Jara

I haven't followed any online debates about Churchill - got better things to do - but have read a few biographies (especially the Manchester one) - I know the arguments, for and against, and agree that he was an extraordinary man, especially when he first took over the Prime Ministership and gave the Brits some backbone - but no apologies for using Wikipedia - if you are going to make any sort of assertion, Wikipedia is as reliable a source as you can find on the net - they go to extraordinary lengths to make sure that their information is reliably referenced, objective and unbiased.

Hi guys I haven't followed this whole thread, but if Dieter doesn't want to criticise the British Empire, allow me. Sure, the guy defended his own country against Hitler. He was also a racist imperialist. Indian colleagues of mine believe him largely responsible for the Bengal Famine, because he was annoyed with them for daring to want independence. Millions died as a result. A quick search of the Famine on Wikipedia gives the following: "According to historians Bayly and Harper, quite apart from the exigencies of war, it was difficult not to conclude, that the Churchill war ministry and Winston Churchill himself had a visceral hostility toward India; "The prime minister believed that Indians were the next worst people in the world after the Germans. Their treachery had been plain in the Quit India movement. The Germans he was prepared to bomb into the ground. The Indians he would starve to death as a result of their own folly and viciousness."

Thanks Ethan - of curse, I'm not forgetting those lives - it was terrible (though I suspect lives are lost on any major construction program - ask any building worker, and as Dieter says, the blame should be shared) But what I'm getting at is the disaster that is slowly unfolding in the form of the NBN. We seem to be getting one of the worst internet services in the world. Just listen when any talkback radio show brings it up They are deluged with complaints - often, as I heard this morning, from old people who are having their regular phone services cut off. All I'm saying is that having a decent internet is essential for the way of life we enjoy these days - think of the diminution of services - doctors, medical-alerts, small business troubles, loss of income and all the problems that go with it. I suspect, long term, there will be terrible consequences from this stuff-up.

Stuffing up the national broadband network is infinitely more damaging than any mistakes made in the home insulation scheme.

I suspect NBN will go down as Turnbull's third great stuff-up (after Utegate and his double disillusion election) For a supposedly smart guy he does some exceptionally dumb things.

Well, if you can honestly do that (and support your argument with solid references), I will be impressed. I must admit, i just pulled the article off the Met Soc's website after a five-minute search - it was one of quite a few articles by highly qualified scientists suggesting that global warming is anthropogenic. I read it, but couldn't understand much of it, but the opening and closing bits did seem to be suggesting what i said. I listened to the Christy, and read about him - he's obviously highly qualified, and his comments seem to make sense - I'm not equipped to refute him - all I can say is that his opinions don't seem to be shared by the majority of his colleagues - (I watched to the clip last night - haven't got time to find details right now, but I did notice that his own professional organisation - were they called the Geophysial Society? - have opined that global warming is man-made)

You can't help me or you can't refute the article? It was a fairly straightforward task I gave you. So you're saying that all of these world-leading scientific organisations - the American Chemical Society, the Geological Society, the Met Soc etc - are wrong? And that little old Pro, the uneducated Melbourne footy fan sitting at his computer and spitting out his venom, is....right? I'll say it one more time. Refute the article. Or be honest enough to admit that you are unable to.

Huh? I already did. I gave you the link just before Christmas. It was from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It was signed by the leaders of major scientific organisations like the American Chemical Society, the Geological Soc of America. It stated, quite clearly, that they believe that global warming is man-made and dangerous. Go back and read it for yourself. And by the way, that article I listed earlier on, I got it from a publication of the American Meteorological Society. From my reading of it, it seems to state, quite clearly, that the record global temperatures of 2016 were anthropogenic. Here's the link: www.ametsoc.net/eee/2016/ch3.pdf (message me back if you can't find it) Here's your mission, Pro, should you choose to accept it: Show me where that Met Soc article got it wrong. Prove to me the record global warming of 2016 was NOT anthropogenic. As I've said, I've got no science qualifications, and can't respond to the hacks you drag out, but you, of course, with your legendary "predilection for climate" and your deep study of the topic, will have no problem (and by the way, please don't just quote another of your IPA stooges like Marohasy - be a clever boy and find the mistake yourself)

Thanks. Very kind of you. From what I can see, the guy is a moustachioed buffoon with no qualifications whatsoever - an ex-TV weatherman - who gets paid by your beloved Heartlands institute (i.e. the billionaires' front) to tell them what they want to hear. Since when does quantity equal quality? A lot of morons barrack for Collingwood as well. You still haven't answered one question that interested me. Do you question other branches of science (et quantum mechanics) or do you focus your brilliant mind upon climate science alone?

Thought it was pretty clear. The thirty or whatever respected scientific organisations, peer bodies in their respective professions, including chemistry, geology etc., that I mentioned a few days ago. You know, the ones that say that global warming is anthropogenic.

Thanks Dieter. Yes, I always thought I was a fool - coming from a powerhouse intellect like Pro's, I suppose that confirms it. Dunno bout the leftie - judge things on their merits, these days. And, to be honest, I'm not sure what a nuffie is. Anyway, happy new year to you.

Hey Pro - home now - just checked up on that Watts guy. He has no qualifications whatsoever - not even a basic degree (according to his Wikipedia entry) - even less than that Jack Steele school teacher and his polar bears. Lots of people read his blog. So what? Lots of people watch The Block. Why do you give more credit to what this whacko says than to - oh - say, what the American Meteorological Society, the foremost organisation in the field, state in their official policy publications? Here's one example: (sorry whole page came through - meant to just put in link) By the way, I've been meaning to ask, do you doubt all science the way you doubt climate science? Do you, for example, have doubts about the Theory of Relativity? Quantum Mechanics?

I'm going out with kids, so don't have long, but I had a quick look at that Watts fellow - he's about as compelling as our own Watts fellow - he's an ex-tv weatherman with no climate qualifications whatsoever. Does Jane Bunn (or whatever her name is) blog as well?

If it's such a stupid question, why don't you answer it?

But not enough to influence the policy stance of a single professional scientific organisation?

Hi Wrecker - just heard an interesting talk on The Infinite Monkey Cage, if you know the program - BBC science show, with Brian Cox - on scientific method. Answered your question, i thought, quite directly. Sorry, I'm in a rush, going out, no time for long answer, but we're both intelligent enough to know how scientific theory works, are we not? Theories are out there until they are proved wrong. Nobody's saying you have to accept a particular position, they're just saying, on the evidence we have so far, this is what we believe. I suppose you'd still find the odd renegade physicist who reckons Einstein got it wrong, but I doubt you'd find him or her on the board of whatever organisation represents physicists. Same with Darwin - I gather there have been numerous refinements of his theory, but the core ideas still hold firm. That's why I put emphasis upon the views of the leading organisations of the different branches of science. Despite Pro's very impressive list of concerns above, he can't come up with a single scientific organisation which supports his views, which makes me smell a rat.

Hey Wrecker - welcome back - (except that you're a bit scary cos you're on the ball and usually find holes in my arguments) But here, I don't see the problem. All sorts of organisations come up with policy positions on all sorts of things, usually based on some sort of consensus among the members of the organisation (e.g. . a political party, an employer group, your local cricket club) In my experience, policy positions are usually developed and signed off by the board members, who are elected by the general membership of the profession. Candidates standing for election state their beliefs, and are voted for accordingly. I presume that happens with the scientific organisations I mentioned (e.g. the Chemical , Geological Associations or whatever they were). This seems like a pretty sensible approach to me; it means that the scientific organisations tend to represent the general consensus of opinion among the professionals in that particular branch of science. As accepted theory evolves, policy platforms change. That's why I'm a bit wary of people like this Wrightstone fellow. He may be right - he certainly knows enough to bamboozle an ignoramus like me - but he clearly doesn't know enough to bamboozle his fellow experts, who, as the quote I gave demonstrates, accept that climate change is anthropogenic and dangerous (I'm also a bit suspicious because he's working for the fossil fuel industry - I'd question his objectivity). Re your last comment - pleeeze - you can do better than that.

I love learning and find the science and debates fascinating. While I don't post on science blogs the amount one learns from the comments section is extraordinary. There are a lot of people out there who have incredible insight into temperature and the atmosphere on BOTH sides of the argument. Pro, If you find the insights from "BOTH" sides so incredible, how come you only ever cut and paste the stuff from one?

Alas, Dieter, I fear he'll keep em coming. It's not hard to do his so called 'research' - all you have to do is log onto a few sites like Breitbart etc and they give you all the propaganda links etc. you want. And, as he confessed, he never actually contacts the real experts to see what they reckon. When I asked him why he didn't do that, he mattered something about just being a footy fan and being busy running his small business. I thought (but very politely refrained from saying) - huh? - you've got all the time to run around cherry-picking Breitbart rubbish, but you haven't got time to actually ask an expert? I was amused by this earlier comment from Pro: I do know the answers. Anyone who has shown a predilection for the climate has learnt the basics. A predilection for climate? What's that supposed to mean? I don't think he even knows. If anything, I'd say he's got a predilection for nuthouse conspiracy theories.

Wrightstone is a petroleum geologist who works for the fossil fuel industry (i.e. hardly objective) Whatever - I'm sure he knows a lot more than I do. That said, if he's going to be preaching climate denial, he would be well advised to begin with his fellow geology professionals (who collectively know more than he does) This is a quote from the website of the American Geological Society: The use of abundant and cheap fossil fuels has contributed to the emergence of the United States as an economic power and has raised the standard of living for much of the developed world. This use, however, represents an energy business model that must change. We now know that anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions, including those from fossil fuel combustion, have a profound impact on global climate, with effects on local and regional ecosystems and public health.

I know, it's a hard slog, trying to refute logic. But really, it's a pretty simple question: is there a single credible science organisation in the world that supports your opinions on climate change? I'll take one from anywhere. The Lesothian Rabbit Skinners Institute. The Baumberg Knee-Slappers.

So that's a no?

It's kind of grey, with a touch of white, on my computer.

Pro, the professional bodies that I know are mostly funded by the subscriptions of their members. Why on earth would governments pay organisations to peddle false information? What is their motive? I'm sorry, but your argument just doesn't make sense. What are you suggesting, that there's some giant conspiracy involving all the governments and all the professional science organisations in the world? Re your last comment, alas, you're probably right. I haven't done a huge amount of original research (like - none) on climate science. Nor have I done any research on the biosynthesis of the brain, the expulsion of magnetic flux fluids in superconductivity or the role of spin in Schrodinger's equation. I am pathetic, a left-wing parrot. I have vast gaps in my knowledge. But the thing is, where I have those gaps, I tend to trust the science. It does have a way of measuring, assessing and validating things until an approximation of the truth emerges. And, when it's proved wrong, it admits it. This is why we can trust things like - oh, I don't know - aeroplanes, computers, vaccination. This is why, when my doctor tells me my cholesterol is high (it isn't, you'll be relieved to know) I don't nip out and get a second opinion from the bus driver on the way home. So, back to my original question ( and let's be fair - I went to great lengths to try and answer yours - I know, I know, I failed miserably, but I did my best, so maybe you could do the same) Is there a single, professionally recognised scientific organisation in the world - anywhere! The Albanian Alchemists? The Burkina Faso Headshrinkers? - that supports your views? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Thank for the response, Pro, but you must have misread my question. I asked (quite genuinely- I know you've read more widely on this than I have) if there were any credible scientific organisations that support your views on climate change and the only one you could come up with was the Heartland Institute? Pleeeezzze... They are not a scientific organisation's cake-hole. They are a rabidly right-wing American think-tank funded by a bunch of self-serving billionaires whose most significant entry into public policy to date has been working with Phillip Morris to question the link between smoking and cancer. I tend to trust the science on most things - when I go to the doctor, when I step onto an aeroplane, when I look at the weather chart. That's why, even though I'm progressive, I don't trust things like homeopathy, anti-vaccination, etc... So I'll ask the question more clearly: is there a single, professional scientific organisation anywhere that supports your view on climate change?