If you doubt that the stupid are upwardly mobile in this society I have two phrases for you. “Bottled Water” and “Clive Hamilton”.
Clive appears to believe that science is about knowing (by what method?) who to listen to. I think its primarily about evidence and CONCEPTUAL (as opposed to detailed) understanding. But it can also be about knowing who NOT to listen to. Its important to not listen to people who cannot analyse evidence. And so its important not to listen to Clive Hamilton.
Clive Hamiltons entire argument can be summarised as follows:
I DON’T KNOW. YOU DON’T KNOW. YOU DON’T KNOW. I DON’T KNOW. NO-ONE KNOWS ITS TOO COMPLEX. SO YOU MUST BELIEVE MY SIDE. ACTUAL ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE ARE USELESS.
So we see that Clive Hamilton has been stringing people along all this time. But its not just science where Clive is an intellectual fraud. Ethics is a particularly weak point with this idiot. Of course his economics is far worse than his ethics. From this low base his ideas just go downhill.
Clive Hamilton is more syndrome than human being. The syndrome of people who don’t understand a fucking thing and who take up all our media oxygen passing off bullshit to the children. Less is more. Its not that people aren’t putting out good ideas. Its that the people putting out the stupid ideas are crowding them out. Its not that we don’t have real problems to solve. Its just that Clive Hamilton and other know-nothings are getting in the way with their non-problems.
Often its what we choose NOT TO worry about which defines our success on a societal level. I’m constantly amazed at the people who lack the mindset of a good historian. Those who look back with condescension at former ages. We can fool ourselves as to our alleged superiority over the leadership of Constantinople, who busied themselves contemplating the number of Angels who could dance on the head of a pin while the Turk was outside their gates.
But it is we who have a more surefire way of selecting idiots, giving them all the media oxygen, and putting them near the levers of political power.
We see a common thread with all this. The idiots in society leveraging some career lived on the backs of taxpayers, to find a second income stream in the private sector. Riding the wave of the brand-name of the parasitical institutions that they gain income for. And riding that wave all the way into the news and financial papers. Its very hard to think of even 1 or 2 of the people who have taken the stolen money route who have a damn clue as to what they are talking about.
The solution offers itself. There is no substitute for mass-sackings. Massive benefits will accrue to our societal health and survivability if at once we can turn off the money spigot to these parasitical institutions.
I guess there is nothing for it but to go through one of this fuckwits articles until we tire of his idiocy.
“…people are loath to enter into scientific debates for fear of exposing themselves to ridicule. Not so Australia’s climate change skeptics, writes Clive Hamilton..”
Right there we have unacceptable illogic for a philosophy professor. And he should resign his post right there. Since the epistemological nitwit doesn’t even realise that such an argument cuts both ways.
“With the sharp turn in public opinion leading to the election of the Rudd Government, in part on a climate protection platform, many of us thought that climate skepticism in Australia was dead and buried….”
Suprising that he ought to think that when the idiot doesn’t have any evidence in favour of his CO2-bedwetting.
“The most recent flicker of life in climate skepticism in Australia is a paper by Don Aitkin titled “A Cool Look at Global Warming“, given to the Planning Institute of Australia on 2 April, followed by various opinion pieces and radio appearances based on it.
Usually, lay people are loath to enter into debates involving complex scientific questions for fear of exposing themselves to ridicule. Yet the wisdom of humility seems to evaporate when it comes to global warming and any number of people with no qualifications in atmospheric physics, climate modelling or related disciplines feel the urge to lend their opinions to the debate.
When challenged, these amateurs are wont to claim that they “have done a lot of reading”. According to Professor Aitkin, a historian and political scientist, he has read a lot, an achievement that – along with the fact that his two brothers are a mathematical statistician and a neurophysiologist and he himself had considered becoming a geologist – qualifies him to challenge the foundations of climate science. …..”
About right there we can stop and point out that this fuckwit is lying. Since everyone knows that this matter is disputed within climate science itself. It ought not be disputed. Since the CO2-bedwetters have nothing going for their argument. But the fact is the matter is disputed. And so we have caught this ethical retard in the implied-lie.
“One of the arguments he deploys is that climate systems are so fiendishly complex that no conclusions can be drawn about human-induced warming; yet it seems that the science is not so complex that it cannot be understood by lay persons such as himself….”
At this point we have a confession. The perpetual poser does not really understand his own alleged subjects nor does he understand science. Anyone with some analytical ability ought to be able to form an understanding for subjects that they lack the specific knowledge in. If Hamilton cannot do that, and cannot help his students to do that, he has no place teaching philosophy or economics. The implication would be that we have to study and become a scientologist auditor before criticizing scientology. Or we would have to study any racket at all, and become the leading expert in that racket, before we could find fault with it. This is unecessary. Since if you are not an incompetent like Hamilton you can quickly nail down where a school of thought appears to be dubious as to its reasoning. And then make further enquiries as to the apparent dubiousness. And you will find the alleged experts ducking and weaving at that point if their own thinking is not very well worked out.
“Some years ago, when I first joined the climate change debate, I decided there was no way I could pretend to have a comprehensive grasp of climate science – just as I could not pretend to be an expert in genetics, chemical engineering or population ecology – and that the prudent stance is the one we always take in questions of public importance involving complex science. I had to decide not what to believe but whom to believe.”
There is the confession that we were talking about. This fellow has been lying and stringing people along. He ought to be sacked. He’s just jumped on the wrong side of the debate when he didn’t have a fucking clue. Nor did he know how to find out how to appraise the soundness of the alleged evidence and arguments of the contending parties.
“While lay people cannot be expected to speak with any authority on climate science, any well educated person should be able to understand the process of scientific inquiry and how it leads to scientific advance.”
Apparently not. But then baldyman isn’t well-educated. He is a product of socialist education.
“Certainly, one would expect that Don Aitkin – who for some years chaired the Australian Research Council – would have as good an understanding as any. Yet he seems to be woefully misinformed.”
Will you look at that. This dumb bastard has just thrown his argument into reverse and is running the other way. Is he saying that we ought not HAVE an Australian research council? This is a funding body for research. The council must have people on it who appraise subjects that they are not expert in. And now he’s claiming that Don Aitken ought to be able to do this now since this was his job then. He’s a philosopher who is too incompetent to realise he’s just undercut his own argument. And then he goes right ahead and makes an assertion based on the idea that outsiders, including himself, are able to judge things enough to pick sides.
Can we not just go to one of his lectures and make a citizens arrest. And drag this intellectual fraud away from the class refunding his salary as partial compensation to the kids?
Hamilton has already confessed he knows nothing and has therefore taken a tribal side-choosing approach, how has this fuckwit made his assessment of Don Aitken?
“The work of climate scientists is subject to the most rigorous testing by the peer review process before it gets the accolade of publication in respected journals.”
Not its not.
” The peer review process is not infallible, but no other comes near it for effectiveness, which is why it is so widely used. “
No actually its a crap process. Peer review is hardly going to be any good if your Peers are a bunch of leftist fuckwits. Try and get Austrian-influenced economics arguments published in a Keynesian journal.
“It is how funds are allocated to academic research by the ARC, until it was corrupted by the political meddling of then-education minister Brendan Nelson……”
Here Hamilton shows one reason why Peer review is corrupted. Peer review he reveals is a way to get hold of stolen money. Hence its inevitable that a gatekeeper situation will develop.
“Of course, not every published paper on climate science proves correct, which is to be expected in a rapidly evolving area. But in climate science the integrity of the review process has been heightened because of the enormously politicised nature of the climate debate fed by the small number of highly vocal skeptics, ever-ready to go on the attack by highlighting weaknesses, uncertainties and contradictions…”
So Hamilton, who confesses not to understand climate science, nonetheless thinks he’s got a handle on the quality of the peer review process. This is a violation of what he’s supposed to be an expert in. He’s a philosophy professor. So by simple logic you would think its clear that your abillity to appraise the peer review process has got to be related to how well you can understand the broad thrust of the arguments in matters outside your own field. The people who write up these various studies are field workers. Field workers are not Field Marshalls of science. They are just some people with a few technical skills who are trying to justify their grant, fill in the hours of their day, and get another grant. They ought not be seen as these magnificent conceptualists or experts in the epistemology of science. These field workers know that to justify their taxeating income and get another grant they have to get published, and get their study past the magazine gatekeepers. Hence while none of these studies have evidence for any panic, pretty much all of these studies are worded to express SENTIMENT in favour of the taxeaters crusade.
“The charged environment in which climate science operates has meant that the experts have exercised more than the usual scientific caution in making claims about the results of their work.”
No they haven’t. This ethical pervert is either lying, making it up, or has no clue what he is talking about.
“Many climate scientists believe that the IPCC has consistently understated the dangers of global warming. “
No they haven’t. There is no danger and no prospect of serious global warming. You can make strong statements like this if you actually follow the evidence. Thats the worst thing about this Clive JIVE is the last thing that these idiots want to talk about is the evidence.
“As James Hansen – perhaps the world’s foremost climate scientist….”
James Hansen is not even a COMPETENT climate scientist. But where is the logic of this? How can this idiot Clive Hamilton make this appraisal? When, by his own admission, he doesn’t understand a fucking thing about the science?
“….. – haswritten, the culture of scientists is such that they would rather be accused of fiddling while Rome burns than of crying wolf….”
Nice if Hansen could come up with actual evidence for crying wolf rather than inventing snappy lines which do not equate to science workers in this day and age.
“Climate scientists are more aware than anyone of the uncertainties in their work, and go to great lengths to emphasise them, leading many to blame themselves for the slowness of the world to act on what is nevertheless an overwhelming case for action to cut greenhouse gas emissions.”
But Clive (YOU FUCKING MORON) you’ve already told us you don’t understand the science. Now you are claiming, without evidence, that there is an overwhelming case for action to cut greenhouse gas emissions. NO THERE ISN’T!!!!!!! CO2 is good for the environment. Its good for the biosphere you useless incompetent poser.
“But the painful honesty of the scientists….”
Honesty is painful to this jerk.
“…has merely provided an opening for the skeptics and denialists who have no empirical work of their own on which to base their contrary opinions.”
This is just silly. No empirical work can be found in favour of the alarmist case. Its leftist reversalism since the panic and science fraud has been pushed by know-nothing liars like Clive Hamilton, John Quiggin and Tim Lambert. Clive Hamilton and John Quiggin, both frauds in this respect, and Hamilton now a self-confessed fraud, organised a petition of 76 incompetent economists in favour of signing Kyoto. Not a scientist amongst them. And now he’s spinning it that it is the other side who is the only side with the non-scientists pushing matters.
“They feed on the inevitable weaknesses and uncertainties in the work of real climate scientists, which they distort and exaggerate to cast doubt on the whole body of evidence.”
No you are fucking lying you grubby aesthetic. There is no “body of evidence” in favour of the alarmist case. You cannot come up with any evidence in favour of the alarmist case. And if you could you would have done so.
“The truth is that if any of the skeptics – especially those who do have some claim to expertise in the area – were to undertake a study that cast genuine doubt on the global warming hypothesis and it could pass the tests of professional scrutiny, it would cause a sensation. If it were confirmed, we could all utter an enormous sigh of relief and shower those responsible with prizes and accolades.”
No thats not right Clive is lying. The alarmist case has been debunked comprehesively. And instead Clives crowd just goes into blanket defamation mode. His mates Castro II and the dwarf are particularly fiendish at this sort of thing.
“Yet none of them has carried out any original work that challenges the consensus view….”
Clive is lying here. Lying about there being a consensus view in favour of alarmism. Lying about there being no original work debunking alarmism. Lying that there is any evidence in favour of alarmism in the first place. Though by his own admission he wouldn’t have a clue how to appraise any evidence either way.
“Nevertheless, whenever they raise a non-trivial objection, the serious scientists – including the IPCC – go back and look hard at their conclusions to see if any change is required.”
Yeah well it would be good if he could give us an example of this. Right. Thats enough. I’m sick of this. Clive Hamilton is a fraud.
But we have a wider problem and the laity simply cannot be so naieve as to think we can afford this socialist education. Liars and incompetents like Hamilton not only get hold of the stolen-money salaries and begin to comprehensively uneducate the kids. They then use their positions as a jumping off point to pull in private-sector part-time income and start misleading the public at large. And note how by his own admission he doesn’t understand a fucking thing yet he is willing to push this science fraud.