Climate Change Research
This is so satisfying
Old mate Mal on fire...
Shame he wasn't like that when he was PM.
Should he go and join the Labor party?
So he does have a spine after all.
Good article from that left leaning rag the SMH.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/we-need-to-talk-about-kevin-and-...
"Good article from that left leaning rag the SMH.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/we-need-to-talk-about-kevin-and-..."
One of the best articles I've read all year, i was saying almost the same thing here not long ago. (they have just said it ten times better than i ever could)
Tom Switzer is left-leaning?
You got vertigo or something?
Sorry, but you're tripping if you think that Switzer is not partisan
Tom Switzer is the head of the Centre For Independent Studies, a right-wing think tank.
he presents "Between the Lines" on ABC RN. He's broadly centre right and has a range of viewpoints on there, mostly from centre left to classical conservative.
To be clear....well actually, to indulge my Monday morning procrastination...Mal and Kev are both A-grade wankers, of that there is no doubt. Yet all they did is put an issue on the table that's been simmering for a very long time. In the past it's been raised by people as close to the organisation as scion James Murdoch or longtime employee Tony Koch.
Tom Switzer makes no mention of that.
He also makes no mention of the 500,000+ people that signed Kev's petition - a record number apparently.
Switzer's played a classic hand of 'shoot the messenger'. It was a loaded piece of journalism, not at all balanced. It should also have been disclosed that he worked at The Australian for a decade.
Yeah for sure Tom Switzer is a conservative. I think he said in the article that he used to work for the Australian. His weekly program on RN is normally from a conservative viewpoint but they are moderate and a breath of fresh air on RN. SMH is still left leaning but they choose to publish a Tom Switzer column presumably to provide an alternative view which is a good thing, A bit like the Weekend Australian which publishes a weekly column by Phillip Adams.
"His weekly program on RN is normally from a conservative viewpoint but they are moderate and a breath of fresh air on RN. SMH is still left leaning but they choose to publish a Tom Switzer column presumably to provide an alternative view which is a good thing, A bit like the Weekend Australian which publishes a weekly column by Phillip Adams."
nice to see there's still the odd person here and there that appreciates a little 'diversity' of opinion in our media landscape. wholeheartedly agree switzer is a breath of fresh air on RN. I love RN but geez the bubbleness can be nauseatng at times
I even don't mind amanda vanstone, I found vanstone way beyond nauseating when she was in politics, but quite enjoy her show on RN, ...except maybe that little soapbox thing shes does, that can be bit ewwww...
Peter Van Oslen opinion pieces in Australian also in contrast to the usual Gerald Henderson types that lurk there.
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2020/12/12/the-liberal...
“Matt Kean doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” the prime minister said. “He doesn’t know what’s going on in the federal cabinet and most of the federal cabinet wouldn’t even know who Matt Kean was.”
Ha ha, fucking love it! Well, I guess they well and truly do now. And sounds to me from this Matt has a very clear idea of what is going on in federal cabinet. And he thinks it's a load of bollocks.
Great article. Great vision for what this country could be. And yes, we are related but I've only ever met Matt once at a family funeral.
Amazing to see a politician from the conservative side of government negotiate a deal like this at this time. If he can get this stuff across the line, in the face of a hostile federal government and media hysteria, and force real change it will be interesting to see where Matt ends up and whether those in cabinet who didn't know who he was are in a few years wishing they had paid more attention.
Nice one keano.
And how's that Mark Latham posturing. What a fulltime tosser that bloke is.
Good result and shows how important one person can be (as we know).
Here's an excellent overview of the federal circus in relation to 'climate change' action:
Good man Keano, he's well thought out.
He sees the massive change in the underlying economics going on.
An oldie but a goodie:
The pace of change is going to be fast.
I love it.
So good to see this, there!!
I remember in the 80’s & 90’s my mum pushing health food into me and assuring me the world will catch on.
I thought then that she would be wrong, just as I watch the current world momentum, and patterns are everything, and can’t see a lot other than blindboys shuffling of the titanic deck chairs. I’ve picked up my instrument, and I play.
But, avo is the new durry*, as we all know now, and maybe I will be wrong again.
This is the future, finally permeating into our current shit show. Into where it matters, the majority, and their leaders!
Long live intelligent human beings
* got nothing against anything, so long as it’s done in moderation
Moderation should be the golden rule with everything
if we (the vast majority ) cant make sudden dramatic changes our self's.... well fear the worst cause somebody else may decide to make sudden dramatic changes for us (the vast majority ). if you don't believe that scenario could happen ask yourself what would you do in a world of famine?
