JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Climate science rappers do some research as well

The Bunyip decided to take a closer look at the rap singing Climate Scientists (in that profane Hungry Beast rap video) and gives us an idea of what kind of rigorous science they pursue.

He’s noticed, for example, that one of the rap-singer-scientists claims a 97.7% (!) certainty that the Murray has not had a worse drought than the most recent one in the last 1500 years.

Snippets below from Insane Clown Posse — Part II

All thanks for the eye-opener go to Melbourne University’s Ailie Gallant (below)…

It is not Allie’s efforts to attract attention  (which can also help with the funding), but her co-authored paper on water flows in the Murray Darling Basin which has brought so much re-assurance. In particular, it is the remarkably specific conclusion that there is precisely, and she is very exact about this, a 2.3% likelihood tht any of the many droughts over the past 1500 years were worse than the one just ended – the same dry spell during which the she began smokin’ dos’  stats in her climate crib.

And her methods? Well, let’s just say that the Professor is — yo, lab bitches — down with them.

And this certainty is built upon an analysis of results from Bali, Fiji, Tonga and Tasmania: results from everywhere it seems, except from the Murray itself.

The Original Custodians were not big on meteorological records, so that was a problem for Allie right there. She might have gone off to Barmah (a lovely spot) and cored a few red gums or somesuch, measured their transected rings and deduced when it had been hot and dry or cool and wet. That was not her preferred method, however. Rather, nice and comfy at a Parkville work station, she consulted those who went before, mining their studies of celery top pines in Tasmania, teak in Indonesia, some tall timber in Western Australia, Tongan corals, kauri in New Zealand and other interesting bits of Bali, Fiji and the Great Barrier Reef. The closest survey site was a good 900 kilometres from the Murray, the furthest a 10-hour flight, even for Tim Flannery.

Data sources so far removed from the river she intended to study might have suggested an insurmountable obstacle to those who know not the miracles of modern modelling. By reviewing numbers here, sifting charts there and rejecting discordant figures in accordance with recognised climatological norms and norming, Ailie was able to feed what was left into a computerized vitamizer and – golly gosh, guess what? – demonstrate with charts and graphs that the recent drought really was the worst in centuries, just as the Phage, ABC, Guardian, World Wildlife Fund had been saying all along!

Indeed, by Ailie’s reckoning, it was even worse, which must have convulsed the WWF’s fund-raisers with shivers of delight: the drought was not the nastiest in 100 years or even 1,000 years – it was a full 1500 years since Australia had seen the arid like. Just to put things in perspective, that is not too long after the Romans pulled out of Britain. Amazing, ain’t it, what climate science can learn about a river in southern Australia from a bit of Bali coral someone else has studied? And don’t getting suspicious, thinking nobody could be that precise on the basis of such much-handled data.The science is settled, Ailie assures us, and to a 97.7% certainty, no less!

See also  his earlier post Insane Clown Posse on a cherubic faced not-quite-yet-PhD scientist and one Dr Jason Evans “FCS”:

Her UNSW colleague, Dr Jason Evans (left), added even more intellectual heft to the choir, as he has published many, many papers and prognostications about what the weather might do next. He is also the performer ABC viewers will remember as getting in the camera’s face at the 1:53 mark of the two-minute video. That is the instant when he announces with aggressive tunelessness that he is no mere a climate scientist, not him! No, he is “a fucking climate scientist.” There may be one thing, however, Jason Evans PhD (with a self-conferred FCS) regrets publishing, and that would be his prediction in late 2009 of the Saharan future facing the Murray-Darling basin.

”Certainly the southern part of the Murray-Darling Basin, which includes the Lachlan, [is] looking at hotter and drier projections in the future,” a senior research fellow at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW, Dr Jason Evans, said.

Pity about all that rain we’ve been having.

The diligent Bunyip has noticed one of the performers had 2 seconds of fame in the Climategate emails as well. It’s good to have another blogger out there cross checking the PR output of our taxpayer funded advisers and researchers.

He’s an erudite wordsmith, do visit his new blog: Bunyipitude.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 1.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Climate science rappers do some research as well, 1.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/3tv4e4h

41 comments to Climate science rappers do some research as well

  • #
    EJ

    Looks like I can add another couple of ‘scientists’ to my ignore category.

    EJ

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Getting noticed for all the wrong reasons… clearly their poor judgement in making the video is not limited to F-grade rapping. Traically, in this post-modernist society, the popular are more celebrated than rigorous scientists. You need look no further than the likes of their hero Tim Flannery, the teflon prognosticator, for proof of that…

    00

  • #
    John Trigge

    How does one gain the honorific ‘Dr’ PRIOR to gaining one’s PhD?

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    It seems WUWT has pipped us (Aussies) in announcing the Galileo Movement:

    http://www.galileomovement.com.au/galileo_movement.php

    Aussies make sure to have your vote on the simple poll regarding carbon (sic) taxation:

    http://www.galileomovement.com.au/vote.php

    00

  • #
    Vin Charles

    The Head of Dept who allowed such shoddy and unscientific research, not to mention the immature drivel from the mouths of babes, should also to be held responsible. The name Karoly would not ring a bell, would it?

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    The study mentioned here is worthy of note:

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/9454951/make-40-new-carbon-price-target-study/

    To quote:

    If carbon were priced at $30 a tonne, “existing black coal-fired power stations will continue to provide the lowest-cost generation and actual [greenhouse gas] abatement may be minimal”, the government’s “investment reference group” on electricity generation says, citing the study

    Protip: If the price of coal for power generation is less than gas, there will be no fuel switching, which is exactly what I stated numerous times with respect to a $20 or $26 per tonne CO2 tax.

    Let’s be crystal clear about this … the carbon (sic) price (sic, it’s a tax not a “price”) is simply revenue raising by a morally bankrupt Government. It will not change one single power station in Australia from using coal to gas, the next cheapest power source. It certainly doesn’t come anywhere close to encouraging the Greens’ precious renewable energy utopia.

    The carbon dioxide tax is a tax, pure and simple … it will reduce carbon dioxide emissions like speed cameras reduce the road toll… which is to say, not at all. People are welcome to believe otherwise, but they are idiots.

    00

  • #

    Off topic, but I made the mistake of leaving the radio on the ABC after Counterpoint finished last night. Thus I got the first part of the Science Show – which definitely needs a name change.
    A couple of RW gems from the transcript:
    On the other hand, from my point of view, having done thousands of interviews on this subject, if someone is conscientious, he or she can look up the evidence, as you have in the book, meticulously, and to deny it amounts, does it not Haydn, to lying?
    Mr Williams did not go on to explain whether he had been lying when he said that “seas will rise by 100 metres”, or merely exaggerating for dramatic effect.
    So you’re saying that rule one, let no level of evidence influence what you’re saying.
    As I recall, it was pro-climate change scientists who refused to share their work and open it up to criticism. Who was afraid there of letting evidence influence what they were saying?
    We have to avoid groupthink.
    Which would imply a resistance to dogmatism and attempts to suppress opposing views. So we wouldn’t be saying anything like “The science is settled.” Oh, wait…
    Have to admit, it was at about this point that I left the room. It was that or hurl the radio at the wall.

    00

  • #

    Can’t these people be put to work doing something useful like picking up litter from roadsides?

    00

  • #
    janama

    Bulldust @ 4 – Alan Jones launched the Galileo Movement this morning on his radio program – He interviewed Dr Lindzen. Alan Jones is the Patron of the movement.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    One last article, because this is something I have been carping on about from time to time:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/we-emit-less-carbon-than-combet-gives-us-credit-for/story-e6frgd0x-1226057027444

    I started a PhD on this thesis, wrote a couple chapters before becoming bored with it … got distracted by the new-fangled thingo called the world wide web at the time.

    Australia is a net exporter of energy fuels and also a net exporter of energy-intensive goods. Consequently much of Australia’s GHG emissions are as a proxy for other countries consuming the goods created with said emissions.

    This fact alone completely destroys the basis for the argument that we are amongst the highest CO2 emitters in the developed world*. The emissions are contracted, if you will, by other consumers. Take away the demand and the emissions would not occur in Australia or anywhere else in the world. Trying to lay the moral blame at Australia’s feet for doing the world’s bidding is completely misplaced.

    Worse still… for Australia to take a lead role in cutting emissions of GHGs is utter stupidity of the highest order.

    * Which we aren’t BTW… that is also a lie.

    00

  • #

    Rap is such a perfect medium for AGW: shouty, nagging, and authoritarian.

    And when white nerds rap, I always think of Clint Eastwood’s advice to the gangsta-talking white kid in Gran Torino: “They don’t want you to be their bro – and I don’t blame them.”

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Have a look at the MDB record from BOM and work it out for yourself.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=mdb&season=0112&ave_yr=15

    Also from that record, average rainfall from 1895 to 1904 = 408mm

    Average r/fall from 1935 to 1944 = 402mm

    Average r/fall from 2000 to 2009 = 421mm, definitely not the worst in the last 110 years.

    In fact average r/fall in MDB from 1922 to 1946 or 25 years = 421mm.
    This is the same as our last 10 years but was for a full quarter of a century.

    00

  • #

    [...] Climate science rappers do some research as well [...]

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Sorry but that last line above should be 2000 to 2009 not last 10 years.

    Just for interest here is the BOM Australian anomoly graph showing below average moving line for nearly the first 70 years.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=15

    00

  • #
    Ross

    As a Kiwi I don’t understand the detail of how the Australian parliamentary system works. We hear Aussie journalists interviewed on radio regularly on events over your way ( a couple of times a week on regular time slots, in some cases)This morning I heard a guy saying the carbon tax will definitely happen as the Greens will have effective control of the Senate in July.
    So does this mean if it gets through the lower house it is effectively a done deal ?
    ( ie. the only way to stop it is for an independent to change sides or a Govt. MP to cross the floor). Is it clear that the way the tax is proposed to be introduced that the Liberals could just “wipe it” if they get in next time ? (ie. it could be unwound quite easily)

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Ross:

    Basically that is correct – the Greens have the balance of power in the Upper House come July, so things will start to go wonky after that…

    This is assuming we don’t have a successful vote of no confidence in the current Government before then. We can only hope, but the independents don’t dare do this because they know they will be bundled out of their seats.

    I don’t think the Labor party has the stomach to take down two leaders within a year so we are stuck with Jooolya until the bitter end, and it will be so very, very bitter. Either way the next Government will undoubtedly be Liberal as the Aussie population has had a gutfull of the current cretins, and so the Carbon (sic) Price (sic) will be short lived.

    00

  • #
    pat

    here’s a rap from pachauri:

    17 May: Herald Sun: Alison Godfrey: Temperatures plummet as BOM says winter is on its way to Australia
    However, The Courier Mail reports, an International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists meeting on the Gold Coast yesterday warned of more radical weather events to come.
    Chairman Rajendra Pachauri said climate change would see the world face more such extreme events, including cyclones, floods, droughts, heatwaves and fire.
    Disasters “not linked to climate change”
    But according to the world’s leading authority on climate change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri, linking the latest weather disasters to climate change would be wrong.
    Mr Pachauri told the Australian the general observation that climate change was bringing about an increase in extreme weather events was valid but scientists needed to provide much finer detail.
    “Frankly, it is difficult to take a season or two and come up with any conclusions on those on a scientific basis,” Dr Pachauri said.
    “What we can say very clearly is the aggregate impact of climate change on all these events, which are taking place at much higher frequency and intensity all over the world.
    “On that there is very little doubt; the scientific evidence is very, very strong. But what happens in Queensland or what happens in Russia or for that matter the floods in the Mississippi River right now, whether there is a link between those and climate change is very difficult to establish. So I don’t think anyone can make a categorical statement on that.”
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/temperatures-plummet-as-australia-heads-into-winter/story-e6frf7l6-1226057294737

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Thanks Bullbust.
    I was just trying to get down to the “bare bones” of the political reality.

