, is still in the “does-not-work” achievement category. Diocletian “The project of total control of the ecology is no less deluded than the project of total control of the economy.” Absolutely correct and like they say, if you want four economic theories, just ask two economists Simply substitute “climate science” and “scientists” for “economic theories” and “economists”. OZandy “I've been following the climate change issues for over 15 years and the science *is* now settled...for those who know what science is.” Anyone who thinks that 15 years is a long time in research needs to consider, “economics” has been a serious academic study for at least 200 years yet, as the comment from Diocletian accurately and succinctly observes, “control” is still a matter of opinion and conjecture. Therefore Ozandy, I am forced to conclude, your entire education has focused on the study and research of hubris. Because that is all which can be gleaned from your last post. Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 7 January 2009 9:09:33 AM
| |
Michael Crichton is dead, but his works are still published. One of them is entitled State of Fear, and mixed in with the drama, is a fairly heavy critique of the Global Warming phenomena. His postulate is that governments have to have the general population fearful of something. When the wall came down, the Soviet Union was no longer a threat, and he contends that the government needed to invent one. It has been cranked up as the war on terror has become boring to many.
Right in the middle of the story, is a professor who wanted to attend a conference, and expose the global warming movement. The efforts made to manipulate public opinion are extreme. Michael Crighton concludes that if all the evidence were put before a jury, as is the right of all in the United States, a right currently lapsed in Fascist Australia, then a jury would find no case to answer. Currently in Australia there is no right to jury trial in civil matters, and further to that, no absolute right to apply to the Federal Court or High Court, even in their original jurisdiction. As a believer I believe that carbon dioxide is an essential plant food, and that if the world could get its act together, to abolish poverty and starvation, the worlds farmers would be the prime movers in removing carbon and restoring balance. Forty years ago, in 1969, the Liberal ( run the bastards over) Party repealed the Australian Constitution in New South Wales and established a Fascist Republic. Not one Attorney General, or one leader of either political party, has expressed concern at this. Since we now have a Christian Prime Minister maybe, the Christian system of government established by the Constitution will be restored. If so the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights will be accepted as law, a fair just and impartial tribunal of fact could examine the facts of Global Warming, and that tribunal should be the Special Jury, provided until 1970, for just such cases. Give us back our Commonwealth Posted by Peter the Believer, Wednesday, 7 January 2009 10:47:35 AM
| |
Michael Crichton also wrote about alien viruses destroying an American town and genetically engineered dinosaurs running amok.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 7 January 2009 11:21:47 AM
| |
The climate alarmist's favourite words: could, might, may.
The words they find hardest to use: didn't, hasn't, my mistake. Posted by fungochumley, Wednesday, 7 January 2009 7:24:07 PM
| |
Diocletian, yep ... the dark greens should pull their heads in.
______________ Col, you’re probably caught up with other things, but ... http://www.munichre.com/en/ts/geo_risks/climate_change_and_insurance/default.aspx or this from the Financial Times http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fa034360-d612-11dd-a9cc-000077b07658.html Have Munich Re got it wrong too? ______________ Fungo As has been said elsewhere; the stages of ‘global warming denial’:- 1. Global warming isn’t happening 2. It’s happening but it’s natural 3. There’s some anthropogenic component, but it is insignificant 4. Yes, the anthropogenic component is significant, but the effect won’t be much 5. Yes, the effects will be substantial, but mostly beneficial 6. We can easily adapt to the negative effects 7. Yes, the effects will be really negative, but nothing can be done 8. There are things that could have been done, but we’ve delayed for so long it’s too late 9. Friggin scientists, they should have been more assertive My neighbour (a psychologist) over a bbq related the ‘denial defence mechanism’. Typically, a person in denial is faced with particulars that are too uncomfortable for them to accept. Therefore, they reject them instead, insisting that they are not true despite overwhelming evidence. They may deny the reality of unpleasant things altogether (simple denial), admit them but deny their seriousness (minimisation) or admit them and their seriousness but deny responsibility for acting (transference). What really is worrying is that they typically deny their denial. Denial of denial involves thoughts, actions and behaviours which bolster confidence that nothing needs to be changed in one's personal behaviour. This form of denial typically overlaps with all the other forms of denial, but involves more self-delusion. Btw, Ian knew I prefaced my comment by having a senior moment too – it’s called memories. Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 7 January 2009 10:40:02 PM
| |
Cowboy
I do see a few snippets in newspapers (mainly on the web) but most of my reading on climate is from the papers published in the International Journal of Climatology. My membership of various associations gives me access to other scientific papers as well. I would agree that scientists and/or scientific institutions need to communicate better with laypeople. At least the real decision makers are listening and taking action. For what it’s worth, I cannot understand how any person of reasonable intelligence cannot invest some time reading at least the scientific abstracts of papers published about climate change. These are some web sites I visit: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/ http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/ http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/old-temperature/ http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/ http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/ENSO/enso.references.html (and many more so could become boring) What really gets up my nose is when someone who is NOT skilled in what I have devoted my whole life to has the audacity to tell me I've got it all wrong. It’s like me telling you how to do your job. I have to do research properly - yet these same people go on to tell me I have it all wrong – simply astounding. __________________ Runner Gore is a politician turned actor, Flannery (and Carter) are scientists turned actors – that doesn’t alter the science. Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 7 January 2009 10:49:32 PM
| |
After reading all of the comments to my article I will add one thing. I write in terms of probability because nothing, absolutely nothing, is a certainty until it happens. All of science is probability based. If it ever becomes a certainty that is the end of the line. There is no progressing past knowing it all.
As I read the probabilities science is producing at the moment it seems that major events caused by global warming are very likely. Whether or not any or all of those likely events will produce a minor inconvenience or a total wipe-out is unknowable. It would be nice to have the total certainty expressed by some of the commentators but I don't. I don't see total certainty about anything as a realistic position to take. As for linking my article to the invasion of Iraq. Please do not make assumptions about my understanding of unrelated issues. Such forms of argument are fallacious, and as such meaningless. David Young Posted by Daviy, Thursday, 8 January 2009 5:47:57 AM
| |
Q&A "What really gets up my nose is when someone who is NOT skilled in what I have devoted my whole life to has the audacity to tell me I've got it all wrong. It’s like me telling you how to do your job."
Oh diddums - poor boy has to do dummy spit because he thinks he is being hard done by. Welcome to reality.Every other profession on earth is subjected to same public scrutiny-why should climate scientists, and particularly those sucking on the public tit be immune. If you are so concermned about your professional status in the eyes of everyone, why dont you: 1.Explain why Hansen is such a demonstrable crook. 2. Why the IPCC have to say 2500 scientits did the work on the various reports when it was probably no more than 40.I didnt hear you speaking up about that. 3. Why did the CSIRO undertake those appallingly exagerrated and certainly political studies for each of the state labour govts.Obviously because it was opportune to do so. 4. Why did Rann as the President of the Labour Party go out of his way to give Brooks $1m of state funds to set up a research centre for the further politicalisation of climate science.Timely wasnt it just prior to the last election. 5. Where were you when Gore put together his sham AIT, only to be caught out by a court of law, and public opinion. But not one of you tossers spoke up before hand,if you did I didnt see it. 6. Where were you when it was revealed that Gore has, and is still, making a booddle out of the AGW scare, using the AIT as his prospectus. 7.Why havnt you done something about the shonky state of peer review.Oh no thats OK, because we can manipulate it to our advantage and only get published was is consistent with the mantra. Just dont ask Spencer and Chrisie et al about that. 8.etc Put the dummy away and grow up. Posted by bigmal, Thursday, 8 January 2009 9:10:52 AM
| |
runner, diocletian, rpg and others,
As I said your views on climate change are settled and based on your own values and beliefs that take no account of scientific or any other evidence that cannot be shaped to suite your beliefs - trying logical argument or introducing scientific established facts and probabilities will not influence you and is a waste of my time. But those who approach the whole question of climate change and other environmental challenges facing the world with an open mind but have not really paid much attention to the issues should not be allowed to be deliberately misinformed about these things by deniers such as yourselves. Hence by posts. Tell me deniers (not that you will receive a response from me if you do) was/is the science behind the causes of the depletion of the ozone layer wrong? Were the actions eventually taken by world authorities (after a similar campaign of denial by DuPont and other vested interests) not warranted and should not Australians be thankful that actions have been taken to curb CFC emissions? Tell me deniers, Have the Newfoundland and North Sea cod fisheries not collapsed due to overfishing? Are we not running out of oil? Are wells built to extract water not getting ever deeper, is productive land not continually being lost due to salination and erosion caused by over exploitation? Tell me deniers, should the world continue to focus on continued economic growth and not address the issue of population growth? Is technology going to be the answer to all our problems caused by the fact that global resources and sinks to absorb our waste are limited? If you believe technology will be the answer how do you justify this believe - where is the science, the logic? Do you really care what the future holds for the next generation or so? (I don't care if you don't care but I do if you continue to ignore the evidence.) Posted by kulu, Thursday, 8 January 2009 10:50:50 AM
| |
Q&A, your BBQ sounded pleasant. Hope the weather was nice. Isn't life wonderful when you're free.
Alas, human psychology is more complex than the climate. There is much in your post I could address, but it should suffice to say that I initially believed "global warming" WAS happening, so your theory of denial collapses at Stage 1. Suggest you consider revising, but you show little propensity for such things. Suggest reflect on possibility of own denial, a concept that a good psychologist knows how easily can be abused, and I am glad you are not one given the way you use the term around here. People can hold onto perceptions, theories and worldviews so deeply, fuse them to their identity, that it is threatening to their ego to even consider there may be others, or worse, that they may even be wrong. Tragically, some will inflict great suffering on themselves and others before they will ever let go and see anything but their fearfully held "truth". (Homework - name three people/institutions in history that have committed atrocities in the name of their own "truth".) A journalist in The Age last week called for sabotage and civil disobedience in the name of saving a planet in peril. I wonder how far such things might go? As I heard Peter Roebuck on the cricket say yesterday, quoting Keynes, "be careful the cure isn't worse than the illness" - something good economists, doctors and psychologists understand well. Re seniors moments, another characteristically weak defence. As I have endeavoured to explain before, the issue is not whether the individual in question had such moments, or whether you do TOO (I've had them since infancy), but that you will not state what you believe they were. Are you the type of guy who gets his kicks telling grandma she keeps forgetting to let the cat in when it died 10 years earlier? But you persist and resist with something like denial. Posted by fungochumley, Thursday, 8 January 2009 11:31:54 AM
| |
kulu - nice of you to tell me my views are settled, and you're wrong - if someone can provide factual evidence, proof in other words that increasing CO2 is directly and proportionally linked to world temperature rise, I'm happy to change my mind - as most do when facts are presented. I will not be intimidated by models and man made scenarios and hysterical gossip.
I'm not interested in your other rantings about other scares, you obviously feel you have to expand beyond climate now since your case is so weak. none of those rants has anything to do with climate as put forward in this article. Bottom line is none of the climate models predicted a lowering of temperature in 2008 did they? They all predicted a rise in temperature. Hence, the "science" is not settled, and if you rely on that "science", you're wrong (logic)! I'm an engineer, and a good one, so don't give me rubbish about not believing facts, my life is facts and mathematics - not social bullying or name calling (deniers is clearly meant by you to be inflammatory, yet more bullying). Your whole argument is anti-technology, it isn't just climate by your own admission, now that you've lost the plot you're onto all the other aspects of modern life you don't like, fishing, ozone, global resources - climate is just the focus of your rant on this thread. Posted by rpg, Thursday, 8 January 2009 11:37:53 AM
| |
Interesting that fungochumley should mention Keynes since he was an interventionist, in fact he invented it. Government intervention along the way to correct aberrations as they occurred. This is exactly what those who want to correct global warming are advocating. Also interesting, on a different subject, so called 'good' economists have been ignoring Keynes for years and he is suddenly back in favour because of the sub prime crisis. If you must use quotes to back up your rhetoric it might be an idea to do at least minimal research into the source.
Posted by Daviy, Thursday, 8 January 2009 3:24:32 PM
| |
Q&A “by working together in mutual respect”
Based on your past repeated and unsubstantiated claims that I am “misguided” (despite my repeated request for your to illustrate when and where I have posted a misguided statement) , I find the notion of “working together in mutual respect” howlingly hilarious, ROFLMAO How can anyone be expected to work with someone who declares them as, “stuck in the mud”? Now to more pertinent, things I see from his post kula is drawing attention to “Have the Newfoundland and North Sea cod fisheries not collapsed due to overfishing” Yes but what has “overfishing” got to do with “AGW”? “overfishing comes down to population pressure, so get rid of 5 billion (out of the present 6 billion of so) folk and we solve that problem, without diluting the gene pool. – I trust you understand the difference. Maybe you could do some research into the effects of AGW on fish stocks… I wonder, if I looked, I might actually find two opposing scientific opinions to the impact of warming of fish breeding activity Q&A on the matter of risk management, at least one of the four major Aussie banking groups no longer check the signatories on a cheque worth less than $25,000. Their risk management assessment determined, the cost of doing it outweighed the consequences. I further remember a famous US negligence action in which (I think) Ford determined the “risk and costs” of being sued were lower than the certain costs for the full recall of a car with defective fuel tanks. “Risk management” is not about specifically doing something. Risk management is about comparing the costs of doing something versus not doing it. In my view and that of many here, regardless of the hypothetical forecasts of Stern and the control freaks, the costs of addressing what might or might not be “AGW” are unsupported, partly due to the absence of broadly recognized, consistent and reliable data, being available for analysis, let alone having been analysed. Spin the science whatever way you want, any statistical analysis will suggest AGW remains a null-hypothesis. Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 8 January 2009 3:27:56 PM
| |
David,
I’m glad you found this interesting, but I’m unsure as to the point you are making. Have you fallen for the AGWers own propaganda that all skeptics are free market fundamentalists with vested commercial interests? I am neither, and have no problem with intervention for the common good. So unless you actually disagree with the quote, your prejudiced assumption seems to have rendered the rest of your post fairly insubstantial, and the cheap shot it leads to has landed somewhere in the bushes. I, however, am interested that you describe global warming as an “aberration”, that is, from mine, “the act of wandering from the usual way or normal course”, and needs correcting. Given the 4 billion year history of the earth and the continual change in climate, could you tell me: What is the usual way and normal course? (Much of the debate is about whether recent global warming, manmade or not, was significantly anomalous.) What period was “correct”? Jurassic? BC? AD? Ice Age? Your birth year? Are you talking only about correcting supposed manmade aberrations? If things overall were better in a warmer world, should we still correct it? If natural cooling, such as a new mini Ice Age, occurs, do we endeavour to recorrect by, say, pumping carbon into the atmosphere? Whose hands should we place the temperature control in? (When I’m driving with others, it is usually a matter of complicated negotiation.) How great do you believe our capacity is to control the climate? (We don't seem to do too perfectly with the economy.) How much money do we spend adjusting it one way, when unforeseen circumstances could quickly cancel out all our efforts, or produce more pressing demands? (‘Whatever the cost’ appears to be your answer.) Should we withdraw funds from, say, breast cancer research if we had to? I wonder how women with breast cancer would feel about that? Finally, did you quit architecture because the costs kept blowing out, and buildings were never completed, as you kept adding more and more structural support and safety devices ad infinitum - just in case? Posted by fungochumley, Thursday, 8 January 2009 9:06:17 PM
| |
Kulu
the fact you have been refuted doesn't mean the people who point it out have got mental problems. You are simply adding personal argument to your existing pile of fallacies. The disgraceful thing is that all argument by the advocates of government control of the winds that blow, follow the same course. First there is a histrionic appeal to absent authority, dodgy guesses and non-sequiturs, which when you critically analyse, regresses into circular argument assuming what is in issue, which when you name, regresses into name-calling. "Your mother smelt of elderberries" is the ultimate intellectual standard we are dealing with here whenever I dare to question the new orthodoxy, dressed up in a lot of arrogant patronising mumbo-jumbo about climatology. Did you know we've got a world crisis because the electricity is leaking out of all the power points? Quick! "Do something!" Let's start killing people on a large scale in a superstitious belief in omnipotent government and the evil of human freedom. How many people should have to die to satisfy the neo-puritans? Posted by Diocletian, Thursday, 8 January 2009 9:24:58 PM
| |
fungochumley
The quote, 'The cure is worse than the illness.' Why cause the illness in the first place? If a person is becoming overweight through over eating, eat less. If our actions are impacting on the weather patterns modify our actions. We can not control the weather. If you want to look at the futile attempts of the human race to control the weather for economic/military purposes look at the work of John Von Neumann. We cannot control the weather but we can stop stuffing it up. Why did I give up Architecture? Who says I have? Is personal attack and fear mongering all you have? Not much is it? Posted by Daviy, Friday, 9 January 2009 6:30:03 AM
| |
David,
“Why cause the illness in the first place?” Ah, a world without illness, or pollution, or pooh, or perhaps even better, people, who have a nasty habit of effecting things. Have to get rid of all those butterflies and other animals too though. And viruses and bacteria…They “impact” too. The world, life, climate, people, you, me, and them are, and always have been, messy, dirty and chaotic. There is no holy state in nature, in the United States, or in your soul, which is being continually threatened by evil forces. You only imagine it, and create enemies, so as to believe in and defend your 'pure' soul. It is actually, as Michael Crichton saw, just a State of Fear. Everything these days is “war on drugs”, “fight against cancer”, “invasion of cells” and "impacts"– as if there is some perfect pure state in you or the world which is constantly under threat. Cancer isn’t consciously malicious you know? – I refer you to Susan Sontag’s ‘Illness and its Metaphors’) “If our actions are impacting on the weather patterns modify our actions. We can not control the weather.” This just seems like contradiction to me. And what about positive “impacts”? “Is personal attack and fear mongering all you have?” No, and I can’t see where you got this, but I do have a few questions, as yet unanswered, and a good sense of irony. Your hypersensitivity is evidence of what Bazz (elsewhere) also sees as the current insecurity in the convictions of AGWers. This, of course, could be turned into healthy openminded skepicism and dialogue, but unfortunately is turned into hostility, personal attacks, defamatory slurs, and attempts to “create” an enemy out of anyone who even questions their theories and worldview. Perhaps you’ll get back to me at some stage on some of mine, to which I add - Do you believe in restraining 'unsustainable' growth through unsustainable spending? Posted by fungochumley, Friday, 9 January 2009 3:46:16 PM
| |
Daviy,
There is no point in arguing with the skeptics( they don't like to be called deniers). They are a stubborn lot as are we but they, like the creationists who deny the theory of evolution, don't have the the science behind them. And they don't need it for their purpose. Posted by kulu, Friday, 9 January 2009 9:18:06 PM
| |
Kulu
Science doesn't supply value judgments. You are simply rehearsing an incompetent argument that has already been refuted, for which you have no rejoinder but name-calling and other fallacies. At best, science shows what the risk is. But it doesn't say whether it's worth it. That depends entirely on the value judgments of individual human beings. What is your science for coming to terms with that issue? Answer please? Or since when did you have authority to appoint yourself the spokesman of everyone else on the planet, to obey on pain of imprisonment? This is the third time I have raised this fundamental disproof of your entire argument, and the third time you have tried evading it by appeal to fallacies which have already been named. The mere fact that you can't put forward a cogent argument doesn't mean that I am not prepared to consider one. But I'm still waiting. Mind-reading and pop psychology doesn't count. You have no right to speak for my mind. This thread is so typical of what happens to the AGW argument when it is subjected to critical scrutiny. It starts out with a pretence of privileged knowledge of a most weighty issue, and crumbles into every kind of fallacy, ending in personal argument. The more questions you ask of it, the more incoherent the whole load of credulous codswallop becomes. Posted by Diocletian, Friday, 9 January 2009 11:32:03 PM
| |
Diocletion
'At best, science shows what the risk is. But it doesn't say whether it's worth it. That depends entirely on the value judgments of individual human beings.' Hold on to that. I think you have got it. Posted by Daviy, Saturday, 10 January 2009 6:31:01 AM
| |
Diocletian “At best, science shows what the risk is.”
That is “at best” At present, ‘science’ has done nothing more than taken a set of observations, collected some scant and incomplete test data, projected a hypothetical consequence, postulated a number of theories of what the possible causes might be presumed that attempting to address one of those possible causes (AGW), they might actually make a difference to the whole, without having quantified or assessed the significance of that one cause on the whole. And based upon that “string vest” of conjecture, are now in cahoots with a bunch of ne’r-do-well politicians who are convinced they know better than anyone else and insist they need to impose additional carbon taxes upon an electorate who hold the key to their political future. “But it doesn't say whether it's worth it. That depends entirely on the value judgments of individual human beings.” “You have no right to speak for my mind.” I wholly agree “This thread is so typical of what happens to the AGW argument when it is subjected to critical scrutiny. It starts out with a pretence of privileged knowledge of a most weighty issue, and crumbles into every kind of fallacy, ending in personal argument. The more questions you ask of it, the more incoherent the whole load of credulous codswallop becomes.” And all you need to do is trawl back through the posts of Q&A to see that. Not to impose it upon you but merely exercise my right to express it The whole exercise is merely one of Socialism by Stealth Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 10 January 2009 6:31:11 AM
| |
Last Saturday an article was published in the Australian about fascism, and gave a definition of it that is pertinent. It said many people want a Fuhrer, or a Hitler, and pointed out that to get one the State has to become a Religion, or a Church.
The absolute arch enemy of Fascism, is the Church started by a Jewish Gentleman, one of only eight Jewish Rabbi's granted the title of Master. This chap had learned his Judaism, by attending the Temple for his first thirty years,and at the age of twelve, astounding the learned Scholars of his day,by being a teacher. He like all Rabbis had a trade so he was not a burden on his congregation. He was a carpenter. This article in the Australian, pointed out the similarities between the Green Movement and Nazi Germany and the end result of that ideology. Unfortunately the alliance between the Priests of the established Churches in both Australia and the United Kingdom,and the lawyers in both countries, has seen a radical departure from the system introduced by this Learned Rabbi, and adopted by the English as law in 1297. We no longer have a place where we can go and debate these issues, in front of a panel of expert lay judges,and get a fair just and impartial judgment passed upon our opinions, and the evidence available Posted by Peter the Believer, Saturday, 10 January 2009 7:39:15 AM
| |
Ah, the inevitable mantra of the wingnut ignoramus:
<< Socialism by Stealth >> To quote one of his fellow-travellers: << You are simply rehearsing an incompetent argument that has already been refuted, for which you have no rejoinder but name-calling and other fallacies >> Personally, I prefer to form my opinions about AGW based on information from reputable climate scientists, rather than on the rants of self-opinionated bean-counters and lawyers. Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 10 January 2009 8:58:24 AM
| |
Bigmal, you continue to taunt
1. I did not say Hansen “is such a demonstrable crook”, you did. 2. The IPCC assessed the published papers of 2500+ scientists (somehow I can’t picture 2500 people sitting around a table debating the merits or otherwise of each and every scientific nuance). 3. You are answering your own question. I will not say they were “appallingly exaggerated”. Politicians don’t dictate soil moisture content or precipitation rates, no matter how some think it so. 4. A question you should direct to the SA Premier or Professor Brook. FWIW, Brook is highly critical of Labor’s policies on climate change, so I think your fallacious argument is moot. 5. Gore is the last person I would have chosen to be the ‘ambassador’ of global warming. I would rather have seen someone like Steve Chu http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/12/15_obama.shtml Gore, whether he likes it or not, disaffected a lot of people from accepting global warming just because of democratic politics. Notwithstanding, the judge did not dispute the science. 6. I’m still here juggling my finances – scientists don’t do it for the money. Gore is a politician turned actor. He got the Nobel Peace prize for a reason (climate change will threaten world peace) – he did not get a Nobel for any of the sciences. 7. You obviously don’t understand the process. I respect Spencer and Christy’s work, I don’t respect it when they publish in the mainstream media and the blogosphere before their work (with issues) could be reviewed by their peers. And I am jet to see Roy’s retraction about ocean cooling when this paper was published (of which he was very aware) before his own. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030323.shtml If you can’t download the full article try this, explained in simple terms. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/ _______________ rpg The details/nuances will never be settled, for example; attribution and climate sensitivity research is ongoing. The ‘greenhouse’ theory’ is well understood by those working in the field. This is what is misunderstood by the "science is settled" howlers. Posted by Q&A, Saturday, 10 January 2009 2:05:44 PM
| |
CJMoron “Personally, I prefer to form my opinions about AGW based on information from reputable climate scientists, rather than on the rants of self-opinionated bean-counters and lawyers.”
Your personal choices and the machinations you base them on is up to you and a matter of complete indifference to me. However, I find it strange you consider the reputation of climate scientists in those deliberations when you clearly have no regard for your own (reputation that is), unless you are suggesting your own “immersion in the vacuous” qualifies as scientific study? Now how did this go last time? Oh yes, “fractelle "but I just can't get my head around the thought of CR and CJ at the same table" It would not be difficult, we would not need to be in contact with one another, we would not even see each other.... I would be sat at the table and CJ would be licking himself underneath it....” Q&A “The details/nuances will never be settled, for example; attribution and climate sensitivity research is ongoing. The ‘greenhouse’ theory’ is well understood by those working in the field. This is what is misunderstood by the "science is settled" howlers.” It seems to me, the antagonists to the “science is settled” argument are you have spent many of your post decrying as “deniers” and as holding “misguided opinions”. Which reminds me, over many months now, you have repeatedly claimed I have made “misguided statements” and posted “misguided views” And I have repeatedly requested you identify those views and statements. I am still waiting maybe it is time for you to exercise some introspection and consider how silly you sound in your selective support or denigration of your fellow travelers (unless when you refer to “Gore”, you are talking about “Gore Vidal” and we all know how he and his 'fellow travelers' liked to 'ride') btw understanding any theory does not elevate it closer to becoming a "fact". Actually, where "theories" really fall down is they are closer a synonym for "opinion" than they ever are for "science" Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 10 January 2009 2:54:58 PM
| |
Col
I have opinions on subjects I am not expert in, so I defer to those that do – including my plumber, doctor and accountant. I would be misguided in my knowledge, judgement and opinion if I was to tell them they have got it all wrong – this is not to say I can’t have an opinion, or question and learn from them. You on the other hand, are one of the most opinionated people on OLO, never tempering your stance on anything from pornography to paedophilia, capitalism to communism. Hence my sarcastic remark about you writing a book “Col’s guide to the Universe”. You did not take it in the light-hearted frame it was offered. You retort in adhom whenever people with expertise in something you don’t challenges your opinion, to the extent of complaining to the moderator when you feel they are being too provocative. The epitome of hypocrisy methinks. To risk assessment/management You have rolled out the ANZ cheque stuff before, and I understand. However, you avoided answering my query on what you thought of Munich Re policies on risk management with respect to climate change – clearly stated in the link I gave you. I would have thought they were somewhat more expert than you but I also thought an accountant would concur with their rationale - you seem at odds with them. So, simple question ... do you think Munich Re is wrong to adopt their position on climate change? You might not have had the time to review the link http://www.munichre.com/en/ts/geo_risks/climate_change_and_insurance/default.aspx and if so, my apologies. Nevertheless, Munich Re has major concerns and policies that appear to put your comments and opinions (or lack thereof) into contradictory perspective - why is that so? Thanks anyway. ps: I don't think you understand the stats of climate change well enough - but that is only my opinion. Posted by Q&A, Saturday, 10 January 2009 3:02:06 PM
| |
Delightful - like a Pavlovian dog, Col demonstrates my previous point that he has "no rejoinder but name-calling and other fallacies". He apparently can't help himself, poor dear.
Q&A: << You retort in adhom whenever people with expertise in something you don’t challenges your opinion, to the extent of complaining to the moderator when you feel they are being too provocative. The epitome of hypocrisy methinks. [...] I don't think you understand the stats of climate change well enough - but that is only my opinion. >> Q&A strikes me as one of the most consistently erudite and reasonable AGW proponents on this forum. For a science ignoramus like Col to go for him the way he does can only strengthen Q&A's credibility, to the equivalent detriment of Col's demonstratedly parlous understanding of science. Of course, we're all missing the point that the whole climate change thing is a grand conspiracy to impose worldwide "Socialism by Stealth". Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 10 January 2009 5:51:50 PM
| |
Q&A My response to your dummy spit was prefaced by the statement;
"If you are so concerned about your professional status in the eyes of everyone, why dont you:" I then listed series of matters that under normal circumstances, the subject of which would have elicited a comment of defence or denial, from the scientific community. I was not claiming that you personally had made the comments, but as a practicing scientist, so you say, you would have been aware of such matters. In this light I was not claiming that you had said that Hansen is a crook for example- but that it is a well founded claim being made by others, which your kind tolerate by your silence. Similarly about Gore, and his infamous AIT and the way it has been supported by scientists in USA and here in Australia-despite the egregious errors of fact. etc etc It seems that reading and comprehension are not your strong suits, in addition to dummy spitting petulance. Posted by bigmal, Saturday, 10 January 2009 10:02:56 PM
| |
At least CJ Mogan has two of the scourges of the 21st Century named and shamed. That is bean counters and lawyers. He should have added pseudo scientists and the journalists who pander to them. Now we are able to go a surfin the net, those of us who have some knowledge of science, are getting so many mixed signals, that we must question the integrity of all those who want to impose carbon taxes, and put lots of industrial workers out of jobs.
The lawyers started rampaging in English law about 1870, and no more ingenious bunch of workmakers, ( for themselves) ever walked the earth and since 2000 years ago, they have not changed one bit. Now they have been joined by bean counters, as the most influential people in society, they use all the others. When lawyers were allowed to creep back into Parliament, they were not considered commonwers so not allowed in Parlament for 498 years, unil then, they started to manipulate the system for their benefit. Who benefits from GST? the bean counters and lawyers, Who pays? business. Who will benefit most from a carbon tax? Bean Counters and lawyers. Who are the people who worship bean counters and lawyers? Journalists. When they wanted to get the head of the Bonnano Mafia Family, they failed until they followed the money trail. Who most benefits from Climate Change Sensationalism, Newspapers, Media , Lawyers and accountants. What are Penny Wong and Peter Garrett. Lawyers. Who do they really serve? Their mates. What do thay want us to believe? That Parliament is infallible. Ha Ha. Lets get real, and realise what is really going on here. Posted by Peter the Believer, Sunday, 11 January 2009 4:55:46 AM
| |
I don't suppose it is any use mentioning that if you follow the money trail in the USA it is all heading towards green technologies, and that green Technologies in the USA is the only section with increaseing job numbers. It may yet save the US economy.
The fear factor of job losses has been over-played. With new technologies jobs change. Going green may well increase overal job numbers even though they might be in different sectors. That has been the way for every major technology shift. If name calling, insults and bigotry is all there is to the human race then the future is bleak. How about starting to talk about the issues? Posted by Daviy, Sunday, 11 January 2009 1:17:43 PM
| |
David's premise has one major flaw.
By using chaos theory one can predict possible dire consequences from any action one takes. To extend the premise would to not step outdoors in case all sorts of calamities occur, and is not a basis for policy decisions. GW as with all issues needs to be dealt with by recognised scientific organisations doing as accurate predictions of the most likely occurrances. Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 11 January 2009 3:29:17 PM
| |
Peter the Believer,
If I read you right you believe there is a giant worldwide conspiracy by scientists journalists and governments to ram GW down the throats of an ignorant populace. Why would they conspire to do that I wonder? To extract taxes from the people by introducing emissions trading? To instill a sense of fear in their subjects as an excuse to increase authoritarian controls on them? I can't for the life of me figure out what motives they all might have for such a conspiracy to form especially since the things governments and main stream media are most comfortable with is business (growth) as usual with a few distant wars to whet their appetites. Posted by kulu, Sunday, 11 January 2009 6:32:45 PM
| |
If anyone can provide me with references to peer reviewed scientific papers or other informed literature that questions the consensus on human induced climate change please let me know. There must be volumes of it out there as there certainly are enough skeptics about who must either be climate scientists themselves or have had access to accredited literature on the matter.
Thank you Posted by kulu, Sunday, 11 January 2009 6:44:07 PM
| |
kulu: << If I read you right you believe there is a giant worldwide conspiracy by scientists journalists and governments to ram GW down the throats of an ignorant populace. Why would they conspire to do that I wonder? To extract taxes from the people by introducing emissions trading? To instill a sense of fear in their subjects as an excuse to increase authoritarian controls on them? >>
Indeed, kulu. In fact, one of our less scientifically literate contributors routinely reduces this asinine conspiracy theory to the trite slogan: "Socialism by Stealth". It's all a communist plot! Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 11 January 2009 6:48:54 PM
| |
Shadow Minister
'By using chaos theory one can predict possible dire consequences from any action one takes.' That is a total misunderstanding of chaos theory and what was written in the article. Nothing remorely like that was written. Nothing remotely like that can be implied from chaos theory. May I request that you (and others) re-read the article and continue this debate based on what was written, not on what was perceived to have been written. Posted by Daviy, Sunday, 11 January 2009 7:37:16 PM
| |
For someone who doesn't even believe there has ever been an ice age, Runner, you sure have a lot to say about climate change. Your role on this thread is purely as a spoiler.
One poster writes that "‘science’ has done nothing more than taken a set of observations, collected some scant and incomplete test data, projected a hypothetical consequence, postulated a number of theories of what the possible causes might be" ...and concludes it's all a socialist plot. Now, although science can connect the climate with purported human industrial activity, it takes real insight to connect climate with socialism. Be interesting to see the, um, reasoning behind it. Posted by bennie, Monday, 12 January 2009 9:54:03 AM
| |
Bennie “it takes real insight to connect climate with socialism. Be interesting to see the, um, reasoning behind it.”
I posted this back on 12 May 2008 “Following the collapse of the communist system, the socialist radicals abandoned their overt representation of a failed political system and basically went “underground”. The process of ‘entryism’, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Entryism And http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/nicholas_blincoe/2008/02/how_green_is_my_berry.html quote “The Greens are now only Green in name and the reason lies in the creation of Green Left in 2006, a leftwing entryist movement that now occupies many of the most powerful positions in the party. Founded by Peter Tatchell, among others, Green Left is an avowedly anti-capitalist movement.” where someone of one political belief fraudulently enters another political group with the intention of either deliberate sabotage (something which Ted Bailleau is possibly experiencing) or to modify the goals and ideals of the host organisation, to better support the hidden entryist agenda. This practice was wide spread in UK throughout the 1970-1990s and is presumably still going on today. The victim targets of many trotkyites and extreme left wing malcontents were the green and environmental movements, from where they could use the sentimentality of “saving anything” to undermine the democratic processes which are the real targets of their malcontent.” . . . “based on a comment from the article “In short the Green movement is no longer a defender of environmental conservation, of the flora and fauna.” I would ask, if not the preservation of the environment, what is the real “green agenda”? Until someone can explain where all the political radicals and agitators of the past went (apart from those who have thrust copies of “Green Left” in my face with pleadings to buy), I am going to assume they have entered, among others, the environmental movement, from where the will continue to corrupt and pervert that movement to their real will.” AGW as reason for a carbon tax, based on whatever methodology, is an exercise in “social leveling” because those less able to pay it are to be reimbursed through some form of fiscal adjustment. simply put Socialism by Stealth Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 12 January 2009 11:43:50 AM
| |
Kulu asks;
“If anyone can provide me with references to peer reviewed scientific papers or other informed literature that questions the consensus on human induced climate change please let me know. There must be volumes of it out there as there certainly are enough skeptics about who must either be climate scientists themselves or have had access to accredited literature on the matter.” Answer: Use Google Scholar and type “Col Rouge” [Aside: With any luck, you might also see his interpretation of why Munich Re is taking climate change so seriously] Seriously, try; Nir Shaviv (Galactic Cosmic Rays), Roy Spencer (clouds) or Dick Lindzen (IRIS) ... some good stuff but unfortunately – they all have, umm ... ‘serious issues’. They should keep trying though. There are of course over "31,000" scientists who think AGW is all crapolla (I was on the original list?!) and if you go to the so called “denialosphere” you will no doubt be given the papers you are looking for. Posted by Q&A, Monday, 12 January 2009 5:48:02 PM
| |
Q&A “I have opinions on subjects I am not expert in, so I defer to those that do – including my plumber, doctor and accountant. . I would be misguided in my knowledge, judgment and opinion if I was to tell them they have got it all wrong – this is not to say I can’t have an opinion, or question and learn from them.”
So your claim is, I am misguided for not accepting your opinion because you tell me you are an expert and I am not? When I use the services of a plumber, lawyer or even accountant, I never forget, I can seek a second opinion (this I did recently on a medical matter and saved legs below the knee from amputation) So Q&A whilst I too recognize we all rely on the counsel of "experts", to help us to resolve decisions and shape our opinions, we also need to consider that, just as William McBride was an expert in the care of pregnant women, the view of some experts should not be assumed to be omnipotent. So, as far as your contributions to this opinion forum are concerned, I would more likely put you in the same “expert” class of a William McBride and thus someone whose “expert opinion” is not worth a brass razoo and that way I am not cutting myself off at the knees, or worse, like the victims of McBrides “expertise”. No one has an exclusive right to direct the thoughts of other people and i would be "misguided" to rely on you. History is littered with "opinon directors", one of the most successful was Stalin but I think the world would have been a far better place if the likes of Stalin had been drowned at birth. Anyway, I did do as you suggested Use Google Scholar - “Col Rouge” Google scholar I got 66,400 hits first up High-performance liquid chromatography coupled to ion spray mass spectrometry for the determination Sorry, not me. And on “Google for the common folk” I got 4,950,000 hits, what a popular fellow I am Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 13 January 2009 12:02:47 PM
| |
Experts are people who can describe in great detail what happened after the event. Very useful if you want to reproduce an effect at a later date. That is the role of experts.
But whatever the final outcome of the global warming dilema experts do not exist yet. There has no final outcome to be an expert about. The absolute best that can be done is to make the best we can of avilable information. This is one of those issues where it makes no difference if you are black or white, nazi, pinko commy barstard, or any other combination of insults that can be strung together. Make the wrong choice and we could all be in deep trouble. Posted by Daviy, Tuesday, 13 January 2009 1:33:39 PM
| |
A smattering of London politics and an unbased assumption does not a worldwide conspiracy make.
Anyone else? Posted by bennie, Tuesday, 13 January 2009 2:16:58 PM
| |
Daviy “Experts are people who can describe in great detail what happened after the event.”
Agree. Even when experts have “data” it remains a hell of a job to emulate what happens In the real world. Simply because, whatever we do in a “model” in any media, is “limited” in comparison to the millions of independent and interdependent variables which comprise “nature” I guarantee the “data points” all experts combined have available to measure are incomplete and of uncertain "significance" in both there comparison and interaction, when compared to the millions of independent variables which exist to react, interact and influence outcomes in the real world. “Make the wrong choice and we could all be in deep trouble.” Having grown up and lived through the tensions of a post WWII European nuclear Armageddon, my concepts of “deep trouble” are possibly biased and skewed, in a particular way which others have not experienced. Somehow the idea of a self promoting “expert” telling me we might have a problem in another half a century or so, if we do not turn our lives upside down today; compared to living within 20 km of a US nuclear strike force, there to counter a Russian strike force and the knowledge that the missiles were armed and the response time was 3 minutes before continental annihilation, has probably left me feeling a little blasé and with a different consideration to what “deep trouble” actually implies :- ) ,bennie “A smattering of London politics and an unbased assumption does not a worldwide conspiracy make.” And a couple of so called experts insisting they are the only people capable of directing humanity does not a convincing argument make either But based on the experiences of history, my ‘conspiracy theory’ contains more elements of probable truth than the hypothetic theories and machinations thrown around by the zealots and acolytes of AGW Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 13 January 2009 4:10:37 PM
|