An inconvenient truth

[funkyfreo]

Consenus in science isn't evidence, in particular when said consenus is based on climate models with large margins for error.

Basically they and you "know" nothing as much as a Christian "knows" that there is a god, for which there also seems to be a large consensus for.

Yep you cling to that eh? Most people in the world who actually know what they are talking about think it is true. Who am I (or you) to believe them wrong based upon most likely a lot less research and knowledge. All you do is believe the ramblings of the scientific minority, and assume them to be true because you happen to prefer their viewpoint.

Believing scientific consensus may well be flawed, but not as much as believing in minority scientific opinion.

And regardless, the CONVERSTATION with the Belgian was about don't just believe the film, but read the science too. And they both come to the same outcomes.

 

[section8]

Yep you cling to that eh? Most people in the world who actually know what they are talking about think it is true. Who am I (or you) to believe them wrong based upon most likely a lot less research and knowledge. All you do is believe the ramblings of the scientific minority, and assume them to be true because you happen to prefer their viewpoint.

Believing scientific consensus may well be flawed, but not as much as believing in minority scientific opinion.

And regardless, the CONVERSTATION with the Belgian was about don't just believe the film, but read the science too. And they both come to the same outcomes.

Are you a canadian?

So you aren't denying that anthropogenic gw is based on climate models with large margins for error?

Hang on...so if I don't believe the majority opinion, I'm instantly pigeonholed into aligning myself with some rambling, self-serving, unknowledgeable minority outgroup?

Is this what science has been reduced to?

 

[funkyfreo]

Are you a canadian?

So you aren't denying that anthropogenic gw is based on climate models with large margins for error?

eh?

it is based on climate models with margins for error eh, and the predictions quite clearly state the ranges if you read IPCC eh. well the "range" of anthro gw is - there is no real debate amongst scientists as to whether it is actually anthropogenic or not (ie IT IS).

As for the last bit - You can go with low range IPCC, you canh go with high range IPCC, but to go outside the range, well it is either your opinion based on nothing, or it is your opinion based on the loony scientists - I don;t see where else it could come from.

Ever heard of the precautionary principle, it is a core tenet of climate policy specifically designed to deal with scientific uncertainty. Really I think the sceptics only valid argument is to question the precautionary principle,not the science.

 

[stompie]

Many Chinese people still love him because of the brainwashing and indoctrination that followed his cult status.

Dead people can't talk, but if they could, they would call Mao a mass murderer. Look at all the millions of people who died because of his policies?

Think about it this way, studied Russian history? Sure the communists removed Russia from the incompetent rule of Nicolai, but surely the subsequent murder of Russians under communist rule suggests that everything wasn't great. Stalin had a cult following much like Mao, and many loved him, but the millions in the Gulags sure didn't. And the 20 millions that were killed didn't. And the thousands more who were tortured sure didn't like him.

China is always going to display a biased view of Mao, they have a building in the middle of their capital specifically designed to preserve his dead body ffs.

However, if you look beyond the lies, you see that under the Cultural Revolution, under Mao's rule millions and millions of Chinese people starved to death and were tortured for speaking out. Many of the young Chinese people who didn't endure Mao's rule have been fed this image of what Mao was like. For example, Chinese students have no knowledge of the Tiananmen Square massacre, the cultural revolution or anything like that, they are told that Mao is China's father and Hu Jintao is our leader.

Mao improved things in China, he improved education out of sight, he improved woman’s rights, and he improved the writing system, this and more. However, he could have done this and not lead the country into famine. Mao was happy to lead the nation into starvation as long as he held onto power, and by this way it meant that his grip on control was stronger than ever.

Chinese people aren’t brainwashed. Brainwashing 1.3 billion people is not an easy thing to do. At China’s most prestigious university, there are monuments to people who died or had their hearts broken in the cultural revolution. I’ve had Chinese people tell me these stories, but still turn around and say he was a great man. Furthermore, although dead people don't talk, their families do.

Even if everything negative said about him were true, I just don’t care. When people harass me to hate Mao I feel like they are harassing me to join a religion. I’ll leave it to the Chinese to think about their history whichever way they want.

As for the Chinese expats in Australia, I’m still really good mates with a Chinese lady in Sydney. Her family used to be scholars and wealthy people. They lost everything in the revolution. Her step father was an engineer, but it seems he stepped on the wrong toes and so was sent to the mines where he broke his back and has lived semi-paralysed ever since. She never went on about the evils of Mao. Come to think of it, I never asked her either. There were just so many other interesting things to talk about instead.

