Climate change thread #2



  • Maybe this gets immediately deleted given the last thread got locked, but its too amazing not to share, and has been doing the rounds on social media.
     
    To quote the article, it's amazing how much people who have no understanding of climate science at all keep saying "show me data!" after ignoring all data.Then after being shown data, the next argument is "its all fake and manipulated".
     
    Aussie posters: who is Malcolm Roberts? Why is he on your TV? This is equal parts frightening and hilarious.https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/16/qa-brian-cox-brings-graphs-malcolm-roberts

    Q&A smackdown: Brian Cox brings graphs to grapple with Malcolm Roberts

    One Nation senator-elect asks repeatedly for ‘empirical data’ – and the celebrity physicist has plenty at hand

    ‘I brought the graph’: Brian Cox and Malcolm Roberts debate climate change on Q&A

    Michael Slezak

    @MikeySlezak

    email

    Monday 15 August 2016 21.50 BST Last modified on Tuesday 16 August 201603.25 BST

    Share on LinkedIn
    Share on Google+

    Comments 3,367

    Save for later

    The celebrity physicist Brian Cox came prepared to the ABC’s Q&A on Monday night with graphs, ready to counter claims by his co-panellist, the climate denier and Australian senator-elect Malcolm Roberts.
    Roberts, one of four senators elected from Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party, took the first opportunity to espouse long-refuted climate-denialist claims, including that warming stopped more than 20 years ago, starting the so-called “hiatus” or “pause”.
    But Cox produced a graph of global surface temperatures of the past century and immediately debunked the myth, pointing out it is a misunderstanding caused by looking at a small sample, starting from an unusually warm year two decades ago.

    Cox didn’t stop there. “Also, secondly, I’ve brought another graph. It is correlated with that, which is the graph that shows the CO2 emissions parts per million in.”
    Viewers on Twitter joined in. When Roberts argued that sea level rises had been “entirely natural and normal”, a number of people posted graphs showing the steep rises.

    View image on Twitter

    Follow
    John Englart EAM @takvera

    #qanda Roberts is wrong. Latest mean global #sealevelrise to end of 2014 chart by CSIRO http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html â€¦
    1:26 PM - 15 Aug 2016 Â· Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Roberts repeatedly said he wanted to see “the empirical data”. But when the data appeared to refute what he said, he argued that scientists had conspired to manipulate it.
    “The data has been corrupted,” he said at one point, arguing that Nasa and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology had manipulated data to make warming look unusual. That led to questioning about whether he was sceptical that Nasa landed people on the moon, which Roberts denied.

    Follow
    Katie Mack @AstroKatie

    It's amazing how much people who have no understanding of climate science at all keep saying "show me data!" after ignoring all data. #QandA
    1:16 PM - 15 Aug 2016



  • He's a senator. Awesome aye?
    He's also a sovereign citizen.
    He's a nut.



  • Context: he's a Federal Sensor by dint of our fucked up system here.
    He received 77 primary votes. No, that's not a typo, or a percentage. Seventy-seven. The number less than seventy-eight.
    Because of our party senate system, he got in.
    Anyway, he's a fucked in the head fucking mental midget fuck head of fucking epic proportions.
    Still, I'm glad you brought this up Tdub, because it dovetails nicely into this:http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/the-dodgy-academic-journals-publishing-antivaxxers-and-other-crappy-science-20160817-gquu3z.html
    The dodgy academic journals publishing anti-vaxxers and other 'crappy science'
    ...
    Fraudsters operating largely from India and other parts of Asia have been posing as academic publishers, charging academics thousands of dollars to publish research in their bogus journals.
    The dark art of the booming black market is to dupe academics into submitting their research for a fee of up to $3000 a paper.
    ...
    The exploitative industry was exposed online by Jeffrey Beall, academic librarian at the University of Colorado in Denver. 
    Mr Beall, who archives a list of predatory journals on his website, said the black market had worrying implications for the quality of scientific research.
    "The victim is science itself," he said. "Unvetted research is being published bearing the window dressing of scientific publications."
    Peter Bentley, a higher education expert from tertiary think tank the LH Martin Institute, said the pressure to reach academic publishing quotas was driving the industry. 
    ...

    Etcetera



  • The look on Cox's face when Roberts said "Nasa" when asked who faked the data....
     
    It was like seeing it actually dawn on him how stupid the person he was debating was.



  • Yeah he'd kind of made the first mistake of being on Q&A: assume everyone there isn't a mouth-breather.
    The ABC should just have scientists on, week after week. Much better viewing than the train wreck politics show it's turned into.



  • The look on Cox's face when Roberts said "Nasa" when asked who faked the data....



  • It was like the non verbal equivilent of "You fucking what? I must have misheard that..."
     
    Cox is quite disarming in that he comes across so natural its easy to forget he's really switched on. His TV shows are great at keeping me engaged & giving me a vague feeling that I understand some of what he said & am definately smarter now.
     
    It would make a lot more sense to have on scientists, the problem would be finding one to take the opposite view. Wouldn't really be good telly to have 4 scientists going "yeah, this is happening, we are doing it"



  • I am just going to save that to my desktop in case this thread goes the way of the other one...



  • I am just going to save that to my desktop in case this thread goes the way of the other one...

    It will.



  • It will.

    Counting down until Winger gets here 😉



  • It would make a lot more sense to have on scientists, the problem would be finding one to take the opposite view. Wouldn't really be good telly to have 4 scientists going "yeah, this is happening, we are doing it"

    People from different fields would be great. Like an astrophysicist, climate scientist, maybe someone from an engineering discipline



  • Counting down until Winger gets here 😉

    Yep , the party doesn't really start till he's here.



  • Yeah he'd kind of made the first mistake of being on Q&A: assume everyone there isn't a mouth-breather.
    The ABC should just have scientists on, week after week. Much better viewing than the train wreck politics show it's turned into.

    Remember a few years ago, it was excellent viewing every week. They had experts in a number of fields, and no more than two token politicians, who i swear were set up to look stupid. Or they had a couple of the more intelligent entertainers on who could at least make watchable comments. Then just before the previous election the host seemed to disappear up his own ass, and started to set the narrative, spending nearly as much time talking as the guests. And we got more politicians, and they would just spend the hour slagging each other off. And the crowd got more left, and more smug. And the show pretty much sucked from there.



  • So they placed a scientist against a politician and people are impressed/amazed/surprised/amused the scientists kicked his ass on science?
     
    A more impressive debate would have been a debate between 2 experts. I think someone said that earlier.
    This debate didn't apparently prove anything except that the politician is a fuckwit, this thread should have been titled.
    'Moron poltiican'



  • A more impressive debate would have been a debate between 2 experts. I think someone said that earlier.

    On climate change it would have looked much the same.



  • And the crowd got more left, and more smug.
    I think more the latter. The crowd, given the filming locations, were probably always left of centre. Just that the way politics have gone the last few years, the smugness and shouting gets louder.
    Some of the questions a year or two back were genuine curiosity, or sought understanding. Now it's just people making a statement and pretending there was a question mark at the end.
    The time under Abbott's 1950s government probably didn't help.



  • On climate change it would have looked much the same.

    Oh right.. because the science is settled....



  • Maybe this gets immediately deleted given the last thread got locked, but its too amazing not to share, and has been doing the rounds on social media.

    Maybe not "immediately" - I mean, it'd take some pretty serious swimming against the current to... what? oh...

    Oh right.. because the science is settled....



  • Oh right.. because the science is settled....

    I'm reasonably ignorant on this matter as well.
     
    Is the scienece settled that the planet is getting warmer but not settled on how or if we can actually have a impact to reverse it?
     
    My ignorance has me believe that even if there wasn't a single person on this planet, it would still be warming at the moment.



  • I'm reasonably ignorant on this matter as well.
     
    Is the scienece settled that the planet is getting warmer but not settled on how or if we can actually have a impact to reverse it?
     
    My ignorance has me believe that even if there wasn't a single person on this planet, it would still be warming at the moment.

    I would love to discuss it, but it is just a pointless exercise. Look at post 18 as a reason why. A discussion cannot be had on this without it turning into a shit fest if anyone posts even a view slightly against the climate change is a disaster narrative.
    Even the words used to discuss the various sides show the toxicity of the debate.. Climate Change deniers? Climate Change alarmists? If someone uses either of those terms, you know they are a zealot, not a person who believes in science.
     
    But I do agree that thread is likely to be locked. People just cant play nicely on this topic.


Locked