Another case of “The ends justify the means”
Submitted by Eric Worrall
Rod Lamberts, director of the Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science at the Australian National University, claims facts won’t win the climate debate.
Source: https://theconversation.com/facts-wont-beat-the-climate-deniers-using-their-tactics-will-24074
Rod Lamberts starts by criticising Tim Flannery, former chief of the now abolished Australian Climate Commission, for recently suggesting
“An opinion is useless, what we need are more facts.”.
(Link from Rod Lambert’s article)
https://www.facebook.com/climatecouncil/posts/10151956752276603?stream_ref=10
Rod Lamberts then works his way up to the following passage:
“What we need now is to become comfortable with the idea that the ends will justify the means. We actually need more opinions, appearing more often and expressed more noisily than ever before.”
Tim Flannery once famously gave an opinion, on air, that Australian dams and river systems would never fill again. In the wake of severe flooding on the Australian East Coast, Flannery claimed he had been misquoted – a claim which Andrew Bolt refutes.
PaulH and Holts7
Actually, “taking the piss” I’m proud to say is a British expression that I knew well before relocating to Australia in 1969, where it is also popular. Here is an extract from Wikipedia which is a useful resource for solving some American figures of speech:
bushbunny
Theories for the extinction of Autralian megafauna abound and the issue is hotly contest, mainly, IMHO, because there are few facts to work with.
Comparing Australian megafauna behaviour with elephant behaviour at a drying waterhole may have low validity. Elephants have, ahem, elephant memories and are capable of travelling huge distances to get from one water source to another.
I’m watching the first formula 1 season race in Melbourne. Eco-political pressure has led to the mandating of profound technology change in the engine with high turbo and partial electrical power.
The result is a fiasco. The sound of the cars is unrecognisable – the trademark exciting high pitched scream of engines is replaced with a low gravelly sound like that of a column of tanks driving through deep mud.
And actual racing is replaced by most teams nervously nursing tge cars round the track. Several technical retirements already including Hamilton and Vettel.
Eco-political correctness is killing F1.
I’m watching the first formula 1 season race in Melbourne. Eco-political pressure has led to the mandating of profound technology change in the engine with high turbo and partial electrical power.
The result is a fiasco. The sound of the cars is unrecognisable – the trademark exciting high pitched scream of engines is replaced with a low gravelly sound like that of a column of tanks driving through deep mud.
And actual racing is replaced by most teams nervously nursing tge cars round the track. Several technical retirements already including Hamilton and Vettel.
Eco-political correctness is killing F1.
Oh dear, what a sham. It’s not as if FI are driving along roads all the time. The sponsors will complain as well as the public.
More tantrums? Ok. Most parents (but perhaps not the parents of these brats) know how to deal with tantrums. You let them rip. If you are lucky, they pass out or throw up. If you are really lucky, they do both at the same time, and when they recover you avoid cleaning up the mess for as long as possible so the embarrassment really sinks in.
Yeah I agree, but just put them in a room on their own, and let them carry on without an audience.
Works all the time. The thing is there are so many sucking their thumbs converts, they still have a sizeable audience. Including us.
Robert of Ottawa says:
March 15, 2014 at 11:19 pm
Not disagreeing with you about the scientific qualities of WUWT but I don’t think you are contradicting much Chad Wozniak’s thoughts on “factually based” focus on political alarmists:
It’s a very fine line, isn’t it?
Classic propaganda theory: “Sling enough poop on the wall and some of it will stick. He who slings the most poop wins the contest.”
Unfortunately for the “true believers” in this case, all the King’s horses and all the King’s men cannot generate enough poop to cover up the monstrous truth that the future they predicted has now arrived… and it is nothing like they promised.
So ironic!
We, the challengers of their “science”, plead for them to produce meaningful and useful facts (real science), and not opinions. This guy argues that they need to present more opinions and even less facts.
Rod Lambert seems completely unaware of the principles of scientific process, and how to deal sensibly with scientific debate. Basically he seems lost in the fog that they have created by commencing with a hypothesis that cannot be proven and where truth and science have become casualties of their zeal for a lost cause.
If the University deems his expertise, attitude and methods are acceptable, they too must be prostitutes to political agenda. No science here!
this is what flannery said about the lack of water in 2007 (before we switched to lanina domination and the compulsory flooding)-
http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/105ns_001.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm
he talks specifically about sydney dam levels there.
look at the difference between 2007 and now-
http://www.iliveinsydney.com/water/damstats.php
hahaha! flannery is just like al gore, whatever he says and whenever he says it, the short term trends reverse. you need cooling, you call in al gore, you need rain, you call flannery.
Hilarity ensues in The Conversation’s comment section:
One Chris O’Neill, a self-described “Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax” is turning into a “Victim of Ben Douglas’ Skeptical Invasion”.
He’s so distraught by Ben’s references to trivial facts known to all WUWT regulars that he started correcting himself by responding to his own comments.
Sometimes, I cringe to be an Australian … the sane World must think that we are a mob of rabid dogs of the Left.
Streetcred says:
March 16, 2014 at 12:23 am
Don’t exaggerate, Aussie. Our packs of rabid leftist dogs make yours look like cute tail-wagging puppies.
March 15, 2014 at 10:26 pm |Colorado Wellington says:
Those weak, mealy mouthed, socialist academics would not have the courage to have their beliefs examined here in ‘realtime’. Apart from the odd ignorant one, I doubt you’d see any of them because the responses would stand here against them for all time.
Specially loved the comment at TC about not using direct violence “yet” … by those 8ss-wipes ? LOL, we’re more likely to die laughing at them.
The only fact he has: All the models show significant warming for the future.
Rod Lamberts then works his way up to the following passage:
“What we need now is to become comfortable with the idea that the ends will justify the means. We actually need more opinions, appearing more often and expressed more noisily than ever before.”
DirkH: “Oh, I misunderstood him. What he means is, every warmist will now have to choose between being honest or being efficient. Now that’s a whole new approach. (sarc)”
Yes, it looks like “communication” guru Lamberts has missed the boat on that tactic. It’s what climate scientists have been doing for at least the last quarter century!!
Peter Gleick was probably the most flagrantly criminal case but climategate showed plenty of nobel [sic] cause corruption, where anything goes.
I like the photo caption: ” Facts not enough, The climate message is still not getting through.”
Indeed, the number of facts that they have at their dispose does seem to be problem.
“climateace says:
March 15, 2014 at 11:11 pm”
Gillard, Rudd, the independents and Brown were credible? Don’t make me laugh! They are all cut from the same cloth as Lamberts. We won’t get to see the truth for another 30 years! As far as I see it, there are no credible politicians in Australia worth voting for and haven’t been for a long long time. The ALP/Greens/Indi’s over the last 7 years has proven to Australians (The voting swing should be an indicator) and the world that Australian politics has been reduced to nothing more than a beach side pantomime show! Mind you, what’s worce are the voters themselves. As with many things in life there are tests and licenses required to operate, driving for instance. There should be a voter apptitude test too IMO.
Abbott is right on his statement that the “science” behind (man-made) climate change is fully correct. In other words, crap! His “Environment Minister” failed the moment he quoted Wikipedia on an environmental issue. How he can be extremely worried about ocean acidification is beyond reason given there is no reliable, oceaniwde, way to measure that, only alarmist rubbish! I can assume he used Wikipedia, again, for his “science”. Or maybe he went to SkS?
With regards to fish and climate change. I am not priviy to Australian data but I am to data in New Zealand, via NIWA. And their “fush” database was as crooked as the temperature database out of the UEA CRU.
Unquestioning belief in an all-powerful life-force?
A list of “commandments” to guide mankind lest the flock run astray? Regular sacrifices to appease said life-force? A mission to convert others to these guiding beliefs? Nope, greenism isn’t a religion at all. I can’t see how anyone would see it as such. (/sarc)
I will say, though: for being the most atheistic city in the country, the populace of Seattle seems very devout and holier than thou. 😉
Here’s a direct quote I lifted today from the website of the Liberal Party of Australia – our current Government.
“Cleaning up our own environment
“We will take direct action to reduce carbon emissions – and establish a 15,000-strong Green Army charged with the clean-up and conservation of our environment – so that we can all enjoy a cleaner environment and a more sustainable future without the impost of the carbon tax which is causing real economic damage to our economy and affecting the living standards of Australian families.
“Reducing carbon emissions inside Australia, not overseas
“We will take direct action to reduce carbon emissions in a practical, affordable way inside Australia, not overseas. We remain committed to a five per cent reduction in emissions by 2020.
“We will establish an Emissions Reduction Fund of $3 billion to allocate money in response to emission reduction tenders to projects designed to reduce carbon emissions.
“All money spent will be on Australian green projects, not foreign carbon credits, keeping more jobs in Australia.
“We will support projects such as the exploration of soil carbon technologies and abatement, putting carbon back in soils and providing for a once in a generation replenishment of our farmlands.”
They have removed the Carbon Tax and Tim Flannery, but you still have to watch the pea. It’s my belief that Australia will retain some form of anti-carbon regime until the U.S.A. finally concedes that C.A.G.W. and ‘carbon pollution’ are unsupported by decent science. An accurate pictorial representation of our foreign policy would be a kangaroo with its head in the rectal orifice of a bald eagle. We aren’t about to cross Uncle Sam.
And for Unmentionable: people don’t want the truth. They want confirmation of their prejudices, which they will happily proclaim to be the truth. Those who actually do want the truth, whatever it may be, constitute a very small minority of the populace. Obviously, most of this elite group frequent WUWT.
He’s not the first.
A treat for those who have read this far down the page.
Edzard Ernst: “In Praise of the Data-Free Discussion”:
http://www.dcscience.net/?page_id=13
They are of course factually correct when they say they can’t win the argument with facts. That’s why they don’t use them! We on the other hand….
“Sceptical lefty says:
March 16, 2014 at 1:09 am”
And most likely due to the fact that Turnbull is a strong supporter of a tax on “carbon” or an ETS. Either way it is a way to make money, literally, out of nothing. Turnbull is likely, IMO, to be the next PM, ousting Abbott. Turnbull is in the “pay” of banks, being an ex-banker himself and thus about as trustworthy as a rattlesnake in a luckydip!
I did e-mail the main LNP site about the distiction between carbon and carbon dioxide. I never got a reply! So they have lost my vote.
climate deniers…..sure facts will not change the mind of people who deyny there is a climate.
AGW deniers ???
The photo looks like it might have come from the Oreskes household!