red baron wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 5:23pm:


No just pray to one of the myriad of man made imaginary God's and his disease will miraculously disappear but don't let science get in the way of a good old miracle cure LOL

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/cooking-the-books-monckton-replies-to-cook/

When Christopher Monckton debated at the National Press Club in Canberra last July, he showed exactly why the fans of a man-made catastrophe are so frightened of free speech and open debates. With no slides nor images, in a single hour he still changed the opinions of fully 9% of the audience , including influential journalists who had expected nothing of the kind. The Roy Morgan polling organization tracked the moment-by-moment opinions of a representative sample of 350 people throughout the debate, and Gary Morgan, the CEO, announcing the result, said that in his long experience of polling he had never seen a swing like it in opinion on any subject in so short a time.

John Cook of un-SkepticalScience tried to rescue something from the event for the “cause”, but here Monckton shows how the claims that Monckton was “confused”, “lying” and “misrepresenting evidence” all come to naught, and if John Cook only had the manners (or curiosity) to ask Christopher first, he would have found that out before airing his poor research and logical errors in public. Monckton quotes peer reviewed references ad lib, and does calculations off the top of his head. Cook makes out that he is baffled by Monckton’s sources, which is odd because Monckton quotes the IPCC, Garnaut and other “consensus” documents, which we might have thought Cook would know well.

As usual, the point of the alarmist rebuttals is not to understand the science, or to find common ground to build a better understanding, it’s to put the words, “myth”, “lies”, “bizarre”, ‘trick” and ‘distort” into the same paragraph as the words “sceptic” and “Monckton” even if there is nothing to substantiate those terms. In other words, it’s just policy-driven PR dressed up as science.

What most disturbs me is that Cook underlies his entire reasoning with the logical fallacy that “consensus” is science, and that only the Chosen Ones are allowed to form an opinion. The attitude “Thou shalt not question our experts” belongs in a religion not in science, and shows that Cook is not even slightly skeptical  – what skeptic starts with the position “the experts are always right?”. Hailing consensus ought be anathema to any scientist in the quest for understanding.

The University of Queensland employs Cook now, so what does that “center of higher education” make of his low standards of reasoning or evidence and his anti-science values? It supports him, evidently. (The Quest for Knowledge being trumped by the Quest for Grants and Peer-Group Approval). The vice-chancellor has failed to answer a question from Christopher Monckton about why the university provides cover for Cook’s crude propaganda.

Cook claims the lesson for him is that “verbal debates are a mistake”. Which is true when you can’t reason and don’t have the evidence. Like any sore loser he tries to blame the loss on something else — claiming Monckton lies, yet here we can see that if Cook had stood up in the National Press Club, and made these claims with Monckton present, Monckton would have had no trouble refuting them, and quite possibly even more of the audience would have been converted. Open debate is the only way the truth gets tested.

Cook himself has been asked to post up Monckton’s rebuttal of his mistaken accusations on his website, but apparently lacks the intellectual honesty to do so. It is our pleasure to do for him what he should have done for himself in the interest of fairness and balance and the search for the truth.

Jo

Jo Nova has no qualifications as a climate science either.

There are two parts to this issue.

1) The science.  That is settled by vast majority of scientists. The only hold outs seem to be semi-retired scientists cashing in on a bit of oil money. The people with money on the line (Insurance companies) have already factored in climate change. Its very real.

2) Persuading the public.  No doubt the deniers have done an excellent job here. Its no easy job to pull off a blantant lie by mis-representing folly as fact, but they have done it. The big thing they have in their corner is the complexity of the problem, and the amount of effort required to fix it. If joe public isnt "into" the subject, it is a lot easier for him to believe someone who says "She'll be right".

Why are Tony Abbott and the Coalition going to spend billions on Climate Change if it is not real....We should be debating the merits of each policy not whether a few people whom refuse to submit any evidence to peer review dispute the science....As I have previously said if their is evidence to dispute Climate Change then these people have an obligation to submit their findings for peer review and have them published....Failing to do this affords them no credibility and shows them up for the charlatans they are!!!

There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.
Hippocrates (460 BC - 377 BC), Law

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 7^th, 2012 at 10:39am:

Hate to break it to you, but it is our own.

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 7^th, 2012 at 10:40am:


If there is any credibility to the claims the AGW is a hoax then these scientists should be able to provided their findings for peer review and scrutiny to support their findings.....I have no problem with AGW being disproved however the evidence needs to be subjected to scientific review or it is worthless....Tell me why these findings that AGW is not happening have never been proven and published in any scientific publication???

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 7^th, 2012 at 10:53am:


Rubbish......If they provided peer reviewed science to support their claims they would receive the same funding as those who have found it is happening.....Governments will only listen to scientists who can prove their findings so proving there is a problem with the science would allow them to gain funding from a multitude of organizations!!!