Clive Hamilton speaking on climate denialism

Want to learn something, take 50 minutes out and watch Clive's book launch at the Australian National University last week. This is his fourth book, and he is an expert on the politics and science of climate change.



He has some particularly interesting comments on the rise of anti-scientific thinking led by the 'populist conservative' movement in the US.

BTW, I am not going to 'debate' climate science on here, because there is no debate in the science as is clear if you actually follow the science and not the media's distortion of it. Clive's speech is more about the politics and economics of climate change than the science.

Climate change is all about Political power, Ruffffffffffffffff.



Wake up WAKE UPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

A 50 minute youtube? No thanks.

Denial of anthropogenic climate change is the same irrational, magical thinking, anti-intellectualism as Bible-thumpers' childish creationism.

Climate Denial is all about Corporate Power (Koch, BigOil, BigCoal, BigAg, etc) spending $100s of $Ms to maintain their revenue streams, to avoid cleaning up their unsustainable industries by duping teabaggers, camo-bubbas, and other red-state dumbfucks into believing corporatge-protective fairy tales instead of science.

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1950

Two things:

The sun has always been the chief factor... Or did our anthropomorphic effects make it all the way to Mars as well?

Is water considered a pollutant by the climate change crowd? After all, it's forcing-factor on the greenhouse effect is 50x more potent than that of CO2? Which is it?

Take 1 minute to watch and you will learn everything about climate change

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

The sun has always been the chief factor... Or did our anthropomorphic effects make it all the way to Mars as well??

---

Evidently that mars rover we sent up there is an suv.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Take 1 minute to watch and you will learn everything about climate change

---

Good video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Denial of anthropogenic climate change is the same irrational, magical thinking, anti-intellectualism as Bible-thumpers' childish creationism.

---

If you say so. Will you ever understand the sciences enough to see the problems with the AGW theories out there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Climate Denial is all about Corporate Power (Koch, BigOil, BigCoal, BigAg, etc) spending $100s of $Ms to maintain their revenue streams, to avoid cleaning up their unsustainable industries by duping teabaggers, camo-bubbas, and other red-state dumbfucks into believing corporatge-protective fairy tales instead of science.

---

On the contrary, it's the AGW crowd already making money with carbon credits, and lack of science. Scientific consensus is not science. A true Peer review process does not exist in the AGW world, because it would fall apart. The peer review process includes skeptics, showing the prrof to change their minds.

Don't you see... No true Peer Review, because that hasn't happened. They keep they data and methods to themselves. It's just another authoritarian take over for more control over our lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Evidently that mars rover we sent up there is an suv.

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Evidently that mars rover we sent up there is an suv.

---

National Geographic News: Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Quote:

---

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RuffnReadyOzStyle

Want to learn something, take 50 minutes out and watch Clive's book launch at the Australian National University last week. This is his fourth book, and he is an expert on the politics and science of climate change.



He has some particularly interesting comments on the rise of anti-scientific thinking led by the 'populist conservative' movement in the US.

BTW, I am not going to 'debate' climate science on here, because there is no debate in the science as is clear if you actually follow the science and not the media's distortion of it. Clive's speech is more about the politics and economics of climate change than the science.

---

anti scientific thinking is on both sides of the isle, right next to scientific thinking.

The moment any scientist says "The science is settled.", he ceases to be a scientist and becomes an evangelist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

The moment any scientist says "The science is settled.", he ceases to be a scientist and becomes an evangelist.

---

That, or the science is settled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

The moment any scientist says "The science is settled.", he ceases to be a scientist and becomes an evangelist.

---

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

Should have just posted a youtube instead.

What exactly Karl Popper used to say about that expression, "The science is settled"? Does anyone remember it?

PErsonally, I've never heard a scientist saying "The science is settled". As DarrinS says, that's not something a real scientist would say. That's an extremely anti-science kind of statement, it negates the core principles of scientific reasoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

The moment any scientist says "The science is settled.", he ceases to be a scientist and becomes an evangelist.

---

Cmon DarrinS, you could've thought this comment out a little better.

Or are we still not sure about the earth orbiting the Sun? :lol

I think it's an excellent analogy. I'm pretty sure most scientists would agree with DarrinS and take exception with anyone who would say something like "The science is settled". That's religious language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mogrovejo

I'm pretty sure most scientists would agree with DarrinS and take exception with anyone who would say something like "The science is settled". That's religious language.

