Lame New World 33: Climate Changes Comedy
As one French weatherman found out just recently. Two points. A weatherman is not a scientist. Scientists accept a scientific view due to the weight of the evidence, not because they risk being treated like a French weatherman. If you think scientists subsist on annual research grants, you'd be wrong. And even if they did which they don't , if you think scientists would en masse prostitute their professional integrity for a paycheck, you'd be even wrong-ger-er. Evan if you want to run a follow-the-money argument, I want you to ponder one thing. You and me have got to play poker sometime, EVAN.
Idiotic comment, EVAN. Far more money is spent on trying to fix the problems of tobacco than is raised by it. It hardly makes the "smoking causes lung cancer" claim alarmist claptrap. It shows just what scum the AGW deniers are when they resort to such grubby tactics as false accusations about the motives of those who understand and respect the science - tactics not even Big Tobacco has ever stooped to.
If you -really- have proof that global warming isn't happening; if you can come up with a reasonable hypothesis that explains -all- of the data that has been collected, in a way that is better than the existing theory then you'll easily get funded and published. You have a fairy tale understanding of how researchers work, and seemingly attribute super-villain like properties of deception and intrigue to them. Evan, 4th Nov, So you agree that you have no idea how universities work. This probably disqualifies you from suggesting that they are all in a secret agreement to keep the 'truth' as you see it from the world.
The rest of your sentence makes no sense, but I guess that you were trying to without evidence, and with childish aplomb say the equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I? BTW your comment shows the problem if you don't review your posts, and are in a rush just to come back with a "snappy" comeback. This is why the scientific process has peer review embedded in it - to ensure that your work is reviewed before it is published, and that people get the opportunity to repeat your findings. Now if we are going to shoot people every time they make a mistake then before to long there will be no one left to post.
Evan , you see when scientists stop questioning they cease to be scientists and are simply beholden to convenient policy's and the lure of big money , that WOULD be unfortunately from both sides. You probably agree that humans could be at least some of the reason of the climate change problem and maybe we should invest more in renewables , even only for the fact fossil fuels aren't infinite , so it would make sense too wouldn't it.
However Evan , we need coal now , to keep things happening , we need fossil fuels now , to survive. It's the scaremongering of kids , the hateful vitriol levelled at those who choose to question the catastrophic consequences of AGW parroted by the politically driven zealots that you should fear for they want no free speech on this matter.
Keep punching Evan , you opinion matters. Look Evan, I don't think your worldview is correct, but I just want to raise with you the very serious point that, as locked in as you are by non-sequiturs, you can never change your position. So what can you bring to the debate? Theos Like Willie Soon and the camping of bullying and harassment you mean or carter getting the sack for daring to hold a different view, or the attempt at the use of the RICO against sceptics But is it acceptable to sack a weatherman for writing a book so much for Charlie Hebdo and free speech in France!!
Did they really pay all that money to Soon, Reinhard? It's disgraceful how these scientists get their funding, isn't it? The difference being Mann's work is actual science, not the simple contrarian cherry picking and misinformation that we see from the Fossil fuel lobby. Ezxon Mobil have spent millions with their "Climate Action Plan" trying to shut down Mann and others. You would have to ask a French person, realist. But I know that I wouldnt want a weatherman who didn't believe the science that underpinned his job, if I was his employer.
There are facts and there is fiction, and a weatherman should deal in facts. His personal beliefs about the climate are and should be irrelevant. What has public opinion got to do with accessing the correctness of science? That is the "ad populum" fallacy. And then of course, NomDePlume, we have skeptical journalists who lecture us with their groupthink. That is why we have so many skeptics; they do not know anything different. Take the case, for example, of the editorial in one of our newspapers trying to make use of a couple of reports to debunk the notion of Climate Change.
One such report from the Auckland University tells us, the editorial claims, that atolls in the Pacific are not sinking but actually rising. When we look at the report it is more interested in the shape and size of the atolls. It tells us that there has been a 30cm rise in sea level and the situation will need close monitoring. That inhabitants of the atolls believe their atolls are sinking should hold some credence. The matter of area and density occurs in a NASA report on the increase in area of the Antarctic sea ice.
It speaks of a record area of ice in the Antarctic. This has been discussed before. What the editorial does not tell us is that ice is expanding in East Antarctica but is thinner; ice in West Antarctica is decreasing under the influence of winds. Globally, sea ice is decreasing. Remember that famous man who flew over miles of ice and tweeted that global warming was questionable?
He said what? Tiresias So to use the alarmist defence If you dont have the comprehension skills to understand why your question is ridiculous in light of Tiresia's comment, get out of the game mate. You have essentially proven that you just don't have the intellect to cope with the scientific method. That is not an insult. It is theory supported by ready evidence, feel free to prove me wrong.
The small fact you have neglected to mention is not whether people believe that the climate changes, well yes we all agree on that, it's whether the prominent cause is humans. And you tell us that the present climate change is just another climate change like all the other climate changes over time. How do you know this? Skeptics and deniers never discuss the science in any detail. They cherry pick only part of the science. They have no coherent science to support their skepticism or denial. They might even mention a person who is supposed to prove the science of skepticism or denial, but they rarely are able to say what that person says by way of denier science or skepticism They prefer to keep well away from any discussion of science at all.
They will not even try to refute, say, Tony Eggleton and his book , when h says: "At present the world is warming at the rate of one degree C in 60 year; that is, 20 times faster than any previous sustained rate of temperature change. Something scientific and not just some "belief", please. The world may or may not have been warmer at some points over the past 10, years.
If it was, it certainly wasn't due to humans producing CO2. It may or may not get warmer over the next few hundred. Despite continually rising levels of CO2, the world has not seen any significant warming for almost 20 years. Despite the cries of the Pacific Island nations, none have disappeared, and the BOM's own data show no rises in mean sea levels in the area for 20 years. We actually have no way of knowing, and spending trillions of dollars on UN bureaucracy is unlikely to tell us.
