Comments on: The sincerest form of flat earthery http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-sincerest-form-of-flat-earthery/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-sincerest-form-of-flat-earthery Global warming and the future of New Zealand Sat, 11 Feb 2012 09:26:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Madeleine http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-sincerest-form-of-flat-earthery/comment-page-1/#comment-8842 Madeleine Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:29:26 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=365#comment-8842 I am always suspicious of those who defend themselves by calling other people names and by appealing to popular agenda laden "facts" - your reference to the flat earth society being a case in point. You can bust <a href="http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/12/contra-mundum-the-flat-earth-myth.html" rel="nofollow">the flat-earth myth here</a> and see the lie foisted on us by those experts with agenda in the social sciences. I am always suspicious of those who defend themselves by calling other people names and by appealing to popular agenda laden “facts” – your reference to the flat earth society being a case in point. You can bust the flat-earth myth here and see the lie foisted on us by those experts with agenda in the social sciences.

]]> By: StephenR http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-sincerest-form-of-flat-earthery/comment-page-1/#comment-5711 StephenR Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:49:00 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=365#comment-5711 <i>There are a host of chemicals that are very toxic that are also spewed out...</i> I would think that anybody manufacturing solar panels and all manner of turbines, or even - god forbid - nuclear power stations will also produce these toxic chemicals you mention as part of the process of alleviating global warming. One must consider the full cost of such actions, not just the lovely end result. There are a host of chemicals that are very toxic that are also spewed out…

I would think that anybody manufacturing solar panels and all manner of turbines, or even – god forbid – nuclear power stations will also produce these toxic chemicals you mention as part of the process of alleviating global warming. One must consider the full cost of such actions, not just the lovely end result.

]]> By: nicol design http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-sincerest-form-of-flat-earthery/comment-page-1/#comment-5708 nicol design Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:51:12 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=365#comment-5708 I admit to having short patience with statistics, in fact, none. But what are the "skeptics" arguing for: the right to pollute as much as we want no matter what? There is more to environmental pollution than just CO2. There are a host of chemicals that are very toxic that are also spewed out by autos, coal fired generating plants and the other sources of the CO2 that is building in the atmosphere. Note that this is not an argument against the whole idea of global warming. But if we can be encouraged by the threat of global warming to produce a much more efficient, lean, and way less wasteful economy and society, how is that bad? Please be skeptical, yes, get out back and wrestle with some fencing wire, fix some things, and don't let big science pull one over on us. Especially big science that is in the pockets of the coal and oil industries, or any other major interest group - herbicide companies, for instance. But what is all the bickering really doing, except for distracting us from the real work of making our economies and societies non-polluting, making our social systems more just, living in some sort of equilibrium with the planet, instead of wasting time confusing the issue? I admit to having short patience with statistics, in fact, none.

But what are the “skeptics” arguing for: the right to pollute as much as we want no matter what?

There is more to environmental pollution than just CO2. There are a host of chemicals that are very toxic that are also spewed out by autos, coal fired generating plants and the other sources of the CO2 that is building in the atmosphere.

Note that this is not an argument against the whole idea of global warming.

But if we can be encouraged by the threat of global warming to produce a much more efficient, lean, and way less wasteful economy and society, how is that bad?

Please be skeptical, yes, get out back and wrestle with some fencing wire, fix some things, and don’t let big science pull one over on us. Especially big science that is in the pockets of the coal and oil industries, or any other major interest group – herbicide companies, for instance.

But what is all the bickering really doing, except for distracting us from the real work of making our economies and societies non-polluting, making our social systems more just, living in some sort of equilibrium with the planet, instead of wasting time confusing the issue?

]]> By: Russell McMahon http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-sincerest-form-of-flat-earthery/comment-page-1/#comment-910 Russell McMahon Sun, 27 Apr 2008 09:23:51 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=365#comment-910 Bintljinact - I had a flick through the "scholarly journal" site that you always reference. Is there more than one 'scholar' represented there? Maybe I didn't look hard enough? ----------------------- Re the statement there about deciding that commenting on comment on Freeman Dyson's paper as being like "shooting fish in a barrel" so you didn't bother. My sincere thanks for bringing Dyson's as always erudite, informative and balanced comments to my attention. That is an utterly superb piece on a sensible approach to investigation of climate change. Populist level of course due to its audience but far more measured and balanced than what you'll usually get elsewhere - from either perspective. Copy here for anyone interested. http://others.servebeer.com/misc/gw/GW_Freeman_Dyson.pdf Must be some REALLY tough fish in that barrel! ________ Others: Thanks for the comments on IPCC stats. I'll have a think about how they relate to my understandings. More anon perhaps :-). Russell Bintljinact – I had a flick through the “scholarly journal” site that you always reference. Is there more than one ‘scholar’ represented there? Maybe I didn’t look hard enough?
———————–
Re the statement there about deciding that commenting on comment on Freeman Dyson’s paper as being like “shooting fish in a barrel” so you didn’t bother. My sincere thanks for bringing Dyson’s as always erudite, informative and balanced comments to my attention. That is an utterly superb piece on a sensible approach to investigation of climate change. Populist level of course due to its audience but far more measured and balanced than what you’ll usually get elsewhere – from either perspective.

Copy here for anyone interested.

http://others.servebeer.com/misc/gw/GW_Freeman_Dyson.pdf

Must be some REALLY tough fish in that barrel!
________

Others: Thanks for the comments on IPCC stats. I’ll have a think about how they relate to my understandings. More anon perhaps :-) .

Russell

]]> By: Russell McMahon http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-sincerest-form-of-flat-earthery/comment-page-1/#comment-904 Russell McMahon Sun, 27 Apr 2008 09:15:05 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=365#comment-904 Sonny: Re: I never thought I’d live to see the day, but it seems the Flat Earth Society also has something in common with a NASA astronaut: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html __________ I suggest you may find it useful to think about the whole implications of your stance on that. Consider that you dismiss with flippant rudeness an opinion from a person whose opinions you would hold in high regard if they happened to agree with your own. Is the subject really so open and shut that you can really afford to so treat the opinions of a person whose capabilities and thinking processes are probably, in your estimation, superior to your own. [[If that isn't the case then NASA has urgent need of you :-) ]]. Russell Sonny:
Re:
I never thought I’d live to see the day, but it seems the Flat Earth Society also has something in common with a NASA astronaut: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html
__________

I suggest you may find it useful to think about the whole implications of your stance on that. Consider that you dismiss with flippant rudeness an opinion from a person whose opinions you would hold in high regard if they happened to agree with your own.
Is the subject really so open and shut that you can really afford to so treat the opinions of a person whose capabilities and thinking processes are probably, in your estimation, superior to your own. [[If that isn't the case then NASA has urgent need of you :-) ]].

Russell

]]> By: Stephen http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-sincerest-form-of-flat-earthery/comment-page-1/#comment-909 Stephen Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:48:38 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=365#comment-909 Russell, I just wanted references/links because a) I have no idea what you're talking about (i'm not a scientist, just an observer) and b) the IPCC report is FAR too big to look for something when I don't even know what that something is anyway. cheers Russell, I just wanted references/links because a) I have no idea what you’re talking about (i’m not a scientist, just an observer) and b) the IPCC report is FAR too big to look for something when I don’t even know what that something is anyway. cheers

]]> By: bi -- Intl. J. Inact. http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-sincerest-form-of-flat-earthery/comment-page-1/#comment-908 bi -- Intl. J. Inact. Sun, 27 Apr 2008 05:13:05 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=365#comment-908 Also, what's up with the NZ Flat Earth Society these days? -- bi, <a href="http://frankbi.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow"><i>International Journal of Inactivism</i></a> Also, what’s up with the NZ Flat Earth Society these days?

– bi, International Journal of Inactivism

]]> By: bi -- Intl. J. Inact. http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-sincerest-form-of-flat-earthery/comment-page-1/#comment-907 bi -- Intl. J. Inact. Sun, 27 Apr 2008 05:12:30 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=365#comment-907 Fred: "it is actually a distraction from doing something meaningful." You mean Doing Nothing. Besides, you totally missed my point about the difference between Pr(<i>H</i>) and Pr(<i>X</i> > <i>x</i> | <i>H</i>). <i>X</i> can be normally distributed, Poisson distributed, whatever. But <i>H</i> is only true or false. Fred:

“it is actually a distraction from doing something meaningful.”

You mean Doing Nothing.

Besides, you totally missed my point about the difference between Pr(H) and Pr(X > x | H). X can be normally distributed, Poisson distributed, whatever. But H is only true or false.

]]> By: Andrew H http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-sincerest-form-of-flat-earthery/comment-page-1/#comment-905 Andrew H Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:23:50 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=365#comment-905 Fred (25/04 6:49p) "I see a defence is that there is too much at stake for a 90 or 95% confidence level to be applied to the result" If you are referring to my comment on the "Take that Nigel" thread, then you are missing the point. The point is that Russell is trying to apply an inappropriate test ie asking for statistical proof in a risk analysis assessment - in risk assessment there are always significant uncertainties. Russell suggests that this travesty of science is well buried in the fine print of the IPCC report, I found a clear statement of what they are doing in a highlight box on page 2 of the introduction (cunning blighters). You will be pleased to hear that you, Russell and the IPCC are in full agreement that a '65% confidence level' is not regarded as proof - it is simply 'likely'. Fred (25/04 6:49p)
“I see a defence is that there is too much at stake for a 90 or 95% confidence level to be applied to the result”
If you are referring to my comment on the “Take that Nigel” thread, then you are missing the point. The point is that Russell is trying to apply an inappropriate test ie asking for statistical proof in a risk analysis assessment – in risk assessment there are always significant uncertainties.
Russell suggests that this travesty of science is well buried in the fine print of the IPCC report, I found a clear statement of what they are doing in a highlight box on page 2 of the introduction (cunning blighters).
You will be pleased to hear that you, Russell and the IPCC are in full agreement that a ’65% confidence level’ is not regarded as proof – it is simply ‘likely’.

]]> By: Fred http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-sincerest-form-of-flat-earthery/comment-page-1/#comment-906 Fred Fri, 25 Apr 2008 06:49:27 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=365#comment-906 bi -- Intl. J. Inact. Isn't the distribution of occurrences of a discrete random variable Poisson? but the same principles apply. You can still apply a 90 or 95% confidence level test to the result. Russell - Spot on with your truth about global warming in 5 sentences. The issue I have with Kyoto (No different from indulgences that the catholic church used to sell) is that worse than being "a start and better than nothing" is that it is actually a distraction from doing something meaningful. Well done with the LED lights. I agree if the result has a 65% confidence level then it's not proven. I see a defence is that there is too much at stake for a 90 or 95% confidence level to be applied to the result, which is the same as what you say but at least they could be open about it. bi — Intl. J. Inact. Isn’t the distribution of occurrences of a discrete random variable Poisson? but the same principles apply. You can still apply a 90 or 95% confidence level test to the result.

Russell – Spot on with your truth about global warming in 5 sentences. The issue I have with Kyoto (No different from indulgences that the catholic church used to sell) is that worse than being “a start and better than nothing” is that it is actually a distraction from doing something meaningful. Well done with the LED lights. I agree if the result has a 65% confidence level then it’s not proven. I see a defence is that there is too much at stake for a 90 or 95% confidence level to be applied to the result, which is the same as what you say but at least they could be open about it.

]]>