do the greens need a lesson in economics? news.com.au article

Thankyou.

I was getting a bit worried about this joint.


I'm still interested in the subject BV. However It's not a climate change thread, I've said it all before and another thread that I put a lot of time and effort into got locked for no reason I could fathom, so I couldn't be bothered anymore.


See ya's.
 
Bayview...I have said it many times. You should formally submit your research for review. You WILL a Nobel prize, you WILL be funded by oil and coal companies to further your research, you will have a better life and retirement.

You owe it to the people of the world to share your findings, there are so many worried greenies, isn't it cruel of you not to allay their fears? Isn't it irresponsible of you to allow governments globally to waste money on this myth? You could single handedly put many many billions of dollars back into the global economy.

You don't even have to formally write your paper, I know scientists and statisticians who would be willing to work with you to prepare and present papers. They would love to have a better retirement. How about it?
I thought I had....here, several times.

Sorry; I don't own a white lab coat or a sliderule.

I look out the window a lot.

I can't wait to see the Feb temp figures; hot (sorry about the pun) on the heels of Jan.

I can hear it now; "Oh; yes, well; just because these two months in a row are the coolest in the last 35 years, it means nothing; the trend is upwards." :rolleyes:

See where I have a problem with this CC/GW crowd?
 
Problem is, it's hard to do that when you don't believe in science.
I believe in science - hence my Atheism.

But I am not a person who blindly believes anything that anyone in a suit or labcoat says, especially when the suits and labcoats are paid by others to do the research and posting of findings.

I'll tell ya's what...

If a high ranking environmental (or whatever they're called) scientist conducts his/her own research using their own money - along with an independent and non-funded panel of dudes from all over the world to monitor and authenticate the findings - I'll give them 5 years to come up with some results....no computer projections, no predictions; no Politicians or self-interest groups or lobbyists, no fanatical left-wing musicians or actors or greenies...

If after 5 years of all that they can show me conclusive proof that we are on a path to doomsday, the world is about to explode and the sky will fall in...

then I'll shut up.
 
See where I have a problem with this CC/GW crowd?

I see a problem with understanding science, rationality and far to much, "I'm a greybeard, I know best".

The science is in. I'm not going to waste time on people who insist that 1+1 = 3. You don't have any logical ability to see the truth. Keep wearing your tin foil hat.

As a side note. Your dangerous opinions will hurt my children and grandchildren to come, so I can truly and easily say that I don't like you.
 
I see a problem with understanding science, rationality and far to much, "I'm a greybeard, I know best".

The science is in. I'm not going to waste time on people who insist that 1+1 = 3. You don't have any logical ability to see the truth. Keep wearing your tin foil hat.

As a side note. Your dangerous opinions will hurt my children and grandchildren to come, so I can truly and easily say that I don't like you.


The above post smacks of a lack of objectivity and a tendency to blindly believe unqualified doctrine.
I hope for the world's sake, you don't influence your children or grandchildren too much.
 
The above post smacks of a lack of objectivity and a tendency to blindly believe unqualified doctrine.
I hope for the world's sake, you don't influence your children or grandchildren too much.

Sounds like she is believing 97% of the world's scientists whereas the deniers like BayView appear tp be the ones following unqualified doctrine, u have this backwards
 
I have a science degree and I question most things. My year 12 chemistry teacher said, "the most important thing I can teach you is to question everything". But some I don't need to, eg. Evolution, The Theory(*) of Gravity, various mathematical axioms, etc. Do I need to prove the sun will come up tomorrow? Should I make sure the wings of the A380 I fly in actually has the ability to lift the plane? Hell, who needs a doctor, lets go with what Duggy down at the pub said, she'll be right maaaaaate.

The IPCC has concluded to a very high degree of confidence that climate change is real and caused by humans. No it isn't 100% but what sort of moron would gamble with the planet? If you knew that there was a 90% that your house would burn down would you get insurance? Their findings are published, their findings are open. Anyone can read them, analyse them and make comment. You are free to conduct your own research, but none of you offensive deniers do.

And I do take offense, because these poisonous dangerous opinions are hampering us from actually working to fix the problem and this will hurt generations to come. Hundreds of millions will die and you sit there and go blahblahnotlisteningfingersareinmyears. That is truly offensive and immoral.

I'm stunned and astounded that none of you are going after the very real big dollars that is to be had in proving that climate change is false. I would do it, I have an obligation to seek truth, I might not like it, but that's life. As we say "put up or shut up". Publish your papers. Every person on here will back you 100% when you show that climate change is false.


Asimov said...

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"


(*) In science a "theory of blah" means some quite different to common english meaning of the word theory.
 
I have a science degree and I question most things.
It's a pity that science degree didn't come with the skill of discussions on the internet where you play the ball and not the man.

I don't appreciate being personally attacked via PM's and if you do it again I will report you to my mum..

You are fortunate I have a thick skin.

If you want to attack me, that's fine - just do it here in the open so I can have some fun and amuse the others while we are at it.

Just to recap and annoy you and Sanj a tad more;

If we get back to my mate Tim Flannery again - he - as far as I know - was quoting science when he announced we would run out of water; did he not?

So, whilst you guys pin all your opinions on science in this matter; my point is be careful about where that scientific information is coming from and don't blindly accept it because as we all know; stats and figures can be wildly manipulated.

I assume you guys know that.

I love this...so much fun....
 
Last edited:

And yet, the AMS sent this letter to the government:

http://www.conbio.org/images/content_policy/2013-2-8_Presidential_Climate_Science-Policy_Summit_Letter.pdf

"With the significant increases in damage due to climate-driven weather extremes, ranging from more intense storms like Superstorm Sandy, more intense and frequent wildfires, severe flooding, and prolonged droughts, people are becoming increasingly aware that something is wrong and that the Federal government needs to take action. For example, the costs of the recent Midwest drought and Superstorm Sandy may exceed $100 billion.1 By taking bold and creative steps to address climate change, you have a unique opportunity to make climate change solutions a signature part of your legacy. Since technological innovation alone will not be sufficient to fully address climate change, it is important to harness the ability of the natural world to regulate our climate and provide essential services such as filtering air and water."
 
So, whilst you guys pin all your opinions on science in this matter; my point is be careful about where that scientific information is coming from and don't blindly accept it because as we all know; stats and figures can be wildly manipulated.
I stumbled on this thread because I found the 'New Posts' feature. Good point though. All of us trust scientists and are eager to make use of what science knows to improve our lives.
...so I can have some fun and amuse the others
I love this...so much fun...
I've taken the following quote from this paper (Warning! science inside :p) so please don't take this as playing the man rather than the ball. :cool:
Because others within their groups quite understandably view the stances these individuals take as an important cue on what is collectively known, their aggressive deployment of their reason to protect their position will radiate outward, amplifying polarization.
Such antagonistic meanings, then, are a form of pollution in the science communication environment. They degrade the cues that individuals use, ordinarily with success, to recognize collective knowledge essential to their decision making
 
So, whilst you guys pin all your opinions on science in this matter; my point is be careful about where that scientific information is coming from and don't blindly accept it because as we all know; stats and figures can be wildly manipulated.
You're basing your opinion on anecdotal evidence gathered from your window, and a guy from an internet forum who reckons stuff just like you, and telling people to beware of peer reviewed science upon which close to 100% of the science community agree with. No wonder you're having fun, you're having us all on.
 
Bayview: Doesn't believe in science, uses the internet and GPS.
Ha! you can't read spludge.

I did say I believe in science back in post #84

What I do say is I don't trust scientists - none of them are acting independently and without bias and other "pressure".

Otherwise; why would they cherry-pick only the sites which showed a favourable result for a warming trend, but rejected a perfectly good site in the same area that showed a cooling trend?

I mean; you have to question everything; when a whole species can go out and kill and wipe out whole other volumes of humans in the name of some bloke noone has ever clapped eyes on - you gotta worry about what anybody thinks or says - especially when there is a buck to be made.
 
Back
Top