Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Pointman

107 posts

147 months

Friday 27th April 2012
quotequote all
It looks like the poll downunder after the ABC program, "I Can Change Your Mind About..Climate" has backfired on them.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/

Topically enough, my take on all these "polls" lately.

"While it may be an uncomfortable experience to have one’s paper criticised in a specialist journal covering your own quiet little area of endeavour in science, getting reamed on the world’s most read climate science website, which also just happens to have won the best science blog award for two years in succession, is in a whole different ballpark of pain. Orders of magnitude, baby, orders of magnitude."

http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/lies-d...

Pointman

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Friday 27th April 2012
quotequote all
Critics Attack Royal Society's ‘Appallingly Bad Report On Population And Consumption’

The Royal Society has released a report on what they call the joint problems of consumption and population. It has one excellent bit, some good bits – but unfortunately, given that the people writing one half of the report seem to have failed to read the other half, as a whole it's a dismal failure. These sorts of errors would lead to a marking down in an undergraduate essay and to the failure of a PhD defence. The Royal Society should withdraw this report and work on fixing both the factual and logical errors before trying to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.
Tim Worstall, The Daily Telegraph, 26 April 2012

Based on what can only be described as the irresponsible usage of population growth predictions, the Royal Society has sanctioned a report that both undermines its credibility and attempts to dupe Western consumers into remorse over our ‘lavish’ lifestyles. The report suggests, like the farcical carbon trading scheme, a pseudo-market in consumption trading. There was a time when pioneering and ingenuity was rewarded. Today we seem to have regressed back to 1789, demonising market-driven growth and attempting to replace it with tick boxes and failed economic and development theories. The Royal Society boasts that Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Ernest Rutherford, Albert Einstein, Dorothy Hodgkin, Francis Crick and James Watson were life members. It is my contention that these innovators and pioneers would be embarrassed of the pessimistic approach taken by modern scientists, many of whom see themselves as activists and are indeed children of ideology rather than professionals with a commitment to the scientific method.
Raheem Kassam, The Commentator, 26 April 2012

A bit of recent history may be relevant here:

Paul Nurse’s undergraduate socialist spirit is still alive and well: he wouldn’t be against scientists getting involved in activism. “We are citizens, and citizens should be involved in politics, and I think those that have a strong view should be involved in party politics,” he says. “I’m happy to see fellows of the Royal Society politically engaged, if that’s what they see as right.”
Michael Brooks, New Statesman, 09 June 2011

Pointman

107 posts

147 months

Friday 27th April 2012
quotequote all
@TurboBloke. Tim Worstall at the DT had a good go at the RS's report.

"These sorts of errors would lead to a marking down in an undergraduate essay and to the failure of a PhD defence. The Royal Society should withdraw this report and work on fixing both the factual and logical errors before trying to tell the rest of us how to live our lives."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/timworstall/1...

Pointman

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Friday 27th April 2012
quotequote all
Pointman said:
@TurboBloke. Tim Worstall at the DT had a good go at the RS's report.

"These sorts of errors would lead to a marking down in an undergraduate essay and to the failure of a PhD defence. The Royal Society should withdraw this report and work on fixing both the factual and logical errors before trying to tell the rest of us how to live our lives."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/timworstall/1...

Pointman
Indeed, his blog was my first quote smile

Pointman

107 posts

147 months

Friday 27th April 2012
quotequote all
Doh!

Apache

39,731 posts

283 months

Friday 27th April 2012
quotequote all
"The Royal Society boasts that Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Ernest Rutherford, Albert Einstein, Dorothy Hodgkin, Francis Crick and James Watson were life members. It is my contention that these innovators and pioneers would be embarrassed of the pessimistic approach taken by modern scientists, many of whom see themselves as activists and are indeed children of ideology rather than professionals with a commitment to the scientific method."

Marvelous and terrible all at once

kerplunk

7,052 posts

205 months

Saturday 28th April 2012
quotequote all
Albert Einstein's political views



Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 28th April 13:39

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Saturday 28th April 2012
quotequote all
According to Wiki?

hehe

kerplunk

7,052 posts

205 months

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Saturday 28th April 2012
quotequote all
smile

Meanwhile...

Einstein:
"The reactionary politicians have managed to instill suspicion of all intellectual efforts into the public by dangling before their eyes a danger from without."

Mencken:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

It looks as though both of the above knew all about political propagandist control techniques, with modern day imaginary hobgoblins being manmadeup global warming and ocean slightdealkalination.

Clearly young Albert was right to argue against politicisation of scientists as intellectuals, had he seen the joke being made of his subject these days by third raters he would doubtless be equally outspoken. However, Wiki's neat selection of quotes to support the vaguely leftist leanings of ivory tower dwellers as somehow novel and worthy of interest would be quaint at best. If by some remarkable chance any folk didn't know about that, the Royal Sorcery has made it plain - so that can't be the point here. In other news I managed to do some shopping between the showers today as there were extreme bargains to be had in the normal seasonal weather. After all it's only claimed to be the ninth wettest April in the UK since pitifully short timescale records began yet BBC forecasts give us mostly Noah in drag.

odyssey2200

18,650 posts

208 months

Saturday 28th April 2012
quotequote all
kerplunk said:
and then

kerplunk said:
rofl

Is that an appeal to authority?

Lost_BMW

12,955 posts

175 months

Saturday 28th April 2012
quotequote all
Pointman said:
@TurboBloke. Tim Worstall at the DT had a good go at the RS's report.

"These sorts of errors would lead to a marking down in an undergraduate essay and to the failure of a PhD defence. The Royal Society should withdraw this report and work on fixing both the factual and logical errors before trying to tell the rest of us how to live our lives."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/timworstall/1...