 

[volcboy]

You have fallen back into the moral argument when you talk of per capita emissions, and the nature of morality is that you can never get consensus on it. World wide, money is the closest thing there is to a uniting morality. Work out how alternative energies will make the most money for the most number of people money, and perhaps you will succeeed.

Australia has 20 million people. There are almost that many people in Beijing. Reducing emissions in Australia is not going to make any difference other than making a few moralistic Greenies feel more at ease. So again, push that line and you will just have another ideological argument that wont reach consensus.

Well, I've exhausted rational argument on the science of climate change with you, and that response means that I won't get through. If you think that 'money is the closest thing to a uniting morality' then you are a pure neo-liberalist. Money = morality??? Really.... I was actually suggesting the capitalist ideals that might make a difference to the problem we have, but you seem to think that money is might, and might is right.

True, Australia contributes relatively little greenhouse gas on a total basis, but I change starts at home. I don't try to tell other countries what to do, just my own. If we lead by example and create a low-emissions industry, then we may be at its forefront when others in the world catch up. If we lag behind, then we'll just have to buy all the technology from elsewhere.

 

[stompie]

Well, I've exhausted rational argument on the science of climate change with you, and that response means that I won't get through. If you think that 'money is the closest thing to a uniting morality' then you are a pure neo-liberalist. Money = morality??? Really.... I was actually suggesting the capitalist ideals that might make a difference to the problem we have, but you seem to think that money is might, and might is right.

True, Australia contributes relatively little greenhouse gas on a total basis, but I change starts at home. I don't try to tell other countries what to do, just my own. If we lead by example and create a low-emissions industry, then we may be at its forefront when others in the world catch up. If we lag behind, then we'll just have to buy all the technology from elsewhere.

I am not saying monetary morality is right, but that is just the way the world is. Think otherwise, and you have your head in the sand. If fact, if there wasn’t so much money to be made out of researching the Greenhouse effect, or money to be lost as a result of its damage, you wouldn’t hear anything about it. In Australia, there are a lot more pressing environmental concerns, but because there is no money in them you don’t hear of them.

Anyway, if you want to reduce emissions, the answer is very simple. You just put everyone in high density apartments in high density cities. If you are not already living in an apartment, now is the time to start thinking about moving.

 

[Richo83]

Chinese people aren’t brainwashed. Brainwashing 1.3 billion people is not an easy thing to do. At China’s most prestigious university, there are monuments to people who died or had their hearts broken in the cultural revolution. I’ve had Chinese people tell me these stories, but still turn around and say he was a great man. Furthermore, although dead people don't talk, their families do.

Not easy, but can be done. Authoritarian rule has been ingrained into Chinese culture for so long, China has never been democratically run, always ruled by dynasties, and so it is in Chinese culture to respect the ruler. This means that even if Mao was a murderous tyrant, they still respected him as the leader.

And plus, there was so much punishment of anyone that criticised the government that it became norm not to speak out, otherwise you would turn out like the Tiananmen protesters.

Even if everything negative said about him were true, I just don’t care. When people harass me to hate Mao I feel like they are harassing me to join a religion. I’ll leave it to the Chinese to think about their history whichever way they want.

I wish that was true, however when you have been told that Mao was great, it's the only thing you know. What else are they going to say? Would the government tell them about the millions who died from starvation? Of course not. China is not this free-thinking intelligent society, it has been repressed and told what to think.

I was shocked when I was over there and I started asking about Tiananmen square and they had no clue about the massacre, and when I told them about it, they said: "Oh no, there must be a mistake that would never happen under the great leadership of hte communist party." Hmm.

As for the Chinese expats in Australia, I’m still really good mates with a Chinese lady in Sydney. Her family used to be scholars and wealthy people. They lost everything in the revolution. Her step father was an engineer, but it seems he stepped on the wrong toes and so was sent to the mines where he broke his back and has lived semi-paralysed ever since. She never went on about the evils of Mao. Come to think of it, I never asked her either. There were just so many other interesting things to talk about instead.

It's a touchy subject. If you do, don't push it.

 

[stompie]

Not easy, but can be done. Authoritarian rule has been ingrained into Chinese culture for so long, China has never been democratically run, always ruled by dynasties, and so it is in Chinese culture to respect the ruler. This means that even if Mao was a murderous tyrant, they still respected him as the leader.

And plus, there was so much punishment of anyone that criticised the government that it became norm not to speak out, otherwise you would turn out like the Tiananmen protesters.



I wish that was true, however when you have been told that Mao was great, it's the only thing you know. What else are they going to say? Would the government tell them about the millions who died from starvation? Of course not. China is not this free-thinking intelligent society, it has been repressed and told what to think.

