Pauline on Q&A

[Ducatiboy stu]

Leaving my options open, a vacancy for a train driver might come up.

You wont be able to survive on a traindriver wage

 

[Vini2ton]

Roberts reminds me of some starry-eyed happy clapping born-again types I met in Queensland back in the early 80's. Is he related to that so-called christian- archaeoligist that reckoned he found Noah's ark in Turkey? Same dog, different arse.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

He certainly is in denial about climate change

 

[pcmfisher]

Malcolm Roberts did accomplish one thing.
He made Linda Burney on the other end of the table sound nearly half intelligent.

 

[wobbly]

I don't know Mal Roberts but to suggest that he shows little intelligence or is a moron is stretching a bit of a long bow. He holds an honours degree in engineering as well as a masters degree in Business Administration.
In reading the various post about his interchange with Brian Cox a number of observations spring to mind.
Cox is a physicist not a climatologist and therefore it is unlikely that he is qualified to pass "factual vs anecdotal" evidence on the subject.
Whilst it is acknowledged that Cox is very intelligent that doesn't necessarily extend to this subject and lets not loose sight of the fact that most if not all of his income comes from being a speaker on the popularist environmental, political and economic ideology circuit. Hence his appearance on Q&A to continue to support the one sided climate change debate under the guise of so called Science Based Evidence.
"Don't let the facts spoil a good story" springs to mind.

Those that haven't should take the time to "see the other side" of this whole climate change debate and read the Publication "Climate Change-The facts" by a number of well qualified Phd authors/writers.

The conclusion of chapter one is worth repeating.

Climate change catastrphism is the biggest scientific fraud that has ever occurred. Much climate "science" is political ideology dressed up as science. There are times in history when the popular consensus is demonstrably wrong and we live in such a time. Cheap energy is fundamental for employment, living in the modern world, and for bringing the Third World out of Poverty
As a result of noisy minority political pressures, Western democratic governments have increased energy costs and created subsidised energy systems that have created a new source of tax revenue. Politicians have responded to a ground swell of unscientific environmental concerns rather than make hard decisions. The end result is increased unemployment, lack of competitiveness, energy poverty and increased costs. unless nature has another surprise for us, three short decades of irresponsible climate policy will take at least a generation to reverse because there are now armies of bureaucrats, politicians, scientists and businesses living off the climate catastrophe scare. Furthermore, the education system has been captured by activists, and the young are inculcated with environmental, political and economic ideology. During their education, these same young people are not given the basic critical and analytical methods to evaluate ideology that has been presented as fact. Only a brave government can change the education system to one that prepares people for life.

wobbly

 

[Vini2ton]

So I suppose were all just stupid Ill-educated nuff-nuffs. I really didn't want to believe all that **** anyway. I was just going along with those socialist scientists so I'd sound cool to all those uni chicks. What a relief. Now is the time.

 

[SBOB]

Wobbly, considering that book is put out by the 'institute of public affairs' which is

"The IPA is one of the few right wing lobby groups in Australia that campaigns for action to increase global warming and climate change. It tends to be pro-fossil fuel and anti-mitigation of global warming. It panders to right wing science deniers."

Quoting it in opposition to the vast vast vast majority of scientific research into climate science is putting you in good contention to get about 20 votes and make it into the senate in a few years

 

[LAGERFRENZY]

I'll bet that some of the contributing Phd author/writers are or were also on the payroll of Big Tobacco as well not so long ago.

 

[goomboogo]

I don't know Mal Roberts but to suggest that he shows little intelligence or is a moron is stretching a bit of a long bow. He holds an honours degree in engineering as well as a masters degree in Business Administration.

Intelligence isn't necessarily gauged by the completion of such degrees. I hold high level university qualifications and I'm dumb as ****. Just like Malcolm Roberts.

 

[Liam_snorkel]

Complaining about ideology, while quoting an ideological lobby group. Well done Wobbly old chap.

 

[Liam_snorkel]

Here's a little more commentary, worth a read for the giggle
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/malcolm-roberts-leaves-nasa-'flummoxed'-with-q&a-climate-claims-20160815-gqt9a4.html

 

[TheWiggman]

I feel a bit dirty posting here but...

This is a good read on the whole concept of intelligence critical thinking: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4160
You have to be intelligent to hold a masters in engineering. Simple as that. It doesn't mean you have any common sense, the ability to walk, or don't suffer from some sort of learning disability but you need intelligence in a field to get a masters. The ability to think critically however has nothing to do with it.
Likewise, Cox could be a gardener but this doesn't make him wrong. Questioning his field of study is irrelevant if his facts line up and his statements are correct. For instance, I can tell you that adding lactic acid to water will reduce the pH. I'm not a chemist, don't know exactly how it works, but I'm right. However Cox is indeed an intelligent man and has more than enough expertise in the field in my opinion, and his references are sound.

Anyway, I'm going back to the stands to watch.

 

[manticle]

Climate change is a fraud?
Oh my.

Brian Cox is a physicist and malcolm is a fringe right wing politician who worked in the fossil fuel industry, has weird thoughts about grammar and won a seat in the senate with less than 100 votes. Hmm, which one should I side with?

As if a business qualification means you're smart.

 

[SBOB]

Wobbly, can I also just remind you that he claimed NASA messed with historic temperature figures

Thats the kind of nutty tin-foil hat wearing claims you read on the internet along with 9/11 and elvis conspiracies. Anyone that takes anything he says serious must have taken too many shots every time he said 'empirical evidence'

 

[Liam_snorkel]

and not just NASA but the BOM, NOAA, British Met Office, Japan Met Office the list goes on. How would a conspiracy that large and wide ranging be pulled off? And even if it were true, all it would mean is the increased energy is ending up somewhere else which isn't showing up into the data. It wouldn't refute the underlying physics.

Wiggman above made a good point about critical thinking.

This was a good listen regarding the psychology of conspiracy theorists:
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/it's-a-conspiracy/7148806#transcript

 

[wobbly]

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

 

[lost at sea]

yeah the I.P.A have never had an ideological agenda before........

 

[MHB]

It was the observations of people all over the world (empirical evidence) that lead to the theory of climate change.
A very similar series of events lead to the banning of CFC refrigerants and aerosol propellants, observation, theory of how it works, and in the case of CFC's a global response and 30 years later, guess what the ozone hole is getting smaller so I guess we got that one right.

The same is happening with Climate change, but being old enough to remember the CFC debate I recognise a lot of similarities - especially from the naysayers.
Science is observation - theory - response, all in the open with the best trained people in the world more than willing to point out your mistakes (peer review).

Before that they stopped testing nuclear weapons in the atmosphere or under water because the amount of radio active material in people and environments all over the world was going up and "most" people didn't think that was a good idea.

At present, the vast weight of evidence supports the theory that man made CO2 is causing changes to the atmosphere, most scientist and people that look at the evidence agree on that (well nearly all)
Mark

 

[SBOB]

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

you realise climate change just isn't higher peak temps right?

but I'm just hoping you're one of those people who like to stir sh*t for fun, because I'd prefer to think you're a troll than a fool..

 

[manticle]

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

What makes you think there's a parallel between wild baseless predictions from (presumably 1900 not 1999) and considered models based on a massive amount of data from a wide variety of reputable sources? A ****** cartoon or something more substantial?