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.
There is no doubt that politicians love to use this a leverage to gain more power and control over the lives of the people.
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.
...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
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."
the moldy old texts DO have relevance today!
the need to control, scare and dominate people has never changed; we needed it thousands of years ago and we still 'need' it today.
at least, that's WHY religion has not died. its the great lie told to the poor to stop them from overtaking the rich. "you'll get yours later; just let us have what we have and you'll be rewarded later."
mankind's biggest lie, I think. meant only to control and keep people in their place.
its not useful as a book of fact, but as a book of scary stories, its as 'relevant' today as it ever was.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
The secret is so well-kept, that only he knows it.
Has he _met_the UN?
Clearly, the UN has been conspiring behind the scenes much longer than most suspect.
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.
When in trouble,
Or in doubt,
Run in circles,
Scream and shout.
-- Heinlein
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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?
There is a (in my opinion) intriguing difference between what the books of the Bible say, and what is taught about them in fundamentalist churches. The disparity is actually very large. But the fundamentalist tendency to reject the facts, even about their own Bible, is truly amazing.
Here, for example, are some fun, readily-proven, facts about what the Bible says:
The word "Trinity" (a core theological concept to Fundamentalism) does not occur in the Bible ever, in any translation. The verses from which this concept is inferred are both scant and sketchy.
The "Holy Spirit" is a mistranslation of "Holy Breath," and in the Greek texts it is *never* referred-to as a person (the words used can equally well mean "it"). The translation to English of "He" is very dubious.
The word "Lucifer" (another core theological concept) doesn't occur *at all* in most translations of the Bible. It should not; it is a Latin word, which doesn't make sense in an English Bible. The relevant text was written in Hebrew, and is a prophesy about the fall of a clearly-identified human king (this is obvious to anyone who reads the whole chapter rather than two verses taken out of context). The popular English translation of "Morning Star" is particularly interesting, since in the book of Revelations, Jesus directly states "I am the Morning Star." Figure THAT out!
Jesus, being famous (in part) for establishing the doctrine of Hell in Christian theology, never once uttered the word "Hell". Aramaic, the language he spoke, didn't even have such a word. He did spend some time making metaphorical references to the valley of Gehenna, which Jerusalem used as the city dump, and which was later mistranslated as "hell" by very dubious logic.
So, the most foundational and distinguishing characteristics of Christian theology aren't even in the Bible...one must translate it strangely and make strange inferences on top of that to arrive at something sort of like what mainstream Christianity teaches.
This group also loves to insist that the Bible never contradicts itself, despite the fact that it clearly does in numerous places. They have a neat trick for resolving these contradictions....whenever two verses seem to say opposite things, one is "interpreted in the context of the other," such that one verse is seen as not really saying what it plainly says. Once you change what a verse says to what you think it actually means, then the contradiction is resolved. For example:
1 Timothy 4:10 "...we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially those who believe."
It does not say "who only saves believers." It clearly says the opposite....until you change it to resolve a contradiction.
I'll stop now. Flame on.
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.