<< USEFUL PARENTING ADVICE ~ MAIN ~ RIGHTS RIGHTED >>
SCIENCE QUESTIONED
Suddenly environmentalists are questioning science:
TONY JONES: But of course, that’s exactly what he says he’s doing. He hasn’t given any formal approval, now he’s got an independent inquiry by the chief scientists. Is that not good enough?
GEOFFREY COUSINS: No, it’s not good enough because it doesn’t allow a proper public inspection of all of that and debate of the scientific evidence and it doesn’t allow all the voices to be heard, and you don’t want a situation where the chief scientist looks at these issues and makes a determination and then shortly thereafter, somebody says, but you’ve missed this point, you know, if only you’d thought about that. And the scientist says, oh yes, OK, now I see it. I mean, this deserves a proper public hearing.
People openly debating scientists’ views on the environment. What will they demand next?
(Via Alan R.M. Jones)
“The debate is over”
“No it isn’t, ipso facto”Posted by ooh honey honey on 2007 08 31 at 12:39 AM • permalinkLooks to me like Cousins has learnt his debating skills from a master.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 08 31 at 12:51 AM • permalinkA huge group of people gathered in one place, Mass-debating each other!!!!
But will they all come to the same conclusion?
Posted by surfmaster on 2007 08 31 at 12:54 AM • permalink#5 We could have a Mass Debate!!
Is that Mass debate like the pope and the flu?
Cousins worked for Singtel.
Now what has Singpore got planned for paper mills?Posted by stackja1945 on 2007 08 31 at 12:58 AM • permalinkI’m of the view that mass debates are total wank fests. For all the good they do, you might as well stand around in a circle jerking each other off.
/perpetual juvenile
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 08 31 at 01:09 AM • permalinkCareful people! Some of this talk about mass debates could be misconstrued as being about masturbation - apparently a form of self-abuse where you rub your own genitals, or so I’m told.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 08 31 at 01:13 AM • permalinkWell in real science the debate continues constatnly, with scientists looking critically at other peoples’ data and conclusions and theories to find holes. It’s the environmentlaist loonies who have declared debate is unacceptable on the subject of Anthrop[ogenic Global Warming. That’s because contiued debate tends to show how weak their case is.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2007 08 31 at 01:14 AM • permalinkCousins is suffering from a double affliction.
1. He made a lot of money. People who do this think it makes them an expert on everything. This is known as ‘Richard Branson syndrome’, or in Australia, ‘Dick Smith syndrome’.
2. He made his money in advertising. This means he spent his career spinning bullshit, which in turn makes him susceptible to other bullshitters, like Flanagan.
#21 - Or he’s gone all Kim Philby on us.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 08 31 at 01:39 AM • permalink#20 Poggers
If you choose to operate computer equipment for the purposes of engaging in cheery banter late on a Friday arvo on this site, that, as they say, is a matter for you.
Having said that, let me say this. If you choose to do so without the appropriate safety equipment, then you are, as they say, the author of your own misfortune.
OMG, the ABC actually earned its 8c from me today.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 08 31 at 02:42 AM • permalinkFrom MMs link @ #18
Now a stubble of stumps - all that’s left of the trees meant to absorb carbon dioxide - dots the rows of newly planted maize and budding green beans.
I don’t know what to make of this. Why are trees better than vegetables? Would a tree that lives 80 years absorb more CO2 than 80 annual green bean crops growing within the space the tree would occupy? Has anyone done the maths? Or is it just that you can’t eat trees and what the environmentalists want is not only that we all die but that we die by starvation?
Well, okay, yes, we could debate AGW. And maybe we will. Someday. But until then, it’s only reasonable to cut every country’s CO2 production by 115%.
If it turns out this AGW was all wrong after all, we can all have a good laugh.
Posted by wronwright on 2007 08 31 at 05:17 AM • permalink#27 & #31 Mr Licciardello said the incident was taken in good humour, but a smiling Mr Rudd did manhandle him...
Sounds just like the other stripper story
Posted by Col. Milquetoast on 2007 08 31 at 05:17 AM • permalink#23
If you choose to do so without the appropriate safety equipment, then you are, as they say, the author of your own misfortune.
... or perhaps “master of your domain”?
Posted by daddy dave on 2007 08 31 at 05:22 AM • permalinkHow is 1.618 today? I have news for you over here
Posted by Col. Milquetoast on 2007 08 31 at 06:00 AM • permalink#35 If it turns out this AGW was all wrong after all, we can all have a good laugh.
Yes Ron, but there will be only a few of us laughing.
As the majority of Australians are apparently addicted to the AGW drug, they will be crying in their latte and sooking in their chardonnay.
But also, unfortunately, if AGW is proved to be a nonsense as many of us suspect, these hard-core addicts will move on to a new stronger “cause”!
The mind boggles with “anticipation”. The next frightening catastrophe that lurks around the corner is probably already being prepared for a new confrontation with us poor Earthlings!
Bush looking forward to Rudd talks ... I’ll bet!
Lil Kevni looks like a choir boy in the piccy, on board the USS Kitty hawk ... U.S. Forces Mr Garrett?
Enviro-mentalists are very fond of challenging science when it doesn’t give them teh answer they want.
The next time some ‘mentalist demands an enviro-mental impact assessment, they should be told to stuff off.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 08 31 at 08:02 AM • permalink#48 mareeS,
Could it be that those with their hands on the “mass debate” are pubic servants (yes pubic servants)?
Tasmanians may have two heads,but any self-gratification they receive is mostly real, not imagined. Unlike many of the people of Sydney’s east who live in a cloudy fuzzy world where self- gratification is common and commonsense is rare!
What we need is a large group of people gathered in one place debating.
Can we bring sticks?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 08 31 at 02:40 PM • permalink#45
Is it Bush’s birthday soon?Herr Flick could do a rendition of ‘Happy Birthday, Mr President’ in drag a la Marilyn Monroe.
#48 That’s good to hear, MareS. I picjked up a little of the lingo on my two trips there.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 08 31 at 08:10 PM • permalinkDave Wane—But also, unfortunately, if AGW is proved to be a nonsense as many of us suspect, these hard-core addicts will move on to a new stronger “cause”!
I shudder to think what that might be because they’ve really outdone themselves with this one.
A companion piece to Margos’ link at #18 is this report from the UK Times: To cancel out the CO2 of a return flight to India, it will take one poor villager three years of pumping water by foot. So is carbon offsetting the best way to ease your conscience?
When David Cameron flew to India to open a JCB factory for a party donor, green-thinking supporters could rest assured that his visit would be carbon neutral. “We are offsetting all our emissions through Climate Care,” the Tory leader wrote on his blog. “As well as planting trees, they also invest in renewable energy projects in the developing world.”
Somewhere in the Indian countryside, a farmer is about to repay Mr Cameron’s debt to the planet. Climate Care’s latest enterprise is to provide “treadle pumps” to poor rural families so they can get water on to their land without using diesel power. The pumps are worked by stepping on pedals. If a peasant treads for two hours a day, it will take at least three years to offset the CO2 from Mr Cameron’s return flight to India.
I commented that next time why doesn’t Mr. Cameron stay home and they give the Indian farmer a diesel pump, a carbon trade I can live with, but they didn’t print it.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2007 09 01 at 10:29 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
What we need is a large group of people gathered in one place debating. We could call it a big debate? A large debate? A huge debate? A giant debate? Well, that’s all the descriptive terms I can think of right now.