I was shocked when I was over there and I started asking about Tiananmen square and they had no clue about the massacre, and when I told them about it, they said: "Oh no, there must be a mistake that would never happen under the great leadership of hte communist party." Hmm.

Perhaps it is more of a Ying Yang type thinking. In every bad person there is some good, and in every good person there is some bad. If you accept the ying yang principles, you are on the road to being a moderate.

Another possibility is the cultural norm not to disrespect the dead. In both Japanese and Chinese culture, once people die, they are absolved of their sins and simply respected. Of course, the Chinese don't extend the same philosophy when talking about Japanese war criminals.

 

[Kangaroopit]

Anyone seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/p.swf?video_id=ry6w3mRm-FM&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//sjl-static16.sjl.youtube.com/vi/ry6w3mRm-FM/2.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskJh3KKPwq-HPBl3vX_jYWny

My biggest question is how much energy it takes to extract hydrogen from saltwater (anyone?). But it looks fantastic if it's all it's cracked up to be.

 

[Chief]

Yet some scientists ask some disturbing questions such as: if the world is hotter than its ever been how is the period explained where Greenland was extensively farmed (and thus derived its name)?

Exsqueeze me? Which period was this? The same time Queensland derived its name from the fact that we were all once royalty?

 

[Philhawk]

Exsqueeze me? Which period was this? The same time Queensland derived its name from the fact that we were all once royalty?

It's true! During the Medieval Warm Period (10th - 12th century?), I believe the fjords and small rocky outcrops in the south of Greenland were lush and extensively farmed! That said, i'm not sure if that's the reason behind its naming.

Edit: In regards to the film, I happened to go and see it earlier this month and I thought that while some parts of the 'truth' being told are exaggerated, overall it presented a disturbingly accurate picture of what the Earth could be like unless we all do something ...

 

[Richo83]

Perhaps it is more of a Ying Yang type thinking. In every bad person there is some good, and in every good person there is some bad. If you accept the ying yang principles, you are on the road to being a moderate.

I suppose, although some Chinese people can have some harsh words to say about others. For me, it's just hard to see the good in a murderous tyrant, but there is always going to be different views on Mao I guess.

Another possibility is the cultural norm not to disrespect the dead. In both Japanese and Chinese culture, once people die, they are absolved of their sins and simply respected. Of course, the Chinese don't extend the same philosophy when talking about Japanese war criminals.

Very true, infact so strong is the hate that when something bad happens in Japan, Chinese people may feel some sadness, but nothing really deep and most people are apathetic to the Japanese suffering. This is mainly because of what the Japanese did to the Chinese in WWII that was so horrendous, that they are still coming to terms. Then again meeting some Japanese people, it's not hard to dislike them.

 

[stompie]

I suppose, although some Chinese people can have some harsh words to say about others. For me, it's just hard to see the good in a murderous tyrant, but there is always going to be different views on Mao I guess.



Very true, infact so strong is the hate that when something bad happens in Japan, Chinese people may feel some sadness, but nothing really deep and most people are apathetic to the Japanese suffering. This is mainly because of what the Japanese did to the Chinese in WWII that was so horrendous, that they are still coming to terms. Then again meeting some Japanese people, it's not hard to dislike them.

As for Mao, maybe he was like Churchill in that he served a role to fight the battle, but was useless after that. I think the chief thing he is admired for is that China really got arsed by the Japanese, English, Americans, Russians, the French, and the Qing dynasty (Manchu race), so when a Han Chinese returned sovereignty to the Han people, he naturally won respect as a liberator. From my experience, it is only the non-Han minorities that really hate him.

As for the Japanese, although you, Koreans and the Chinese may not like them, I have a very soft spot for them.

 

[just maybe]

It's true! During the Medieval Warm Period (10th - 12th century?), I believe the fjords and small rocky outcrops in the south of Greenland were lush and extensively farmed! That said, i'm not sure if that's the reason behind its naming.

Fjords are generally lush.

 

[camsmith]

All you do is believe the ramblings of the scientific minority,

Minority?

While most scientists may agree the earth is currently warming, many don't see humans as the cause. That's where those who believe in Global Warming seem to get ahead of themselves when presenting statistics on the number of scientists who believe the earth is currently warming.

 

[Sir_Adrian84]

just cut back on flying planes, it is the main thing which causes global warming.
Stop getting these politicians and stuff to fly around the world

 

[midorigreenwood]

Minority?