Damon, is that why , and were successively the warmest years on record, because global temperatures aren't rising? By the way if you go from to the last 20 years you will find a significant rise in global temperatures. If you go from the statistical outlier there has not been as statistically significant increase but from there has been a significant increase and from a significant increase.
Get the picture? Then you really should have been more specific, there are two schools of sceptics, climate change and AGW sceptics. The not so small fact you have neglected to mention is conservatives, not most Australians, deny AGW. The reason you think so many people are to the left of you is because they are. Aside from your tendentiousness, why on earth is that even a point worth making?
Imagine this analogy: you are hit on the head by a large rock and injured badly. Does the nature of the injury matter if the rock fell or was thrown? Yes Reiny, but don't be disingenuous. Skeptics generally also generally accept climate change is normal and natural, and anthropocentric CO2 detectable inducing 'global warming' is not an issue because it has not been measured.
Please also remind everyone also that there are people who are now entering adulthood that have never experienced any significant climate change and certainly no 'global warming' in their entire lives. Despite increasing atmospheric CO2 levels of natural and to a lesser extent anthropocentric origin. Go figure.
Back to the drawing board my warmy friends. So your assertion is demonstrably and manifestly false. Billy Bob Hall, you have missed the quotation from Eggleton, or you have chosen to ignore it. Eggleton gives a measurement for the rapid rise in warming in the past 60 years. He says it is not a "natural" warming; it i unprecedented. As for CO2, present levels are the highest in at least 24 million years. Eggleton, p. What is your explanation for any "pause". Is the sun shining not so much? Where has the heat gone? Some will refer to the hottest years over the past 18 years.
Some will refer to the warming of the oceans. Some will talk about the melting of ice and the tundra. Some refer to all those. There are people who know they are living climate change and its effects on their lives. What is your explanation? And the sources of your information? So fill your boots. Oh dear EVAN and damon There has been no "pause" and there has been accelerated warming over the past 20 years. The IPCC report was conservative. More recent peer reviewed science has determined that the "pause" does not exist.
That fact that you don't know this indicates that you don't read the literature and your comments are rubbish. But we knew this already. I know that they adjusted the data and walah no more pause how convenient.
The unsurprising reason Jonathan Pie rants sound straight out of Spiked
You know Clarke if you torture the data long enough it will tell you what you want to hear. Who is this mysterious "they" that you talk about? Did you read the paper? Do you even know which one? Did you download the data and method? Have you bothered to try to understand the methodology that "they" used? Exactly what is wrong with it? Why haven't you published a rebuttal? Learn some science. Not the denialist anti-science. I have read extensively on this topic obviously far more than you , and if you can't make an intelligent response, it is not I who is stupid.
Except ole Eggles as we know him, is in fact a Mineralogist - not a Climate Scientist. He should know at least as much about climatology as me, but sadly he is very much lacking. Somewhere he has lost his common sense too, along with the more refined concepts of Scientific Method and the importance of the null hypotheseis. Good try though Tiresias, but do not pass go, do not collect one hundred dollars. There is also a significant number of young adults today who never experienced the Ozone layer depletion caused by Chloro-Fluoro Carbon gasses.
But it happened and also took many years for conservatives to admit before anything was done. The ozone layer has still not yet fully recovered. By the way: Even if it turns out, down the track, that APG is not as significant as currently thought, why do so many have a problem with a cleaner environment.
Gotta be better than living and dying in Morewell among the pollution. Pilot Yoda, Ozone depletion is an excellent analogy for the current climate change issue. Certainly science demonstrated that humans were causing ozone depletion with CFCs, there were alarmist claims about the impacts, new technology was invented to replace CFCs, HCFCs were implemented at a cost to Western consumers, the developing world continues to use CFCs. And there is no clear evidence that ozoen depletion ever did, or even would have, caused any harm to the bisphere.
People got skin cancer because of CFCs? Extraordinary claims require peer-reviewed scientific proof, knock yourself out! And "why do so many have a problem with a cleaner environment"? Well nobody has a problem with it, except it will impact prosperity and standard of living, and it will if applied in the developing world impede bringing people out of poverty.
The fact you don't even know why climate change action is problematic is a real worry. So, somehow the science and those that practice it is false or misleading? The same methods of teaching and process of using it that enables your car to be safer and use less fuel. The same that doctors and surgeons use to save your life. The same unfortunately that is used to produce better weapons and the same that develops better and faster computers and internet so you can berate the science.
Ironic, eh? Pilot Yoda, Science does not produce any of the positive benefits you suggest. Science merely explains how it works. Perhaps once you're done doing that, you can describe how it would have been possible without scientists determining the nature of the pathogen involved? Nerd, The entire era of of antibiotics was initiated by Alexander Fleming tinkering, and accidentally discovering, that molds kill bacteria.
Greig, In physics not one discovery has been made by trial and error since Faraday in the s. They have all been discovered or predicted by theoretical scientists. Nearly all new discoveries in physics have arisen by development of new experimental measurement and monitoring techniques eg the Hadron collider, large radio telescopes, etc , then observing the results. Its maths and not words that is the language of physical science. Most Australians cannot do algebra let alone partial differential equations. They do not have the basic grammar skills to read the science.
Its all very well to be sceptical but one must first understand the nature of thing they are being sceptical of. Scientists are sceptical. They are the most sceptical profession on the planet. AGW denialists simply reject any evidence that doesn't suit their right wing Utopian dreams.
They have been clever in spreading their misinformation, lies, smears, messenger shooting and conspiracy theories amongst the public but have comprehensively failed to support any of their gibberish in any accepted scientific manner. Your 'groupthink' statement applies to denialists, not to the scientific community or those who support them in their endeavors to mitigate the proven damage we are doing to the planet.
Greybags, I have been sceptical of the scare campaign from the beginning at least Al Gores beginning, it wasn't a major issue until that scare campaign gained momentum. I am always sceptical and cautious, but when I see wild claims and scare campaigns doubly so. I must say it is a less lonely place now than ten or more years ago. Not sure whether that is because people are more likely to speak their opinion now or whether the scepticism has grown though. I also admit that some who claim to be sceptics are no better than the alarmist scare campaigners and sprout rubbish. I am also a critical realist with relatively good conceptual and logic skills.
I have never once denied that humans affect the environment, to do so is ridiculous, and the arrow of time says that affecting the environment will affect the climate. I always use the CAGW to preface my scepticism. I remain unconvinced about this thesis. There are too many predictions of the CAGW campaign that haven't eventuated, and we have had plenty of time to see how flawed the modelling has been.
Temperature alone is the only indicator that the CAGW thesis is concerned with and the argument is clearly based on increasing atmospherical CO2 and its effect on T. Yes years have been warmer lately, but to use an analogy, I found 5 cents on the ground yesterday which means I have more money. The increase in money I have is meaningless though. If T rises by 0. I know this is simplistic, but it is the thrust of all things CAGW. When models don't work, there is a rush to find a solution that fits the thesis, rather than any admission that the thesis is wrong.
Grey , yes scientists are sceptical , isn't that what they are supposed to do? I put to you its you in fact who is the , denier , you deny that scientists are rethinking this AGW and its so called catastrophic consequences , they are asking questions now as they should , why , and not properly understood is the new words used by a growing amount of respected scientists and you don't like it do you , I could assume as you do about those who question the massive impacts of AGW that you are in fact a hard left green who uses the scare tactic of climate change merely for your political gain , that your groupthink is that humans are in fact the very cancer that is infesting your Mother Earth , you see how gibberish works , you do it well.
That's great dr dig and Himself. Keep cutting down old forests like Abbott tried to do in Tasmania soon after the last election. And may the LNP keep helping their most influential sponsors so they can keep polluting. After all it's only the air we breath and we don't pay for it Now there's another business opportunity!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am sure he won't be as stupid as Gillard or Rudd. A lot has been learned from the mistakes of listening to fools. Australia had a long hard drought which broke in The extreme predictions around the global warming scare together with a drought caused the state governments to invest billions into desal plants.
Here in Victoria we built the biggest and most expensive desalt plant between and , and it has never been turned on. Not one drop has been produced. It will cost us 22 Billion over the next 25 years. The lesson has been that the climate argument and the science are not reliable, and we should be very careful before throwing money at perceived problems. The desal plants around the country is a daily reminder of unfettered climate change activism delivering disastrous results. Turnbull is not a loopy climate change nutter that has a tenuous grip on reality. He has business experience.
He is sharp on the climate change agenda and will not be fooled by activists into doing stupid things. He understands that coal really is the lifeblood of global energy mix, but he also wants to see technical innovation. Globally the populations are realising that the over-hyped campaigns by environmentalists are just that and politicians are moving in that direction as well. Turnbull will be pragmatic and sensible. And with such a bad drought taking place, who would ignore them.
The government listened to those scientists who could not safely predict if and when the drought would break, regardless of AGW. You guys should eat your words in the next two or three years. Current el nino is shaping up to as bad, if not worse than the desal producing one, and climate science says we can expect more extreme events like them. Its looking like a sound investment inthe future at the moment. Yes it was built in the height of a drought, and at the same time the fools were telling us that global warming as it was known then would mean the rains won't be coming back.
It wouldn't have been built without the scare campaign from the climate activists. Hence massive panic and billion wasted. The lesson has been learned. The only people who don't learn from history are those bound to repeat the same mistakes. The climate activist just keep repeating the same scary stories and their predictions never ever come true. This lesson is also sinking in and on a global scale.
Turnbull isn't stupid and is no climate nutter. He won't be scared into stupid decisions. He may end up being the best PM since Howard. Whats the point of someone being able to tell you what is going to happen after it has happened. Hows their record of forecasting the seasons in advance?. Too often people make claims about what was said but say only part of what was said. We have seen too much of that in the past years, when people have even denied saying what they did in fact say. So, with regard to no rain ever again, did scientists say there will never be rain again, ever, or did they say we will be in some trouble if it does not rain soon?
Certainly, at the time of that drought there was some panic, and talk of piping water to Perth from the Kimberley. Even now there is talk of water and food security. South-East Oz is drying out. There are places in Oz which have had several years of drought. There are places in the world where people are fleeing to find a better life. There is talk of the consequences of that because we have experienced it before.
Do you believe it? So what exactly was said back in the past which makes you think scientists were wrong then - and probably are now, according to your reckoning.? I think we can all agree that less pollution in whatever way is a good thing. But this global warming, climate change, carbon trading rort has to stop. There is no science for these fiascos and the science that does exist has been proven by people who get paid to prove it.
This is big business that gets to bleed money out of the common man and has nothing to do with the good of the planet and everything to do with dollars. I am all for saving1 the planet but this scare campaign being run by the universal left is beyond a joke. Boo, your logic makes my head hurt. You seem to be suggesting that unqualified people in other industries would be better at climate science than climate scientists. There is no point trying to convince you of your folly, but others should be aware of how ridiculous your position is.
That noted climate scientist, paleontologist Tim Flannery, is quoted as saying that there is no point building more dams, as they won't get filled, which in view of the massive floods the next year, did his climate credentials no good. My point is, firstly a paleontologist isn't actually a climate scientist at all, and in fact some of the most vocal alarmists aren't, and there is masses of disinformation on both sides of the spectrum, from Uni students claiming that small sized birds in capital cities "proves" global warming, to bollocks on the other side of the debate.
My issue is how some of the most outrageous rubbish from alarmists are treated so uncritically by ABC journo's. Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture.
So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation. Those would be the dams that would never fill because of 'global warming' right?
Trouble is Reiny, you are like an old punter drinking pony's down at the TAB, always having a bet each way, and never really getting anywhere. I studied statistics and probability as part of my science degree so I know better than to put money on a horse with zero credibility, like the denial movement for example. So, to many climate change deniers, that would absolutely make him a "loopy climate change nutter So, who is Turnbull listening to now, Optimist?
