|
Post by jack on Feb 3, 2013 8:27:55 GMT 10
In 'Plant forests and the rain will come', an attempt to be clever... Fancy. Scientists questioning the science. I thought that was called “denialism”. Actually, I'd fancy a good indicator of "denialism" is presenting dodgy graphs to bolster a contrarian narrative. To equate that with what scientists do is not only stupid, but a measure of bone-headed vanity.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Feb 3, 2013 8:49:22 GMT 10
I thought "scientists questioning the science" was called the scientific method.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Feb 3, 2013 9:12:46 GMT 10
Fancy. Scientists questioning the science. I thought that was called “denialism”.
I was sort of under the impression that we already knew that vegetation affected (local) climate by increasing evaporation (through respiration) and rainfall.
Do you think they have to coordinate posts, so that nobody posts a "Scientists refute warmenism!" article on the same day that somebody else posts a complaint about how only pro-warmenist research can get funding or be published?
This paper would seem to be not without its doubters. The publisher (apparently) had trouble finding people willing to review it. I'm waiting to see what the actual scientists say about it. What we see here is the window of opportunity for the anti-warmenists to spruik the news of their revelation before the warmenists spoil their fun by responding. "First to be wrong" - it's not JUST a business model.
We've been here before. And anyway .... I can't see any of the spruikers for this suddenly getting on board with the anti-deforestation movement. It makes me think of the pro-gun lobby in the US, which has suddenly come over all concerned about mental health issues ... but sure as night follows day they will lobby against any increased funding for mental health programs once the crisis has passed.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Feb 3, 2013 12:04:30 GMT 10
What's happened to The Bolt Report? Have we been spared this mediocraty due to Gina's failing financial position and 10's disastrous performance?
|
|
|
Post by angra on Feb 3, 2013 12:23:19 GMT 10
Ooops. Spoke too soon. "The extension to an hour-long format will see the show move beyond its focus on politics to include sport, entertainment and lifestyle. Experts in fashion, entertainment, money and health will be pulled in from Ten and News Limited talent pools. The new-look show will return on Sunday, February 17 at 10.30am. " Limited talent pools? Well that's true. Can't wait.
|
|
|
Post by Skiman on Feb 3, 2013 17:46:21 GMT 10
To be fair, I think that's meet the press that's getting the icing sugar of fashion and sports commentary (I think we'd all agree that we need more fashion and sports commentary in place of boring political analysis).
The Bolt Report will retain its current pithy, evenhanded and insightful format.
|
|
|
Post by jack on Feb 3, 2013 19:02:16 GMT 10
"we already knew that vegetation affected (local) climate"
The paper suggests that the effect influences climate more profoundly than hitherto thought. So, it will potentially become another front for AGW sceptics, like solar cycles.
Andy's story link for this is to Jo Nova, who in turn cites Graham Lloyd in the Oz who, Nova says, "has done a good job describing both the paper and the reaction to it."
That's the same Graham Lloyd whose article 'Sea rise not linked to warming' was pulled by the Oz for inaccuracy.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Feb 3, 2013 19:24:05 GMT 10
Who do you trust? Andrew bolt, or somebody who knows relevant stuff?Who do you trust? A warmist or your lying eyes?
Blah blah rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb ...
A picture of beijing:
I don't think people understand smog. When I went to high school and did chemistry, we actually had to study smog - the london kind AND the LA kind. Photochemical smog has some important things about it, and there was a time when I understood it - as demonstrated by the fact that I got quite good grades (at least in science subjects). But I won't pretend to now. Suffice it to say that beijing's smog is not a simple indicator of china's greenhouse emissions. It's a lot more complicated than that, and has more to do with local environmental conditions (it's surrounded by mountains), a ruddy great desert to the north (beijing's always had dust storms - even before it became heavily industrialised), the coal mines to the north, the illegal and poorly regulated local industry (which runs at night to avoid inspectors) and a very old heavy truck fleet. An article about beijing smog: www.wri.org/stories/2008/07/beijings-air-pollution-it-isnt-the-carsHonestly, bolt might as well just stick a picture of some bananas on his blog and declare "see? warmenists don't know what they're talking about!". It'd be just as relevant.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Feb 4, 2013 8:15:48 GMT 10
I think this is excellent material for the wonky guys Why on earth' retort suggests Prime Minister Julia Gillard is on another planet (fixed crummy characters) I'M stupid, or maybe the Prime Minister is. See, I thought the question she got at Saturday's press conference made sense.
Journalist: What do you say to people who are saying this looks like a government in chaos ... ?
Julia Gillard: Well, why on earth would anybody say that?
Why? She doesn't know?
