Pauline on Q&A

[GalBrew]

Then there was this guys predictions that had all the "believers" trembling in their boots

And for those of you old enough to remember way back to the turn of the century there was this prediction that all the planes could fall out of the sky, that business would come to a grinding halt and power stations would shut down just to mane a few issues that the bureaucrats, politicians and scientist would have us believe that at the stroke of midnight on 31/12/1999 unless you spent millions rewriting all the system software.

Hello don't recall any of that happening

Wobbly

And here I thought that planes didn't fall out of the sky on 1/1/2000 because they addressed the Y2K problem rather than ignoring it?

 

[wobbly]

SBOB and others

Take the time to read this article. I acknowledge that it may go against your thinking but it can't be discounted out of hand simply because it doesn't comply with your thinking

http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/11.11.08%20bob%20carter%20Quadrant%20Article.pdf

And no I'm not trolling nor a fool just someone who believes scientists don't have all the answers associated with future projections. Take Ross Gaunaut he is an economist, and most likely a good one, but even you would have to agree that his climate change credentials are /were pretty thin yet the government (Rudd) took what he had to say (paraphrased from IPCC) and jumped in the deep end. Computer modeling to arrive at forward predictions/projections are just (best guess) that and no better. All realistic models will/should have a disclaimer that the model predictions are based on past events/performance and should not be used as a basis for predicting future performance. Just ask anyone that uses models to predict future share market prices or closer to home next weeks weather. They are a guide at best of what might occur but no guarantee.

Wobbly


Wobbly

 

[manticle]

Oh you did mean 1999? Yeah cos they recognised the possible issues and did something about it to prevent it.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

 

[Rocker1986]

Take the time to read this article. I acknowledge that it may go against your thinking but it can't be discounted out of hand simply because it doesn't comply with your thinking

Neither can all the empirical evidence and data that has been collected over many years, but that's exactly what the science deniers do. The evidence doesn't agree with their opinion so therefore it's either wrong, corrupted or a massive ******* conspiracy. And then you wonder why they all get labelled tin foil hat brigade morons.

 

[wobbly]

And here I thought that planes didn't fall out of the sky on 1/1/2000 because they addressed the Y2K problem rather than ignoring it?

There wasn't a Y2K problem and that is fact not fiction or some other bureaucratic, political, or scientists hypothesis and I know as I managed a major Iron Ore producers IT group at the time. I didn't agree with it then and still believe it was a load of miss information

Wobbly

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

 

[manticle]

You're welcome to your political party mate.

 

[Liam_snorkel]

Linking to Galileo Movement? Oh please wobbly. That isn't an evidence source or objective in any way. Here's a little run down:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/galileo-movement-fuels-australia-climate-change-divide/

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

 

[wobbly]

You're welcome to your political party mate.

My views are just that my views and we will leave it at that.

And guess what Stu I do know the earth is not flat regardless of what you may think not that your thoughts concern me

Wobbly

 

[MHB]

Remember how annoying the "no chill will give you botulism" discussion got - well where getting there again.

I was selling fresh wort kits at the time, duty of care and all that, so I raised the question with my insurance broker, sent then a process description, ingredients all that and asked the question.
They couldn't answer, eventually the question went up the line to the CDC in the US who have the best botulism computer model in the world...
My insurer saw no need to raise my premium, there is/was an acknowledged risk but it was less than getting hit by lightning.

In this case there is a risk, it is still being assessed, the weight of evidence is pretty conclusive, the down side is potentially so big, the counter evidence so poor that the odds of climate change being a danger to us all is the way to bet.

Mark

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

My views are just that my views and we will leave it at that.


And guess what Stu I do know the earth is not flat regardless of what you may think not that your thoughts concern me

Wobbly

If my thoughts concerned you we would all be in deep ****

 

[LAGERFRENZY]

My views are just that my views and we will leave it at that.


And guess what Stu I do know the earth is not flat regardless of what you may think not that your thoughts concern me

Wobbly

I thought that I read in another post that you voted for "Pauline" at the last election. Which in itself is a pretty impressive feat for a Western Australian voter to get a Queensland Senator up! A bit like saying that you voted for Clive when you really only went for his Wang...

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Remember how annoying the "no chill will give you botulism" discussion

Only because its true...FFS, everyone knows that

 

[Liam_snorkel]

Ok I'll bite

"And no I'm not trolling nor a fool just someone who believes scientists don't have all the answers associated with future projections."

- you're right, they don't. Peer reviewed rigorous science is the best tool we have to make future predictions. I

"Take Ross Gaunaut he is an economist, and most likely a good one, but even you would have to agree that his climate change credentials are /were pretty thin yet the government (Rudd) took what he had to say (paraphrased from IPCC) and jumped in the deep end."

- if you read the terms of reference of the Garnaut reviews - they were to report on the latest developments in climate science - generally as presented by the IPCC, and advise on economic and energy policy that will be affected. That's where his skills are.

"Computer modeling to arrive at forward predictions/projections are just (best guess) that and no better. All realistic models will/should have a disclaimer that the model predictions are based on past events/performance"

- they do

"and should not be used as a basis for predicting future performance."

- why?

"Just ask anyone that uses models to predict future share market prices or closer to home next weeks weather. They are a guide at best of what might occur but no guarantee. "

- what are you suggesting we do? Continue to enhance the greenhouse effect (you can't claim this isn't happening), ignoring predictions of what will happen (which are based on sound well understood physics) as a result. And then only react?

Do you slow down and steer around corners when you drive, or hit the guard rail and let it direct the vehicle around them?

 

[MHB]

Ok its out to 16 pages, I think we all know where we stand, it's about time to stop before people start to take it too personally - Kill the thread

Personally I'm out of this one - cant win a religious discussion - just start a war.
Mark

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

cant win a religious discussion - just start a war.

Like that has ever happened

 

[malt and barley blues]

What was believed in the 1970's
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/