atw: Re: OT: Climate change and fossil fuels
- From: "Christine Kent" <cmkentau@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 11:53:14 +0100
Kate
We can talk about anything we like as long as we put OT in the subject line. We
are a community of writers, not an army. If you are too busy to hit delete, and
if you get any value from the group, you can organise Outlook to trash all
mails with OT in the subject line.
Christine
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kate Morris
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013 11:49 AM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: atw: Re: OT: Climate change and fossil fuels
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
<http://www.beyondcoalandgas.org/> , 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 <mailto:petra_liverani@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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 <mailto:petra_liverani@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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:
