Quote:

TONY Abbott has been likened to South African leaders who once claimed HIV did not cause AIDS. The comparison, by British process engineer Nilay Shah, was reported in The Times of London and reflects the strong interest internationally in the decision to scrap the carbon tax. Professor Shah, who specialises in modelling low-carbon technologies, made the comparison when launching a report that said the world needed to spend $2 trillion a year by 2050, or 1 per cent of GDP, to limit global warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels. The Times report said politicians such as the newly sworn-in Prime Minister would be judged as harshly by future generations as those who questioned the medical evidence on AIDS. "There's an interesting parallel with South Africa in the 90s, where political capital was being made out of HIV denial," Professor Shah said. "Those people must now regret what they did. I suspect that some of the politicians (now arguing against rapid cuts in emissions) will still be around in the mid-2030s and will reflect that they didn't do enough on climate change." Mr Abbott has said the Coalition government will scrap the carbon tax and spend billions of dollars on direct measures. He has said he accepts that "climate change is real, and I accept that mankind is making a difference, and I absolutely accept that we need a strong and effective policy to deal with it". Australia's decision to scrap the carbon tax has come at an inconvenient time for climate-change campaigners, ahead of the release this month of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change updated report. There is robust international debate about why climate-change models have overestimated actual temperatures. - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/abbotts-carbon-move-likened-to-hiv-denial/story-e6frg6xf-1226722370098#sthash.fLuusLoO.dpuf

While Abbotts denial is a concern, I dont like people using such emotive and graphic comparisons in order to discredit those they disagree with.

If you want to be respected in your field of profession, just debate the facts.

The true message gets lost as people focus on the drama instead.

He could have said abbotts belief in climate change is likened to a teenage boys best method of contraception is the pull out method, but it just doesnt have the same impact does it as the one used above.

Verge wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 7:01am:

While Abbotts denial is a concern, I dont like people using such emotive and graphic comparisons in order to discredit those they disagree with. If you want to be respected in your field of profession, just debate the facts. The true message gets lost as people focus on the drama instead. He could have said abbotts belief in climate change is likened to a teenage boys best method of contraception is the pull out method, but it just doesnt have the same impact does it as the one used above.

It's an important analogy. Politicians and political parties need to be told their inaction will come with a heavy political price. Abbott's legacy and the credibility of his party will be trashed beyond repair if he does not take the threat of global warming seriously.

I'm actually surprised the poms give a rats ...... Whilst I don't necessarily agree with the analogy, they do make a good point.

Thankfully its all a great big hoax and we don't have anything to worry about.

Thanks professor Shah. Got anything that might contradict the IPCC's latest volte-face?

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 8:20am:

Thankfully its all a great big hoax and we don't have anything to worry about.

Abbott will have to take responsibility for fostering this type of ignorance. When the seriousness of this problem becomes unavoidable, people will ask who deliberately fed the public's ignorance. Abbott has symbolically banished Science from the ministry, closed the government body responsible  for informing the community about the science of climate change, and is now seeking to dismantle the only mechanism that can efficiently reduce our emmissions of greenhouse gases.

These AGW loons will try anything to scare the pants off you, call you names until you submit, make you lose employment to shut you up and make you lose funding. Might as well add in the pal-review system in order to over power you.

AGW loons are nothing but stalinist inspired frauds.

salad in wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 8:45am:

Thanks professor Shah. Got anything that might contradict the IPCC's latest volte-face?

What volt-face. Are you talking about the misinformation coming from the Daily Mail and then regurgitated uncritically by the Australian.

In case you missed it the Australian has printed a small correction.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MeddlesomPriest/status/381258223413510145/photo/1/large


Quote:

* CLARIFICATION: An earlier version of this story contained errors that have been corrected. The earlier version said the IPCC had dramatically revised down the rate of global warming over the past 60 years. In fact, the new rate of 0.12C every decade is almost the same as the IPCC's 2007 figure of 0.13C every decade over the 50 years to 2005. The report was based on a British media article that has since been corrected. The earlier version also said incorrectly that the IPCC conducted its own computer modelling. That error was made in the production process. See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/we-got-it-wrong-on-warming-says-ipcc/story-e6frg8y6-1226719672318#sthash.BdbxvErt.dpuf

For those who have forgotten, this is how the Australians's Graham Lloyd, breathlessly started his article on the IPCC.


Quote:

THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007.

It seems despite the correction the initial article has served it's purpose of seeding doubt.

MOTR wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 8:53am:

salad in wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 8:45am: Thanks professor Shah. Got anything that might contradict the IPCC's latest volte-face? What volt-face. Are you talking about the misinformation coming from the Daily Mail and then regurgitated uncritically by the Australian. In case you missed it the Australian has printed a small correction. https://mobile.twitter.com/MeddlesomPriest/status/381258223413510145/photo/1/large Quote: * CLARIFICATION: An earlier version of this story contained errors that have been corrected. The earlier version said the IPCC had dramatically revised down the rate of global warming over the past 60 years. In fact, the new rate of 0.12C every decade is almost the same as the IPCC's 2007 figure of 0.13C every decade over the 50 years to 2005. The report was based on a British media article that has since been corrected. The earlier version also said incorrectly that the IPCC conducted its own computer modelling. That error was made in the production process. See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/we-got-it-wrong-on-warming-says-ipcc/story-e6frg8y6-1226719672318#sthash.BdbxvErt.dpuf For those who have forgotten, this is how the Australians's Graham Lloyd, breathlessly started his article on the IPCC. [quote]THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007.

It seems despite the correction the initial article has served it's purpose of seeding doubt.
[/quote]

some people are easily fooled.

MOTR wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 8:49am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 8:20am: Thankfully its all a great big hoax and we don't have anything to worry about. Abbott will have to take responsibility for fostering this type of ignorance. When the seriousness of this problem becomes unavoidable, people will ask who deliberately fed the public's ignorance. Abbott has symbolically banished Science from the ministry, closed the government body responsible  for informing the community about the science of climate change, and is now seeking to dismantle the only mechanism that can efficiently reduce our emmissions of greenhouse gases.

Don't need Abbott to tell me its all a bunch of bullsh#t, even the most basic of research and fact checking shows what a load of crap it is.  ;D

MOTR, in case you hadn’t noticed until now the poster boy from the AGW Scare ‘Em Department has been forced out of his well-remunerated job because of his woeful predictions. Those predictions were drawn from the information gathered and compiled by the IPCC. You are asking me to treat the IPCC’s reports as beyond question because the IPCC lends a certain cachet to its reports and is after all the veridical authority on the global warming/climate change/rising seas topic. A wax nose such as yourself may be drawn to this new religion but remember it’s your religion not mine. Others have difficulty with the AGW religion.


Quote:

The IPCC under the Microscope The charter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is "... to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy.". This make it a high-profile single-focus organization whose existence depends on its own reports. In other words it has a vested interest in promoting claims that would guarantee its funding and justify its continued existence. This alone would be reason enough to closely examine its procedures and claims but the situation is made worse by the involvement of governments. These governments not only fund the IPCC but apparently accept its claims without question and allocate funding for climate research on the basis of those findings, then repeat the process when the next IPCC Assessment Report draws on the findings of that government-sponsored research to support its hypothesis. Shouldn't you also be suspicious of an organization that seeks to imply (or fails to correct false perceptions) that - it is impartial when it is clearly not, - that its authors and reviewers have no vested interest when most do, - that its climate models are accurate when they are not, - that all reviewers support the IPCC's fundamental claims when very few explicitly do so - that its authors have a wide range of opinions and experience when many work together or have co-authored papers together - that all its authors support the critical claim when many merely reported on observations and far more others had to work from the assumption that the claim was correct? Here are 50 articles that seriously question the credibility and integrity of the IPCC's activities and claims. See even more in the left column of my main page. http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm

Whatever, salad in. Can't you do any better than post stale propaganda.

https://upworthy-production.s3.amazonaws.com/nugget/518adf250b35100015007c11/attachments/800000yearclimatechart-1.png

Are you paying attention yet?

Of course conservatives don't care - they'll all be dead by the time it has taken hold.

^^ desperate much..


About time Australians told these twats from wherever they are, who ever they are, that we actually don't care what they think and they can stick their opinions in their pipes and smoke them.

humans are a vile creature, sooner we are wiped off the earth the better.

woof woof wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 7:50pm:

humans are a vile creature, sooner we are wiped off the earth the better.

That explains why you voted for Abbott.

MOTR wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 8:17am:

Verge wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 7:01am: While Abbotts denial is a concern, I dont like people using such emotive and graphic comparisons in order to discredit those they disagree with. If you want to be respected in your field of profession, just debate the facts. The true message gets lost as people focus on the drama instead. He could have said abbotts belief in climate change is likened to a teenage boys best method of contraception is the pull out method, but it just doesnt have the same impact does it as the one used above. It's an important analogy. Politicians and political parties need to be told their inaction will come with a heavy political price. Abbott's legacy and the credibility of his party will be trashed beyond repair if he does not take the threat of global warming seriously.

It's a ludicrous analogy and the fact you support it shows just how gullible you are.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 7:50am:

MOTR wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 8:17am: Verge wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 7:01am: While Abbotts denial is a concern, I dont like people using such emotive and graphic comparisons in order to discredit those they disagree with. If you want to be respected in your field of profession, just debate the facts. The true message gets lost as people focus on the drama instead. He could have said abbotts belief in climate change is likened to a teenage boys best method of contraception is the pull out method, but it just doesnt have the same impact does it as the one used above. It's an important analogy. Politicians and political parties need to be told their inaction will come with a heavy political price. Abbott's legacy and the credibility of his party will be trashed beyond repair if he does not take the threat of global warming seriously. It's a ludicrous analogy and the fact you support it shows just how gullible you are.

I'm not the one denying the science, armchair.

Verge wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 7:01am:

While Abbotts denial is a concern, I dont like people using such emotive and graphic comparisons in order to discredit those they disagree with. He could have said abbotts belief in climate change is likened to a teenage boys best method of contraception is the pull out method, but it just doesnt have the same impact does it as the one used above.

A FINE example, of where ...

"The end justifies the means"

Seriously - Give me a break

Abbott's carbon move likened to HIV denial

If you look back you will find that the Liberals in fact did take a long long time to come to terms with that one too.

What's more important, climate change or gay rights?

Verge wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 7:01am:

While Abbotts denial is a concern, I dont like people using such emotive and graphic comparisons in order to discredit those they disagree with. If you want to be respected in your field of profession, just debate the facts. The true message gets lost as people focus on the drama instead. He could have said abbotts belief in climate change is likened to a teenage boys best method of contraception is the pull out method, but it just doesnt have the same impact does it as the one used above.

You might not have posted for 6 months but surely you watched the news, read a paper.

Abbott & his band of naysayers are the undisputed champions of the highlighted.

I hope there are many challenges to his title, in fact I hope the whole country is paralayzed as Labor & the rest indulge in a 3 year dummy spit.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 11:43am:

Verge wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 7:01am: While Abbotts denial is a concern, I dont like people using such emotive and graphic comparisons in order to discredit those they disagree with. If you want to be respected in your field of profession, just debate the facts. The true message gets lost as people focus on the drama instead. He could have said abbotts belief in climate change is likened to a teenage boys best method of contraception is the pull out method, but it just doesnt have the same impact does it as the one used above. You might not have posted for 6 months but surely you watched the news, read a paper. Abbott & his band of naysayers are the undisputed champions of the highlighted. I hope there are many challenges to his title, in fact I hope the whole country is paralayzed as Labor & the rest indulge in a 3 year dummy spit.

The way Rupert is rogering Abbotts clacker he better hope HIV is a lie  ;D

Design and analysis of energy systems:
[list bull-blackarrow]

Bioenergy systems and technologies.
[list bull-blackarrow]

Urban Energy Systems
[list bull-blackarrow]

Modelling and optimisation of low carbon technologies and systems (e.g. CCS, hydrogen infrastrucutre etc).

Something says the Professor has a vested interest in promoting his point of view.

There's an interesting parallel with South Africa in the 90s, where political capital was being made out of HIV denial,"


Climate change people being hysterical - who'd a thunk it... ::)

viewpoint wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 12:01pm:

Design and analysis of energy systems: [list bull-blackarrow] Bioenergy systems and technologies. [list bull-blackarrow] Urban Energy Systems [list bull-blackarrow] Modelling and optimisation of low carbon technologies and systems (e.g. CCS, hydrogen infrastrucutre etc). Something says the Professor has a vested interest in promoting his point of view.

Pfizer has a vested interest in cancer drugs.

Is cancer therefore a hoax?

But lets just leave it to the hardest arses in business, Insurance companies for years have been warning & factoring in climate change.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 12:20pm:

viewpoint wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 12:01pm: Design and analysis of energy systems: [list bull-blackarrow] Bioenergy systems and technologies. [list bull-blackarrow] Urban Energy Systems [list bull-blackarrow] Modelling and optimisation of low carbon technologies and systems (e.g. CCS, hydrogen infrastrucutre etc). Something says the Professor has a vested interest in promoting his point of view. Pfizer has a vested interest in cancer drugs. Is cancer therefore a hoax? But lets just leave it to the hardest arses in business, Insurance companies for years have been warning & factoring in climate change.

Pfizer is a commercial operation with share holders dickhead, not some "supposed" evangelical academic do-gooder who's opinion is pomoted as genuine concern, instead of his special interest in promoting that which is to his own personal and financial advantage.......just like Pfizer, the difference being they are honest about their interests.

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 8:20am:

Thankfully its all a great big hoax and we don't have anything to worry about.

That comforts you, so you believe it. You have no rational basis for your belief though, do you?

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 9:36am:

... Don't need Abbott to tell me its all a bunch of bullsh#t, even the most basic of research and fact checking shows what a load of crap it is.

What are you qualifications for that research and its interpretation? What makes your findings superior to those of the vast majority of the best qualified. Do you have a rational basis for your belief?

viewpoint wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 12:48pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 12:20pm: viewpoint wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 12:01pm: Design and analysis of energy systems: [list bull-blackarrow] Bioenergy systems and technologies. [list bull-blackarrow] Urban Energy Systems [list bull-blackarrow] Modelling and optimisation of low carbon technologies and systems (e.g. CCS, hydrogen infrastrucutre etc). Something says the Professor has a vested interest in promoting his point of view. Pfizer has a vested interest in cancer drugs. Is cancer therefore a hoax? But lets just leave it to the hardest arses in business, Insurance companies for years have been warning & factoring in climate change. Pfizer is a commercial operation with share holders dickhead, not some "supposed" evangelical academic do-gooder who's opinion is pomoted as genuine concern, instead of his special interest in promoting that which is to his own personal and financial advantage.......just like Pfizer, the difference being they are honest about their interests.

So Pfizer doesn't employ academics?
They don't believe in Academics "Findings???"

You'll find most research for your "Commercial interests" is done by universities with grants from both companies and government.

But my point still stands, you cant see cancer or climate change until its too late, so why do you believe 1 set of academic findings & not another?

Well as my daughter is a biochemist and geneticist working as a researcher mapping genes in cancer research funded by the Wellcome Trust/Foundation in an English university, I think I know exactly what that involves, but it does not mean that I believe the hype being promoted by this person.

viewpoint wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 1:30pm:

Well as my daughter is a biochemist and geneticist working as a researcher mapping genes in cancer research funded by the Welcome Foundation in an English university, I think I know exactly what that involves, but it does not mean that I believe the hype being promoted by this person.

Kudos to your daughter.

The highlighted is my point, you believe your daughter, doesn't she have a vested interest.

Why is her work not HYPE.

Don't scientists,biochemists and geneticists get millions PA in research grants?

Why aren't they just feathering their nests, over educated elitist scum, just as the climate sciences are?

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 1:08pm:

What are you qualifications for that research and its interpretation? What makes your findings superior to those of the vast majority of the best qualified. Do you have a rational basis for your belief?

The fact that you get your "science" from Dikran Marsupial and the activist crackpots and hippies at unskeptical science says it all really  ;D, try reading Ian Plimers Heavan and Earth.  ;)

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 1:43pm:

... try reading Ian Plimers Heavan and Earth.  ;)

Will that change what the vast majority of the best qualified say?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 1:38pm:

viewpoint wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 1:30pm: Well as my daughter is a biochemist and geneticist working as a researcher mapping genes in cancer research funded by the Welcome Foundation in an English university, I think I know exactly what that involves, but it does not mean that I believe the hype being promoted by this person. Kudos to your daughter. The highlighted is my point, you believe your daughter, doesn't she have a vested interest. Why is her work not HYPE. Don't scientists,biochemists and geneticists get millions PA in research grants? Why aren't they just feathering their nests, over educated elitist scum, just as the climate sciences are?

She does not hold patents to her work, and does not make rash statements to garner publicity. Grants are not made to individuals, and they have to be accounted for in every aspect of the research, so your statements are somewhat on the naive side don't you think?

Incidentally, the elitist scum bit sounds more like Mr Grey the Anarchist. My daughter in fact spent nine years working hard to get her doctorate from sixteen years old onward, so I hardly think she can be referred to as elitist. Well not by anybody who isn't a socialist, unionist muppet, or a freaky anarchist.

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 2:08pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 1:43pm: ... try reading Ian Plimers Heavan and Earth.  ;) Will that change what the vast majority of the best qualified say?

That "consensus" LOL, concocted by the activists at unsceptical science has been quite convincingly debunked, do try and keep up  ;)

viewpoint wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 2:12pm:

She does not hold patents to her work, and does not make rash statements to garner publicity. Grants are not made to individuals, and they have to be accounted for in every aspect of the research, so your statements are somewhat on the naive side don't you think?