Once upon a time he listened to the "fools" and made a deal with Rudd on Climate Change. But now? Do you trust ex-Goldman Sachs Australia managing director and partner Turnbull to do what's right for Australia, what's right for carbon trading Goldman Sachs, or what's right for Turnbull? Political fortunes can change in the blink of an eye. Can PM Malcolm Turnbull be challenged on his funding prescription for an Australian creative, imaginative, innovative and hi-tech future?
Will PM Malcolm Turnbull at the G20 in Turkey be perceived as protecting the rich and powerful and not acting in the national interest? Can Labor and the Greens raise perceptions in voter minds that their economic prescriptions are superior to the LNP and how will this be achieved? The elephant in the room: the strategy by the Australian government led by PM Malcolm Turnbull on how it will play its role in addressing man made climate change at the dedicated conference in Paris in December and how Labor and the Greens respond and how alternatives will be funded given that in a current CSIRO Report three quarters of Australians believe climate change is real.
The LNP will promote at the December Paris Conference their policy of Direct Action and will contain weasel arguments and smoke screens to give the perception that Australia is pulling its weight on measures to address carbon emissions; like legislating for reductions in car emissions knowing full well they are the party for reducing rules and cutting regulations emotively referred to as green and red tape and that lower emission standards are a problem which is created with current Free Trade Agreements, in particular the TPP; while claiming credit also for efficiencies in energy usage forced by the market and for which there is majority public support.
Highly polluting steel mills around the world would be forced to close down therefore a big plus in addressing rising global temperatures. A demonstration that you can have combined economic, social and environmental pluses in policy prescriptions. Massive global carbon credits would also be generated in Australia allowing for greater investment in green and clean technologies into the future and therefore coupled with a global form of cap and trade emissions trading scheme ETS Australia could put forward at Paris more ambitious target cuts.
Labor need to withdraw any current support for both the Adani Carmichael and Shenhua Watermark coal mines otherwise demonstrating rising sea levels around Pacfic Islands will be shown up as hypocrisy It makes no sense to set policies of the past in stone. The Greens need to be more pragmatic in the path to addressing global warming and protection of the Great Barrier Reef If Australia can generate massive global carbon credits with optimised steel production, then how much more with carbon capture, storage and utilisation restricted to steel production! The secretive Direct Action non action auction worth billions, which pays the rich energy rip off merchants, will continue to line the pockets of the perpetrators of climate harm.
Next cab off the rank is Abbott's chainsaw posse in the timber industry,who with the gleeful help of Labor CFMEU will now start burning the heart of the ecology of our country for electricity and heat,whilst claiming that burning native forests is oh so green. This disgraceful scam will be taxpayer assisted,will not be audited independently and will require more energy to harvest,move store,move,treat ,long before it delivers a watt of energy. Nothing it produces will be green or sustainable or able to withstand fiscal or ecological or social scrutiny. Nor will it deliver carbon reduction.
Quite the opposite. Yet this govt will allow this scam to sell a deficit as a credit. Good work if you can get it. Abbot is gone now. You can back the rhetoric off from incandescent back to regular. The auction is not secret - the ERF website has full details including who won what. It contains such well-known rich energy merchants as the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, farms, and a bunch of forest regeneration and land-fill gas utilisation projects. You can debate the efficiency vs a carbon tax, but it is not "paying rich energy rip-off merchants to pollute".
Abbott has gone and the bipartisan stench remains on burning native forest. Here's a snip fron an ABC News article this morning titled: "Direct Action: Concerns over secrecy surrounding carbon auction process" "The second round of funding available under the centrepiece of Direct Action, the Emissions Reduction Fund, goes under the hammer today. The online auction will see companies competing to place the lowest bid for payment to do projects that will reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.
Hugh Grossman, executive director of Energy and Carbon Markets for market analyst firm Reputex, said this round could see as much as a billion dollars allocated. But he has concerns that the process of handing out taxpayers' money is not transparent. There is no transparent market price," he said. He said a more open auction system would give companies more certainty, and deliver better value for money for taxpayers.
Vested interest, have we? Many of the 'auctions' were already areas where funding had been allocated by Labor from the carbon price pool. Some of the auctions resulted in giving money to people to not cut down trees that they were not going to cut down anyway. I have no problem with the idea of climate change, Wasdex, we know who hijacked climate science - it was the Koch brothers and Exxon-Mobil. That is who sold you the pup and now it is all out in the open. All the millions poured into the denial of climatology have been tracked and the details of Exxon's cover-up of its own data is now in the American press.
It makes sorry reading. Aw gee DW you missed the Cato and Hartland institutes of course big green does not give any money to the climate scam do they. Haven't you heard of Evan's Big Green? I heard the leprechauns recently launched a hostile take-over Yes it does indeed make for sorry reading. But there have been just as many claims if not more claiming disinformation for climate change. The most recent being 7 former astronauts plus 40 other staff at NASA claiming that administrations use of computer models were set using information to fit the outcome and not actual empirical data.
In other words, input data to get the desired outcome. Now that is fraud i believe? That too is also all over the news and net in the US. Stop cherry picking. Let's see if the ABC posts this one? Tony Z ".. A group of 49 former NASA employees from Johnson Space Center have written a letter to NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden, requesting that the space agency refrain from "unproven and unsubstantiated remarks" regarding how human activities are causing global climate change. But, climate scientist Michael Mann said "This is an old ploy, trying to cobble together a small group of individuals and make it sound like they speak with authority on a matter that they have really not studied closely.
In this case, the effort was led by a fossil fuel industry-funded climate change denier who works for the Heartland Institute, and sadly he managed to manipulate this group of former NASA employees into signing on to this misguided statement. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion.