I am sick of repeating why I think Gillard is the worst prime minister in my lifetime, damaging not just our economy but our culture. That first line is far too tempting, but I actually think it's a false dichotomy. I don't think the PM is stupid, I think she's just chosen to focus on the actual running of the government, rather than the hullabaloo in the press. She's just called an election, which is usually the time when MPs declare their intentions. The timing of the election is curious, but I reckon "thank goodness", because it means we don't have to put up with the endless game where pundits try to guess when the election will be held/called. Let's hope we see more of it in future. I don't go in for the "worst PM / best PM" thing, because I haven't seen enough of them first-hand. But if I really had to pick ... I personally wasn't a fan of keating. Politically I think the last two parliaments have been a disaster. But in terms of policy I think they've done ok - and I think gillard has done pretty well, given the circumstances she was given in her second term. The success of the ALP's economic management has (ironically) given the media an excuse to pretend that nothing unusual is taking place in world economy outside of australia. If the price for not having a lost generation is a one-off public debt of 10% GDP introduced over 5 years ... pppthtp. Big deal. I honestly don't think gillard has anything to apologise for. Not in policy terms. Subtract the shrieking from the press, and it's been a fairly successful government that has introduced some difficult reforms in very difficult times. That's just a fact. So the disconnect isn't about which planet the PM is on, I think it's the one that PP and SW were created to discuss - the disconnect between political coverage and actual policy, not to mention day-to-day reality. A couple of years ago, somebody at PP posted the hypothetical murdoch headline: "Gillard Cures Cancer - Continues To Ignore AIDS Sufferers" I think the first paragraph would then bang on about a party in chaos over priorities, whether this is policy on the run, how this will affect the "cancer vote" and how this is just more proof that the government can't do anything right. Somebody would parse kevin rudd's tweets to see if this means he's going to challenge for the leadership again, then they'd all go straight to the opposition to find out if they'll commit to rolling the Great Big Cancer Tax back once elected. Andrew Bolt would then find a way to work "Abbotabbotabbot" into it as well. Because that's just what he does. So the "Why? She doesn't know?" is just a failure to comprehend that the PM has chosen not to play the media's game. As for "I am sick of repeating why I think Gillard is the worst prime minister in my lifetime, damaging not just our economy but our culture."I think it's best not to respond to that specifically. What I think about that can't be said with flowers.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Feb 4, 2013 8:47:47 GMT 10
"Worst prime minister in my lifetime?"
He's forgetting Billy McMahon.
|
|
|
Post by jack on Feb 4, 2013 9:03:38 GMT 10
I am sick of repeating why I think Gillard is the worst prime minister in my lifetime... Of course, he's under absolutely no compulsion to do any such thing. Plainly the GillardGillardGillard is his bread and butter, a chimera he actively constructs on a daily basis. He's obviously also sick of repeating his apologies about the blog's comments being closed over the weekend (while, for instance, Timmeh's blog carries on as usual). It's telling that he seems so reluctant to comment on the distressing symptoms of dysfunction in a blog in chaos. I simply can't recall a worse-run blog in my lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Feb 6, 2013 7:37:54 GMT 10
I've got enough real-world problems this week that I haven't been so interested in the ones that bolta talks about, but this one ... I'm a bit confused. Tim Blair is watching his Greens - their drawings and their pretending to be poor before they jet off in business class.
These people actually help Labor run this country. We should be embarrassed.
By the way, how many boat people drowned after the border laws were weakened to the Greens cheers? Now, the drawings in question, were (apparently) done by three children currently in detention on manus island. Bolta describes them as "their" (the greens') drawings. I'm confused. Did he not read the description, the explanation? Is it a joke? Does he really just not understand? And the "pretending to be poor" thing, as everyone should probably realise, was adam bandt attempting to live on the newstart allowance, which is pretty much impossible to do. Yes, he did come back to an MP's job. We know. And this guy's one of our "most-read" political commentators. We should be ashamed.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Feb 6, 2013 8:01:15 GMT 10
Blair is despicable, and Bolt also for regurgitating it. The drawings were clearly made by children at the Manus detention centre. Sarah Hanson-Young merely brought them to the public's attention after a recent visit. And she was supporting the report from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees released on Monday, which expressed grave concerns for the plight of the children on the island.
So this is something to be sarcastic about?
|
|
|
Post by jack on Feb 6, 2013 9:33:16 GMT 10
The time is approaching when concerted and coordinated action can finally be taken. It must be done but it won’t be pretty.
Whoops... sorry, wrong thread!
|
|
|
Post by angra on Feb 6, 2013 16:57:41 GMT 10
"Um, isn’t the real racism to divide players by race?" Well isn't that the basis for most of international sport? Why have a Welsh team playing the English? Why have Olympics based on teams from different countries? Why get upset about bodyline? Best cricket barrack ever... ""Oi, leave our flies alone, Sardine. They're the only flamin' friends you've got here." Yelled at Jardine as he tried to swat a particularly persistent fly away (1933 ashes). Possibly matched by the release of a real live duck onto the pitch when Greg scored another duck in the 1981 season against Pakistan. And maybe the infamous comment made on TV at about the same time that the selectors couldn't even pick Bill Lawry's nose.
|
|