But the boss man said...IPCC report has been handed down
we're farked
Must be hedging his bets on the 5%
Must be hedging his bets on the 5%
IPCC report has been handed down
we're farked
More worrying is the determination of so many to tear it apart. All we've heard from much of the media about this report is how scandalous it is that they're finally admitting that they "got it wrong" last time. The growing mistrust of science is a scary thing.
Means one of 2 things Kozza
They grow stupider by the day, or more vindictive
I'm hot. Its Abbots fault.
At least they look pretty now...
Now would be a great time for the lib govt to avoid talking abou climate, would be great if there was a Biggs and more sinister threat, rickety boats come to mind.
IPCC report has been handed down
we're farkedMore worrying is the determination of so many to tear it apart. All we've heard from much of the media about this report is how scandalous it is that they're finally admitting that they "got it wrong" last time. The growing mistrust of science is a scary thing.
Mistrust of climate science sponsored by Rupert Murdoch.
"science". pfft.
Good science welcomes criticism.
If people get upset because people are criticizing it, its not good science.
Don't confuse the economic and political sides of this with "science".
See those outrageous jellyfish blooms off the coast of Japan?
Better work out a way to make use of those things because the ocean will be full of them in near future.
"science". pfft.
Good science welcomes criticism.
If people get upset because people are criticizing it, its not good science.
Don't confuse the economic and political sides of this with "science".
Good science welcomes informed, well-researched criticism. The sort of horseshit we actually get, about 'warming has stopped since 1998!' and 'yeah, but what about the SUN then, huh?' and 'carbon dioxide is plant food!', isn't remotely either of those things.
I entirely agree that the economically/politically optimal way of addressing the AGW issue is a matter for debate (and it's a debate that will never be solved, because we only get one shot at this and will never get to go back and give the other options a try), but arguing against the fact of AGW is like arguing against the fact of plate tectonics or quantum mechanics or evolution at this point.
"science". pfft.
Good science welcomes criticism.
If people get upset because people are criticizing it, its not good science.
Don't confuse the economic and political sides of this with "science".
Good science welcomes informed, well-researched criticism. The sort of horseshit we actually get, about 'warming has stopped since 1998!' and 'yeah, but what about the SUN then, huh?' and 'carbon dioxide is plant food!', isn't remotely either of those things.
I entirely agree that the economically/politically optimal way of addressing the AGW issue is a matter for debate (and it's a debate that will never be solved, because we only get one shot at this and will never get to go back and give the other options a try), but arguing against the fact of AGW is like arguing against the fact of plate tectonics or quantum mechanics or evolution at this point.
Risky manoeuvre there...not that I disagree with you. I think creationists are somehow mentally feeble.
Risky manoeuvre there...not that I disagree with you. I think creationists are somehow mentally feeble.
Good science welcomes informed, well-researched criticism. The sort of horseshit we actually get, about 'warming has stopped since 1998!' and 'yeah, but what about the SUN then, huh?' and 'carbon dioxide is plant food!', isn't remotely either of those things.
"science". pfft.
Good science welcomes criticism.
If people get upset because people are criticizing it, its not good science.
Don't confuse the economic and political sides of this with "science".
I entirely agree that the economically/politically optimal way of addressing the AGW issue is a matter for debate (and it's a debate that will never be solved, because we only get one shot at this and will never get to go back and give the other options a try), but arguing against the fact of AGW is like arguing against the fact of plate tectonics or quantum mechanics or evolution at this point.
The global warming denialist movement has an extraordinary amount in common with the creationist movement, to be honest.
Risky manoeuvre there...not that I disagree with you. I think creationists are somehow mentally feeble.
Good science welcomes informed, well-researched criticism. The sort of horseshit we actually get, about 'warming has stopped since 1998!' and 'yeah, but what about the SUN then, huh?' and 'carbon dioxide is plant food!', isn't remotely either of those things."science". pfft.
Good science welcomes criticism.
If people get upset because people are criticizing it, its not good science.
Don't confuse the economic and political sides of this with "science".
