What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

OT: Current Affairs and Politics

Bandwagon

Super Moderator
Staff member
Messages
45,465
Because it's your hypothetical and I'm replying to you?

I didn't assume your hypothetical was true, I just chose to play your game, in good faith. Why else would you bring a hypothetical into it?

To illustrate a particular point of logic, it isn't really important whether it's true or not, what's important is whether or not the logic holds. There is pretty clearly no intent there to assign truth to the statistic, so repeating the statistic as meaningful and transposing that upon another idea seems rather odd.

No, I meant it's just possible until proven impossible.

Which is fair enough, except for that in the context that your argument here has relied heavily upon probability, so without the balance of the statement above, it doesn't present that way to the reader

That's because it's not an area of expertise for you, whereas for me it is.

But so that we're clear (because I suspect you to be on the side of listen-to-the-experts), I don't consider my expertise to carry any moral authority with anyone who isn't me. I only mention it so you know where I'm coming from.

To the contrary, I'm just not all that interested in motive here. It's not of any real consequence, so I pay it little attention. I guess it boils down to being more interested in what people are saying rather than why they would be saying it. I think it all too easy to get so wrapped up in the why, that one can stop seeing the what, and that clouds ones reason by introducing the possibility ( even probability ) of seeing things that are not there, at the expense of not seeing things that are.
 

Bandwagon

Super Moderator
Staff member
Messages
45,465
It's funny, though, right, that the "uncertainties" always make the past cooler, thus making the present seem warmer?

Same with BOM, I guess, right? And I guess that's the same reason they don't like showing arctic ice data from prior to 1979?

And I guess it's a coincidence that Briffa's data post-1960s was not included, and it's a coincidence that the climategate emails contain "hide the decline" and "remove the 1940s blip"?

And that, now, >40% of temperature data is "estimates" after they stopped using actual recordings?

And that, considering "most of the warming has occured in the Arctic", you find the biggest "adjustments" there?

No, no, no, it's all a coincidence.

After all, you just quoted the very people who changed the data and they said that the adjusted data is perfectly fine...

No need to look any deeper. Carry on.

See the problem I have here with this kind of argument, and to be honest I've seen it far to many times, is that you are very willing to use the data presented to attempt to make a point, yet in the same breath dismiss the methodology used to collect and interpret the data that you don't like. Without conceding the very real possibility that the flaws you assign to the latest interpretations are actually present in the former interpretations.

It goes to my point above with Pou, you've assigned motive a superior position to reason in your investigation, and it has led to confirmation bias. This is displayed in your unwillingness to accept the possibility that the reasoning presented for changing the modelling is as stated.

I have little doubt that the adjustments will change again, as further developments in the modelling are made, and more data is fed to the models. I'd be disappointed if there wasn't, because that would be indicative of a stagnation of knowledge, or a failure of science to continue to test previous assumptions.
 

Gary Gutful

Post Whore
Messages
53,152
...and then there is the possibility that he has 'read' it and misunderstood it. My confidence on that is pretty high.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
77,946
Talk about cherry picking concepts and the manipulativism of using quotes out of context.

Click on image for larger version.

EPRQwkPUwAEKzdM.jpg
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
77,946
In his latest column, Andrew Bolt draws on quotes from climate scientist Professor Andy Pitman to argue that global warming is actually a good thing. Professor Pitman says that Bolt is “cherry picking with intent”.

UPDATEDUPDATED 17 HOURS AGO
BY SAM LANGFORD

Climate sceptic Andrew Bolt has declared that global warming is "overall, a good thing" for the planet, in a column published in the Herald Sun on Monday.

Bolt's argument, which suggested that rising CO2 emissions have fuelled plant growth and helped to create "a greener planet", relied on a number of quotes from climate scientist Professor Andy Pitman, Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes at UNSW.

However, Professor Pitman told The Feed that the quotes Bolt selected were incomplete and misleading, misrepresenting his point of view.

"He's cherry picking with intent," Professor Pitman said, adding that he believed "he's actively and consciously misrepresenting the science."

This is not the first time Bolt has quoted Professor Pitman to support arguments downplaying or dismissing the negative consequences of climate change. In the interest of setting the record straight, we fact-checked this latest round of claims.

Did Professor Andy Pitman claim that there is no link between climate change and drought?
In Monday's column, Bolt claims that in 2019, Professor Pitman said that "as far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought".

It's correct that Pitman uttered these words at a talk in June 2019. However, Pitman also issued a clarification after that talk, to express that he meant to say "no direct link", not "no link".

That clarification is publicly available, and has been shared widely. In September 2019, the ARC Centre of Excellence published a lengthy briefing note explaining the indirect link between climate change and drought in more detail, and in October 2019 ABC Media Watch dedicated a segment to fact-checking the issue.

Professor Pitman told The Feed, Bolt is "choosing to keep quoting statements that have been corrected in the public domain".

In October 2019, Bolt published a column acknowledging that he had seen the Media Watch segment, but chose to disregard it based on a single powerpoint slide from one of Pitman's lectures, which did not explicitly mention an "indirect link" between climate change and drought (it did, however, mention a link between rainfall and drought, and it's widely accepted by climate scientists that rainfall patterns are influenced by climate change).

"It's not a direct link, it's a complex and nuanced thing, but there is a link." Professor Pitman told The Feed today.

Where is Bolt getting the idea that global warming is creating a "greening planet"?
In his column, Bolt also suggested that Professor Pitman recently "let slip a fact that sceptics like me have tried for years to point out".

He then quoted from an interview with Pitman published in Crikey this month, where Pitman explains how bushfires are linked to climate change.