Whenever you think of Global warming, please consider that UN expects billion a year from the carbon tax proceeds, Then you will easier understand the propaganda of its main climate body IPCC. Sure, and they're making out like bandits with this refugee thing after having created a war in the middle east as part of their battle against oil extraction!
Since when does the UN get money from carbon trading? It gets it's money from members of the UN. Lazarus, Is it possible that you don't read any papers. I am not talking about the UN general budgeting. I am talking about and additional, a special 'Climate Change' budget UN expect from 'climate change contributions' by individual countries to the tune of billion dollars.
It is widely reported. Please read the mainstream press. I haven't seen anything more than the same vague accusations you are making and similarly unfounded, just gossip and hearsay around the climate crank bonfires. If there really was a conspiracy, as you say and it was "all in the open", it would be screamed from the left wing Fairfax Guardian and ABC media constantly,but it is not. Let's not try to pretend that any of them would just ignore it.
Everyone knows the climate changes, and mankind probably has contributed to it, clearing land, burning forests, but is it catastrophic? I'm guessing that the poor don't matter as much as political points around here though do they? Tony and mick, the documents were on two sites I read, pro and anti-climate science, the latter desperately trying to argue it away as nothing. They actually had photos of the pages they were arguing about. I also noted that Hiliary Clinton has endorsed the call for a formal investigation of the Exxon cover-up.
I'm sure you can find it if you want to check it out for yourselves. Apparently humans are socially attracted to conspiracy theories.. Scientists say this.. Me, I would suggest it is but the madness of crowds. I've been 'denying climatology' for longer than most Desert Woman, for at least a decade now, and I have not see one cotton-picking red cent of oil money. I figure I must be owed a lot.
Please send me my money! Can you provide genuine rock-solid proof that these "various skeptical blogs" receive money from the oil industry? How much money, which oil companies, and which bloggers? You reckon you know what the scientific method is? Well, apply it here, show us the facts, show us the data, so we can see for ourselves If you can't, it's just another worthless opinion expressed by a person calling themselves "Theos".
If you can't, its just another worthless opinion expressed by a person calling themselves "James Murphy". Apparently the fossil fuel lobby did carry out a study that showed older, white males would be the most skeptical of the science. Young pregnant women the least. News flash. There's only ever been one Billy Bob Hall. He was from Adelaide you know, until he saw the light during the Bi-Centanary Celebrations when visiting Kalgoorlie.
Bit complicated eh. Do try to keep up. Not to be confused with the Legendary Mark Hall - of the outback. I am not sure its something to 'believe in'. Its more a matter of learn some maths, physics and chemistry, read the science, draw a conclusion. People who have bothered to do this generally draw a conclusion that the hypothesis is pretty darn likely but not absolutely assured. People who don't seem to form judgement according to how most people form judgement - that is be swayed by the level of emotion and commitment within a debate.
I dont think you even have to go that far. You can simply trust the scientific consensus. I dont understand the science behind how my microwave works. But I know that my food comes out hot after I turn it on. I don't understand how all the climate science works, but I do know that we keep setting records for the hottest months and the hottest years. I can see with my own eyes that adverse weather events are becoming more frequent and more intense.
I can see with my own eyes that the sea ice is melting faster than ever before. I dont 'need' to understand all the science to see the obvious. You are right Spacey, one does not need go as far as I have said. If you tallied it up, nearly all of us simply accept that which evidence based professionals provide. My comment was more about if you want to dispute it, you need to do better then listen to Bolt or Jones.
I was on the Isle of the Dead at Port Arthur in On that Island is the oldest known documented history of high water tides. The high mark was achieved in the 's was higher that any resent result. The tides were high before the effects of the industrial revolution. I also visited Mesa Verde in Colorado. There are many old ruins there. When asked then was it deserted, the guide replied "about years ago". It became to cold to stay".
This was also prior to the industrial revolution. I have been to places that the science tells me were carved out by glaciers that retreated thousands of years ago. I read a book that was forwarded by Bob Brown written in the 's telling me that the science is in their can be no arguing we are headed for another ice age. It will shortly be to old to grow wheat in Australia. Now if I believe the science, we have lower ocean levels than we did years ago.
It is now colder that it was years ago and we will shortly not be able to grow wheat in Australia because it will be to cold. Which science is correct? You are getting you information from a discredited source. More research will show you are wrong.
My OpenLearn Profile
I can pop down and take a look if you want heading down that way in the next week or two. Discredited source I think Gr8Ape needs to do some book-learnin' in order to understand the difference between eustacy and relative sea level change. When I was teaching myself climate science a few years ago, I seem to recall 20, data points were taken to get a complete temperature record. You have mentioned a few. The rationalle was man only had so many heart beats in him and best not waste them on frivolous movement. Now days, its is considered the more exercise the better.
In , we had a tortured and vaguely correct understanding of Quantum Mechanics. In we knew a truckload more since Schrodinger had published his paper referencing his equation in and everyone had a year to digest it. So in three years, the face of that branch of Physics changed out of sight. Science is scattered with people and discoveries that have altered our understanding almost overnight. Your 'reasonable current' 30 years may not be remotely relevant anymore given a whole field of physics can change by the publishing of a single research paper.
Thats not important though. From the tone of your answer, you are disputing science when you perhaps do not know much about it. Is that a wise thing to do? Anyway, climate science is based on one hundred year old science so Schrodinger breakthoughts are not occuring here. A telling factor of late has been the climate model can be run on a computer in a week when it took three months a decade ago. That permits an escalation of development that was a pipedream only 10 years ago.
Tronsh, not your science. Sea level rise is not determined by a single absolute maximum or minimum of tides in one location. Global climate change is not the same as local or regional climate change, neither of which are suitable evidence against a global phenomenon. You really need to educate yourself so that you can identify good science from flawed conclusion by yourself. Therefore I agree! Blame those evil scientists! Nobody could say what that pointless tax was meant to do and by when. Now the extreme left say it was a source of revenue and had nothing to do with "climate change tm ".
Thank goodness it was removed via a thumping mandate. Hmmm, yes, of course, price signals only work when applied to things like university degrees and GP visits. So, Australia's price was based on the recommendation from the biggest gathering of scientific brainpower ever assembled for a specific cause in our history There was also a REAL figure put on the reduction in Co2 emitted thanks to the carbon price we had in place. Australia had its biggest reduction in greenhouse gas emmissions in after the carbon tax had been in place.
Because people cannot give the exact impact either way, you declare that the whole exercise is a waste of time? The IPCC was headed by a second-rate Indian who couldn't keep his hands off women's private parts; who used graduate students as 'world' best 'climate specialists, and whose organisation was dominated and thoroughly corrupted by by third world politicians. The truth is gradually beginning to leak out. Damon, As with many intelligent people, they have their peculiarities.
Personally I don't hold it against this guy for following his natural instincts to grope women. This 'problem' of his has no impact on the credibility of the IPCC or degrades the accuracy of the science at all. In fact I would declare your comment as nothing more than worthless and irrelevant gossip. PS: some of the most intelligent and active scientists in the world today come from India and other 3rd world places so clearly there is no link between wealth and intelligence. The truth was always there As proven by the evidence uncovered that showed Exxon rejected the findings of their own scientists and instead launched a political campaign of public misinformation and bribing of politicians to allow them to keep making profits at the expense of the planet.
That proof that the science has been hijacked by vested interests should have been the final nail in the coffin for the political denialist movement but a good lie is hard to kill. It may well all be true but personally I still put my faith in the scientific consensus. The funding of pseudo-science and misinformation from fossil fuel industries to negatively effect public perceptions about climate science is a real thing - its no conspiracy and you can see the lists of donors to these various groups showing that this is going on. No wonder so many americans violently defend billionare fossil fuel magnates - they are saturated by these influences and media propaganda.
You mean like the deniers who have hijacked the conservative side of the debate to scare us into doing nothing? Selfish ideological bastards always seem to congregate on sinking islands. Hi v: Your past and current comments have given me hope that rational and intelligent thinking may once again rule our nation. Australia imports the bulk of wind turbines installed in Australia from Vestas or Suzlon. Most solar PV panel are imported from China or Europe. Geothermal tech is being developed in places like Iceland and New Zealand where it is easier to access due to volcanic activity.
Most of Australian manufacturing capability has been killed off either through high energy prices, over regulation and high wages. So who is going to start a manufacturing business in such an environment to compete with those with significantly lower input costs than Australia has?? Tator - the mining boom did a lot of harm to manufacturing - the so called Dutch Disiease - via high exchange rates and pushing high wages even higher.
It's not an uncommon phenomenon - has happened in many countries - such as Brasil recently and of course Holland. On the bright side there a some Australian firms that are innovating in this area - won't name them as not sure if that's in the forum rules. Easy enough to find if you go looking. The evidence that the high dollar due to the mining boom had the greatest effect on making manufacturing less economic is clearly on the record but we are talking with people who reject over years of scientific evidence.
Once you can do that, you can reject anything that doesn't suit your ideology. Australia was starting to manufacture components for renewable energy until the Abbott Coalition declared war on renewables and lost billions in investment. Who knows what we could have produced had the neo-Luddites had not conned their way into power. Actually one of the few component manufacturers in SA for wind turbines went broke under the ALP government.
That was RPG engineering at Kilburn. Even though they had plenty of work producing tower segments for both Vestas and Suzlon, they could not control energy and wage costs which sunk them even though they used local product for a local market which the exchange rate did not impact on.
Yes, the high dollar most defiantly impacted on them. It is very hard for any company to manage that. Only problem with that theory is that it was another local company that picked up the work after RPG folded. Not imports. The business is primarily involved in the construction of large steel structures, such as wind power generation towers, the pilings for wharfs and bridges, pipes and other steel structures for the mining and renewable energy sectors.
That's not a problem with the theory, that is how free market economics works. RPG could not manage the increased low cost copetition resulting from the lower dollar, the higher wages for skilled employees also a component of Dutch Disease and other costs, and as such went under. Another, as you said, local company was better at managing the pressures and was able to undertake the work. They are able to find a way to produce the components below the price of imports, which are effectively lower due to the high exchange rate. No one is claiming that the exchange rate was the sole pressure, but as someone working in high tech manufacturing, it is a huge pressure.
If you google, "effect of high Australian dollar on manufacturing", you will get pages and pages of documentation about how this impact the entire manufacturing industry. We export the thousands of tonnes of coal, iron ore and heavy metals used to build these inefficient monuments to green stupidity. Not to mention the huge amount of cement needed to make the bases for the bird chopping eco-crucifixes.
Green science deniers don't realise this. They think that 15th century tech windmills are made from fairy dust. According to the recent CSIRO survey, it appears that it is actually conservative voters predominantly who deny the scientific consensus. Another climate religion love in that will achieve nothing. If Turnbull is stupid enough to condemn us to another pointless carbon tax to shift our prosperity to the UN so it can fritter it away to third world despots then he has to go.
Where is Tony Abbott when you need him? That's an excellent question. All the climate change that's already in Australia must have got here somehow, and I'm probably not the only one who has a sneaking suspicion that it arrived by boat without proper documentation after having drifted over other countries along the way.
Another Labor failure. Turnbull is a weak, snivelling, elitist loser on this one - we need to either turn back climate change and the climate smugglers who bring it whilst at sea, or else transfer it to Nauru where it can change the climate there to its heart's content and know it will never be allowed to settle over Australia. That said I am surprised to say that so far I am relieved and in some respect of the manner in which Turnbull deports himself, we needed that change very badly. The ridiculous rant and cant rubbish we have endured since about after PJ Keeting's time was a real turn off.
The ALP would do well to learn from Turnbull's example, tat seems doubtful. All the best to all, and thanks to you Zaky for the humour. He'll be back. As sure a the sun will rise tomorrow. Don't you worry about that. Malcolm really is the one who is yesterday's hero. His own mentor voted him out bbh. The only way Abbott will be back is if he does a tour on the comedy circuit. Billy Bob Hall: And then the polls will go back down and once again be in Labor's favor. Never going to happen.
Zaky: Brilliant as always. Did I miss the first? Anyway, there's this thing called "science" At time when the planet needs billions more trees we are going to log,clear and burn ours apace. Billions more trees and billions less people. All the climate change talks, all the technological advance, all the renewable energy sources in the world won't count for jack while we add people at the current rate.
Anyone care enough about the health of the planet to volunteer to be the first one euthanized for the common good? Birthrates decrease with improvements in standards of living. If we spent less time waging war and stashing trillions in off shore tax havens then we could make the world a better place and therefore have the bonus of people breeding less. Unfortunately that will never happen as the same right wingers who deny global warming will block any sensible actions.
There is hope though. Should have a decent cull with a future outbreak of preventable disease. I have not brought anymore children onto this planet and don't intend to do so. I have no car and have only flown twice domestically only in the last twenty years. I will happily euthanise myself in a few years if they change the stupid laws regarding allowing death with dignity. Mate we simply do not have the time for this enlightenment..
We need passive but rapid deceleration of breeding today or tie up all your loose ends now. The deforestation of Australia is a disaster, did you know that they once paved the streets of Sydney with wood forested from Dorrigo. All old growth forests should be immediately protected, the wealth of possible medicinal value left in these remnants should sustain scientific research for many years to come. Unfortunately the current and historical method of interaction with our environment in Australia has always been plunder, plunder, plunder, irrespective of traditional knowledge systems and their awareness of the benefits of different plant forms.
In addition to a moratorium on old growth forests, hemp marijuana the non-intoxicating variety should be strenuously promoted, able to be grown in a variety of locales and not dependent on irrigation, it was compulsorily grown in George Washington's America because of its many beneficial uses.
Whether for stock feed or cosmetics or bio-fuel, clothing or toilet paper, paper bags as a bio-degradable replacement for supermarket plastic bags, and what about the waste of cardboard packaging, thrown out as soon as you get home. Hemp would cover many of the currently wastefully destructive uses of forest timber, allowing for older, protected forests providing better shelter for wildlife, already under the greatest threat of extinction of any country and older new-growth forests geared to value-added industries like furniture. There is not a single member of the Greens party in parliament at the moment that has actually planted a tree.
It's the film itself that needs to win you over as a whole, and Downsizing just didn't do that for me. On many accounts, this is a very impressive movie from a technical standpoint and it takes risks that I didn't expect it to, but the risks it takes will only work for a few audiences members that can relate to it. This is a movie that promises a lot and tries to deliver on all of those promises, while also shoving in side plots that make this film too emotionally complex to really be invested in the satirical aspects by the end. I wish this film went through a few more rewrites, because there is a satirical masterpiece of a movie in here somewhere, but it's just not the product that you'll be seeing in theatres soon.
Downsizing is worth your time in terms of originality, but I wouldn't get your hopes up on it being a favorite of yours. I regret watching this film. The worst film I've ever seen. In my opinion the biggest problem and the reason for all the down votes of this movie is it's trailer. I also thought this movie was going to be a full-on comedy.
Seeing Jason Sudeikis,Kristen Wiig in the trailer; all the jokes made me believe this is going to be funny to watch. Well, both of them were in the movie for like 7 minutes. Also there was this anticipation of experiencing how the "small" world would be but that also is a really tiny part of the movie. This movie is much more than the trailer offers but unfortunately it also is much less than it too. Watch this movie but change your expectations. After seeing the trailer and prior to that not knowing a thing about this movie, I took the wife last night.
I loved the concept and saw many funny people Kristin Wiig, Jason Sudeikis, among others in the trailer and thought it would be fun. Seemed to be another movie trying to push down an agenda regarding global warming and conservation rather than being a fun escape for 2 hours. If you like the actors, you might like the movie, but if you're expecting something with a comedic slant, I'd say you'll be disappointed.
If you're expecting a goofball, raunchy comedy, this isn't it, hence some of the bad reviews. This movie was more mature than the trailers lead on, but there is plenty of well-timed comedy, intertwined with a drama that is deep and emotional. It's the story of an underachieving man's journey from a unsatisfied life, seeking change for the wrong reasons, only to unexpectedly find true purpose and love in process. If that's a plot that peaks your interest, than this movie delivers. The leading Vietnamese lady love interest steals the show! If you're a grown up, with a developed taste for script over cheap vulgar laughs and attention span to appreciate a heart warmer, this is worth your money.
After watching this film and then seeing the low rating for it I was really surprised, did I see the same movie? I saw an interesting and emotional drama about an under achieved man , Paul Matt Damon looking for a better life, he is betrayed by the one person he wanted an improved life with. There is a message about mankind here too , our planet is overpopulated and we need to find a solution, the downsizing concept actually makes a lot of sense. As usual in the real world good ideas can be abused in the wrong hands or turned against humanity. Big or small there will always be a class system, winners and losers.
Ok the film is far from perfect and loses its way a bit in the second half with the under explored imminent catastrophe angle. The quirkiness highlights come in the Vietnamese girl , Ngoc Lan Tran Hong Chou who takes over Pauls disappointing new life and his neighbour Dusan Christoph Waltz who adds a new spark, together they give Paul new purpose, a chance to make up for unfulfilled aspirations, at the end of the day what do we all want out of life?
Platypuschow 1 February Downsizing is an odd little creature, it's highly original but barely constitutes as a movie. Set in a world where to save the environment "Downsizing" is created. Because of the decreased size they receive increased wealth and live in luxury while leaving a smaller carbon footprint. Fantastic idea, both for a movie and perhaps the real world. I'd be interested in seeing a poll on the subject to gauge how many would be up for doing such a thing.
So with such a genius concept the film will be great? Well as mentioned sadly it doesn't have a story, it just follows someone as they take part in downsizing and that's basically it. It has no structure, it has little point to be fair. The film to its credit does have a great cast but an odd number of the notable names have criminally small parts.
Downsizing has a charm, but it has little substance.
This movie is a complete waste of time. I feel like unfortunately Matt Damon is now just trying to make money no matter how awful the script is. His last two movies Suburbicon and now this, Downsizing have been awful. I watched this movie for free and I still want my money back. It was extremely long, boring, no storyline, no plot. After the first 30 minutes, everything seems 'normal sized' like in any other movie because you are just in the downsized world so everything seems 'normal'. There is no contrast between the real world and the downsized world because they completely stopped showing the real world.
I don't know what the point of this movie was. The premise was clever but the execution just wasn't there. Seems like they got a good idea and forgot to write a story. It has big ideas, despite being a story about going small, but ends up saying nothing, while trying to be everything. Let's get into that in a bit.. When the wife refuses the procedure at the last minute, the husband has to reassess his life and choices.
Now that's interesting! And 'Downsizing' works wonders until it works on the premise it promises to be. BUT, 'Downsizing' only flirts with the idea of going small, it instead, becomes a tonally jarring film, whose narrative is as broken as america's current political scenario. Right after Damon's passive protagonist hero shrinks himself, the film shifts gear into another rhythm that is surprisingly ineffective. And just when Chau becomes the character you begin rooting for, the narrative suddenly turns into something catastrophic. By the time the 3rd plot kicked in, I had given up!
Payne hasn't made a bad film, he has clearly made a confused film. Or is this 3 films into one film while being 3 in 1? Its this simple: It was about shrinking yourself for your own good. And it remains that for minutes. But the rest of the minutes, are nothing of what it was meant to be.
The other track involving Chau's scene-stealing performance, is interesting for a bit, but it doesn't last beyond minutes. And the last track involving a catastrophe, is devoid of any emotion. By the time 'Downsizing' ends, you'll be confused what too feel for it. And what was it trying to say? Shame, because Payne is a master at his craft. Barring Chau, No other performer really stands out.
Damon is barely at his best, while Waltz at least has come fun. The rest are strictly okay. On the whole, 'Downsizing' aims big but falls pretty short. I'm a die hard fan of Alexander Payne I've been waiting for Downsizing with childish anticipation.
Wiseass comedian Jim Florentine breaks down his comic code | PhillyVoice
The first few minutes of the film I felt at home. Matt Damon's wardrobe alone told me I was in male Payne territory. Matthew Broderick in Election, Paul Giamatti in Sideways - ordinary to the point of being invisible and then, the downsizing, No idea where the story goes from here and neither does Mr. There is something of John Frankenheimer's Seconds, although, clearly, that's not Downsizing's intention.
No, what is Downsizing about? I never ask myself that questions because I usually don't have to, but I have to now. I have no idea if it was an an allegorical piece too clever for me or was it that the great Alexander Payne was venturing into virgin territory with one of his old invisible characters as a guide. Without having everything quite figured out. Hong Chau is lovely but was she suppose to be comic relief, tears and all? I couldn't tell and yet, I was transported and intrigued and at a certain point I was moved even if, I couldn't quite believe in the whole thing.
So, go, at your own peril. This movie takes a good premise about people shrinking themselves and makes it boring. It's almost like there are 3 different movies ground up into a paste then eaten and shat out by Payne. I cannot emphasize how boring this movie is, once the character is downsized there is no interaction with anything big. Why did they even downsize the character if they weren't going to have him do anything. The movie is basically An Inconvenient Truth with small people who you can't even tell are small.
The idea of downsizing is so fantastic that initially began to think that it esd going to be another 'the curious case of Benjamin Button'. I felt so bad when I found how miserably my anticipation was wrong. This film had potential but deviated significantly away from the main plot. The plot originally focused on a miniature world but quickly transitioned into something poorly executed.
The themes of poverty, global warming, human extinction and existentialism were all amalgamated in this film, to the point where it became painful to watch. These are rather important topics and should not be compressed so carelessly into a single plot. I would not recommend watching this film! A wonderful, thought-provoking movie that is not your usual fare. This stayed with me long after the closing credits thanks, in no small part, to the utterly magnificent Hong Chau.
Charming without being sugary, moving without being over-sentimental, funny without being side splitting or resorting to gross out gags. The film carries several messages that are not exactly subtle but relevant nevertheless. Wonderful special effects that fit in to the film without distracting from the story or becoming the centre piece and a musical score that also compliments.
Christoph Waltz hits his usual gold standard with ease and Mat Damon plays the bumbling everyman to perfection. Films like this don't come along very often as movie studios tend to play safe but this is one to watch for certain, even if you end up disagreeing with my review. So I have never reviewed a movie before, but OMG, what just happened here. The trailers looked entertaining and Jason Sudeikis and Kristen Wiig are comedy heavyweights, so I figured "hey, shrink down some people and commence with hilarity and comedy hijinx".
Both actors combined have about minutes of screen time. The movie started out promising, but then it started to get strange and preachy. After the credits rolled, my wife and I just sort of stared at each other for an awkward amount of time waiting to see who would blame who for picking this movie. The conspiracy theorist in me is concerned that I was baited with a fun comedy movie then switched into a global warming nonsense hit piece.
First off, let me say this right off the bat: If you're going into this, because you were enticed by the trailers just like I was, let me save you a little bit of time.
- Daniels Dish: Entertaining at Home with a Four-Star Chef!
- Exiles From the Moor.
- Another expert climate professor *** becomes outspoken skeptic.
- Can comedy change your life? - OpenLearn - Open University?
- Top Stories;
- The Freedom Summer Murders.
If you've seen the trailers, you've seen the whole movie. I am not joking. There is one, seemingly hidden thread that ties all this schlock together, and that's not until the end of the film. From there, you are walking out of the theatre, wondering what the hell you have just watched.