As with 99.9% of climate scientists, they just happen to be saying something, that for whatever reason you don't want to agree with.


Quote:

Incidentally, the elitist scum bit sounds more like Mr Grey the Anarchist. My daughter in fact spent nine years working hard to get her doctorate from sixteen years old onward, so I hardly think she can be referred to as elitist.

As I said Kudos, I'm well aware of the self discipline required for such work, she is a credit to you & her mother.



Quote:

Well not by anybody who isn't a socialist, unionist muppet, or a freaky anarchist.

Ironically the only people I've heard use the word ELITIST as a derogatory term for well educated are republicans in America & idiots here in this country.
It was a FOX News standard for quite a while.
Hardly socialist let alone anarcist, just another example of conservative double-think.

Postmodern Trendoid wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 11:37am:

What's more important, climate change or gay rights?

What's more important: Removing the carbon price or stopping the boats ?????

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 9:36am:

MOTR wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 8:49am: Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 8:20am: Thankfully its all a great big hoax and we don't have anything to worry about. Abbott will have to take responsibility for fostering this type of ignorance. When the seriousness of this problem becomes unavoidable, people will ask who deliberately fed the public's ignorance. Abbott has symbolically banished Science from the ministry, closed the government body responsible  for informing the community about the science of climate change, and is now seeking to dismantle the only mechanism that can efficiently reduce our emmissions of greenhouse gases. Don't need Abbott to tell me its all a bunch of bullsh#t, even the most basic of research and fact checking shows what a load of crap it is.

Makes it difficult - lets see who should I believe AP and Tony or over 90% of the professionals who work in the field ???? Tough one that!

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 2:24pm:

... That "consensus" LOL, concocted by the activists at unsceptical science has been quite convincingly debunked, ...

You can't substantiate that assertion, can you?

MOTR wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 8:33am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:50am: MOTR wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 8:17am: Verge wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 7:01am: While Abbotts denial is a concern, I dont like people using such emotive and graphic comparisons in order to discredit those they disagree with. If you want to be respected in your field of profession, just debate the facts. The true message gets lost as people focus on the drama instead. He could have said abbotts belief in climate change is likened to a teenage boys best method of contraception is the pull out method, but it just doesnt have the same impact does it as the one used above. It's an important analogy. Politicians and political parties need to be told their inaction will come with a heavy political price. Abbott's legacy and the credibility of his party will be trashed beyond repair if he does not take the threat of global warming seriously. It's a ludicrous analogy and the fact you support it shows just how gullible you are. I'm not the one denying the science, armchair.

What science? It's reports prepared by scientists on the govt. payroll. You don't think they will say what the govt. wants to keep the cash rolling in?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 2:48pm:

MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:33am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:50am: MOTR wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 8:17am: Verge wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 7:01am: While Abbotts denial is a concern, I dont like people using such emotive and graphic comparisons in order to discredit those they disagree with. If you want to be respected in your field of profession, just debate the facts. The true message gets lost as people focus on the drama instead. He could have said abbotts belief in climate change is likened to a teenage boys best method of contraception is the pull out method, but it just doesnt have the same impact does it as the one used above. It's an important analogy. Politicians and political parties need to be told their inaction will come with a heavy political price. Abbott's legacy and the credibility of his party will be trashed beyond repair if he does not take the threat of global warming seriously. It's a ludicrous analogy and the fact you support it shows just how gullible you are. I'm not the one denying the science, armchair. What science? It's reports prepared by scientists on the govt. payroll. You don't think they will say what the govt. wants to keep the cash rolling in?

You believe those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear.

Don't you Puddle.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 2:48pm:

... What science? ...

Here's a good place to start: http://www.skepticalscience.com/. Lots of substantial, peer-reviewed and referenced materials.

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 2:46pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 2:24pm: ... That "consensus" LOL, concocted by the activists at unsceptical science has been quite convincingly debunked, ... You can't substantiate that assertion, can you?

Err yes, but you wouldn't be interested.  ;)

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 3:00pm:

# wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 2:46pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 2:24pm: ... That "consensus" LOL, concocted by the activists at unsceptical science has been quite convincingly debunked, ... You can't substantiate that assertion, can you? Err yes, ...

If you could have, you would have.  ::)

#, this is a familiar tune that Innocent Bystander often sings ... he makes claims and then when you ask him to substantiate them, he comes back with either, 'you wouldn't be interested'(the fact that you ask means nothing apparently) or his other favourite is 'I've put them up in the past, go find them' .....

One answer you will never get from him, however, is actual proof of his comments.

John Smith wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 3:19pm:

#, this is a familiar tune that Innocent Bystander often sings ... he makes claims and then when you ask him to substantiate them, he comes back with either, 'you wouldn't be interested'(the fact that you ask means nothing apparently) or his other favourite is 'I've put them up in the past, go find them' ..... One answer you will never get from him, however, is actual proof of his comments.

First one has to be able to critically analyze information, that leaves you out jonny, which is why attempting to educate you is a waste of your time and mine  ;)
As for # he is patently not interested in fact checking his own information, otherwise he would check the claim for his self and not rely on me, when someone told me about the bogus consensus I decided to check it out myself to see if they were right and f#ck me dead they were.

Verge wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 7:01am:

While Abbotts denial is a concern, I dont like people using such emotive and graphic comparisons in order to discredit those they disagree with. If you want to be respected in your field of profession, just debate the facts. The true message gets lost as people focus on the drama instead. He could have said abbotts belief in climate change is likened to a teenage boys best method of contraception is the pull out method, but it just doesnt have the same impact does it as the one used above.

it should also be noted that the author is employed to support the ACC hysteria.  He is hardly an impartial commentator.  Nor did he address the issue itself, only the fact of someone disagreeing with him.

MOTR wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 8:17am:

Verge wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 7:01am: While Abbotts denial is a concern, I dont like people using such emotive and graphic comparisons in order to discredit those they disagree with. If you want to be respected in your field of profession, just debate the facts. The true message gets lost as people focus on the drama instead. He could have said abbotts belief in climate change is likened to a teenage boys best method of contraception is the pull out method, but it just doesnt have the same impact does it as the one used above. It's an important analogy. Politicians and political parties need to be told their inaction will come with a heavy political price. Abbott's legacy and the credibility of his party will be trashed beyond repair if he does not take the threat of global warming seriously.

the problem is that you start with the basic premise that ACC is an unassailable and proven position - which it is not.  Like all non-thinking, hand-clapping, ACC sheer-leaders, the idea that it could be wrong has simply never occurred to you.  It is far more likely that the next generation will applaud Abbott for finally taking Australia our of the hysterical response.

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 7:32pm:

https://upworthy-production.s3.amazonaws.com/nugget/518adf250b35100015007c11/attachments/800000yearclimatechart-1.png Are you paying attention yet? Of course conservatives don't care - they'll all be dead by the time it has taken hold.

and isn't it funny how the previously scientifically proven 4000-8000PPM records no longer appear???  a bit like how the little ice age and the medieval warm period mysteriously disappeared from the now-maligned Hockey Stick graph.

so yes, I am calling fraud on this.  And it isnt as if there is a plethora of evidence to prove fraud.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 11:43am:

Verge wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 7:01am: While Abbotts denial is a concern, I dont like people using such emotive and graphic comparisons in order to discredit those they disagree with. If you want to be respected in your field of profession, just debate the facts. The true message gets lost as people focus on the drama instead. He could have said abbotts belief in climate change is likened to a teenage boys best method of contraception is the pull out method, but it just doesnt have the same impact does it as the one used above. You might not have posted for 6 months but surely you watched the news, read a paper. Abbott & his band of naysayers are the undisputed champions of the highlighted. I hope there are many challenges to his title, in fact I hope the whole country is paralayzed as Labor & the rest indulge in a 3 year dummy spit.

Business confidence ia at a 5 year high.  My business has shown a massive improvement since the election.

may the 'paralysis' continue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 5:04pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 11:43am: Verge wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 7:01am: While Abbotts denial is a concern, I dont like people using such emotive and graphic comparisons in order to discredit those they disagree with. If you want to be respected in your field of profession, just debate the facts. The true message gets lost as people focus on the drama instead. He could have said abbotts belief in climate change is likened to a teenage boys best method of contraception is the pull out method, but it just doesnt have the same impact does it as the one used above. You might not have posted for 6 months but surely you watched the news, read a paper. Abbott & his band of naysayers are the undisputed champions of the highlighted. I hope there are many challenges to his title, in fact I hope the whole country is paralayzed as Labor & the rest indulge in a 3 year dummy spit. Business confidence ia at a 5 year high.  My business has shown a massive improvement since the election. may the 'paralysis' continue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Congratulations

I hope continues for you.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 12:20pm:

viewpoint wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 12:01pm: Design and analysis of energy systems: [list bull-blackarrow] Bioenergy systems and technologies. [list bull-blackarrow] Urban Energy Systems [list bull-blackarrow] Modelling and optimisation of low carbon technologies and systems (e.g. CCS, hydrogen infrastrucutre etc). Something says the Professor has a vested interest in promoting his point of view. Pfizer has a vested interest in cancer drugs. Is cancer therefore a hoax? But lets just leave it to the hardest arses in business, Insurance companies for years have been warning & factoring in climate change.

brilliant example.  After all, pharmaceutical companies have never ever over-stated a medical problem or fabricated one to sell drugs...

WORST POSSIBLE ARGUMENT (unless you were trying to prove the sceptic POV)

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 2:25pm:

viewpoint wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 2:12pm: She does not hold patents to her work, and does not make rash statements to garner publicity. Grants are not made to individuals, and they have to be accounted for in every aspect of the research, so your statements are somewhat on the naive side don't you think? As with 99.9% of climate scientists, they just happen to be saying something, that for whatever reason you don't want to agree with. Quote: Incidentally, the elitist scum bit sounds more like Mr Grey the Anarchist. My daughter in fact spent nine years working hard to get her doctorate from sixteen years old onward, so I hardly think she can be referred to as elitist. As I said Kudos, I'm well aware of the self discipline required for such work, she is a credit to you & her mother. [quote]Well not by anybody who isn't a socialist, unionist muppet, or a freaky anarchist.

Ironically the only people I've heard use the word ELITIST as a derogatory term for well educated are republicans in America & idiots here in this country.
It was a FOX News standard for quite a while.
Hardly socialist let alone anarcist, just another example of conservative double-think.
[/quote]

'Climate scientist' is an interesting term.  If you are an economist or a paleontologist who supports ACC then you are a climate scientist.  But if you are a geologist, atmospheric physicist or environmental expert, but question ACC, then you are not.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 5:09pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 12:20pm: viewpoint wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 12:01pm: Design and analysis of energy systems: [list bull-blackarrow] Bioenergy systems and technologies. [list bull-blackarrow] Urban Energy Systems [list bull-blackarrow] Modelling and optimisation of low carbon technologies and systems (e.g. CCS, hydrogen infrastrucutre etc). Something says the Professor has a vested interest in promoting his point of view. Pfizer has a vested interest in cancer drugs. Is cancer therefore a hoax? But lets just leave it to the hardest arses in business, Insurance companies for years have been warning & factoring in climate change. brilliant example.  After all, pharmaceutical companies have never ever over-stated a medical problem or fabricated one to sell drugs... WORST POSSIBLE ARGUMENT (unless you were trying to prove the sceptic POV)

I'm over trying to argue about this, & its getting close to the point were I stop arguing altogether.

Companies will get their way regardless of the impacts on people & as long as those impacts are on a few farmers or black/poor people we won't care.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 5:12pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 2:25pm: viewpoint wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 2:12pm: She does not hold patents to her work, and does not make rash statements to garner publicity. Grants are not made to individuals, and they have to be accounted for in every aspect of the research, so your statements are somewhat on the naive side don't you think? As with 99.9% of climate scientists, they just happen to be saying something, that for whatever reason you don't want to agree with. Quote: Incidentally, the elitist scum bit sounds more like Mr Grey the Anarchist. My daughter in fact spent nine years working hard to get her doctorate from sixteen years old onward, so I hardly think she can be referred to as elitist. As I said Kudos, I'm well aware of the self discipline required for such work, she is a credit to you & her mother. [quote]Well not by anybody who isn't a socialist, unionist muppet, or a freaky anarchist. Ironically the only people I've heard use the word ELITIST as a derogatory term for well educated are republicans in America & idiots here in this country. It was a FOX News standard for quite a while. Hardly socialist let alone anarcist, just another example of conservative double-think.

'Climate scientist' is an interesting term.  If you are an economist or a paleontologist who supports ACC then you are a climate scientist.  But if you are a geologist, atmospheric physicist or environmental expert, but question ACC, then you are not.[/quote]


Exactly where did I post that?

Anyone who works in the field of climate with a degree I would consider a climate scientist.
An economist who believes in CC is smart but not scientist.

A geologist who disagree's well I think your a hero, nodding heads are boring & fill me with fear, I look forward to dissenters that actually know what they are on about, although I will caveat that with I want to know who is paying for them.

Just as you believe 99% of CC scientists are lying & believe deniers can be bought as well.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 5:13pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 5:09pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 12:20pm: viewpoint wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 12:01pm: Design and analysis of energy systems: [list bull-blackarrow] Bioenergy systems and technologies. [list bull-blackarrow] Urban Energy Systems [list bull-blackarrow] Modelling and optimisation of low carbon technologies and systems (e.g. CCS, hydrogen infrastrucutre etc). Something says the Professor has a vested interest in promoting his point of view. Pfizer has a vested interest in cancer drugs. Is cancer therefore a hoax? But lets just leave it to the hardest arses in business, Insurance companies for years have been warning & factoring in climate change. brilliant example.  After all, pharmaceutical companies have never ever over-stated a medical problem or fabricated one to sell drugs... WORST POSSIBLE ARGUMENT (unless you were trying to prove the sceptic POV) I'm over trying to argue about this, & its getting close to the point were I stop arguing altogether. Companies will get their way regardless of the impacts on people & as long as those impacts are on a few farmers or black/poor people we won't care.

and you think governments don't do the same thing?  I see in ACC a global hysteria supported by little more than a few data points but overwhelmed but an absolutely refusal of the climate as a whole to budge outside its normal trajectory. Seas rise by 50mm.  so wat?  they've been 100m higher and lower in the past.  Temperatures rise by 0.7 degrees??? so what/ The MVP was 3-4 degrees warmer and the little ice age 2-3 degrees cooler.  extreme weather is actually slightly LOWER tha the average of the last century.  This is a massive global hysteria and future generations will study just how it happened - and how it ended.  It is an embarrassment to us all to be so gullible and so arrogant and to swallow the patently false.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 5:20pm:

and you think governments don't do the same thing?

How quaint, you think governments still control nations.


longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 5:20pm:

I see in ACC a global hysteria supported by little more than a few data points but overwhelmed but an absolutely refusal of the climate as a whole to budge outside its normal trajectory.

Your opinion & your entitled to it


longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 5:20pm:

Seas rise by 50mm.  so wat?  they've been 100m higher and lower in the past.  Temperatures rise by 0.7 degrees??? so what/ The MVP was 3-4 degrees warmer and the little ice age 2-3 degrees cooler.  extreme weather is actually slightly LOWER tha the average of the last century.

No problem in a world with under a billion, problem is now days we have 8 billion & rising rapidly.


longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 5:20pm:

This is a massive global hysteria and future generations will study just how it happened - and how it ended.  It is an embarrassment to us all to be so gullible and so arrogant and to swallow the patently false.

Again IN YOUR OPINION

Which goes against the vast majority of science.

Its a big gamble to take with your children's future, just to save a few bucks & keep oil/gas & coal as the preferred energy sources.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 5:20pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 5:12pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 2:25pm: viewpoint wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 2:12pm: She does not hold patents to her work, and does not make rash statements to garner publicity. Grants are not made to individuals, and they have to be accounted for in every aspect of the research, so your statements are somewhat on the naive side don't you think? As with 99.9% of climate scientists, they just happen to be saying something, that for whatever reason you don't want to agree with. Quote: Incidentally, the elitist scum bit sounds more like Mr Grey the Anarchist. My daughter in fact spent nine years working hard to get her doctorate from sixteen years old onward, so I hardly think she can be referred to as elitist. As I said Kudos, I'm well aware of the self discipline required for such work, she is a credit to you & her mother. [quote]Well not by anybody who isn't a socialist, unionist muppet, or a freaky anarchist. Ironically the only people I've heard use the word ELITIST as a derogatory term for well educated are republicans in America & idiots here in this country. It was a FOX News standard for quite a while. Hardly socialist let alone anarcist, just another example of conservative double-think. 'Climate scientist' is an interesting term.  If you are an economist or a paleontologist who supports ACC then you are a climate scientist.  But if you are a geologist, atmospheric physicist or environmental expert, but question ACC, then you are not.

Exactly where did I post that?

Anyone who works in the field of climate with a degree I would consider a climate scientist.
An economist who believes in CC is smart but not scientist.

A geologist who disagree's well I think your a hero, nodding heads are boring & fill me with fear, I look forward to dissenters that actually know what they are on about, although I will caveat that with I want to know who is paying for them.

Just as you believe 99% of CC scientists are lying & believe deniers can be bought as well.[/quote]

I would be the first to concur.  However, you are the only one on here that I have ever heard concede that the ACC hysteric side can be bought.  I remember one quote from and eminent climate scientist who when asked her opinion started with "not that I no longer have to rely on government grants for my income I can proclaim my own opinion and position...'  And then went on to repudiate climate change.  Try being a government official or a university researcher (in any discipline) and declare you are a sceptic.  your job will be over.

