… from skepticemia:
In the climate realm, fabrication is also rife. Enthralled by their emotional biases, sceptics mouth desperate appeals to the corruptibility of scientists, or to the fallibility of climate prediction models.
To err is human and we should forgive many their inability to constrain the draw of the emotions. But this failure is inexcusably egregious in our politicians who are steering the ship for the long voyage, not just around the next reef. To those who still succumb to immediate gratification at the expense of our long-term good, I say welcome any Christmas gifts on brain bugs and emotional intelligence with open arms. Our grandchildren’s future could depend on it.
A typical liberal “argument” — ad hominem on top of false assumptions connected by non-sequiturs; summed up well by someone as, “I’m right and you’re stupid.” — yaaaaaawn.
spoken like a true academic.
“A truckload of science”…….doesn’t matter if its accurate or not, or entirely relevant.
Quantity over Quality?
Ah, it’s in the Silly. Semantic content: null.
“A truckload of science supports global warming and its attendant perils.”
Really? I’ve yet to see any peer reviewed reproducable science not based on motivated computer simulated models.
It’s a truckload of something all right. More like perilous attendants.
I am not sure there is instant gratification in being a climate skeptic. I think there is gratification in be a busybody telling your neighbors how to act based on invented evidence.
Anyone who has argued with a progressive knows on which side the emotions lay.
“A truckload of science supports global warming and its attendant perils.”
Whether you fill a canoe with natural fertilizer or an ocean liner with the same, it’s still a boatload of shite.
Now you know why Tim Blair calls that paper the Silly Moaning Hilmer. [IIRC, Fred Hilmer being the former CEO of the paper’s publisher, Fairfax.]
In an era dominated by politicized leftist myth spinning, being skeptical is a matter of survival in retaining your own mind.
Climate Con Artist: The oceans will rise 1000m in 100 years.
Mathematician: Thats 10mm a year!
Satellites: Ummm … only 3mm a year until it started going down 2 years.
Skeptic: Down? Even with all the bogus adjustments it went down?
Geographer: Oh, has anyone notice tide gauges are only going up 1-2mm a year … the same as the last 100 years.
Skeptic: Thanks Geographer. That destroy the scaremonger!
Scaremonger: Did I say 1000mm … I meant 7000mm in 100 years.
Media: Ohhh… 7000mm … we are doomed.
There is no gratification of any kind being a skeptic and there never will be. We’ve forced them to back down from their doomsday predictions of the 90’s but we are still stuck with the tax argument. There will be no Victory in East Anglia Day. They will refine their lies and hide the fact they were wrong and we were right because thier careers depend on it.
Remember the 20ft sea level lie? – the runaway greenhouse effect lie? -the 1 million climate refugee lie? – 6 degree catstrophice warming in 10 years lie?
Now its 1 degree in a hundred years but all the same war on propserity crap. They were never wrong, they are just more right now. While we are permanently wrong no matter how right we are. They play the game but they are also the referee and make the rules of the game on the fly.
When none of this matters in a hundred years, that when we’ll be lauded. You want gratification you should join the obedient herd.
The Harper government believes in climate change. You whiners should get in line.
“A truckload of science supports global warming and its attendant perils.”
If so why was it necessary for the IPCC crew to
replace, manipulate,ignore and select data; to interfere in the peer review process, to marginalize dissenting opinion in journals and seek to defame scientists not on board with the correct viewpoint?
To turn the sub-heading of this trite article ”
Instant gratification is a powerful, but flawed, human motivator.” back on itself, is the warm and fuzzy feeling “greens” seem to get from their perceived doing good for the earth any different than what this turd polisher Biegler is accusing sceptics of doing?
I remember seeing a kiosk at the San Francisco airport where you could assauge your guilt for your plant food emissions by purchasing carbon credits. I guess the dupes that spent their money there (or on Air Canada’s online ticket purchasing where carbon offset can be added to their already exorbitant fares) got the same instant gratification that we sceptics are guilty of enjoying by our denial the “problem”.
Everybody believes the climate is changing.
It always has.
Next point.
I’m a sceptic?
Right…….
Proving the advocates of agw are just another bunch of busibodies, killjoys, and nancyboys.
Would the AGW believers walk the walk? Would they board a commercial aircraft that they knew was based on a scientific community that found it necessary to “hide the decline”? Of course not.
The “science” was corrupted. Until the “science” is repaired, I am not getting on board the AGW aircraft, nor am I buying a ticket.
No emotion at this end other than seeing that my resources – the ones I worked for – are not stolen from me.
Yeah, when I want to understand climate science, I go to a postdoctoral fellow in bioethics. Riiiiiight.
Not having heard of Monash U, I read up on it on WikiP. It seems to garner rather high worldwide rankings, ie ~36 from a variety of global pubs.
In the part “1970s Onwards”, this phrase caught my attention:
From the mid-1960s to the early 1970s, Monash became the centre of student radicalism in Australia.[11][12] It was the site of many mass student demonstrations, particularly concerning Australia’s role in Vietnam War and conscription.[13] By the late 1960s, several student organisations, some of which were influenced by or supporters of communism, turned their focus to Vietnam, with numerous blockades and sit-ins.[14]
Is Monash U Australia’s Concordia?
Proof that you can be educated and yet have no common sense. How hard do you think the exam for bioethics is compared to any of the ‘hard’ sciences such as engineering?
How did the world come out of the last age without any burning of fossil fuels to cause CO2 induced warming?
This article is sophistry based on false assumptions…..IOW….Bravo Sierra based on Bravo Sierra…..
That this fellow is credentialed is irrelevant….the Bravo Sierra was concocted by credentialed Bravo Sierra artists…..
“A truckload of science supports global warming and its attendant perils.”
More like a prius load. A volt load maybe. Sorry pal, I’m still not feeling guilty for being an evil denier.I do feel good about mocking you twits though.
What DrD and sasquatch said.
All of this “Bravo Sierra” mixed with an unbelievable amount of arrogance typically displayed by our in their minds only betters.
Our grandchildren’s future could depend on it.
The concern for future generations is touching. It would be a lot more believable if we weren’t happily spending their incomes today.
Michael Mann’s now discredited hockey stick graph formed the entire basis of the hysteria and move to government action.
The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, and the polar bears are still here.
But this failure is inexcusably egregious in our politicians who are steering the ship for the long voyage, not just around the next reef.
It’s pretty clear from the shape of the global economy that the politicians are mostly blind and steering the ship full steam ahead in order to wreck it on the rocks of socialism.
What can be said about all the borrowing done to pay for ever-increasing government program expansion which governmnets have done and are still doing, other than to call this practice a direct appeal to instant gratification?
It’s very clear that conservative skeptics are on the delayed gratification side of the equation and the socialist CAGW believers are on the instant gratification side.
The Australian government is desperate to get voters to accept their carbon tax (the one, pre-election, they promised not to enact) which then transitions to carbon trading. Just like our own progressive governments, Gillard and co. have a Rolodex full of academics and media who are willing to push the message using whatever psuedo-science they have at hand. Suzuki wants to put “deniers” in jail and this goofball wants to cure them – po-tay-to/po-tah-to.
None of them is willing to talk about the cost-benefit ratio of the political solutions or the actual amount of temperature that will be reduced by de-carbonization. When pressed for numbers and real-world proof Warmists tend to have PET Jr.outbursts or Suzuki get-angry-and-run-away tantrums. So who is really acting like toddlers?
Australia has a similar economy to Canada. It will be interesting see if Oz’s CO2 tax and trading vs. Canada’s pro-growth policies will produce and noticeable divergence in GDP and personal wealth over the next few years and beyond.
The irony of that piece is stunning .. Those who are seeking the instant gratification around the climate issues are the leftists who are suffering from their own altruistic egoism.
Let me explain ‘altruistic egoism’.
That is the warm fuzzy feeling one gets when one thinks one is doing really good things, like saving the planet. Those warm fuzzies are addictive. How else would we find people like like that little money grubbing Mother Theresa. She is the mother load of AE.
Warm fuzzies some from such things as when one does something like protest at a rally for some good cause, or raise money to shut down the oil sands or share a doobie with a stranger in an OWS camp …. you get the idea.
it is an addictive behavior that leads one to become more and more radical in their activities for the ‘good of all’ or perhaps to become stupidly generous with one’s money for good causes.
Or perhaps stupid enought to run up over a hundred thousand dollars in student debt to achieve and otherwise useless degree in some humanist discipline that will qualify to go out there and inflict your brand of help on even more people. Like transgender studies or some such.
Whatever is takes to keep those warm fuzzies coming … now that is a brain bug that I would not want to have to deal with.
“When someone accuses you of being selfish, just remember that he’s upset only because you aren’t doing what he selfishly wants you to do.” – Harry Browne
The so-called study of toddlers in the 1960s seems to have drawn a few flawed conclusions. The toddlers who grabbed the single marshmallow understood that these folks had no intention of honoring their promise to give 2 marshmallows at a later date. They understood “a bird in the hand, is worth 2 in the bush”. The children who were convinced to wait for a 100% profit? Well, they’re the ones who grew up to buy carbon credits, and invest in Nigerian email investment opportunities.
“A truckload of science supports global warming and its attendant perils.”
It’s a garbage truck and it’s headed to the dump.
Paul Biegler is unable to distinguish the difference between a sceptic and a realist. A realist will evaluate the evidence from both sides of the arguement. When the evidence is flawed and corrupted on one side while trying to shut down any debate coming from the other side, then you have a realist. A sceptic is still open to mind changing evidence. A realist has seen the evidence and it stinks.
I see we have a lot of realists on SDA.
But this failure is inexcusably egregious in our politicians who are steering the ship for the long voyage, not just around the next reef.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If they don’t steer around the reef, their voyage won’t be very long.
Well this is the self same political ethos that told us gender was a social construct and then preceded to make up genders to benifit their movement.
The delay of gratification lies on the side of the skeptic. He has to wait 100 years to say “see we were right!”, the alarmist merely waits for the next unseasonably warm day.
“A truckload of science supports global warming and its attendant perils.”
Ah,he uses the “Rosie O’Donnell” tactic,”everybody in the audience agrees 9-11 was an inside job,so it MUST be true”.
What condescending tripe.It’s the pro-warmists that are emotional about the whole exercise,including the over educated author of the article.
Skeptics don’t embrace an issue as a substitute for a religion,nor do we sell our souls for funding or popularity,maybe that’s why we’re considered “Grinches”.
Our mantra is ,” if you’re going to make a claim,PROVE IT”,and NOT with bullshit computer models.
We skeptics fail miserably to leap onto passing bandwagons,and stand by the roadside muttering about the fools who just DID, wondering what disaster they’re going to bring to us all.
I’m a skeptic,always have been. It’s the result of growing up around practical people,like farmers,trappers,fishermen,loggers,my Mother,and others who NEVER “bought a pig in a poke”.
Practical people actually DO things,create things,provide society with the goods that they live on. All the while so many of the people who were idealised as “our betters” live in the realm of theory,willingly segue into fantasy, and buy into the latest trend or fad like so many teenyboppers devouring the latest scoop on “Justin”.
Skeptics didn’t fall for AGW out of emotion?
Where did I hear THAT theory before,”always accuse your enemy of doing what you are doing”?
I hate being lectured by non-scientists on how to do science.
I hate being lectured on computer simulations by someone who has never done one.
I hate this nonsense of shifting the burden of proof. In this case, since we are talking about the lives and
welfare of billions of people, any innovations based on “AGW” should be proved beyond reasonable doubt,
just as should a prosecution for murder.
This state-paid drone is typical of the official state religion best described as watermelon. His psycho-babble is aimed at equating “climate skeptics” as heretics (obviously suffering from a mental disorder along with all conservatives). Perhaps he sees himself as a Bishop in the state church of Green. Even though there is apparently a “truck load” of scientific evidence, why is it that the faithful never want an open debate with “heretic” scientists. The Spanish Inquisition equivalent is yearned for, where the GreenPriests like Suzuki or Lizzie will be tending the stake-fires.
While the last vestiges of harmless Christian tradition are being purged from all public life (war on Christmas), the church and state are comprehensively integrated when it comes to pseudo-environmentalism.
inexcusably egregious in our politicians who are steering the ship for the long voyage, not just around the next reef. To those who still succumb to immediate gratification at the expense of our long-term good.
