Australian Politics Forum - LNP loons want to burn science at the Stake?

tonegunman1

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 427

Re: LNP loons want to burn science at the Stake?
Reply #75 - Jul 19^th, 2012 at 11:04am

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 9:16am:

The far right have politicised the science of climate change.

This makes a very good subject to study at school because it combines science and politics.

If kept as Year 11 and Year 12 subjects, most in the far right would have left school by then, and so wont have their strong opinions brought into question.

It's a large helping of politics from BOTH sides where the origins of politicization lie squarely on the left...the right has been reactionary to this. This has filled the field with crap and barrow pushers where the data churned out in great volumes has very little scientific merit.

Bit hard to have the kiddies to sort the wheat from the chaff under those conditions.

Back to top

IP Logged

Doctor Jolly

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3808

Re: LNP loons want to burn science at the Stake?
Reply #76 - Jul 19^th, 2012 at 11:44am

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 11:04am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 9:16am:

The far right have politicised the science of climate change.

This makes a very good subject to study at school because it combines science and politics.

If kept as Year 11 and Year 12 subjects, most in the far right would have left school by then, and so wont have their strong opinions brought into question.

It's a large helping of politics from BOTH sides where the origins of politicization lie squarely on the left...the right has been reactionary to this. This has filled the field with crap and barrow pushers where the data churned out in great volumes has very little scientific merit.

Bit hard to have the kiddies to sort the wheat from the chaff under those conditions.

No, climate change as a science has wide spread concensus (97%) among scientists.

Some of the potential impacts have been exagerated, but that way different from the right just saying "climate change is BS". Thats the sort of view where you put your political/religeous beliefs ahead of logic.

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: LNP loons want to burn science at the Stake?
Reply #77 - Jul 19^th, 2012 at 11:50am

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 11:44am:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 11:04am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 9:16am:

The far right have politicised the science of climate change.

This makes a very good subject to study at school because it combines science and politics.

If kept as Year 11 and Year 12 subjects, most in the far right would have left school by then, and so wont have their strong opinions brought into question.

It's a large helping of politics from BOTH sides where the origins of politicization lie squarely on the left...the right has been reactionary to this. This has filled the field with crap and barrow pushers where the data churned out in great volumes has very little scientific merit.

Bit hard to have the kiddies to sort the wheat from the chaff under those conditions.

No, climate change as a science has wide spread concensus (97%) among scientists.

Some of the potential impacts have been exagerated, but that way different from the right just saying "climate change is BS". Thats the sort of view where you put your political/religeous beliefs ahead of logic.

The dogma is the BS about some concensus that does not, has not, will not ever exist.

The so called concensus is just made up out of ideology forces and nothing else. Do you even know how the so called concensus was arrived at.

It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

Then we have

Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

Looks to me the concensus, by numbers, is that mann-made catastrophic climate pseudo science is bunk.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-...

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: LNP loons want to burn science at the Stake?
Reply #78 - Jul 19^th, 2012 at 1:06pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 11:50am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 11:44am:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 11:04am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 9:16am:

The far right have politicised the science of climate change.

This makes a very good subject to study at school because it combines science and politics.

If kept as Year 11 and Year 12 subjects, most in the far right would have left school by then, and so wont have their strong opinions brought into question.

It's a large helping of politics from BOTH sides where the origins of politicization lie squarely on the left...the right has been reactionary to this. This has filled the field with crap and barrow pushers where the data churned out in great volumes has very little scientific merit.

Bit hard to have the kiddies to sort the wheat from the chaff under those conditions.

No, climate change as a science has wide spread concensus (97%) among scientists.

Some of the potential impacts have been exagerated, but that way different from the right just saying "climate change is BS". Thats the sort of view where you put your political/religeous beliefs ahead of logic.

The dogma is the BS about some concensus that does not, has not, will not ever exist.

The so called concensus is just made up out of ideology forces and nothing else. Do you even know how the so called concensus was arrived at.

It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

Then we have

Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

Looks to me the concensus, by numbers, is that mann-made catastrophic climate pseudo science is bunk.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-...

As Mozza may put it, you should watch out, because the Climate Change Karma, may just run over your consensus BS Dogma!

It's about time you Ostriches took your heads out of the sand, took an unbiased look at the science and had a good look at the leading edge effects of Climate Change, which are already affecting many places on the planet.

Back to top

IP Logged

tonegunman1

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 427

Re: LNP loons want to burn science at the Stake?
Reply #79 - Jul 19^th, 2012 at 1:08pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 11:50am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 11:44am:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 11:04am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 9:16am:

The far right have politicised the science of climate change.

This makes a very good subject to study at school because it combines science and politics.

If kept as Year 11 and Year 12 subjects, most in the far right would have left school by then, and so wont have their strong opinions brought into question.

It's a large helping of politics from BOTH sides where the origins of politicization lie squarely on the left...the right has been reactionary to this. This has filled the field with crap and barrow pushers where the data churned out in great volumes has very little scientific merit.

Bit hard to have the kiddies to sort the wheat from the chaff under those conditions.

No, climate change as a science has wide spread concensus (97%) among scientists.

Some of the potential impacts have been exagerated, but that way different from the right just saying "climate change is BS". Thats the sort of view where you put your political/religeous beliefs ahead of logic.

The dogma is the BS about some concensus that does not, has not, will not ever exist.

The so called concensus is just made up out of ideology forces and nothing else. Do you even know how the so called concensus was arrived at.

It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

Then we have

Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

Looks to me the concensus, by numbers, is that mann-made catastrophic climate pseudo science is bunk.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-...

Just to add to that 90% of those that responded were US, 6% Canada and 4% for the rest of the world, so not really representative on a global scale. Of these 5% were climatologists. Of those that had 50% of their published papers on climate change the rate was 96.2% (76/79) that the world had warmed since pre-1800's. And for question 2, 97.4% (75/77) said humans were a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Technically you should have rounded down to 97% but what the hey.
This small portion were characterised as "the most specialized and knowledgeable". There may be another explanation however. These are also scientists that have had recurrent funding. The source of funding is potentially a large confounding factor.

Have you ever seen those experiments where rats have their behaviour conditioned by a reward of food. Swap the rat for a scientist and the food for funding. There ya go.

Interestingly of the other scientists the ones with least acceptance worked in fields where they looked at long-term climate processes.

So should I be impressed by such over-whelming evidence...not a bit.

Back to top

IP Logged

Doctor Jolly Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 3808	Re: LNP loons want to burn science at the Stake? Reply #80 - Jul 19^th, 2012 at 4:41pm 97% of scientists in the field of climate science confirm the data that man is causing climate change. You cant deny it. Your survey defines a "scientist" as anyone whowho have walked past a university. Dodgy. Manipulative. Belief-driven.
Back to top	IP Logged

FriYAY

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7395

Re: LNP loons want to burn science at the Stake?
Reply #81 - Jul 19^th, 2012 at 4:46pm

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 4:41pm:

97% of scientists in the field of climate science confirm the data that man is causing climate change.

You cant deny it.

Your survey defines a "scientist" as anyone whowho have walked past a university. Dodgy. Manipulative. Belief-driven.

You can't deny it... Cheesy

Back to top

IP Logged

Doctor Jolly Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 3808	Re: LNP loons want to burn science at the Stake? Reply #82 - Jul 19^th, 2012 at 4:50pm Just to clarify, do deniers: a) deny that we are releasing co2 previously safely stored underground? or b) deny that co2 causes warming ?
Back to top	IP Logged

tonegunman1

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 427

Re: LNP loons want to burn science at the Stake?
Reply #83 - Jul 19^th, 2012 at 5:40pm

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 4:41pm:

97% of scientists in the field of climate science confirm the data that man is causing climate change.

Climate "science" is relatively new so I'm not quite sure how many actual climatologists there are that have also walked past a university and smelled a buck. You are misrepresenting also what they actually responded to and that was "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor...". This shows that you are misrepresenting not only numbers but what they actually responded to and supported. Do you know what level is scientifically significant? as opposed to scientifically insignificant...they are scientists are they not?
And also "contributing factor" is in no way saying that it is the cause. It is saying that it is a cause. Not the same thing. Which any scientist, of any merit, will tell you.

Quote:

You cant deny it.

Yes I can ...and oh so very easily.

Quote:

Your survey defines a "scientist" as anyone whowho have walked past a university. Dodgy. Manipulative. Belief-driven.

Well it ain't my survey it's the very one that is used to state the overwhelming support...that you and others rely on to make your endless regurgative statements. We do agree that it is "Dodgy. Manipulative. Belief-driven".

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: LNP loons want to burn science at the Stake?
Reply #84 - Jul 19^th, 2012 at 9:57pm

What else did the ’97% of scientists’ say?

An indepth article

“..Science is based on scepticism and experimental proof. Whereas human GHG emissions certainly have a warming effect, the breakdown between natural and anthropogenic contributions to warming is poorly constrained.

Remember that the warming since 1650 AD (not 1900) is part of a real ‘millennial cycle’ whose amplitude cannot yet be explained by any quantitative theory.

Also, the computer climate models are both too complex to be readily understood and too simple to describe reality.

Believing their results is an act of faith…”

What is the opinion of the worlds scientists?

Are the public aware when they are lectured that ’97% of scientists’ agree based on the Doran paper, by their media, lobbyists, activist scientists and their politicians justifying climate action, that the UK, Germany, Spain, France, Australia, New Zealand respondents made up less than 3% of the survey in total. China had 3 scientists respond (three not 3%), Russian and India zero.

Perhaps if I was a western politician trying to persuade the public West to decarbonise and to extend or go beyond the Kyoto agreement I might think carefully about telling the public about the 97% of ALL scientists agree, when pushing for radical climate policies? As those countries outside of Kyoto agreement (China, India, Russia, etc) made it very clear at Copenhagen that reduction in their own emissions is just not going to happen and at the recent Rio 20 plus conference I’m not even really aware that ‘climate change’ was mentioned that much at all.

What might I ask are those countries scientists telling their leaders about ‘climate change’ that may appear to many of them as a peculary western obsession (not many environmental lobby groups in China in the last 30 years). Perhaps those countries scientists are just not that concerned about a catastrophic interpretation of climate change,

I’ll just provide a ‘small’ anecdote to back up that hypothesis, just for fun, from China’s lead climate negotiator at Copenhagen (and Durban) no less.

Telegraph

“..China’s most senior climate change official surprised a summit in India when he questioned whether global warming is caused by carbon gas emissions and said Beijing is keeping an “open mind”

Xie Zhenhua was speaking at a summit between the developing world’s most powerful countries, India, Brazil, South Africa and China, which is now the largest emitter of carbon dioxide, the gas believed to be responsible for climate change.

But Mr Xie, China’s vice-chairman of national development and reforms commission, later said although mainstream scientific opinion blames emissions from industrial development for climate change, China is not convinced.

“There are disputes in the scientific community. We have to have an open attitude to the scientific research. There’s an alternative view that climate change is caused by cyclical trends in nature itself. We have to keep an open attitude,” he said…” (Telegraph)

Guardian

“..China’s most senior negotiator on climate change says more research needed to establish whether warming is man-made

China’s most senior negotiator on climate change said today he was keeping an open mind on whether global warming was man-made or the result of natural cycles. Xie Zhenhua said there was no doubt that warming was taking place, but more and better scientific research was needed to establish the causes.

Xie’s comments caused consternation at the end of the post-meeting press conference, with his host, the Indian environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, attempting to play down any suggestions of dissent over the science of climate change…”(Guardian)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 11694 Perth WA Gender:	Re: LNP loons want to burn science at the Stake? Reply #85 - Jul 19^th, 2012 at 11:18pm If the LOONS want to look up some real facts, try the following organizations, as a starter - http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html http://www.csiro.au/
Back to top	IP Logged

corporate_whitey Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 8896 Archivist	Re: LNP loons want to burn science at the Stake? Reply #86 - Jul 19^th, 2012 at 11:21pm Corporate White supremacists are always coming up with ideological bull crap like this to impose their apartheid rule.
Back to top	World Wide Working Class Struggle IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: LNP loons want to burn science at the Stake?
Reply #87 - Jul 20^th, 2012 at 6:19am

Would this mean that Queensland Science teachers can't mention the experiments of John Tyndall in 1859 which established the warming properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, or our satellites that show a drop in the outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. Or perhaps they shouldn't mention the measurements that show an increase in atmospheric CO2 and a warming planet.

Is this the beginning of our Orwellian nightmare. Ministry of Education, indeed.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

tonegunman1

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 427

Re: LNP loons want to burn science at the Stake?
Reply #88 - Jul 20^th, 2012 at 8:56am

MOTR wrote on Jul 20^th, 2012 at 6:19am:

Would this mean that Queensland Science teachers can't mention the experiments of John Tyndall in 1859 which established the warming properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, or our satellites that show a drop in the outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. Or perhaps they shouldn't mention the measurements that show an increase in atmospheric CO2 and a warming planet.

Is this the beginning of our Orwellian nightmare. Ministry of Education, indeed.

Gee...do we also tell them that in the last 20 thousand years that sea levels have increased 120 metres but the rate has actually slowed considerably. Do we also tell them that sea level has been historically much, much higher than it is now on average. Do we also tell them that CO2 levels are also well below average historical levels. With a concentration high of about 7000ppm during the Cambrian. The Cambrian was associated with an "explosion of life forms" with the emergence of most major animal phyla. Do we tell them that the ice-core data supports that CO2 lags temperature rise. That on 3 occasions in the last 300K years it has been hotter than it is now (without the burning of fossil fuel or any deforestation) and if we were at the global average during this time most of the planet would perish because of the severe cold and food shortages. Do we also teach that the greatest greenhouse gas is good old H2O as the single largest contributor to global warming. The ability of the oceans to absorb and release heat actually buffers the global climate and makes earth habitable.
So to get the full picture they need all the facts not just notes from a geological eyeblink.
The simple truth is your view is the Orwellian one.

Back to top

IP Logged

Doctor Jolly

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3808

Re: LNP loons want to burn science at the Stake?
Reply #89 - Jul 20^th, 2012 at 9:10am

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 5:40pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 4:41pm:

97% of scientists in the field of climate science confirm the data that man is causing climate change.

Climate "science" is relatively new so I'm not quite sure how...

You're "not quite sure". Of course you're not, you are not a expert in this field.

Quote:

Yes I can ...and oh so very easily.

Quote:

Your survey defines a "scientist" as anyone whowho have walked past a university. Dodgy. Manipulative. Belief-driven.

Well it ain't my survey ....

You're quoting it to justify your belief. The survey was flawed. It found a number of people with some vague connection to "science" and called them a scientist to falsely make themselves more credible.
Got a degree in computer science, sign our petition. Thats the level of candidates.

Back to top

IP Logged