While most scientists may agree the earth is currently warming, many don't see humans as the cause. That's where those who believe in Global Warming seem to get ahead of themselves when presenting statistics on the number of scientists who believe the earth is currently warming.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine#Case_Study:_The_Oregon_Petition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Basically the so-called Oregon Institute Science and Medicine tried to misrepresent the name of the National Academy of Sciences by spamming to hundreds of thousands of people a study that was purportedly peer reviewed but had nothing to do with the NAS and their journal at all.

When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names.

 

[camsmith]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine#Case_Study:_The_Oregon_Petition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Basically the so-called Oregon Institute Science and Medicine tried to misrepresent the name of the National Academy of Sciences by spamming to hundreds of thousands of people a study that was purportedly peer reviewed but had nothing to do with the NAS and their journal at all.

Thought you (or JM) might pick me up on that one. Good work

The fact remains, the so-called consensus that humans cause GW isn't there.

 

[Richo83]

As for Mao, maybe he was like Churchill in that he served a role to fight the battle, but was useless after that. I think the chief thing he is admired for is that China really got arsed by the Japanese, English, Americans, Russians, the French, and the Qing dynasty (Manchu race), so when a Han Chinese returned sovereignty to the Han people, he naturally won respect as a liberator. From my experience, it is only the non-Han minorities that really hate him.

As for the Japanese, although you, Koreans and the Chinese may not like them, I have a very soft spot for them.

Eh, I suppose, yet Churchill didn't kill millions of British and didn't lead Britain into one of it's darkest periods of the 20th century. Churchill was a democratically elected leader, Mao siezed power and never relinquished it untill his death, when Churchill finished his job, Atlee took his job, so they are different.

As for the Japanese, well............ they make good cars. I'll give them that.

 

[stompie]

Eh, I suppose, yet Churchill didn't kill millions of British and didn't lead Britain into one of it's darkest periods of the 20th century. Churchill was a democratically elected leader, Mao siezed power and never relinquished it untill his death, when Churchill finished his job, Atlee took his job, so they are different.

As for the Japanese, well............ they make good cars. I'll give them that.

Churchchill killed a lot of people. It was his stupid ideas that caused that caused the catastrophic life during the Gallipoli campaign. His plans were up there with the idiocy of Mao’s idea to making steel instead of growing food. Churchill also has to be held accountable for the deliberate torpedoing of the Wilhelm Gustloff, a German refugee ship, whose sinking was the greatest diaster in maritime history. These sins are forgotten as he did a great job as a war-time leader.

As for Mao not being democratically elected, there wasn’t democracy in his time. China was ruled and controlled by foreigners. I have to disagree with you here. Whatever sins he may have committed after gaining power, that doesn’t take away from the fact that his ability to rally his fellow Chinese to gain their independence was the sign of a great leader. Obviously the western powers that were shafting the Chinese are going to disagree, and obviously they are not going to recognise it now, but looking at it objectively, the Chinese people rallied behind him for a reason.

As for the Japanese, as well as cars, they also make very sexy ladies, tasty food, imaginative love hotels, great izakayas, and well-run karaoke franchises. Furthermore, their society, if measured on the criteria of economic prosperity, social honesty, or creativity, is up there amongst the greatest societies on earth. Their only downside is that they don’t have the Steve Irwin style appreciation for the environment, and tend to be quite stressed out.

 

[medusala]

Churchchill killed a lot of people. It was his stupid ideas that caused that caused the catastrophic life during the Gallipoli campaign. His plans were up there with the idiocy of Mao’s idea to making steel instead of growing food.

Not even comparable. How many died in the Great Leap Forward?

Churchill also has to be held accountable for the deliberate torpedoing of the Wilhelm Gustloff, a German refugee ship, whose sinking was the greatest diaster in maritime history. These sins are forgotten as he did a great job as a war-time leader.

The Soviets sunk that ship.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Not even comparable. How many died in the Great Leap Forward?



The Soviets sunk that ship.

I'm with you on this one meds...the other thing about the Great Leap Forward is that it was a failure - at least Stalin succeeded with the rapid industrialisation

 

[stompie]

Not even comparable. How many died in the Great Leap Forward?



The Soviets sunk that ship.

The Soviets sunk it using British intelligence that knew it was a refugee ship. As for the comparison between Chuchill and Mao, I was simply making a statement that leaders make stupid ideas that cost lives. Personally, if I had been at the Gallipoli campaign, whether I was one of 7,000, or one of 7,000,000 would not have mattered to me.

 

[pivotal]

If only Al Gore had become President, if only ...

The world would be a very different place.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Simple truth is India and china are going to burn fossil fuel like crazy as is every developing economy so it is too late to change and we need to prepare for the inevitable rather than pretend we are going to get China let alone the USA to reduce emissions. We are not.