---

The bolded is hardly distinguishable from the appeal to authority you have taken exception to. That's religious language too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mogrovejo

I think it's an excellent analogy. I'm pretty sure most scientists would agree with DarrinS and take exception with anyone who would say something like "The science is settled". That's religious language.

---

:lmao

Oh delicious irony.

So, it's unscientific to note that the science is settled regarding whether the earth rotates around the sun or not?

Or has there been some new evidence for the "earth is the center of the universe" theory that I haven't heard about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

So, it's unscientific to note that the science is settled regarding whether the earth rotates around the sun or not?

---

I think the notion that science can be settled is unscientific itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Or has there been some new evidence for the "earth is the center of the universe" theory that I haven't heard about?

---

Not that I'm aware of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mogrovejo

I think the notion that science can be settled is unscientific itself.

---

Certainly though, some theories have been proven correct to the point where the science has been settled. The theory that the Earth is the center of the universe, flat earth theory, the theory that rotting meat produces maggots/flies, etc etc

I don't agree that the science behind GW is 'settled' but the science of other theories can certainly be 'settled'. That's why scientists perform tests in the first place, to try to find answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Certainly though, some theories have been proven correct to the point where the science has been settled. The theory that the Earth is the center of the universe, flat earth theory, the theory that rotting meat produces maggots/flies, etc etc

I don't agree that the science behind GW is 'settled' but the science of other theories can certainly be 'settled'. That's why scientists perform tests in the first place, to try to find answers.

---

Not exactly...

The Flat Earth Society

:hat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

Should have just posted a youtube instead.

---

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

-Albert Einstein

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

-Albert Einstein

---

2+2 really does equal 3. No really. It does. Anyone who wouldn't account for that possibility simply isn't a scientist but a person of the religion of four.

Are climate trends and dynamics, to say nothing of such esoterica as AGW, really as clear as 2+2=4?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Are climate trends and dynamics, to say nothing of such esoterica as AGW, really as clear as 2+2=4?

---

I certainly wouldn't say there are. But to imply that the science on a subject is never settled, or that "true Scotsmen, er scientists" would never say that is silly. In many cases, the science IS settled, being proven out by experiments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Are climate trends and dynamics, to say nothing of such esoterica as AGW, really as clear as 2+2=4?

---

Absolutely not. Climate is a chaotic dynamical system that we don't fully understand.


AGW stands on two pillars that are very flimsy:

1) The warming of the 20th century is unprecedented

2) The 3% that humans contribute to a trace gas CO2 (that makes up only 3% of our atmosphere) has caused this unprecedented warming

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I certainly wouldn't say there are. But to imply that the science on a subject is never settled, or that "true Scotsmen, er scientists" would never say that is silly. In many cases, the science IS settled, being proven out by experiments.

---

Newtonian physics was a "settled" science until Einstein came along and blew it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Newtonian physics was a "settled" science until Einstein came along and blew it up.

---

Thanks for proving my point, except you don't need scare quotes.

Being "correct" and being "settled upon" are two different things.

I'm pretty sure we can say that science has "settled" on the flat earth theory being incorrect.

Newtonian physics, which was "settled" upon, isn't complete. It's not incorrect, mind you; it just doesn't tell the whole story.

Will scientists continue to do tests, which may change their opinion? Certainly. But to imply that scientists never "settle" on an answer is just wrong, because frankly they do. I mean, sure there might be some scientist out there desperately trying to prove the Flat Earth theory, and who knows, there may be some strange reality where it IS correct, and scientists will then change their mind.

That doesn't dispute the fact that the science is settled on that theory being wrong today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Thanks for proving my point, except you don't need scare quotes.

Being "correct" and being "settled upon" are two different things.

I'm pretty sure we can say that science has "settled" on the flat earth theory being incorrect.

Newtonian physics, which was "settled" upon, isn't complete. It's not incorrect, mind you; it just doesn't tell the whole story.

Will scientists continue to do tests, which may change their opinion? Certainly. But to imply that scientists never "settle" on an answer is just wrong, because frankly they do. I mean, sure there might be some scientist out there desperately trying to prove the Flat Earth theory, and who knows, there may be some strange reality where it IS correct, and scientists will then change their mind.

