Noonie - You make what I believe are good points - and I agree with them in part (the bit about the Carboniferous is a bit wide of the mark, but I get your general thrust).
There's a problem with the non-scientist general public in that they tend to believe that consensus = truth (consensus: the supposed 3,000 scientists who supposedly wrote the IPCC top-level reports). Or is it the media that insists on pushing that simplistic line? Of course, progress in science depends absolutely on dissent - but not on irrationality and emotionalism or consensus to "prove a point". I watched the second of a series of 2 programs on SBS yesterday, called "Absolute Zero" (ie, theoretical 0o Kelvin, and pursuit of very low temperatures in the laboratory). While unrelated to GW/climate change debates, the program illustrated well the competitiveness and even the clash of personalities, etc of leading scientists of 300 years ago to the present - ie, they're generally human - and also the cooperative and generous spirit of many. The practical side-effects of these endeavours are huge, in our current technological age - including quantum computing. Scientific endeavour depends on dissent and pursuit of facts (and results) to back up theories or hypotheses. I over-educated in geology, chemistry and physics which has given me an appreciation of that aspect of science and the scientific method. Geology is an interesting discipline, in that it encourages a lot of vague arm-waving and hypothesizing - because of the vastness of the time-scales involved, and some difficulty in finding unambiguous evidence to support or refute. In itself, that's a useful experience and vantage-point to critique the global warming / climate change fiasco as it's playing out. Unfortunately, the intent of my post a week ago has been lost in extraneous flak. I thought the email would survive until Monday night; it's occupied too much bandwidth. _____ Ian Thomas Victoria Park, Western Australia _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of noonie Sent: Sunday, 28 February 2010 7:03 AM To: ausDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed Greetings, On 27 February 2010 17:49, Tony Wright <[email protected]> wrote: <snip> So if you don't believe any scientist can be credible, who do you believe in? Only the ones with a neo-conservative agenda? Only ones that agree with your point of view? That is, the 5 in 100 scientists that don't believe in climate change? Perhaps American Spectator, a newspaper considered right-wing in a country that we consider further to the right, funded by Richard Scaife, the principal air to the Mellon Banking, Oil and Aluminium fortune? But this is how the majority of the general public choose the side they are going to agree with. It's human nature. Science is about facts and measurements and exposing your theories, along with your data and methodology, to critical peer review, and taking your lumps and revising your theory until you have a strong proposition that is acceptably close to the truth. You are not supposed to believe _in_ a scientist. That stinks of cultism. You are supposed to be convinced by the quality of his/her research. It should not be about personality and charisma. Copernicus recanted, Isaac Newton was a prat and Thomas Edison seldom washed. I'm afraid I don't believe any of the xGW crowd, from either side. I do wonder why it is such an issue at the moment. I do, however, believe the following:- 1. Global warming (and cooling) is inevitable. It has happened before. Get used to it. 2. Pouring all the carbon dioxide, that was laid down in the Carboniferous period, back into the atmosphere is probably not a good idea. (Although I have red that global temperatures during this period were very, very low in spite of the high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide). 3. Greenland was inhabited and farmed before, and probably will be again. 4. The Northwest passage was safe for shipping before, and probably will be again. -- noonie Would you rather fly blind without the scientists to warn you of what might be coming up if we don't be careful? T. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Connors Sent: Saturday, 27 February 2010 3:04 PM To: ausDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed On 27 February 2010 11:54, Ian Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: I just hate the inflammatory wording in that explanation of the Melbourne Water graph - "What does this graph show? Annual inflows into Melbourne's 4 major reservoirs since 1913. While ups and downs are a constant feature, the average has dropped rapidly by almost 40% in the past 12 years. This included a devastating drop in 2006, which the CSIRO had forecast could occur under a 'severe' climate change scenario in 2050." .included a devastating drop in 2006, which the CSIRO had forecast could occur under a 'severe' climate change scenario in 2050. So what? Is that a proof that climate change is occurring more rapidly than CSIRO modelling predicted? As an alarmist flag to the water-consuming public that we should conserve and limit unnecessary use of water, it may be justified, but in terms of truth or factual information it really gets up my nose. I realize that some clerk or other gonk in Melbourne Water phrased the explanation (not the CSIRO), but it's typical of inflammatory exaggerated accounts that are intended to promote an agenda. The same clerk or gonk fortuitously chose a starting date of 1913, neatly excising the federation drought (by exactly a decade) from the start of that in-flow graph - as well as any inflow records that led up to the Murray River being bone dry in 1914. I'm probably cherry picking facts though.
