PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

Flying Binghi 30th Nov 2015 00:20

LOOKOUT !!! chuboy has done some actual research for once..:D

chuboy, suggest ya have a look-see of the position Anthony Watts takes on CO2 and its effects. Yer might be surprised..;)




.

layman 1st Dec 2015 08:13

From "The Conversation"
https://theconversation.com/climate-...s-sceptic-1050

An article by Garth Paltridge titled "Climate science - establishment versus sceptic". I think it's worth a read (whichever side you sit).

One of the comments on the article is from "Steve Sherwood, Director, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW Australia" which I think gives a fair summation of the view of the climate science community.


I would love to have the time to troll through the blogosphere and digest all the arguments out there against mainstream climate science. Unfortunately unlike Garth I am not retired and have a full time job doing research and teaching. The place for this "debate" to happen is in the scientific literature, where contrarian papers do occasionally appear. These papers are far from ignored, they receive very high citation counts. I have yet to see a single one of them, however, that is not fatally flawed in some way.

Garth intimates that there is a silent majority of scientists out there who doubt the "dogma" of human-caused global warming. This is absolute nonsense. Anyone who doesn't believe me can ring around to as many legitimate scientists in relevant disciplines as you like. Except you don't have to--two such surveys have already been done and both have found that 97% of qualified experts endorse the concensus view.

Of course experts can be wrong, but we are entitled to be confident when the arguments coming from the other side are so patently and consistently unconvincing or erroneous. And while Garth and other scientists like to compare themselves to Alfred Wegener or other outsiders who came up with new ideas not at first accepted, if you look at the history of the sciences in more detail it becomes very clear that the contrarians are not the Wegeners but are actually the last remaining holdouts for the old view that the world and its climate are too big for us to change. I wish it were true.
The comments generally seem to be, if you disagree with anthropogenic global warming, then publish your research in peer-reviewed scientific journals ...

Another article on The Conversation includes to a series of articles on climate change
https://theconversation.com/rogues-o...nd-denial-1557

regards
layman

Flying Binghi 1st Dec 2015 08:33


via layman:...which I think gives a fair summation of the view of the climate science community...
How did you arrive at that conclusion layman ?




...two such surveys have already been done and both have found that 97% of qualified experts endorse the concensus view...
layman, do you know where that 'research' came from? If you knew the background to that claim you would never use it to back up any pro global warming veiws. I suggest further research on that 97% claim as the answer will astound you.





...The comments generally seem to be, if you disagree with anthropogenic global warming, then publish your research in peer-reviewed scientific journals ...
Suggested further research is the climategate emails. Its not peer reveiw, its buddy review.

A good starting place for research is Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change




via layman: ...Another article on The Conversation includes to a series of articles on climate change
https://theconversation.com/rogues-o...nd-denial-1557
You will note in that link there is an attempt to be-little Garth Paltridge. You will also note that there are no references what-so-ever that attempt to debunk any of the Paltridge claims.
I've been using "The Climate Caper" as a reference in many of the climate nutter forums since the book came out and to date no one has dared challenge it. Interesting that..;)




.

Hempy 1st Dec 2015 08:47


Suggested further research is the climategate emails. Its not peer reveiw, its buddy review.

A good starting place for research is Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change
The tin foil hat conspiracy nuts are at it again. 'It's not peer review, it's a conspiracy I tells ya'!!!'

p.s as for 'Watts up', a deaf TV weatherman probably doesn't count as an 'expert'. Just sayin'

SOPS 1st Dec 2015 08:55

Climate change is a complete conspiracy, a conspiracy to remove money from rich countries and giving it to poor ones.

What a pile of hot air it all is.......

MTOW 1st Dec 2015 09:16

You didn't get it quite right, SOPS. You should have said it is a conspiracy to take money from poor people in first world countries to give to rich people in third world countries.

SOPS 1st Dec 2015 09:49

Thanks for correcting me mate.:ok:

MTOW 1st Dec 2015 10:24

If this 800 million dollars in 'aid' is to go to the governments of our Pacific Island neighbours, Malcolm WWW Turnbull should perhaps be congratulated, for quite a bit of it - if history is anything to go by, damn near all of it - will find its way back to Australia PDQ and go into the pockets of luxury home sellers from Cairns to Sydney along with prestige car sellers. And the ladies who offer 'personal services' to well-heeled visitors to our shores.

So maybe Mal isn't quite so starry-eyed about climate change as some here think.

Ethel the Aardvark 1st Dec 2015 10:29

Watch out boys. satelite is coming over the horizon. Back into your shelters

At ease 1st Dec 2015 11:07

If you can't spell correctly, why would you expect that you would be taken seriously?

Or does one with a missing "L" orbit at a lower altitude or something?

At ease 1st Dec 2015 11:13

It's not hard to work out why Marshmallow Mal is concerned about climate change/global warming.

Marshmallows don't take kindly to too much heat. :E

Hempy 1st Dec 2015 11:50

Real estate in northern SA must be becoming a sought after commodity...


Ethel the Aardvark 1st Dec 2015 12:25

Mal Brough looking like a dead man walking. W Roy and Pyney must be feeling the heat. The honourable M Turnbull blitzing the polls. Blabbott must be beside himself. How long begore he makes a complete [email protected] of himself again.

MTOW 1st Dec 2015 19:52

Ethel, I (and I suspect, quite a few other 'right wing reactionaries') find myself in rare furious agreement with you in that I would just LOVE to see all three of the politicians you mentioned at the start of your last post 'retired' permanently from public life.

megan 2nd Dec 2015 00:50


two such surveys have already been done and both have found that 97% of qualified experts endorse the concensus view
And that quote re the 97% is complete nonsense as well, once again spinning the facts to support a position.

AL.com: How do you respond to the perception that 97 percent of scientists agree on climate change? (The Wall Street Journal in 2013 reported on the "myth" of the 97 percent).

Christy: The impression people make with that statement is that 97 percent of scientists agree with my view of climate change, which typically is one of catastrophic change. So if a Senate hearing or the president or vice president says 97 percent of the scientists agree with me, that's not true. The American Meteorological Society did their survey and they specifically asked the question, Is man the dominate controller of climate over the last 50 years? Only 52 percent said yes. That is not a consensus at all in science.

Then when you look at the core of that question, the core is do you believe that man has some influence on the climate. I don't know anyone who would say no to that. Who are the 3 percent who didn't agree with that? Roy and I have both made the statement that we are in the 97 percent because we believe in some (man-made) effect. It wasn't quantified and it wasn't this dangerous thing. That wasn't part of the question.

Spencer: Whoever came up with that, it was very powerful. It was a good idea. It was very misleading, but it was a good idea. There are different ways people handle that. I use the angle that based on the way they come up with the 97 percent, John and I could be considered part of the 97 percent. This is where things get all muddy. They call us global warming deniers. It's a great soundbite except what do we exactly deny? Or the science is settled. OK, what science is settled? You never hear the specifics.

"That's the great thing about politics. People throw out these platitudes and you could read into them whatever you want. It's so generic or non-specific in the thing that they're saying that you can interpret it anyway you want. You turn it into your own thing because you fill in the details. So being a global warming denier, the truth is we don't know global warming. The science is settled? Well, some of it is. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere probably adds some warming. The science on that is pretty solid. But then the devil's in the details. How much warming does it actually cause? It makes a huge difference.

AL.com: When you hear about the catastrophic effects of climate change, data from reputable organizations such as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or NASA is frequently cited. How do you respond to that?

Christy: NASA, NOAA, EPA, DOE, those are agencies. Agency leaders are appointed by the government, by the current administration. They do not represent objective independent scientific organizations. They can't. They are appointed by the head. They try. People who come out with different views in their organizations are found to be squashed. There is an agenda in those agencies, so it does not surprise me when they go full bore on something like climate change. They are marching to the drum of the administration. It's always been that way. But this administration has been extremely opaque. When you try to go provide information to EPA like these pictures, they will just dismiss it. They will come up with their findings and will not provide you with background for information so that you will know they made a scientific finding.

There are skeptics in NASA and NOAA, a good number. But they are quiet. They know in this administration, they don't speak out.

Spencer: I know that they're not unbiased. Most of them probably really do believe we're destroying the earth. When I talk to scientists who should be objective over a beer at the end of the day, I will argue with them and their final position will always be, 'Yeah, but we need to get away from fossil fuels anyway.' Where did that come from? Are you an expert in alternative energy sources and what they cost? How many poor people are you going to hurt? How many more people are you going to make poor through energy poverty because they are paying five to 10 times as much for their energy?

These guys in government are not unbiased and they have pressures from above. Those organizations, NASA and NOAA, they are part of the executive branch. So the White House has some influence over what direction they go. The heads are political appointees so you have political influence from the top down on scientists. And that's a problem.
7 questions with John Christy and Roy Spencer: Climate change skeptics for 25 years | AL.com

RJM 2nd Dec 2015 02:49

Regardless of one's position on climate change, the much-quoted figure of 97% invites cynicism because of its sanctity, if nothing else.

How can the measure of such a value as 'belief among all the scientists in the world that... (what exactly was it that the 97% believed?)' be precisely 97% for years.

And what was the question?

I've been rebuked by the invocation of the all-purpose holy percentage, for all sorts of suggestions:

'The variation in observed temperature doesn't seem to correlate as expected with CO2 levels.' - '97% of scientists disagree with you.'

'I doubt the sea level will rise by 2100 as much as predicted.' - '97% of scientists disagree with you.'

etc.

Stanwell 2nd Dec 2015 15:36

Yes, what is it about that 'holy' 97% figure?
Is it something within the human psyche that '97' immediately clicks with the 'consumer'?
Have a look at foods packaging in the supermarket. How often do you see proclaimed thereon... '97% Fat-Free'?

Science is one field - Marketing and Psychology, another.

chuboy 2nd Dec 2015 23:27

Coalition and Greens strike deal on multinational tax avoidance - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

This should help crack down on the real bludgers in this country.

Coalition and Greens striking a deal though... never thought I'd see the day :eek:

MTOW 3rd Dec 2015 04:04

Liberal ex-frontbencher Ian MacFarlane said to be bailing from the Liberal Party and switching to the Nats.

Phil Coorey is reporting that others may also make the move.

At least two more federal Liberal MPs are considering following former Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane and defect to the Nationals.

The Nationals will be holding a party room meeting at 3.30pm Thursday to accept Mr Macfarlane and sources have told The Australian Financial Review two more have made contact and are seriously contemplating joining him. They have until the meeting to make up their minds.

One is understood to be Queenslander Scott Buchholz who lost his job as party Whip when Tony Abbott was rolled. The other MP is understood to be from outside Queensland. Speculation surrounds Northern Territory Country Liberal MP Natasha Griggs but she has said she is staying put, as has Victorian Liberal Sharman Stone.

CoodaShooda 3rd Dec 2015 07:11

It was fun listening to the Greens and labor ripping into each other in the Senate over the tax disclosure legislation.

Dastyari was particularly cut up about losing his place as the Stop Tax Avoidance Supremo.

DeNatali hit the nail on the head, describing Sam as the Tip Without An Iceberg.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:29.


Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.