Politicans “steering” the ship for the “long voyage”?
What?! Is he a poli-sci Freshman at a community college?
A little taste of Public Choice Economics might not go astray here, what?
Those who still succumb to “immediate gratification”.
WOW, are there still people like this? Unconscionable!!!
A truckload of settled scientific opinion in Galileo’s time was also spectactularly incorrect.
Written by an a-hole who collects a government cheque. Paid to insult, demean and debase. Thanks Academia! And F U 2!
There’s a truckload of something in that guys argument…….but it ain’t science.
After that screed, I know now my graduation in grade 4 was a Godsend. But feeling superior to that DORK gives me no satisfaction!
“Paul Biegler is Australian Research Council postdoctoral fellow in bioethics at Monash University.”
So let me get this straight. A “bioethicist” is dragging in a psychologist to offer evidence on behalf global warming? Given the nature of bioethicists and psychologists, neither one by training is capable in the slightest of understanding what constitutes a “truckload” of scientific evidence on global warming, let alone commenting on its accuracy.
What makes me feel good about this is how as their warming scam is blowing up and melting down the signs of panic are starting to become hysteria.
“I love the stench of fear in the morning; it smells like victory.” Apologies to Robert Duvall.
“A truckload of science supports global warming….”
These people always claim there’s lots of science to support the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, but they never actually show us any. I suspect they’ve never seen the science and are running on pure faith that they haven’t been sold a bill of goods (but fear they have been).
What a load of BS (however, anything written by someone who calls themselves an “ethicist” nowadays invariably is). This person is desperately seeking some way of demonstrating his superiority over what he perceives as homo primitivus and thus classifies certain innate neurologic behaviors as primitive and claims to not have those behaviors in himself and a select group of humans of the genus homo superiorus. Never mind that the inability to respond to immediate danger puts individuals at a distinct handicap and more likely to be recipients of Darwin awards.
This line of thinking goes back decades and I recently rediscovered it in a book written by a psychologist (whose name escapes me now) and Paul Erlich. They were so frustrated that no-one was paying any attention to their intellectually superior concepts that they concluded the only possible reason for this was that the majority of humans were trapped in the present and constrained by their primitive wetware to deal reflexively with immediate problems while totally ignoring the cliff they were going to fall over around 1985 or so when the world population would run out of food and industrial civilization would run out of resources. Their solution was to have the “future oriented” thinkers make decisions for homo primitivus. Paul Erlich keeps pushing the downfall of civilization ever forward and seems to have forgotten about the global cooling that he forecast was going to put the planet into another ice age around now.
One of the problems never addressed by the self-styled members of homo futerensis is why humans are so damn successful wherever they happen to live on this planet. Despite their infuriating preoccupation with the present they seem to improvise themselves out of all sorts of catastrophes predicted by homo futurensis. One of the things I got out of my brief infatuation with Zen Buddhism was the concept of living fully in the here and now. That might be enjoying the rush of boot skiing down a steep scree slope where a single misstep might result in a broken leg or worse or enjoying every moment of a repetitive task one is doing whether it’s helping out with stacking hay bales or digging up the garden. 99% of my time is spent dealing with the present and 1% thinking about the future. Implementing future goals requires one hell of a lot of time spent in present oriented activities.
“Ethicists” also have no comprehension of cellular automata and how external factors can affect the activities of a totally present oriented set of cellular automatons to deal with the perturbation. Homo superiorus assumes that a small elite of philosopher kings not engaged in the mundane immediacy of everyday life can plan out the future. Nature has shown otherwise and the multiprocessor distributed network of the members of homo primitivus has outperformed self-styled homo superiorus every time that the two systems have clashed. The distributed processing model is the reason why capitalism is so much more efficient than a command economy.
Knowing how people can take advantage of ones innate hardwired wetware routines is useful if one wants to avoid being conned and Cialdini has exhaustively detailed all the common methods in his book Influence. Well worth reading.
@ loki
Have never really considered myself as Homo Primitivas, but i like it and will wear it with pride. Not sure about the Homo bit though. Maybe just Primitivus. Sounds like nobility in ancient Rome.