Crikey summarised Pitman's explanation as follows: "High carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, in some places, leads to 'greening', meaning more vegetation — like leaves, branches and even trees — growing above the soil. When you are hit with a drought, the vegetation become stressed and drops to the ground or dries out, becoming fuel for fires."

Bolt uses this and a similar quote from climate sceptic physicist Freeman Dyson (who is not a climate scientist) to suggest that "global warming is greening the planet and that this is, overall, a good thing".

"A greener planet. Bigger crops. Fewer cyclones, too. Is this really something we want to stop?", he asks.

Unfortunately, as Professor Pitman explained today, it's not quite the full story.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessed this, and found that currently, areas of greening outnumber areas of browning, but it's a trend we don't expect to continue," he said.

A 2019 IPCC report projected that several regions will see browning instead of greening going forward, as the climate warms. That same report also listed many of the other negative consequences of climate change, which are occurring alongside any greening.

"I'd like to draw attention to the extreme heat and heatwaves that are killing people, the low rainfall, the sea level rise," Professor Pitman said.

"Even if it were true that CO2 was fuelling a long term greening trend, heat and heatwaves kill. The farmers are not seeing a benefit."


https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-fee...PIdlN52aqvpCyJNQ&cid=news:socialshare:twitter
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
92,171
To illustrate a particular point of logic, it isn't really important whether it's true or not, what's important is whether or not the logic holds. There is pretty clearly no intent there to assign truth to the statistic, so repeating the statistic as meaningful and transposing that upon another idea seems rather odd.



Which is fair enough, except for that in the context that your argument here has relied heavily upon probability, so without the balance of the statement above, it doesn't present that way to the reader



To the contrary, I'm just not all that interested in motive here. It's not of any real consequence, so I pay it little attention. I guess it boils down to being more interested in what people are saying rather than why they would be saying it. I think it all too easy to get so wrapped up in the why, that one can stop seeing the what, and that clouds ones reason by introducing the possibility ( even probability ) of seeing things that are not there, at the expense of not seeing things that are.
I have found the why to always be important. In many cases more important than the what.

In the case of Greta Thunberg it's obvious why she was chosen to be the mouthpiece of a political movement, and it's not for her expertise in anything.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
77,946
In the case of Greta Thunberg it's obvious why she was chosen to be the mouthpiece of a political movement, and it's not for her expertise in anything.

Aaaaand we have a new conspiracy theory. They had a meeting and decided on Greta.

1458128452622.jpeg
 

Gary Gutful

Post Whore
Messages
53,152
So Chucky was a vegetarian as well. Probably wouldn't have been such an angry little merkin if he was fed meat...
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
77,946
He has a point. She couldn't have possibly been chosen for her expertise.

Why do you think she was chosen?

No, Greta Thunberg was one of 500 youths who were invited to address and meet at the UN on climate matters. It was then when she hopped on a boat and crossed the Atlantic in two weeks to make the meeting.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/from-the-streets-to-the-summit-young-climate-leaders-mobilise-at-un

She started her personal protest in 2018 when she used to take Fridays off school and protest by herself at Swedish Parliament. Her personal protest morphed from a Friday protest to an international school strike.

It’s a big moment for Thunberg and the legions of youth and adult activists and leaders she’s inspired since August 2018, when she began skipping school on Fridays to protest outside the Swedish Parliament. Thousands of young people in the movement, called Fridays for Future, now strike every Friday to demand more aggressive action from their governments and the international community. The last large-scale coordinated climate strike on May 24 drew participants from 130 countries.

https://www.vox.com/2019/9/17/20864740/greta-thunberg-youth-climate-strike-fridays-future
 

Gary Gutful

Post Whore
Messages
53,152
No, Greta Thunberg was one of 500 youths who were invited to address and meet at the UN on climate matters. It was then when she hopped on a boat and crossed the Atlantic in two weeks to make the meeting.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/from-the-streets-to-the-summit-young-climate-leaders-mobilise-at-un

She started he personal protest in 2018 when she used to take Fridays off school and protest by herself at Swedish Parliament. Her personal protest morphed from a Friday protest to an international school strike.

It’s a big moment for Thunberg and the legions of youth and adult activists and leaders she’s inspired since August 2018, when she began skipping school on Fridays to protest outside the Swedish Parliament. Thousands of young people in the movement, called Fridays for Future, now strike every Friday to demand more aggressive action from their governments and the international community. The last large-scale coordinated climate strike on May 24 drew participants from 130 countries.

https://www.vox.com/2019/9/17/20864740/greta-thunberg-youth-climate-strike-fridays-future
Someone made the decision to allow her to get up and address people though when she gave her "How dare you?" speech...which, coincidentally was the same speech that @hineyrulz gave at the Leagues Club AGM after our last wooden spoon.
 

Gary Gutful

Post Whore
Messages
53,152
My message is that we'll be watching you.

This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back at Chardon's on the other side of the border. Yet you all come to us fans for hope. How dare you!

You have stolen my dreams and my middle age with your empty words and dodgy recruitment. And yet I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire supporter bases are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is patience and 5 year plans. How dare you!
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
77,946
Someone made the decision to allow her to get up and address people though when she gave her "How dare you?" speech...which, coincidentally was the same speech that @hineyrulz gave at the Leagues Club AGM after our last wooden spoon.
Nah she just rocked up one day and they couldn't stop her speaking.

She chosen to speak because of her profile and coordinator of the F**k Off on Fridays Strike in her home country which manifested itself into the schools strike in 130 countries. She was not the only speaker. She was certainly not a keynote speaker as 4 kids spoke for only a few minutes each. Look at the attached PDF. Geeky kids spoke on various things for a couple of days.

upload_2020-1-28_16-2-39.png
 

Attachments

  • Youth_Summit_Agenda.pdf
    646.5 KB · Views: 1

Latest posts

Top