Join up at Sportsbet - Click here


Forum Home Forum Home > All Sports - Public Forums > Joffs All Sports Bar
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Climate Change - Global Warming..
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Click here for the Thoroughbred Village Home Page - Australia's Premier Online Horse Racing Community. For village news, follow @TBVillage on Twitter. Also follow @Villagebet on Twitter for racing tips. Sign up for the village newsletter by clicking here: Newsletter Signup. To contact the Mayor by email: Click Here.

Climate Change - Global Warming..

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 263264265266267 282>
Author
Message
Dr E View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 05 Feb 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 15750
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dr E Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Apr 2017 at 3:53pm
Originally posted by Passing Through Passing Through wrote:

The times, they are a changin'

National Grid can confirm that for the past 24 hours, it has supplied GB's electricity demand without the need for #coal generation.

Today's average generation mix so far has been gas 50.3%, nuclear 21.2%, wind 12.2%, imports 8.3%, biomass 6.7%, solar 3.6%
... why cant we be like that!? ... oh that's right LEFTARDS!
Back to Top
Sponsored Links
Click here to grab your bonuses when you join up with Sportsbet.


Back to Top
Dr E View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 05 Feb 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 15750
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dr E Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 2:50am
Clive James ... so just enjoy.

 

Western climate change alarmists won’t admit they are wrong

  • CLIVE JAMES
  • The Australian

When you tell people once too often that the missing extra heat is hiding in the ocean, they will switch over to watch Game of Thrones, where the dialogue is less ridiculous and all the threats come true. The proponents of man-made climate catastrophe asked us for so many leaps of faith that they were bound to run out of credibility in the end.

Now that they finally seem to be doing so, it could be a good time for those of us who have never been convinced by all those urgent warnings to start warning each other that we might be making a comparably senseless tactical error if we expect the elastic cause of the catastrophists, and all of its exponents, to go away in a hurry.

I speak as one who knows nothing about the mathematics involved in modelling non-linear systems. But I do know quite a lot about the mass media, and far too much about the abuse of language. So I feel qualified to advise against any triumphalist urge to compare the apparently imminent disintegration of the alarmist cause to the collapse of a house of cards. Devotees of that fond idea haven’t thought hard enough about their metaphor. A house of cards collapses only with a sigh, and when it has finished collapsing all the cards are still there.

Although the alarmists might finally have to face that they will not get much more of what they want on a policy level, they will surely, on the level of their own employment, go on wanting their salaries and prestige.

To take a conspicuous if ludicrous case, Australian climate star Tim Flannery will probably not, of his own free will, shrink back to the position conferred by his original metier, as an expert on the extinction of the giant wombat. He is far more likely to go on being, and wishing to be, one of the mass media’s mobile oracles about climate. While that possibility continues, it will go on being danger­ous to stand between him and a television camera. If the giant wombat could have moved at that speed, it would still be with us.

The mere fact that few of Flannery’s predictions have ever come true need not be enough to discredit him, just as American professor Paul Ehrlich has been left untouched since he predicted that the world would soon run out of copper. In those days, when our current phase of the long discussion about man’s attack on nature was just beginning, he predicted mass death by extreme cold. Lately he predicts mass death by extreme heat. But he has always predicted mass death by extreme something.

Actually, a more illustrative starting point for the theme of the permanently imminent climatic apocalypse might be taken as August 3, 1971, when The Sydney Morning Herald announced that the Great Barrier Reef would be dead in six months.

After six months the reef had not died, but it has been going to die almost as soon as that ever since, making it a strangely durable emblem for all those who have wedded themselves to the notion of climate catastrophe.

The most exalted of all the world’s predictors of reef death, former US president Barack Obama, has still not seen the reef; but he promises to go there one day when it is well again.

In his acceptance speech at the 2008 Democratic convention, Obama said — and I truly wish that this were an inaccurate paraphrase — that people should vote for him if they wanted to stop the ocean rising. He got elected, and it didn’t rise.

The notion of a countdown or a tipping point is very dear to both wings of this deaf shouting match, and really is of small use to either. On the catastrophist wing, whose “narrative”, as they might put it, would so often seem to be a synthesised film script left over from the era of surround-sound disaster movies, there is always a countdown to the tipping point.

When the scientists are the main contributors to the script, the tipping point will be something like the forever forthcoming moment when the Gulf Stream turns upside down or the Antarctic ice sheet comes off its hinges, or any other extreme event which, although it persists in not happening, could happen sooner than we think. (Science correspondents who can write a phrase like “sooner than we think” seldom realise that they might have already lost you with the word “could”.)

When the politicians join in the writing, the dramatic language declines to the infantile. There are only 50 days (former British PM Gordon Brown) or 100 months (Prince Charles wearing his political hat) left for mankind to “do something” about “the greatest moral challenge … of our generation” (Kevin Rudd, before he arrived at the Copenhagen climate shindig in 2009).

When he left Copenhagen, Rudd scarcely mentioned the greatest moral challenge again. Perhaps he had deduced, from the confusion prevailing throughout the conference, that the chances of the world ever uniting its efforts to “do something” were very small. Whatever his motives for backing out of the climate chorus, his subsequent career was an early demonstration that to cease being a chorister would be no easy retreat because it would be a clear indication that everything you had said on the subject up to then had been said in either bad faith or ­ignorance. It would not be enough merely to fall silent. You would have to travel back in time, run for office in the Czech Republic ­instead of Australia, and call yourself Vaclav Klaus.

Australia, unlike Rudd, has a globally popular role in the ­climate movie because it looks the part.

Common reason might tell you that a country whose contribution to the world’s emissions is only 1.4 per cent can do very little about the biggest moral challenge even if it manages to reduce that contribution to zero; but your eyes tell you that Australia is burning up. On the classic alarmist principle of “just stick your head out of the window and look around you”, Australia always looks like Overwhelming Evidence that the alarmists must be right.

Even now that the global warming scare has completed its transformation into the climate change scare so that any kind of event at either end of the scale of temperature can qualify as a crisis, Australia remains the top area of interest, still up there ahead of even the melting North Pole, ­despite the Arctic’s miraculous ­capacity to go on producing ice in defiance of all instructions from Al Gore. A C-student to his marrow, and thus never quick to pick up any reading matter at all, Gore has evidently never seen the Life magazine photographs of America’s nuclear submarine Skate surfacing through the North Pole in 1959. The ice up there is often thin, and sometimes vanishes.

But it comes back, especially when some­one sufficiently illustrious confidently predicts that it will go away for good.

After 4.5 billion years of changing, the climate that made outback Australia ready for Baz Luhrmann’s viewfinder looked all set to end the world tomorrow. History has already forgotten that the schedule for one of the big drought sequences in his movie Australia was wrecked by rain, and certainly history will never be reminded by the mass media, which loves a picture that fits the story.

In this way, the polar bear balancing on the Photoshopped shrinking ice floe will always have a future in show business, and the cooling towers spilling steam will always be up there in the background of the TV picture.

The full 97 per cent of all satirists who dealt themselves out of the climate subject back at the start look like staying out of it until the end, even if they get satirised in their turn. One could blame them for their pusillanimity, but it would be useless, and perhaps unfair. Nobody will be able plausibly to call actress Emma Thompson dumb for spreading gloom and doom about the climate: she’s too clever and too creative. And anyway, she might be right. Cases like Leonardo DiCaprio and Cate Blanchett are rare enough to be called brave. Otherwise, the consensus of silence from the wits and thespians continues to be impressive.

If they did wish to speak up for scepticism, however, they wouldn’t find it easy when the people who run the big TV outlets forbid the wrong kind of humour.

On Saturday Night Live back there in 2007, Will Ferrell, brilliantly pretending to be George W. Bush, was allowed to get every word of the global warming message wrong but he wasn’t allowed to disbelieve it. Just as all branches of the modern media love a picture of something that might be part of the Overwhelming Evidence for climate change even if it is really a picture of something else, they all love a clock ticking down to zero, and if the clock never quite gets there then the motif can be exploited forever.

But the editors and producers must face the drawback of such perpetual excitement: it gets perpetually less exciting. Numbness sets in, and there is time to think after all. Some of the customers might even start asking where this language of rubber numbers has been heard before.

It was heard from Swift. In Gulliver’s Travels he populated his flying island of Laputa with scientists busily using rubber numbers to predict dire events. He called these scientists “projectors”. At the basis of all the predictions of the projectors was the prediction that the Earth was in danger from a Great Comet whose tail was “ten hundred thousand and fourteen” miles long. I should concede at this point that a sardonic parody is not necessarily pertinent just because it is funny; and that although it might be unlikely that the Earth will soon be threatened by man-made climate change, it might be less unlikely that the Earth will be threatened eventually by an asteroid, or let it be a Great Comet; after all, the Earth has been hit before.

That being said, however, we can note that Swift has got the language of artificial crisis exactly right, to the point that we might have trouble deciding whether he invented it or merely copied it from scientific voices surrounding him. James Hansen is a Swiftian figure. Blithely equating trains full of coal to trains full of people on their way to Auschwitz, the Columbia University climatologist is utterly unaware that he has not only turned the stomachs of the informed audience he was out to impress, he has lost their attention.

Paleoclimatologist Chris Turney, from the University of NSW, who led a ship full of climate change enthusiasts into the Antarctic to see how the ice was doing under the influence of climate change and found it was doing well enough to trap the ship, could have been invented by Swift. (Turney’s subsequent Guardian article, in which he explained how this embarrassment was due only to a quirk of the weather and had nothing to do with a possible mistake about the climate, was a Swiftian lampoon in all respects.)

Compulsorily retired now from the climate scene, Rajendra Pachauri, formerly chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Clim­ate Change, was a zany straight from Swift, by way of a Bollywood remake of The Party starring the local imitator of Peter Sellers; if Dr Johnson could have thought of Pachauri, Rasselas would be much more entertaining than it is. Finally, and supremely, Flannery could have been invented by Swift after 10 cups of coffee too many with Stella. He wanted to keep her laughing. Swift projected the projectors who now surround us.

They came out of the grant-hungry fringe of semi-science to infect the heart of the mass media, where a whole generation of commentators taught each other to speak and write a hyperbolic doom-language (“unprecedent­ed”, “irreversible”, et cetera), which you might have thought was sure to doom them in their turn. After all, nobody with an intact pair of ears really listens for long to anyone who talks about “the planet” or “carbon” or “climate denial” or “the science”. But for now — and it could be a long now — the advocates of drastic action are still armed with a theory that no fact doesn’t fit.

The theory has always been manifestly unfalsifiable, but there are few science pundits in the mass media who could tell Karl Popper from Mary Poppins. More startling than their ignorance, however, is their defiance of logic. You can just about see how a bunch of grant-dependent climate scientists might go on saying that there was never a Medieval Warm Period even after it has been pointed out to them that any old corpse dug up from the permafrost could never have been buried in it. But how can a bunch of supposedly enlightened writers go on saying that? Their answer, if pressed, is usually to say that the question is too elementary to be considered.

Alarmists have always profited from their insistence that climate change is such a complex issue that no “science denier” can have an opinion about it worth hearing. For most areas of science such an insistence would be true. But this particular area has a knack of raising questions that get more and more complicated in the absence of an answer to the elementary ones. One of those elementary questions is about how man-made carbon dioxide can be a driver of climate change if the global temperature has not gone up by much over the past 20 years but the amount of man-made carbon dioxide has. If we go on to ask a supplementary question — say, how could carbon dioxide raise temperature when the evidence of the ice cores indicates that temperature has always raised carbon dioxide — we will be given complicated answers, but we still haven’t had an answer to the first question, except for the suggestion that the temperature, despite the observations, really has gone up, but that the extra heat is hiding in the ocean.

It is not necessarily science denial to propose that this long professional habit of postponing an answer to the first and most elementary question is bizarre. American physicist Richard Feynman said that if a fact doesn’t fit the theory, the theory has to go. Feynman was a scientist. Einstein realised that the Michelson-Morley experiment hinted at a possible fact that might not fit Newton’s theory of celestial mechanics. Einstein was a scientist, too. Those of us who are not scientists, but who are sceptical about the validity of this whole issue — who suspect that the alleged problem might be less of a problem than is made out — have plenty of great scientific names to point to for exemplars, and it could even be said that we could point to the whole of science itself. Being resistant to the force of its own inertia is one of the things that science does.

When the climatologists upgraded their frame of certainty from global warming to climate change, the bet-hedging man­oeuvre was so blatant that some of the sceptics started predicting in their turn: the alarmist cause must surely now collapse, like a house of cards. A tipping point had been reached.

Unfortunately for the cause of rational critical inquiry, the campaign for immediate action against climate doom reaches a tipping point every few minutes, because the observations, if not the calculations, never cease exposing it as a fantasy.

I myself, after I observed journalist Andrew Neil on BBC TV wiping the floor with the then secretary for energy and climate change Ed Davey, thought that the British government’s energy policy could not survive, and that the mad work that had begun with the 2008 Climate Change Act of Labour’s Ed Miliband must now surely begin to come undone. Neil’s well-inform­ed list of questions had been a tipping point. But it changed nothing in the short term. It didn’t even change the BBC, which continued uninterrupted with its determination that the alarmist view should not be questioned.

How did the upmarket mass media get themselves into such a condition of servility? One is reminded of that fine old historian George Grote when he said that he had taken his A History of Greece only to the point where the Greeks failed to realise they were slaves. The BBC’s monotonous plugging of the climate theme in its science documentaries is too obvious to need remarking, but it’s what the science programs never say that really does the damage.

Even the news programs get “smoothed” to ensure that nothing interferes with the constant business of protecting the climate change theme’s dogmatic status.

To take a simple but telling example: when Sigmar Gabriel, Germany’s Vice-Chancellor and man in charge of the Energiewende (energy transition), talked rings around Greenpeace hecklers with nothing on their minds but renouncing coal, or told executives of the renewable energy companies that they could no longer take unlimited subsidies for granted, these instructive moments could be seen on German TV but were not excerpted and subtitled for British TV even briefly, despite Gabriel’s accomplishments as a natural TV star, and despite the fact he himself was no sceptic.

