Climate change isn’t really my issue, but this pathetically petty post by our friend Andrew Bolt just struck me as so absurd I couldn’t let it pass without comment. A conservative climate-skeptic who regularly contributes to Quadrant attends a Tim Flannery lecture and relates his unsurprisingly negative impressions. Andrew’s emphasis? The part he chooses to quote first? The skeptic’s rebuttal of Flannery’s points? No – his (entirely objective) opinion that “Flannery flops“:
Firstly, without being rude or discourteous, Professor Tim’s lecture would have to have been the worst presented, most head-bangingly-boring and uninformative address that this writer can remember.
Shock news: critical review received by ideological opponent! Hold the presses.
In tomorrow’s edition of the Andrew Bolt blog: the startling revelation that a conservative blogger thinks Kevin Rudd is “a dud”!
152 Comments
(nb. Isn’t Bolt just quoting John Izzard?)
Of course Izzard and Bolt would be bored senseless – they clearly weren’t the intended audience.
There’s a school of thought that proposes that we (or, rather, more high-profile proponents of climate change action) ought not to be dragged into debating the disinformation circulated by Bolt and his sources. This is the result. Izzard gets “bored” because the speaker refuses to choke to death on the mad ravings of climate denialism. He finds it “uninformative” because the speech doesn’t support his own version of reality. Confirmation bias simply edits-out the entire thing.
I can almost visualise him sitting there, literally itching, as Flannery carries on like some sort of… uninterruptible speaking person… saying things that he doesn’t agree with! Oh the injustice!
Maybe if we “bore” such people enough they’ll go away.
“Shock news: critical review received by ideological opponent! Hold the presses.”
Erm… where’s your mirror?
Does that not also apply to almost every single post here at Poison Pen?
You hate Andrew/Tim/Piers; you’re critical of them.
Rinse and repeat.
“Hold the presses” indeed.
Is this worth reporting? I checked the Bolthole and you’re right- it’s just an empty comment. Zero.
But your comment adds nothing. Zero plus zero.
Just a waste of space…
On predictability: Who wants to lay bets on whether he’ll have another story about lara bingle? I mean … the pictures. And SO newsworthy.
I’d still love to know what NEWS’ interest is in her. The coverage looks to me like maybe they’ve been jilted on some sort of deal and want to sink her and whoever is managing her as payback. But I say that with no inside knowledge – maybe they’re getting PAID to do it? When the directive reaches even bolta, something’s surely up. What’s the count – 3 threads in the last week?
“Does that not also apply to almost every single post here at Poison Pen?
You hate Andrew/Tim/Piers; you’re critical of them. “
What’s with conservatives and not being able to read? The site name is at the top of the page.
And we don’t “hate” Andrew/Tim/Piers, but they do have an awful lot of utter drivel published in the country’s larger papers that requires some retort. We limit ourselves to exposing the flaws in what they write – the content of their arguments, such as they are.
We haven’t yet descended to “lefty X says Andy is boring” as if that’s a meaningful critique, have we?
Oh Jeremy! After I submitted my comment, but before you issued your rebuttal, you edited your post (without acknowledging that you had done so) – what a very “intellectually dishonest” thing to do. Typical, but still dishonest.
Still, I’m glad you found my comment helpful in revising your original post. You’re welcome.
“We limit ourselves to exposing the flaws in what they write – the content of their arguments, such as they are.”
The Punch says people shouldn’t use ALLCAPS in comments; Tim Blair uses ALLCAPS in his blog post titles; therefore Tim Blair is a poopy-pants.
Like that?
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2010/02/24/just-saying/
Awesome.
Yeah, I added – “so absurd I couldn’t let it pass without comment” and “The skeptic’s rebuttal of Flannery’s points?” for emphasis.
Hardly “intellectually dishonest”.
Well, there are two problems with that view.
First, critical != hate. “Hate” is a rather simplistic and belittling word to use on people who merely articulate certain objections to another’s writing.
Second, far from being critical, Bolt appears to uncritically accept the writings of almost anyone to whom he is ideologically aligned. By contrast, the entire point of Pure Poison is to critically evaluate the writings of high profile media people.
(And sure, standard debate tactics now require you to prove that I’m a hypocrite, probably through some reference to uncritical acceptance of Flannery.)
You mean, you edited a post without notification (Historical Revisionism!) you used a rhetorical ‘trick’ (Trickery!), to force people into a different understanding of events (‘Thought Control!‘)
You monster.
Hmmm ‘Renaud’s’ comments remind me of someone else.
Also goes under another screen name at teh Tabloid Princess’ blogs.
Sockpuppet much?
Certainly are some rabid righty’s out there…I noticed some familiar nick’s appearing here that I’ve seen on other forums and blogs. You have wonder how genuinely representative their views are in the wider community, much less what kind of life allows THAT much commenting.
quantize: their motivation isn’t genuine debate and discussion, but to just infest with their extremist views and zombie-fie threads just like Iain Hall. The MPM screen name was outed here as belonging to one Jay Santos from you know where. ‘Renaud’ has a very similar commenting style to MPM who infests anything written by Bernard Keane at Crikey, and so is familiar to most Crikey commenters. Recently she has taken up residence at Possum’s blog where she gets her arse whacked on a regular basis by the data nerds there. Most amusing to see.
Using Dave C’s dictionary that critical = hate we now get to see the real purpose of Pure Poison.
“Pure Poison is to critically (read hatefully) evaluate the writings of high profile media people.”
Erm… I actually said that “critical != hate”.
“!=” means “is not equal to”. A bit of computing terminology slipping in there – sorry about that. I could probably have been a bit clearer.
Dave C,
It didn’t matter what you wrote or what you meant, not understanding what he reads has never stopped him from commenting on it.
Confessions
you certainly do have a bee in your bonnet about my commenting here don’t you?
If there is one weakness in those who espouse the the alarmist cause it is that so many of them are rather dreary communicators and even if they are right (which of course I doubt) they repeatedly fail to convince.
That is what the essence of Izzard’s critique of Flannery’s lecture not there myself of course but I have seen enough of Flannery on the box to find the critique credible.
Unlike Iain’s highly entertaining and witty posts of course!
*insert irony emoticon*
Not at all. My problem is your typical thread derailment tactics.
I understand now Iain, how foolish of me, I should not believe in AGW, because the vast majority of climate scientists are not entertaining public speakers.
Idiot
Confessions
You make me laugh with your belief that any comment thread is like a train line with a fixed destination, a far better analogy is that of water flowing across a fairly flat landscape you really never know which way it will go
oldskool
And what is Flannery’s specialty?
