Climate change

[pietillidie]

More "I can say any old crap because (a) I am not responsible for making serious decisions on behalf of others, and (b) I will never be held accountable for spouting irresponsible crap about subjects miles over my head" talk.

Imagine a high-level UN food security or tropical diseases meeting concluding: "Everyone knows the vast majority of field specialists hold to the likelihood of global warming, but they get paid, so we will no longer be considering their tainted views. Instead, we believe that volunteer minorities, mostly working off-field, ought to be granted pre-eminent authority over this matter."

Being unable to handle the maths and science is one thing; very few people can. But the failure of world knowledge here, as if people in positions of responsibility can just throw outlier views and anti-institutional guesses at serious problems, beggars belief.

[npalm]

Pa Marmo. In your video, 3 scientists express their concerns with the current position of the scientific community on climate change. Nothing surprising there. It's a complicated issue and complete consensus is unlikely.

The point is, if the vast majority of scientists are telling us that human activity is altering the climate with dire consequences then we would be very foolish to do nothing to prevent those consequences just because a handful of scientists disagree.

[Pa Marmo]

Pa Marmo. In your video, 3 scientists express their concerns with the current position of the scientific community on climate change. Nothing surprising there. It's a complicated issue and complete consensus is unlikely.

The point is, if the vast majority of scientists are telling us that human activity is altering the climate with dire consequences then we would be very foolish to do nothing to prevent those consequences just because a handful of scientists disagree.

The problem is, the he data appears to disagree with the majority as well.

[npalm]

Clearly it doesn't. Otherwise the scientific consensus would have changed accordingly.

[Pies4shaw]

Clearly it doesn't. Otherwise the scientific consensus would have changed accordingly.

No, it's a conspiracy.

Also, chemtrails are real.

And Obama wasn't born in the US and didn't qualify to be President

[pietillidie]

Clearly it doesn't. Otherwise the scientific consensus would have changed accordingly.

The "paid climate industry" and "group think" hopes will then be invoked.

It's futile; you're dealing with a driven, anti-institutional contrarianism which is unmoderated by the checks and balances of real-world responsibility and accountability.

Ironically, this is the same anti-institutional contrarianism which allows the stereotypical "university socialist" referred to in the Venezuela thread to explore all sorts of ideas with gusto.

Of course, one can understand people exploring ideas and opposing the system, but for what useful purpose? If not the personal development of youth, what, exactly?

[Pa Marmo]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... peratures/

Interesting

[watt price tully]

Clearly it doesn't. Otherwise the scientific consensus would have changed accordingly.

The "paid climate industry" and "group think" hopes will then be invoked.

Yes lets take our own chief scientist Alan Finkel Australia's Chief scientist as a prime example of those being paid to prmote climate change

Alan Simon Finkel AO FAA FTSE[1] is Australia's Chief Scientist.[2] An Australian neuroscientist, engineer, entrepreneur and philanthropist, he served as Chancellor of Monash University in 2008-2016.[3]

....Finkel was educated at Monash University, receiving a doctorate in Electrical Engineering in 1981. He then served as a postdoctoral research fellow at the Australian National University, before leaving academia to found Axon Instruments, a global science and technology company based in the US.[4] During this time, he invented a commercially successful device which substantially speeds up drug research.[3][5]

Since then, he has used his wealth to found the science magazine Cosmos, an environment magazine called G: The Green Lifestyle Magazine and contribute towards a number of research institutes. During a speech at Monash University's 50th Anniversary Celebration Dinner, he announced that he would be endowing a Chair in Global Health for the University......[6]

Yes, he's deliberately taking less money & more stress as a subterfuge. Mind you I've never seen his birth certificate. He might be a Muslim like Obama and they both support the notion of climate change. I think I read that on Brietbart

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Finkel[/b]

[sixpoints]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/01/delingpole-australia-bureau-of-meteorology-caught-erasing-record-low-temperatures/

Interesting

The scientist quoted in the article is a biologist. No meterological credentials or training. She also previously worked for the Institute of Public Affairs.
No relevant qualifications & paid by a bunch of climate deniers.
Article a biased waste of time.

[stui magpie]

Clearly it doesn't. Otherwise the scientific consensus would have changed accordingly.

The "paid climate industry" and "group think" hopes will then be invoked.

Yes lets take our own chief scientist Alan Finkel Australia's Chief scientist as a prime example of those being paid to prmote climate change

Alan Simon Finkel AO FAA FTSE[1] is Australia's Chief Scientist.[2] An Australian neuroscientist, engineer, entrepreneur and philanthropist, he served as Chancellor of Monash University in 2008-2016.[3]

....Finkel was educated at Monash University, receiving a doctorate in Electrical Engineering in 1981. He then served as a postdoctoral research fellow at the Australian National University, before leaving academia to found Axon Instruments, a global science and technology company based in the US.[4] During this time, he invented a commercially successful device which substantially speeds up drug research.[3][5]

Since then, he has used his wealth to found the science magazine Cosmos, an environment magazine called G: The Green Lifestyle Magazine and contribute towards a number of research institutes. During a speech at Monash University's 50th Anniversary Celebration Dinner, he announced that he would be endowing a Chair in Global Health for the University......[6]

Yes, he's deliberately taking less money & more stress as a subterfuge. Mind you I've never seen his birth certificate. He might be a Muslim like Obama and they both support the notion of climate change. I think I read that on Brietbart

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Finkel[/b]

maybe it's just me, but how come electrical engineers and politicians aren't climate scientists and therefore their opinion is irrelevant when they don't support climate change, but when they do, their opinion is relevant?

[Pa Marmo]

The "paid climate industry" and "group think" hopes will then be invoked.

Yes lets take our own chief scientist Alan Finkel Australia's Chief scientist as a prime example of those being paid to prmote climate change

Alan Simon Finkel AO FAA FTSE[1] is Australia's Chief Scientist.[2] An Australian neuroscientist, engineer, entrepreneur and philanthropist, he served as Chancellor of Monash University in 2008-2016.[3]

....Finkel was educated at Monash University, receiving a doctorate in Electrical Engineering in 1981. He then served as a postdoctoral research fellow at the Australian National University, before leaving academia to found Axon Instruments, a global science and technology company based in the US.[4] During this time, he invented a commercially successful device which substantially speeds up drug research.[3][5]

Since then, he has used his wealth to found the science magazine Cosmos, an environment magazine called G: The Green Lifestyle Magazine and contribute towards a number of research institutes. During a speech at Monash University's 50th Anniversary Celebration Dinner, he announced that he would be endowing a Chair in Global Health for the University......[6]

Yes, he's deliberately taking less money & more stress as a subterfuge. Mind you I've never seen his birth certificate. He might be a Muslim like Obama and they both support the notion of climate change. I think I read that on Brietbart

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Finkel[/b]

maybe it's just me, but how come electrical engineers and politicians aren't climate scientists and therefore their opinion is irrelevant when they don't support climate change, but when they do, their opinion is relevant?

That's the lunacy that is the religion of leftism.

[Pies4shaw]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Pa Marmo]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Is this a lefty word association game?

[Wokko]

That's the lunacy that is the religion of leftism.

You're trying to argue someone out of a position they didn't think themselves into in the first place.

[pietillidie]

^Don't complain; you're a downstream industry of this Left, so you depend on it, in the same way the Left is a downstream industry of tax revenue, but has a tortured relationship with enterprise.

Similarly, Pa Marmo has a tortured relationship with the Gospels, because the Jesus figure espouses so much radical social theory he doesn't hold. Defining himself against the Left only heightens that contradiction.

We all have our Huckleberries, but the task is trying to stand on our own two feet, somehow. This is why going through a phase of reactionary youth is not such a bad thing in the broader scheme, and the folks who missed out are often the ones who take it up in middle age.

On climate change authority, it's not about individuals; it's too complex a theory.

My assumption is that authority in academics would be roughly about qualification, peer-reviewed publication, appointment, recognition and representation, much like any field. Publication being work done, appointment being work acknowledged, recognition being further acknowledgement, and representation being interests represented, etc.

The climate system is broad and has a broad footprint, so its study is going to rope in various disciplines. But, because warming change is a macro theory, based on a preponderance of systemic evidence, you would need to be across that evidence from a focused position to have a serious view of the whole.

This is why on-field/near-field specialists plainly warrant weight. Macro bodies then defer to those on-field/near-field specialists.

On that basis, the weight of numbers is ridiculously in favour of warming change.