Mangled Thoughts

As Louis’ item below indicates

A bad start to the year 2005 It seems the Senator Ian Campbell, Minister for the Environment, has been got at by his permanent Secretary of his department, Sir Humphrey Environby.

With Senator Campbell concluding:

?Even if you?re a greenhouse sceptic you need to face the fact that the climate is changing.??

The man causes it claim is false. Human generated `greenhouse gases’ are trivial as a percentage of greenhouse gases that it might as well be counted as zero. The planet is emerging from the mini iceage, so perforce warming is occurring. Climate shifts have, in perespective ,occurred with great frequency. One of the latest shifts was that related to `El Nino’. It is pertinent to note `climate modellers cannot predict that, just as they cannot predict short-run weather, even a model a storm at sea. `Models’ are just scripts of deductive trees which , if the logic contained in the code, the programme, is correct then it will run true every time. It is why computers are most successfully utilised in accounting functions of businesses inclusive of retail accounts, as an instance, and for mathematical analysis, robotics: computers do not model anything, the values of output are values only in so far as there is someone who accurately understands the arguments for which values are conclusions. That entails, the assumptions are sound. Thus, while computers which, for visual effect, `model weather’ thus produce pleasurable graphical effects for the viewer, those whizzbang effects are nonsense other than that that computer is just a very good logic machine.

So, just on the false claim, computers model climate, the so-called science of it is bunk, nothing about climate is illuminated by them at all, thus the `scenarios’ generated are nonsense, they are fictions, fantasies, and not even an insight to what is the case, let alone predictive of what might be the case. Might as well consult a chicken oracle. This bad enough, it is more than a mistake, it is a deliberately committed falsehood. That sin is compounded by the bunk of `man causes it’ assumptions, which are rubbish.
That those assumptions are programmed into a computer machine leaves the output, nonsense, as opposed to being indicative only of the programme itself as a valid programme , on which runs and must thus be, logically, sound only.

The `man causes it’ belief is just that, a pseudo-rational beleif, borne out of the cult which is the greens movement, adopted by polticians and precisely because the belief provides another excuse for the acquisition of power, in the name of `govt.’ over citizens. There is an excellent analogy in what is set forth in the following essay :

The Origins of Modern Geological Theory*
by George Grinnell

Indeed it is an excellent illumination of what `man causes’ it amounts to, since while the political background Mr.Grinnell relates
is past, the impact is not. The adoption of `man causes global warming’ or, rather, civilised capitalist man does it, occurred in the chilling fashion.

It is not only that the claim is bunkum, and climate `modelling’ hocu pocus, but the adoption by `govts.’ of it is corrosive in manifold ways and perniciously so, illuminated by: it assumed to be true, about which no contradiction will be entertained, no debate enggaed, and, from the assumption govt must tax, regulate and control actions in the name of `preventing’ a `disaster’.

That there is no debate in circles which count is clear enough. Even the Coaltion in federal Govt. has embraced the rubbish and charlatanism of `envrionmentalism’ and some of its many sub cults, `man is the evil bastard who manipulates climate being their number one favourite. It shows in other ways. The following was promoted as a debate, through Robyn Williams’ Science Show:

Coral Reefs in Crisis
Saturday 10 July 2004
Summary
Coral reefs all over the world are in crisis and we hear from scientists and policy makers who this week attended a forum in Townsville. Their research on the health of the Great Barrier Reef and threats to its survival was featured recently in the journal ‘Nature’.

The panel:

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg ,University of Queensland
Prof Frank Talbot, Reef Scientist (?!!)
David Hannan, Film maker
John Schubert, Reef Foundation
Clive Wilkinson AIMS

Here, one just draws attention to a few comments:

Doug Anthony: May I make the comment that I am an optimist and I really believe we will handle these problems in the course of time.

