tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post650076729815020752..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Australia's Angry SummerSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-16478047329409991972013-03-06T11:19:06.562+11:002013-03-06T11:19:06.562+11:00Thanks for the link Cliff. Yes, the reason there a...Thanks for the link Cliff. Yes, the reason there are no "serious" tv debates is that the science is complex and involved, and this does not translate well into the 1 hour TV debate format. It can take days or weeks to research and collate the information to answer a single question. The debate is best conducted in peer reviewed literature, and as the commissioner said - there is no debate amongst the scientific community any more.Dogbynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-3718047889592614942013-03-06T11:08:53.212+11:002013-03-06T11:08:53.212+11:00Hi Sou,
Yeh I see your point on debating. It is j...Hi Sou,<br /><br />Yeh I see your point on debating. It is just frustrating the imbalance of reporting on the issue. The whole science world completely agrees but the right media propagate anti AGW. Many of the public are apathetic and the media sows the seeds of doubt in their minds.<br /><br />A flight of fancy but what about a ‘debate’ where the deniers aren’t welcome! It’s just some science spokespeople explaining the facts and dispelling the myths in a viewable and ratings winnings way. Even the commercial stations would divert temporarily from their agendas if it meant making a buck. Or invite the deniers to a debate and have a team of fact finders diligently researching statements made by each side and after each ad break the results are presented on a big Bullshitometer. <br />Cliffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73634431843282130442013-03-05T16:27:03.458+11:002013-03-05T16:27:03.458+11:00I misread your comment re debates, Cliff. That...I misread your comment re debates, Cliff. That's terrific link - thanks. <br /><br />Will Steffen's response to 'why not debate 'skeptics'':<br /><br /><i>Because there isn't actually a debate in the scientific community! </i>(and more)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52224040840550226332013-03-05T16:15:20.444+11:002013-03-05T16:15:20.444+11:00Cliff, agree mostly, but not about debates. Debat...Cliff, agree mostly, but not about debates. Debating fake skeptics is like grabbing jelly. They have no concept of facts and as soon as you prove one thing they say wrong, they ignore you and jump to another lie. Just sharing their platform can be viewed as denoting legitimacy. IMO they should never be debated directly. Better to just point out their idiocy and lies. <br /><br />Example: I read that Jo Nova is arguing BoM should have left out most of the continent when working out the average summer temperatures. She probably thinks BoM should have only included the fringe of land around the east coast of the mainland, preferably only Sydney itself(but not including Sydney's hottest day on record which she'd no doubt put down to a sudden jump in UHI). And then BoM should have compared Sydney summer temps it to the entire continent in other years! <br /><br />I expect she also wants this summer's floods and fires deleted from the record. <br /><br />People like Nova oscillate between nutter conspiracies and plain dishonesty. Pointless trying to debate a fruitcake. Just gobble it up :DSouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44417187706296395092013-03-05T15:55:19.138+11:002013-03-05T15:55:19.138+11:00That was on Channel Ten? Geeez somebody might be l...That was on Channel Ten? Geeez somebody might be looking for a new job if Reinhart or Murdoch see it.<br /><br />The science is irrefutable. The evidence is conclusive and occurring quicker than I had imagined. With the real effects before our eyes like this maybe the more apathetic public will make an effort to understand lag times and tipping points.<br /><br />I often wonder why science spokesman don’t just debate and expose these revered deniers like Monkton, Bolt, Watts, or whomever on tv. I got an email from getup which helps explain their thoughts on this…..<br /><br />http://climatecommission.gov.au/videos/question-about-debate-between-ipcc-experts-and-sceptics-answered/<br />Cliffnoreply@blogger.com