Thread: Climate change scepticism - its sources and strategies

Just for the record, "Scientists" don't all agree that humans have caused "climate change". Geologists for example, who have a very good understanding of ancient climates, along with periodic changes in climates over the millennia, largely discount it. True story.

go and speak with our nearby pacific island nations and ask them if the oceans arent rising.......only 20-50mm or so but they can show you on the coral deposits where the sea used to wash and where it now washes. I have seen it myself in and around the Fiji islands recently......i should have taken photos, but it is very visible.....if youre going to fiji or vanuatu or similar islands, ask the local natives.....they'll tell you

Originally Posted by stevo68

There's no shame....and my comments were not confrontative......more a case I call a spade a spade. As much as my missus would like me to be able to sugar coat things...it aint gunna happen any time soon.

Now from what you have now written...it beggars further belief that having been to University that you make those comments.....it makes you a hypocrite to make those judgement calls.

By making those comments in regards to a) Universities and b) those that graduate from them....you in fact look like nothing but an educated fool. In case you need to refresh...please allow me:

I nor many people I know who have been to Uni consider themselves elite...what twallop. I graduated from Uni due to bloody hard work, long hours and whilst going through a divorce with 2 very young children....I think that trumps the "poor english" card. Seriously what a crock of a comment.

What bloody Uni did you go to. My lecturers wanted us to apply what we were taught and use our own experiences/ knowledge whether for assignments/ group work etc. In many subjects we would debate the content.

Not once did I find an arrogance or strict formation and I went to one of the top rated Uni's in the country.

I know lawyers, doctors/ brain surgeons, multi millionaires, accountants, engineers, scientists and the list goes on.....who would refute the inane comments you made. To be careful of what you write is to think about what you write and ideally not come off as a complete pillock by the end of it,

Regards

Stevo.....not so naive

It is because I being there that I can form an opinion, it is my right to have my point of view as you have yours.

You have failed to respect the opinions of others based perhaps that only you can be right and the others which opossed to your opinion only deserve aperson atack.

Yes, in the future just put your point of view with out insult others.

Perhaps a refreshing course in manners will be in order

Daniel J. Boorstin:
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge.


regards

go and speak with our nearby pacific island nations and ask them if the oceans arent rising.......only 20-50mm

Have a look at this . Scientific measurement beats anecdotes. Remember they would love to come to OZ.
AND it is the same ocean. It is also possible that the islands are sinking but the ocean is not rising much.

www.theaustralian.com.au/...change...level.../story-e6frg6nf-1225795202916

Regards Philip A

Phillip - the Australian is one of the leading media outlets in Climate Change denial! I'd hardly take their spin on a study as fact in this case... they are massively right wing and skewed towards big business.

The use of the term "denial" in my view shows just how uncertain the proponents are of their results.

For the record, in my view, it is almost certain that climate is changing (it always has), and it is very likely that present human activities are significantly influencing it. It is much less certain that computer models used by the climate change industry accurately or even approximately model this.

When using the word "denial", this would be much more appropriately used for the careful avoidance by almost everybody involved of the largest single factor in anthropogenic climate change - the rapidly increasing population of the world.

If the present federal government was serious about reducing Australia's emissions, it would be imposing a simple carbon tax (replacing other taxes) that penalises those making emissions rather than a complex and costly trading scheme wide open to rorts and evasion while compensating nearly everyone affected and replacing coal fired power with nuclear instead of encouraging massive expansion of coal mining, while at the same time stopping population growth. But on a world scale, Australia's emissions are pretty insignificant, so any action by Australia except as part of a worldwide plan is almost irrelevant, and would only export emissions while severely damaging the local economy. The simple fact is that unless the largest emitters (China, US, India, Europe) make changes, there is little point in anyone else doing so - especially if, as would be likely in Australia, their emissions are simply transferred to China.

Since the major reason for Australia having high per capita emissions is our reliance on coal for power generation, all Australians need to relaise that reducing emissions here will mean much higher power bills.

In my view, worldwide agreement on effective emissions reduction is quite unlikely, so that continued anthropogenic climate change is the most likely result, and perhaps we ought to be planning to live with this rather than spending money in a futile attempt to stave it off, while at the same time encouraging emissions reduction, perhaps by a very gradual change to a carbon tax in place of other taxes.

John

The biggest challenge for scientists is that their output: complex, varied and conflicting as it should be... ends up in the hands of "spin doctors"

While the clever people are researching, attending conferences, publishing papers after peer review and arguing the detail the cunning peolple are "cherry picking" the bits they need to garner votes, power or influence. They then publish opinion (without rigour) as fact.

A lot is lost in translation and or distorted for less than good motive.

Who do and what can you believe?

Belief in this case should be based on intellectual effort not on blind faith and weasel words.

That was the point of the Science Show's program..and beyond debate I would have thought after much consideration.

We are all encouraged to be sceptics.

Originally Posted by akelly

Mate, you should have spent the time it took typing this to read more of the transcript or work your media player. You have totally misrepresented the point of the show and the points being made by the presenters. For your benefit - the point of the show was (IMHO) "why are there so many sceptics and how can we better explain the science to the public to counter the sceptics?".

To suggest that Riley Dunlap was using "the usual snobbery about people needing a PhD before they can enter the discussion, or make a meaningful contribution" (pejorative comment anyone?) is total rubbish. Dunlap was trying to demonstrate that there is a tendency towards books denouncing anthropogenic climate change being published by "conservative think tanks" and non-PhD or non-relevant PhD authors. In short - the sceptical literature is either published by groups with an agenda or by non-experts.

You make the comment that "All three are totally convinced they are right in their approach. Everyone else is a 'contrarian sceptic' who does not have a valid method. The American Association for the Advancement of Science had no-one of a different point of view to challenge them." I have to call bull**** on that - you have obviously not read the transcript properly or have decided to try and mislead the people who will only read the comments here and not listen to the show themselves. The whole idea of presenting a speech or paper at a conference is to explain your ideas. No one gets up to the podium and says, "well, I think that energy may be a function of mass and velocity, but here's 10 minutes about why I may be wrong". In the world of climate science there is a war of competing ideas - one side is not going to spend time espousing the virtues of the other. Get real man.

Basically you have missed the point entirely. This was not a debate, it was a discussion for like minded people. I assume from your comments that you expect to read "Red Hot Lies" and find half the book dedicated to a discussion on why the author could be wrong. You are in for a disappointing read.

Cheers,

Adam

Oh dear, what have I said?

Actually, I have not missed the point at all. All these guys were trying to do is put down those who don't agree with them as 'contrarians, deniers'. They must be part of a right wing conspiracy, they must be creative writers, they mustn't be properly qualified, all because they don't agree with us. But we better get a more effective PR campaign going so we can convince the public that we are right.

There is no attempt to consider other points of view at all. They, not only in their understanding of climate change, but also in their methodology, are wrong.

That might be all right for a class at uni or something, but putting a view like that across in a publicly aired forum is nothing more than propaganda. Which is fair enough, people are free to do that. But it doesn't mean we should accept it uncritically. I want to hear both sides of the story! We are free to say that because of its one sided nature it lacks credibility. Which it does.

Willem