staringclown

Advanced members
  • Content count

    6872
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

53 Excellent

About staringclown

  • Rank
    My life is a very complicated drinking game...
  • Birthday 06/06/66

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canberra
  1. The other problem with gieaver is that his rant is factually wrong on several points. He says weird things like: CO2 is invisible. Clouds aren't water vapour, they're water droplets. What's more water vapour isn't a driver of climate change as the warmer the atmosphere the more water vapour is held, and the more precipitation occurs. Yes they do. The IPCC report deals extensively with the urban heat island effect. He hasn't done his homework and it shows. He is very old though. Not meant as an ad hom, he is not a fool. He just knows nothing about climate science and given his own ad hom attacks against Obama and al gore seems to have a political axe to grind. He is paid by the heartland institute which lessens his claims of being independent.
  2. He certainly has the right to question the science as a Nobel laureate. So do the other Nobel laureates. The same year he decides to express his view, 36 others expressed theirs via the Mainau declaration. That's 36 to your one. Thats 36 Nobel laureates that don't believe it's pseudoscience after a half day googling.
  3. Did you actually watch the video? Leaving aside the guy is a physicist with expertise in superconductors rather than climate science, he says at the beginning that he googled climate science for half a day to examine the topic. No published papers. Just google. For half a day. He must be be some kind of savant. I'll see your Nobel laureate and raise you one. Only mine won theirs for climate science. http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/videos/31236/atmospheric-chemistry-and-climate-in-the-anthropocene-2012 http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/videos/31331/the-science-and-policy-of-climate-change-2012
  4. I don't need confidence. I've got evidence. Nothing in science is 100% certain. Science doesn't deal in certainties. It deals with evidence and probabilities. Still you can achieve 95% certainty using statistics. In the same way that juries convict criminals 100% proof isn't required. If a reasonable doubt is all you require then you don't have one in the global warming debate. I always enjoy hearing from the genuine skeptics. The ones that aren't in the paid employment of the fossil fuel industry and are qualified in the field. Got any links?
  5. Scientists were wrong then so they're wrong now... By that logic the flat earther's were wrong so the earth isn't a sphere. There were far more published papers in the seventies predicting warming than an ice age. 6 times as many. They were less newsworthy however.
  6. We do seem to pass on citizenship rather than language...
  7. Housing affordability woes will continue for decades without major overhaul, CEDA says They must have the powers of Nostradamus. 40 years. That's like making a prediction in 1977 about today. Hats off CEDA. I don't disagree with most of the points though.
  8. two year old coders What a load of sh*t. Although, the current skill level I experience at work is that of a two year old.
  9. Gerard Minack, Satyajit Das. Absolute bear porn.
  10. It's certainly the far rights best chance in a long time. To change the world to how they want it. Of course it won't be what they actually want. Their own futures won't be enhanced. The promises they were made won't eventuate. Bannon has been sacked and he's admitted as much. The swamp doesn't drain easily. It fights back. I was hoping that Abbott would remain in power for similar reasons. Give 'em enough rope so to speak... I've heard a load of opinion lately about not upsetting the alt right for fear of enlarging their base. One nation here is a case in point. Governments need one nations votes. And their base has legitimate grievances. High unemployment, no benefit from globalisation etc. They're looking for someone to blame. Lots of talk about universal income as well (hats off to you sir for raising this long before it became a thing) George Brandis stood up this week and it was good to see. I hardly ever agree with George. I can't agree with the pandering to opportunists argument. Let Trump speak on please, but the mass movement of the alt right needs to be opposed at every every opportunity along the way. Handing over any ground to any party that doesn't deal in actual evidence based policy is dangerous. In keeping with Godwin's law I will not mention names. It's encouraging that the "free speech" rally in Boston was met with overwhelming numbers of counter protesters. I don't like to see violence and I think overwhelming numbers against illustrate the level of support within a democracy and provide a suitable smack down for an offensive minority view . Likewise with Hanson. Also, likewise with Turnbull. I don't understand why the minority in his own party hold so much sway. Bipartisan support for evidence based policy will bypass the nutters on both extremes. The marginal seat holders would applaud the rise in their standing and would keep the far right rump at bay vis a vis leadership challenges. Grow a pair Mal if you want to do right by the country rather than preserve your own job. Even if you fail, in the long run you win. History will remember you favourably. rant over
  11. She got what wanted. A cheap headline and the enhancement of her reputation as an 'outsider' condemned by the swamp. Her smile grew the longer Brandis spoke and her supporters lapped it up just in time for the Queensland election.
  12. Absolutely. If NK shoot first they are deader than disco. It will be akin to pearl harbour. Carnage will ensue so I doubt very much it will actually happen. If it does I'll concede the point on rationality. I'm on the cusp of fifty and will hope to avoid the call up. I'm not skilled with the bayonetz.
  13. China have said they will take a neutral stand if NK strike first. If the US strike first it's a different ballgame Wha? A nuclear war won't save his neck. It'll guarantee it gets stretched. That's if he survives the war he starts.
  14. No. At no point did I suggest that we throw up our hands and let NK develop a massive arsenal of nukes. NK spend 10 billion per year on their army. ~1 million soldiers. That's 25% of their GDP according to wiki. The US is spending ~250 billion of nukes over the next 30 years. There are ~15000 nukes worldwide Given that NK have 4 they are going to need to spend a lot of cash to equal China (270) let alone Russia (7000). This will be particularly difficult if they continue and more sanctions are applied. China has agreed to denuclearising the peninsula. They supported the recent UN sanctions. More may be needed. Where is the money coming from for NK to rival China or Russia? How can you be so sure that China wouldn't intervene if the US launch a preemptive strike? They don't want a US ally abutting their border. They also don't want millions of NK refugees flooding into China.
  15. Rationality is a subjective term. The main aim of the regime is to keep themselves in power. They see the US as a threat to this aim. Obviously it's not a good thing but from their point of view the development of nukes is rational. It's the same reason that the USSR developed their nukes. Australia is a target now if China or Russia go up against the US. Pakistan has nukes and a military intelligence organisation (ISI) that supports Al-qaeda. This is not rational from our point of view either. But no one is threatening war with Pakistan. If we're judging rationality based upon language then the two camps aren't that dissimilar. Trump vs Kim Jong-un: who said what? The Germans had a much greater military capability than NK. I don't think the situations are the same.