Interesting study, and the results will be interesting. I wonder if our little poll will reflect the studies on this exact question that have already been done.
Currently that is the case...but only just.
I remember reading an article not very long ago that stated there were several of these studies done (not all the exact same question) that had largely agreeable results. Firstly the assertion that saying 14 out of the 15 hottest days is akin to talking about the hottest part of the year being near midsummer's day is not accurate. I'd be generous is saying it is misleading, because it's not even related enough to be misleading, it's just nonsensical.
First of all Professor Bob Carter is NOT a climate scientist. He is a geologist. Now while geologists have a very important role to play in understanding climate change they are not the gate keepers and in my experience are significantly more likely to be sceptical and paid to be sceptical.
Scientist accepts ‘cash for climate’, The Age, Ben Cubby February 16, 2012 A PROMINENT Australian scientist has rejected as offensive any suggestion he is doing the bidding of a US climate-sceptic think tank that is paying him a monthly fee. Confidential documents leaked from inside The Heartland Institute , a wealthy think tank based in Chicago and Washington, detail strategy and funding for an array of activities designed to spread doubt about climate change science, paid for by companies that have a financial interest in continuing to release greenhouse gases without government interference. The think tank has now issued a statement saying the strategy and budget documents had been stolen, and claiming one of them was faked……
Among the documents that Heartland does not claim to be faked, is a budget showing payments to selected scientists.
One of the recipients of funding is Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University, a geologist and marine researcher who spoke at the “convoys of no confidence” protests against the carbon price last year alongside the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, and writes columns for News Ltd newspapers.
The documents show Professor Carter receives a “monthly payment” of $US1667 ($1550) as part of a program to pay “high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message”.
Professor Carter did not deny he was being paid by The Heartland Institute, but would not confirm the amount, or if the think tank expected anything in return for its money……
Altogether, more than $US20 million had been spent funding and co-ordinating the activities of climate sceptics and bloggers since 2007, the documents suggest.
Other cash recipients include Anthony Watts, the leading US climate sceptic blogger, who is to receive $US90,000 for his work this year. Programs slated for funding include new curriculum modules that teach science from a climate-sceptic perspective, to be sent to US schools……
This year, the document says Heartland would “approach dozens of companies and trade associations that are actively seeking allies in this battle.”
The organisation’s funding comes from 1800 donors, including many manufacturing and resources businesses, and also drug companies….
The documents were first published on a Canadian website, DeSmogBlog, which monitors the public relations efforts by some industry groups to discredit climate change science.
Shadow, now you are just blatantly turning around everything I levelled against you last night in the other thread.
The thing is that I backed mine up - with MY OWN thoughts. Where are yours? You are a broken record on this.
Pick one f the below that best suits you (or offer a realistic alternative):
A: You think you know more about this incredibly complex issue, and all it's emergent properties, than the combined minds of NASA, the MET office and CSIRO (plus many others). Feel free to include any issues around group-think to this, or blinded by their own pay-cheques, I'll accept it all in the name of humour.
B: You admit the above agencies know more than you and are using that to form a massive conspiracy.
Pick one f the below that best suits you (or offer a realistic alternative)
My position is straightforward and logical, and can be summarised as follows.
1. The climate has always been changing, for billions of years, long before humans were around 2. The earth has sustained hotter and colder periods in the past, higher and lower CO2 levels, ice caps, sea levels etc 3. The climate is complex, it is influenced by many factors, and we don't yet fully understand how or why it changes 4. We don't have accurate granular historical data for the past 200 years, never mind the past billion 5. Given point 4, we have no way of telling whether recent changes in the climate are unusual 6. We are unable to measure the extent to which human activity influences changes in the climate 7. We can't prevent the climate from changing 8. We should focus on adapting to inevitable climate change, rather than trying to prevent the climate from changing
This is called logic, but as we've seen, logic is useless when debating believers in a faith or a religion. I stopped debating religion a long time ago, because at the end of the day it doesn't matter how much logic you employ, the religious believer will simply turn around and say 'I'm right because it says so in the bible'. In other words, the men who wrote the bible are infallible and if they wrote it in the bible then it must be true. Any alternative books/texts/theories are ignored or ridiculed ('haha you think we came from monkeys!') because only the bible can be right. The same faith is demonstrated by anthropogenic climate change alarmists - it doesn't matter how much logic you use, they simply turn around and say 'I'm right because the men who write climate change papers say so'. Scientists with alternative views are ignored or ridiculed, and logic is ignored, because only the 'consensus' climate change scientists can be right.
My position is straightforward and logical, and can be summarised as follows.
1. The climate has always been changing, for billions of years, long before humans were around 2. The earth has sustained hotter and colder periods in the past, higher and lower CO2 levels, ice caps, sea levels etc 3. The climate is complex, it is influenced by many factors, and we don't yet fully understand how or why it changes 4. We don't have accurate granular historical data for the past 200 years, never mind the past billion 5. Given point 4, we have no way of telling whether recent changes in the climate are unusual 6. We are unable to measure the extent to which human activity influences changes in the climate 7. We can't prevent the climate from changing 8. We should focus on adapting to inevitable climate change, rather than trying to prevent the climate from changing
This is called logic, but as we've seen, logic is useless when debating believers in a faith or a religion. I stopped debating religion a long time ago, because at the end of the day it doesn't matter how much logic you employ, the religious believer will simply turn around and say 'I'm right because it says so in the bible'. In other words, the men who wrote the bible are infallible and if they wrote it in the bible then it must be true. Any alternative books/texts/theories are ignored or ridiculed ('haha you think we came from monkeys!') because only the bible can be right. The same faith is demonstrated by anthropogenic climate change alarmists - it doesn't matter how much logic you use, they simply turn around and say 'I'm right because the men who write climate change papers say so'. Scientists with alternative views are ignored or ridiculed, and logic is ignored, because only the 'consensus' climate change scientists can be right.
Catweasel laugh. Mouzealot and it "logic narrative" should not the be confused by mouse as science refute.
Because this the "logic" have no the empirical truth and a riddle with a logic inconsistent. For the example, refer to past global the warming and inability to do a measure have the no relevant to a now or a future.
This the kind of narrative work a well in a Herald Sun of in front of Tea Party audience. Work the less well in front of a one who has "faith" and a "belief" in scientific process.
All mouzealot can bring to table of mouse debate is too much the "unknown" in world of natural the science.
Of the course, it cannot prove man (mouse) not a impact on a climate and this all it need a know.
The big irony is that mouzealots discredit of science by faith-base accuse. Good the gawd.
LOL, it's all going right over your head isn't it.
Catweasel laugh. It really is that simple. If it cannot prove science not exist, it cannot claim that science community party of global the fraud or religious the sect.
That a logic dripping in empirical, not what titillate for potential troll-up.
I stopped debating religion a long time ago, because at the end of the day it doesn't matter how much logic you employ, the religious believer will simply turn around and say 'I'm right because it says so in the bible'. In other words, the men who wrote the bible are infallible and if they wrote it in the bible then it must be true. Any alternative books/texts/theories are ignored or ridiculed ('haha you think we came from monkeys!') because only the bible can be right.
Unfortunately, I find that the same is true of atheists. They expect one "truth" to completely destroy my faith in the bible. Unfortunately, many aren't truths to start off with, and for some that are, they're expecting one exception to disprove the rule. Examples include:
You know the gospels were written 30 years after the event right? Yes, I know that, I didn't take on this faith without examining the evidence. However, I consider a book written today about the stock market crash of '87 (25 years) to be just as accurate - if not more so, than a book written in 1987 - as not all the facts had been worked out.
You know that evolution disproves god, right? Complete fallacy. Evolution may at best, disprove literal creationism, but then only if you take a poem as a scientific handbook, which I think is rather foolish of an atheist to do. Yes, the first few chapters of Genesis is a poem.
There are hundreds more that I've come across, and I don't want to set up a straw man for you, because I don't know what arguments you personally use to choose not to believe. However, consider what methodology you use to reject the bible. For most staunch atheists, I find that if they can reject one part of the bible, they can reject all of it. I don't buy into that. Just because one part of the bible may be historically unreliable, or factually inaccurate cannot explain to me, how 66 books written over 3500 years, collated over 600 years, with a very high degree of inter-book consistency, is a complete fabrication. I can dismiss Islam, I can dismiss Jehovah's witnesses, I can dismiss a lot of other religions, but I cannot dismiss either the bible or the Torah.
Yes, I agree there is a lot of room for reasonable doubt, but on the balance of probability, I cannot dismiss it as fairy tales out of hand, and after 20 years of skeptics trying, they still haven't been able to get me below that balance of probability.
That still isn't enough reason for me to completely give my life over. Am I to sacrifice my complete freedom to choose my way of life on a balance of probability? I certainly wouldn't if that's all the bible had. However, the "wisdom" teachings in the bible - those that have nothing (directly) to do with God, but the wisdom on how to live a good life (No, I'm not talking about purity laws, like "If a woman commits adultery, stone her" That was repealed in the new testament anyway), but things like "Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to act." (Proverbs) or "I know that there is nothing better for people than to be happy and to do good while they live. That each of them may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil—this is the gift of God." (Ecclesiastes). These, together, are what convinces me, that if nothing else, I will reach the end of my life in the company of good and wise friends, having lived a life that has been satisfying to me - and hopefully pleasing to God. And what has it cost me? 2 hours every Sunday? It's a joy to be meeting up with friends anyway. Being generous? Science proves that increases my happiness anyway. Missing out on promiscuity, a homosexual relationship or the option of unethical behaviour? I would have avoided them anyway. If this is the character of God that gives his people such, and keeps them away from dangerous behaviours, then he's worth worshiping, whether or not I am 100% sure he exists.
Property speculation is a type of gambling... But everyone knows that in gambling, the house always wins in the end.
However, consider what methodology you use to reject the bible. For most staunch atheists, I find that if they can reject one part of the bible, they can reject all of it.
The bible is a book written by men. Some parts of it are probably fairly accurate depictions of historic events. Other parts are fables, myths, poems or whatever you want to call them. Much of it basically the historic recollection of various men interspersed with poem/myth/fable as their personal interpretation of the events they are describing. You have decided which parts you wish to believe are factual and which parts are 'poems'. If you accept that some parts of the bible are not strictly factual then you must accept that other people are similarly able to choose which sections to believe are factual and which parts to dismiss as poems. Atheists just dismiss a greater proportion as 'poem', especially all the parts that talk about the existence of gods, devils and other supernatural entities and events, since there is no hard evidence for those things - they require faith... faith that the man who wrote it hasn't embellished his recollection of the story with some 'poetry'.
The bible is a book written by men. Some parts of it are probably fairly accurate depictions of historic events. Other parts are fables, myths, poems or whatever you want to call them. Much of it basically the historic recollection of various men interspersed with poem/myth/fable as their personal interpretation of the events they are describing. You have decided which parts you wish to believe are factual and which parts are 'poems'. If you accept that some parts of the bible are not strictly factual then you must accept that other people are similarly able to choose which sections to believe are factual and which parts to dismiss as poems. Atheists just dismiss a greater proportion as 'poem', especially all the parts that talk about the existence of gods, devils and other supernatural entities and events, since there is no hard evidence for those things - they require faith... faith that the man who wrote it hasn't embellished the story with some 'poetry'.
To a degree, I agree with you, but I don't think it's as subjective or arbitrary as you say. It's fairly obvious when you read a news paper article, what is opinion, what is reporting, and what is representation of scientific fact. There can be some gray areas, but by and large, most people would agree what is to be interpreted as inarguable truth, and what is not (E.g. the article yesterday "proving" we have a soul" - which parts are conjecture, which parts are based on theoretical physics?) most other articles can be clearly divided.
The question is, does embellishment, allegory or other styles or writing aside from historical narrative ruin the foundation of faith? The book of Job, for example, details conversations between Satan and God. Did those literally, historically happen? If so, how did the author of the book get to be privy to that conversation? Either it was divine revelation, or just allegory. To me neither makes a difference, because the point of the book was not to record a historical conversation, but to demonstrate the nature of God and suffering.
It's clear the intelligent among us accept that the bible contains significant portions of truth - which parts and their relevance, is of course subject to interpretation. But don't for a moment think that "Blind Faith" is the exclusive foible of the religious. I find just as many atheists hold on to their beliefs with just as much blind faith.
Property speculation is a type of gambling... But everyone knows that in gambling, the house always wins in the end.
Nope, you're still not getting it... never mind, it's certainly not the first time.
Catweasel say to understand motivation of mouzealot express itself is not exercise in understand. But that the whole point. It can experiment with it and get the deeper understanding of behavioral.
And if mouzealot and forum mouse can learn some the new along a way, we all the one big happy family.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy
