Climate Change in Australia (Part 2)

[Bomber1408]

@Drapersmullet

@Bomber1408

Thats 180 degrees different to the messaging from the IPCC and MSM clowns:

How is it different?

The article reaffirms the consensus view about Arctic ice melt being largely attributed to man made warming, and offers hypotheses about why Antarctic ice hasn’t follow the same trend.

It also frames the study around the exact models used by the IPCC, so if you personally think those are flawed then you can’t use this article to support your position at all.

Did you actually read and understand the article, or did you just find a headline that you thought would support your argument?

I am talking about the historical MSM & IPCC statements that temperature is actually rising, that ice is disappearing in Antartica …. lies and exaggerations aimed at deceiving the masses. Thats what I have a problem with, not to mention their “models” are clearly wrong. What else is wrong.

This has huge impacts, governments all over Australia have made decisions based on “the models”. Remember the dams will never be full again, south eastern Australia will be a desert cause thats what the models said …remember that. We gave the guy who told that porkie the Australian of the Year. Meanwhile many billions have been spent on desalination plants, on zoning flood plains for residential…the list goes on…. its a joke and our kids will pay for it big time. Just imagine what that money could have been spent on… this is the foundation of my attitude to global warming …. The deceit and the lack of due diligence on that deceit by the MSM in particular

[bigallan]

How’ s it going in the Arctic?
Russia has been trial shipping goods from the North Atlantic/Barents to the Pacific by the Arctic Sea route.
There has been cooperation within the Arctic Council members ( now in suspense following the Ukraine war)

[Drapersmullet]

You said that article was a perfect ‘180’ counter to the position of the IPCC, but I and others just explained to you why it isn’t and why you were wrong.

Do you have any evidence to back up your comments that the IPCC is making assertions about Antarctic ice melting?

Or any evidence that the modelling they are using is, as you say, ‘wrong’? How is it wrong exactly?

You really should go and read post 50 by HM. If you think the ‘MSM’ is on the side of climate action, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of media bias in the climate change debate over the last 30 years.

[Loflyer]

@darkknightpheonix

If you don’t care why did you comment ? let alone double down on it and post it twice ?

I could say you seem very aggressive in your posts, somewhat passive aggressive also. see we can both throw out labels with very little substance to back it up :).

Because what Benny wrote was articulate and reasonable and healthy with regard to explaining things to people who come in with anger and obstinance instead of logic and evidence. And you replied with whataboutism and were defensive. As for you going on about how that’s not what you’re doing, you’re illustrating my point. But that I don’t care about. Don’t let it bother you.

Also see the recent example from Bomber1408 of exactly what I described to you regarding people who drop little so called truth bombs about man made climate change, get their fill of replies from well meaning and informed posters and, checks watch, farks off without addressing any of them with anything other than further obfuscation and trite minor point quibbling. Clockwork.

[Benny40]

I don’t mean to come across as elitist by saying I’ve got a science background. More illustrating the logic behind how I approach these things. I’ve maybe got a bit more skillset than most, but I also don’t have the time to dig into the weeds on everything.

My depression around the acceptance of science is due to interest groups attacking science where it threatened their dogma or beliefs. Issues like abortion and evolution have been fought by discrediting science. That has set a trend, that when you don’t like the science, discrediting the research is effective. What started as a narrow issue based debate has snowballed into a disbelief in science generally.

Once that baseline level of trust was eroded, it became easier for quacks and charlatans to get a large audience. Scientists can be wrong, but the trend now is that outsiders with poor credentials are believed BECAUSE they aren’t scientists.

One reason science is so bad at engaging with the community is their communication is horrible. Scientific papers are kept behind extremely expensive paywalls. Scientists are generally poor spokespeople, the language used in scientific communication is unintelligible to most of the population without that narrow training. It means that the pseudoscience answers to an issue are the easiest to understand and seem the most believable.

I’m a fan of science communicators like Al Gore. I don’t believe that scientists hold a monopoly on talking about science. Anyone can do the reading, those with expertise in education and communication are often better at explaining the science.

It bugs me that science is seen as having an agenda. That it’s seen as a belief rather than a problem solving tool. That is a core misunderstanding of what science is. Science can be wrong, research can be and should be regularly called into question. It is messy and makes mistakes, but it is self correcting.

Early covid science was often wrong, but the answers became more accurate as more data was collated. People questioning those early findings and discrediting science in general because the early results were wrong miss the point. Scientists aren’t magicians who are right from day 1 on a problem, but if 1000s of them have been working on a problem for decades, they’re going to be pretty damn close to an answer.

Outsiders who are holding a position outside the scientific norm are kinda like conspiracy theories. Occasionally a conspiracy theory will be right, but most of the time the conspiracy is bullshit. By all means question the science, but know that 99% of the time the outsiders will be cherry-picking results to fit their own narrative. Scientists spend absurd amounts of time reading all the current work in a field, it’s a level of effort us laypeople can’t and shouldn’t be doing. It’s quite a reasonable thing to look at a group of scientists, the collective centuries of experience and defer to their collective judgment.

[darkknightpheonix]

@Loflyer

Because what Benny wrote was articulate and reasonable and healthy with regard to explaining things to people who come in with anger and obstinance instead of logic and evidence. And you replied with whataboutism and were defensive. As for you going on about how that’s not what you’re doing, you’re illustrating my point. But that I don’t care about. Don’t let it bother you.

so now you’ve tripled down on me being defensive, but can’t explain why i’m defensive cos you don’t care enough, right.

you’re aggressive and bullying nature about telling me what i’m doing with no actual knowledge or evidence of why I’m saying stuff is actually funny, it doesn’t bother me at all, why would it ?

and yes benny did make a great point about human behaviour and i have subsequently said and acknowledged that. I also made mention it’s a human trait and therefore both sides do exactly the same thing, unless you think only one side of an argument on a topic ?

[bigallan]

You mentioned Al Gore on communication.
I follow Frank Jotzo at ANU who is an excellent communicator, not into politics. He occasionally gets an airing in the media, does not gild the lily.
I did some work with him when he was at ABARE as a specialised economist.
You can follow him on Twitter.

[darkknightpheonix]

@Benny40

It bugs me that science is seen as having an agenda. That it’s seen as a belief rather than a problem solving tool. That is a core misunderstanding of what science is. Science can be wrong, research can be and should be regularly called into question. It is messy and makes mistakes, but it is self correcting.

the rest of your post I do agree with

the part i quoted is the issue though. it’s not necessarily science has an agenda, but scientists are ultimately human and ultimately flawed.

so scientists can have an agenda, and there’s plently of examples I could list to show it.

there inlies the issue and problem, who do or can you trust ? in general not just on this topic.

@Benny40

Early covid science was often wrong, but the answers became more accurate as more data was collated. People questioning those early findings and discrediting science in general because the early results were wrong miss the point. Scientists aren’t magicians who are right from day 1 on a problem, but if 1000s of them have been working on a problem for decades, they’re going to be pretty damn close to an answer.

i know it’s a diffent topic so i’ll keep it brief, that progression of it is true. however the scientific approach went out the window with covid did it not, when “vaccines” did not meet the accepted scientific approach leading up to their roll out, ala collect the data BEFORE roll out.
but non scientists agendas trumped scientific protocols (as an example politicians wanting to sell they were in control and calmness instead of following proper protocols)

so again it’s not that people distrust the science, they distrust the people behind the science, cos in todays age you can find any scientific paper or study to back up your claims on almost anything (I get a chuckle about this topic when I saw a short clip on social media of some guy freaking out cos he did this about coffee )

[Benny40]

Thanks. I don’t actually follow Al Gore at all, but I respect those that put the work in to translate science to a wider audience.

[Benny40]

I’ve probably distracted myself enough at work today on this!

Yeah, you can find a paper that proves anything. The reason scientists spend their career on an issue is because they read all the papers and have a good feel for which are junk research and which are important. Laypeople don’t have that experience and can easily reach the wrong conclusions. Scientists are incentivised to make every paper sound important and novel.

Also, political implementation of science is absurdly bad. Much of the covid issues people have problems with lie in the disconnect between policy and good science. The world is messy, dealing with a pandemic for the first time was guaranteed to be rough.

[Albert_Thurgood]

@Benny40

Scientific papers are kept behind extremely expensive paywalls

That was down to the publishers, not the scientists
And it was only true when the publishing companies would protect their turf. Now they have figured out a way to make more money by making papers open access.

