Don’t really have a point to be honest, just riffing on how someone who felt strongly enough about something might be able to convince themselves that democracy has failed.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
Well I thought his point was: does global warming give people that think they are informed the right to impose policies on others they believe are uninformed or misinformed? Not so much a discussion about what Jefferson said.
lamb22 said:
Firstly, you can ignore what Gillard said about no carbon tax the day before the election as much as you like, but it diminishes your capacity to debate this seriously. Between that and your selective quoting, I no longer take you seriously and am starting to believe you are just having us all on for a laugh. Secondly, are you watching Windsor and Oakeshott backpedal? This just may not happen.
Total Tiger said:
I don't think dismissing Gillards pre-election statement necessarily lessens Lambys points on global warming itself. The statement certainly weakens any attempt by Labor to take the high moral ground on any issues tho.
Ironically, my vote might actually have found it's way to Labor at the last election if they HAD announced a carbon tax policy (just maybe...).
Giardiasis said:
Indeed. Which is why your statement "think they are informed" is crucial to all of this.
I am interested to know whether you are against carbon pricing (as it would seem) and if you are, is it because you don't see CO2 as an issue, or don't see carbon pricing as a solution to the problem?
If the the latter, what do you think the best course of action is. Wait and see?
If the former, we come back to the original point and I would be interested to know the basis of that position.
Total Tiger said:
Problem Total is that you are misinformed and actually believe the rubbish the media feed you:
This is what Windsor said on lateline a couple of days ago
People in his electorate are telling him that they want a productive debate, rather than one dominated by politics.
"They want it a little bit more advanced than the word 'lie' and the word 'tax," he said.
"I think they want to find out what could happen, what sort of contribution we should be making, what are the advantages in regional Australia for instance in terms of renewable energy?"
He says he would like the same, and says he needs plenty more information about the implicit price of carbon and how Australia's efforts sit globally before the Government can win his vote.
"There's a lot of ifs and coulds... I haven't ruled anything in or out, because there isn't anything,"
And he said this on the day of the announcement of the framework AT THE PRESS CONFERENCE
WINDSOR: Your question if I can remember it Lenore relates to the proposal. This is very much the start of a process in my view. I know that you were trying to get some information from Greg there a moment ago in terms of the transport issue. There’s a lot discussion to take place, on this issue, what we have established today is a framework to attempt to work within. Now that doesn’t mean that the game is over. In my view, and one of the reasons I wanted to be involved in this Committee, was we wanted Professor Garnaut to look at the international stage as to what was happening, either with or without the emissions trading schemes, what is happening globally, and also for the Productivity Commission to look at some of these competitive aspects and the impacts of various prices and different systems on our nation. And so I see this and please don’t construe through my presences here that I will be actually supporting any scheme. I’m more than happy to be involved in a process within this framework, but there is a whole range of unanswered questions that all of us have to deal with until we reach conclusion. I’m pleased about the way in which agriculture and land use management, landscape management and some of those issues are being addressed both in the committee and in the boarder community and I will be one of the interests that I will be looking at as well.
JOURNALIST: Just to clarify that, because people are saying that by next year we will have a starting point, are you saying that it’s possible by next year we might not have a starting point?
WINDSOR: I think that all options are on the table. This is a framework to work within. We’ve made progress. Obviously, there would have to be there would have to be an agreement in both houses of Parliament of a model that we all agree with. We haven’t seen that model yet and I’m sure there would be arguments and issues raised. Nothing’s settled in my view, I can only speak for myself. I think that the globe, and this is a personal view, should be looking at doing something in relation to climate change. Whether Australia doing something in the context of the globe will be sufficient to have any meaningful effect, my vote will not only be determined on what the committee does, but also in terms of the information and feedback from the globe as to what it’s doing.
Windsor's position has been clear all the time but his initial comments were MISREPRESENTED so that they appeared to be an endorsement and acceptance of a carbon tax and his later statements were MISREPRESENTED so that they appear like a retreat. Its a standard Murdoch rag trick to imply BACKFLIPS or LACK of TICKER or CHARACTER.
Its so commonplace that misrepresentations become self evident truths such as the best performing economy in the OECD is mismanaging the economy or how the best job creating recession avoiding stimulus program in the developed world was a waste of money or how thermometors recording higher temperatures means the world is cooling.
I do not think that industrial CO2 emissions are something to be concerned about. The evidence as I've seen it involves pumping a whole bunch of assumptions into a model, and claiming that we can predict what will happen to the climate in 100 years. For a theory to be vindicated via the scientific method, it requires reproducibility, especially if we are going to engage in a massive change to our way of life. I'm not prepared to do it unless that milestone is achieved.Panthera tigris FC said:
We know the temperatures on average are higher than a century ago, but give me a reproducible experiment to prove the theory and I'll get on board.
Giardiasis said:
This betrays a common misconception about the scientific method. Use of terms like a reproducible experiment to prove the theory suggest that you are waiting for some single experiment to solidify the consensus. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Scientific theories represent our best model of the natural world, given the body of empirical evidence. Current theories on the climate strongly support the conclusion that burning of fossil fuels and the resultant increase in atmospheric CO2 has led to ever increasing global temperatures.
