NSW fires

Yes I have, the actual figure is muted to be 99.3% of scientists who are not employed or contracted by mining related industries.

 

Has there been a new study since Cook’s paper in 2013?

Since Cook et al. was published, numerous papers have emerged calling for more rigour in the research. Criticisms have arisen that Cook’s paper concluded that consensus determines proof, which in fact is notoriously difficult to determine due to the way information is presented, particularly as Cook’s paper only drew from abstracts.

Furthermore, the paper’s methodology came under criticism for how they controlled for reliability, particularly in how many of the raters often disagreed with each other. More concerning, the author’s of such papers included in the analysis were determined to be consensus driven, when in fact they claimed no position as of yet.

Cook et al.’s follow up paper in 2016 went to make a 90-100% claim but this is also incorrect when the abstracts included were analysed. A figure of 80% is mostly the ballpark figure but even that is disputed.

This is why I am “shocked” that Cook’s “97%” analysis is promoted in the media as truth, when in fact subsequent papers have called on the authors to address the concerns raised.

I mentioned earlier how many (not you, as you said you read the paper) use the media as their source of truth, but the media is just interested in clickbait phrases and headlines and snap statistics.

We must endeavour to analyse the primary data before we get all evangelical in our convictions.

 

Clickbait, evangelical?
You haven’t got a clue what scientific literature really is do you?
There are no convictions in science, only facts.

 

Sigh.

I acknowledged you had read Cook’s paper as you mentioned. I then said follow up papers had dismissed the number as incorrect. I then criticised the media for what they do, not you. Lastly, I made a general statement about people in general.

Take it easy.

 

I am suggesting that there is bias in the media on both sides of the political aisle, ranging from mild to extreme. That is my experience with following media and news for 59 years.
It is up to everyone to recognise this, and identify which ones are leaning where, and make their own conclusions.
I would list my observations about who is what here, but it will get poo-hooed, so I won't bother.
Some media will attempt to diminish arson activity, some will attempt to accentuate it.
Either way, arsonists are involved to some level.
Just this morning, I have received 3 more alerts on my phone from Vic Emergency about bushfires around Melbourne and one at Philip Island.
We have had no rain or lightning around us for several days at least.
So, it's either arson, or accidental human lit.

 

Good point!
I wonder if anyone here has done this?
Would be good to know.
I know they definitely factor in for floods and bushfires - I wonder if they used to do it back in 1896?
January 1896 49 degree heatwave killed 437 people in AUS | Daily Mail Online

 

You do know that the Murdoch press is on an anti climate science crusade and is the number one disseminator of BS on this subject in the world.

 

maybe look up the weather stats from 1896 and see for yourself?
We have had temp records for over 150 years.
If the reports are fake about 1896, I'm sure the wider unbiased media will report on that, to debunk it.
Here is a quick Google search for you to browse relating to thst year.
https://www.google.com/search?q=b.o...roid-optus-au&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
And this one too - pay particular attention to the ABC article:
https://www.google.com/search?clien...5.0.0..80814...0.1..0.0.0.......0.No382DwQx98

 

Sigh*

Until c1915 data collection on weather was not standardised.

Reported temps before that have been viewed by meteorologists and other researchers with a level of caution.

 

Kelvin why do you have such a strong opinion on something you clearly haven't studied ( as evidenced from your posts and likes of posts which all contain a kindergarten errors and misunderstandings of actual science). Why don' t you actually read what the experts are saying, if not in the peer-reviewed literature, then through reputable organisations like NAASA, NOAA? Blog sites, celebrities and conservative think tanks don't count -their point of view on what causes aneurysms in the brain is just as relevant to what they say about CC.

 

Kelvin you can either believe facts or have faith in Lord Rupert.

You cant do both!!

What other scientific fact do you query? Pythagoras, Fibonacci, Pi, Newtons law, Relativity, Gravity, Vaccinations, Round Earth?

Alternatively is Climate Science, which coincidentally is the only scientific fact that Rupert Murdoch and Friends (Alan Jones, Tony Abbott) try to muddy the facts, the only science you deny?

By the way they deny the science for their financial and political benefits, much like the 3% of scientists that also deny the science, so let us hope hope that you receive something worthwhile and are not just doing it for your adoration of Rupert.

 

I have more faith in the views of my favourite barista than in Lord R.

The barista holds a degree in physics.

 

Newton's theory of gravity stood for more than two centuries, but it was incomplete (e.g, it failed to explain some oddities in Mercury's orbit). But it was the best theory of gravity we had, and it is still used today e.g to calculate trajectories of spacecraft. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is a more complete theory of gravitation. It too has problems - e.g. it has problems with explaining motions in galaxy clusters. Also, it can't be reconciled with Quantum Mechanics. There are competing theories of gravitation, but Einstein's is the best we have. And don't get me started on the many interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.

I'm less than 10 years old (in Fibonacci yesrs) but I can remember a time not too long ago when there was no such thing as a climate scientist. Climate science is a very young science, and it relies on computer models of nonlinear chaotic systems to make climate predictions. Given that there are so many variables and parameters to take into account (I hope they have all been considered) , and given that that we are dealing with chaotic systems, it is practically impossible to make accurate predictions. Also, I believe that geologists have very little input (I could be wrong about that). But our climate models - as imperfect as they may be - are the best we have.

The trouble with the topic of climate is that it has always been political more than scientific ... Right versus Left. But there should be no doubt that CO2 emitted by the burning of fossil fuels is a significant contributor to global warming. If we want to do something about atmospheric CO2 levels, why does nobody talk about extinguishing coal fires that are burning all over the world (some natural and some man made). Why don't we put an end to the destruction of the Amazon forest? I hardly ever hear of these things in the media because everybody is too busy playing politics.

 

What I genuinely don't understand, and have come to the conclusion I will never understand, is what is the point of arguing against a warming planet? What is the actual point. Seriously. What?

Look, I know there are trolls and people who just enjoy arguing to get a rise out of others (they are also the worst type of human beings in my opinion but I digress...) But to all those who don't believe the climate scientists, what are you trying to achieve? I mean wouldn't we all want to look back in 50 years time and go "oh well I guess we did go a bit overboard on our climate change policies, everything is actually fine" PLUS we'd be living in a cleaner world with all our homes and industries running on renewables, planet-friendly waste systems, no plastics or coal-fired power stations etc. Etc.

Instead of looking back in 50 years and going "oh ****. It's too late"

I cannot wrap my head around why anyone, why all of us, as a human race, as humanity, would not want to err on the side of caution? It honestly does my head in. It used to make me so mad but now when I read people's arguments against the climate science, I kind of shake my head, take a deep breath and just feel really, really... sad.

 

1989.

And as many would understand the speech would not have been written the night before or based on information obtained during a week.

Speech to United Nations General Assembly (Global Environment) | Margaret Thatcher Foundation

 

When you look at it climate denialism is perhaps the most effective cult ever known to man and you can't but help respect it's unfortunate ingenuity when you consider how easily it's fooled even some smart/successful people into swallowing absurd pseudo-scientific ideas which rely on impossible conspiracies for it to be true.

Seeing a threat to their bottom line and commercial interests, Murdoch, multi-billion dollar fossil fuel companies and conservative think tanks realised that obscuring the science on its' own wasn't enough- you had to make this emotional and tribal, hence political. If you appeal to the emotional center of one's brain, which we are all hostages to in varying degree, then you successfully override the faculty of reasoning and critical thinking

This is why a lot of climate change deniers tend to be conservative, they approach the topic to confirm their own biases. Rather than read the literature based on peer reviewed science from every known scientific body in the world that deals in this area (there are exactly 0 legitimate science organisations that have contradicted anthropogenic climate change) they seek out information from the blogosphere which is a combination of misinterpretation, simple untruth and misdirection.

Then there's the audacity of thinking 15 minutes of junk blogosphere content dressed up as science supplants decades and millions of hours of combined specialist observation, evidence and rigorous analysis. I can't think of any other area where highly capable and intelligent professionals who have a history of accurate forecasts, in their absolute majority, are held in such low esteem.

For those that think climatology is flimsy or highly inaccurate field watch this video- Climate Model Predictions-History Versus Observations.

What can we do about the destruction of the rainforests in a sovereign nation that has an interest in clearing them? Short of ineffective sanctions which would achieve nothing there's not much. It's really a battle of reducing emissions through the practical low-hanging fruit we can most control first, and that to date has been energy generation.

 

Well thought out post!

But remember no amount of intelligent, well scripted, peer reviewed scientific study can't be undermined by a 2 minute BS youtube clip and 4 thumbs up from mates!

One of the biggest problems as an unpaid mentor to so many friends is that I am reluctant to be a gung ho "jump in" its all 100% guaranteed in my advice, always preferring the get rich slow approach. So many then pay for people to tell them to "Borrow as much as you can and wack it all in to xyz"
I know my wealth and income is extraordinarily high because of my plan and I was cautious and I could repeat it again over a 30 year period.

Yet those who have not done the 30 year hard slog seem to be more about the quick sale than the cautious advice. Relate this attitude to the "cautious scientist" versus the "gung ho youtube savvy!"

 

Out of everyone’s posts, yours about makes the most sense John and I see everyone has chosen to ignore or not reply to it.