Wrong message: easier to leave him out. And if American climate scientist Judith Curry appears before a US Senate com­mittee and manages to defend her anti-alarmist position against concentrated harassment from a senator whose only qualification for the discussion is that he can impugn her integrity with a rhetorical contempt of which she is too polite to be capable? Leave it to YouTube. In this way, the BBC has spent 10 years unplugged from a vital part of the global intellectual discussion, with an increasing air of provincialism as the inevitable result. As the UK now begins the long process of exiting the EU, we can reflect that the departing nation’s most important broadcasting institution has been behaving, for several years, as if its true aim were to reproduce the thought control that prevailed in the Soviet Union.

As for the print media, it’s no mystery why the upmarket newspapers do an even more thorough job than the downmarket newspapers of suppressing any dissenting opinion on the climate.

In Britain, The Telegraph sensibly gives a column to the diligently sceptical Christopher Booker, and Matt Rid­ley has recently been able to get a few rational articles into The Times, but a more usual arrangement is exemplified by my own newspaper, The Guardian, which entrusts all aspects of the subject to George Monbiot, who once informed his green readership that there was only one reason I could presume to disagree with him, and them: I was an old man, soon to be dead, and thus with no concern for the future of “the planet”.

I would have damned his impertinence, but it would have been like getting annoyed with a wheelbarrow full of freshly cut grass.

These byline names are stars committed to their opinion, but what’s missing from the posh press is the non-star name committed to the job of building a fact file and extracting a reasoned article from it. Further down the market, when The Daily Mail put its no-frills newshound David Rose on the case after Climategate, his admirable competence immediately got him labelled as a “climate change denier”: one of the first people to be awarded that badge of honour.

The other tactic used to discredit him was the standard one of calling his paper a disreputable publication. It might be — having been a victim of its prurience myself, I have no inclination to revere it — but it hasn’t forgotten what objective reporting is supposed to be. Most of the British papers have, and the reason is no mystery.

They can’t afford to remember. The print media, with notable exceptions, is on its way down the drain. With almost no personnel left to do the writing, the urge at editorial level is to give all the science stuff to one bloke. The print edition of The Independent bored its way out of business when its resident climate nag was allowed to write half the paper.

In its last year, when the doomwatch journalists were threatened by the climate industry with a newly revised consensus opinion that a mere 2C increase in world temperature might be not only acceptable but likely, The Independent’s chap retaliated by writing stories about how the real likelihood was an increase of 5C, and in a kind of frenzied crescendo he wrote a whole front page saying that the global temperature was “on track” for an increase of 6C. Not long after, the Indy’s print edition closed down.

At The New York Times, Andrew Revkin, star colour-piece writer on the climate beat, makes the whole subject no less predictable than his prose style: a cruel restriction.

In Australia, the Fairfax papers, which by now have almost as few writers as readers, reprint Revkin’s summaries as if they were the voice of authority, and will probably go on doing so until the waters close overhead. On the ABC, house science pundit Robyn Williams famously predicted that the rising of the waters “could” amount to 100m in the next century. But not even he predicted that it could happen next week. At The Sydney Morning Herald, it could happen next week. The only remaining journalists could look out of the window and see fish.

Bending its efforts to sensationalise the news on a scale previously unknown even in its scrappy history, the mass media has helped to consolidate a pernicious myth. But it could not have done this so thoroughly without the accident that it is the main source of information and opinion for people in the academic world and in the scientific institutions. Few of those people have been reading the sceptical blogs: they have no time. If I myself had not been so ill during the relevant time span, I might not have been reading it either, and might have remained confined within the misinformation system where any assertion of forthcoming disaster counts as evidence.

The effect of this mountainous accumulation of sanctified alarmism on the academic world is another subject. Some of the universities deserve to be closed down, but I expect they will muddle through, if only because the liberal spirit, when it regains its strength, is likely to be less vengeful than the dogmatists were when they ruled. Finding that the power of inertia blesses their security as once it blessed their influence, the enthusiasts might have the sense to throttle back on their certitude, huddle under the blanket cover provided by the concept of “post-normal science”, and wait in comfort to be forgotten

As for the learned societies and professional institutions, it was never a puzzle that so many of them became instruments of obfuscation instead of enlightenment. Totalitarianism takes over a state at the moment when the ruling party is taken over by its secretariat; the tipping point is when Stalin, with his lists of names, offers to stay late after the meeting and take care of business.

The same vulnerability applies to any learned institution. Rule by bureaucracy favours mediocrity, and in no time at all you are in a world where the British Met Office’s (former) chief scientist Julia Slingo is a figure of authority and Curry is fighting to breathe.

On a smaller scale of influential prestige, Nicholas Stern lends the Royal Society the honour of his presence. For those of us who regard him as a vocalised stuffed shirt, it is no use saying that his confident pronouncements about the future are only those of an economist. Klaus was only an economist when he tried to remind us that Malthusian clairvoyance is invariably a harbinger of totalitarianism. But Klaus was a true figure of authority. Alas, true figures of authority are in short supply, and tend not to have much influence when they get to speak.

All too often, this is because they care more about science than about the media. As recently as 2015, after a full 10 years of nightly proof that this particular scientific dispute was a media event before it was anything, Freeman Dyson was persuaded to go on television. He was up there just long enough to say that the small proportion of carbon dioxide that was man-made could only add to the world’s supply of plant food. The world’s mass media outlets ignored the footage, mainly because they didn’t know who he was.

I might not have known either if I hadn’t spent, in these past few years, enough time in hospitals to have it proved to me on a personal basis that real science is as indispensable for modern medicine as cheap power. Among his many achievements, to none of which he has ever cared about drawing attention, Dyson designed the TRIGA reactor. The TRIGA ­ensures that the world’s hospitals get a reliable supply of isotopes.

Dyson served science. Except for the few holdouts who go on fighting to defend the objective ­nature of truth, most of the climate scientists who get famous are serving themselves.

There was a time when the journalists could have pointed out the difference, but now they have no idea. Instead, they are so celebrity-conscious that they would supply Flannery with a new clown suit if he wore out the one he is wearing now.

A bad era for science has been a worse one for the mass media, the field in which, despite the usual blunders and misjudgments, I was once proud to earn my living. But I have spent too much time, in these past few years, being ashamed of my profession: hence the note of anger which, I can now see, has crept into this essay even though I was determined to keep it out. As my retirement changed to illness and then to dotage, I would have preferred to sit back and write poems than to be known for taking a position in what is, despite the colossal scale of its foolish waste, a very petty quarrel.

But it was time to stand up and fight, if only because so many of the advocates, though they must know by now that they are professing a belief they no longer hold, will continue to profess it anyway.

Back in the day, when I was starting off in journalism — on The Sydney Morning Herald, as it happens — the one thing we all learned early from our veteran colleagues was never to improve the truth for the sake of the story. If they caught us doing so, it was the end of the world.

But here we are, and the world hasn’t ended after all. Though some governments might not yet have fully returned to the principle of evidence-based policy, most of them have learned to be wary of policy-based evidence. They have learned to spot it coming, not because the real virtues of critical inquiry have been well argued by scientists but because the false claims of abracadabra have been asserted too often by people who, though they might have started out as scientists of a kind, have found their true purpose in life as ideologists.

Modern history since World War II has shown us that it is unwise to predict what will happen to ideologists after their citadel of power has been brought low. It was feared that the remaining Nazis would fight on, as werewolves. Actually, only a few days had to pass before there were no Nazis to be found anywhere except in Argentina, boring one another to death at the world’s worst dinner parties.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, on the other hand, when it was thought that no apologists for Marxist collectivism could possibly keep their credibility in the universities of the West, they not only failed to lose heart, they gained strength.

Some critics would say that the climate change fad itself is an offshoot of this ­lingering revolutionary animus against liberal democracy, and that the true purpose of the climatologists is to bring about a world government that will ensure what no less a philanthropist than Robert Mugabe calls “climate justice”, in which capitalism is replaced by something more altruistic.

I prefer to blame mankind’s inherent capacity for raising opportunism to a principle: the enabling condition for fascism in all its varieties, and often an imperative mindset among high-end frauds.

On behalf of the UN, Maurice Strong, the first man to raise big money for climate justice, found slightly under a million dollars of it sticking to his fingers, and hid out in China for the rest of his life — a clear sign of his guilty knowledge that he had pinched it.

Later operators lack even the guilt. They just collect the money, like the Prime Minister of Tuvalu, who has probably guessed by now that the sea isn’t going to rise by so much as an inch; but he still wants, for his supposedly threatened atoll, a share of the free cash, and especially because the question has changed. It used to be: how will we cope when the disaster comes? The question now is: how will we cope if it does not?

There is no need to entertain ­visions of a vast, old-style army of disoccupied experts retreating through the snow, eating first their horses and finally each other. But there could be quite a lot of previously well-subsidised people left standing around while they vaguely wonder why nobody is listening to them any more. Way back in 2011, one of the Climategate scientists, Britain’s Tommy Wils, with an engagingly honest caution rare among prophets, speculated in an email about what people outside their network might do to them if climate change turned out to be a bunch of natural variations: “Kill us, probably.” But there has been too much talk of mass death already, and anyway most of the alarmists are the kind of people for whom it is a sufficiently fatal punishment simply to be ignored.

Nowadays I write with aching slowness, and by the time I had finished assembling the previous paragraph, the US had changed presidents. What difference this transition will make to the speed with which the climate change meme collapses is yet to be seen, but my own guess is that it was already almost gone anyway: a comforting view to take if you don’t like the idea of a posturing zany like Donald Trump changing the world.