The models that you refer to are the predictions of the long term consequences of this trend and have to make assumptions based on our current knowledge of climate and the various feedback mechanisms that will impact on the long term effects of the currently observed warming. Of course there is scientific debate about the accuracy and degree of error inherent in these models, but the overall consensus is clear that we are moving into uncharted waters as a species and even the conservative models don't bode well for our society.
The basis of these models are current observations of warming, the known physics behind CO2 and its greenhouse effects, historical data on atmospheric CO2 and global climate and known feedback/feedforward mechanisms that will be triggered by these rising temperatures. If you disagree with these models (and scientists do debate them and their precision) then it is useful to understand where you see their shortcomings. Otherwise it just comes across as an argument from incredulity (and a self-serving one at that).
So we have a choice, ignore those models, stating that the level of uncertainty is too great to warrant action, or attempt to make changes to reduce the likelihood of long term changes to our climate that our current civilization will struggle to cope with. I, personally, feel that the long term risks of performing an experiment on our climate is not worth the long term risks that if presents to us as a species, not to mention the countless other species that are already going extinct as we debate (we are currently going through a mass extinction event that is attributed to human activity).
I don't think we need to give up our way of life, but we need to recognise that humans, for the first time in our short history can and are having a global impact through our activities. We just need to take steps to ensure that we don't sabotage ourselves in the process.
So, again, I would ask you where you disagree. It would also be useful to understand why you disagree and where you see the flaws in the current scientific consensus.
Panthera tigris FC said:
To be fair to Giardadis, he provided a link to a scientific article that was critical of the IPCC 'consensus': the Arkansas Uni guy. Despite the scientist being eminently qualified in the field, he was summarily attacked by Lamby on the grounds that he was a God-botherer.
I think that is know as "poisoning the well' logical fallacy. I was surprised when you didn't come out in G's defence
I am waiting for irrefutable proof that human CO2 emissions are going to lead to disaster. I have not seen any data that does this. In fact the data that supposedly should, does not re. hot spot. Nothing else can justify the type of change to our economy that many have advocated for. It is nice that theories are our best bet, but they are not good enough to make solid policy changes on.Panthera tigris FC said:
If in doubt, a theory with no evidence is more likely to be wrong than right.
It is all guess work based on past trends. I would liken it to predicting interest rate rises or growth forecasts in 100 years time.Panthera tigris FC said:
Consensus is a dirty word. I don't care how many people get on the bandwagon, I'll make an assessment for myself thanks. I think I have put my feelings forward adequately.Panthera tigris FC said:
evo said:To be fair to Giardadis, he provided a link to a scientific article that was critical of the IPCC 'consensus': the Arkansas Uni guy. Despite the scientist being eminently qualified in the field, he was summarily attacked by Lamby on the grounds that he was a God-botherer.
I think that is know as "poisoning the well' logical fallacy. I was surprised when you didn't come out in G's defence
I posted a critque of his works including the fact that he had to admit that his work which showed cooling was flawed and actually the opposite was correct.
He is also a scientist who does not believe in evolution. So he doesn't belive in evolution and belives in creation and produces flawed papers on the climate change issue.
Him waiting for the rapture is just a bonus extra!
Pathera
Gia wants unequivical proof of what will happen in the future. He wont get that. His reasons are not particularly cognt but he is entitled to his opinion as a mere pleb like us.
However the issue I would ask Gia is that if the decision was his and his alone and the preponderance of evidence showed the negative outcomes we are talking about would he really be willing to gamble our kids lives on it?
Gia wants unequivical proof of what will happen in the future. He wont get that. His reasons are not particularly cognt but he is entitled to his opinion as a mere pleb like us.
However the issue I would ask Gia is that if the decision was his and his alone and the preponderance of evidence showed the negative outcomes we are talking about would he really be willing to gamble our kids lives on it?
Giardiasis said:
Can you define the evidence that would suffice? Our best estimates suggest that there could be a problem. Do we just wait until it is too late. The data does suppor the current theories.
I don't think you are using the word "theory" in the scientific sense.
No evidence? Have you even bothered to look?
It is not all guesswork based on past trends. The historic data is informative, but that is only part of the evidence that forms the current view.
Consensus is not a dirty word. It is the view of the vast majority of experts in the field and your dismissal as a novice maverick with your own "assessment" carries little weight in the absence of contradictory evidence.
Your feelings have been put forward and you have still failed to outline where the flaws lie in the current models.
evo said:To be fair to Giardadis, he provided a link to a scientific article that was critical of the IPCC 'consensus': the Arkansas Uni guy. Despite the scientist being eminently qualified in the field, he was summarily attacked by Lamby on the grounds that he was a God-botherer.
I think that is know as "poisoning the well' logical fallacy. I was surprised when you didn't come out in G's defence
So you are convinced?
To be fair to Lamby he also pointed out the retraction.
The "god-botherers" don't tend to be too worried about warming trends. All part of God's plan after all!
lamb22 said:
Facts aren't matters of opinion. I would prefer to see his actual issues with the current climate models beyond "I don't want to believe it and that is my right".
It is clear that he is willing to gamble our kid's lives on it. Apparently industrial CO2 emissions are nothing to worry about.
Generally I don't find the science that interesting. It is the politics and the way the science is interpreted and disseminated that is the intriguing bit (to me).Panthera tigris FC said:
What has that got to do with the scientific method? Did it effect how he gathered his data?
