UPDATE: See Tony Thomas’s views on the course as it runs: UQ’s Denial 101x : Putting the stink in distinction. The course is living up to all expectations!
Would you too like to learn how to misinform people, mangle English, and toss cherry-picked factoids that avoid the real point? How about studying to be an apologist for scientists who take your taxes, but hide their data? Or perhaps you’ve always dreamed of being an obedient useful fool for the State, to help promote propaganda that governments can change the weather if the people just pay enough money?
Are you looking for a cause to pick up that you can brag about at parties to prove your social superiority, impress teenage girls, or hide your low self-esteem? Do you crave an outlet where you get the thrill of being a namecalling bully, but with the excuse that you are “saving the planet” and “being scientific”?
Good news, Queensland University is dumping any pretense that its science faculty uses logic or reason or has an interest in observable evidence. The university is advertising that abusing English definitions and words meets its standards of higher education. After all, no one denies we have climate, and “climate deniers” don’t exist, but it’s a useful propaganda term to fog, veil and clog up the public debate about climate science. John Cook who runs the course even admits that it’s an inaccurate term, but he won’t stop namecalling. The last thing we want of course, is a polite discussion of a complex topic. If fans of the man-made climate crisis have to provide evidence, or answer questions, the facade would crumble.
The best defense is offense, and the best offense is to be really offensive. Bring on the namecalling, derision, and character assassination. Skeptics are scum like holocaust deniers, and have a brain like a lizard. Don’t listen to them whatever you do!
Come learn these stone-age techniques: serve the names up with half-truths, lies by omission, and be a better useful idiot. Big bankers, parasitic industries, and self-serving politicians need you!
Calling all bullies, sign up now for Making Sense of Climate Science Denial at UQ.
Tony Thomas can’t wait: “I’ve only about 120 sleeps to the start of my Denial 101X course. I hope to be a John Cook Laureate.” Reader, Pat has signed up too.
Denial101X is a MOOC – massive online open course. It’s free for you, but sucks money from workers around Australia.
…
About this Course
In public discussions, climate change is a highly controversial topic. However, in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.
In the climate science community there is little controversy, because most people who question the hypothesis have been sacked, attacked, find it hard to publish papers and are subject to name-calling, exile, intimidation, and “climate apostasy“. There are no grants for skeptics, and monopolistic funding has purchased a “consensus”.
John Cook’s unscientific 97% study started as a logical fallacy, and ended by using irrelevant and mis-assigned papers to claim that a 0.3% consensus by their own definition was actually a 97% consensus (by quietly using a different definition). Nonetheless it is a quasi proxy for funding ratios in climate science, though it overestimates skeptical funding because many skeptical papers are written by volunteers. The real funding ratio is not 97 to 3 but more like 3500 to 1.
- The study can’t be replicated. (Legates et al)
- The data is hidden. Either Cook et al didn’t keep it (and are incompetent) or they did but it does not reflect well on them and they won’t release it (they are incompetent and deceptive too?).
- The definitions changed between the claims in the abstract and those in the paper. (Legates et a;)
- The raters were not independent. 7% of the ratings were wrong, and biased.
- The ratings data shows inexplicable patterns.
- Cook et al fail to report that their data fail their own validation test.
- Most of the papers were irrelevant. Those authors were writing about “impacts” or “mitigation” of climate change and not about the cause of climate change. Obviously skeptical scientists will not write about “mitigation” or “impacts” of climate change, so including these papers (and there are thousands) served the purpose of increasing the total number of papers claimed to be surveyed and also increases the percentage of “consensus”. That is an utterly predictable outcome. Good PR, lousy design.
- It’s not a representative sample, and Cook did not test to see if it was.
- The paper is used to make profoundly unscientific statements in the media. Cook et al endorse the fallacies.
In the wider scientific community there is so much controversy that skeptics outnumber believers, scientific associations have had revolts about climate change, scientists have quit their failing institutions, protested by hundreds on blogs.
I’ll help John with his course:
- Why the gap between the public and scientists?
There is no gap between the public and scientists. Most scientists are skeptics, so are most of the public (see surveys from Aust, UK, OECD). There is a gap between government funded dependent climate scientists and the public because it’s obvious the climate models are wrong.
- What are the psychological and social drivers of the rejection of the scientific consensus?
People don’t like corruption, bad science, and wasted money.
- How has climate denial influenced public perceptions and attitudes towards climate change?
Grassroots unfunded volunteers have provided an essential community service, and the public are simply, slowly, learning the truth about the skill and honesty of this immature science.
A scientific question can only ever be solved with polite debate and observational evidence. If John Cook had the evidence he needed, he wouldn’t need to be a professional name-caller.
If you are an Alumni or donor to UQ, you can let the university know what you think, they need to know.
H/t to Bob, Viv, el gordo, janama, Stupendus, Pat, Tony Thomas.
REFERENCES
Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D.,Green, S.A., Richardson, M., Winkler ,B., Painting,R.,Way,R., Jacobs, P., Skuce, A.,2013. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024.
Legates, D.R.,Soon,W.,Briggs,W.M.,2013. Monckton of Brenchley. Climate consensus and misinformation: a rejoinder to agnotology, scientific consensus, and the teaching and learning of climate change. Sci. Educ.(Ref Type:In Press.). [See my discussion – JN]
Tol, Richard (2014) Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis, Journal of Energy Policy, Science Direct: S0301421514002821. [ also PDF]
———————-
All posts tagged “John Cook”
- Cook’s fallacy “97% consensus” study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for
- That’s a 0.3% consensus, not 97%
- John Cook’s consensus data is so good his Uni will sue you if you discuss it
- Journal admits Lewandowsky paper retracted because it failed. Twice!
- Cook’s 97% consensus is a case study of Agnotology – ignorance and misinformation
- Richard Tol: half Cook’s data still hidden. Rest shows result is incorrect, invalid, unrepresentative.
- Uni Queensland defends legal threats over “climate” data they want to keep secret
- “Honey, I shrunk the consensus” — Monckton takes action on Cooks paper
Grover (A Practical Study of Argument) lists the conditions for a successful appeal to expert opinion as follows:
1. Expert X has asserted claim P
2. X is a reliable and credible person in this context
3. P falls within the area of specialization K
4. K is a genuine area of knowledge
5. X is an expert, or authority in K.
6. The expert in K agree about P.
Therefore
7. P is acceptable.
So far as I can see, instead of considering all these criteria, “Cook’s Law of 97% climate certainty” jumps straight to the “there is a consensus, therefore P”, which is a fallacious argument from authority.
210
The ABC and other media outlets should be asking questions like:
Who are the scientists that make up the ‘97%’?
What are their qualifications?
What are their specific claims?
Are they a qualified expert in the field in which they make their claim? (ie the field that specifically relates to co2 causing catastrophic warming)
Is there a consensus in the field in which they make their claim? (Indeed, can there be a consensus about an alleged fact that has been theoretically modeled but not empirically verified?)
Is there any reason to suspect bias? (Groupthink, advocacy, etc.)
etc.
Instead we get some vague claim about ‘97% of scientists agreeing’ that climate change is real!: Taken as a fact, on faith.
So much for the Fourth Estate!
200
Better let Poptech know about this.
14
I always ask them to qualify how they got the 97% – whow me the names of the scientists, who surveyed them etc etc.
You use Alinskis’ “Rules for Radicals” own method of attack against them and hold them to their own standards.
That always stumps them. Any reasonable logical person will stop and go “hang on – 97% of scientists, how do you qualify that?”. In fact, in any realm of science, if you knwo anything about science, you know its never nailed down that hard. Ergo, logically ( maybe with the eception of the fact gravity exists ) 97% is an impossible figure in an evolving field of science. IN terms of propganda for the majority of science illiterate population it sounds good….but the real battele isnt in the public sphere any more from what I can see – its now trench warfare in the bvlogosphere…or maybe I’m wrong about that? Thoghts welcome on that that thought actually….
90
A point worth noting is that a 97% consensus on climate change weakens the case rather than strengthens it.
Here’s why. For simple matters (2+2=4, the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line) we would expect unanimity.
As things get more complex, the likely range of views expands (can particles travel faster than light, or whether the Riemann hypothesis is true).
If a complex matter has a high consensus, then it is logical to assume that other forces apart from the scientific/mathematical are at work. Peer pressure, groupthink, offers they can’t refuse etc.
So in truly complex and chaotic matters (climate being the classic example) we would expect a correspondingly wide range of views.
Declaring a ludicrously high figure like 97% for agreement on climate change immediately raises the suspicion that something’s up, in the same way that we find it hard to take Kim Jong-Un’s 99.8% approval rating seriously.
170
But it is that high among LIVING North Koreans.
Come to think of it the analogy is valid if you compare to “publishing” climate scientists.
70
If everyone thinks the same…someone isn’t thinking. Gen. George Patton
00
This went up earlier today over at WUWT.
It really makes the 97% look pretty stupid.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/18/if-97-of-scientists-say-global-warming-is-real-100-say-it-has-nearly-stopped/
10
Jim, what makes you think that consensus – imagined or real – in science means even a jot?
20
Well, whether anyone likes it or not, the argument from expert opinion is a valid, albeit not infallible, form of argument.
It is also one with extensive application in the field of science.
In these circumstances it would seem wise to understand the proper ground of the argument, when it can and cannot be used, its strengths and limitations, etc.
21
NO. Argument from authority is a fallacy. The idea that it ever applies was created, so far as I can tell, by the global warming crowd as the theory began to fall apart. The fact that people THINK it’s valid is a testament to the global warming brainwashing. When I was in philosophy in college, argument from authority was always a fallacy. One could perhaps give a tiny bit more credence to a group of authorities than a lone person speaking, but that was it. If you go with the “Argument from Authority”, you are forced to accept authorities in pseudoscience, government bureaucracies, etc. No one seems to notice that the ONLY time this argument is always presumed to be valid is in science. However, if we are going to argue from authority, there are college professors, pilots, etc. who swear there are UFO out there. There are ufologists who have degrees in this stuff. Cook has a degree. NO. It is never valid. Extensively used, yes, Wrong, yes. Argument from authority is nothing more than people who are or think they are smart voting on a truth in science. That is NOT how science works. Again, the fact that this is accepted is a testament to the damage done by global warming pseudoscience and politics to science.
I agree we need to attack the foundations too, but never should we accept a fallacy as real or we are no different than the global warming advocates. (One of the things that makes the argument so widespread in science is the ego of scientists that they truly believe they are gods. Another problem, more common, is that they spent years getting a degree. They cannot accept the idea that said degree does not necessarily move them up the ladder of who’s smartest and brightest and best. It cost a fortune. It MUST mean they’re smart. I acknowledge that particular ego characteristic of humans, but I won’t let that sway me into believing a fallacious argument.)
61
No, Sheri, argument from expert opinion, as outlined in my initial post, it NOT a fallacy.
See:
Douglas Walton: Appeal to Expert Opinion
Grover: A Practical Study of Argument.
00
Preview of Douglas Walton’s Appeal to Expert Opinion, here:
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=6UxyS_4GXAkC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
00
You are referring to the Argument from Appropriate Authority, which is what scientists, in the name of making themselves God, changed the original argument to. You can quote all the references you want. I have my books and papers from college and Argument from Authority was always a fallacy. Authorities are not infallible.
This entire argument is that science is infallible and groups of scientists are infallible. It’s also a claim that ONLY science counts. The fallacy is immediately called correct if the authority is a priest and the subject God, even though the priest is definately and authority on God. Same for many other areas. This is about the deification of science. If not, show me where the claims of people who studies telekinesis are accepted because these people are experts on telekenesis. You can’t and you won’t, because this is about SCIENCE being God.
32
I didn’t say it was an infallible argument, I said: “expert opinion is a valid, albeit not infallible, form of argument.”
I see, so we can just dismiss Douglas Walton out of hand because he doesn’t agree with your preconceived ideas.
No, it is about practical judgments that can be reasonably made on the basis of expert opinion.
No, the existence of God is a question of common knowledge, not expert opinion. On the other hand, questions of the scope or validity of religious laws would be properly referred to the appropriate religious authority.
If you bothered to read the references that I gave you instead of merely railing against them (like a priest confronting an apostate) then you would be able to see that Telekinesis is not a proper subject of argument from expert opinion.
00
No, “we” do not dismiss Walton out of hand. I looked up the information. Some of what he discusses would be worth a read, though I don’t have much time to read books nowadays. However, what Walton says does not change what was taught to me in college. He cannot change history and I am going by what was in textbooks at the time and in my classes. There was a distinct redefining of the fallacy after 1978. I have yet to discover exactly when.
As predicted, “telekinesis is not a proper subject” for argument from authority. I did read what you wrote and what you linked to.
The argument from appropriate authority exists to allow scientists to silence opposition and is contrary to science itself. The use of this is expanding, to the point that some are calling for jailing and so forth of those who dare to question authority. This is exactly what science criticized the church for doing in the past—silencing opposition. Yet now, science happily beats people over the head with the word “authority” and threatens all who disagree. This is not science. This is a fallacy used to beat people into submission.
On a practical plane, in everyday life, people do go to authorities. However, when the authorities start beating and threatening and exerting their greatness, those authorities should be disregarded. They are not able to present a cogent argument that proves their point, most likely because they don’t have a valid idea. Authority should never be used to silence opposition, yet so many in global warming science use it as a club. So go ahead and beat people up with authority. It says a lot—none of it good.
51
So you defend your dismissal of an argument from authority with … an argument from authority.
And yet it appears in Plato:
Socrates to Melesias: “If you were deliberating about the gymnastic training of your son would you follow the advice of the majority of us, or the opinion of the one who had been trained and exercised under a skillful master?
Melesias: “The latter Socrates, as would surely be reasonable.”
Socrates even says that the first question to ask when deliberating is: “whether there is any one of us who is an expert in that about which we are deliberating.”
Yes… not a proper subject because it cannot satisfy various requirements in the scheme of argument:
“1. Expert X has asserted claim P
2. X is a reliable and credible person in this context
3. P falls within the area of specialization K
4. K is a genuine area of knowledge.
5. X is an expert, or authority in K.
6. The experts in K agree about P.
Therefore
7. P is acceptable.”
And there are good reasons to pay attention to the opinion of experts when the conditions of an appeal to expert opinion are met (but of course the argument is defeasible).
And, obviously, that is not my point.
My point is that there are valid applications of an appeal to expert opinion (e.g. the opinion of a doctor).
But appeals to expert opinion do not hold where the conditions of the argument are not satisfied. The conditions are not satisfied where (e.g.) the field of expertise is not settled. So an argument from expert opinion will not hold in the field of climate science.
Of course, you can just reject the argument from expert opinion entirely (even if it is illogical to do so: proof is free, as they say): but that will simply leave you with no answer to the question: “we pay attention to the opinions of doctors. They are experts. Why don’t we pay attention to the opinions of climate scientists. They are also experts.”
In fact the argument scheme given in Walton and Grover is an armory for attacking the very kinds of authoritarianism you rail against.
01
And what exactly defines when a “field of expertise” is settled? When there is a consensus? Are you serious?
Of course it makes sense to seek the “expert opinion” of a doctor, but accepting that “expert opinion” without question is just as foolhardy as accepting the “expert opinion” of a so-called climate scientist without question.
00
And when did I ever say to accept an opinion ‘without question?’
The argument from expert opinion is interrogative.
In fact, above, I demonstrated the use of the argument schema to question warmist dogma:
“The ABC and other media outlets should be asking questions like:
Who are the scientists that make up the ’97%’?…”
The argument from expert opinion is defeasible. There is no good reason why the opinion of experts cannot be defeated by contrary facts.
So, the fact that a group of experts in field A agree as to the existence of some proposition P, in their field of expertise, is completely irrelevant to the question of whether P should be believed? Are you serious?
The only real criterion of when a field is settled is going to be general acceptance amongst experts. On this basis one could easily argue that (for instance) the logarithmic warming effect of co2 is generally accepted in the field (accepted by authoritative scientists like Lindzen et al); while catastrophic warming from positive feedbacks is not accepted in the field (rejected by Lindzen et al). I mean that IS the basic position of sceptics. The wider claims of ‘consensus’ in the field of climate science are rejected for the reasons I have previously outlined: groupthink, unilaterally declared consensus, political consensus, etc.
00
Warmies all to often mistake a qualified opinion for one with lots of publications to or letters after it’s name. They then go in pursuit of these very things to ‘qualify’ theirs.
10
Well, clearly that 3% have gone senile. Of course climate change is real.
I think what they are trying to say is that 97% of scientists agree that human CO2 emissions are threatening catastrophic climate change (although they get all uppity whenever the word “catastrophic” is used).
Such a number is of course nonsense.
50
Looks like its the SkS troop sponging off UQ finances.
220
They all do – the government gravy train. It is unclear whether they really believe their stupidity and seek funding for it, or are just too lazy to get a real job, so they modify their behavior to become eligible for the gravy train.
Climate science is Pavlov being validated.
140
This tells me everything I ever wanted to know about Queensland University, funding a
failurelegend in his own mind, John Cook, as well as their University students’ reaction to the ‘O”s arrival recently.Their reputation goes down a few more notches.
50
There are always people who prostitute themselves for money, power, or fame [SNIP].
The problem is with the main stream media who project and promote them. These are the ones we should be challenging and calling out to substantiate the claims made by the climate whores. Starve the MSM of money don’t buy into their lefty propaganda.
221
Read Bob Ellis’ blog.
He achieves 100% agreement to every diatribe he writes.
Honest Bob does no publish anything which contradicts hi diatribe.
It seems to be THE modus operand for the left.
ps don’t read his blog for too long, the consequences could be concerningly severe!
160
Over at Bob Ellis’ blog, Bob writes:
“And it seems to me Turnbull now has twice the numbers he had a week ago. He can say he was always on the side of an emissions trading scheme, which Xi Linping and Barack Obama have made into a global quest…”
Comment would be superfluous.
30
Who is Bob Ellis? Let me guess…. another senile ex journalist?
30
Now really, they don’t have to be senile, just incapable of thought regardless of age.
Though it appears more and more to be the case that mainstream journalist == individual incapable of thought.
30
Anyone can join and take part in a MOOC.
I’d never heard of the EDX courses before.
350 courses to choose from
A whole new world of learning opens up. They cann’t all be as bad as the Cookie course, can they ?
I might try a refresher in Signals & Systems Parts 1 & 2
80
What good would a course on Denial be without a good few ‘Deniers’ taking part ?
I may be tempted to Sign-Up
Then again, I’ve never been tempted to visit SkS, so perhaps I haven’t the stomach for it. Likely to be a complete waste if time.
80
Thanks C J Richards!
Who else wants to sign up for this course. Apparently it is free!
I doubt that I will graduate. However it could be fun.
80
Only ever failed one course in my life.
But I’m sure I could try for a second one. 🙂
70
Was that in hairdressing?
Jus’ askin’
[Please stay on topic] ED
70
It was one of those “Philosophy of….” courses that think are required in a Science degree. You know, with essays and stuff.
I obviously didn’t say what the lecturer wanted us to say.
Different lecturer second time around. Passed easily
70
I thought of joining the course in order to counter some of the nonsense, but after looking at those involved and the course content, I couldn’t stomach it. However, I live across the river from UQ, perhaps I could stage an anti-Cook demo. I also live within 2 kms of the G20, I might have gone along if I’d known that Gary Johns had organised a pro-market demo, maybe UQ can substitute.
60
Agreed, as I commented below.
20
Who you kidding?
You couldn’t lie well enough to finish the course.
50
It says:
A couple of questions come to mind without much thought.
– For what job, career or school would this course be good preparation?
– What will I have achieved after I’ve finished the course?
– Who would care that I took this course? And if someone did care, who might that be?
The only answers I can come up with are, none, nothing and no one respectively.
100
Government employee or grant writer comes to mind, Roy. Obviously there are such jobs out there or we wouldn’t have the plethora of climate propagandists we do.
Oh? You meant a job most anyone here would want? Sorry, my bad. Your answer is correct. 🙂
70
Hi Sheri – you have been missed.
40
Thank you.
40
Sheri,
I didn’t have time to get into this yesterday but the plain truth is, name calling is not appropriate for any job, government, NGO, private sector and absolutely no job anywhere (not that you don’t already know that).
The real reason this kind of thing is done is because they want to inflame the passions of supporters and potential supporters and nothing does that like a little name calling and character assassination against whatever or whomever you oppose. Witness the mess in Ferguson Missouri, where Al Sharpton has been on full display — inflame, inflame, inflame… There hasn’t been a word out of his mouth that isn’t intended to ignite protest and spark action, most of which will tend to violence. He’s become expert at it. And that’s all that name calling will do in the end. It never solves a problem that I’ve ever seen any example of.
Sharpton, by the way, is getting his pockets lined with the money his supporters donate. And worse, he’s now a consultant to president Obama or someone within the White House — something well documented at this point and not disputable. And I offer this as evidence that the President of the United States is more interested in stirring up trouble than he is in solving problems.
Name calling and similar tactics are brewing big trouble, not just in Missouri but across the country.
00
Roy: I was answering “Who would care that I took this course? And if someone did care, who might that be? The only answers I can come up with are, none, nothing and no one respectively.” I was suggesting that government employees might benefit from the course being on their resume. I wasn’t suggesting name calling was appropriate anywhere.
Name-calling in politics does seem to be the course de jour. How to get civility back? I’m not looking for that to happen any time soon. The whole thing has spun out of control. (Actually, projection seems to be the name of the game, combined with the name calling. Accuse others of what you’re doing. Very effective and virtually impossible to stop. Only when those who are projecting go far enough they devour their supporters and no one is exempt from their power and wrath does reality actually shine through. A lousy way to learn, yes, but humans are like that much of the time.)
00
Nor am I. Unfortunately it’s getting worse, not better. 🙁
00
With regard to Ferguson:
The divide between white and black goes back a long way in this country and the inflaming of passions has been masterfully carried on by the likes of Jessie Jackson and Al sharpton since the death of Martin Luther King Jr. I don’t know much of the history of race relations in Ferguson but I will bet any amount you want to name that things would be a lot better today without the likes of Jackson and Sharpton.
Martin Luther King and those who walked with him gave blacks in this country a very precious gift, the end of segregation and the eventual end of institutionalized discrimination everywhere. And ever since then blacks have taken one of two paths: some chose to grab a hold of their better opportunity and have done well; others chose to follow the leadership of the likes of Jackson and Sharpton and have not done well. There’s a lesson there if we can only see it.
Is there still discrimination? Yes. And there no doubt will always be discrimination. But we can do without all those who make use of it to earn fame and fortune.
00
ABC script writer?
80
Gris,
It’s ideal qualification for MSNBC prime time program host, a la Chris Matthews.
If you can’t get MSNBC, you only need to know he’s one of our premier practitioners of the art of name calling and character assassination. He makes even Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid look almost wise by comparison.
00
Answers would be:
– Blog troll
– A lowering of your IQ
– John Cook and other blog trolls
Not exactly something that any normal person would want on their resume.
50
You can give it a try. The discussions on other courses have allowed opposing views, but I would not count on that. Some have downloadable videos, some do not. They may only have pdf documents, etc. You can get a certificate, though not if you’re honest in this case. Otherwise, you can audit the course. I audit because it’s easier. I don’t always have time to deal with the classes on a weekly basis and for a certificate, you have to keep up with the questions and problems presented. My experience is 99% of the people taking the courses on climate propaganda are trying to get brownie points in some eco-project or social project. They believe with all their heart in the cause.
I think it would be great if someone could do the course and report back.
60
Is H. L Menken’s “In Defense of Women” (1918) a recommended text?
I only ask, because the whole conduct of SkS and of JC’s philosophy seems to be predicated on it:
Sou
nds pretty familiar!
120
Sigh! Sou ) = Sounds pretty familiar.
nds pretty familiar )
I really must fix this Expletive Deleted mouse pad!
50
Sounds like government everywhere. But not being exactly up on Menkin, what has defense of women got to do with it?
Sorry, I couldn’t resist asking. 😉
And why do women need defending in the first place? Some of my favorite people are women.
60
About as much as `Science’ has got to do with SkS and John Cook.
I came across a page of quotations from the book. That one appealed to me as an appropriate quotation (I see Tim Ball found it so, too, on WUWT) and seemed to describe the warmist side of the debate. There are other quotes there which range from the trenchant to ones for which `mysogynistic’ would be a mild description. I haven’t tried any of the latter out of respect for our hostess.
As for the content of the book, I haven’t read it yet. There’s another one—Damn! A Book of Calumny: Essays of Abuse and Vituperation—I want to read first. (both are available from Project Gutenberg).
“In Defense of Women” was published in 1918 about the same time President Woodrow Wilson became a supporter of Women’s Suffrage. Women did not gain suffrage in the US until 1920. The book’s initial title was A Book for Men Only. Back in those days, the debate was fierce and acrimonious.
10
Now that sounds like an appropriate epitaph for the grave marker of humanity when it’s finally chiseled in stone and planted in the ground — at least if we can manage to leave any ground for a grave. But who will be around to do that last job on our behalf?
This quote rings too true for comfort.
00
“Some of my favourite people are women”…..Sir Humphrey Appleby.
10
Jo, John Cook is just a denier of the science and the obvious answer to his:
“How has climate denial influenced public perceptions and attitudes towards climate change?”
Is that people don’t believe academics like him who deny the evidence such as 18years without warming which shows the models predicting doomsday warming don’t work.
230
Mike.. I like your new avatar.
Looks like a hamster with wings. 🙂
Don’t let it near any of them wind turbine things…..
it will either be chopped up….
….. or drafted into the workforce. !
100
Ha ha ha ha ha .
Sou!
I take it that you are not Sou of Hot Whopper fame.
40
Reply to 6.1
10
“Reply to 6.1”
Thank goodness..
I thought for a second that you were laughing at my joke.
Was worried about you. 🙂
70
Wrong sex … and an engineer so my brain cell actually functions.
Sometimes.
20
Excellent post.
20
It will be interesting to see if the course actually has any real content.
60
Usually its a good idea for the instructor actually know something about the course material.
Cook knows absolutely zero about the topic of skeptics, except what he fantasises about.
I guess this course just another one of those fictional science/fantasy chapters that Cook and Lewy have been working on !
Perhaps they should hire that railway engineer guy, (whatisname.. Porchy, or something like that), to add some spice to the fantasy.
100
No, it will be one of those weirdy psycho-babble experiments that UofQ pretend is science.
I was thinking of asking some of the Bro’s to go along, to add some respect to proceedings, but its online which is typical elitist, “if you can’t afford a computer, you can’t play”, rubbish.
40
You may be interested in http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/11/17/they-all-lived-together-in-a-little-crooked-house.html
Where Brandon Shollenberger’s latest piece about the Skeptical Science crew is simply astonishing. If true, he has uncovered dishonesty on an industrial scale.
20
Skeptic: Any scientist is by definition a skeptic. Nothing is accepted as true unless it is proven based on other known truths. This is the way of Descartes. To prove Global Warming, first you need data. In the last 18 years, according to satellites, the world has not warmed, so there is no need to have a theory. There is nothing to be skeptical about. Puzzled maybe (see below)
Denier: You can only deny what is true. Global Warming is not true, as admitted by Pachauri, head of the IPCC formed in 1988 to study the subject of world climate. So you cannot be a denier if you disagree with Global Warming as it is agreed to be not true. As for climate change, see Theoretician.
Man Made Climate Change: This is the theory that rapidly increasing CO2 from fossile fuel will dramatically increase Global Temperature. So we have watched anxiously while CO2 levels increased dramatically with no change in Global Temperature. So whether man caused the CO2 increase is secondary to the point that the CO2 increase did not change temperature at all.
Puzzled: This is the personal state where you observe the facts bear no relation to the argument. The IPCC was formed in 1988, 26 years ago. For most of this time they have published huge tomes predicting imminent doom from rapid Global Warming, something which they now agree has not happened for most of their existence.
Theoretician: A person concerned with the theoretical aspects of a subject. Could some theoretician please explain how increasing CO2 causes Climate Change without changing temperatures? This has never been explained and an explanation is now urgently needed so that we skeptics can examine it.
170
“The IPCC was formed in 1988, 26 years ago.”
And in the RSS temperature data, (un-affect by warmist tampering and urban heat effects)
it has been shown that a ZERO TREND is statistically supportable for that whole period.
It is a statistical possibility that there has been ABSOLUTELY NO WARMING for the whole of the existence of the IPCC !!
160
Well it worked then, didn’t it?
60
Rereke,
It worked very well.
Most of the people now protesting for renewables and alternative energy never experienced a time when the global temperature actually increased.
They were all born during the so-called hiatus or pause (which are misnomers suggesting global warming will continue at some time).
But that they all terrified is a remarkable acheivement.
That’s how deep the fear runs.
Fear is an enemy’s best friend.
40
Ho ho…I cant resist this…..jsut playing with concepts and silly ideas….
Has the IPCC been the plug in the global warming dike ( spelling ? ) that has stopped global warming in the first place ?
Ergo – if the IPCC was removed, would global wamring commence?
But then if the IPCC was re-formed if global warming had commenced, would it stop again?
I need more coffee….
30
That’s the Achilles heel of the AGW hypothesis; no mathematical significant correlation- let’s say at the 1% level (1 chance in being wrong in a 100), not the 5% level of confidence (1 chance in being wrong in 20) due to chance- between levels of CO2 and global temperature.
Without one, any carbon (dioxide) abatement scheme will produce no significant change in global temperature, irrespective of what all these politicians, economists, greens, carbon salesmen and others are saying.
The other significant point is that any restriction on carbon dioxide means less carbohydrate to eat and oxygen to breathe for mankind. I call it scientific illiteracy.
60
Comment on a thread I am following:
70
Look at it this way, what do we humans produce through normal respiration? CO2.
How long do you think it will be before someone begins the “oh look at the population of China, just the people are producing too much CO2, we need to cull their population.”
Long term that seems to be what is driving a lot of this, some bizarre hatred of humanity. CO2 is not the problem, and those who have been deliberately indoctrinated into believing it is are walking gleefully down this path oblivious to the long term ramifications.
If one can argue that CO2 is a pollutant then begin legislating it as such as the EPA has done, why would rational person expect them not to at some point decide that humans are a pollutant?
There doesn’t need to be any conspiracy theory, all one needs is an understanding of human nature and history to know that the way CO2 is being portrayed is a formula for disaster.
40
No—totally fallacious argument. Global warming is based on the release of sequestered CO2 (the kind that just happens to be in coal and oil and powers life as we know it). CO2 as breathing has nothing whatsoever to do with global warming. This does, however, give advocates a way to point out how skeptics don’t know what they are talking about. Please don’t do that…..
(I know the government called CO2 a pollutant. They already call people pollutants, just not by that name.)
20
This is, of course why they decided that chopping down tree in the US to feed wood chip to a UK power station was “carbon neutral”.
There is no release of sequestered carbon into the carbon cycle.
(Except all the fossil fuels used for the transportation)
30
Sheri: I’ve read Robert’s comments, and I don’t think that he himself is advocating human respiration as a contributing factor to the supposed warming.
I interpret his post as saying ‘how long will it be before someone comes up with this slant or twist to the story and presents it as fact?’ – particularly as he cites the EPA’s bizarre decision that CO2 is a pollutant.
10
I was not implying Robert did believe this, only that use of it makes skeptics look foolish. While I sympathize with the dislike of the EPA, warminsts have absolute fits when skeptics use this line of “reasoning”. I’m pretty sure the EPA knows this, since most of them have drank the Koolaid long ago. Besides, there’s still thousands of ways the EPA can decrease quality of life and destroy civilization that are so much easier to sell, I just don’t see them needing this idea at all. (There are warmists that are completely honest on their motivations: http://www.penttilinkola.com/pentti_linkola/ecofascism/)
10
You are correct – the power “behind the Green throne” does indeed hate huamnity.As such, the extreme greenies will start off by using the climate as the excuse, and it will if given their head, turn into an eco-KrystalNacht.
10
These guys want name calling……..
I learnt from my high school students in western Sydney… some of the best in the game.
BRING IT ON !!! 🙂
90
I feel bad for the UQ Alumni or anyone closely connected to UQ in the past, it must be very saddening.
Recently I had the pleasure of talking to an old WW2 digger who brought up the subject of CAGW laughing it off as ridiculous, when I had to explain he would be called a ‘Denier’ and what was meant by it was he got very upset saying that over the years he’d met many Allied Veterans that gave detailed accounts of the ‘Concentration Camps’ they liberated in 1945 including Australian official war artist Alan Moore who personally witnessed the liberation of the Bergen-Belsen Camp in 1945.
His and my main issue with the ‘Denier’ term was the severe imbalance of context in comparison of the witnessed appalling crimes against humanity and the theorized crimes against humanity concocted by scientists that are not skeptical and refuse to adhere to the scientific method, it’s a disgusting insult to the dead and the living who have endured those memories of horrors many (thankfully) will never see.
180
My daughter did a thesis in her UQ engineering course in which she demonstrated from paleo-geological records that CO2 did not cause past warming. She’d probably be failed now.
90
Official UN documents and statements by top administration officials reveal a plan to transform American children and students around the globe, into what globalists refer to as “global citizens” ready for the coming “green” and “sustainable” world order.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_agenda21_16.htm
Surely not at the UQ.
40
Has anyone see The Greatest Story Never Told? 6 1/2 hours long but a very good education.
It would be best if you watch it all before commenting.
11
I wish Cook would get a real job.
The Cook et al. ‘97% consensus’ will go down with the ship of Mann’s hockeystick into historical irrelevance.
70
Ummm… what’s he qualified to do? His “educational credentials” appear to be academic psychobabble of the first order unless “…completing a doctorate in cognitive psychology, researching the psychology of consensus and the efficacy of inoculation against misinformation.” is somehow useful. I can’t see him being capable of doing anything besides turning biomass and O2 into CO2 using scarce resources that could be used by folks that are much more important to mankind like latrine diggers and sewage workers. The knowledge and work of those folks is several orders of magnitude above “not yet a PhD” Cook’s contributions to the human condition.
60
“John has co-authored the college textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis, the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and a chapter for the book Carbon Pricing. He has published papers on scientific consensus, misinformation, agnotology-based learning and the psychology of climate change.”
He has a BS in physics. Psychology has extremely loose requirements for degrees. As for his work, none of it is actually psychology—it’s all gobbledygook. He is not researching anything. He is writing about why people won’t listen to him when he’s so smart. In the past, someone would have studied his narcissism, but that fell out of favor decades ago. Mostly because “authorities” are whiny little people who are very unsure of themselves and a study might actually reveal that. Currently, agreement with the college’s ideas are all that are required for degrees and accolation, so far as I can tell. There are true psychologists out there, but few and far between.
110
Is this yet more evidence that each generation is being less well educated than the last?
People might complain about Tony Abbott not having a dedicated minister for science, but this level of stupidity can only be cultivated over years, not election cycles.
90
Apparently John Cook has a degree in physics.
Why I wonder has he not put this to sensible use, instead of going in for propaganda and pseudo-psychology?
Hasn’t the University got a proper job for him?
70
Come on. Would you want a guy like him teaching a real science like physics to people that might actually use information they learned from him in fields like aircraft design, structural mechanics or anything else that people rely on for life or death? I wouldn’t. I’m sure UQ wouldn’t want to take that kind of liability on if they could avoid it.
60
It takes all sorts to tutor/lecture in the hard sciences.
Universities per sé ideally aren’t teaching establishments; they should provide an environment for education; guided but largely autodidactic. i.e. students are provided the resources and guidance to educate themselves. That is what should distinguish a University from other educational institutions and the University graduate from graduates from others.
At such Universities, the diversity of beliefs of individual tutors and lecturers communicated to students helps to widen the students’ perspectives of the world; once they push aside the confusion and can distinguish between belief, knowledge and understanding. i.e. develop individual, mature thinking.
The places where one is taught (and “trained”) after basic schooling are polytechnics, etc. There’s a role for them as well as Universities. And individual students may well benefit from mixed courses, combining University and polytechnic.
40
He would have been totally unsuitable for employment in the private sector, hell he would have even been unsuitable for one of my Work for the Dole projects.
20
There seems to be a certain academic tolerance to nutters, so long as they stay in the Psychology Dept.
70
As long as they feed the monkeys on time. 😉
10
Question what do yo call someone that believes Computer models that have been wrong 6623 (eighteen years 1 month and 19 days) consecutive times in a row and counting. Sorry that’s 178 Computer Models times 6623 mistakes consecutively. That’s 1718716 mistakes combined in a row?
A true Believer,Climate Scientist or someone who works at the ABC and these “Believers” call us names and offer a online course. What a crying shame its not a course on understanding reality or just learning to been able count and add up.
80
1178894 Consecutive mistakes I did the Math for Tuesday and I added the extra day for Wednesday but forget to times that for the 178 failed climate computer models my mistake.
80
Fox,
What do you call someone who believes computers about anything? Something Ronald Reagan said can be useful with regard to computers, whatever the case, “Trust but verify.” Without the verify step it’s just being foolish.
50
About the only thing to be learned from computer models about the future is how wrong their predictions were
10
Computers may be used to dignify, nonsense, much like academic publishing and peer review are.
50
Without knowing anything about the software being relied upon it’s more like throwing darts at a target behind you over your shoulder and hoping for a bullseye hit.
10
His Mum must be so proud of him, getting a Tax payer funded sinecure after years in the wilderness
40
Ones well to remember that computers are no more than tools and no better ( or worse) than the tools that use them.
40
John Cook is unable to quote* and cite accurately, so he fails a simple test for competence in scholarship and academic teaching. He is unfit and unworthy to teach any academic course, and one as tendentious and contemptible as this one need not be taught by anyone.
*see Brandon Shollenberger’s post on failings of Cook in quotation, accuracy, and lack of acknowledgement of corrections:
http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/john-cook-is-a-low-down-dirty-liar/
110
I thought that was his degree field. He certainly has no other that can stand scrutiny. I just didn’t know what university offers such a degree. But apparently some of them do.
50
Jo,
Sorry. But it was a direct copy and paste from the article linked by Skiphil directly above — the title line of the article in fact.
50
‘Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow.’
T.S.Eliot. ‘The Hollow Men.’
50
I shall look forwards to the course !
“Know thine enemy”.
70
Is Suzuki now on staff?
70
The man or the motorcycle?
60
It makes another good argument why universities should no longer be funded from taxpayers!
60
I’ve taken edX courses (am taking one right now), but I could not convince myself I would not suffer extreme rage if faced with the complete destruction of science Cook perpetrates. Instead, I’m writing my own blog series on climate change denial—that of those who worship at the alter of consensus and name-calling rather than actual science. I can hopefully write one at elementary level, too, for the children’s blog Max and I created. Yes, climate science denial needs to be addressed before we get more pages of photos of the hero of Australian youth, B. Obama. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2835672/I-want-grandchildren-able-50-years-Barack-Obama-warns-Tony-Abbott-threat-climate-change-Great-Barrier-Reef.html I really searched the photos to be sure “GOD” wasn’t tattooed on Obama’s forehead. How incredibly ridiculous.)
90
Sheri,
As you well know, the Obamas are much better known as celebrities than leaders. Hero is indeed tattooed on both their foreheads whether you and I like it or not. They would make good fare for a comic book. Your kids could get the monthly edition in the mail for probably less than $20/year. Oh! Wait a minute. They already get that in their classrooms these days, don’t they?
————————————-
Good to see you back too. I’ve missed both your wit and your wisdom.
60
Or maybe saviors is a better word than celebrities? I can never get it straight exactly what mask these two have on at any given time.
50
I’d go for saviors. I actually expect Gods are closer to what the media calls them. Judging by the last election, Americans do not agree. 🙂
They have on whatever mask works.
——————————————
I’m back occasionally. I have so much stuff going on, I have to limit my time in some areas. Thanks for the welcome back.
50
True! But we seem to be witnessing the unraveling of those masks or at least the beginning of it. The pressure Obama must feel is now impossible for him to hide all the time. He looks like a man under great stress as he’s talking, blathering on about something or just getting onto or out of Marine 1 with the camera on him. He’s teetering on the edge of the Grand Canyon of politics and if he falls it will be brutal. As much as I despise the man for what he stands for it’s no fun to watch the President of the United States coming unglued any more than it was watching the same thing happen to Richard Nixon.
The revelations concerning the great economist, the august Mr. Gruber, are getting MSM attention, even if it is fleeting. So the facade is wearing very thin.
Nixon could be persuaded to resign. I wonder what the end of Obama will be. He may well come out a hero in so many eyes that his total failure will be ignored. I doubt that he can be persuaded from his course by anyone so it will play out for better or worse to the very end.
00
Roy,
“H” for hero; or “H” for hologram (see: Red Dwarf)
30
Another topic I can file under the heading, suspicions confirmed.
But I can’t imagine needing to be taught by a University what I easily picked up on the school playground — how to do name calling and character assassination. That’s a skill I had to unlearn as I became an adult.
The intertwined worlds of Science and University need a good plague of locusts to give them a reason to straighten up their houses and get them in order. It would be nice if it came in the form of intense public pressure — pressure sufficient to make them fear loss of their funding. And don’t laugh, it could happen you know… …maybe.
70
Roy,
You might not need to be taught the skills of name calling and character assassination, but there is clearly a market for it. When you unlearnt these things you replaced them with independent thought and questioning what you are told.
60
There is another point that needs to be made. Many of the papers were not written by “climate scientists”, or even “scientists”. John Cook confirmed this in an answer to a question from blogger Katabasis, who quoted examples of from Jose Duarte’s list. The only qualification is that the article appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. The 97% consensus of experts in the field of climate science.
In the same September talk at Bristol University (which I attended), Cook also dismissed the 31,000 American Scientists who signed a petition against the Kyoto Treaty as being by “fake experts”. A tad inconsistent?
70
Have you ever looked back to early SKS? I was surprised how open the discussions were. Only as Cook’s inflated ego became threatened did they lock down all discussion. That seems to be a trend in all of this.
110
Now that is a very astute observation. Thank you.
Can you now see why you have been missed?
70
97% has become the joke du jour precisely because of what you cite.
00
Looks like competition in the trade of “Teacher is the Dunce”.
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/09/geoffrey/
And who is paying for this? Paging Mr Pyne…
50
This UQ ‘educational approach’ is old hat, very old hat.
It’s been done before and doubtless, it’ll be done again. We all know that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Next thing they’ll be advocating at UQ is book burning, which appears a fashionable past time for some environmentalist academics.
The UQ course appears to advocate that “you’ll learn the critical thinking needed to identify the fallacies associated with the myth.”
One wonders whether such critical analysis will rear up uncontrollably and bite them in the ahrse?
Let’s not hold our breath. After all, the science has been firmly settled since 1998, before ‘the pause‘ began. /sarc
60
I would disagree Manfred. I see no evidence that even when people study history, they learn from it. The human brain is very good at inserting any number of reasons why what looks like history repeating itself cannot possibly be so. Much like the climate believers who keep saying changes will come someday—when doesn’t matter. In the US, people were totally convinced we could never end up in the mess we are in yet here we are. History may give you ideas on how to get back out, but it does not seem to serve as instructions for avoiding things.
It is disturbing how students fall for the “critical thinking” line. If they were critical thinkers, they would not be buying this bunk.
50
Sheri, not sure what it is that you would disagree with. I didn’t mention ‘study’. I explicitly referred to recollection.
You stated:
Mann et al. would disagree with you. They sought to eradicate the medieval warm period.
They knew their history, learned from it, deemed it inconvenient and revised accordingly.
00
I said “even when people study history”, which I meant as a degree above simply remembering history, that people do not learn from history. Yes, Mann erased the Medieval warm period. He revised history. And people dug up the history that was revised and re-presented the history to the internet and public. What Mann failed to learn from history was that revising rarely stands, either being replace with a more accurate version or by a new rewrite. He understood the fluid nature of memory and history, but failed to realize it applied to his revision as well. As far as I can see, he thought “the buck stops here” with the revisions (or maybe that he would be dead before anyone caught on—it’s hard to say).
My comment was meant to say that it doesn’t matter what you remember, study, etc, people rarely think that any of it applies to them personally. You see it politics and often in psychology. Knowing/remembering the past does not usually prove instructive simply because no one thinks that any of it applies to them.
10
Is the coarse available online? I couldn’t stand to be in the same room as that person but I sure could have some fun.<:o)
40
All edX courses are online, so far as I know. It’s an online educational program. As noted elsewhere, the quality of the classes varies depending on what university is presenting them.
30
Is that what was meant?
60
Somewhat O/T but priceless IMO
From comments at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/18/who-needs-an-orbiting-carbon-observatory-when-you-can-model-of-carbon-dioxide/
”
J. Philip Peterson
November 18, 2014 at 8:11 am
No “RED” CO2 emissions from Australia, South Africa, or Argentina???
Reply
Silver ralph
November 18, 2014 at 8:18 am
Yes, it is official – there is no Global Warming in Aurstrailia or South America, because ther is no Co2 there.
Errr, sorry, did the other models confirm this? Why the rush to ‘modify’ the surface temperature record in Auz and NZ, if there is no warming there?
Ralph
Reply
Pat
November 18, 2014 at 8:37 am
Yes, there are, but you see CO2 is lighter than air, so it naturally rises up to the top of the map.
Reply”
And the following comments
60
I wonder if John Mc Ternan is going to be a lecturer? He is a poster child for the Left Spin Machine.
Many believe he was behind the Australia Day Riots, the Gillard Misogyny Speech & the AWUWRA Denial Machine.
40
OT, but its times like this you can bet Americans are please that O-barmy has managed to totally destroy the country’s coal-fired power yet. !!
Obarmy is dangerously crazy with his war on reliable power.
40
…….O-barmy HAS NOT managed to totally destroy……..
Darn it !!!
40
Griss,
What with 50 mainland states below zero.
The doomsday preppers will be bunkered down.
30
Uh….They aren’t prepping for cold weather…….
10
Guess that leaves 7 unaffected. (/sarc)
10
Leave off the dependent clause on the last statement. It is still true.
10
I see the Prerequisites are just:-
‘Basic high school science recommended.’
The playground behaviour possibly just goes without saying.
70
Hey, look what I found in the same Edx MOOC series.
International politics in the Korean Peninsula : Part 1 , started just last Monday. In view of the weekend thread on North Korea, it looks just the ticket, to help pass the time waiting for Cookie’s course to start in March.
50
The first week was incredibly easy. Lectures & subtitles all in Korean, the Teanscripts wouldn’t run on my iOS device, yet was still able to score well on the test quns.
I hope the presentation improves as it progresses
50
To give you plenty of ammo for questions, here is some background …
– I’m the climate communication research fellow with the Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland. In 2007, I created Skeptical Science …
– I was lead-author of the paper Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature, published in 2013 in the journal Environmental Research Letters. The paper was tweeted by President Obama …
– I co-authored the online booklet The Debunking Handbook …
– I’m currently in England finishing my PhD in cognitive psychology …
What? no Questions?
40
” I’m currently in England finishing my PhD in cognitive psychology, researching the psychology of climate change and how to neutralise the influence of misinformation. While in England, I’m also giving a talk at the University of Bristol about my consensus research on Friday 19 September.”
Where else eh ?
Wherever Lew goes, the junk pseudo-science seems to follow.
70
Had to correct that obvious typo.
30
I will bet any money you like that this will never be reported in the MSM
Is the Great Barrier Reef as damaged and threatened as scientists claim? The need for a formal quality assurance process.
Date/Time: Thursday 20th November
5.30pm Refreshments Served
6.00pm Presentation Commences
Location: George Kneipp Auditorium Building 26,
James Cook University Campus, Townsville
Professor Peter Ridd
College of Science Engineering and Technology
James Cook University
Considerable scientific and media attention has been focused on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), with claims often made that it has sustained considerable damage, and that its future is bleak. However the speaker and co-workers have demonstrated over the last few years that many important science papers that claim that the GBR has been damaged are either highly suspect or just plain wrong. Some of these questionable papers (with over 4000 citations between them and often quoted in the international media) will be discussed as well as other important papers for which there is a strong prime-facie case that the findings are questionable. Doubt will be cast on whether dredging, agricultural runoff, and climate change are having any significant effect on the GBR…
Peter Ridd leads the teaching discipline of Physics and the research group Intelligent Systems, Information and Modelling in the College of Science Technology and Engineering, JCU.
Prof Peter Ridd has 30 years’ experience working on the physical oceanography of the GBR.
50
Brilliant! You have hit the nail on the head. Where the Left are concerned, look at the person, not at the issue. It’s all about them. I wonder if they will also teach students about mental masturbation. But, of course they won’t. After all, would you expect a person to admit that their entire belief system is premised on their primitive urge to socially advertise how ‘superior’ they are to ‘ordinary’ people.
Of the many crimes that our failed conservative governments are guilty of, one of their greatest is not to have reformed the education system so that children can be taught social science, including particularly how our primitive need to compete with each other for tribal supremacy makes us so incredibly socially destructive, and, also, how for the sake of civil society we need to identify and control these primitive urges.
30
Hey Jo
I’ve enrolled. Course starts 10 March 2015.
There are some other interesting courses on offer, some I might have a look at as well.
Ken
70
jo writes “Reader, Pat has signed up too”. not sure what that referred to, but just saying it isn’t me!
anyway, namecalling Lady Gaga at UQ:
15 Nov: Brisbane Times:Amy Remeikis: Barack Obama wins 1000 new fans with University of Queensland G20 speech
His speech writers had him well prepped – there were jokes;
***”In fact last year, I even tweeted one of your studies to my 31, uh, to my 31 million followers on Twitter. Just bragging a little bit. I don’t think that is quite as much as Lady Gaga, but it is still pretty good. It is still not bad,” he said with a smile…
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbane-g20/barack-obama-wins-1000-new-fans-with-university-of-queensland-g20-speech-20141115-11ng5t.html
Gaga is a perfect reference point for the UQ celebrity-mad students, and all MSM reported it, but no-one bothered to remind people what that study actually was:
6 June 2013: Joannenova: Lewandowsky, Cook and the Barack Obama tweet that wasn’t
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/lewandowsky-and-cook-and-the-barack-obama-tweet-that-wasnt/
40
more on that “study”:
18 May 2013: JoanneNova: John Cook’s consensus data is so good his Uni will sue you if you discuss it
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/john-cooks-consensus-data-is-so-good-hell-sue-you-if-you-discuss-it/
17 May 2013: WUWT: Anthony Watts: The 97% consensus – a lie of epic proportions
Proving that crap can flow uphill, yesterday, John Cook got what one could consider the ultimate endorsement. A tweet from the Twitter account of the Twitterer in Chief, Barack Obama, about Cook’s 97% consensus lie.
I had to laugh about the breathless headlines over that tweet, such as this one from the Washington Post’s Valerie Strauss at The Answer Sheet…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/to-john-cook-it-isnt-hate-its-pity-pity-for-having-such-a-weak-argument-you-are-forced-to-fabricate-in-epic-proportions/
40
***when our engineering students are this bright, our future is safe:
15 Nov: Sunshine Coast Daily: Rae Wilson: Obama throws down climate change challenge to Abbott
Mr Obama said he knew there had been healthy debate in Australia about climate change, noting he tweeted a University of Queensland study on the topic to his 31 million followers last year…
POWERFUL American ballads have been blasting through the speakers at the University of Queensland to gear up the hundreds of people keenly awaiting United States President Barack Obama’s arrival.
Signed Sealed Delivered, Your Love Keeps Lifting Me Higher and Beautiful Day were on the playlist…
***Civil engineering student Stuart Kinsella, 21, from Goondiwindi, said: “I just want to listen to what he has to say, he’s just such an influential person, he knows so much on all these topics and he knows how to get stuff done”….
http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/obamas-arrival-uq-hit-even-regional-queenslanders/2454269/
20
Interesting observation, we here in the US on the other hand haven’t seen him get anything done.
30
Do you think that 97% might be a pass grade for the course? Or will that just be the answer to 97% of the questions on a multiple choice answer exam?
40
I wouldn’t be surprised to see discretionary grading with the actual details kept secret, between Cookie’s ears.
Could this be the first COOK ( C£@p Open On-line Kourse) experience ?
10
I’m an alumni of UQ and a past donor but I have let them know that there will be no future donations from me coming their way. I’m currently doing a MOOC on climate Change through futurelearn.com. The comments from fellow sceptics are the best part of it. I’ve also made some suggestions re their very limited reading lists…. still getting published at present.
60
What is really amazing is that the ‘warmists’ have decided the jig is up, so just keep going. I mean, with no evidence of warming, why not just keep saying it? Oh, it’s there all right. Hiding no doubt. Yes, all the predictions are wrong and all the fiddling of BOM data has not stopped the satellites from telling the truth, but who understands that? Full steam ahead and total denial.
So Pacahuri admits there has been no warming but his IPCC report says dramatic global warming this century is certain. All scientists agree, espeically those are not even physical scientists like Al Gore and Tim Flannery agree. Who needs evidence? Then Paris convention. Moral challenge. Barrier reef gone. Islands drowning. (More) Acidic oceans.(they are not acidic) Polar bears vanishing. Ice vanishing and/or too much ice caused by warming. Sex life of the Greater Monkey-faced Bat (Pteralopex flanneryi) gone to ruin. Longer and more frequent droughts and more and more severe rainstorms and bushfires. Even in the same country at the same time. Flooding rains will follow droughts, due to Climate Change. No end of disaster due to man’s greed except in China.
Then an Emissions Trading Scheme not ‘a price on carbon’, as people understand this is code for a carbon tax but no one understands an ETS and Trading sounds so like business, not taxation. RET also. Who cares what it means? 100% renewables. Non negotiable. More windmills. More Green jobs. No nuclear. Just keep yelling. It works, especially when the President of the US joins in on the action to destroy Western civilization just for appearances.
Will it work? Long term, no, but it might help win a few elections and control the swinging voters and so deliver real power to the failed Western communists who crave it. If you cannot make a success at a real profession, you can always be a politician. Like Gillard, Shorten, Hansen Young, Wilkie, Jaqui Lambie and so many more especially in the Australian senate where being elected is lottery and where one person can cripple the democratically elected government.
No, it is hard to combat so many high placed people yelling ‘the sky is falling’. The fact that this is what is happening means we are in the death throws of the scam, but it is a dangerous time. It has also exposed the fact that modern society is as utterly dependent on science as societies used to be on religion and as few have the inside knowledge. It is the period of the Climate Druids, the High Priests of Warmism. They will not let go of power easily.
50
TdeF,
Those who can, do; those who cannot, teach; and those who cannot teach, go into politics …
That explains it, does it not?
20
.
New T-shirt design ?
Or do I need to go on science course for material design first?
30
You need to get it published in the peer review journal “T-Shirt Catchphrase”.
20
Off-topic, but I am seeing very little to warm the proverbial cockles anymore when it comes to global economic indicators. Eurozone is pretty much heading into recession. The USA is barely growing considering all the free money that was jacked into the system. Japan is about to disappear up its own QE orifice (the Yen is plummetting). Commmodity prices that Australia rely on (coal, iron ore, petroleum, gold) are all headed south. You think the counrty (and states) have budget problems now… wait a short while. BTW Argentina is basically in default but, yeah, it’s Argentina, so what?
There are a lot of stressors in the system right now, and QE has only put off the inevitable deleveraging deflation bomb momment for so long. It is about to pop. What triggers it will be largely irrelevant, and people will ask why that particular factor wasn’t talked about previously. It’s a red herring. The problems are the broken imaginary money system. You can’t keep on spending tomorrow’s wealth and pretending it isn’t happening. Sub-zero real interest rates are about as real as the number “i” in mathematics. Anyway, you get the gist. I could go on for pages… and to think I am essentially a (long-term) optimist at heart. You wouldn’t think it, talking to me lately.
Meanwhile the West is parodying mock ups of Kim Kardashian’s oiled-up posterior… way to keep the eye on the ball media.
PS> On the bright side… when the proverbial hits the fan our emissions will drop due to the collapsing economic activity… The lefties will have something to cheer about. Either that or protest the lack of jobs. /shrug
50
right column of reuters’ article by Steven Brill linked below has a profile, including: “He also teaches journalism at Yale, where he founded the Yale Journalism Initiative.”
in the reuters’ article, Brill is kindly directing hack journos how to write even more “compelling” CAGW articles:
Yale College Writing Center – Journalism Initiative
The Yale Journalism Initiative began in 2006 with a generous grant from Yale alumnus Steven Brill ’72 LAW ’75, the founder of The American Lawyer magazine and Court TV, and his wife, Cynthia Margolin Brill ’72…
Believing that the best preparation for a career in writing is a broad, liberal-arts education, Yale does not offer a journalism major…
http://writing.yalecollege.yale.edu/journalism-initiative
18 Nov: Reuters: Steven Brill: Bottom line on climate change: It’s costing you money
This column by Martin Wolf in the Financial Times last week is a story I’m glad I saw. It prompted me to think about how to make reporting on a subject I usually find boring a lot more compelling…
“Likely consequences” of ignoring the scientifically obvious, Wolfe continues, “include disease, extreme weather, food and water insecurity and loss of biodiversity and valuable ecosystems.”
That all makes sense. But the point in this powerful, cogent essay that really got me thinking was this: “One justification [for continued inaction] is that cost of action to mitigate emissions would be inordinate. It should be noted, however, that the costs … would be less, possibly substantially less, than the costs to the high-income countries of the recent financial crises. These have lowered gross domestic product by around a sixth, relative to pre-crisis trends, in the U.S., UK and euro zone. In some economies, when the losses are counted, they will be far bigger. Moreover, it seems likely that these losses will never be recouped.”
So here’s my idea for new sustained reporting that would get Americans and people around the world to focus more on climate change. We need a constant barrage of reports on the bottom-line effects of climate change that drive home the reality that this is a pocket-book issue…
How much more is flood insurance costing Florida homeowners? How much are property insurance premiums rising where hurricanes, tornados or wildfires are most likely to strike?
How much more is federally supported flood insurance, as well as disaster relief through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, costing taxpayers?
What do insurance companies have to say about their projections for premiums next year or 10 years from now? How much more is the reinsurance they buy to protect them from over-the-top disasters expected to cost?
How have food prices been affected? How much will they be affected in the near future?
Are we starting to see declines in property values in venues most vulnerable to global warming?
What is the projected cost of measures being taken — such as the billions of dollars worth of barriers being suggested for the waterways coming into New York harbor — to protect against us doing nothing about climate change?
Wolf also makes a convincing case that we have a core ethical obligation when it comes to climate change…
That left me imagining that a generation or two from now kids will be huddled on the remaining high ground in classrooms reading a world history textbook trying to explain how the lack of an urgent news hook allowed politicians who were accountable to their parents or grandparents to continue bowing to industry lobbyists and ignore taking the necessary and costly steps to avert the slow-motion disaster that became global warming…
So, if coal is so destructive — if it is so much a cause of those economic losses from global warming that Wolf calculates — why wouldn’t it make fiscal sense to finance an aid program, unprecedented in size and cost, to help families displaced by the coal industry’s decline? Why wouldn’t a massive grant to coal-mining regions, including huge tax incentives for new economic development, along with, say, $50,000 a year for each coal family for a five- or 10-year transition period, be the right thing and the politically smart thing to do?
Why wouldn’t it be the most cost-effective way to get over this hurdle? Someone should tally up the numbers.
http://blogs.reuters.com/stories-id-like-to-see/2014/11/18/how-to-fix-the-climate-change-beat/
30
Pat, have you ever heard of the literary concept “paragraph”? The format of your posts is just too horrible to even try to read – just one big mass of jumbled together text.
Please put a space after each few lines like everyone else does.
00
Just as a side note, this course was offered last March by edX. It’s probably part of their usual fare. They do have one or two science courses on global warming that are not as political (covering the science basis and they do have prerequisites), but nothing from the skeptic side. One could suppose that the skeptics are either fired or muzzled, but that would cynical…….
30
[…] denier blogger JoNova takes the course description and attempts to discredit it point-by-point, largely appealing to peoples’ ignorance of the issue to make bold, […]
00
JoAnne,
Speaking of namecalling, you’ve got to post on this:
NPR Finally Stops Referring to Global Warming Deniers as “Skeptics”
10
I too have signed up.
If you can’t beat them, join them and then beat them.
Is that quite right?
10
Einstein “I dont care how many of you agree with my theory..it only take ONE of you to prove me wrong”…
00
I like the ‘prerequisite’ that basic high school science is recommended.
Because any in-depth knowledge of science and engineering would allow the student to see right through Cook’s claptrap.
00