Yeah as a climate scientist he is a great paleontologist.
ive heard some pretty great speakers talking about the climate system, inclunding deisendorf and Bill Mckibbon. and ive also seen plimer talk, that dude is white bread stuck to a beige wall. not sure what dull lectures are meant to prove.
“a far better analogy is that of water flowing across a fairly flat landscape”
You mean … shallow?
Be that as it may, but the fact remains that you have a record on this blog (and others) of attempting to divert discussion away from the topic at hand, and onto your pet hates.
Denialists are persuaded by colour and movement, not facts and logic. It therefore stands to reason that they are attracted by showmen with flashy titles like Lord Monckton, and are bored with actual researchers who do the hard work such as Flannery.
Confessions
what makes you think that Flannery is any kind of climate researcher?
If I comment on any thread it is because I find the topic interesting or amusing I have no motive other than a desire to discuss the issues. You know what I bet that is the motivation of just about all contributors to blogs. What you probably object to is my desire to have a go at blogs where I know that mine will be a contrarian view, guess what it makes for a more interesting debate than sticking with a group think environment as you are keen to do.
OK, everyone has had a say about comment threads and why people comment the way they do. Let’s now keep the comments on the issues, please and thank you.
His research output.
Sorry Tobias.
As you wish Tobias
Confessions
That does to prove that Flannery is at all qualified to be called a “climate scientist” He is a palaeontologist. You do know the difference don’t you?
Does that not also apply to almost every single post here at Poison Pen?
Er, Renaud, can you point to a single post that has been based on a critical review of Andrew/Tim/Piers by a third party, as opposed to a review owned by the author of the post?
If not then what the hell are you talking about?
Iain, what are you qualified to comment on?
A palaeontologist is quite capable in the discussions relating to historical climate changes and the impacts on the environment. This same theory can be related to current and future changes. i.e. what happens if Australia heats up 2 degrees – how does this relate to plant mixes, animal types etc.
Iain you are showing that you don’t understand research. There’s a reason I pointed to his research output.
Do you have anything intelligent to offer to this discussion, or just more ignorance?
Dave @21
You can also add this to the evidence starting to come in;
Cheers.
Confessions
Your link does not even go t any instance of Flannery writing a “research” paper on climate science, now while he has written a couple of populist books on the subject you can hardly claim that he is any kind of “researcher” on the subject now can you?
His writing is more about activism than it is about any kind of research.
In response to Dave G’s post @21, you will notice that when you read what CSIRO’s Dr Clark said about the connection between increasing CO2 and warming climate it was, “We also know that that rapid increase that we’ve been measuring was at the same time that we saw the industrial revolution so it is very likely that these two are connected.”
Now that’s not what the spin put on it by the reporter who said, “The head of Australia’s peak science body has spoken out in defence of climate scientists, saying the link between human activity and climate change is beyond doubt.”
“Very likely” does not conflate into “beyond doubt” without the reporter’s bias showing.
No reasonable sceptic denies the warming climate exists, not the existence of a link between CO2 and warming. We do however object to the notions that we nasty humans are doing all of the warming, that it has never been this warm before, has never warmed this fast before, and that the warming with be catastrophically harmful.
Dr Clark’s words shows she is quite careful not to blame humans for all the warming and she doesn’t speak with the certainty the reporter reports.
When Iain goes to the doctor, he likes his GP to put on a big red clown nose and give him a lollypop…this of course enhances the credibility of the diagnosis enormously..
this is another one of those comments of Iain’s that deserves to be put straight in the IDIOT BOX with his coffee gibberish.
He’s on a roll now because Capt Col is happy to do nothing about any possible man made contribution to warming because its ONLY ‘very likely’. There’s a point at which all this venal blabber about ‘alarmism’ just sounds like straight out political point scoring using language and ‘credibility’ as a football for extremist conservative ideology.
Qantize
The object of the game is to get the ball (the thread topic) and not the man (moi)
Captain Col
I noticed the report you mention on the Mid-day news and you are spot on about the way that Dr Clark was very circumspect about making sure that what she was claiming and the way the the news reader ( or the copy writer) was interpreting a certitude that Clark was not actually claiming.
In a blog puportedly aiming to “expose the intellectual dishonesty, the flimsy arguments and the distorted data wherever they appear in the mainstream media” I would have thought the difference between ‘very likely’ and ‘beyond doubt’ was a reasonable point to make. This was an example of the media (the usual suspects at the ABC) spinning what was actually said into more sensational, but biased and ultimately false reporting.
I suspect quantize would not like to defend himself in court and find the buden of proof was ‘very likely’.
Except it’s NOT a court Capt Col
what a rabidly absurd comparison.
I see. Just more ignorance from Iain, and a pointed refusal to answer the question from dam buster @ 32. To which I’d add his News ltd keyboard warrior heroes as well.
There isn’t any point trying to have a discussion with someone who is so closed-minded or willfully ignorant and I refuse to waste my time with such a person.
Confessions
I am at a disadvantage here because my comments are moderated (unfairly IMHO)
So I just can’t answer every rhetorical question (like the one at #32) that is directed at me lest my comments remain eternally in limbo.
cop out
I am at a disadvantage here because my comments are moderated (unfairly IMHO)
Yeah, I would agree that is a cop out. If you keep the posts on topic and not use your own flimsy brand of logic, I don’t see that there would be a problem.
Iain, I have the same problem… it’s a disincentive to visit, and it works. I couldn’t be bothered, especially when every discussion is interspersed with abuse (I notice they do the same thing to you); these people can’t have a civilised debate. And of course, moderation is for conservatives. That’s the criterion, it has nothing to do with commenting behaviour. There are some regulars here who are just appallingly behaved but don’t get moderation because they are leftists.
Twobob is probably the most egregious example.
Iain you really need to explain to everyone who reads this thread how after your comment in #18 where you clearly state that in your opinion warming “alarmists” fail to convince because they are ‘dreary’ communicators is in any way different from my comparison to your doctors diagnosis being any more credible if he putting on a show for you by wearing a clown nose and offering you a lollypop?
This is modus operandi for Iain, who then invokes ‘it aint cricket’ (close to the cinematic device of ‘he went thataway!’) the moment he is completely caught out in a FAIL of his own making. Wear it Iain, fill the comments up by all means, nobody except Capt Col and whatever other flyby Bolt On’s will buy it.
Really, you must fancy yourself something chronic if you dream you’re anything above cheap ‘latte leftie’ jibes.
Hah Munroe, that is so spectacularly rich….given the rivers of unmoderated hatred and bile that spews forth from the bowels of Bolt and Ackermanica blogs under the cowardly guise of ‘free speech’ you guys really do take the cake for rank hypocrisy.
It must really hurt to have to support your statements with logic without being able to name call.