A more even-handed assessment of the consensus of opinion on climate change would rednr a very different outcome.  I have worked with dozens of environmental experts including a few at the absolute top of their field.  You know how many subscribe to ACC??? not one.  a few will grant some of it but no one accepts it all.  and most surprisingly is the way in which they cheerfully say that most feel the same... until they need to get grants and promotions... :)

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 5:27pm:

However, you are the only one on here that I have ever heard concede that the ACC hysteric side can be bought.

The days of integrity & principle are long gone.

We are in the times of fame & self.

Have you ever wondered why great civilizations past have died?

Hubris & self absorption, The "WEST" is now in those times.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 5:25pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 5:20pm: and you think governments don't do the same thing? How quaint, you think governments still control nations. longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 5:20pm: I see in ACC a global hysteria supported by little more than a few data points but overwhelmed but an absolutely refusal of the climate as a whole to budge outside its normal trajectory. Your opinion & your entitled to it longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 5:20pm: Seas rise by 50mm.  so wat?  they've been 100m higher and lower in the past.  Temperatures rise by 0.7 degrees??? so what/ The MVP was 3-4 degrees warmer and the little ice age 2-3 degrees cooler.  extreme weather is actually slightly LOWER tha the average of the last century. No problem in a world with under a billion, problem is now days we have 8 billion & rising rapidly. longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 5:20pm: This is a massive global hysteria and future generations will study just how it happened - and how it ended.  It is an embarrassment to us all to be so gullible and so arrogant and to swallow the patently false. Again IN YOUR OPINION Which goes against the vast majority of science. Its a big gamble to take with your children's future, just to save a few bucks & keep oil/gas & coal as the preferred energy sources.

its not a gamble at all.  It isn't as if the evidence is even remotely convincing, never-mind compelling.  There is zero evidence(literally) to find ANY CLIMATE ASPECT that has gone outside the bounds of historic levels or heading there.  I know climate models predict death and destruction etc but they are only models and even the IPCC and other eminent commentators admit that the 23 major climate models have been off by a very large margin.

The argument that we have to radically alter everything we do because of predictions that have a near 100% failure rate is ludicrous. 

TEMPERATURE CHANGES: epic failure
SEA LEVEL CHANGES: epic failure
ICE CAP melting: epic failure
EXTREME WEATHER increases: epic failure
AUSTRALIAN DROUGHTS: epic, epice, massive failure
GLACIAL RETREAT: failure

and on and on it goes.

why should I take the slightest notice of a hypothesis that fails each and every experimental outcome?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 5:33pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 5:27pm: However, you are the only one on here that I have ever heard concede that the ACC hysteric side can be bought. The days of integrity & principle are long gone. We are in the times of fame & self. Have you ever wondered why great civilizations past have died? Hubris & self absorption, The "WEST" is now in those times.

an interesting point but I note that that argument plays to my side of the debate.

Mind you, I think the long-anticipated decline of the West has been oversold.  Our economies continue to boom and then slide back only to boom again.  In the meantime  the rest of the world is either hopelessly poor by their own hand or so mired in corruption that they will never move forward.  I agree the west is in decline but we are a crap-load in front of the west.  As long as Asia remains stuck in the corruption-first and democracy by name only mould, the Asian Century wont be starting any time soon.

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 3:44pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 3:19pm: #, this is a familiar tune that Innocent Bystander often sings ... he makes claims and then when you ask him to substantiate them, he comes back with either, 'you wouldn't be interested'(the fact that you ask means nothing apparently) or his other favourite is 'I've put them up in the past, go find them' ..... One answer you will never get from him, however, is actual proof of his comments. First one has to be able to critically analyze information, that leaves you out jonny, which is why attempting to educate you is a waste of your time and mine  ;) As for # he is patently not interested in fact checking his own information, otherwise he would check the claim for his self and not rely on me, when someone told me about the bogus consensus I decided to check it out myself to see if they were right and f#ck me dead they were.

you have a talent for making up crap so as to not prove your comments ....

no one has asked you to educate me, this is where you go wrong ... don't try to educate anyone, who the bugger made you the teacher?

Instead make your claim and support it with proper evidence, if you have the proper evidence no one can dispute your claim ... it's simple really.

It's easy to say they were right, but without supporting evidence, your just pissing in the wind.

John Smith wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 5:39pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 3:44pm: John Smith wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 3:19pm: #, this is a familiar tune that Innocent Bystander often sings ... he makes claims and then when you ask him to substantiate them, he comes back with either, 'you wouldn't be interested'(the fact that you ask means nothing apparently) or his other favourite is 'I've put them up in the past, go find them' ..... One answer you will never get from him, however, is actual proof of his comments. First one has to be able to critically analyze information, that leaves you out jonny, which is why attempting to educate you is a waste of your time and mine  ;) As for # he is patently not interested in fact checking his own information, otherwise he would check the claim for his self and not rely on me, when someone told me about the bogus consensus I decided to check it out myself to see if they were right and f#ck me dead they were. you have a talent for making up crap so as to not prove your comments .... no one has asked you to educate me, this is where you go wrong ... don't try to educate anyone, who the bugger made you the teacher? Instead make your claim and support it with proper evidence, if you have the proper evidence no one can dispute your claim ... it's simple really. It's easy to say they were right, but without supporting evidence, your just pissing in the wind.

it has been patently obvious that it has been decades since you last learned anything.  You listen to the ALP and ACTU and adopt their opinions and little else.  I doubt you even possess the ability to think independently any more, never mind think critically.

John Smith wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 3:19pm:

#, this is a familiar tune that Innocent Bystander often sings ... he makes claims and then when you ask him to substantiate them, he comes back with either, 'you wouldn't be interested'(the fact that you ask means nothing apparently) or his other favourite is 'I've put them up in the past, go find them' ..... One answer you will never get from him, however, is actual proof of his comments.

The mark of a troll.


Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 3:44pm:

First one has to be able to critically analyze information, that leaves you out jonny, which is why attempting to educate you is a waste of your time and mine  ;) As for # he is patently not interested in fact checking his own information, otherwise he would check the claim for his self and not rely on me, when someone told me about the bogus consensus I decided to check it out myself to see if they were right and f#ck me dead they were.

You've got nothing. You're just trolling.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 5:47pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 5:39pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 3:44pm: John Smith wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 3:19pm: #, this is a familiar tune that Innocent Bystander often sings ... he makes claims and then when you ask him to substantiate them, he comes back with either, 'you wouldn't be interested'(the fact that you ask means nothing apparently) or his other favourite is 'I've put them up in the past, go find them' ..... One answer you will never get from him, however, is actual proof of his comments. First one has to be able to critically analyze information, that leaves you out jonny, which is why attempting to educate you is a waste of your time and mine  ;) As for # he is patently not interested in fact checking his own information, otherwise he would check the claim for his self and not rely on me, when someone told me about the bogus consensus I decided to check it out myself to see if they were right and f#ck me dead they were. you have a talent for making up crap so as to not prove your comments .... no one has asked you to educate me, this is where you go wrong ... don't try to educate anyone, who the bugger made you the teacher? Instead make your claim and support it with proper evidence, if you have the proper evidence no one can dispute your claim ... it's simple really. It's easy to say they were right, but without supporting evidence, your just pissing in the wind. it has been patently obvious that it has been decades since you last learned anything.  You listen to the ALP and ACTU and adopt their opinions and little else.  I doubt you even possess the ability to think independently any more, never mind think critically.

What an odd statement coming from someone who parrots the Libs line no matter whose running the show and how stupid and contradictory it is  :P

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 5:35pm:

...  It isn't as if the evidence is even remotely convincing, never-mind compelling.  There is zero evidence(literally) to find ANY CLIMATE ASPECT that has gone outside the bounds of historic levels or heading there.  ...  TEMPERATURE CHANGES: epic failure SEA LEVEL CHANGES: epic failure ICE CAP melting: epic failure EXTREME WEATHER increases: epic failure AUSTRALIAN DROUGHTS: epic, epice, massive failure GLACIAL RETREAT: failure ...

None of which you have the remotest chance of substantiating. As I've pointed out before, assertion with no intention of substantiation is the mark of a troll.

I first became aware of the issue in the 1950s; a television program, something like this from YouTube. In the 1970s, I looked into climate science in some detail and came to the conclusion that it's so complex that I'll never be in a position to devote the resources to the study, necessary to develop a credible understanding.

My fallback position is to seek the opinion of the best qualified. Fortunately for me, there's a clear consensus.

So why are so many patently feeble minds so certain that they know better than the best qualified? My guess is that the Dunning-Kruger Effect has something to do with it.
http://alwaysquestionauthority.com/2013/07/07/critical-thinking-ignorance-begets-confidence-the-dunning-kruger-effect/
Quote:

The D-K Effect was frequently suggested historically, notably by Charles Darwin - “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge” – and Bertrand Russell - “One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.” In a series of studies, Dunning and Kruger found this pattern across many skills, including reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis. Apparently, those displaying the D-K Effect are so lacking in competence that they are even unaware of their incompetence, thus they tend to overestimate their level of skill and fail to recognize skill in others. Conversely, people with high levels of skill or knowledge tend to underestimate their standing relative to others. It seems that the more one knows, the more he realizes how little he knows.

To that, I would add a Confucian principle, which translates roughly:
Quote:

The more a wise man learns, the more ho comes to appreciate how little he knows.

So what of longweekend58? On the evidence of his behaviour here, he probably failed to complete High School. The trolling is compensation for his inadequacies.

I think you're on to something, #.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y&sns=em

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 7:33pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 5:35pm: ...  It isn't as if the evidence is even remotely convincing, never-mind compelling.  There is zero evidence(literally) to find ANY CLIMATE ASPECT that has gone outside the bounds of historic levels or heading there.  ...  TEMPERATURE CHANGES: epic failure SEA LEVEL CHANGES: epic failure ICE CAP melting: epic failure EXTREME WEATHER increases: epic failure AUSTRALIAN DROUGHTS: epic, epice, massive failure GLACIAL RETREAT: failure ... None of which you have the remotest chance of substantiating. As I've pointed out before, assertion with no intention of substantiation is the mark of a troll. I first became aware of the issue in the 1950s; a television program, something like this from YouTube. In the 1970s, I looked into climate science in some detail and came to the conclusion that it's so complex that I'll never be in a position to devote the resources to the study, necessary to develop a credible understanding. My fallback position is to seek the opinion of the best qualified. Fortunately for me, there's a clear consensus. So why are so many patently feeble minds so certain that they know better than the best qualified? My guess is that the Dunning-Kruger Effect has something to do with it. http://alwaysquestionauthority.com/2013/07/07/critical-thinking-ignorance-begets-confidence-the-dunning-kruger-effect/ Quote: The D-K Effect was frequently suggested historically, notably by Charles Darwin - “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge” – and Bertrand Russell - “One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.” In a series of studies, Dunning and Kruger found this pattern across many skills, including reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis. Apparently, those displaying the D-K Effect are so lacking in competence that they are even unaware of their incompetence, thus they tend to overestimate their level of skill and fail to recognize skill in others. Conversely, people with high levels of skill or knowledge tend to underestimate their standing relative to others. It seems that the more one knows, the more he realizes how little he knows. To that, I would add a Confucian principle, which translates roughly:[quote]The more a wise man learns, the more ho comes to appreciate how little he knows.

So what of longweekend58? On the evidence of his behaviour here, he probably failed to complete High School. The trolling is compensation for his inadequacies.[/quote]


I don't have to substantiate them.  that's the beauty of being a sceptic.  it is YOU that is making the claims for climate collapse, not us.  the job is up to YOU to prove YOUR hypothesis and it has been an epic fail as each and  every one of those points has failed to materialise  or are you going to pretend that the supposedly never-ending Australian drought is still continuing?

Postmodern Trendoid wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 11:37am:

What's more important, climate change or gay rights?

Hold that thought. I'll post a thread in Environment.