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
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 » Show All
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
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 » Show All