Slashdot Mirror
Top Advisor To Australian Gov't Says Climate Change is a UN Conspiracy
An anonymous reader writes: Maurice Newman, the top business advisor to conservative Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, today published an opinion piece (paywalled) in which he claims, "It's a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models ... have been found ... to be in error." He goes on to write "This is not about facts or logic. It's about a new world order under the control of the UN." While Newman's 'skeptical' views have long been on record, it's unclear when he came to believe in this vast global conspiracy. Last year, the Abbott government removed Australia's Emissions Trading Scheme, and recently gave $4 million in funding to contrarian Bjorn Lomberg, while cutting hundreds of millions of dollars from science across the country.
Deniers will apparently just claim that "95%" of science is bogus if it disagrees with their pre-determined world view, causing cognitive dissonance.
How much you want to bet this lunatic is also a rabid fundamentalist following some ancient texts?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
The world really is in the hands of idiots, and people who have been bought off by industry.
The degree of willful ignorance about what's happening around us can only come from massive stupidity, flawed ideology, or corporate interests.
Fucking idiots.
There is no doubt that politicians love to use this a leverage to gain more power and control over the lives of the people.
on the fucking barby.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
I've worked in a university and I know full well that getting 3 academics in a room generally means having at least 4 opinions on any given topic. Getting academics to agree on anything is like herding cats. I would almost like there to be a grand conspiracy of thousands of academics. It would be the proof I require that they _can_ be induced to agree on a topic ;p
-- Gaxx
See, there are batshit crazy politicians elsewhere as well!
...even if it was all wrong. What's the side-effect of reducing pollute? We're all less likely to die of cancer?
Woe is me--such a terrible world! Why did not we do the rational thing and spend all of that money on bombs?! Hindsight, I stab at thee!
"It's a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models ... have been found ... to be in error."
Ha ha ha. He used the notorious passive voice: "have been found". I wonder why?
Clues:
1. Does not specify who did the finding.
2. Provides no link to any actual information.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
I'm all for more sustainable industry and living, but what annoys me greatly is when some rich oligarch tells us that we should start living more sustainably. Yet he flew from his third house in the south of France, in his private jet, to said conference to give the speech. Those scientists, politicians, and their associated cronies are never subject to the brunt of their legislative powers.
You'll especially never see a fortune 500 C-level exec taking the sustainable route when it comes to their living.
I'd be more inclined to take a lot of their positions if they actually practiced what the preached. A lot of what I actually see from these people is, "austerity for you and not for me." Why should I live like a pauper so my neo-feudal Lord can consume more nice things for less?.
Can I make an appeal that the comments NOT become dominated by the crazies from both sides? Everytime an article like this comes to Slashdot, the prophets of doom come on decrying how anyone not sufficiently panicked and desperate is an insane denier like the bonafide loonie in the article.
After that it devolves into 'proving' the other side is wrong by pointing at the false claims made by the nuts on the opposite 'side'.
sigh, I know it's naive, but it needs saying.
The UN is a menace, and before long you will have to take your Mark on the forehead! Read your Bible!
-proud AR-15 owner.
What about the aboriginal massacres? Murderers and liars don't reform themselves..
Anyone from a big city should know from first hand experience that cars raise the temperature.
Busy asphalt-land is many degrees hotter than rural areas.
...It's a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models ... have been found ... to be in error....
Yes, most, if not all, of the climate are in error. They do not forecast the global climate with 100% accuracy.
.
They never will forecast the global climate with 100% accuracy. So they will always be in error.
However, they currently are accurate enough to forecast a future climate that has problems, and time is running out to prevent those problems from growing so large that they are all but irreversible.
The question is, do we start to address global warming now? Or do we wait until the models have 100% accuracy, at which time it will be too late to do anything about the problem.
If the President tried to set up something like that, Congress would refuse to fund it, Russia would Veto it, and the French would be against it just because the US was for it.
But even assuming it was possible for the UN to run a conspiracy, his own statements contradict him. Errors do not equal "Conspiracies", they equal incompetence. Conspiracies would involve intentionally falsified data - such as his personal statement that the UN is running a conspiracy.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Stop.trolling you pathetic troll. While you may get a couple.of your atheist brethren slapping you on the back for your troll, show me proof that any specific religion hold a specific stance on climate change. Oh, you can not because there is none except in you own delusion. You know... the same distorted reality you accuse others of having.
is a senile old fart, as countries go, with nothing to show for the future except additional sclerotic hardening of the ideology. Oh well, it was a good run while it lasted. Look East, young men.