Pointman
Should any one still have any doubts about the political leanings and impartiality of The Royal Sorcery and its prognostications they could have a listen to this week's "Any Questions"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qgvj

where their front man - Sir John Sulston, another bloody biologist, is their a trend here? - who banged on relentlessly about wealth redistribution wanted

(a) to pay more in tax rather than have the govt. deficit reduction measures (the obviously unbiased and fully representative audience whistle agreed!)

and

(b) manage to turn the debate about population size into, mainly, a rant about CO2 causing climate change and how rich nations need to reduce their energy use/emissions, without ever saying how the hell this had any (demonstrable!) impact on the issues.

A fellow panelist described him, tellingly, as a "green Karl Marx wanting to run the world"!

Bacardi

2,235 posts

275 months

Saturday 28th April 2012
quotequote all
Pointman said:
It looks like the poll downunder after the ABC program, "I Can Change Your Mind About..Climate" has backfired on them.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/
"Your profile is:

DISMISSIVE

The Dismissive are sure that global warming is not happening. You say the issue is not at all important to you personally and are not worried about it at all. You, however, say that you have thought about global warming and believe you are well-informed about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions – i.e., that there are none, because it doesn’t exist. You are very certain about your views, and are very unlikely to change your mind about the issue. Many of the Dismissive flatly reject the proposition that global warming is happening, while a majority believe that if global warming is happening, natural changes in the environment are the primary cause. Likewise, a majority believe there is a lot of disagreement among scientists over whether global warming is occurring, while over a fifth of the Dismissive believe there is a scientific consensus that global warming is not happening. You say that global warming will not harm you personally or future generations at all. Finally, you believe global warming will never harm people.

You fall in the 51% of Australians, who've taken this 'climate challenge' who are dismissive of global warming."

Given the caveat of the weighted questions, the omission of 'man made' that should be before every 'global warming', that's about right. biggrin

DieselGriff

5,160 posts

258 months

Saturday 28th April 2012
quotequote all
Bacardi said:
..You fall in the 51% of Australians, who've taken this 'climate challenge' who are dismissive of global warming..."
smilenice to see the % of "Dismissive" responses has increased from the 49% it was when I was told I was naughty!

Lost_BMW

12,955 posts

175 months

Saturday 28th April 2012
quotequote all
Bacardi said:
"Your profile is:

DISMISSIVE

The Dismissive are sure that global warming is not happening. You say the issue is not at all important to you personally and are not worried about it at all. You, however, say that you have thought about global warming and believe you are well-informed about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions – i.e., that there are none, because it doesn’t exist. You are very certain about your views, and are very unlikely to change your mind about the issue. Many of the Dismissive flatly reject the proposition that global warming is happening, while a majority believe that if global warming is happening, natural changes in the environment are the primary cause. Likewise, a majority believe there is a lot of disagreement among scientists over whether global warming is occurring, while over a fifth of the Dismissive believe there is a scientific consensus that global warming is not happening. You say that global warming will not harm you personally or future generations at all. Finally, you believe global warming will never harm people.

You fall in the 51% of Australians, who've taken this 'climate challenge' who are dismissive of global warming."

Given the caveat of the weighted questions, the omission of 'man made' that should be before every 'global warming', that's about right. biggrin
Wow, that sounds like a mental illness! Maybe all members of the Dismissive should be treated. Or shot. Or something. I mean, just think of the planet.

Lost_BMW

12,955 posts

175 months

Saturday 28th April 2012
quotequote all
On a happier note, my (just turned) seven year olds told me today that the student who, apparently, takes most of their lessons now(?) has been teaching them about Polar Bears.

[i]"It's not true, but he told us that Polar Bears are rare and dying out because the ice is melting (because of us) but that's not true daddy..." Chip of the old denialist blocks. smile


Complaint on way to school on Monday first; ignorance, school planning/materials or lefty-trendy brainwashing infants about a subject they have no say in at all? tt(S).

Pointman

107 posts

147 months

Saturday 28th April 2012
quotequote all
@LostBMW, have some ammo mate.

"In conclusion and moving back to conversations with young people, I always agree with them in the end that the Polar bear situation is terrible but what I’m really thinking is terrible, is just how successful propaganda can be."

http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/polar-...

Pointman

LongQ

Original Poster:

13,864 posts

232 months

Saturday 28th April 2012
quotequote all
odyssey2200 said:
rofl

Is that an appeal to authority?
I though Einstein, in common with many 'star' academic scientists, produced all of his primary work befoe the age of 30 and then spent the rest of his life failing to prove his next theory.

They say of mathematicians that the brightest ones have acheived all the big successes they will achieve by age 25 and after that can expect little more than a plateau for the rest of their academic involvement.

'Spose its a bit like any sport really. A few years of heroism and then a lifetime of perpetuating one's self importance from the analysts chair after retirement.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Saturday 28th April 2012
quotequote all
Talking of mathematicians and politics, this is lucid thought from a sometimes troubled but top level mathematician:

"Then gradually I began to intellectually reject some of the delusionally influenced lines of thinking which had been characteristic of my orientation. This began, most recognizably, with the rejection of politically-oriented thinking as essentially a hopeless waste of intellectual effort."

Obviously not somebody in any way linked to Royal Sorcery 'thinking'.

Pointman

107 posts

147 months

Saturday 28th April 2012
quotequote all
"with the rejection of politically-oriented thinking as essentially a hopeless waste of intellectual effort" - without the possibly missing comma, you could read it either way.

Pointman
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED