Tonight ABC1 hosts a special "I can change your mind about Climate"
A title that already hides the true question of whether our Co2 Emissions are causing the Planet to warm dangerously.
Ex-Liberal Senator Nick Minchin, the man that told Turnbul that AGW was Left Wing Politics and it wasnt going to become Liberal Party Policy, takes up the Sceptical position and Anna Rose (Australian Youth Climate Coalition and Wife of Simon Sheik the guy who runs GetUp) the pro-AGW case.
Separated by a generation, and divided by their beliefs, two passionate, intelligent and successful Australians go on a journey of mutual discovery to see if they can change each other's minds about the most divisive issue in Australia today: climate change.
It would appear from the Survey results that the sceptical position is beginning to gain ground on the Watermelons.
I Can Change Your Mind About..Climate 8:30pm
followed by a special Q&A featuring Minchin and Rose and also Clive Palmer,
Rebecca Huntley, and CSIRO Head Dr Megan Clarke (who happens to have financial involvment in Carbon Capture programs and She is also on the Australian advisory board of the Bank of America-Merrill Lynch.
Unfortunately no Climate Scientists will appear.
I think its time The ABC had a Q&A with Sceptical Scientists and CSIRO Scientists.
Bit disappointing James Delingpole didnt get an invite.
In other interesting Global Warming news:
CLIMATE Commissioner Tim Flannery's work has been labelled "alarmist" by a world renowned climate scientist who says his own dire predictions were "wrong".
Just six years after predicting climate change would kill billions by the end of this century, British scientist James Lovelock said warming was not happening at forecast rates.
"There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," Mr Lovelock, who still believes in climate change, told MSNBC.
"The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time ... it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that
Skipped the OP, but is this going to be another 300 post long thread of facey changing his opinion and views while ignoring reams and reams of evidence posted by actual sane people?
It was well on it's way to the nothingness of page 2 before you bumped it actually.
But since you have, we might as well have another discussion. I've stayed away from the last few, there seems little point here. Most people have already formed opinions that are unlikely to be swayed or even reconsidered based off a few forum posts.
What's depressing about it Dan? The CO2 emissions -> catastrophic warming hypothesis is shockingly weak and more people are beginning to realise this, much to the chagrin of those that stand to benefit from the scare.
To make it clear that this shit isn't the only movement like this (they're largely pushed by the same people too), would otherwise take a thousand words to explain the similar weakness of the approach. I don't actually care that I can't change faceman's mind, I just hate leaving the preceding statements sitting as unanswered advertising for stupid.
The 97% of publishing Climate Scientists is a huge Lie.
Here is the truth about that claim.
The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth – out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer – those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor – about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.
Lathams article is quite right but not for the reason he suggests.
Its not that Climate Science has failed it is because the darlings of the movement are not so much Scientists but Activists.
Activists shaping The Science, thats what you see in the ClimateGate Emails.
Climate Science is actually winning because the Science is being tested for the first time. The greatest problem has been that Activists have managed to keep the Theory away from criticism allowing it to thrive in an artificial World shielded from The Scientific Method by Politics and Left Wing Economics.
What's the point? You either put in the full career with visible accomplishments, or you go home with a worthless opinion. I bet any conspiracy theorist knows more about topics relating to their conspiracy theory than me. Same with alternative medicine.
Faceman, I could just link the Joint Academies Statement if you'd like. Nobody in the world more credible or accomplished than them when it comes to judging science, which you are absolutely no more qualified to do than perform brain surgery.
FaceMan, i have to ask, do believe that Noah actually got 2 of every creature on to a boat? do you believe that the earth is flat? or do you just like to disagree with what ever other people generally accept?
I'm just wondering, cause even if you don't believe that humans have had an affect on the climate, your comment
There is no evidence that Co2 has ever controlled Temperature.
Christopher Columbus's efforts to obtain support for his voyages were not hampered by a European belief in a flat Earth. Sailors and navigators of the time knew that the Earth was roughly spherical.
I'm just wondering, cause even if you don't believe that humans have had an affect on the climate, your comment
Co2 ? no.
You need to comprehend that Climate is much more than weather.
Chopping down Forests in Australia may have an ecological effect but it doesnt affect The Sun or Water Vapor/Clouds or The Ocean.
These three things control Climate.
Piers Corbyn Suggests that its the Sunspots and the Moons dance around the Earth.
A Guy called Svensmark claims that Cosmic Rays, that depend on the strength of the Suns magnetosphere shielding us, have increased piercing the water Vapor molecules causing our Clouds, more clouds than in the recent past causing warming.
Co2 ? it doesnt stand up. Its downright silly.
Id like to think Im an Environmentalist but this AGW is Voodoo and its not the solution to the destruction of the Planet. It just makes it a tiny bit more expensive to wreak the same amount of damage.
Nerfy i can tell you didnt look at the link because it has the exact poster you posted.
Nerfy, in your view science has brought us nothing more than the simple substitution of one priesthood for another. Do I need to be able to sing to know a song is sung in tune? Must I be able to paint to appreciate a masterpiece? Your misplaced trust in authority is the antithesis of what science is.
Take appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.
I completely, 100%, agree with this statement. I just seem to have a different opinion on what is appropriate considering the current changes (which are significantly less than predictions) to our climate.
Did anyone actually take the survey? It classified me as "Dismissive" and then proceeded to make a whole bunch of bullshit claims about my views.
I basically said that yes I believe that Global Warming is occurring but then said I don't believe that there is anything we can do to change it and that I don't believe that it's going to harm me (I'm guessing they aren't talking about increased cost of living). I even said that I would change my views if more information came to light. Based on that, they give me this:-
The Dismissive are sure that global warming is not happening. You say the issue is not at all important to you personally and are not worried about it at all. You, however, say that you have thought about global warming and believe you are well-informed about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions – i.e., that there are none, because it doesn’t exist. You are very certain about your views, and are very unlikely to change your mind about the issue. Many of the Dismissive flatly reject the proposition that global warming is happening, while a majority believe that if global warming is happening, natural changes in the environment are the primary cause. Likewise, a majority believe there is a lot of disagreement among scientists over whether global warming is occurring, while over a fifth of the Dismissive believe there is a scientific consensus that global warming is not happening. You say that global warming will not harm you personally or future generations at all. Finally, you believe global warming will never harm people.
Do I need to be able to sing to know a song is sung in tune? Must I be able to paint to appreciate a masterpiece? Your misplaced trust in authority is the antithesis of what science is.
Go sit in on some brain surgery and give the surgeons your valuable opinions in the field. Then maybe go on a campaign against vaccines with some soccer mums. Regale us with likenings of professional hard work to appreciating pictures and songs. Be sure to evaluate the engineering designs of some desalination plants as well, and don't miss the chance to give some feedback on software architecture from the very best in the field.
It's not infinite faith in them, it's zero reason to have faith in you.
fpot, despite your contribution to every debate being "lol logical fallacy", I don't think you actually know what one is.
Wow, irony. Ironic because you tried to call nerf out on argument from authority when it wasn't. Giving credence to what a large amount of climate scientists say about climate change isn't argument from authority. Say you started paying too much attention to what a physicist and an astrophysicist say about climate change then you would be falsely arguing from authority.
The reason I point out logical fallacies from science deniers is because it's the easiest way to point out why you are wrong. It is pointless posting graphs and evidence and walls of text because of course science deniers are going to ignore these things and I am not going to waste my time doing so.
Trog come on, you know cold weather is caused by Global Warming.
The Show wasnt too bad.
It gave both sides a fair go and maybe even favoured Sceptics a little.
It wasnt heavy handed and would have been interesting for ppl who arent heavily into discussing it.
i got very anxious when it started LOL
Q&A was the usual stuff, though they did have CSIRO Scientists in the audicence.
Would be good to get him on the panel and get a qualified sceptic on there.
It wasnt a fair battle with him Vs Clive Palmer. I thought Palmer was gonna eat Anna Rose.
There's no point arguing for or against AGW or whatever the fuck you want to call it (especially on something as insignificant as a gaming forum) because everyone seems to look at the evidence and statistics that do not prove either opinion conclusively right or wrong and just decide that it means that their opinion is unequivocally correct.
What makes me really sad is how much effort people put into mindlessly trying to shoot down green initiatives because of all this. OK you can argue that maybe CO2 is not actually causing global warning (we will only truly know many years in the future), but it should not be at the expense of encouraging everyone (and most importantly governments and big businesses) to work towards making a cleaner and less wasteful world.
kos, if you want to argue that we should do things to improve the environment, then that's fine. But it is not something that should be given weight when trying to get to the bottom of a specific issue.
The main reason is that the green movement sacrifices PEOPLE and the economy in favour of the environment. Would you make those sacrifices if you knew the world was going to end if you didn't do it? Yes of course. Would you make those same sacrifices just to feel good about a cleaner and less wasteful world? That's where it becomes important to know the specifics.
While I realise that my opinions are much too idealistic, I don't think that PEOPLE and the economy need to be sacrificed, the wasteful affluence of our society and even just a portion of the massive corporate profits of multinational companies would suffice I think.
It doesn't seem to be working like that. For Governments and corporations the show must go on, they protect themselves and pass on the burden to PEOPLE creating all manner of social and economic problems.
You can block certain people of course, but don't you find the collateral arguments confusing?
I'm buoyed by how tricky I thought making a chrome extension was going to be, but then wasn't.
Is there a demand for an Ausgamers Enhancement Suite a-la RES? I may need to ponder this some more.
You can block certain people of course, but don't you find the collateral arguments confusing?
I can't speak for anyone else, but for me certain posters present a singularity - dribble cannot be unread and a response is often inevitable. Its better to be confused than sucked into a Nerf Hole and lose an hour's productivity.
I watched this last night, most of it. Was fairly good, the setup reminded me of a similar show about a guy and his mother trying to prove UFO's exist. I would of liked it more if the chick was hotter and didnt seem to have her shoulders up all the time, I found it oddly distracting.
As much as you love to make believe that there is always something super secret, sinister and deeper going on, I'm afraid that it just can't be the case in most situations.
There is a massive difference between "trying to silence" someone and simply arguing against an opposing opinion. AGW proponents no more "try to silence" their opponents than their opponents "try to silence" them.
dear o dear kos, go and read the ClimateGate Emails.
They pressured magazines, websites, threaten scientists who question the science, ignored serious questions on their Science, ignored FOI requests, stop communicating with Scientists who ask questions, etc...
They have acted like a Bully demanding every Scientist follow them or they isolate the dissenters.
its not conspiracy because they arent hiding anything, they are upfront about the way they promote the Science. Its Settled !
I just watched that documentary that Ozzy posted... at about part 4 it gets very interesting...
When our solar system moves through a spiral arm of our galaxy it cools down due to heaps of solar rays creating more clouds which reflect heat back into space.
Seriously it's an amazing watch and if any one of the claims in that documentary is true then we are REALLY barking up the wrong tree with global warming.
PM
WWW
<3 Dahzel!