Got plenty of friends in academia who'll tell you that bad theories end up sticking for decades because of groupthink. The same people writing the papers are approving the papers are funding the grants and picking their successors in departments. Dissent is career suicide.
I'd be hard pressed to believe an Einstein today could get a fair hearing, even though he was right. Don't tell me consensus === facts.
Newman didn't say climate change was a "hoax"; the term "hoax" implies deliberate deception and conspiracy. What politicians are doing is taking advantage of existing circumstances and a kernel of truth, exaggerating it, fabricating a crisis out of it, and using it to increase their powers and funnel massive amounts of money to their financial backers. And what managers are doing, including managers at the UN, is come up with justifications for why their budget and staff should increase, and why they are doing a good job.
All of that works best for all involved if they all agree on some crises to address: fighting pollution, fighting cancer, fighting human trafficking, whatever. Some of those crises are real, some aren't. For large numbers of people to agree in this way requires no conspiracy, just like building an iPhone or a toaster is accomplished by thousands of people and suppliers who don't know anything about each other. A few people pick some crises, latch on to it, an if it works well for them, others join in. It's like a free market, just in crises and bad ideas.
The hysteria over climate change is no different from the hysteria over terrorism, where politicians pass privacy-invading legislation to further their ends. Terrorism isn't a "hoax" either, after all it does occasionally happen, but its significance is blown out of all proportion.
Yes, humans are causing climate change (I didn't see Newman denying that, but it really doesn't matter where he stands on the matter). It isn't clear that that's a bad thing in the first place. But even if it is, all governmental proposals attempting to prevent climate change clearly are utterly ineffective. The amount of economic disruption caused by actually stopping the increase in atmospheric carbon right now would cause would simply not be tolerated by voters. And the economic disruptions caused by the current token gestures ("at least we're doing something") likely will delay a switch to renewables. What security theater is to terrorism, climate change policies are to climate change.
I'm not surprised that Tony Abbott would have a conspiracy theorist like Maurice Newman as an advisor. He always struck me as being the real life version of Snidely Whiplash from the Dudely Do-Right segments of the "Rocky and Bullwinkle Show".
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
"Now it would be very remarkable if any system existing in the real world could be exactly represented by any simple model. However, cunningly chosen parsimonious models often do provide remarkably useful approximations. For example, the law PV = RT relating pressure P, volume V and temperature T of an "ideal" gas via a constant R is not exactly true for any real gas, but it frequently provides a useful approximation and furthermore its structure is informative since it springs from a physical view of the behavior of gas molecules."
"For such a model there is no need to ask the question 'Is the model true?'. If 'truth' is to be the 'whole truth' the answer must be 'No'. The only question of interest is 'Is the model illuminating and useful?'." - George Box
The recent disclosure that climate change advocates have purposely ignored averages and instead have inputted positive increases in temp where non was really there. If your going to have people take you claims seriously, you cannot fudge numbers to make your point. I have no doubt much of this has to do with a unified effort to advance alternative energy and eliminate fossil fuels. Both of which are fine goals but to make up some dire predictions that so far have not happened does not make this any more acceptable to people as a whole. Even people who once were on the climate change bandwagon have since come out and said, the numbers do not bear out the predictions. Not that we should walk away from making changes, but that being Chicken Little and crying the sky is falling when its not has pretty much run its course.
From http://www.smh.com.au/national...:
Newman has long sold himself as an intellectual maverick and independent thinker. "He gets mileage out of his climate scepticism," says a former senior Liberal. "It suits him to sustain it."
Newman's assertions - climate scientists call them "zombie arguments", because they keep on popping up - have all been comprehensively debunked, repeatedly and in detail, by national academies of science around the world, including the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, the Royal Society of London and the Australian Academy of Science. Andy Pitman, a climate scientist from the University of NSW, tells me that, "Newman's arguments are so wrong they are inconsistent with some fundamental laws of physics."
I wonder what the actual errors are?
Could they be ranging from "Our data in South Whatever wasn't complete" or "We underestimated how much Foo mattered?" rather than the "Lies, Lies, Lies straight from the pit of Hell" that I'm sure this person wants us to believe they were?
Not that I imagine his statistic is anything but a made-up rhetorical bit of emphasis of his own creation. Or he's counting predictions from Nostradamus to pad the numbers.
I wonder what he thinks Planned Parenthood does 90% of the time?
spirit of creation in a tailspin,, or are we just being hoodwinked again? 1000s of our genuine spiritual & physical allys continue dying daily from 100% preventable starvation, rockets red glare, babys bursting in air etc... still no one is responsible,, good neighbors http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUeNtM6qakk bad "weather' https://www.youtube.com/results? search_query=wmd+weather+media+censorship... we hang on to our hemispheres as the lights are coming up all over now..... rock on /. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-kA3UtBj4M
"Top Advisor To Australian Gov't Is A Clueless Opinionated Moron".
Shorter headline too.
If Maurice Newman is right or wrong about climate change he is still right about a UN conspiracy.
The US and UN have worked very hard to make climate change not be about science but rather consensus. They have also Villainized people who have a different view. This is not science and this has been driven by diplomats and politicians.
Certainty some of the changes as part of preventing climate change are good. Better housing insulation reduces electricity use saving money and our impact on the environment. Other have been very bad for instance Solyndra. All of those lost dollars could have made a difference somewhere instead of going to a company that did not have a sound business model to begin with.
Before you ask....
Is Climate change real - Yes... Its clear from our history that our climate changes and will continue to change.
Does man impact the climate - Yes. When we build dams and levvys we control flooding, and change an environment. It changes the surface water density changing general humidity and ultimately climate. If this happens with water it likely happens with other items. How many square miles of roads are in the US.
Does man made C02 cause climate change --- I don't know. Historical models (which were still using to product Doom) have been wildly inaccurate. Environmental history shows massive variations in climate over time. There is simply too few facts coming to the surface and too little valid academic debate since politicians have gotten involved.
P.S as my subject says the comments prove he is right on the conspiracy. Without even looking at what he says, many people have already posted that they dismiss him as a crazy nut. Its not facts, its political. When its political someone is trying to gain...
Mr. Newman is right on. He sees climate science for what it is, the most corrupt, politicized scientific discipline in history, being a leftist political wedge. Reject climate hysteria.
countries, the major ones anyway, gone completely mad? Well, I guess I shouldn't include Canada, or should I? This is in reaction to something, but I just don't understand what it is. This so-call fiscal conservative + anti-reason + racist + I've got mine so fuck you mind set really needs to go.
The secret is so well-kept, that only he knows it.
Has he _met_the UN?
CO2 levels started increasing during the industrial revolution when we started burning coal for fuel instead of wood.
This was long before the UN or even the League of Nations
According to http://www.un.org/en/members/ , Australia is part of the UN. I think it would then be more accurate to describe this conspiracy as an Australian Government conspiracy than an UN conspiracy.
The short story "The Marching Morons" by CM Cornbluth should be required reading, it would illuminating.
Get 4 academics/researchers in a room and each will have numerous, and maybe half a dozen "math models" each. Then they pick one they think might be "right." What is not discussed is that models are inherently modeling chaotic systems.
Chaotic systems can flip their path (trajectory or outcome if you will) based on things that occur in the 9th, 12th or 20th decimal point. This is well known to mathematicians.
So, are we to alter society and effectively drain its resources to try to accomplish something that is estimated but not proven to be correct? And does everyone share in the expense, or only the richest 6 countries. And if only the richest countries spend tons of money, can they get any desirable result with the rest of the world not paying attention, let alone money and methods, to "fix" whatever is estimated to help.
Climate is a morass best left to God.
Not sure what your idea of recent is, but I have some pretty old books on mathematical astronomy dating back to the 70's that all refer to the Earth as an oblate spheroid.
Despite Record High CO2 http://www.drroyspencer.com/20...
And the models previously predicted 0.17C per decade warming.
You've just proven the modes either right or underestimating the problem.
Are you sure you meant to do that? It's rather devastating to your case.
95% of climate models 'have been found to be in error'. Of course, if he's defining being in error as having any sort of mistake in the model, it's not only true but 5% low.
When someone says, "Any fool can see
I've been a green principalist for many, many years. Did not even have a car. Still don't fly. Vegetarian. Over the last few years, I've somehow changed. Now I own a car and a motorcycle. Use the shower that extra time.
Why?
Because now, I believe that climate change, oil peak, may be real, may be fake, but anyway, distract us from the real thing. The original Tesla free energy. He had the systems going about a hundred years ago. Then, his money supply was unplugged - the banker JP Morgan had interst in the oil business as well.
Here we are, still arguing over these bogus subjects, while we should have had free energy a long time ago.
And does everyone share in the expense, or only the richest 6 countries. And if only the richest countries spend tons of money, can they get any desirable result with the rest of the world not paying attention, let alone money and methods, to "fix" whatever is estimated to help.
Climate is a morass best left to God.
Which is why we can only stop it by having a single world government, able to make the decisions without the national infighting and disagreements. We need some kind of different order to the world. Perhaps we could encourage the UN to take on this role and push for this 'new world order' as it might be called. What could go wrong?
Gotta dupe the unwashed masses in believing man made global warming (climate change), in order to get them to walk
in step to give up all rights, so the UN can become our "new world order" government.
95% of statistics are pulled out of someone ass and refarted around.
Cutting down the rain forest and polluting waters where plankton grow drastically contributes to CO2 levels. As you burn you release it and take out some of the vegetation absorbing it. Another thing is all these air conditioners vs evaporative coolers. If you live in a dry climate you should use evaporative coolers. Water is a precious resource, but so is heat. When you use an air conditioner it heats the surrounding environment to cool the wanted area. An evaporative cooler uses the process of evaporation to cool and contributes to cloud formation(double fold cooling) and swap coolers are easy to repair anyone can do it. All this blacktop paving roads doesn't help either. The asphalt absorbs all the heat and releases it to the environment; cement does better in so many ways and lasts longer. Why not recycle? you are going to eventually(nature does this over a long period of time) and if it saves energy to do so it saves money in the manufacturing process and reduces the area needed for landfill. Why not use less energy? With all the advances in technology you can do so much more with so much less power. Update your appliances so that you get more production with less resources. Update your vehicles. If your car is more then ten years old (and not a classic) why spend another dime on it? Buy a new vehicle with a warranty and drive it into the ground, get every penny out of your investment. It only makes sense. I'd bet if we correct what I just mentioned it would improve things ten fold. Upgrading appliances and vehicles would also improve the economy (Win win win). I don't care if you believe in Global Warming or not. Personally I think the above things I mentioned have a greater effect then the garbage being spieled out of the anti-coal and anti-gas crowd. If we can figure out how to make it worth while for the areas with the rain forests and figure a better way not to pollute the waters needed for plankton and grow economy from doing it we would have all winners. Lets make this the golden age.
Whenever we make scientific measurements of the physical world, such as length, mass, or temperature, there is always measurement error. Even an analytical balance that is capable of measuring the mass of fingerprints on a beaker has error. This guy clearly has no comprehension of science.
Firstly there is no "unproven" or "proven" theory in science. There are evidence for a theory or not. Secondely it is intrinsic in the nature of model to be an idealisation. We can't frigging model every molecule path or even every 1 liter of air over the earth to model climate. And there is the noise problem. In fact *all* physic problem beyond the two body problem are approximation. The question is : are those approximation good or bad ? Are the model representing sufficiently reality to allow a prediction or not. Scientific have presented enough evidence that the model they had represented temperature evolution enough to be a model representing enough of the reality to be used for prediction. Denier have nothing except "science is not perfect blahblahblah" and "scientist get money too ! blah blahlbha". And this is the point which is pathetic. Curiously it seems to happen far more often in the anglo saxon world (USA, australia, UK, etc...), than for example western latin and germanic europe.
As for that tidbit : " Human-made global warming: every sensible man should consider this a wild speculation at the moment".
Hu. no. We have evidence of anthropogenic global warming. It is much more than wild speculation. On the other hand "sun provocate GW" or "it is the vulcanoe" or "the model are all wrong" are BS which do not rise above speculation or terrible misudnerstanding of science.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Not sure what your idea of recent is, but I have some pretty old books on mathematical astronomy dating back to the 70's that all refer to the Earth as an oblate spheroid.
Usually, you divide the "recent" time by the lifetime of the object in question. So, if we're talking about Mayflies then recent is anytime within the last 18 minutes. Since we're talking about the Earth, then you divide the time since the very early 70s (45 years) by the age of the earth (6000 years) to get 0.7%, so, yeah. That's recent.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
The pitcher is 100ft away from you. The ball is travelling 100mph (160km/h) and appears to be heading for your head. You have a split second to make a decision. What do you do?
Are you going to wait until you know your model is 100% accurate? After all, a gust of wind can blow the ball off course. A bird could swoop or a meteorite could fall and deflect the ball. Those possibilities wouldn't be realized (or not) until they happen or the ball hits your head. What do you do?
Me? I'd dodge. The risk isn't worth the cost of dodging.
And yes, I am dodging. I've done the stuff that saves me money: efficient appliances and solar panels. I *hope* that everyone tries to do at least that.
I have starting doing stuff that doesn't save me money: planting trees, conserving forests, changing home heating systems, etc. These help the climate change and health problems, but result in a net loss in my financial account. I *don't* expect everyone to do this, just those that can do it, especially those who have made millions or billions from burning fossil fuels. You would expect people around you to clean up after themselves, right? Not solve their problems by dumping them on your yard?
No infighting from "World Government?" Wait until Indonesia, China & Russia vote against the US & dictate that the US eliminate half its use of coal and oil!
Boy won't we love that.
The IPCC has been totally discredited as a scientific organization ran by the new world order/UN
And yet even with these scientific facts you still push your parrot repeater agenda that had mind controlled you to actually consider real science
Then again, Rothschild bankers have been manipulating your every thought for hundreds of years
How much you want to bet that you're nothing more than a parrot repeater who doesn't know a single credible fact about the "Climate Change" agenda?
There is no doubt that AGW is real. Anybody that says otherwise with no clear proof is simply a blowhard. .
But that does not negate the fact that there is a UN conspiracy. The UN and far left are pushing for america and somewhat the west to drop emissions. Yet, all of the developed world, minus China, is less than 33% of emissions. China alone is more than 33% of all co2 emission. In addition, they surpass america in total emissions since 1860. And the one measurement that all ignore is that Europe has more than double America,s emissions for the last 1000 years, while China is more than double of Europe's.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I see what you did there... :)
Agreed, because perhaps the gods will make carbon dioxide and methane work differently in Earth's atmosphere than everywhere else in the observable universe so increasing their concentration won't cause anything to happen here.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels
Yes, I know that this is what both sides think. Now as far as the discussions of conspiracies by rich environmentalists go, please go to wikipedia and look up the wealthiest 100 companies. Then go and look at all the money being pumped into politics and explain to me how 90% of all the money and (and therefore power) is opposed to AGW and yet the conspiracy is supposedly about all the money being made by scientists and the potential green industries. Seriously, if you're going to claim a fucking financially motivated conspiracy, please explain the fact that all the real money in this game is in the anti-AGW camp. Conservative governments are passing laws opposing research and passing gag-rules on scientists. And the most likely conspiracy is a cabal of middle-class scientists sworn to unite the world under a UN world government? Un-fucking-believable.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
The way to truly understand the truth about an organisation (in this case, the UN) is to consider events that CANNOT be spun by the usual scum.
Everyone knows the House of Saud is the MOST depraved, sick, anti-female, anti-gay entity on the Earth. Yet its power and political influence in Washington is absolute. Those that tell you man-made climate change is 'real' are also those that back the Saudis 100%, and the two political facts are intimately connected by a fundamental truth.
The UN voted overwhelmingly to support the Saudi HOLOCAUST in Yemen. This vote included both RUSSIAN and CHINESE approval (only a VETO counts as a no-vote by the permanent members- 'abstaining' is the EXACT SAME THING as voting "yes"). Yet you beta sheeple are INSTRUCTED by Dice propagandists that there is NO SUCH THING as a NWO.
The lie of the climate change propaganda movement is encapsulated in the use of the word 'DENIER'- an Edwards Bernay playbook giveaway, but they don't care because those that no the truth are not the ones they seek to influence- only you beta dribblers that gather at watering-holes like this one.
'man made global warming' when the planet is at the tail-end of the last Ice-Age- god you Betas are so thick, ill-informed and credulous.
Obama LOVES gay marriage and the House of Saud. Excuse me, would run run that by me again. *I* get what the in-your-face contradiction REALLY means- because I except the facts and their clear implications. You Beta cretins are told to undergo all kinds of mental contortions to make the clear contradiction seem logical and consistent.
Sheeple scaring messages are NEVER true. The very fact they are drummed into the heads of Betas makes the manipulation the REAL point of the exercise.
What should scare you Betas the most is that your masters have CONSISTENTLY stated for more than 3 decades now that the Earth should hold no more than THREE BILLION people. Sooner rather than later the culling is going to begin- most likely via a World War. You Betas will be told this is just a case of "whoops apocalypse" but the planning has been going on for a very long time, and climate change propaganda is just part of the process.
Anyone who develops simulation models will tell you there are tradeoffs and unknowns that cause errors. The real issue is how significant are the errors. Weather models fall apart quickly as the predicted time frame get's large. Anyone trust the weather prediction for several weeks away? Global warming predictions are in the same vein because there are too many possible variations to the system. What the models can tell us is, given the things we know about, trends emerge.
What I find amazing is that people without understanding the limitations of the models will take them as fact or fiction when they are somewhere in-between. Because one weather model accurately predicted a hurricane when all others missed it everyone started using that model. The next hurricane was completely missed by that model, whoops!
Personally, I believe that there is substantial empirical evidence of GW even if the model predictions are off.
A guy doing this can kill more people than every psychopath in the world combined. Irresponsible lies about scientific research that fundamentally affects the future of the planet is like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater--well outside the bounds of what free speech should protect because it risks mass casualties. This guy should be lined up against a wall and shot.
This is just an excuse to continue to do nothing. It is also a backlash against the attempts to enact legislation to fix the problem. In other words politics as usual. There will always be people that deny something is true even when the facts are right in front of them. Scientists will take the constructive parts of the criticism and adjust the findings accordingly. This is just someone giving a skeptic a megaphone. Typical Slashdot. Nothing to see here move along.
"Climate change doesn't exist unless God says it exists and I'm telling you that God is not saying that it exists at all. Fear the wrath of your lord sinners!"
Solar activity just miiiiiiigggghhhhhttttt have a little bit of impact on our weather...
http://science.slashdot.org/story/15/05/08/1424254/nasa-images-massive-solar-flare
or a fool. I'l even let you choose.
instead of actual technical journals shows that the likelihood of your claims to be legitimately skeptical to be quite minimal.
I'll be dead and won't have to own up to being wrong or have to actually accept the consequences of my self-centered ignorance.
to do nothing that would adversely effect you and require yourself to clean up after yourself. Must be just luck that, to you at least, the best course of action is exactly the same thing that lets you continue to piss on everyone else for your own self-serving benefit.
Anyone who has an opinion that differs from the mainstream propaganda.
Neither is he denying that it is due to CO2.
But he is sceptic about spending a lot of money on it building wind turbines, solar panels etc because it according to his own calculations help so very little compared to the cost. He think the money is better spent on research such more effective methods can be developed.
I disagree but find that he is treated unfairly by the pro climate change.
I wish I could find it, but there's a comic with a bunch of scientists debating climate and one of them says something to the effect of,
"Wait a minute! What if we reduce pollution, create a whole new industry of well-paying high-tech jobs, achieve energy independence, and it's all for nothing?"
http://blogs.scientificamerica...
Quote: "I’ve come to the conclusion that the technical details are the easy part. It’s the social engineering that’s the killer." "To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers." If these Utopian statists get their way, say goodbye to freedom and liberty.
This subject is always framed as, "Who believes this is real?" Framing a subject as who believes vs. who doesn't believe only results in politicians pitting people against each other, and dominates the discussion and mindshare of the public. When maybe, we should be asking other, better questions?
Practical Questions such as:
What is the risk of going to war, when a country or region supplies large volumes of oil?
How much do wars cost in terms of lives and money?
How is the public impacted financially by the oil that we depend on from other countries to meet demand that exceeds our domestic production?
How are leaders like Putin impacted geopolitically when oil prices are low?
How are citizens of countries that depend on oil for a large percentage of their budgets impacted by oil prices?
How much more oil is left in the ground that is economically sensible to recover and what will we do when we run out?
What alternative energy source would provide the same energy density, portability, and availability as oil?
Mr. Newman, Australia have no nuclear weapons so it has nothing to lose when the new world order cometh. Please stick to the science of economy instead of trampling over the swollen toes of political scientists.
Obviously no one wants global warming. If the UN was involved in some crazy sort of conspiracy to take over the world just why would they want a severely damaged world? If I wanted to take over the world I would want every inch of it to be lovely, healthy and productive. Many people simply can not face the reality that global warming is going to slam us really hard. All of our best efforts can only take a bit of the edge off of the tribulations that warming and rising seas will heap upon us.
Get 4 academics/researchers in a room and each will have numerous, and maybe half a dozen "math models" each. Then they pick one they think might be "right." What is not discussed is that models are inherently modeling chaotic systems.
Chaotic systems can flip their path (trajectory or outcome if you will) based on things that occur in the 9th, 12th or 20th decimal point. This is well known to mathematicians.
So, are we to alter society and effectively drain its resources to try to accomplish something that is estimated but not proven to be correct? And does everyone share in the expense, or only the richest 6 countries. And if only the richest countries spend tons of money, can they get any desirable result with the rest of the world not paying attention, let alone money and methods, to "fix" whatever is estimated to help.
Climate is a morass best left to God.
Climate is not chaotic, at least not in the way you are thinking. The temperature on the Earth is more of an energy balance problem.
you have a room full of group-thinkers who exist within an intellectual bubble. The AGW bubble is one of the most-thoroughly self-reenforcing though bubbles of modern times, with members fighting to get dissenters fired from their jobs, blocked from publishing dissenting papers, prevented from seeing raw data etc.
Conspiracies are only required when the people involved disagree on some things but must secretly meet to make agreements to work together on a particular thing - AND when they think the public would reject that thing. When a group has unanimity or believes the public supports them, they need no conspiracy. As an example of this: there is no "conspiracy" within the Obama administration required to get them to do the things they do - they all have the same world-view and the same goals and agenda, so they do stuff along the same political lines.
There is no UN "conspiracy" on global warming; the UN has been quite open about its agendas, even publishing papers on the subject. They have on many occasions declared that they are all-in on climate change, declared that global action by both member states and the UN are necessary, declared that the UN and member states must work together to control the behavior of their populations and re-distribute wealth, etc. NONE of this is a conspiracy - it's right there in the open in black-and-white print, in speeches, in piles of PDF files, and so-on. The vast majority of the IPCC people who have for years been warning us that we are only months away from a "tipping point" on global warming are NOT in fact scientists (most are politicians, activists, journalists, secretaries, etc NOT actual scientists)
Saying that this is a secret conspiracy is nuts, but so is denying the UN agenda.... which is BOTH nuts AND dishonest "denialism"
"What's the side-effect of reducing pollute?"
um...
1. Poverty - reduced employment as industries are suppressed, and lower wages as higher-paying industrial jobs are suppressed in favor of lower-paying "service industry" jobs.
2. Poor health - poorer people with fewer resources have less access to good medicine, doctors, safe food, sanitary products, etc both because they have less money and also because the supplies of these things are reduced.
3. Massive wealth inequality - The rich always manage to stay rich and get the products and services they want (they'll ALWAYS have their mansions and super yachts and private jets) so when you suppress consumer goods, manufacturing etc its the middle class who get pushed-down into the pooerer classes thereby exacerbating the wealth gap.
4. Lost opportunity - All that suppression of new business and new technology in the name of a pure environment blocks an unknown number of new ideas from becoming products and/or services (providing both jobs, things that might have made many people's lives better) and and has potentially eliminated entire industries before they even arose.
5. Political strife - when the above happen and are seen growing worse, it's a matter of time before the people being pushed-down have to be held down by martial force or they rebel.
"Reducing pollution" always SOUNDS great, in isolation - but there is no context. How MUCH of a reduction? At what COST? Is there something else that would have the same (or lower) costs (financial and/or other) while providing the same (or greater) benefits?
"What could be wrong with reducing pollution?" is a dishonest political slogan used to mislead the simple-minded; it's not a serious question or a public policy prescription.
Every single famous advocate for AGW has been spectacularly WRONG.
The non-scientist advocates like Al Gore, who claimed big weather events like Katrina were evidence of climate change (but does not seem to notice the current period of VERY FEW hurricanes and such and therefore does not see this lull as an argument against AGW) have been wrong.
The "experts" in the field who actually ARE scientists like Dr Hanson who, in Jan 2009 said Obama only had 4 years to save us from AGW (so it's already too late - we've been doomed for 2 years now...) have also been wrong.
"Climate Science" seems to be the only science that is more often wrong than right... oh wait... there WAS that "phrenology" thing back in the 1930's that was politically-connected and looked all science-y but turned put to be wrong pretty often too...
https://twitter.com/mrmauricenewman
If the results match your prediction, then yes that's good evidence, do it a few more times and we've got something serious to talk about.
You mean like climate models correctly predicting phenomena before the phenomena was observed in nature, such as, "Stratospheric cooling", "polar amplification", and the global cooling effect from a large volcanic eruption ( AKA Mt Pinatubo). There are dozens of "blind predictions" for those who care to actually look at the forecasting (and hindcasting) skill of aggregate climate models.
