Discussion in 'The big picture' started by Earth's Internet, Nov 8, 2012.
Please Len cut the projection and other crap
Hi len, one of the links provided by Michaelangelica notes that out of 13,950 peer reviewed articles on climate change only 24, or 0.17%, rejected the idea. Can you explain why you feel they are faceless and nameless as they could not be peer reviewed if they were. I would contest that if 99.83% of scientists agree on a subject it is fare to call the rest (including the public) deniers, which simply means 'one that denies' or more strongly 'a denier of strong realities'. Feel free to call me a denier for not agreeing with your beliefs on this subject - I support close to 14,000 reports put forward by subject matter experts that are reviewed by the scientific community and not speculation put forward by the uninformed. I believe the 24 reports that take a different view to the majority should not be ignored as they may provide information valuable to the conversation but on the balance of numbers, if I have to vote, I go with the 99.83% as any other position must call into question my logic skills and potentially my state of mind - if anyone out there chooses the 0.17% over the 99.83% I have a nice bridge in Sydney up for sale.
PS - I'm curious to know why you don't use capitalisation or normal grammatical constructs, just curious?
ok truce as i don't talk crap you stop your assault on me as well.
again i find your response is very defensive and judgemental.
ngcomm, they are faceless to nearly all the population in this case of australia, and also nameless, just because they know each other surprise surprise means nothing. again it fits your belief and still no facts. again your figure of 99% is only out of the selected believers. and again name calling raises its ugly head you don't know me either.
all peer reviewed papers have the authors names, credentials and research affiliations on them. All peer reviewed papers are open and accessible. Therefore the authors of the thousands of papers mentioned above are not nameless. The reason, I think, that you are finding some are taking you up on your stance is that the bulk of what you write makes no sense. It is illogical, defies reason and established facts. When anyone points you toward information that can inform you with real, corroborated evidence you flat out decry it with no reasoning whatsoever. This probably makes people frustrated beyond belief LOL. It is not that you can't have a differing or opposing view but please use facts, references and coherent, rational argument to back up your stance. - I am sorry, there was just no other way to say that.
well i suppose in the eyes of the believers they have names but not faces, and for the rest of us they remain nameless and faceless.
why should i provide facts when the science is based on speculation with no hard factual support, be fare now. the topic did not ask for fact it asked for opinion etc.,.
Fair call on the opinion vs substantiated fact part, Len.
These people who have authored the papers, having done the huge amount of real work in research, do not have to remain nameless to you Len. You choose to let them remain nameless and in doing so you are doing yourself a disservice by not educating yourself on the topic. I am not saying you would necessarily change your opinion - but would one not wish to read widely and be well informed?
These papers are not speculation either. If you had read anything on the subject (and not just papers, there are excellent reference books available from libraries), you would see the research data that has been collected. You would read how and why this data was collected and exactly what analysis of the data has been done. You would then read what conclusions the data shows. You would also read if conclusions cannot be drawn from the data and what further questions or research the data would suggest be undertaken.
I am fortunate in that a few of these authors are not faceless to me either. They are the wonderful men and women whom I have had the privilege of being taught by. Real, honest people of integrity who do the work they do because they love it, they want to further humankind's knowledge in their field and they want to hopefully improve our lot in some way by having done so. Far from wanting to make your life or the life of the poor any worse, nor to further the degradation of the natural world, they work towards the opposite - exactly what you champion.
Faceless and nameless only if you do not bother to look up the papers and note the authors associated with said papers. As a person who has publiahed papers (not on this subject mind you but on knowledge management) I know that the only reason for thinking they are faceless and nameless is that you have not bothered to find and read the published articles/papers and noted their authors.
Name calling? I can only assume you refer to my comment about the 'uninformed', I believe my above response illustrates my point. But all the same, no disrespect was intended and I apologise if you took offence, that was not my intent.
in short no value for us in peer review system, need to see some customer satisfaction, not even doctors have peer review if they are no good patients who live pass the word. and their paper work results of so called research does not show actual fact it is at best circumstantial and not dealing in actual cause and effect.
calling people you don't know as deniers is name calling, you sell your belief and there will be no so called deniers hey? it's a cop out by the science to belittle people.
Then call me a denier as I don't agree with you - 'denier' is a concept that appears to have more meaning to you than me but I think it is best I leave you to your beliefs. Enjoy, take care, smile - life is a lot more fun without fear.
that's ok but because lots of us don't believe the furphy we are labelled deniers.
it gets used often like the days of people labeling others as conspiracy theorists, it is a nice comfort zone for the name caller.
One last comment Len. Published papers do indeed deal with cause and effect if it is there to be shown. That is the whole point *sigh*
Sorry Len, but your complete lack of understanding of the scientific method leads to total misunderstanding by you on how research is done .
best wishes for a good 2013.
Pretty hard to get customer satisfaction when your delivering bad news and laying the blame on man and his greed .
understand that grasshopper, so then peer review is only for the exclusive means naught to the lower down masses, and starving of the world.
yes blame the greed of greedy men/women. don't blame teh poorer masses who struggle from week to week in many cases day to day, this whole process could use a shot of humanity. make teh wealthy power brokers pay, if teh science thinks it has identified a cause and not an effect then show us what it is and show us the fix and how long the fix will take, just don't support a theory and then let inane government run amok with a so called fix.
i'll say again without our gardens we would be having harder times, many who don't have gardens i understand their plight, our grocery bill in the greed run supermarket went from around $130 per fortnight to $200 per fortnight and that is after dropping product we sued to buy, now this occurred after this inept carbon tax industry was bought in so costs can only get worse as they try to make the tax fix a nothing.
yes i am aware the supporters of the science don't like it when people like me cloud the issue.
temper all science with humanitarianism, not just greed. and this science is no different it has this crowd of supporters propping it up and going to bat for it, for the power and the glory.
yes mouseinthehouse, their theory of cause and effect lets see some fact not just more supporting theory, the rules are you support their theory or your off their xmas list.
i pity the poor most of which have no idea what is coming or happening.
I have a cunning plan................Baldrick in the time of Blackadder
Corporations:"These goddam environmentalists are making it harder and harder for us to rape the earth for our profits and you know if we don't make our profits, you governments will lose revenue and we will not contribute to your campaigns for re election"
Government: "Yes we need to create jobs but protect the environment (or be seen to protect the environment) otherwise we might get voted out. We need money for ourselves to get re-elected. We all want to retire comfortably and the masses will believe what we say so how about this?" We get them to lose focus on the destruction of rainforests so our big corporate friends can keep plundering native forests and destroy indigenous communities, we get them to lose focus on huge polluters, we get them to lose focus on the acidification of the oceans, we get them to lose focus on acidification of soils, we get them to lose focus on how pesticides and chemicals are destroying the earth and their health, and all the other things environmentalists are concerned about. How? We get them to focus on one thing. Global warming. We get them and everyone so scared that this is their main focus. Then another cunning plan we have is to get all those who care about how the earth is being raped to argue amoung themselves so that their power is scattered. Divide and conquer everyone. The oldest trick in the book. While they are arguing about the science, the big boys can keep on doing their thing, giving us money and providing jobs and destroying the earth. We know very well that the other countries think the same as us, cost too much money to do anything about climate change, so it is a perfect cunning plan. Just get them distracted."
Seems to working pretty well.=(
Happy to debate the issue Len, but you present no facts, just incoherent rantings, unsupported assertions, Daily Telegraph memes and bigotry
there you go michael the continued denigration of some one you know so little about, if the science was so pure why then do you need to get so venomous?? my thoughts on the science and as i do not have the mathematical ability to construct a model and a story to support my theory, my theory si this thing is a mythological driven con job, just like hans christian anderson's "the emporer's new clothes" they can neither in fact prove it nor can they even demonstrate how to fix it or how long it will take to fix this modern belief.
so why do you require us common folk the ones who are now suffering more expensive living costs to provide more than what the science does, that is hard facts.
talk about incoherent rambling you are very good at that also look at your past posts, and what does the telegraph have to do with it? we buy no newspapers and read no newspapers, proffering instead to watch abc and sbs topics including their doco's which can be quiet laughable as some presenter stumbles though what science says happened, and there they have no facts.
anyhow mark lets see some humanity in these furphies.
annette, you got it in one it is all a giant red herring, and the environmentalists are their rent a crowd achieving nothing but to bolster the red herring. you see them up front every time they want a demonstration to take peoples minds of what they want to do they rent a crowd.
Ignorance and arrogance are a dangerous combination.
I don't need any scientific peer-reviewed papers to tell me that humans have and still are trashing the environment. I see it as soon as I step out from my drive.
I suspect what Len objects to is the greed and exploitation that seems to have come with the science (Len?). Problem is that there is greed and exploitation is on both sides of the climate change 'discussion'. People are misusing and misrepresenting the facts to suit themselves, politicians, business people etc. Humans seem to be, on the whole, greedy and exploitative at this point in time.
Having said all of that the science can be a great tool for alerting people to the damage we are doing to ourselves and our environment. It helps people smell the shit in our nest. People are always going to rebut the facts, especially an interpretation of the facts that threaten their own world view.
Like I've opined before, climate change and global warming are more or less irrelevant because we still need to take exactly the same actions wether it be real or imagined. We all need to stop crapping in our own nest and we all need to stop crapping on each other. I hold a vision that this sort of discussion just disappears from any permaculture discussion because it serves no purpose. It is a toxic discussion. Also the discussion weaves in and out of the political, ethical and personal. So it is a never ending discussion.
Len, can you separate the science out from the politics and the ethics of the whole thing? Can you at least separate out the raw data?
So so true...and so so sad as that combination is in fact the fundamental reason we, as a race, are in the sh** we now find ourselves... but then again, it may be the only way to salvation, after all, ignorance is bliss. Instructions for all, please bend over, carefully deposit head in nearest orifice and explore your new environment :think:
can't separate hand in glove stuff grahame,
yes as someone keeps trying to target the climate results we have are caused by the greed of man not the common man we play little in their game of power and manipulation, with climate change the only facts are in the minds of men who manipulate it for their glory and gain, and use supporters below them to prop them up.
lst night they said nsw and qld temps as well as vic and tas will be driven up by hot desert winds, yes that is true because down south they have cleared their mulga and mallee and up here we have now gone wast sustainable climate as we rip out our brigalow for the greed of the powerful, meantime the poor suffer.
the best action stop clear felling of any habitat for any reason, start rehabilitating before those weed windmills take over, they will not improve climate. green means brown scorched earth policies.
Separate names with a comma.