Or, "Put your money on Self Interest. He's always a trier".

Paul Keating was fond of quoting his mentor Jack Lang. It's a rather cynical, but amusing, take on life but thankfully history is replete with examples of the triumph of good over evil, or vested interests (child labour laws, abolition of slavery, universal suffrage, land rights etc etc).

The trick I guess is to know when to switch from healthy scepticism to a more accepting frame of mind. Or to put it another way, to know when you're being bullscheited to and being had a lend of.

Education is one way to innoculate oneself against b-s, but only if one's natural biases and prejudices can be suppressed. Not to mention our own perceived self-interests.

The current climate change debate is a fascinating struggle between knowledge vs ignorance vs vested interests, for control of public policy.

So when I clicked on your link to the Citizens Electoral Council my b-s detector went off scale:



Well I think I can tell you that statement is nonsense, but I'm a little uncertain as to your views. I'm wondering what was your purpose in providing a link to the CEC ? In this debate the CEC represents the lunatic fringe.

Contrary to the claims of the CEC about the mainstream media, the firstmentioned "leading scientist" Dr David Evans has had plenty of exposure in Oz media, most recently on the ABC. And another name I recognised, Bob Carter, features regularly in the pages of "The Australian" (along with Evans and Kininmonth). In truth there may be half a dozen (at most) prominent individuals who are "shouting from the rooftops" about the Great AGW Hoax, and they're certainly not being "blacked out of the news media"

David (Leading Sciientist) Evans has just had a bruising encounter with a few real climate scientists (at Tim Lambert's Deltoid and otherplaces) where they tried to educate him in the basics of the AGW "fingerprint", a tricky bit of atmospheric physics that one would expect a Leading Scientist to know already, if not grasp immediately with a little explanation. In my more generous moments I can forgive my in-denial sister-in-law (who dabbles in homeopathy) for not understanding top-of-atmosphere radiative transfer but when a prominent mouthpiece for the True Deniers trumpets what seems to be his ignorance of the basic science, I start to wonder how much Evans is being paid.

As to the thin sprinkling of "facts" in the CEC rant, well a quick google search will show that they are all, 100%, dead wrong.

To paraphrase Professor Barry Brook (bravenewclimate.com.au), the CEC is entitled to its own opinions but not to its own facts.

I'm not really sure if anyone has really produced an accurate model on what happening successfully. Sure perhaps as humans we always try to explain what's happening in simulations and computer modelling, though anyone like myself can tell you if a computer program is missing any sort of variables in the programming, it doesn't quite work the way it should. The Earth itself is loaded with conditions and parameters, to produce the same thing which would behave the same way isn't possible - there probably isn't even a computer in the world which could handle such a program! Sure we can do simulations, generate our own little worlds with detail, etc, etc, though their merely simulations - detail to us is things we can see, though if you cannot see it doesn't mean it's not there and occassionally it's the small things which make a big difference!

Unfortunately to understand the world & effects that happen would mean understanding everything about it - because weather prediction is such an unpredictable thing means we cannot really grasp what happens when. Earthquakes, Volcano's and big disastrous winds like Twisters are events which no-one has and understanding of in terms of when they happen & Rain around this part of the world seems to be a case of I'll believe it when I see it. David Suzuki seems to be correct when we do all these unspeakable things to our own environment and turn around and expect there won't be consequences associated with those changes. Personally I'm concern at how the land is managed in relation to how it once was, though not too many home owners would be too happy to hear about how their home was once Swampland - again the environment suffers as a consequence of all of this - perhaps in more ways than what I can imagine.

Thanks for the response. I guess what Im trying to get across is the incredible amount of political b-s thats presented by groups like the one I posted from CEC, and Im glad you viewed this site. How can an organisation, such as CEC get away with posting such false facts? Arent there laws against these types of claims/facts?

My view is still sceptical towards facts presented by any political or international organisation that argues for or against certain issues, such as Global Warming. I still stand by my comment "I personally have come to the sad conclusion that any change imposed on society is not for the good of human life but for the financial gain of a few global powers. Call me paranoid, but thats my belief."

And this is thr driving force for my need to learn and discover the facst for myself. Either through education or via discussion with groups or forums such as this. There is nothing better than to voice ones thoughts to various groups and to listen to the responses.

For now, my passion is in Agriculture (Ecological), istarting from the ground up, literally, Here I will build my library of truths.

Thanks again for the responses from johnno and cpm user

This post has been edited by johnpoulakis: Dec 28 2008, 11:28 AM

Scientific process is supposed to counter things like self interest and just plain inaccuracy through the process of peer review. Now this won't be perfect, but sticking to the science is our best bet.

- Stephen

[i]I personally have come to the sad conclusion that any change imposed on society is not for the good of human life but for the financial gain of a few global powers. Call me paranoid, but thats my belief.[/i]

I can't agree more! Personally I have always been of the opinion that unless there is an impact on people's living standards (whatever they may be) and a personal cost incurred, very little ever changes. Another thing that's sad is the way people block the problems with the "if I don't pay it any attention it will go away" - hmmmm, I was just explaining to a neighbour the other day, it's not whether or not you'll be able to afford air conditioning anymore, it's not in the too distant future where power will not be available to run one!". I lived in Western Australia for the last 12 months and went without power several times, once for a full 24 hours, because people were overloading the electricity grids from air conditioners. It will be these people who'll bleat the hardest when major impacts are enforced on general living conditions - I mean how will the perfect host/hostess be able to deal without their dishwasher???? I can't wait for the foot stamping demands only for the answer to be irrevocably 'NO', regardless of how much money they offer. I believe that we're talking in the future and maybe not mine (I'm 43) but if drastic and immediate changes aren't made, I believe we're just speeding up the process.

My partner is an internationally recognised Principal Environmental Engineer and from his teachings and proof, I have no doubt that climate change is happening. I think that so many discussion points are being made to our pollies that they can delay delay delay......... again, nothing will change until it's impossible to ignore it, will that be too late? Probably. Something familiar in this....... the current financial collapse of the world?!! Now they're 'discussing making changes to the operations of the financial industry - ummmmm horse, gate.... ring any bells?

I'm sorry to sound so cynical (& long winded) but the raw fact is that unless there's a direct and personal impact, the majority are unwilling to put themselves out for an 'in case the world collapses' scenario. By the way, the economic impact is nothing compared to the disease, lack of water, inability to produce as much export/import etc etc that will be experienced if nothing is done.

All I know is that regardless of the 'popular crowd' we will continue to create a sustainable living situation. We have moved from city to rural and intend to eventually only pay out for telecommunications - including our own petrol. We are planning a home that requires little input for major output and made from as close to local product as possible. This is all taking place in a location that is considered to be safe from sea level rise, whether we benefit or our grandchildren but will it happen, we believe it will. We're not cutting hairs on whether it's human impact or the natural cycle of the planet or even a mixture of both, human impact has sped up the natural cycle...... we're just preparing to be comfortable with a very small carbon footprint. Plenty of information on www.fishace.com.au for those who are interested in the details. www.firetree.com is a site that you can put your postcode in and it will tell you when to expect to get wet feet or you're already in a good position.

Loving all your comments, I enjoy being able to learn more from this forum

Not whether it is going to happen. Its a continuum that has been going for ever.

Do I think warming is happening? Its been happening and its been warmer prior to the industrial era.

Will carbon tax fix it? Nope. Will anything humans do alter its course? Nope.

Do we need to change habits in regards to carbon emission's? Yep, carbon energy is a finite fuel. Yep, we will run out. Yep, we are just prolonging the resource and allowing more profit to be made off the carbon energy with time. Yep, its emitting other pollutants. Yep, indirect pollutants such as palladium production for catalytic converter production around Russia.

Do some research into the radiation emission in coal production/usage; never mind carbon sequestration for now.

Is AGW climate change political. It appears to be.

just wonder why not using waste heat to dry brown coal? Part of its being less efficient than black coal is because its higher moisture content. Which evaporates while heating the boiler thus some of the heat generated is just wasted on that. Heard that story some engineers had to design a machine that squeezes moisture out of coal in order to do that. In the quest for "clean coal"If I was the engineer I would take the money, build the thing, laugh my ass off and make a runner. Cmon, the machine needs primary energy. Next, coal is burned in train loads, so how big would the press thing have to be? So instead of wasting 70 + % of the chemical energy already in the process, why not use some of the wasted heat. Too easy.

Interestingly enough some coal fired power stations don't have heat recyclers. To expensive apparently Some coal fire are Gas/Coal which isn't mentioned much. A little cleaner than just straight coal. I guess that's lost in the medias portrayal to create controversy and upheaval in the general community.

Some of the reporting in the media is disgusting leaving out important pieces to create contempt in the community to sell more papers. I dont bother with the general media any more; its so far from reality at times; a waste of energy and time.

friend of mine was in Latrobe valley in a power station. They have a 100 or so years old coal crusher still working. Wonder how "advanced" the rest of the thing is. If retro fitting a power station is like renovating a 50 years old "house", yes, would be easier to build a new plant.