That doesn't dispute the fact that the science is settled on that theory being wrong today.

---

Well, perhaps a better quote would be:

All models are wrong, but some are useful. -George Box


But, to compare people that are sceptical of AGW with "flat Earthers" is just ridiculous.

I think time and empirical data will disprove AGW and many current AGW advocates will leave the "movement" like rats abandoning a sinking ship. Gore has to keep towing the line because he has skin in the game.

All these tangential arguments are drawing away from the obvious "thorn on the side" of AGW supporters that was posited earlier...

Are humans responsible for the glacial recession observed on Mars over the past decade? Or maybe... just maybe... the sun has been the culprit all along. :shootme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Well, perhaps a better quote would be:

All models are wrong, but some are useful. -George Box

---

Eh... slightly better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

But, to compare people that are sceptical of AGW with "flat Earthers" is just ridiculous.

---

If you read my other posts, you'd note that I don't think the science of AGW is settled. I was merely using the Flat Earth as a separate issue to discuss your notion that science doesn't "settle".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

If you read my other posts, you'd note that I don't think the science of AGW is settled. I was merely using the Flat Earth as a separate issue to discuss your notion that science doesn't "settle".

---

Fair enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Are climate trends and dynamics, to say nothing of such esoterica as AGW, really as clear as 2+2=4?

---

I don't remember saying a single thing about AGW. I just pointed out how stupid Darrin's statement was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I have nothing intelligent to add to this discussion. I just wanted to insult another poster.

---

fify

In this case you're actually right. The only thing I wanted to do in this thread was insult you. I found it quite satisfying too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

The moment any scientist says "The science is settled.", he ceases to be a scientist and becomes an evangelist.

---

So when Wild Cobra says that the science is settled because "there is almost no possibility that I am wrong" about the sun causing all of the warming/cooling trends noted in the last 200 years....

that makes HIM an evangelist, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

So when Wild Cobra says that the science is settled because "there is almost no possibility that I am wrong" about the sun causing all of the warming/cooling trends noted in the last 200 years....

that makes HIM an evangelist, right?

---

I guess it would have to. Pity more posters (myself among them) aren't really clear on this issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

So when Wild Cobra says that the science is settled because "there is almost no possibility that I am wrong" about the sun causing all of the warming/cooling trends noted in the last 200 years....

that makes HIM an evangelist, right?

---

Semantical juxtaposition... he might be forced into that 'perceived' position only because most anthropomorphic climate change supporters can't accept the possibility that they've been lied to, that they've been duped and misled. By politicians maybe... but they just can't fathom the possibility that the scientific community, of all 'at large entities,' can in fact operate outside of the scientific method when agendas are involved. It boils down to human stubborness vs. human stubborness. Lines are drawn. Insults are hurled. Reasoning goes by the wayside. Interpretation of the data becomes wholly subjective. No one can win that type of argument.

And yes, our sun continues to be the 'elephant in the living room.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

All these tangential arguments are drawing away from the obvious "thorn on the side" of AGW supporters that was posited earlier...

Are humans responsible for the glacial recession observed on Mars over the past decade? Or maybe... just maybe... the sun has been the culprit all along.

---

P.S. I find it funny that you all would devote an entire page-and-a-half attacking DarrinS's comment, while not actually providing any further support for your own positions (whether it exists or not). I don't actually fully agree with his comment either, but hammering him about it doesn't make the AGW argument any more convincing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Semantical juxtaposition... he might be forced into that 'perceived' position only because most anthropomorphic climate change supporters can't accept the possibility that they've been lied to, that they've been duped and misled. By politicians maybe... but they just can't fathom the possibility that the scientific community, of all 'at large entities,' can in fact operate outside of the scientific method when agendas are involved. It boils down to human stubborness vs. human stubborness. Lines are drawn. Insults are hurled. Reasoning goes by the wayside. Interpretation of the data becomes wholly subjective. No one can win that type of argument.

And yes, our sun continues to be the 'elephant in the living room.'

P.S. I find it funny that you all would devote an entire page-and-a-half attacking DarrinS's comment, while not actually providing any further support for your own positions (whether it exists or not). I don't actually fully agree with his comment either, but hammering him about it doesn't make the AGW argument any more convincing.

---

Actually, I think it cuts to the heart of the matter, i.e. who to believe?

This is, by all accounts, a very complex system/issue.

When one side tends to, as WC and Darrin do, use absolutes when talking about this, without allowing for the possibility that they are wrong, that speaks volumes about intellectual honesty and credibility.

Reading a lot of the IPCC reports that are summaries of data, they couch their phrasing with "more likely than not" or "highly likely" or "unlikely" depending on overall levels of uncertainty.

The real problem I have with your post, and much of what is said, is that I can allow for the possibility that some scientists might fudge data to further their own selfish ends, but I figure as highly improbable that ALL of them would do so in a concerted fashion.

You, and they, are ascribing motives to a rather large number of people without proof, and using that in a logical ad hominem fallacy to discount a lot of scientific evidence.

That hardly strikes *me* has helping the "denier" case at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

P.S. I find it funny that you all would devote an entire page-and-a-half attacking DarrinS's comment, while not actually providing any further support for your own positions (whether it exists or not). I don't actually fully agree with his comment either, but hammering him about it doesn't make the AGW argument any more convincing.

---

My thoughts on the matter:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Actually, I think it cuts to the heart of the matter, i.e. who to believe?

This is, by all accounts, a very complex system/issue.

When one side tends to, as WC and Darrin do, use absolutes when talking about this, without allowing for the possibility that they are wrong, that speaks volumes about intellectual honesty and credibility.

Reading a lot of the IPCC reports that are summaries of data, they couch their phrasing with "more likely than not" or "highly likely" or "unlikely" depending on overall levels of uncertainty.

The real problem I have with your post, and much of what is said, is that I can allow for the possibility that some scientists might fudge data to further their own selfish ends, but I figure as highly improbable that ALL of them would do so in a concerted fashion.

You, and they, are ascribing motives to a rather large number of people without proof, and using that in a logical ad hominem fallacy to discount a lot of scientific evidence.

That hardly strikes *me* has helping the "denier" case at all.

---

IMO there is no concerted, organized conspiracy by the scientific community to push government pseudo-scientific agendas. It doesn't originate with them. A detrimental domino effect however does exist, simply because the two entities are intertwined with each other all over the world. In other words, the detriment is perpetuated by the fact that that several world goverments do in fact fund such scientific endeavors. Scientists either have to *find* what that money was meant to unearth, or else they fudge it - if not they lose their government grants. The agenda exists on the political side... and unfortunately it permeates into our scientific world view.

It's not like it's the first time this has happened either:
-- Ethanol based fuel additives?
-- The "Global freezing" scare of the 1970's?
-- Downplaying the hazardous effects of cell phone use?

So while scientist A in Germany and scientist B in Australia, don't necessarily know each other and aren't associated with the other... they may reach equally unfounded conclusions only because the driving factor in their grants was pushed by similar political machines (obviously not the same one since they operate in two different countries).

Also there are thousands of reputable scientists that don't buy the AGW message. Could it be because sufficient data exists to blow the basic premise of anthropomorphic climate change out of the water?

Mars is a pretty freaking big one we can all see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

So while scientist A in Germany and scientist B in Australia, don't know each other and aren't associated with the other... they may reach equally unfounded conclusions only because the driving factor in their grants was pushed by similar political machines (obviously not the same one since they operate in two different countries).

---

I don't dispute the rest of your post, but isn't it at least noteworthy that scientists on opposite sides of the globe would fudge the same things to result in the same findings to supported the same specific conclusion? So many studies with convergent results in so many disparate scientific disciplines seems to at least make claims of AGW credible even if their ultimate veracity proves contestable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

I don't dispute the rest of your post, but isn't it at least noteworthy that scientists on opposite sides of the globe would fudge the same things to result in the same findings to supported the same specific conclusion? So many studies with convergent results in so many disparate scientific disciplines seems to at least make claims of AGW credible even if their ultimate veracity proves contestable.

---

Blame the internets... the illusion of "convergence" would have been more difficult to construct even a mere 20 years ago. hmm... I guess Al Gore is to blame on both counts. :hat I can cookie cut the missing piece to a puzzle if I know what the hole looks like... that task is far more difficult to execute however, if I'm not privy to that context. The fact that the IPCC had emails that suggested they tried to normalize the data pools is telling enough.

Everyone here, of course, is speaking in generalizations...