Personally, I don’t even like the idea of Trump changing a light bulb, but we ought to remember that this dimwitted period in the history of the West began with exactly that: a change of light bulbs. Suddenly, 100 watts were too much. For as long as the climate change fad lasted, it always depended on poppycock; and it would surely be unwise to believe that mankind’s capacity to believe in fashionable nonsense could be cured by the disproportionately high cost of a temporary embarrassment. I’m almost sorry that I won’t be here for the ceremonial unveiling of the next threat.

Almost certainly the opening feast will take place in Paris, with a happy sample of all the world’s young scientists facing the fragrant remains of their first ever plate of foie gras, while vowing that it will not be the last.

This is an exclusive extract from the essay Mass Death Dies Hard by Clive James in Climate Change: The Facts 2017 edited by Jennifer Marohasy, published next month by the Institute of Public Affairs.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/western-climate-change-alarmists-wont-admit-they-are-wrong/news-story/892c0088ec01f9186e068f55f2ca6794

Clap


Back to Top
Passing Through View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 18303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Passing Through Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 8:14am
What dont you understand Doc? The market has decided it wants renewable energy and the massive investment revolution it brings,

You and your beloved Murdoch media can hold on to your Luddite coal or stagecoach wars all you like, but nobody is listening anymore. Oh, except Donny and Nicaragua.

Whatever happened to your mob on the right backing the market? #SAD 
Back to Top
JudgeHolden View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 16 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 8120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JudgeHolden Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 8:32am
"I know nothing of the mathematics of modelling non-linear systems".

Quite so Clive. You're a literary critic.
Back to Top
Tlazolteotl View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 02 Oct 2012
Location: Australia
Status: Online
Points: 11567
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tlazolteotl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 8:56am
Originally posted by JudgeHolden JudgeHolden wrote:

"I know nothing of the mathematics of modelling non-linear systems".

Quite so Clive. You're a literary critic.

I am sick of of old white men climate change deniers. Who gives a damn what Clive james thinks- he's dead already. What are his grandchildren's thoughts on the matter?
Back to Top
oneonesit View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 06 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 9622
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote oneonesit Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 9:06am
Good read that. Even the lack of interest in this thread lately says a fair bit. More interesting & important things on the agenda - including what plane Margaret is going to catch !
I've only backed one certainty in my life....& it lost !
Back to Top
JudgeHolden View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 16 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 8120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JudgeHolden Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 9:07am
Originally posted by Tlazolteotl Tlazolteotl wrote:

Originally posted by JudgeHolden JudgeHolden wrote:

"I know nothing of the mathematics of modelling non-linear systems".

Quite so Clive. You're a literary critic.

I am sick of of old white men climate change deniers. Who gives a damn what Clive james thinks- he's dead already. What are his grandchildren's thoughts on the matter?

The IPA obviously, who are publishing it.

 
Back to Top
oneonesit View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 06 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 9622
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote oneonesit Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 9:12am
The term "flogging a dead horse" seems a very apt phrase for a GLOBAL WARMING thread on a racing site ! Put it down to the introduction of the whip rule.
I've only backed one certainty in my life....& it lost !
Back to Top
Tlazolteotl View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 02 Oct 2012
Location: Australia
Status: Online
Points: 11567
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tlazolteotl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 9:45am
The Pew report found that people over 65 are much more likely than the rest of the population to deny that there is solid evidence that the earth is warming, that it's caused by humans, or that it's a serious problem. This chimes with my own experience. Almost all my fiercest arguments over climate change, both in print and in person, have been with people in their 60s or 70s. Why might this be?

There are some obvious answers: they won't be around to see the results; they were brought up in a period of technological optimism; they feel entitled, having worked all their lives, to fly or cruise to wherever they wish. But there might also be a less intuitive reason, which shines a light into a fascinating corner of human psychology.

In 1973 the cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker proposed that the fear of death drives us to protect ourselves with "vital lies" or "the armour of character". We defend ourselves from the ultimate terror by engaging in immortality projects, which boost our self-esteem and grant us meaning that extends beyond death. More than 300 studies conducted in 15 countries appear to confirm Becker's thesis. When people are confronted with images or words or questions that remind them of death they respond by shoring up their worldview, rejecting people and ideas that threaten it, and increasing their striving for self-esteem.

Back to Top
Passing Through View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 18303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Passing Through Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 9:50am
Silly old farts (oops methaneShocked)
Back to Top
Tlazolteotl View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 02 Oct 2012
Location: Australia
Status: Online
Points: 11567
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tlazolteotl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 9:54am
Originally posted by Passing Through Passing Through wrote:

Silly old farts (oops methaneShocked)

Maybe it's because old men feel the cold and they want it warmer.Evil Smile

 It always seems to be old men, not old women. Can you think of a prominent climate change denier who is an old woman, PT?
Back to Top
Passing Through View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 18303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Passing Through Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 9:57am
Not off the top of my head, but it may also be that patriarchy may be playing into that as well, and they are just keeping their place and opinions to themselves 
Back to Top
Carioca View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 13 Nov 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 4498
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carioca Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 11:36am
Originally posted by Tlazolteotl Tlazolteotl wrote:

Originally posted by Passing Through Passing Through wrote:

Silly old farts (oops methaneShocked)


Maybe it's because old men feel the cold and they want it warmer.Evil Smile

 It always seems to be old men, not old women. Can you think of a prominent climate change denier who is an old woman, PT?

Good point there Tlaz. and as one that is ( maturing lol) I can relate to feeling the cold part, and very little from the ladies that I know fwiw.
Back to Top
Dr E View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 05 Feb 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 15750
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dr E Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 1:04pm
LOL... you nailed it Tlaz ... do you "silly old biddies" ever go back and read what you've just posted? ... It DOES explain a lot! (and not just the incontinence!)Wink

Just for the dummies, my post was neutral ... I simply thought it was a beautifully written piece on the subject from an articulate Aussie Legend, worthy of sharing ... but it seems that the bed wetters have lost the ability to look at anything with impartiality through their bleeding eyes ... if any comment is against their mantra, all they can do is go "Rrrrreeeeeeeee!"Cry
Back to Top
maccamax View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 21353
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote maccamax Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 1:18pm
The cold is about all I get to feel these days .

   But I still live in hope .    My latest job application rejected, >> ( To play the part of a sex maniac )

I failed the Physical.
Back to Top
maccamax View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 21353
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote maccamax Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 2:04pm
   The worlds greatest con is climate change.

Interesting why the supporters have to change their wordings so often . From Global warming to whatever , to whatever .

What price the next change will be to global cooling.
Back to Top
Passing Through View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 18303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Passing Through Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 6:34pm
The devastating effects of deforestation. 

Back to Top
maccamax View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 21353
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote maccamax Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 6:44pm
That's a great picture   PT.    . Nothing like a few of Man's best friend to brighten one up.

I've spent weeks teaching my dog to lift his leg when he pisses. Doesn't come natural to all of them .

My next task is to teach him to get off the lounge before he does it.
Back to Top
subastral View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 34958
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote subastral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 6:50pm
Originally posted by JudgeHolden JudgeHolden wrote:

"I know nothing of the mathematics of modelling non-linear systems".

Quite so Clive. You're a literary critic.


That was as far as I got.
Back to Top
subastral View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 34958
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote subastral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 6:50pm
Originally posted by Tlazolteotl Tlazolteotl wrote:

Originally posted by JudgeHolden JudgeHolden wrote:

"I know nothing of the mathematics of modelling non-linear systems".

Quite so Clive. You're a literary critic.

I am sick of of old white men climate change deniers. Who gives a damn what Clive james thinks- he's dead already. What are his grandchildren's thoughts on the matter?


Well said
Back to Top
oneonesit View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 06 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 9622
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oneonesit Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 7:21pm
Originally posted by subastral subastral wrote:

Originally posted by JudgeHolden JudgeHolden wrote:

"I know nothing of the mathematics of modelling non-linear systems".

Quite so Clive. You're a literary critic.



That was as far as I got.
Would have thought the modelling bit was right up your ally Subby !
I've only backed one certainty in my life....& it lost !
Back to Top
oneonesit View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 06 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 9622
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oneonesit Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 7:27pm
I thought Clive's article was a good read
I've only backed one certainty in my life....& it lost !
Back to Top
Whale View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Location: broome
Status: Offline
Points: 32889
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Whale Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 7:30pm
Originally posted by Tlazolteotl Tlazolteotl wrote:

Originally posted by JudgeHolden JudgeHolden wrote:

"I know nothing of the mathematics of modelling non-linear systems".

Quite so Clive. You're a literary critic.

I am sick of of old white men climate change deniers. Who gives a damn what Clive james thinks- he's dead already. What are his grandchildren's thoughts on the matter?



charming Ouch
Back to Top
Passing Through View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 18303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Passing Through Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 7:32pm
#fakenews Whale, he is still kicking 
Back to Top
Dr E View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 05 Feb 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 15750
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dr E Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 7:55pm
Originally posted by subastral subastral wrote:

Originally posted by JudgeHolden JudgeHolden wrote:

"I know nothing of the mathematics of modelling non-linear systems".

Quite so Clive. You're a literary critic.


That was as far as I got.

We understand that literacy is a constant struggle for some, but practice can help ...

Back to Top
Dr E View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 05 Feb 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 15750
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dr E Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 8:08pm
Coal mining can't be too bad for the environment ... The ALP seem very pleased!!!Thumbs Up

Adani approves $16.5b Carmichael mine


Indian energy giant Adani has finally given the green light to its controversial $16.5 billion coal mine in the Galilee Basin, which the Queensland and federal governments hope will open up a new coal-mining region and create more than 10,000 jobs.

After more than seven years being held up in the courts and awaiting state and federal approvals, Adani chairman Gautum Adani said the board had made the final investment decision had been made.

