- Joined
- 21 April 2005
- Posts
- 3,922
- Reactions
- 5
You obviously don't know what critic means.
You obviously don't know what critic means.I wouldn't get your hopes up - the views held by many around here are nothing short of dogma. Scientific research is only valid to them if it supports what they want to be told.
I wouldn't get your hopes up - the views held by many around here are nothing short of dogma. Scientific research is only valid to them if it supports what they want to be told.
Julia said:A comment which could quite equally be directed toward yourself.
You are clearly unprepared to consider anything which challenges your currently held view.
Nothing surprising in that. But please don't level that criticism as just applying to "the other side".
Basilio, I've found some of your previous posts to be reasonably objective but I simply can't see that the above provide a logical analogy to the current debate.
Could you answer just one question?
Why is there such desperation for Australia to have an ETS legislated prior to Copenhagen? Why does it not make more sense for everyone attending to reach some agreement about what (if anything) needs to be done on a global basis? After all it's apparently a global problem.
Do you not consider the current desperate urgency being displayed by the government may be more about Mr Rudd's passion for drawing attention to himself on the world stage by being able to say "We in Australia have already legislated, blah, blah, blah"?
I am a little sceptical of man-made climate change because, for me, the raw statistics do not quite add up, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. And I also reckon that most of the stuff urged upon us in order to address climate change makes sense for other environmental reasons anyway.
But this is not good enough; this makes me a climate-change denier - you will note the implication of such a phrase, its implied resonance - and that's not on.
Because one is no longer allowed to question climate change; it is a fact, and there's an end to it. And to the believers the "fact" of climate change is a "fact" to be held sacred and never challenged.
And all the while you feel that these people actually want the earth to be heating up, the polar bears to die, and the floods to engulf us so that we will all burn, starve or drown.
If somehow it could be proved tomorrow that climate change was a huge con, these people would't be relieved - they'd feel robbed of something intrinsic to themselves.
A comment which could quite equally be directed toward yourself.
You are clearly unprepared to consider anything which challenges your currently held view.
Nothing surprising in that. But please don't level that criticism as just applying to "the other side".
Epistemic arrogance.I base me views on science, plain and simple. If you're referring to my view that co2 is a greenhouse gas, then yes, I think it is - not because of some politcal agenda but because I've seen and done experiments that overwhelmingly suggest it is. Have you got a science degree? or are you another one of the mental giants on this forum that base their views on web blogs/sites and articles by people like Andrew Bolt and Robert Gottliebson?
I've spent the better part of a decade at university and you've got the nerve to accuse me of being "clearly unprepared to consider anything which challenges my currently held view" science is not based on views - views should be based on science, based on research and being able to prove a hypothesis, gathering data - continually evaluating new and old data and making informed judgements based on this research. Above all else it means evaluating all research that has opposing findings to your own. Read that last scentence again incase you missed it.
To accuse me of dogma proves you have no clue - but maybe this is my fault. The truth is I find the dogma around here so frustrating that I can't be bothered responding to it with anything more than a scentence or two.
A 12 year old can prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. All they need is a heat lamp a couple of bottles of soft drink and 2 temperature gauges.
Oh and nice fail with the OISM.
You lot make me laugh
I wouldn't get your hopes up - the views held by many around here are nothing short of dogma. Scientific research is only valid to them if it supports what they want to be told.
Absolute rubbish
I base me views on science, plain and simple. If you're referring to my view that co2 is a greenhouse gas, then yes, I think it is - not because of some politcal agenda but because I've seen and done experiments that overwhelmingly suggest it is. Have you got a science degree? or are you another one of the mental giants on this forum that base their views on web blogs/sites and articles by people like Andrew Bolt and Robert Gottliebson?
I don't intend to engage in an exchange of insults. Just one point above interests me and that is "being able to prove a hypothesis". Isn't this what the 'modelling' has been unable to do in terms of CO2 being the cause of climate change (which we no longer call global warming because it isn't)?I've spent the better part of a decade at university and you've got the nerve to accuse me of being "clearly unprepared to consider anything which challenges my currently held view" science is not based on views - views should be based on science, based on research and being able to prove a hypothesis, gathering data - continually evaluating new and old data and making informed judgements based on this research. Above all else it means evaluating all research that has opposing findings to your own. Read that last scentence again incase you missed it.
To accuse me of dogma proves you have no clue - but maybe this is my fault. The truth is I find the dogma around here so frustrating that I can't be bothered responding to it with anything more than a scentence or two.
OK, thank you for this which it would have been good to have originally in place of the pejorative comments.So here are my thoughts,
1. In terms of what causes global temperature change, co2 is quite low on the list at the moment (although it becomes more important the higher the concentration, so it will be bumped up the list in the future) Solar radiance is the major determining factor, and it's obviously not a constant where we can state; X amount of energy will hit the earth year X. This is just one of the reasonsn why climate modelling is almost impossible to get accurate.
2. The ETS is a bad idea in it's current form, not to mention there is no global agreement which renders it useless.
3. Kevin Rudd is as full of it as Andrew Bolt and many on this forum. Just this week Rudd claimed that last weeks hot weather was proof of climate change. So if next week is cooder than average is that proof that the globe is cooling?
4. There is plenty of good science that suggest the globe will actually cool over the next decade. The anti AGW crowd will jump on this as proof but at the same time they will ignore those same scientists that also model mean temperature over the next 50 years rising.
Epistemic arrogance.
Epistemic arrogance.
Give the dogma word a rest.
Your above posts are supercilious and sneering.
You may have earlier set out what actually you believe (or have proven for yourself) and I have missed it. If so, I apologise for concluding your above expressed contempt was all you were offering.
I don't intend to engage in an exchange of insults. Just one point above interests me and that is "being able to prove a hypothesis". Isn't this what the 'modelling' has been unable to do in terms of CO2 being the cause of climate change (which we no longer call global warming because it isn't)?
And isn't that why so many express concern and doubt about the government's current zeal to institute an ETS?
(Btw I've never expressed any thought that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and don't recall anyone else on this forum doing so either.)
OK, thank you for this which it would have been good to have originally in place of the pejorative comments.
It seems you are bringing your learned perspective essentially alongside of those of us who are not happy about Mr Rudd's messianic determination to force Australia into an ETS, regardless of the decisions of the rest of the world. This is really all many of us have been saying, so I'm a bit puzzled as to why you're so irritated at the expression of a concern which seems similar to your own.
Gamblor,
A degree does not preclude one from being dogmatic and may even be a precursor of in in some people.
Some of the most spectacularly dogmatic people in fact come from the ranks of the "learned".
Don't forget some of the most ludicrous hypotheses in all areas of science comes from.... scientists. These are people who purportedly spent much time in universities as well.
To claim exemption from dogma on this basis is one of such cognitive bias that it takes my breath away.
Like Julia, I find your stated views alongside your appalling disrespect of agnostics very confusing as well, your arguments based on the straw man caricature of doubters rather than our actual considered views.
It seems you've shot yourself in the foot really.
You can try to create a straw man by portraying me as as some sort of anti AGW extremist or denier, but those that know me know that isn't true... apart from alarmists that is, who will consider me an apostate heathen, but that just reveals them as religious zealots.
Oh & no is that there has been no comment on the 2nd law of thermodynamics as applied to climate? That should have started a rip-snorter of a discussion.Plenty to argue about in that...
This is an absolute nonsense & non sequitur. A fascinating use of extreme language, to try to make it look like I said something I clearly did not. All the while completely ignoring the actual science. Please point out where I called you an AGW extremist or denier... So if I knew you, I would agree with you because If I don't I'm obviously an alarmist. You I have apparently placed into the AGW camp, (instead of me or others just thinking your a decent man with concerns who is mistaken) That is one hell of a circular argument you have going there.
In one email, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the US Centre for Atmospheric Research, who supports the theory of man-made climate change, says: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't."
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
Dr Trenberth says data published last August "shows there should be even more warming . . . the data are surely wrong."
COMPUTER hackers have broken into Britain's leading climate science research centre, making public thousands of private emails between top climate change scientists.
The messages – more than 2000 emails and 3000 documents – lay bare bitter disagreements about the cause of climate change.
In one email, the head of Britain's Climatic Research Unit, Phil Jones, says he is "cheered" by news of the sudden death of a prominent Australian climate sceptic, John L. Daly, who died of a heart attack at his Launceston home in 2004.
The emails also acknowledge the frustration of trying to find evidence to "prove" man-made climate change.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?