Dave @ 21:
I was very impressed with how the ABC news at 7pm reported this, ie just the facts, no opinion and no crosses to denialists for ‘balance’. In another place an ABC radio listener remarked that an ABC radio news broadcast had Eric Abetz of all people on after the announcement of the report. WTF?
We often bag the ABC for its pro-Liberal, pro-denialist bias, but credit where it’s due. They did good at 7pm TV news.
@26, 27, etc.
From the looks of Google Scholar, it’s probably reasonable to say that Flannery is not really an active researcher, but rather a science communicator (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
Iain Hall:
They fail to convince who? You? It’s inevitable that science communicators will fail to convince at least some proportion of their audience.
Not having seen any of Flannery’s presentations, I can’t comment on his oratory skills. However, it’s clear that Izzard had well and truly made up his mind before he went in. Flannery never had a chance at convincing him of anything.
As for being dreary, it looks to me like Flannery just wasn’t giving the presentation that Izzard wanted him to give. I’d be bored too if I was expecting a fine-grained defence of technical details and all I got was an overview, but some people do actually want an overview.
Confessions @48, they covered it straight down the line on Lateline too.
It just struck me that Iain might actually fancy himself as an entertaining communicator…
There is some evidence to support this notion provided you accept the idea that regurgitating neo-con talking points (via self-congratulatory waffle and subterfuge) posing as ‘argument’ makes for good comedy.
they repeatedly fail to convince.
So rhetoric trumps reality Iain?
Confessions @ #12 & #14: Sorry to spoil your conspiracy theory, but I’ve never commented on any blog by Bernard Keane or Possum or The Stump, I’ve never used any other screen name here, and I’m not sure what you mean by “teh Tabloid Princess’ blogs” unless you’re referring to Andrew/Tim/Piers, the bloggers Jeremy claims you do not hate but simply critique in a mature, thoughtful way (such as referring to them as “teh Tabloid Princesses”, I guess?). I do read Tim & Andrew (not Piers, sorry) but don’t tend to comment because I’m only online in the evenings and their moderation system means anything I’d have to say would only be published the next morning, and everyone would have moved on to the next day’s posts by then.
Quantize @ #13: (Love the apostrophe work, mate!) — you claim that you wonder “what kind of life allows THAT much commenting” and I’ve no idea what you’re on about. I generally only log on to the Internet once every few days, in the evenings, never during working hours (I don’t generally use a computer at work), and I mainly read, not comment, when I do log on. The people about whom you might direct your question (“what kind of life allows THAT much commenting”) instead would be those who seem to chatter on incessantly right here on this very blog, if you are indeed worried about that sort of thing.
Just thought I’d set you straight on those points — now I’ll buzz off again and leave you alone. Cheers.
And
I don’t believe either of you, I understand that key words trigger moderation. PP Mods, are Iain and Munroe singled out?
Again, I call bullshit!
What a cry baby – I guess you just haven’t worked out how moderation works? Boo hoo, It’s not difficult to work out, too difficult for you though!
Getting back onto the post in hand rather than Iain’s issues with moderation.
When someone with some charisma presents on climate change there is the usual suspects claiming it is over hyped (Gore on Inconvenient Truth) and that he has no experience to be able to discuss the topic. Then someone who has more relevant experience but is more low key (Flannery) is claimed to be boring.
Why? Because people like to attack the man (fat Gore etc) rather than play the ball. The same can be said the other way around with Monckton and some media pundits making reference to his eyes due to Graves disease.
Take all that B-S away and just look at the science and what is happening. Even Bolt is starting to change his language because the FACTS are stacking up against his arguments. In a post the other day he mentioned the earth’s temperature had “flat lined since 2001″, not “cooled since 2001″.
The science is complicated yes. How this is communicated is also important but the content cannot be purely judged on the showmanship of the presenter.
Renaud @ 53
Quantize @ #13: (Love the apostrophe work, mate!) — you claim that you wonder “what kind of life allows THAT much commenting” and I’ve no idea what you’re on about. I generally only log on to the Internet once every few days, in the evenings, never during working hours (I don’t generally use a computer at work), and I mainly read, not comment, when I do log on. The people about whom you might direct your question …”
I detect the grammatical sneering of a Pedro in there, but who can tell?
If you’re going to get picky, then you’d best make sure your own post is squeaky-clean.
1: Quantize’s post @13 didn’t ask a question, it made a statement.
2:”The people TO whom you might direct your question…”. One doesn’t direct a question about someone if they are the listener. If you wanted to make those people the subject of your sentence, it would read better as: “The people about whom you might make that statement…”
There. Now don’t bandy usage with your betters.
#51 quantize
Modesty prevents me form claiming any such thing but at the very least I try to focus upon the topic rather than Personally attacking my interlocutors as you repeatedly do.
#52 ShaunHC
It does not matter how “truthy” your reality is if you can not effectively communicate that truth then then no one will believe it. So no matter what it is that you are trying to convince the public about you need both the skill and the scientific gravitas to get the message across effectively
{Snip – Mod controls aren’t relevant to discussion – Dave}
As I said before no matter which side you take on the climate debate you need to be both credible and an effective communicator. Flannery is neither on this topic and isn’t that the point that Andrew Bolt is making ?
I don’t get this “chhosing side” business.
Surely it’s about the difference between facts and non-facts…or as they are more commonly known fiction or made up crap.
Facts exist…they don’t require belief or faith in them to have an impact…they just are. It doesn’t matter if you don’t particularly like them or not, they will always be there.
Saying that the globe isn’t warming won’t stop it happening…as the CSIRO has just pointed out.
Frankly it doesn’t matter if you are as boring as batshit as a presenter…the facts are the same and no amount of spin will make them go away.
This is the point that needs to be driven home again and again…nice stories and charming anecdotes will not make the physical universe change it’s function…unless you’re talking about the quantity of hot air right in front of the speaker’s face.
Iain @ 57 – Who is Bolt to comment on the science then?
Sure he can comment on the style of presentation since Andrew is only a ‘social commentator’. Why does he always comment on the science? He has no science background.
Tim Lambert has more sciene background than Bolt. So does Flannery, as does Jo Nova.
Flannery has enough of a grounding in the science of climate change through his proffessional degree to be credible. I personally think he is a communicator with a passion for the science and can relate it back to direct effects on a community or region. We have few of this type of scientist in Australia.
Iain you still haven’t responded to the simple point i made…how does being an entertaining communicator make the message any more or less credible?
You would do well to stick to the point yourself.
As I’ve said before, denialists are attracted by colour and movement, not facts and logic. It is no surprise to me at all to see people who actually do climate research accused of being boring. After all, where are the cherry picked figures and the pretty graphs? Where are the aristocratic titles and extreme ideology?
Flannery has none of these things, so how can he possibly be credible?
Qantize
Just go and study the principles of rhetoric and you will find an answer to your question
That goes for you to Confessions
another lame cop out
See quantize? Just like I said re colour and movement. Iain thinks speeches full of meaningless rhetoric are more credible than a speech by an expert containing facts and logic.
QED
Confessions
You display your ignorance here: rhetoric is not some evil addition to communication it is
“The art of using language, especially public speaking, as a means to persuade” according to wiKtionary
Now no matter what it is you seek to say if you use words that is rhetoric and it is by no definition. but your own, necessarily contrary to either facts or logic
Umm, I’m sorry Iain, but that makes no sense whatsoever. It simply doesn’t parse in any way as comprehensible English. Therefore (I think, if I’m following your ‘argument’ correctly), you are wrong, QED.
Thanks for playing.
Obviously you have a comprehension problem Catsidihe probably caused by your belief that the word rhetoric is only ever validly used as a pejorative term
It isn’t, and it is you who is wrong here
Here’s the rest of that Dictionary definition Iain left out..
“• language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content “
..talk about selective quotation…you’re lame cover blown again Iain.
I rarely click on Iain’s links but I wish I had for that one!
Denialists choose cherry picking. Always have and always will, because the FACTS present too uncomfortable a truth that can’t be reconciled with their own narrow, distorted view of the world.
Quatzine
the part of the citation that you quote for rhetoric does not alter my point which is that you lot think that the only meaning for the word is a pejorative one
It is not the only meaning for the word and I was using it that way either.
Confessions
Your view of the world is far narrower and much more distorted than mine
‘your’…quite obviously before the grammar police come knocking.
It COMPLETELY alters it Iain! What the hell are you ON?
btw I’ll take your comment about my ‘narrow view’ of the world as a great compliment coming from someone with credentials like yours, Iain.
Let me lay this out for you, Iain. (NB: I make the effort to spell your name correctly, a modicum of reciprocation would be appreciated)
As far as your argument can be translated into English, it seems to be:
* Rhetoric is the art of convincing another of the truth of your argument
* If one has good rhetoric then one must have convinced them of the truth of your argument
* therefore your argument must be true.
This is, of course, fractally wrong: that is, it is wrong on every level of inspection.
That one has convincing rhetoric does not necessarily have any impact on the truth of one’s argument, or vice versa.
(‘vice versa, Iain, is a Latin phrase meaning ‘facing the other way’ or ‘the other way around’, and in this case means that being true does not necessarily make for good rhetoric either.)
But the real kicker, Iain, is that your rhetoric is not just awful, it’s Godawful. It’s turgid, it’s repetitive, it’s redundant, and far more often than not, it’s simply incomprehensible. And I mean that in every possible sense. You do not write in well-structured English, and insofar as your meaning can be extracted, the ideas expressed are self-contradictory, tautological, or meaningless.
Your rhetoric is bad. You fail, repeatedly, to convince anyone.
Therefore, by your own argument, you are wrong.
Catsidhe
If I have spelled your screen name wrong it was not deliberate I apologise and I meant no offense by doing so. I am just not a natural speller OK
No my meaning is far more academic and more genera:l Rhetoric is just the art of communication (Full stop)
No the point is that to effectively communicate your message you need more than just dry facts and mechanical logic.
No what I am talking about is how effective your argument may be why do you think that I have said so in comments #57 ?
I just love Fractal images ! but I don’t think that they have anything to do with rhetoric.
Agreed, but remember that the topic of the post is about the abilities of Flannery as a communicator and the whole basis of my argument is that I agree that he is not a scintillating speaker I have seen him on TV often enough
Oh I have heard worse criticism of my rhetoric so your rant is hardly surprising, of course I disagree
I am well aware that my chances of convincing anyone here are low but so are my expectations that many here can be saved anyway.
Ah…see right there…we should be communicating according to Iain’s definitions of words as opposed to the generally accepted versions!
Iain, Iain….if we didn’t already know how ideologically caged you are I would be tempted to wonder if you ever read back ANYTHING you write – except of course to selectively quote it in the service of further obfuscation.
It does not matter how “truthy” your reality is if you can not effectively communicate that truth then then no one will believe it.
Love the way the term “truthy” is used here as a way to mock the arguments of those who believe AGW exists.
But if i’ve got this right, the reason you don’t believe is not because the science is faulty, but because the people telling you it’s real aren’t convincing, therefore the science must be wrong?
Have I got that right Iain? It appears to be your argument. You know if that is the guts of why you are a climate skeptic, it is the most preposterous thing I have ever heard.
Shaun: Iain @ 18 said this:
Which says quite clearly that “dreary” communicators don’t convince him, even if they are right.
I stand by my earlier assertions that denialists are only convinced by colour and movement. Facts and logic obviously mean nothing to them.
Er, Iain, I hate to be the one to reveal this to you, but either something’s true or it isn’t.
How a message is delivered actually doesn’t have anything to do with whether it’s right or not (except in your world).
Imagine (however many years ago it was) this scenario: “The earth revolves around the sun? Never heard such rubbish!”. Lets face it; there would have been people around at that time saying just that. Whether they believed or not didn’t alter the science.
I stand by my earlier assertions that denialists are only convinced by colour and movement. Facts and logic obviously mean nothing to them.
Well I think you realise that I concur with that assertion Confessions.
Indeed I do Shaun. My remark is aimed at Iain who yet again on another thread has exposed his own intellectual bankruptcy. Rhetoric is important. Rhetoric isn’t important. Rhetoric is a nuanced thing. Rhetoric isn’t Rhetoric. Honestly, who is that dumb?!
Indeed I do Shaun. My remark is aimed at Iain who yet again on another thread has exposed his own intellectual bankruptcy.
As I have already mentioned above, I find it absolutely extraordinary that someone could not believe something, not on the basis of whetther or not it was true, but on the basis of how the message was delivered. But then as has been already pointed out, that is just an excuse; he won’t believe no matter what – Al Gore – too flashy. Flannery – too boring. Truth is he just doesn’t like the message.
my guess now? Iain can do one of 2 things. Vanish from the thread, or attempt to zombify it with an overly verbose answer that says nothing (as is his style).
I know, I find it extraordinary too. The only logical conclusion is that aristocratic titles, idiosyncratic dress sense, and colourful, idealogical language are the things that persuade – just like the denialists we see in other parts of blogland. If they agree with the message, then it must be right.
He never vanished from the Greer thread or the Monckton thread, or countless other threads before them, despite being shown up as know-nothing, class A fool. My guess is your option B: zombie land, here we come!
Need more brainssssssssss!
He never vanished from the Greer thread or the Monckton thread, or countless other threads before them, despite being shown up as know-nothing, class A fool.
Actually that is quite noticeable isn’t it? Others get rebutted and vanish; he just goes on and on. No one ever concedes though. That would be nice to see.
I happily concede when I’m wrong, and admit as much, as do most reasonable people. But I think Iain needs to have the last word – it must be an ego thing owing to his age or something. He’s currently trying to zombify a thread on death penalty at Jeremy’s blog, but Jeremy refuses to let him have the last word on the matter.
Shaun #79
I am actually not talking about AGW in particular here but about anything that an advocate may wish to communicate to a wider audience, Just for a moment try and take of your ideological blinkers and consider my comment as the general observation about communicating a ideas that it was clearly intended to be.
No you have not got it right at all my position on AGW is that the science is not conclusive enough on the causal link between human activity and the changes in the climate
Sorry you have made the mistake of thinking that a climate change skeptic (moi) can’t talk about a true believer’s style and presentation (which is after all the nub of this thread ) on the level of communications theory which is what I have been doing in the later part of this thread. You may also benefit from reading this “open letter from Judith Curry” who makes essentially the same argument that I have been putting here about the way that the Warministas have been trying to propagate the liturgy of AGW orthodoxy and failing as comunicators.
Oh Yeah I should point out that Judith Curry is a believer in AGW BTW
Read what Curry has to say and then think about the criticisms of Flannery made by Izzard and endorsed by Andrew Bolt.
Your position on the issue is that you equate the science based evidence supporting AGW with the rubbish printed in religious scriptures, after all you equate believers in AGW with religious fundamental idiots. Hence your position on the issue is laughable!
…the science is not conclusive enough on the causal link between human activity and the changes in the climate
Well unfortunately I must say that on this front you have form.
You have actually created a rod for your own back on numerous threads where you have demanded evidence of an assertion, it has been given, and you have said.. sorry that evidence isn’t conclusive.
So forgive me for thinking that you believe what you want to believe and no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise. You’ve shown that to be the case.
But could you tell something? In your opinion, what part of the science is flawed?
That was iain’s first comment on this thread. He has since spent the entire thread flipping away from that comment, and then back to it, just like all the other times he inhabits a blog.
Seriously, why are you all bothering with him – his mind is clearly made up.
Seriously, why are you all bothering with him – his mind is clearly made up.
Well, it’s like that sign at the zoo. You know the one that says something like, “Do not poke the bear…”
Iain Hall = Blogicide
“If there is one weakness in those who espouse the the alarmist cause it is that so many of them are rather dreary communicators and even if they are right (which of course I doubt) they repeatedly fail to convince.”
I actually think you guys are misreading this comment — Iain can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe what he is saying here is that those speaking for AGW fail to convince people who are still unsure and seeking information because they are boring speakers, which causes those listening to tend to switch off and hence the message doesn’t get through — there’s probably some merit in that suggestion.
Gavin: the only way it holds merit is if you accept the premise that people need colour and glitz, not fact or logic if they are to be convinced about something. Nobody is a more boring speaker than Christine Milne, but she is credible because she bases her Senate speeches on facts. By contrast Tony Abbott has colour and movement, but isn’t credible because nothing he says is factual, and so people see through him.
Gavin, he equates people who believe in AGW with people like Stephen Fielding, so I’m reading Iain right, regardless of who they are, how they speak, if they believe in AGW they’re as mad as new earth creationists! ie Iain’s stance on AGW is laughable.
The other point to make is that those who simply refuse to be convinced by scientific evidence (ie denialists) are unlikely to accept the reality of global warming, regardless of how engaging the presenter is.
It is true that an engaging speaker will be more likely to hold an audience’s attention, but it doesn’t follow that those whose attention has been held are going to be convinced by what the person is saying simply because s/he has a glossy, glitzy presentation.
“It is true that an engaging speaker will be more likely to hold an audience’s attention, but it doesn’t follow that those whose attention has been held are going to be convinced by what the person is saying simply because s/he has a glossy, glitzy presentation.”
Agreed confessions, I was just trying to clarify Iain’s statement as I was reading it to be.
Iain uses a very carefully cropped dictionary definition to define “rhetoric” as a persuasive technique:
The art of using language, especially public speaking, as a means to persuade
When cornered by his own definition (not three hours later) Iain re-defines “rhetoric” to better suit his argument:
Rhetoric is just the art of communication (Full stop)
Ironically he describes his second, non-dictionary, definition as “more academic”. I guess that re-defining the actual and agreed meaning of words is now an academic pursuit.
Has anyone here ever tried to trap a small lizard in their hands? No matter how tight you think you’ve made the seal it always finds a little gap to slink through.
Gavin: no worries.
My point is that Iain’s very first comment uses “convince” as the operative word. His argument is that he is not convinced by anyone who is a “dreary speaker”, regardless of what they say or whether what they are saying is right. It’s a completely illogical position to take, and ought to be anathema to someone who “claims to understnad the scientific method”, as Iain has previously done. Thinking people who are genuinely open minded will decide on the merits of what the person is saying, not how they are saying it.
Well done Gavin !!!
I am glad that someone gets the rather simple point I have been trying to make here.
Thanks
Actually Confessions, when Iain used the word “convinced” he meant it in a new academic sense in which it means “impressed by”.
That has been his argument all along and it would have been clear except for the unfair moderation of his posts by the truther army or warmenists who hate his freedoms.
I can’t help but feel that one point is being overlooked, particularly with respect to Iain’s comments on communication.
Izzard never actually says what Flannery’s supposed communication problems are. All Izzard says is that Flannery is boring. He doesn’t explain why Flannery is boring; he explains why (he thinks) Flannery is wrong. (And in doing so launches into all the usual denialist memes, which I won’t attack here.)
If this were really about some some deficiency in communication, I would expect to see Izzard discussing things like humour, use of visual aids, density of technical information, use of appropriate analogies, etc. Was Flannery stuck behind a podium, shoulders hunched, talking in monotone and flicking through dense mathematics scrawled across dozens of powerpoint slides, or was he animated, engaging with the audience and making his case with distilled explanations and well-designed graphics?
According to Iain, this is all about presentation style, not whether Flannery is right or wrong (and of course one doesn’t have anything to do with the other).
However, I couldn’t discern anything about Flannery’s presentation style from Izzard’s article. As I said before, Izzard clearly only thinks Flannery is boring because he thinks Flannery is wrong. To accuse Flannery of being a poor communicator because someone else disagreed with him (which is all that’s actually happened here) is just silly.
Thing is your views on AGW are well known, you equate people who believe a theory based on scientific evidence to religious fundie type crazies who base their beliefs on fairy tales so no matter WHO presents the case they’ll NEVER convince you!
THAT!?? was your point Iain, so you’re completely in agreement with us after all? Everything else you’ve said has been completely to the contrary ie = STYLE over content is MORE persuasive…read back that’s precisely the comment everyone keeps quoting and you’ve been bizzarely defending by attempting to rewrite the dictionary definition of rhetoric you so foolishly selectively quoted.
You are really one very confused person.
Rob J
I use religious iconography when discussing this topic for two reasons, firstly so many believers in AGW are just like the Born Again Christians that I have had years of fun arguing with insofar as they are dogmatic arrogant and hostile to anyone who does not believe as they do, Secondly it gets up the noses of those who have wrapped their belief in AGW in scientific vestments even though the science is actually far from being conclusive.
quantize
I studied rhetoric at university and just as the dictionary definition suggests the word has more than one meaning. You and confessions are conflating alternates into a singularity which is a mistake driven by your ignorant believe that it is only a pejorative term.
I studied rhetoric at university
Ha!! Oh that’s gold Iain.
Actually that’s gold!!
Keep digging Iain, if you look up, you’ll notice that’s the sky disappearing.
Iain@107 I studied rhetoric at university I think it was a pity you didn’t study science. Then you would not make comments such as ………even though the science is actually far from being conclusive
Again you fail to see that one group bases their belief on quantifiable scientific evidence and the other on absurd scriptures. Your comparison is still stupid!
Aaah so you’re trolling! Are you a troll or an idiot? Because what you say is wrong!
Not according to the CSIRO, why would anyone believe you above the CSIRO, what are your credentials?
RobJ to Iain “what are your credentials?”
A Bachelor Degree in Rhetoric from the University of East Bumcrack.
I do actually want an answer, I’m wondering why people should listen to Iain over the CSIRO, I’m picking his credentials aren’t much because he claims (ad nauseam) that the science is far from being conclusive this isn’t what I’ve heard on the news this week.
Let’s be crystal clear here, Iain hasn’t said that the science is inconclusive, he has stated repeatedly that the science is FAR form being conclusive.
Iain’s admitted in an earlier thread that he studied biology in high school. That is the extent of his…{cough}…scientific…{splutter}…’qualifications’.
I did chemistry and physics and then went on to study mechanical engineering, I’m no climate expert (or expert at any science for that matter) thus I don’t understand where Iain is getting his “far from conclusive” line.. Maybe he gets his ideas from the Trollumnist? I can however declare that the Trollumnist is definitely not an expert.
Neither is iain. His views are driven by idealogy alone, not informed engagement with the literature. That’s why he believes that dreary presenters aren’t convincing: he’s not following the evidence or the facts, but is engaged by personalities, and glitzy colour and movement. Just like Trollumnist.
Rob and Confessions – You forget Iain has the Charisma and ability to present his argument better than anyone with an actual relevant degree and understanding.
You know, if you’re going to call me ignorant and use flowery prose to do it you ought to proof read before posting, unless you don’t mind coming across as a dickhead non-scientist that thinks he knows more than the scientists!
This is University of East Bumcrack-speak for “I will decide the definition of rhetoric, and the circumstances in which it is used!”
He’s a hoot!
#111 PeeBee
If the science was actually was as conclusive as you think it is there would be no debate on this issue. However even the truly committed Warministas qualify their claims and make suggestions along the lines “that there is a 90% probability” or they invoke some other caveat to all of their prognostication about the future climate or any element of it.
# 112RobJ
I call it as I see it and having extensively argued with both Christians and more recently with Warministas I just don’t see much difference between those who want to argue about the number of angels who can dance upon the head of a pin and those who want to argue about the significance of oxygen isotope various in ancient lake bed sediments.
This blog is not some august journal it is a place to discuss topic issues and dare I suggest have a bit of fun in the process. Isn’t that why YOU are here?
Now if CSIRO did not have a vested interest the government and the people continuing to support and fund their research into this topic their recent claims may have more credibility but frankly since “Climategate” most people take things like their latest announcement with a very large grain of salt But look to what I write about the topic at my own blog and you will see that none of my posts rely upon any appeal to my personal authority at all.
#113dam buster of Preston
Actually I have a bachelor degree in English from the University of Queensland
Now you delve into semantics Rob please refer to my earlier response in this comment
#115 confessions
Well what precisely are your qualifications Confessions? Because I recall your claim to have “written a peer reviewed paper” and then your reluctance to even tell us the discipline that you claim to have done this in is rather hypocritical.
#116 RobJ
Well I’ll just ask you a simple question Rob: Given your background in mechanical engineering would you feel comfortable designing a large and expensive machine based upon data sets of the standard of say the famous hockey stick graph? My guess is that you would want to have far more precision than that and that you would not put your profession reputation on the line on the basis of that sort of vagueness now would you?
The proponents of the AGW theory are asking a lot of the world and I just think that we have a right to demand that they do more than say “I am a climate scientist so you should trust me” That is precisely what I am doing and for that I need no more qualification than the boy who announced that the emperor is naked.
# 117 confessions
OK then tell us what your qualifications are then given you think that having the right pieces of paper is so important then you will have no qualms about sharing with us precisely what you have.And what “engagement with the literature” have you had ?
#119 RobJ
Yep I wished that I had not put “believe” instead of “belief “ the moment after I had clicked the submit button but everyone who comments on blogs makes those sorts of typos and usually it is in a place that causes the most embarrassment, That said I was more pissed off with Confessions than I was with you.
If the science was actually was as conclusive as you think it is there would be no debate on this issue. However even the truly committed Warministas qualify their claims and make suggestions along the lines “that there is a 90% probability” or they invoke some other caveat to all of their prognostication about the future climate or any element of it.
Ummm, risk management? Ever heard of that? If something is 90% likely, time to mitigate. Don’t you realise that?
Let’s put this in battlefield terms. If you were asked to volunteer for a mission with 90 other guys, with a 90% chance that you would be killed, would you step forward?
I find it astounding that in a situation as we have with global warming, when it boils down to it a vocal opponent can say:
1. The delivery of the information is unconvincing therefore I choose not to beleive.
2. The science is less that 100% therefore I choose not to believe.
Scientific research always has caveats. This get out you have that the science is not settled so you won’t believe can be played forever, because science is never settled; it is always advancing.
so what is the magic percentage for you Iain? 95%? 98%? 99.99%.
Or do you just want to hear a different message?
Iain my qualifications are irrelevent because I’m not the one questionning the climate scientists. You are. In which case it is entirely appropriate to ask in what ways you are qualified to do so.
Yes, because it was YOU speaking out your rear end about the process of writing journal articles. You admitted you haven’t had any research you’ve done published in an academic journal whereas I have, so on that basis know more about the process than you. Which is why I can call out your observations about the matter as rubbish.
# 122 Shaun
If you are going to invoke “risk management” as a justification for spending vast amounts of money on mitigation then it is entirely valid for me to talk about “cost benefit analysis” because if there is no likelihood of sufficient subscription to a course of action that requires the cooperation of the entire planet, then you are actually making a huge commitment in effort an treasure into something that won’t do squat So how does that then offset any risk in the first place?
That analogy does not work
#123 ShaunHC
I find it amazing that you couch your argument in terms of belief when you have been trying so hard to suggest that your position is not a religious one .
Agreed that all science has caveats but where we differ is that you obviously don’t pay those caveats any serious attention at all
Shaun I tread lightly on the planet by not being in a mad rush on the consumer treadmill, recycling and re-using with a dedication that puts most Latte sippers to shame. There is no magic number that proves any particular claim for me it all depends on what those numbers actually represent now doesn’t it?
#124 confessions
What a load of bollocks! You are the one who has made claims to a science qualification and you won’t even nominate a discipline. I think it is safe to assume that the only qualification that you have was cut from the back of a cornflakes packet
PROVE your claim above (in bold)
You are making an appeal to your own authority here and then refusing to say what that authority is, give us a citation of the article that you have had published or we can legitimately assume that it too came from the back of a cornflakes packet.
So Iain you live on a planet at the centre of the solar system surrounded by creatures the result of intelligent design? And of course you wouldn’t use electricity, and light must be a problem for you, is it a wave or a particle.
Now I have never seen an atom but some clever chaps have explained it to me and despite the fact they can’t really show me one I am happy to accept they exist. Going by your notion of proven i wonder what you think holds your trousers up, fairies?
If you had taken notice in science class back in school you would have understood that science isn’t about absolutes it’s about theories and probability. More importantly in this case it’s about asking what will happen if we do nothing as opposed to doing something. Trouble is people like you try to introduce the non science of economics and it’s cousin politics.
Oh Iain. Still flipping and flopping and trying to back away from your ridiculous postering on this issue by attacking me.
I repeat: It is you, not me who doubts the scientific validity of AGW. On what grounds are you qualified to dispute the thousands of qualified experts who work in this field? It is a reasonable enough question.
I find it amazing that you couch your argument in terms of belief when you have been trying so hard to suggest that your position is not a religious one .
Oh here we go. The bloke who lectures others about semantics using semantics.
That analogy does not work
I meant 9 other guys.. i.e. a 9 in 10 chance of dying. It does work. Because if the science is 90% certain, we have a only a 10% chance that the planet isn’t going to be fucked up if we don’t act to manage the risk. I don’t like those odds.
Anyway folks. I declare the thread officially zombified. I predicted it. I called it. Do I get a prize?
I guess, despite having studied ‘rhetoric’ (whatever definition) Iain this thread has demonstrated he’s extremely poor at it…talk about dreary!
Iain, in this thread..
If you are going to invoke “risk management” as a justification for spending vast amounts of money on mitigation then it is entirely valid for me to talk about “cost benefit analysis” because if there is no likelihood of sufficient subscription to a course of action that requires the cooperation of the entire planet, then you are actually making a huge commitment in effort an treasure into something that won’t do squat So how does that then offset any risk in the first place?
I actually agree with this. However I don’t understand what you are saying. Are you saying you don’t believe AGW is real, or you don’t believe Australia’s actions will change much?
What I think here is that you don’t believe Australia acting alone will do much and by your twisted logic, you therefore question the science.
I, on the other hand, don’t question the science. But guess what? That doesn’t stopping me from questioning our response to it.
So tell me Iain, why do you feel the need to dismiss the science to question the response? Do you think they go together?
Simon #126
I do not subscribe to any magical belief system about the creation of the planet.
#131
Iain: I repeat. It is YOU who disputes the scientific validity of AGW therefore it is entirely appropriate to ask on what basis you are qualified to do so. Clearly you have no qualifications or expertise otherwise you wouldn’t continue trying to deflect to me.
As I said, your objection to climate science is based wholly on idealogy, there’s no reason or logic behind your stance. And I will note that you fall into the demographic of denialists: Old. White. Male.
Surely then you have to concede that if you think that the response won’t work then the actual science becomes entirely moot?
No. How does that work in Iain world? You are saying that now to avoid answering about the science. Either the science is right or it isn’t. The science is still there.
What to do about warming is another matter entirely.
So I figured it out. You disagree with course of action to be taken, so therefore you think you must also disagree with the science.
You’re not exactly an Einstein are you?
But Iain you don’t believe any science that isn’t 100% proved, so how can you believe anything?
And going by your standards how can you belive that doing nothing is a good idea?
Your lack of scientific reasoning (obviously not something covered at UEB) is obvious.
P.S. Iain where did you study Rethoric?
I think its in this thread Iain says he has a degree in English from the Uni Of Qld
He’s a poor advertisment in my opinion
But Iain you don’t believe any science that isn’t 100% proved, so how can you believe anything?
On that matter nuclear science isn’t settled, but we still know enough about it to create nuclear bombs.
“I repeat: It is you, not me who doubts the scientific validity of AGW. On what grounds are you qualified to dispute the thousands of qualified experts who work in this field? It is a reasonable enough question.”
The answer confessions is ‘The Trollumist said so’……all of Iain’s talking points come from reading Trollumist, they have for years.
This is what makes his boring repeat of the AGW = religion so funny…..he really feels that the Trollumist is a Guru, and can’t be questioned on this issue, in Iain’s mind he is always right…..ALWAYS!
Look, to all of you responding to Iain, you may enjoy it for a while, but he will NEVER change his predictable views unless the Trollumist shows him how.
It’s boring reading the same stuff from him over and over – and then watching him proven ignorant over and over….
Can I please suggest that someone write a response to his repeated Trollumist talking points, and then just refer him to that when he does his trolling?
PLEEEESE…..to keep us sane.
ShaunHC
Speaking of nuclear science reminds me that when the first Atom bomb was nearly complete a lot of those working on it were worried that the reaction once started wouldn’t stop and would simply continue until it had consumed the whole earth. They gave Eduard Teller the job of calculating whether this would happen, his conclusion? He said it was unlikely the reaction would continue out of control. This is just what science is about, you examine the facts, develop a theory and test the theory against the facts, if the balance of probability is that the theory is correct then you act accordingly. This doesn’t mean the science is settled just that until new facts come along we should act according to this theory. Evolution is one of the best examples of this, we are happy to accept the notion of species evolving but are aware that the actual mechanism is still something that needs more research.
When I hear so called sceptics arguing against AGW it is clear how little most of them know about science, they are as wrong as flat earthers and those who trumpet intelligent design
A whole day without response from Iain? Have we finally silenced him?
No Shaun you haven’t
May not have silenced you, but you don’t have a response when I put it to you that you dispute the science because you don’t agree with the proposed solutions you went quiet.
I know I will never get a straight answer from you, but I believe this to be the case.
You disagree with an ETS, so for some strange reason, you believe it is necessary to question the science to validate this position. Why is that Iain?
Or have I got that wrong Iain?
Is it that you are suspicious of the science because it is an our side/their side thing?
“Leftists” believe in AGW. I’m on the right so I’m not supposed to believe in that.
Or is it even lamer? My hero Bolt doesn’t believe in it, therefore I can’t.
Shaun
I spent all of yesterday helping my Mother in law pack up her house prior to its sale being finalized early next week so I have had no time to respond in detail to your questions. But I will do shortly as soon as I get a few domestic chores out of the way.
Cheers
Sure. Everytime there is a climate change post here, bookmark this comment to bring out whenever Iain tries on his denialist rubbish. Things to remember about iain hall:
- Iain views AGW through an idealogical prism. He doesn’t accept the science of climate change because he thinks the weight of evidence of climate change rests on a political spectrum rather than a scientific, evidence base. He also fits the demographic profile of denialism: middle aged, white male, with a deep suspicion of matters scientific.
- Iain believes that scientific endeavour is akin to religion, hence his use of theological terminology to describe scientists and their work. This belief also belies the deep suspicion with which he holds the scientific community.
- iain is persuaded by those who are engaging, colourful presenters who use froth and bubble and pretty pictures in their presentations, rather than fact and logic. Again, this goes to the ideological prism through which iain views climate science, as well as the deep suspicion through which he views scientific endeavour more generally.
- Iain prefers to use meaningless terms to describe researchers and those who accept their work. ‘Warminista’ is a favourite. This shows he has little understanding of the evidence base, much less any clue about how to engage with it meaningfully.
- Iain subscribes to many conspiracy theories when it comes to AGW science: it’s a gravy train where boundless riches can be had (despite research being a poorly paid profession); a price on carbon emissions will result in us moving back to caves or living in trees (despite society showing no inclination of doing so); no other nation in the world is addressing the problem of climate change, only Australia (when in fact the reverse is true); and countless idiocies about Al Gore and Prius drivers (fat, smug etc) as if these disprove the weight of scientific evidence.
- Iain thinks he knows all about climate science because he studied biology in high school (all those years ago – he is 53). Furthermore, he refuses to answer any questions about why his lack of scientific expertise renders him special insight into AGW research, while those who have spent their lives working in the discipline have it all wrong. This fanciful, yet arrogant delusion is common to many denialists by the way.
- Iain refuses to answer repeated questions about what specific aspects of the scientific literature give him pause to believe AGW is not occurring. This goes to his lack of scientific expertise on the matter, his deep suspicion of science generally, and because he views climate change ideologically rather than scientifically. It is pointless asking him this question as you will not get an answer.
- Lastly, Iain places the opinion of tabloid newspaper columnists above the experience and expertise of climate scientists. No amount of research output or scientific literature will convince him for as long as there is some unqualified hack prepared to tell him that AGW is a communist conspiracy or whatever. Proof that global warming is just an idealogical pursuit for him, rather than a serious scientific phenomenon.
In short, you are wasting time with him because he will never accept global warming. You would be better served ignoring him.
#132confessions
Yawn! You are a total bullshit artist confessions and I sense something so very familiar about your style of argument that explains it for me
#134 ShaunHC
If the course of action suggested by the science is impossible and the science is actuality untestable by the scientific method then arguing about its validity falls into “the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin” territory. So you are correct to say that the science is either right or it isn’t the problem is that no one can be sure either way.
True enough
No, I disagree with the proposed course of action and I have been trying to point out to those that believe in AGW that even IF they are right about the science they should disagree with the proposed course of action because it will be ineffective (as you concede)
Never claimed that I am
#135 surlysimon
That is a silly question because obviously experience shows us all what aspects of science’s claims are correct.
When the proposed “something” is not possible then why is doing it in any sense a logical choice?
My scientific reasoning is fine even if it is a little more basic than I would like.
What is “UEB”?
#139 youngcraig
You and confessions Make a good pair Craigy. You are both dogmatic bigots full of seething hatred so it is no surprise that you are in agreement
You are talking crap Craigy but on the other hand I have yet to see you sing from anything other than the far left song sheet and when was the last time that you changed your mind about anything either?
#144ShaunHC
Yes
Not at all Shaun, there are scientists on both sides of this debate and my support for any of their positions is not contingent on their political beliefs.
I think I have said before My views do not perfectly fit with what you consider the Conservative paradigm to be and I happily recommended some writers who a definitively of the left Like Orwell and Nick Cohen.
No, I had my doubts about AGW before I even discovered Andrew Bolt existed.
{removed – you’re not a moderator here – Tobby}
Iain
UEB as you would know if you every really read other peoples posts is the University Of East Bumcrack, look it up.
“When the proposed “something” is not possible then why is doing it in any sense a logical choice?”
Talk about a really silly statement, gold class, worthy of UEB.
And what about cutting emissions or doing other environmental actions is not possible?
And please tell me something scientific that is 100% certain? your scientific reasoning is not just basic it is primitive in the extreme, you would have been one of those ready to burn Galileo, and I begin to think you may still not quite believe him. My suggestion is you stick to retoric
Newton’s first law seems pretty sure to me Simon, but then it can actually be tested can’t it?
You know validated by the scientific method and empirical measurement.
As for Galileo I would have been putting the inquisition to the sword if I had been in a position to chose be tween them and that astronomer
But Iain
Newton’s laws is that it? and please remember that even Newton’s laws are being constantly tested, so to me that indicates some doubt. It is true to say Newtons laws have held up to testing up till now but what if the LHC finds some flaws in newtonian physics at a sub atomic level?
Anyone with a scientific background understands that no theory is fixed, it is always open to updating in the light of new facts
You still haven’t told us oh wise one what is impossible about tackling climate change? I will concede it won’t be easy, but not “possible” very big call I think
Oh and last time I looked the scientists working on AGW had used “scientific method and empirical measurement” so why not believe them?
Not at all Shaun, there are scientists on both sides of this debate and my support for any of their positions is not contingent on their political beliefs.
Straight up that is rubbish!
There are no climatologist on the anti AGW side of the debate.
Geologists and the like don’t count.
Were are in Zombie land. Somebody please kill this thread.