I entirely agree that the economically/politically optimal way of addressing the AGW issue is a matter for debate (and it's a debate that will never be solved, because we only get one shot at this and will never get to go back and give the other options a try), but arguing against the fact of AGW is like arguing against the fact of plate tectonics or quantum mechanics or evolution at this point.
The global warming denialist movement has an extraordinary amount in common with the creationist movement, to be honest.
and with the people with fixed views on law and order and also refugee statuses.
The things that you're liable to read in that Bible - just ain't necessarily so.
Thank you, Ira.
"science". pfft.
Good science welcomes criticism.
If people get upset because people are criticizing it, its not good science.
Don't confuse the economic and political sides of this with "science".
Good science welcomes informed, well-researched criticism. The sort of horseshit we actually get, about 'warming has stopped since 1998!' and 'yeah, but what about the SUN then, huh?' and 'carbon dioxide is plant food!', isn't remotely either of those things.
I entirely agree that the economically/politically optimal way of addressing the AGW issue is a matter for debate (and it's a debate that will never be solved, because we only get one shot at this and will never get to go back and give the other options a try), but arguing against the fact of AGW is like arguing against the fact of plate tectonics or quantum mechanics or evolution at this point.
Thats fair, except your creationist comment is out-RAGEOUS. You know that they are not the arguments I refer to. Most scientists who have jumped on the ACC train (rightly or wrongly) have invested WAY too much reputation to ever even look at opposing evidence, mostly due to the political and social pressure. And that is not science. I am not going down this path, we are not going to converge.
Did you vote for Bandt by the way?
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/greens-mp-adam-bandt-tries-to-make-political-mileage-out-of-fires/story-fncynjr2-1226741900565
About sums it up for me.
Thats fair, except your creationist comment is out-RAGEOUS. You know that they are not the arguments I refer to. Most scientists who have jumped on the ACC train (rightly or wrongly) have invested WAY too much reputation to ever even look at opposing evidence, mostly due to the political and social pressure. And that is not science. I am not going down this path, we are not going to converge.Good science welcomes informed, well-researched criticism. The sort of horseshit we actually get, about 'warming has stopped since 1998!' and 'yeah, but what about the SUN then, huh?' and 'carbon dioxide is plant food!', isn't remotely either of those things."science". pfft.
Good science welcomes criticism.
If people get upset because people are criticizing it, its not good science.
Don't confuse the economic and political sides of this with "science".
I entirely agree that the economically/politically optimal way of addressing the AGW issue is a matter for debate (and it's a debate that will never be solved, because we only get one shot at this and will never get to go back and give the other options a try), but arguing against the fact of AGW is like arguing against the fact of plate tectonics or quantum mechanics or evolution at this point.
Did you vote for Bandt by the way? http://www.news.com.au/national-news/greens-mp-adam-bandt-tries-to-make-political-mileage-out-of-fires/story-fncynjr2-1226741900565
About sums it up for me.
It's exactly the same as the creationist argument.
1. Disprove human-caused global warming.
2. Collect Nobel Prize.
If you believe the basis for climate change then it's not abnormal. The dilemma is that people are expecting to live in a world without people.
Therein lies the challenge.
My creationist comment is entirely accurate.Thats fair, except your creationist comment is out-RAGEOUS. You know that they are not the arguments I refer to. Most scientists who have jumped on the ACC train (rightly or wrongly) have invested WAY too much reputation to ever even look at opposing evidence, mostly due to the political and social pressure. And that is not science. I am not going down this path, we are not going to converge.Good science welcomes informed, well-researched criticism. The sort of horseshit we actually get, about 'warming has stopped since 1998!' and 'yeah, but what about the SUN then, huh?' and 'carbon dioxide is plant food!', isn't remotely either of those things."science". pfft.
Good science welcomes criticism.
If people get upset because people are criticizing it, its not good science.
Don't confuse the economic and political sides of this with "science".
I entirely agree that the economically/politically optimal way of addressing the AGW issue is a matter for debate (and it's a debate that will never be solved, because we only get one shot at this and will never get to go back and give the other options a try), but arguing against the fact of AGW is like arguing against the fact of plate tectonics or quantum mechanics or evolution at this point.
Did you vote for Bandt by the way?
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/greens-mp-adam-bandt-tries-to-make-political-mileage-out-of-fires/story-fncynjr2-1226741900565
About sums it up for me.
Both climate change denialism and creationism(/"intelligent design" science) are phenomena that grew from ideologies and political lobbying efforts rather than observation. I strongly recommend the book "Merchants of Doubt" which tracks the history of these, and related anti-science campaigns such as the kickback against CFC restrictions, the backlash against the banning of DDT, and the coverup of the evidence linking smoking to cancer.
Both climate change denialism and creationism rely heavily on the high-rotation testimony of a handful of 'renegade' scientists (such as Behe for the creationists, and Carter, Lindzen etc for the climate change denialists) who provide a quasi-intellectual figleaf that allows adherents of these beliefs to pretend that significant scientific disagreement still exists on the fundamentals of evolution/climate change science. By virtue of their prominence in political debate, the publications and research of these contrarian scientists are read and examined extremely thoroughly and have all been pretty comprehensively debunked by the wider scientific community, not that this seems to dampen the enthusiasm for them in creationist/denialist circles.
Both climate change denialism and creationism are very prone to cherry-picking data. THe 'no warming since 1998' crowd are the absolutely typical example. They also are very fond of pouncing on minor incorrect predictions, or aspects of the science that more recent research has disproven or which are not yet fully understood, and acting as if this routine act of scientific self-correction or uncertainty in a complex field invalidates the entire decades-long field of study and massive evidence body of the scientific fact that they oppose.
Neither climate change denialism nor creationism seem at all interested in developing a meaningful alternative theory to replace the one that they oppose. Creationists don't do any actual research into the act of creation - when it happened, the mechanism involved, nor do they attempt to further investigate (if they're "intelligent design" types) the possibility of physical aliens being the 'designers' as they sometimes feebly claim is one possibility. Similarly, climate change denialists never attempt to explain the loss of polar ice, the receding of glaciers, the steady increase of global temperatures over the past hundred years or so which has no relationship to solar intensity in that time, nor do they try to explain why the earth is NOT warming, given that the Arrhenius equations (which have been unchallenged science for over a century) predict that any body of air will retain heat more if the proportion of CO2 it contains is increased. Ergo, neither climate change denialists nor creationists are interested in investigating scientific truth, they only care about attacking a science whose implications they don't like.
And I didn't vote for Bandt, though if I was in his electorate I would have. You know what - what he said was politically clumsy and should have been focused on a global level rather than on a national level, but regardles of what you think of him (and personally attacking Bandt does not invalidate climate science either, might I point out, it's just another indicator of the intellectual poverty of the climate denialist argument), he was 100% dead-on right. FFS, us Greenies have been warning everyone for decades that global warming would result in longer and more severe bushfire seasons. And now there are bushfires in Sydney only halfway through October exactly as people like me have been talking about for years and trying to avoid, and at the same time Abbott is bragging about how his first act as PM to remove every meaningful emissions reduction policy the country has.
It's real, it's happening. Deal.
Fark, we are totally and utterly screwed alright! Anthropogenic Global Colourisation can't be denied now, surely? Only Columbia Glacier is fighting the good fight.
My creationist comment is entirely accurate.
Thats fair, except your creationist comment is out-RAGEOUS. You know that they are not the arguments I refer to. Most scientists who have jumped on the ACC train (rightly or wrongly) have invested WAY too much reputation to ever even look at opposing evidence, mostly due to the political and social pressure. And that is not science. I am not going down this path, we are not going to converge.
Good science welcomes informed, well-researched criticism. The sort of horseshit we actually get, about 'warming has stopped since 1998!' and 'yeah, but what about the SUN then, huh?' and 'carbon dioxide is plant food!', isn't remotely either of those things."science". pfft.
Good science welcomes criticism.
If people get upset because people are criticizing it, its not good science.
Don't confuse the economic and political sides of this with "science".
