atw: Re: OT: Climate change and fossil fuels
- From: Kate Morris <krm@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 20:48:49 +1000
This is a list for discussion of technical writing. This discussion is off
topic. Please take it off line where it belongs.
Recent threads that have similarly drifted from the useful have given me cause
to reconsider my membership of this list. This latest one may when be its death
knell.
Kate.
Sent from my iPhone
On 21/05/2013, at 8:37 PM, "Christine Kent" <cmkentau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Far more than human civilisation is at stake but try convincing the
> fundamentalist devotees of scientific reductionism of that if you can!
>
>
> From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rod Stuart
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013 11:33 AM
> To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: atw: Re: OT: Climate change and fossil fuels
>
> It may be just conjecture to you Christine, but unfortunately civilisation
> itself is at stake. There are no opinions in science; only evidence.
>
>
> On 21 May 2013 19:24, Christine Kent <cmkentau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Kiddies, there is no point in this.
>
> There are scientific reductionists and there are (w)holistic thinkers. The
> two groups are incompatible and one group will never convert the other.
>
> We all get to know who is right if/when the pudding being proven blows up.
> Until then it is all conjecture.
>
> And until then I will personally do all I can to reduce my environmental
> footprint because it is simply common sense that we have to.
>
> End of story.
>
> From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rod Stuart
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013 10:13 AM
> To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: atw: Re: OT: Climate change and fossil fuels
>
> OT
> Hi Petra
> I learned something called “The scientific Method” nearly fifty years ago
> when I received my first parchment that says “Bachelor of Science”.
> The scientific method has been with us for about 1000 years. Most attribute
> it to a Persian whose name was Alhazen. Throughout the millennium, it has
> served mankind well, dispelling illogical concepts including witchcraft,
> animal and human sacrifice, and in fact, slavery.
> The scientific method is elegant in its simplicity. Fundamentally, if someone
> has an idea, or an explanation of some observed occurrence of experience, it
> is called an hypothesis which stands until it is disproved. Once disproved,
> there is space for another hypothesis which stands until it is disproven, and
> so on, down through the decades.
> There are several tennets involved, however. One is called “Occam’s Razor”,
> attributed to William of Occam, which is sort of a rule of thumb which says
> the simplest hypothesis is always the best. Something like Pareto’s Rule.
> Another is that, in science, NOTHING is ever “proved”. In the discipline of
> science, an hypothesis is always disproved.
> Another tennet has to do with something called “the Null Hypothesis”.
> Virtually every observation has a null hypothesis, in that it is a natural
> process. Only when the null hypothesis is disproved can another alternate
> hypothesis be postulated.
> Now, in terms of this thing you call ‘global warming’, it is postulated that
> global mean surface air temperatures have risen inordinately. There is no
> evidence to support this theory. While it is a very complex task to determine
> a parameter such as this at all, after fifty years’ experience in determining
> the accuracy of measurement, I am particularly sceptical that this parameter
> can be computed to the nearest tenth degree, since most of the measurement
> apparatus is no more accurate than that at its best. Nevertheless, it is
> pretty well accepted by all and sundry that this rise in temperature since
> the industrial revolution has been about 6 or 7 tenths of a degree. There is
> nothing at all unusual about this. We are, after all, fortunate enough to be
> in an interglacial period, during which the temperature has fortunately been
> rising sporadically for nearly 20,000 years since the last Ice Age. Even the
> argument that the increase I the last two decades of the twentieth century is
> bogus. The record of the period from 1920 to 1940 had not only higher
> temperatures, but a greater rate of increase.
> Since there is no evidence to disprove the null hypothesis, in this case that
> the observed data is well within normal natural variations, to postulate
> another hypothesis at all is an affront to science and the scientific method.
> Nevertheless, there is a fairy tale that insists that carbon dioxide is
> responsible for the rise in temperature. While this has never been formally
> postulated, it is based on another hypothesis called “the Greenhouse Effect”.
> While it is true that Earth’s surface temperatures are higher than would be
> the case if there were no atmosphere, the substance responsible for this is
> water! While it is true that substances such as carbon dioxide and methane
> might have some role in this greenhouse effect, it is pure conjecture. In
> fact, a recent paper published by NASA (the people that send astronauts into
> space) which maintains that the so called “greenhouse gases” other than water
> actually INCREASE the rate at which heat energy is transferred to space,
> therefore having a COOLING effect. That is why nothing is ever proven in
> science. An idea stands until it is DISproved.
> So far as climate change is concerned, no one dares dispute the fact that
> climates have been dynamic for about 4.5 billion years. What mechanism could
> possibly relate what you call “human induced climate change” if it weren’t
> the non-existent ‘global warming’?
> Furthermore, the rate at which the warmists are leaping off the alchemy of
> climate change is astounding. Several papers are being published every week
> that not only demonstrate that it is not warming we need be concerned with
> but COOLING. Since the release of “Die Kalte Sonne” in German, papers which
> relate natural changes to solar cycles, Milankovich cycles, and orbital
> mechanics are coming fast and furious. There is even some evidence that we
> have dropped a degree since 2006. Cold kills far more people than warm. We
> are very fortunate as a species to have lived in an interglacial, and the
> last three generations have been fortunate to live through the last of the
> warm periods which occur regularly every thousand years; the Egyptian Old
> Kingdom, the Minoan Warming, the Roman Warming, the Medieval warming and the
> late twentieth century warming.
> It’s a hoax, and one that has cost the human race dearly. Santa Claus and the
> Tooth Fairy are myths, because there is no evidence. The Lost City of
> Atlantis, Sasquatch, and UFO’s are myths, but at least there is some
> anecdotal evidence. For catastrophic anthropenic global warming, there is no
> evidence; it’s a myth. There is no evidence to support ‘catastophic’. There
> is no evidence to support anthropogenic. There is no evidence to support its
> existence. (Unless you think a little more than a half a degree in 150 years
> is somehow significant). Certainly nothing of significance in the last
> quarter century.
> So just as with alchemy and witchcraft, all of the arguments in favour of a
> CAGW catastrophe are logical fallacies. With no evidence the only thing the
> warmist community has is ad hominem, ad publicum, ad ignorantum, etc. One of
> the most factual presentations you could watch is at
> < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plr-hTRQ2_c>
>
>
> On 21 May 2013 15:11, LIVERANI Petra
> <Petra.LIVERANI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Rod,
>
> I've just attended a 3 day weekend conference, Beyond Coal and Gas, that
> included a session on climate change given by Ian Dunlop, former Chair of the
> Australian Coal Association. It was the only session I didn't attend as I
> feel I know enough about climate change and it only depresses and alarms me
> to learn any more about it. Yes, I felt offended by your reference to
> 'mythical 'global warming' but I can live with it, it's not as if I haven't
> encountered it before.
>
> Whatever people's acceptance of the climate science, I hope everyone can
> agree that getting off fossil fuels is important. Digging nine mega mines in
> the Galilee basin for exportation of millions of tonnes of coal, drilling
> coal seam gas wells all over the country, etc is wrong from multiple points
> of view, not least simple economics.
>
> Regards,
> Petra
>
> Petra Liverani
> Technical Writer / UX Designer
> petra.liverani@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Transport Management Centre
> Transport NSW
> 25 Garden St, Eveleigh NSW 2015 | PO Box 1625, Strawberry Hills NSW
> 2012
> P: 8396 1617 | F: 8396 7950 | X: 81617
>
> From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rod Stuart
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013 11:17 AM
> To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: atw: Re: This does not make sense
>
> I suppose that is it in a nutshell. There is no 'science' about it at all. To
> you it is political, and to to Petra religious intolerance.
>
>
> On 21 May 2013 11:14, Michelle Hallett <michelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Rod,
>
> I would say your comment about the word ‘glurges’ was on topic. Your comments
> about the ‘mythical’ nature of climate change were not. We all have differing
> political viewpoints, what we share in common is our profession and, I
> presume, our love of language.
>
> Regards
> Michelle
>
>
> From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rod Stuart
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013 10:55 AM
>
> To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: atw: Re: This does not make sense
>
> I thought it was pretty much on the topic that Bob had started i.e. "heat
> glurges to the surface"!
> If the All Bull Corp announced some other mythical phenomenon as fact, such
> as "Santa's reindeer glurged into the air" would that not be on topic???
>
>
> On 21 May 2013 10:50, LIVERANI Petra
> <Petra.LIVERANI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Rod,
>
> Can you please label any posts where you express an attitude towards the
> phenomena of global warming or human-induced climate change as OT.
>
> Regards,
> Petra
>
> Petra Liverani
> Technical Writer / UX Designer
> petra.liverani@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Transport Management Centre
> Transport NSW
> 25 Garden St, Eveleigh NSW 2015 | PO Box 1625, Strawberry Hills NSW
> 2012
> P: 8396 1617 | F: 8396 7950 | X: 81617
>
> From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rod Stuart
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013 10:22 AM
> To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: atw: Re: This does not make sense
>
> Here is one for you. On the ABC news site
> <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-20/global-warming-could-be-slower-than-first-thought-report/4701010>there
> is the usual BS about the mythical 'global warming' etc. in which this
> little gem is dropped, much like excrement for the rear end of a bull:
>
> "For example, an El Nino is when the hea
Other related posts:
