The Climate Change Thread

[Inside Shoulder]

Maybe so, IS. My comment was more on the pitfalls of predicting, especially in a system with many variables, rather than a comment on Flannery, about whom, I confess, I am relatively ignorant.

Fair enough - I wish I was relatively ignorant of him

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Tim Flannery could predict 2+2=4 and still get widely ridiculed by the same journalists.

I don't care what he says about anything, I can never see what relevance it is really. All I know is that you can't go 5 minutes discussing climate in this country without someone thinking a valuable contribution to the conversation would be to engage in some Tim Flannery quote mining. As if it is of some sort of significance.

 

[HarveyColon]

You actually think you know more about the climate than Tim Flannery, don't you Harv?

no i don't .......but all of what i know is actually correct
you think you can be sarcasticallly clever like some know it all but the fact of the matter is: how many of his predictions have made themselves evident? when this happens let me know. Also, tell me what flannery does know about the climate that I don't and then you might look clever and there might be some credibility in this statement in which you mock my intelligence.

 

[Karl]

Tim Flannery could predict 2+2=4 and still get widely ridiculed by the same journalists.

I don't care what he says about anything, I can never see what relevance it is really. All I know is that you can't go 5 minutes discussing climate in this country without someone thinking a valuable contribution to the conversation would be to engage in some Tim Flannery quote mining. As if it is of some sort of significance.

He is the Climate Change poster boy in this country and he's a grandstanding, ridiculously alarmist idiot who continues to make ridiculous predictions that are ridiculed by his fellow scientists, not just the media, and which are routinely proven to be ridiculous and wrong. Disowning him is like being catholic and saying that what the Pope says is of no significance.

 

[Scarfman]

all of what i know is actually correct

I rest my case, m'lud.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

He is the Climate Change poster boy in this country and he's a grandstanding, ridiculously alarmist idiot who continues to make ridiculous predictions that are ridiculed by his fellow scientists,

Yep, where is the long list of papers he has written that have been ridiculed thanks. Oh wait, Karl doesn't do the whole "backing up my claims with evidence" thing.

Feel free to have your own emotional driven opinion Karl, but when quoting me and trying to tell me I'm wrong, I'm only going to listen if you actually post something of substance. I'm interested in the truth that I can back up with facts, not the skeptic rhetoric.

Disowning him is like being catholic and saying that what the Pope says is of no significance.

And this is just a massive strawman.

Argument:
Time Flannery is a poster boy for climate science, therefore anyone who accepts any facts about climate science must agree with everything he says.
Person X accepts the greenhouse effect warms the planet and will do so if greenhouse gas levels rise.
Therefore, Person X must agree with everything Tim Flannery says.

See what I mean? In a discussion about science there is no logical connection. What I have written above is your argument, it is clearly an attempt to strawman others.

There is a thread in here about the LHC. Did you make sure everyone in the thread who agreed with CERN checked the opinion of the Australian Institute of Physics president or their posterboy? No, this sort of tactic only gets employed when you feel like it. There is no consistency.

Not to mention "posterboy's" are created by the media, which makes this belief of yours even more silly, given you routinely criticize the media for incorrectly reporting climate science.

This would be in no-way different from me tieing everything Lord Monckton says to climate skeptics (he is a huge poster-boy), which I wouldn't do because that is illogical (as shown). But I don't like that comparison because I doubt Flannery's scientific work (which I haven't read) is even remotely as retarded as Monckton's rhetoric.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Not to mention "posterboy's" are created by the media, which makes this belief of yours even more silly, given you routinely criticize the media for incorrectly reporting climate science.

I think this one has had a fair bit to do with creating himself - he's always there with a quote or a sensational analogy: my only point is that people who take his approach of condescending and lecture soon alienate the public they are trying to convince. he is very like Adam Spencer (ABC radio 702; sleek geeks) in that regard. Spencer's offsider Dr Karl is quite the opposite - his enthusiasm for his role is exuded from every pore.

Dr Karl would be a better person to have enlightening the public about where we are at and where we will finish up - and i am sure that his views are similar to Flannery's: unfortunately he doesn't really sensationalise stuff for his won self aggrandisement.

I wonder if Flannery's manner actually suits the Murdoch/Mass media and thats why he's so prominent?

 

[Karl]

On a mobile so a detailed response isn't possible right now, but with Flannery, a lot of his ridiculous predictions are made in the media by him with the clear intent they be published. You can't disown them because he didn't write them in a peer reviewed paper. His last spray was derided by a JCU Professor in the article I posted.

And he's not a "poster boy" because of the media. My term dangerously underestimates his position and influence. He is the Chief Commissioner of the Australian Climate Commission, an independent body providing information on climate change to the Australian public. And his views drive Public Policy as formed by our Government.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

How can I disown his predictions when I've never even read them? What has it got to do with anyone in this discussion? Nothing. This is becoming hilarious.

Admit it, the only purpose this silly canard serves is to tie people to positions they don't hold. Make your own blog, criticize the man all you like. But pretending accepting the basic principles of climate science ties someone to one particular man's work serves only to derail the discussion (which is exactly what people who push this idea want).

 

[cyclopath]

Couldn't agree more, Bru. I am far less well read on the subject than many on here. I believe AGW is real, but when I hear alarmist predictions (by whoever) about what will happen in the next few years, I chuckle, as the concept and timescale of climate change is not about forecasting the weather, which is a complex system. It is about the trend of events over a long time. It's not like watching a crop of wheat grow, rather a stand of Huon pines or Redwoods. So I dismiss that from the issue for me. It does not mean science presented by others who believe in the concept becomes a null and void.
It undermines his credibility a bit, granted, but not the credibility of anyone else.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Ahh: the weather is what they predict and the climate is what you get - isn't that how the saying goes?

 

[Scotty]

Tim Flannery could predict 2+2=4 and still get widely ridiculed by the same journalists.

I don't care what he says about anything, I can never see what relevance it is really. All I know is that you can't go 5 minutes discussing climate in this country without someone thinking a valuable contribution to the conversation would be to engage in some Tim Flannery quote mining. As if it is of some sort of significance.

What relevance? None apart from being the Chief Commissioner of the Climate Commission, which is funded by Australian taxpayers, meaning his salary is paid for by us.

 

[Karl]

So what do we think of Geothermal?

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

What relevance? None apart from being the Chief Commissioner of the Climate Commission, which is funded by Australian taxpayers, meaning his salary is paid for by us.

When I'm discussing climate science, the "australian climate commission" doesn't come to mind as any kind of starting point. People who want to steer the discussion towards politics seem to start there. Or for whatever reason, I don't think I'll ever understand.

 

[Scotty]

The Climate Commission is meant to be about science. I'm sure you've see that on their website?

The Climate Commission was established to provide all Australians with an independent and reliable source of information about the science of climate change, the international action being taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the economics of a carbon price.

 

[Cutter]

The Climate Commission is meant to be about science. I'm sure you've see that on their website?

Scotty if you're interested in the tax payer funded science, have a look here: http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding.aspx

But you've consistently disputed the science without actually putting forward an alternative scientific thesis so we know you're not interested in it. You're interested in distraction, obfuscation and politics.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

The Climate Commission is meant to be about science. I'm sure you've see that on their website?

If you want to discuss climate science why not start with reliable scientific organisations that have been studying the climate for decades? Why is some tiny government program in Australia that's only existed for a few years and mainly focuses on local issues worthy of our undivided attention?

And it's not even that. Apparently the personal opinions of a single member of this program are worthy of taking up the majority of our focus.

Look, I just don't see how you logically go from objectively reviewing the facts at hand to Tim Flannery quotes, or anyone's for that matter. People are free to speculate on the man all the bloody like (like I say, make a blog, knock yourselves out), just don't pretend it has any bearing or relevance on the subject at hand.

 

[HarveyColon]

i can't wait till property values near the ocean decrease because of supposed sea level rise.......i'll buy one straight away and it will still be above water when I die....thank you alarmists

 

[Scotty]

Scotty if you're interested in the tax payer funded science, have a look here: http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding.aspx

But you've consistently disputed the science without actually putting forward an alternative scientific thesis so we know you're not interested in it. You're interested in distraction, obfuscation and politics.

I haven't disputed any science for ages. I really only debate the politics of the issue now. You may have noticed I haven't posted in this thread for a long time. In fact if you'd read my most recent posts closely enough you would have seen that I have more or less accepted the position, and would prefer to talk about our response to it.

I just find it hard to believe that you both believe the Climate Commission doesn't have anything to do with science. What is its existence if not to advise and report on the science?

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

I just don't get the obsession with them. It seems the only people who really care about what they say are the "skeptics". (from a quick look) The CC seem to just reproduce research done by others and elaborate on the local implications. Not much I'd be interested in when discussing the science.

Interesting to know you more or less agree with the basics. I don't know how the world will tackle GHG's pollution , I don't think we will end up doing much tbh. But it's certainly not in our best interest to continue down this path (which could see our food production hit), while human population is on a rapid rise.

As for HarveyC, knock yourself out lol: http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/weather/