Nope, I'm pointing out NONE of his denialist papers have been published in peer reviewed journals. Prove me wrong.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
Nope, I'm pointing out NONE of his denialist papers have been published in peer reviewed journals. Prove me wrong.
Pretty meaningless when that system is completely dominated by funding in support of the narrative.
I read it. He lost me when he used the words ‘obvious correlation’ and then used visuals (and not statistics) to show the correlation. The issue with all of these being to hold all the other effects constant.
150 year lag effect is an interesting one though. It seems the short range effects have been Debunked as solar effects Contribute about 0.1% of temperature change in short term.
150 year lag effect is an interesting one though. It seems the short range effects have been Debunked as solar effects Contribute about 0.1% of temperature change in short term.
So you've gone from "he's a scientist" to "he's published his work" to "the cruel heartless scientific system is out to get him". Yeah, he's a plucky young denier standing up to the evil system!!!!
Fraud. It's the same level as the Ivermectin research, except it doesn't even get published in peer reviewed journals.
Try harder mate, you are failing hard right now.
I'm in a kind of political no man's land. On issues in the socio-cultural sphere I am right of centre. Law and order, security/defence I am also right of centre (although unconventionally so - I'm more in favour of a boost in defence spending for a strong policy of self assured, self reliant armed neutrality, rather than forfeiting a significant portion of sovereignty of our foreign policy to the US) . Economically I used to think I was pretty centrist. But as the economic sphere as progressively liberalised (a continuation of what Thatcher and Regan kicked off in the 1980s), I find myself left of centre. I don't think I have moved, it's that the economic sphere has moved, meaning now that I am centre-left.
But environment is something that has always confused me. Not confused me in where I stand. I'm pretty clear about my own environmental conscience. But more, confused at how environmentalism manifests itself in the political domain. I have never understood why it is an area of politics dominated by the so called "progressive" or "left" side of the political spectrum.
I came from quite a conservative upbringing. I was partly raised by grandparents. They were typical conservative rural/working class people of the great depression/WWII generation. I got a lot of my values from them. They very much believed in working hard, the value of thrift, absolutely not wasting anything (money, food, goods etc - so they abhor disposability of the modern day, it is the anthesis of their beliefs), being self sufficient and self driven. They produced pretty much all of their own food (growing fruit and veg, shooting kangaroos, trapping rabbits, fishing in the river etc) Not feeling entitled to anything etc. So if they did hunt, fish etc, it was about only taking what they needed, don't rape the landscape or it won't provide for us anymore, or provide for others. I can remember my grandfather talking about the giant fishing trawlers with utter contempt, for 1) leaving nothing for the little guy and 2) the environmental impact. They had to be this way, because they grew up with not a lot. In a practical sense, they were greener than many living their vapid, consumerist existence while telling the world how "environmentally aware" they are on the latest iphone.
Anyway, brings me back to the point. Why is environmentalism something political conservatives haven't embraced? From my example above, my family background was in a practical sense 'conservative", but this didn't put us at odds with having an environmental conscience. In fact it was completely compatible with it. The words "conservative" and "conservation" are from the same root. And on he flipside of this, why do "progressives" think they have ownership over environmentalism?
https://cleanprosperity.ca/green-conservatism/
But environment is something that has always confused me. Not confused me in where I stand. I'm pretty clear about my own environmental conscience. But more, confused at how environmentalism manifests itself in the political domain. I have never understood why it is an area of politics dominated by the so called "progressive" or "left" side of the political spectrum.
I came from quite a conservative upbringing. I was partly raised by grandparents. They were typical conservative rural/working class people of the great depression/WWII generation. I got a lot of my values from them. They very much believed in working hard, the value of thrift, absolutely not wasting anything (money, food, goods etc - so they abhor disposability of the modern day, it is the anthesis of their beliefs), being self sufficient and self driven. They produced pretty much all of their own food (growing fruit and veg, shooting kangaroos, trapping rabbits, fishing in the river etc) Not feeling entitled to anything etc. So if they did hunt, fish etc, it was about only taking what they needed, don't rape the landscape or it won't provide for us anymore, or provide for others. I can remember my grandfather talking about the giant fishing trawlers with utter contempt, for 1) leaving nothing for the little guy and 2) the environmental impact. They had to be this way, because they grew up with not a lot. In a practical sense, they were greener than many living their vapid, consumerist existence while telling the world how "environmentally aware" they are on the latest iphone.
Anyway, brings me back to the point. Why is environmentalism something political conservatives haven't embraced? From my example above, my family background was in a practical sense 'conservative", but this didn't put us at odds with having an environmental conscience. In fact it was completely compatible with it. The words "conservative" and "conservation" are from the same root. And on he flipside of this, why do "progressives" think they have ownership over environmentalism?
https://cleanprosperity.ca/green-conservatism/
Why don't you simply admit that the word 'petroleum' on his CV triggered you to dismiss his views completely?
You are right, starting with The Silent Spring (Rachel Carson) in the 50s conservatives were at the forefront of early environmentalism . Environmentalism and conservatism where not at odds, where the left/progressives were more concerned with class/race and sharing the wealth of industrialisation and capitalism at that time.
I'd argue it's hard to find true "conservatism" any more - the right has been drawn hopelessly into identity politics, protection of corporate interests and class interests, and is no longer about true conservatism. The left has changed too - picking up environmentalism, identity politics and as a lever to use against raw capitalism.
We are at the limits of what industrialisation/corporate capitalism/consumer culture can be sustained on the planet right now and this issue goes beyond left and right, so "conservatives" are increasingly seeing the environment and climate change as existential threats on a much greater scale than before. But they are still playing the game of keeping a consumer society while using tech to mitigate environmental change. I think this is doomed to fail.
Lee's right on this aspect - climate change won't allow us to keep on exploiting the planet so in that sense environmentalism and CC advocacy is in contradiction to a future growth-based economy/consumer society/corporate exploitation of the environment (and people). So yeah, it's raving leftie *smile*
Interesting stuff being written now about "zero growth" economies and societies- given it looks like the population of the world will peak this century and then we'll get a decline (assuming wars/pandemics/large scale environmental disaster don't cause a global economic/political collapse), it's something our kids will need to deal with.
Last edited:
I've consulted to oil and gas in the past myself, so no, petroleum on his CV doesn't bother me. We have to shift that industry away from its current business models and all those businesses are moving hard in that direction. I'd argue too late for their own survival, but time will tell on that. The world is changing.
No, it's more his total failure to get any of his papers on this waffle published. Just like with Lamb's Ivermectin evidence, it just isn't of enough scientific quality to be taken seriously. Or as Roar pointed out, it's sh1t. In one way it's clever - it allows for all the bad things we are seeing in climate change happening, but just conveniently places the blame outside our control. I'm out of high school now though so I can see through the strategy pretty easily.
And you are right, outliers are sometimes correct and can change how science views the universe, but mate, this is not one of those. He's a try-hard trying to build credibility in the denialist industry.
Did he fail, or merely submit them to the appropriate journal?
Philip Lloyd was a lead author with the IPCC team which shared the Nobel Prize, and a climate skeptic. You won't find a Wiki entry for him though.
Plenty of well-credentialled scientists are at odds with the emergency narrative.
Last edited:
Which journal has he published any of this solar hokum stuff in? I couldn't see any on his CV.
So he failed, or didn't submit them at all. If you have counter evidence, show it.
Nothing like the funding oil companies have put into obfuscations, but I suppose conspiracy is all you are left with when the overwhelming evidence of human caused global warming is, well, overwhelming.
Panthera Tigris, part of the reason "conservatives" are not associated with environmentalism is that those who are labelled conservative these days are not actually conservative in the real meaning of the word. For a defence of traditional conservatism see Edmund Burke, but what the "conservative" side of politics advocates these days is not conservative at all, they want to change things. Conservative is no longer an accurate label. People like Menzies or Burke would shudder at what is called conservative now. Just as an example, it would be very difficult to label Neo-Liberals as conservative, they do not want to leave things as they are, they want to radically change things (whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant, they are clearly not conservative). Anyway, not a topic for this thread.
Global warming is not hard to understand: there is observed warming, the best explanation for the observed warming based on mountains of evidence is that human activity (specifically the emission of CO2 etc) is enhancing the Greenhouse Effect such that the planet is warming.
DS
Well you have to only look at the ridiculous thought bubble from Premier Perrottet this morning. That he is going to lobby the Federal Govt to supercharge immigration once the borders are opened back up, as a silver bullet to kick start an economic recovery. He wants to ramp up further from the already super charged numbers of net +240k per year in the years prior to the pandemic (which is 300% above the long term average prior to the early 2000s). It shows how blindly, without critical thought people are wedded to this concept of infinite growth (a physical impossibility) in an economic and by extension population sense. And it's not just politicians. So called smart, well educated people in academia at our Universities are wedded to it too.You are right, starting with The Silent Spring (Rachel Carson) in the 50s conservatives were at the forefront of early environmentalism . Environmentalism and conservatism where not at odds, where the left/progressives were more concerned with class/race and sharing the wealth of industrialisation and capitalism at that time.
I'd argue it's hard to find true "conservatism" any more - the right has been drawn hopelessly into identity politics, protection of corporate interests and class interests, and is no longer about true conservatism. The left has changed too - picking up environmentalism, identity politics and as a lever to use against raw capitalism.
We are at the limits of what industrialisation/corporate capitalism/consumer culture can be sustained on the planet right now and this issue goes beyond left and right, so "conservatives" are increasingly seeing the environment and climate change as existential threats on a much greater scale than before. But they are still playing the game of keeping a consumer society while using tech to mitigate environmental change. I think this is doomed to fail.
Lee's right on this aspect - climate change won't allow us to keep on exploiting the planet so in that sense environmentalism and CC advocacy is in contradiction to a future growth-based economy/consumer society/corporate exploitation of the environment (and people). So yeah, it's raving leftie *smile*
Interesting stuff being written now about "zero growth" economies and societies- given it looks like the population of the world will peak this century and then we'll get a decline (assuming wars/pandemics/large scale environmental disaster don't cause a global economic/political collapse), it's something our kids will need to deal with.
And if one questions it. You cop heat from the right, that without population growth there will be no prosperity. As in, the overly simplistic argument that population growth = prosperity. And at the same time you cop heat from the left as being xenophobic/racist for daring questioning the apparent accepted wisdom of high immigration intakes. It's a bit like this strange unholy alliance, or Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact between the two sides of the political spectrum.
And it's not just Australia. People often look on in awe at China, thinking that because of their seemingly economic miracle rise in the past 40 years, they must be switched on, know what they are doing. But it's all based on the same flawed logic of infinite growth. They brought in their one child policy in he 1970s. It accelerated the slowing of birth rates (as shown by some of their neighbours, this would have happened naturally anyway, just that the slowing came a decade or two earlier through forced intervention). So now they find their population will come into decline, hence they reverse the one child policy and are desperately thinking up ways to incentivise people having more children, so they can go back to growing the population to aid economic growth. Because without growing population, the entire economic system breaks down. Even a highly educated class of Mandarin technocrats cannot work out how to get out of this black hole of infinite growth we find ourselves chained to, without societal upheaval and collapse.
Last edited:
Well we don't really have a Conservative party in Australia. We have a Liberal party with conservatives in it. So conservatives have sold out on their conservative credentials.
I note that the Conservative Party in the UK and in Canada both have more heritage and history of having a small so called "Green-Conservative" wing or faction in their ranks, which our Liberal Party does not. Although from the 1980s onwards these elements seem to have struggled for influence. That said, Conservatives in the UK have embraced climate change policy more than governments in Australia. Even Maggie Thatcher, as divisive a character as she was, did give addresses on the dangers of climate change from burning fossil fuels, back in the 1980s. Baring in mind that she was actually a scientist by trade.
Last edited:
Absolutely true. Our economic and political models can't deal with long term planning - the Chinese are better at it but have also chosen the path to "economic growth and prosperity" ie consumerism. So for Perrotet, the immediate problem is a stagnating economy and that Australian sacred cow, the housing market. Solution? Immigration.
Saw a good Foreign Correspondent episode on divergent people in China yesterday - there is a so-called "Lying Flat" movement which is essentially people who have quit the rat race to go back to farming or running a small shop or similar low-key activities - of course the Chinese government sees this as a "bad thing", no ambition and not contributing to the rapid-growth economy.
yeah im reading ‘less is more’ right now which is about degrowth. Other societies have done zero growth before (NA Indian, aboriginal etc). And it seems the focus is on treating the planet as a living entity you share
Existence with vs being an object you can exploit and own (which evolved over Millenia).
GDP growth = good (all by itself). I think a society that measures itself by many outcomes will be a better one.
And for full confession I currently work for big oil and have since uni although that will be ending soon. Personally I’m all for a price on carbon over any other mechanism.
Yep, full disclosure is good. I anticipate working for big oil again, but only in the capacity of improving innovation and transitioning to carbon zero and renewables, which these companies are doing anyway. Interesting company, CEO is running headlong towards reinventing that company as an energy supply company rather than oil and gas. Of course they have to hedge their bets and keep selling fossil fuels while they transition. I was working with this multinational in Indonesia - when the western crude (I think) oil price went negative. Interesting times.
Agree on a carbon price - which most of the western world has. We can't keep treating the atmosphere and the environment as an economic externality - we need it to live, after all. You can't continue to maximise your economic utility if you are dead.
Last edited:
Don't even need to look at "Other societies". Not like we (westerners) are some sort of inherently evil locusts that magically just dropped out of the sky 100 years ago intent on destroying the earth. We all come from societies that have existed and evolved over thousands of years. So it wasn't always about infinite turbo charged growth. In actual fact GDP growth as a really focused measure only really is a post WWII phenomenon.
Last edited:
