| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| thebaldfacts wrote: | | Nevertheless it is clear that there is deep division and a lack of consensus amongst Australian earth scientists. |
Duh. There is also a lack of consensus amongst metallurgists about the value of radiation therapy as opposed to chemotherapy when treating liver cancer, and for the same reason: they are not trained and not qualified in the field.
Also, notice the clever and rather devious rebranding of geologists as "earth scientists", presumably to make it sound as if their expertise is particularly relevant, which of course it is not.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
 |
thebaldfacts
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | thebaldfacts wrote: | | Nevertheless it is clear that there is deep division and a lack of consensus amongst Australian earth scientists. |
Duh. There is also a lack of consensus amongst metallurgists about the value of radiation therapy as opposed to chemotherapy when treating liver cancer, and for the same reason: they are not trained and not qualified in the field.
Also, notice the clever and rather devious rebranding of geologists as "earth scientists", presumably to make it sound as if their expertise is particularly relevant, which of course it is not. |
Oh dear Tannin, maybe you are looking for 1 too many conspiracies. The devious rebranding of geologists as earth scientists - really???
Guess you better take this up with the University of Melbourne, as one example, who has "The School of Earth Science" - how devious!!!
As for geologists, they look at the geologic record for evidence of the ways in which Earths climate has changed in the past. That evidence may be used to help in our understanding as to how it may change in the future. To say that they are untrained or unqualified in the field is, shall I say it, devious.
Refer attached link for some more info on Australian earth scientists.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/climate-science-hopelessly-politicized-geological-society-of-australia-gives-up-on-making-any-statement/ |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It says something significant, albeit indirectly, about the "merit" of the climate-change-denier position that the best they can point to in mock support of their stance is the inability of a community of folk, many of whom work in the resources field, to reach a reasonably unanimous position.
If you waited long enough, you'd probably find the odd horticultural scientist in the tobacco industry who might say it wasn't quite clear, yet, whether smoking is harmful. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | It says something significant, albeit indirectly, about the "merit" of the climate-change-denier position that the best they can point to in mock support of their stance is the inability of a community of folk, many of whom work in the resources field, to reach a reasonably unanimous position.
If you waited long enough, you'd probably find the odd horticultural scientist in the tobacco industry who might say it wasn't quite clear, yet, whether smoking is harmful. |
It says a lot that opinion is afforded the same value as evidence by this government.
Cutting science such as the CSIRO yet funding lunatic fundamentalist religions like the the Pentecostalists to have a role in public Education.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
That's not balance for goodness' sake - quoting the fringe fruitloops at WUWT is like quoting a Mormon tract on anthropology; bitter oddbods with a website do not add "balance" to anything.
Who gives a rat's clacker if the fossil-fuel funded GSA in Mining Money Rules My Life Land can't reach consensus on global warming; what the heck did you expect?
Also, have you checked the distinctions between mineral geologists, palaentologists, palaeo-climatologists, climatologists and meteorologists? To reiterate, it's a 97% agreement amongst published climatologists.
How much agreement would you need from peer-reviewed, published global neurologists on something concerning your brain to take their assessment seriously?
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I think I have checked the distinctions between mineral geologists palaentologists palaeo-climatologists climatologists and meteorologists, but Mike may have reset my memory. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: |
That's not balance for goodness' sake - quoting the fringe fruitloops at WUWT is like quoting a Mormon tract on anthropology; ......... |
Brilliant.
Although John Smith the founder of the Church of the Latte Day Saints lost me when he was making the link between American Indians & the lost tribes of Israel.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: |
That's not balance for goodness' sake - quoting the fringe fruitloops at WUWT is like quoting a Mormon tract on anthropology; bitter oddbods with a website do not add "balance" to anything.
Who gives a rat's clacker if the fossil-fuel funded GSA in Mining Money Rules My Life Land can't reach consensus on global warming; what the heck did you expect?
Also, have you checked the distinctions between mineral geologists, palaentologists, palaeo-climatologists, climatologists and meteorologists? To reiterate, it's a 97% agreement amongst published climatologists.
How much agreement would you need from peer-reviewed, published global neurologists on something concerning your brain to take their assessment seriously? |
The 97% is bullshit. Complete, utter, unmitigated bullshit.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/
There's a Forbes article because ad homming the source rather than the information seems to be the go-to argument here. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The denier Wokko quotes is "a professional denial propagandist. He not a climate scientist or even a scientist in any way. Hes a lawyer paid by the Heartland Institute to write climate change denial propaganda." - http://rationallythinkingoutloud.com/the-deniers-i-know-of/
The infamous Heartland Institute is an extreme right American propaganda source funded - and all these facts are on the public record - by big oil, the arms industry, extreme right-wing American chemical barons, and big tobacco.
http://www.desmogblog.com/james-taylor
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute
Known facts, on the public record. These are the people who fought to discredit the links between smoking and cancer. These people are worse than the are extreme right nutcase Tea Party types (some of whom are genuine in their beliefs, no matter that their beliefs are screwy), 'coz these guys simply do it for the money. They know that they are lying but they take the money and lie and lie again
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Can anyone (from either side) summarise the main arguments of anthropogenic climate change sceptics?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
David, at http://www.skepticalscience.com/ you will find a concise list, together with summaries of the relevant evidence and as much more detail as you care to delve into. It's a very easy site to find your way around, and they very intelligently organise it into levels of detail, from the short executive summary through to quite dense and very carefully referenced material to back it up. It is essential reading.
Or, if you are looking for material about the deniers themselves and their shadowy paymasters, there is a wealth of detailed, carefully evidenced information at http://www.desmogblog.com and at http://www.sourcewatch.org
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