On the global warming, I?ve still got a question mark about all of that. I?ve been involved with the meteorological people over the years, I was their minister at one stage so that?s where I?ve had a continuing interest and there?s a lot of debate and argument as to just how severe the global warming is and the impact. Certainly we ought to start doing something about it. I?ve already said to one of the learned people here, why in the hell don?t we get onto nuclear power and start changing some of this carbon dioxide that?s going into the air. But oh no, you mustn?t talk about nuclear power, that?s terrible. Except that, you know, France is producing 75% of its energy from nuclear power now and selling it across to Switzerland where they won?t have anything at all to do with nuclear power. I mean, it?s so ridiculous and they?ve learnt how to manage nuclear power so much better than they ever did in the early days. Of course there?ll be mistakes, there?s always mistakes when you are pioneering something but you?ve got to make adaptations and changes.

At any rate, may I finally say, it?s wonderful to come and hear this discussion because this is the way you will get politicians to change their attitude. It?s got to come from the public.

Mr. Anthony eulogised the greenies, how wonderful they are, how absolutely spiffing their `work’ is. As for the above, seems Anthony has been Sir Humphreyed too.

Clive Wilkinson: My name is Clive Wilkinson, I?m a scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science and I also co-ordinate the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, so every two years I produce a telephone book of what is the status of the world?s coral reefs. I would say, well, first we need to take a long cold shower and not press the panic button yet. First of all, reefs will not go extinct: some people are saying that but they will not go extinct. We will be stupid enough to go extinct first and so there will be reefs long after we?ve gone, but I can guarantee that they?ll be different reefs, they?ll probably be less attractive, fewer coral species, probably less coral cover and less fish but they will still be there, they?ll survive us. And why do I say don?t press the panic button? Well in 1994 I was chair of a global task team on coral reefs and we prepared the definitive statement on what?s wrong with coral reefs and what we should do. And we said the agenda is we?ve got to solve the land-based sources of pollution - so sediments and nutrients, fishing and overfishing. And global climate change is out there somewhere, don?t worry about it. So the agenda manage reefs where people are. Four years later I retracted those words and I?ve been eating them since, because in ?97/?98 we had the largest ever climate shift, we had a massive El Nino which switched over to a La Nina and we estimated at that time about 16% of the world?s reefs went, you know, a technical term - belly up.

I?ll take one example ? the Maldives. The Maldives are pristine reefs out in the middle of the Indian Ocean stuck on sea mounts; never seen bleaching like this before, suddenly probably two thirds of their reefs died completely.

So when you?ve got a combination of global climate change and human activities it?s a double whammy and those reefs just don?t recover that well.

So what do we need to answer these problems? Well, now we have to bring in the social scientists because a lot of the problems are people. We have to bring in industry, we have to bring in economists because we?ve got to be able to argue what is the value of coral reefs and why we should be trying to save them. We?ve got to bring in legal people, we?ve got to bring in a whole range of disciplines and also we?ve got to look at our vision.

Clive illustrates remarks above.

John Schubert: My background is largely in big business, I?m currently the Chairman or Director of a number of companies involved in resources, in banking, in airlines, in engineering services and also in biotechnology. I think it needs to be recognised that there?s very significant uncertainties in any climate-forecasting model. I think it makes very good sense to look at some worst-case possibilities and make sure that we understand just what they could entail. And I don?t think that there?s any question that there is a significant possibility that the reef could be degraded over the next 50 years, and that would have substantial detrimental effects on Australia and Australians.

Unfortunately, the only global processes to deal with global warming are the Kyoto Protocols at the moment and they apply only to developed countries, whereas most of the increase in greenhouse gasses will come from developing countries. As unlike the developed countries, that?s where the population increase will occur, that?s where there?s likely to be the highest economic growth and the highest energy usage increases. Controlling greenhouse therefore from developing countries is a critical part of a global response and it has to be a global response because we need to recognise that it?s only just above 1% of greenhouse gasses come from Australian activities.

John, mystoguogy is not good for business at all, and fretting about non existent risks and dangers, bad for the cysts and a distraction. Moreover, for the sake of a non-existent problem, you seem to be preapred to collude in the sacrifice of economic liberty and progress of millions in the west, and condemn to misery many more who are greatly in need of such liberty and progress.

At the end of the `debate’, one of the panel commented, not shown on the transcript, this was a `most civilised debate’. He continued, `because no-one sought to contest the assumptions, which could have been the case because we had so many scientists from each main disicipline of science’. What he meant, is clear enough, anyone is free to poke around at trivialities but, generally, must agree to core assertions and, preferrably, making approving moo cow noises. Mr. Doug Anthony did, he remarked how informative the debate was, how instrucitve, tyo which the panel made approving moo cow noises. Yah, it is nice to have an audience full of ductile ones. This very strange notion of a `debate’, it might be observed, was the attitude taken by the pro-Republicans during the non existent `constitional debate.’ It is a technique the Church developed in the 80’s to :

1. gain ductile acceptance of any novelty the clergy and socialisto laity might dream up,

2.to eliminate not merely counter arguments but anyone who was prepared to challenge their assertions and actions, by attemtoing to shut them up.

3. to deny responsibilty for their decisions and actions by claiming, `the community was consulted and they agreed’

4. It is tactic of political-ideological correctness, which originiate swith Marx, and the leaders of the old USSR regime.

5. There is also an undelrying note of indoctrination and brainwashing, inclusive of those at least skeptical of such assertions, into correct beliefs.

During the non-debate, it was only mentioned why so many find the mad does it claims bogus, but it was not stated why they find them bogus. Instead, it was asserted , the man is the cause claim is sound, solid, because their is ` a consenus among scientists’ that that is so, and objectors are really just that, rumbunctious, nasty reactionary fools. A civilised debate, rubbish, neoither a debate nor civilised in the force of such moronoc, generalisations.

It should be observed, that is all that the panel did, make generalised assertions, with no quantified statemnts made to render them contestable for the purposes of real debate, as opposed to a sham of a debate, by a panel of some at least with very dubious backgrounds in science.

Fat Aunty Bolshevik Collective like nothing more than to promote the polp potion cultic movement the greenies and their beleifs. Robyn Willimas, for someone who claims to be promoting science through broadcasting to a general audience, it is odd that he should rate bunkum as science. Here is another example:

The Biology of Civilisation
Author: Stephen Boyden
Publisher: University of New South Wales Press

Presenter: Robyn Williams
Producer: Brigitte Seega

I am thinking, for example, of what has been called the ?ideology of ever-moreism?, that is, the cultural delusion that human welfare necessarily requires an ever-increasing consumption of material goods, and consequently an ever-increasing use of resources and energy and outpouring of waste products.

In my view, the necessary motivation will not come about unless and until there is a dramatic change in the dominant culture. It will not come about unless and until this culture comes to embrace, at its heart, a basic understanding of the processes of life, and of the human place in nature, and, as a consequence of this understanding, a profound sense of respect for the living world. I am talking here not just of an increase in environmental awareness, but rather of a radical transformation in the dominant culture?s world view and priorities.

A shift of this kind in the prevailing culture would amount to a veritable renaissance. It would mean that once again, as in the days of our hunter-gatherer and early farming ancestors, interest in and respect for the living world would be at the core of our cultural system.

In my view, a sea-change in the dominant culture of this kind is a precondition for the necessary societal motivation to achieve ecological sustainability. It would have important impacts at all levels of society, with repercussions echoing through the whole system. And it would help us to overcome our cultural gullibility, leading naturally to the elimination of the delusions that are at present blocking progress towards a sustainable society.

I am therefore personally convinced that by far the most urgent need at the present time is in the realm of education, at all levels, and right across the community. This must be our highest priority. We must aim for a society in which this kind of understanding, I call it ?biounderstanding?, is part of the shared knowledge of all people, in all communities. Only then will there be sufficient motivation at the societal level to take the necessary steps to achieve ecological sustainability.

For these reasons, my own main interest these days is in the ways and means by which this change in the dominant culture might come about.

Robyn Williams: And whether there?s enough time to make such changes.

The only danger is politicians and all the political parties who have embraced charlatainsm because it serves the acquisiotn of coercvive power and the usurppation of economic liberty and thus general liberty, and as an exucse to increasing the vast feudal empires of bureaucracy. Power corrupts absolutely, `man does it’ is just one more savage example. If it were not so, the debate would have been rational, run on good science and the claims false dismissed long ago. It is not a debate, it is a political fight, brought on by socialistos every greedy for the assets of the taxed and the acqusioitn of power for themselves and their stuipid careerahs, and that goes for the psuedo-scientists and their `institutes’ of bunk, fraud and scam.