I think you meant to post this on your twitter page.

Yeah
heaven forbid that the global warming climate change religion/scare could be completely wrong

Interview with Ian Plimmer, huh? On Sky After Dark, too.
Wasn't it Mark Twain who pointed out how hard it is to get a man to understand an idea when his income depends on him not understanding it?
That's how Bernardi and Plimmer make their money. Plimmer would have the same media profile as any other geologist if he wasn't banging the denialist drum. It gets him attention and dollars.

Mr Milk said..
Wasn't it Mark Twain who pointed out how hard it is to get a man to understand an idea when his income depends on him not understanding it?

You know that works both ways right? There are far more climate scientists whose career depends on proving and supporting the AGW theory then not.....

peer review b/s
97% of scientists are on public payrolls
thats where the morons get their proof

Yeah, science has run its course. It's clearly not working in the 21st century, pretty much been downhill since the rise of Facebook. As we look to the future, we'd probably get better results for our species from astrologers, politicians or Instagram influencers.

Harrow said..

boofta said..
peer review b/s

Also known as 'groupthink', and that's been peer-reviewed.

Plenty more where this came from:
www.researchgate.net/publication/340864585_Bias_and_Groupthink_in_Science's_Peer-Review_System

Can maths be peer reviewed? 'Cause that's all we're talking about. Physics is maths. It can be mind boggling and hard to accept. Look at how the people with money and power dealt with Galileo and Copernicus. And that's easy maths.
Atmospheric physics is a bit more difficult, but it still comes down to a set of statistical calculations with many variables. You, Harrow, being an engineer, should understand this. When you designed that interconnector you didn't just say we'll string a wire from A to B. You did plenty of calculating to be sure that the power won't be out of phase or the wrong voltage when it reaches its destination.
I just glanced at that article and got the impression that the groupthink they were talking about is more at the human interactions end of science than at easily quantifiable stuff. The "art" of medicine, not physics questions like the evaluation of an engine and its exhaust system.
Which brings me to boofta. I'm assuming that you've got the normal basic understanding of motors that the average bloke has. You know that running too rich a fuel/air mixture will overheat and eventually damage a motor. Don't you think that might apply to the huge open cycle solar powered engine that the planet is?

Brent in Qld said. >>>>> Although one opinion may not necessarily be truer than an other, there is consequence in acting on opinion and willfully ignoring fact. For better or worse, it is in the mix of our opinions, facts & consequences we each live our lives.

Too true, but the knowledge of this can lead to procrastination, it can be hard to decide if our opinions are just group think without any bases in fact. And then you get judged for being indecisive.
I guess as somebody once said, "Life wasn't meant to be easy"

And these days with all the misinformation being spread, from all sorts of vested interests, it certainly isn't

Mr Milk said..
That also means that there is more competition between them to provide better evidence. The best scientist gets promoted and respected by their peers. They put a lot of effort into finding problems with each others studies. That's "peer review"

Thats the worst reasoning I have ever heard, that just means they compete to pile on more and more rubbish on top the rubbish they have already produced. Groupthink as has been raised.

The effort goes into finding problems or otherwise tearing down any study that contradicts thier own line of research or favourite theory.

Australia has a very large problem in its research and scientific institutions in that they no longer follow the Scientific Method. There is very little or no duplication or third party checking of data and results. Paper on paper is put out now and immediately rushed to the press release with no thought to actually verifying the result through second or third repititions. Its mostly junk, people no longer believe what they are told because of the rubbish being produced.

Mr Milk said..
www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/earth-is-losing-ice-faster-today-than-in-the-mid-1990s-study-suggests/ar-BB1d41pX?ocid=msedgntp

Except real observations show that the Arctic ice is currently tracking well above the last 8 years and Antarctica is tracking bang on the 1980 to 2010 median.

Studies can show anything if you cherry pick your data to tell the story..... even if they are peer reviewed.

Nine MSN is not the best source of data, try the actual science guys.....

nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Mr Milk said..
We'll compare it with map making.

Our understanding of terrain and spacial geometry is advanced. It's also an easy concept with essentially few variables involved in measuring something with good accuracy that is essentially static. To compare that with a complex, chaotic constantly changing system, that is effected by a huge number of other complex and chaotic forcings is hardly relevent. Our accuracy in even measuring the various climate variables is horrible, let alone being able to model the system with any meaning.

Mr Milk said..
And a bump in arctic sea ice in one year doesn't, of itself, mean that the ice cover isn't on a downward trend.

It's not a "bump", thats just the headlines you read. The data does not lie... the Antarctic has been static, there is no trend of declining ice at all in the Antarctic. Facts are facts, check the data.

The Arctic has been in a recent declining trend for sure. However it seems to have peaked back in 2013 and the trend seems to have stalled or is reversing. There was a similar trend back in the 40's, so it's not unprecendented.

What people don't see or is not reported is that even with the Arctic ice decline, decadal averages have not moved more than 20% away from the 1980 to 2010 average. Reports of imminent ice free Arctic and catastrophic ice loss are groundless, especially when the record summer minimums are usually balance with a high winter maximum.