Discussion:
A breath of fresh air
(too old to reply)
Tony
2020-01-14 19:48:00 UTC
Permalink
This blog is one I came across a year or so ago, sometimes it is ordinary and
sometimes it is well worth reading.
This particular post struck a chord with me and I agree with it almost entirely.
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/15/the-threat-to-the-freedom-to-challenge-the-climate-change-from-unnatural-causes-brigade/
I posted the the referenced du Fresne article here and the reaction to it by at
least one person is well explained by the above article.
Time for some balanced science.
Rich80105
2020-01-15 04:58:24 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 13:48:00 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
This blog is one I came across a year or so ago, sometimes it is ordinary and
sometimes it is well worth reading.
This particular post struck a chord with me and I agree with it almost entirely.
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/15/the-threat-to-the-freedom-to-challenge-the-climate-change-from-unnatural-causes-brigade/
I posted the the referenced du Fresne article here and the reaction to it by at
least one person is well explained by the above article.
Time for some balanced science.
I'm not sure who is advocating that Climate Change is from Unnatural
causes, but most people will probaly agree we can probably agree with
"Journalists used to be committed to uncovering the truth, no matter
how inconvenient. As a profession they were wary of spin and looked
out for propaganda, which they called out and treated with contempt.
Not any more. Many of today’s journalists are banner-wavers and ardent
promoters of a massive propaganda campaign on an international scale
the like of which the world has never seen."

The book "Dirty Tricks" is now a few years ago, but recent revelations
regarding use of Facebook related data and "Cambridge Analytica"
offshoots indicate that such propaganda is still being peddled.

I agree that it is time for balanced science, and also time to reject
the implication that personal opinions, unsupported by scientific
facts, may not contribute to such a desirable balance.
Tony
2020-01-15 06:13:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 13:48:00 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
This blog is one I came across a year or so ago, sometimes it is ordinary and
sometimes it is well worth reading.
This particular post struck a chord with me and I agree with it almost entirely.
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/15/the-threat-to-the-freedom-to-challenge-the-climate-change-from-unnatural-causes-brigade/
I posted the the referenced du Fresne article here and the reaction to it by at
least one person is well explained by the above article.
Time for some balanced science.
I'm not sure who is advocating that Climate Change is from Unnatural
causes
It is obvious that the term means something that is not resulting from nature
(hence the word unnatural meaning contrary to the ordinary course of nature or
abnormal.)
So to the slow thinker it means changes caused by man. And that is the issue
here.
Post by Rich80105
, but most people will probaly agree we can probably agree with
"Journalists used to be committed to uncovering the truth, no matter
how inconvenient. As a profession they were wary of spin and looked
out for propaganda, which they called out and treated with contempt.
Not any more. Many of today’s journalists are banner-wavers and ardent
promoters of a massive propaganda campaign on an international scale
the like of which the world has never seen."
Who cares what journalists write or speak. This post is about the need to have
balance.
Irrelevant dogma snipped, an entirely different subject.
Post by Rich80105
I agree that it is time for balanced science.,
More irrelevance removed.
The article is very simple, it is arguing that we need to have a balanced and
non-political view. You could learn from that earnest wish.
John Bowes
2020-01-15 06:25:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 13:48:00 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
This blog is one I came across a year or so ago, sometimes it is ordinary and
sometimes it is well worth reading.
This particular post struck a chord with me and I agree with it almost entirely.
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/15/the-threat-to-the-freedom-to-challenge-the-climate-change-from-unnatural-causes-brigade/
I posted the the referenced du Fresne article here and the reaction to it by at
least one person is well explained by the above article.
Time for some balanced science.
I'm not sure who is advocating that Climate Change is from Unnatural
causes
It is obvious that the term means something that is not resulting from nature
(hence the word unnatural meaning contrary to the ordinary course of nature or
abnormal.)
So to the slow thinker it means changes caused by man. And that is the issue
here.
Post by Rich80105
, but most people will probaly agree we can probably agree with
"Journalists used to be committed to uncovering the truth, no matter
how inconvenient. As a profession they were wary of spin and looked
out for propaganda, which they called out and treated with contempt.
Not any more. Many of today’s journalists are banner-wavers and ardent
promoters of a massive propaganda campaign on an international scale
the like of which the world has never seen."
Who cares what journalists write or speak. This post is about the need to have
balance.
Irrelevant dogma snipped, an entirely different subject.
Post by Rich80105
I agree that it is time for balanced science.,
More irrelevance removed.
The article is very simple, it is arguing that we need to have a balanced and
non-political view. You could learn from that earnest wish.
from Rich all you'll get s the party line and the belief that the science is settled even though more and more evidence is coming out that makes the bogus science look more like a money making scam from greedy so called scientists with no ethics or morals!
George
2020-01-15 19:09:56 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:25:01 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
from Rich all you'll get s the party line and the belief that the
science is settled even though more and more evidence is coming out
that makes the bogus science look more like a money making scam from
greedy so called scientists with no ethics or morals!
All you have to do is look up all the claims made by these 'experts'..
And count on the finger of one hand the number they got right and the
sand grains on the beach for the number wrong..
Rich80105
2020-01-15 21:13:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:25:01 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
from Rich all you'll get s the party line and the belief that the
science is settled even though more and more evidence is coming out
that makes the bogus science look more like a money making scam from
greedy so called scientists with no ethics or morals!
All you have to do is look up all the claims made by these 'experts'..
And count on the finger of one hand the number they got right and the
sand grains on the beach for the number wrong..
Sounds like a good idea, George. How do you decide if a claim is right
or wrong?

If someting has been predicted a lot of times, does that make it more
or less likely for example?
https://chaser.com.au/general-news/no-one-could-have-predicted-this-says-government-that-was-warned-about-this-in-1988-1993-1998-2001-2004-2009-2010-2011-2012-2013-2014-2015-2016-2017-2018-and-2019/
Crash
2020-01-15 21:37:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:25:01 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
from Rich all you'll get s the party line and the belief that the
science is settled even though more and more evidence is coming out
that makes the bogus science look more like a money making scam from
greedy so called scientists with no ethics or morals!
All you have to do is look up all the claims made by these 'experts'..
And count on the finger of one hand the number they got right and the
sand grains on the beach for the number wrong..
Sounds like a good idea, George. How do you decide if a claim is right
or wrong?
If someting has been predicted a lot of times, does that make it more
or less likely for example?
https://chaser.com.au/general-news/no-one-could-have-predicted-this-says-government-that-was-warned-about-this-in-1988-1993-1998-2001-2004-2009-2010-2011-2012-2013-2014-2015-2016-2017-2018-and-2019/
That article cites general predictions made in the past to support the
notion that what came to pass was predictable (and by implication
preventable). The predictions made in the past about "one degree of
warming" may be true but the connection between the one degree of
warming and the bush fires burning has not been established.

If there is a trend that bush fires are getting steadily worse in
concert with rising temperatures (commonly referred to as "warming")
then I have not seen this. By this, I mean statistical evidence that
correlates the two events.

The value of this article is more to expose the Australian PM's
ineptness at political management of a disaster.


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-01-16 09:19:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:25:01 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
from Rich all you'll get s the party line and the belief that the
science is settled even though more and more evidence is coming out
that makes the bogus science look more like a money making scam from
greedy so called scientists with no ethics or morals!
All you have to do is look up all the claims made by these 'experts'..
And count on the finger of one hand the number they got right and the
sand grains on the beach for the number wrong..
Sounds like a good idea, George. How do you decide if a claim is right
or wrong?
If someting has been predicted a lot of times, does that make it more
or less likely for example?
https://chaser.com.au/general-news/no-one-could-have-predicted-this-says-government-that-was-warned-about-this-in-1988-1993-1998-2001-2004-2009-2010-2011-2012-2013-2014-2015-2016-2017-2018-and-2019/
That article cites general predictions made in the past to support the
notion that what came to pass was predictable (and by implication
preventable). The predictions made in the past about "one degree of
warming" may be true but the connection between the one degree of
warming and the bush fires burning has not been established.
If there is a trend that bush fires are getting steadily worse in
concert with rising temperatures (commonly referred to as "warming")
then I have not seen this. By this, I mean statistical evidence that
correlates the two events.
You won;t see it here either, but perhaps you are not looking in the
right place . . .

https://ballmemes.com/i/an-age-old-argument-century-if-the-earth-i5-round-then-22350942
Post by Crash
The value of this article is more to expose the Australian PM's
ineptness at political management of a disaster.
Crash
2020-01-17 02:05:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:25:01 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
from Rich all you'll get s the party line and the belief that the
science is settled even though more and more evidence is coming out
that makes the bogus science look more like a money making scam from
greedy so called scientists with no ethics or morals!
All you have to do is look up all the claims made by these 'experts'..
And count on the finger of one hand the number they got right and the
sand grains on the beach for the number wrong..
Sounds like a good idea, George. How do you decide if a claim is right
or wrong?
If someting has been predicted a lot of times, does that make it more
or less likely for example?
https://chaser.com.au/general-news/no-one-could-have-predicted-this-says-government-that-was-warned-about-this-in-1988-1993-1998-2001-2004-2009-2010-2011-2012-2013-2014-2015-2016-2017-2018-and-2019/
That article cites general predictions made in the past to support the
notion that what came to pass was predictable (and by implication
preventable). The predictions made in the past about "one degree of
warming" may be true but the connection between the one degree of
warming and the bush fires burning has not been established.
If there is a trend that bush fires are getting steadily worse in
concert with rising temperatures (commonly referred to as "warming")
then I have not seen this. By this, I mean statistical evidence that
correlates the two events.
You won;t see it here either, but perhaps you are not looking in the
right place . . .
https://ballmemes.com/i/an-age-old-argument-century-if-the-earth-i5-round-then-22350942
I am not looking. I am expecting that those who assert there is a
statistical correlation between Australian bush fires and climate
warming to be able to cite that evidence. If this mockery is your
response then that is evidence that you cannot do so.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
The value of this article is more to expose the Australian PM's
ineptness at political management of a disaster.
--
Crash McBash
George
2020-01-17 19:10:44 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 15:05:39 +1300
Post by Crash
I am not looking. I am expecting that those who assert there is a
statistical correlation between Australian bush fires and climate
warming to be able to cite that evidence. If this mockery is your
response then that is evidence that you cannot do so.
As every summer is bush fire season in Australia you'd imagine that the
data is there and available.
But as it disproves their claims somehow its 'not available'

Gordon
2020-01-16 06:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:25:01 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
from Rich all you'll get s the party line and the belief that the
science is settled even though more and more evidence is coming out
that makes the bogus science look more like a money making scam from
greedy so called scientists with no ethics or morals!
All you have to do is look up all the claims made by these 'experts'..
And count on the finger of one hand the number they got right and the
sand grains on the beach for the number wrong..
Sounds like a good idea, George. How do you decide if a claim is right
or wrong?
Well you go and test it.

The issuse is one of being in a very wide and fuzzy zone. How the hell do
you predict the climate? Well you can have a go, but the result is rather
fuzzy at best.
Rich80105
2020-01-16 07:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:25:01 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
from Rich all you'll get s the party line and the belief that the
science is settled even though more and more evidence is coming out
that makes the bogus science look more like a money making scam from
greedy so called scientists with no ethics or morals!
All you have to do is look up all the claims made by these 'experts'..
And count on the finger of one hand the number they got right and the
sand grains on the beach for the number wrong..
Sounds like a good idea, George. How do you decide if a claim is right
or wrong?
Well you go and test it.
The issuse is one of being in a very wide and fuzzy zone. How the hell do
you predict the climate? Well you can have a go, but the result is rather
fuzzy at best.
I also said:
If something has been predicted a lot of times, does that make it more
or less likely for example?
https://chaser.com.au/general-news/no-one-could-have-predicted-this-says-government-that-was-warned-about-this-in-1988-1993-1998-2001-2004-2009-2010-2011-2012-2013-2014-2015-2016-2017-2018-and-2019/

So what can we say about testing by the Australian Government of the
warnings that they received? Was the New Zealand Government at those
times any better?

If we based decisions solely on persona opinions, we would still
believe the earth to be flat, we would have rejected fluoride and
chlorine in water, we would have rejected public health campaigns to
either encourage or insist on immunisation - and now some are putting
coporate profits before legitimate world concerns.
George
2020-01-16 19:10:07 UTC
Permalink
On 16 Jan 2020 06:05:54 GMT
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:25:01 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
from Rich all you'll get s the party line and the belief that the
science is settled even though more and more evidence is coming
out that makes the bogus science look more like a money making
scam from greedy so called scientists with no ethics or morals!
All you have to do is look up all the claims made by these
'experts'.. And count on the finger of one hand the number they got
right and the sand grains on the beach for the number wrong..
Sounds like a good idea, George. How do you decide if a claim is
right or wrong?
Well you go and test it.
The issuse is one of being in a very wide and fuzzy zone. How the
hell do you predict the climate? Well you can have a go, but the
result is rather fuzzy at best.
Testing a hypothesis ???????
Don't give the resident dweep ideas..
Next thing he'll be advocating the scientific method...
I can't believe he wrote that
Rich80105
2020-01-16 20:44:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
On 16 Jan 2020 06:05:54 GMT
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:25:01 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
from Rich all you'll get s the party line and the belief that the
science is settled even though more and more evidence is coming
out that makes the bogus science look more like a money making
scam from greedy so called scientists with no ethics or morals!
All you have to do is look up all the claims made by these
'experts'.. And count on the finger of one hand the number they got
right and the sand grains on the beach for the number wrong..
Sounds like a good idea, George. How do you decide if a claim is
right or wrong?
Well you go and test it.
The issuse is one of being in a very wide and fuzzy zone. How the
hell do you predict the climate? Well you can have a go, but the
result is rather fuzzy at best.
Testing a hypothesis ???????
Don't give the resident dweep ideas..
Next thing he'll be advocating the scientific method...
I can't believe he wrote that
So what do you advocate, Geoge? Just follow someone whose opinions you
admire and trust?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11627515
John Bowes
2020-01-16 23:57:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
On 16 Jan 2020 06:05:54 GMT
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:25:01 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
from Rich all you'll get s the party line and the belief that the
science is settled even though more and more evidence is coming
out that makes the bogus science look more like a money making
scam from greedy so called scientists with no ethics or morals!
All you have to do is look up all the claims made by these
'experts'.. And count on the finger of one hand the number they got
right and the sand grains on the beach for the number wrong..
Sounds like a good idea, George. How do you decide if a claim is
right or wrong?
Well you go and test it.
The issuse is one of being in a very wide and fuzzy zone. How the
hell do you predict the climate? Well you can have a go, but the
result is rather fuzzy at best.
Testing a hypothesis ???????
Don't give the resident dweep ideas..
Next thing he'll be advocating the scientific method...
I can't believe he wrote that
Yeah but only if it's being done by enlightened scientists who wholeheartedly believe the climate change mantra :)
John Bowes
2020-01-16 01:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:25:01 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
from Rich all you'll get s the party line and the belief that the
science is settled even though more and more evidence is coming out
that makes the bogus science look more like a money making scam from
greedy so called scientists with no ethics or morals!
All you have to do is look up all the claims made by these 'experts'..
And count on the finger of one hand the number they got right and the
sand grains on the beach for the number wrong..
Rich never looks at any of that. He's still blissfully ignorant that the claims of sea level rise are only supported by a NASA satellite that has been so badly programmed that it has to be in a precise orbit to deliver any meaningful data!
Rich80105
2020-01-15 06:29:48 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 00:13:27 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 13:48:00 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
This blog is one I came across a year or so ago, sometimes it is ordinary and
sometimes it is well worth reading.
This particular post struck a chord with me and I agree with it almost entirely.
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/15/the-threat-to-the-freedom-to-challenge-the-climate-change-from-unnatural-causes-brigade/
I posted the the referenced du Fresne article here and the reaction to it by at
least one person is well explained by the above article.
Time for some balanced science.
I'm not sure who is advocating that Climate Change is from Unnatural
causes
It is obvious that the term means something that is not resulting from nature
(hence the word unnatural meaning contrary to the ordinary course of nature or
abnormal.)
So to the slow thinker it means changes caused by man. And that is the issue
here.
Post by Rich80105
, but most people will probaly agree we can probably agree with
"Journalists used to be committed to uncovering the truth, no matter
how inconvenient. As a profession they were wary of spin and looked
out for propaganda, which they called out and treated with contempt.
Not any more. Many of today’s journalists are banner-wavers and ardent
promoters of a massive propaganda campaign on an international scale
the like of which the world has never seen."
Who cares what journalists write or speak. This post is about the need to have
balance.
Since most of what we follow is in some form of media, and one of th e
points made in the article is that we need journalists to be committed
to the truth - do you disagree?
Post by Tony
Irrelevant dogma snipped, an entirely different subject.
Post by Rich80105
I agree that it is time for balanced science.,
More irrelevance removed.
The article is very simple, it is arguing that we need to have a balanced and
non-political view. You could learn from that earnest wish.
Thre was nothing in the article calling for non-political views -
where do you get your ideas from?
Tony
2020-01-15 06:49:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 00:13:27 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 13:48:00 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
This blog is one I came across a year or so ago, sometimes it is ordinary and
sometimes it is well worth reading.
This particular post struck a chord with me and I agree with it almost entirely.
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/15/the-threat-to-the-freedom-to-challenge-the-climate-change-from-unnatural-causes-brigade/
I posted the the referenced du Fresne article here and the reaction to it
by
at
least one person is well explained by the above article.
Time for some balanced science.
I'm not sure who is advocating that Climate Change is from Unnatural
causes
It is obvious that the term means something that is not resulting from nature
(hence the word unnatural meaning contrary to the ordinary course of nature or
abnormal.)
So to the slow thinker it means changes caused by man. And that is the issue
here.
Post by Rich80105
, but most people will probaly agree we can probably agree with
"Journalists used to be committed to uncovering the truth, no matter
how inconvenient. As a profession they were wary of spin and looked
out for propaganda, which they called out and treated with contempt.
Not any more. Many of today’s journalists are banner-wavers and ardent
promoters of a massive propaganda campaign on an international scale
the like of which the world has never seen."
Who cares what journalists write or speak. This post is about the need to have
balance.
Since most of what we follow is in some form of media, and one of th e
points made in the article is that we need journalists to be committed
to the truth - do you disagree?
That is just silly. and an attempt to distract from a thoughtful and well
written commentary.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Irrelevant dogma snipped, an entirely different subject.
Post by Rich80105
I agree that it is time for balanced science.,
More irrelevance removed.
The article is very simple, it is arguing that we need to have a balanced and
non-political view. You could learn from that earnest wish.
Thre was nothing in the article calling for non-political views -
where do you get your ideas from?
From intelligent commentators and my conscience, where do yours come from O
over-user of sarcasm?
Gordon
2020-01-16 05:59:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 00:13:27 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
[snip]
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Who cares what journalists write or speak. This post is about the need to have
balance.
Since most of what we follow is in some form of media, and one of th e
points made in the article is that we need journalists to be committed
to the truth - do you disagree?
Now, lets us try again, and put the wording finding in the above sentence.

You see the media is committed to the truth as they see it, thus it is the
truth. Which is the issue and problem.
Rich80105
2020-01-16 08:37:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 00:13:27 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
[snip]
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Who cares what journalists write or speak. This post is about the need to have
balance.
Since most of what we follow is in some form of media, and one of th e
points made in the article is that we need journalists to be committed
to the truth - do you disagree?
Now, lets us try again, and put the wording finding in the above sentence.
You see the media is committed to the truth as they see it, thus it is the
truth. Which is the issue and problem.
False equivalence is also both an issue and a problem:
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/we-the-media-must-take-some-of-the-blame-as-australia-burns-20200106-p53pc3.html
Gordon
2020-01-16 05:54:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 13:48:00 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
This blog is one I came across a year or so ago, sometimes it is ordinary and
sometimes it is well worth reading.
This particular post struck a chord with me and I agree with it almost entirely.
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/15/the-threat-to-the-freedom-to-challenge-the-climate-change-from-unnatural-causes-brigade/
I posted the the referenced du Fresne article here and the reaction to it by at
least one person is well explained by the above article.
Time for some balanced science.
A very good article, which shows that the stgae is set for a civil war. We
have the two sides.
Post by Rich80105
I'm not sure who is advocating that Climate Change is from Unnatural
causes,
Psst, Rich, have you been under a rock? It is anyone who says that the CO2
levels are rising in the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels.

The interesting fact is that, you a Labour spokes person are not banging on
about how we have to do something.

Now the switch, your style. I see that our PM has been holidaying in Oz.
Penney to a pound she got there in a jet plane. I do hope she plants a feww
trees on her property to offset the CO2 generated by the trip.
Loading...