At the end of the day, all of science is a model, the question is why do people who obviously haven't looked at climate models doubt their utility? Why do others doubt the evolutionary model of life, or the tectonic plate model? - Those kind of doubts do not come from scientific skepticism, they come from industry funded propagandists such as the heartland institute and are then disseminated through the opinion pages of papers such as the wall street journal.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The relativity of wrong.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2dbx7DCIiY&t=467s
These people aren't stupid, they just don't see the point in being the good guy when it makes little material difference and the symbolic gesture is a very expensive one. They know they just have to hold back until newer technologies are more mature, and cheaper, then make the jump to them after they have sold off as much of their now worthless coal in the meantime. They have to dump that asset onto the market while it still has enough value to make digging it up worthwhile. The ones who are stupid are the people who can't even work out what the game really is and think that it is about political camps or religion. It isn't, it is about ruthless pragmatism, not that they will admit it. Why do you think oil is being dumped onto the market so cheaply at the same time? Same reason, obviously they know it's value will be killed by fusion power, so they need to sell it while while they can. Meanwhile they are putting their profits into shares in the new energy technologies because they don't care about carbon, they just want to own the energy market no mater what it is. I never thought I'd say this on /. but "Wake up sheeple!"
is the age of the earth 6000 years??? citation needed!
It seems obvious that this man has gotten a massive cash influx from private interest groups headed by manufacturing concerns. It should buy him plenty of tinfoil hats, but not his dignity back!
A question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?
All 5 of the major datasets (RSS, UAH, HadCRUT4, GISS, NCDC) show no warming for between 15 and 18+ years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.
The PDO has gone negative, the AMO has peaked and is on the way down and we are at the peak of our solar cycle (weak though it was). So it will get colder for the next few decades. Dr Easterbrook has a good (1945-77), bad (1880-1915) and ugly (1790-1820) prediction for the next 20 years.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-who-got-it-right-predicts-20-more-years-global
http://cns7prod.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/EasterbrookL%20coming-century-predictions.pdf
So the question stands. How long? Despite all the "hottest year ever" hype for 2014 it wasn't that warm. First it was only counting the last 150 years and only on the adjusted ground based temperatures ignoring the more accurate satellite measurements and only by a whisker. If you look at our interglacial of 10,000 years more than 95% of the years were warmer than 2014.
So how long folks? How long do you continue to put your faith in models that can't predict future climate instead of observing reality? How long?
If you want to read a great explanation of why the IPCC models are broken beyond belief there was a great article describing that and all the other problems with climate science by Dr Brown of Duke university
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
So what do the 5% that are not in error predict?
University of Western Australia was originally slated as the site for the Bjorn Lomborg "think tank" for Climate change denial.
It has now decided to hand back the $4m of funding.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
Don't blame me, it's usually 2 in the morning when I post
"Now it would be very remarkable if any system existing in the real world could be exactly represented by any simple model. However, cunningly chosen parsimonious models often do provide remarkably useful approximations. For example, the law PV = RT relating pressure P, volume V and temperature T of an "ideal" gas via a constant R is not exactly true for any real gas, but it frequently provides a useful approximation and furthermore its structure is informative since it springs from a physical view of the behavior of gas molecules. For such a model there is no need to ask the question "Is the model true?". If "truth" is to be the "whole truth" the answer must be "No". The only question of interest is "Is the model illuminating and useful?". (Box, G. E. P. (1979), "Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building", in Launer, R. L.; Wilkinson, G. N., Robustness in Statistics, Academic Press, pp. 201–236.)
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
"The Abbott government’s chief business adviser, Maurice Newman, has warned that Australia is ill prepared for global cooling owing to widespread “warming propaganda” in his latest critique of mainstream climate science. Newman, who chairs the prime minister’s Business Advisory Council, said there is evidence that the world is set for a period of cooling, rather than warming, leading to significant geopolitical problems because of a lack of preparedness. Adam Bandt, deputy leader of the Greens, said Newman’s comments were an “embarrassment to the government”. http://www.theguardian.com/env...
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
So apparently the secrets of the New World Order are not something the public should freely know. You have to pay to know "the truth" as he believes. *FAIL*
http://about.me/jimm.pratt
I believe in science, but I do wonder about the accuracy of climate scientist's models. I remember reading Richard Feynman's account of a scientist's rat-in-a-maze experiment - "STILL, the rats could tell". It detailed how hard it is to control all the variables in an experiment - in that case, to make sure the rats were operating under the rules you thought they were. The same principles would surely apply to climate models, where the system they're modelling is enormously more complex.
The fools can not even predict the weather 3 days from now correctly and you want me to believe they can predict it 5-20 years from now? Bullshit. This is about charging you for the air you breath. They have charged us for everything else and air is the last freebie on the planet. Taxes get you on food and minerals. They (california) even want to charge me taxes on the medical marijuana i grow for my personal use. That is the same as charging me to grow my own food. Which they do by way of property tax, even if you do not grow food.