The company has signed a mine development deal with Downer Mining and rail construction will be done by engineering company Aecom. But it is understood Adani still has to lock in all the finance for the project.

The first phase of the project is about $US5 billion and Adani still needs to find another US$2.5 billion.

"I am proud to announce the project has final investment approval which marks the official start of one of the largest single infrastructure - and job-creating - developments in Australia's recent history," Mr Adani said in a statement.

"We have been challenged by activists in the courts, in inner city streets and even outside banks that have not even been approached to finance the project. We are still facing activists. But we are committed to this project."

Mr Adani said the Carmichael mine, which will start with a capacity of 20 million tonnes a year but could be eventually expanded to 60 million tonnes a year, will generate 10,000 direct and indirect jobs, with pre-construction works to begin later this year.

Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, who was in Townsville for the opening of Adani's regional headquarters, said the project would help kickstart jobs in regional Queensland which had struggled since the end of the last coal boom.

"I'm very happy with the outcome of this. There will be jobs right across this state. This project will deliver those jobs and it will mean so much for the people of Townsville," Ms Palaszczuk said.

"I think there will be a whole spectrum of jobs because what we want to do is make Queensland the investment choice state of the nation."

The Palaszczuk Government was banking on the project getting the greenlight before it called an election later this year or early next year.

Read more: http://www.afr.com/news/politics/adani-approves-165b-carmichael-mine-20170606-gwl9h7#ixzz4jDAs1xoV 
Follow us: @FinancialReview on Twitter | financialreview on Facebook


Back to Top
Passing Through View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 18303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Passing Through Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 6:08pm
Tuesday, 6 June 2017

Trump converts White House to run entirely on coal

Washington (dpo) - That man does nothing by half measures. On Friday President Donald Trump announced the USA’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement and today news has already surfaced that the power supply to the White House has been entirely converted to run on fossil fuels.
White House spokesperson Sean Spicer announced the conversion at a press conference strewn with billowing smoke. “The President is leading by example,” yelled Spicer over the noise of the generators. Coughing, he continued, “from now on, the White House will run exclusively on the energy of the future.”
Press Secretary Sean Spicer
Central heating and hot water will be heated by coal fired power stations and a miniature lignite fired power station will provide the electricity supply. At times of short supply, 38 diesel generators can provide additional power. Experts believe that the fast growing levels of soot will soon require the White House to be renamed the Gray House.
Figures were already available showing that energy consumption at the White House have increased by 200% since Trump took office. According to a statement from the White House, this is because, “the President doesn’t like it too hot or too cold so the central heating and air conditioning system are both permanently running at full capacity”.
According to Spicer, the Trump government’s medium term goal is to put in place targeted measures to foster non-renewable energies so that by 2020, all American households are supplied in a similar manner.
“Now you’ll have to excuse me”, said Sean Spicer in closing, “I have to go and shovel 73 wheelbarrows of coal for this evening. The President likes to take hot baths.”
http://www.the-postillon.com/2017/06/white-house-to-run-on-coal.html#.WT1z25dALzQ.facebook
Back to Top
cabosanlucas View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 15 Jun 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 6217
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cabosanlucas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 6:25pm
white smoke signifies a new leader.

black smoke is just don saying he isnt going anywhere. just yet.
Back to Top
3blindmice View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 13732
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 3blindmice Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 6:45pm
One of the many obvious problems with Clive James' article is that it says nothing at all about the science, ignores the numerous examples of where global warming is already affecting environments and economies, and concentrates instead on a few hyperbolic utterances in the media. So what if ice caps and glaciers are melting, crops are failing, weather events are becoming more extreme and more frequent etc etc. Fcuk that says Clive, I'm about to fall off the perch so I'll ignore all the evidence and the more sensible commentary and cherry pick a few exaggerated things I've seen in a newspaper. When did Obama become a climate expert again? 

Dear old Clive might as well have read this thread because the same puerile rubbish was tried on numerous occasions. It's as if these deniers believe that Flannery's over the top comments a few years back (usually taken out of context - look back if you want the bigger picture) somehow invalidates all the scientific data, research and analysis done by thousands of experts over many years. I guess it helps to validate their own ignorant opinions even as they watch vision of obvious warming-related events happening across the globe. 

Something I'd have thought you'd have learned long ago Clive old chap but perhaps you've been away from your country for too long to remember it. If you take the bull by the tail you'll invariably find yourself mired in shyte of your own making.
Back to Top
3blindmice View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 13732
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 3blindmice Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 7:29pm
By the way Clive, if you want to know some more about GBR coral bleaching this might help. Presume it escaped your attention just as the shrinking glaciers and Arctic ice have. But unfortunately for many of us who have enjoyed your work you have more to worry about than climate change myopia. 


How much coral bleaching do you think is acceptable before warming becomes a real issue? 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 263264265266267 282>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.