[LINK] In Retirement on this thread - Was - The meaning of

[TKoltai]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon Keith [mailto:gordonkeith at acslink.net.au] 
> Sent: Friday, 29 June 2012 9:51 AM
> To: link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> Cc: TKoltai
> Subject: Re: [LINK] In Retirement on this thread - Was - The 
> meaning of
> 
> 
<SNIP>
> 
> Tom, you haven't previously come across as anti-science per 
> se, but this rant 
> is starting to look that way.
>

Actually Gordon, I love Science - but only when Science is good for
humanity.

I'll give you an example of "Acceptable/Tolerable and Not acceptable"
for humanity:

>From a Tsunami Planning Document: 
Quote/
Criteria Risk to human life 
Acceptable Less than 10-5
Tolerable 10-5 to 10-3
Not acceptable Greater than 10-3 /Quote

Whilst not wishing to debate the morals of disaster planning that
considers 10 to the 3rd Tolerable human life loss, I would suggest that
AGW at .6 degrees per century is so irrelevant as to be a waste of our
time to discuss by comparison.

I love almost all aspects of science. The whole "learning, exploring,
philosophising, inventing, prototyping, and then delivering."

What I hate is the boys club cabals that prevent the average non-boys
club person from being able to do that successfully.
I hate the Universities that refuse learned valid thesis because the
conclusions are contrary to the belief systems of the examiners. 

And I hate that the AGW conclusion is referred to as being the result of
science.

A 279 Kb Fortran model designed to spit out increasing log tables is not
science, it's programming.

The proof of climate change is not Science either. There is nothing
scientific about taking temperatures in urban areas and then say - gee
lookie lookie, there is a temperature rise across the planet. 
Of course there's a temperature rise in the urban centres, it's called
population growth.
We increased the population by 5 billion, obviously there are
ramifications. The fact that over a century that effect is only  a
provable 0.6 decrees C after all the "data smoothing" is the alarming
aspect.

That Gordon is also not science, it's Statistics. 

And those statistics tell me that our environment outside those urban
areas is cooling.
That's bad for all the agriculture based growing activity.

I also love Science fiction. 
But not usually the kind that reaches out and removes wads of cash from
my wallet.

And whilst I'm not allowed to mention why... I don't think the average
Australian is going to be too kindly disposed to an additional impost on
his unemployed cost of living standard.

It's fine for us to discuss these matters, but did any of you realise
that the Green Economy is actually a euphemism for a red economy ?

There is no Green Economy. 

A green economy where in a perfect world ecologically responsible
citizens all ride bicycles, eat vegan and wash their solar panels daily
with recycled distilled sewerage water depends on those people having
jobs.

There are just business that can't afford to hire people any more
because of the increasing environmental restrictions that are forcing
factories and industries to shut down.

I actually agree with installing smoke stack scrubbers, and catalytic
converters, but damn it, at what point do we wake up to ourselves and
say - Hang on.... With all these Green laws that we have implemented,
who are we hurting.

The Chinese factories are now making what we used to make.
The standard of living in China is growing almost directly inversely
proportional to the decrease in jobs in Australia.

Wake up Linkers... You have a job today, but what will you eat tomorrow
?
Will your families be safe from the unemployed next door neighbours,
whilst you are at work ?

How's that for science Gordon ?

It's called the Science of an almost defunct discipline called
Sustainable Economics.

When Climate Science regulations start killing more people due to
increasing poverty, increasing food prices, increasing e***** [censored
by your government] prices and all the other effects that Climate change
"science" has achieved then I think it's time to reassess Climate
Change".

Whilst it was good for the world, I was all for it.

It is no longer good for the world. Not by any stretch of anyone's
imagination - even if we could believe the cooked figures.

Point six of one degree over a hundred years. Oh dearie dearie me... The
sky is falling, the sky is falling - quick let's legislate something...

Is that what you call Science Gordon ?

TomK