The way it's going you wont need a wetsuit in Victoria in the future...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/13/climate-crisis-recor...
How awesome would that be - bring it on!
WILD WEATHER
[ BBC Panorama / ABC 4 Corners ] Our World Under Threat
https://iview.abc.net.au/show/four-corners/series/2022/video/NC2203H008S00
Climate change is now so entrenched...
tbb can report it hasn't stopped raining heavily on Goldie all day & likely again tomorrow.
Tomorrow our city & neighbouring NSW regions will be in flood again as earlier in the month.
It is now just perfectly normal to live amongst or in flood devastated communities.
When it's not Flooding it's also very normal to fear record Storm & Bush Fires or Pandemic.
tbb also knows it's very normal for all your communities to equally live & fear exactly the same.
business as usual. onward we head
abc comedy oldies
when drones attack.
Abc news
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-19/giant-drones-dropping-tree-seeds/...
Kings and queens of the sea.
Abc news
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2022-06-20/winter-whale-watching-cit...
andy-mac wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-gl...
These pricks have no conscience , anything to protect the almighty $
..
Supafreak wrote:andy-mac wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-gl...
These pricks have no conscience , anything to protect the almighty $
..
I wonder how they talk with their children and grandchildren???
Geez.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/13/george-pell-saw-c...
"For decades in newspaper columns and speeches, Pell popularised climate denial talking points to dismiss the science of global heating and to brand environmentalists as hysterical and in the grip of a pseudo-religion."
The pedo protector from who wears funny clothes going on about science being a pseudo religion....
Fark if there is a god, this guy is down in the with the flames ...
re. Exxon.
The US fossil fuel majors have been working furiously behind the scenes the last several years to get immunity against liabilities associated with misleading and fraudulent conduct relating to the nature of that story, built into any carbon tax/carbon price legislation in the US.
The Republican Senators have their backs, but since the Democrats did not put up such legislation when they controlled all the branches, they couldn't do it. The Democrats did talk about it but didn't bother when McConnell said that the indemnities were required to even start the conversation. Thankfully the Democrats said get fucked. Not sure where the Democrats stand today but certainly there's no reason to suggest they've changed their tune. Mind you, the fossil fuel majors are a bit more optimistic without them now that conservatives control the SCOTUS.
If serious talk of some kind of carbon-limiting or pricing scheme starts up and you start seeing Pelosi and Schumer start offloading any fossil fuel stocks they have, there's a good chance it means they've stuck to their guns (metaphorically I mean).
This is an interesting perspective on the climate emergency.
https://app.spectator.com.au/2023/01/what-climate-crisis/pugpig_index.html
Perspective yes, but that's it.
He's ignoring the proven scientific principles behind the greenhouse effect.
IE increasing carbon dioxide, methane etc into a closed system results in more solar radiation being absorbed and trapped in that system.
What's his hypothesis on the recent warming of oceans and climates world wide?
grouping climate change with 'woke culture' is a pet hate of mine
and, I don't necessarily agree with this guy
but this was impressive
https://mobile.twitter.com/KonstantinKisin/status/1613830456243273730
Craig wrote:He's ignoring the proven scientific principles behind the greenhouse effect.
IE increasing carbon dioxide, methane etc into a closed system results in more solar radiation being absorbed and trapped in that system.
But is this not necessarily the evidence/argument for human-induced climate change, even if just because the earth's atmosphere isn't exactly the closed system as precisely defined in this statement, but also since:
Craig wrote:What's his hypothesis on the recent warming of oceans and climates world wide?
Isn't the climate change science based mostly on the following?:
Researchers reconstruct the believed climate drivers (eg co2, methane, etc) and the climate variables of interest (say temperatures etc) back hundreds (well millions) of years into the past.
They then fit/train/calibrate statistical/mathematical models to these historical datasets whose independent variables/predictors are the drivers and dependent variable/target is temperatures.
They then make some intelligent judgements/quantifications about what these drivers would have been over the last say 200 years without human influence, and then plug these drivers into their models and hence make predictions of what temperatures would be naturally.
It is then revealed that these predicted natural temperatures are lower than observed, so they conclude that there is human influence.
They then extrapolate out the drivers into the future based on reasonable assumptions, and plug these extrapolations into their models to predict temperatures into the future, and the predictions they get are alarming,
??
aaannnnnnnnnd....
https://mobile.twitter.com/KonstantinKisin/status/1615390116964335622
laughable
but not surprising
seriously?!!??!
Whatever your view on anthropogenic climate change, this is a very interesting conversation/podcast. Richard Lindzen is a giant in meteorology, and it's worthwhile just to watch two intellectuals learning each other's language so to speak, while maintaining scientific rigour.
Many will probably dismiss it just because of Jordan Peterson, but that'd be a mistake - he's a very good listener and quick thinker.
Towards the end my old university professor gets an honorary, if oblique, mention, which warmed my heart.
very interesting IB, thanks for posting it. Fascinating to hear Dr Richard Lindzen's perspective. And what a completely ridiculously compromised mess academia is. So many parallels between the climate change wars and the covid wars.
gsco wrote:very interesting IB, thanks for posting it. Fascinating to hear Dr Richard Lindzen's perspective. And what a completely ridiculously compromised mess academia is. So many parallels between the climate change wars and the covid wars.
Here I was thinking that HR was taking over at my workplace, but they talked about universities where admin staff outnumber faculty and students. Absolute nuts.
Their experiences in academia echo mine very closely.
I think people underestimate how tightly controlled research agendas, programs and output (and narratives) are across multiple academic and scientific areas/disciplines, by government funding bodies (in Aus ARC and NHMRC), private sector corporations and wealthy individuals and their foundations, and then by the publishing process itself.
Academic researchers are not stupid.
They can see what research is attracting funding. They can see what is and isn't getting published. They know the research programs of journal editors who act as gatekeepers of what gets published. They know not to bother with trying to seek funding for or trying to publish dissenting research. They know how to use multiple research/experimental design methodologies, statistical models and data preprocessing/filtering methods to engage in large-scale data-snooping/dredging through multiple datasets in order to eventually find publishable results, win more research funding and further their careers.
In a nutshell, they know how to play the game.
It's not science.
It's wholesale selection and filtering of research output in support of government agendas and private sector commercial interests.
Yeeha. The brains trust!
Who's going? Might learn something 'interesting'.
I'd love to see a large amount of research come to light quantifying external inputs into the system, perhaps including accurate solar output (not treated as a constant, but accurate right to individual coronal hole stream inputs and their forcing), accurate galactic cosmic ray input and trends, and any electro-magnetic, gravitational inputs. To find such papers, I have to go to astrophysics or the non-Western universities at present.
Has someone drawn on Joel Jammal's face?! :o
Will watch that vid on the weekend IB.
I'm pretty sure you'll enjoy it, Craig. Intellectual firepower on display is always impressive.
OK gone through nearly all of it.
With the utmost respect to Dr Richard Lindzen and his work regarding the QBO among other research, I feel he's brushed over a few of the topics brought up and been quite vague.
While the points about chasing funding, steering the narrative for institutions is a big worry, from my point of view he's missing the overall point.
A changing climate will bring food insecurity, water insecurity, energy insecurity as the increasing number of humans battle over the shifting fertile and water abundant areas. Hell, look at the current and past shortages of vegetables and food we've seen with the recent country wide flooding.
While he acknowledges the greenhouse effect though says it only really affects the tropical regions, the tropics and higher latitudes are linked.
One obvious example not looking at the atmospheric feedbacks is the the creep of warmer tropical waters further south/north away from the equator, further than they have in observational history. Tropical species also shifting north/south with this change, getting into areas which have never been documented before.
Yes the Earth can deal with any change in temperature and try and balance itself out, but we're the one's who will suffer.
The greater the energy that's absorbed and held within the system (Earth), the greater the swings in variability will be, ie more volatile weather as we've been witnessing across Australia the last decade or so. The cost will be past onto us, and not just financially. Quality of life will be impacted.
He dismisses feed-back loops but they are there, again it's just the world trying to balance itself out but becoming more volatile as it does so.
Modelling does have limitations as he's pointed out but year on year, improvements to the seasonal and long-range models are being done and will continue to evolve.
I think as long as we all try to do our bit in regards to trying to look after our own path of turf and lessen our individual footprint, it's all for the better.
From what I've observed with my own eyes along with sifting through various data year after year as well as digesting posts and tweets from those way smarter and more clued in that I am, it's obvious that the climate of the planet is changing, some for the better but others for the worse.
I thought I might again.