So now scientists have to get the money to do their work AND pay publishers to publish it! More burden on science, more $$$ for capitalists.

[Chris_1993]

@Albert_Thurgood

So now scientists have to get the money to do their work AND pay publishers to publish it! More burden on science, more $$$ for capitalists.

There is at least some change in that space now. There is now an agreement between some institutions/universities and some publishers (including big ones like Elsevier, Wiley and Sons etc) where article processing fees (in select journals) are waived if the lead author has an affiliation at a participating institute/uni.

Still not perfect (still pretty garbage TBH), but there is finally some progress in the right direction.

[Albert_Thurgood]

@Chris_1993

article processing fees (in select journals) are waived if the lead author has an affiliation at a participating institute/uni.

Yeah, but they have a quota system so not so good if you have to pay later in the year

[Chris_1993]

Huh, that bit didn’t get mentioned to me but reading through it, yeah it appears to be capped for most publishers.

Well, if ever that becomes an issue late in the year for me, I’ll just ask the handling editor to withhold acceptance until Jan 1.

[Bacchusfox]

@Benny40

One of the very real trends in the history of science is the old guard resist change until they die. A new idea will be proven, but the older scientists won’t absorb that evidence.

Sorry you have had that experience but it is not mine.

Been in the science industry since I graduated from Uni in 1973, and have worked closely with Universities all over the world ever since. In the last 30 years we have sponsored 9 PhD projects; some outcomes were great, others not so good

My take is that younger scientists do not question as much as older ones, and for me it is not resisting change but seeking more evidence.

The other point also is that if you have spent a lifetime in a particular field then you have probably tested many hypotheses and if a new theory goes against your work, then certainly you question it harder. When we developed our new technology for our product we cleverly got the world leading people on board very early on. So when arguments arose on our findings and theories, we had the backing of the gurus.

[Benny40]

That was more a historical theme. I think modern scientists generally aim to act the way you describe. Your experience and mine fit pretty well, but I bailed from the field in my 20s.

[Bacchusfox]

Not much money in being a scientist, but selling them stuff is rewarding.

[darkknightpheonix]

@Benny40

I’ve probably distracted myself enough at work today on this!

Yeah, you can find a paper that proves anything. The reason scientists spend their career on an issue is because they read all the papers and have a good feel for which are junk research and which are important. Laypeople don’t have that experience and can easily reach the wrong conclusions. Scientists are incentivised to make every paper sound important and novel.

Also, political implementation of science is absurdly bad. Much of the covid issues people have problems with lie in the disconnect between policy and good science. The world is messy, dealing with a pandemic for the first time was guaranteed to be rough.

haha all good.
I can only tolerate being on blitz a certain amount of time now a days.
FWIW like i said i do enjoy interacting with you on here (it may not seem it at times) at least you can back up that you think for yourself and not simply regurgitate a narrative and then merely attack anyone who doesn’t follow it’s strictest parameters on the subject.

[Humble_Minion]

@Bacchusfox

Not much money in being a scientist, but selling them stuff is rewarding.

Nobody gets into science for the money.

Mind you, i think a lot of the people who do get into science as a career are the people who got good marks in the hard, sciency subjects at high school, and just continued into it at uni and beyond by default.

[Bacchusfox]

In my case, it was an interest from when a child, and I had an aptitude for maths and science. Taught for maths/science for three years after graduation, was not that good at it, so worked in a lab, pay was better than teaching as well. Noticed these blokes in suits with a briefcase roaming around and found they were selling science stuff, thought that looked ok. So applied for a job with a science industry equipment mob, and that was the start of the best job in the world for me. Travelled all over the world, saw some incredible science breakthroughs and made a very good living.

Sadly in some ways the whole world has changed, and jobs in science are not so easy to get any longer. People in labs are not as well paid, and given the power of the latest technology, the work is not as interesting either. And from what I have seen over the past 20 years or maybe longer, time at University is not as much fun when I was at Melbourne Uni. either !

While I understand robust discussion regarding climate change, I cannot understand at all, anyone who either just denies it or tries to downplay the growing tragedy. I have not seen, what I call real scientists deny climate change at all; some argue the extent and the outcomes, but all who use their brains know the dire future we face unless we all take it seriously.