I entirely agree that the economically/politically optimal way of addressing the AGW issue is a matter for debate (and it's a debate that will never be solved, because we only get one shot at this and will never get to go back and give the other options a try), but arguing against the fact of AGW is like arguing against the fact of plate tectonics or quantum mechanics or evolution at this point.
Did you vote for Bandt by the way?
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/greens-mp-adam-bandt-tries-to-make-political-mileage-out-of-fires/story-fncynjr2-1226741900565
About sums it up for me.
Both climate change denialism and creationism(/"intelligent design" science) are phenomena that grew from ideologies and political lobbying efforts rather than observation. I strongly recommend the book "Merchants of Doubt" which tracks the history of these, and related anti-science campaigns such as the kickback against CFC restrictions, the backlash against the banning of DDT, and the coverup of the evidence linking smoking to cancer.
Both climate change denialism and creationism rely heavily on the high-rotation testimony of a handful of 'renegade' scientists (such as Behe for the creationists, and Carter, Lindzen etc for the climate change denialists) who provide a quasi-intellectual figleaf that allows adherents of these beliefs to pretend that significant scientific disagreement still exists on the fundamentals of evolution/climate change science. By virtue of their prominence in political debate, the publications and research of these contrarian scientists are read and examined extremely thoroughly and have all been pretty comprehensively debunked by the wider scientific community, not that this seems to dampen the enthusiasm for them in creationist/denialist circles.
Both climate change denialism and creationism are very prone to cherry-picking data. THe 'no warming since 1998' crowd are the absolutely typical example. They also are very fond of pouncing on minor incorrect predictions, or aspects of the science that more recent research has disproven or which are not yet fully understood, and acting as if this routine act of scientific self-correction or uncertainty in a complex field invalidates the entire decades-long field of study and massive evidence body of the scientific fact that they oppose.
Neither climate change denialism nor creationism seem at all interested in developing a meaningful alternative theory to replace the one that they oppose. Creationists don't do any actual research into the act of creation - when it happened, the mechanism involved, nor do they attempt to further investigate (if they're "intelligent design" types) the possibility of physical aliens being the 'designers' as they sometimes feebly claim is one possibility. Similarly, climate change denialists never attempt to explain the loss of polar ice, the receding of glaciers, the steady increase of global temperatures over the past hundred years or so which has no relationship to solar intensity in that time, nor do they try to explain why the earth is NOT warming, given that the Arrhenius equations (which have been unchallenged science for over a century) predict that any body of air will retain heat more if the proportion of CO2 it contains is increased. Ergo, neither climate change denialists nor creationists are interested in investigating scientific truth, they only care about attacking a science whose implications they don't like.
And I didn't vote for Bandt, though if I was in his electorate I would have. You know what - what he said was politically clumsy and should have been focused on a global level rather than on a national level, but regardles of what you think of him (and personally attacking Bandt does not invalidate climate science either, might I point out, it's just another indicator of the intellectual poverty of the climate denialist argument), he was 100% dead-on right. FFS, us Greenies have been warning everyone for decades that global warming would result in longer and more severe bushfire seasons. And now there are bushfires in Sydney only halfway through October exactly as people like me have been talking about for years and trying to avoid, and at the same time Abbott is bragging about how his first act as PM to remove every meaningful emissions reduction policy the country has.
It's real, it's happening. Deal.
I will come back to the other points but that last paragraph is annoying.
"It's just another indicator of the intellectual poverty of the climate denialist argument), he was 100% dead-on right"
The lack of a carbon tax led to these bushfires? Come on, you are better than that.
There are bushfires because there was a lot of rain, rain = grass. Grass dries out when it warms up, something ignites - bushfire. Its ignorant and overly simplistic, and pure vote grubbing from ignorant sheep to claim that a lack of a CARBON TAX, for farks sake, has anything to do with these bushfires. Didn't Bob Brown, vaunted leader of "you greens" claim in 2006 that climate change would lead to prolonged drought? You cant have it both ways, I am sorry. Yes I know, rapid cycles blah blah, bushfires happen - they are a tragedy.
Anyone who stands up for that dirty, bottom feeding vote grab loses all my respect. At least wait until the fires are out.