    From a Kiwi perspective we’d love to see the Australian plan abandoned because this would put pressure on our guys with the ETS system or put another way the NZ Govt. could not justify continued expansion of it very easily.

    00

  • #

    Very strange, it me the first thing a scientist should do when try to observe something is find the most direct and accurate way of doing said observation. The global trotting proxy hunt Ailie seems to have taken smacks of observational laziness to me.

    Also why wasn’t this put across the desk of peoples whose job it is to observe the past to ascertain the climate – like geologists? They should have been able to point her to whole set of very local proxies I would have thought, if not prior research on the issue.

    Okay, lets say for the sake of argument she did it in the only way she had available to her – where exactly is the measure of confidence in the result? Is it +/- 0.5% or +/- 50% figures like 2.3% MUST come with a confidence range.

    Also from reading the paper (and plumbing the depths of my memory when I did my PhD) – it looks like they screen out proxies on the base of trending misfit with actual values as observed… Erm bit of a problem here, you just modified the population of equally valid observations by removing the ‘undesirables’. You should screen on the basis of other qualities (like poor site location, etc), not how it fits to what you want to find! Also this raises the question of what exactly are the actual values and what story do they tell?

    Somebody should take this lot and put them back through stats 101.

    00

  • #

    We’ve really got to stop this non-sense. The smart children of today would rather become bankers than have to deal with clowns like these. The best way to strip away your passion for something is to have to deal with greed and incompetence. I fear the next Einstein or Newton would rather trade derivatives than deal with marketers dressed up as scientists.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Ross,

    Bulldust summed it up pretty however, for the carbon tax to be effective it needs to be at least $40 per carbon ton this is the minimum price the greens are looking at. Having said that a price this high or higher would mean not only would labor be kicked out of office but they would not be re elected until the current voting public no longer vote.

    So the greens may get control of the senate but they will use this power to try and get a high price whilst labor will resist it and they will simply become a caretaker until the next election.

    BOT i am bemused as to how a study of this nature can get through peer review………….thats all i got to say.

    00

  • #
    Matt b

    Crakar… I give you today’s comments from Christine Milne as evidence that the Greens are not pursuing a $40 a tinne price on carbon when they take the balance of power:

    “Greens Senator Christine Milne, a member of the multi-party committee on climate change, told AM it is not just a case of the starting price, but other incentives are also needed for investment in renewable energy.

    “Even at $40, it is not a high enough price to bring on renewable energy at a large scale, like solar thermal for example,” she said.

    “I certainly recognise that you are going to need a price at $40 or more to shift from coal to gas, and then a higher price still from gas to the renewables.

    “That’s why it’s a combination of starting price, escalator and complementary measures.”

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    There is nothing here you have written that convinces me the greens wont push for a min $40 a ton.

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
    brc

    Ross – one more thing there. Because the Greens/Labor/Independents coalition has the numbers (currently) to pass lower house legislation, and the Greens will hold a balance of power come July, unless something happens in either the lower house (by-election, floor-crossing, etc) or the upper house (Greens refusing to pass <$40 price) the legislation will quite likely 'get up'.

    Let's assume that the Liberals take power sometime between June 2011 and August 2013 (full term). Because of half-term Senators (only half of the senators are up for election at each regular election), it's quite possible that the Greens could maintain a balance of power in the Senate. Thus once the legislation is in and active, the Greens will be banking on keeping the numbers in the Senate to block any attempts by an incoming Liberal government to remove the carbon tax legislation (which will, no doubt include a suicide pill of indexed increases). So it's possible that even a victorious Tony Abbott wouldn't have the numbers to remove the legislation due to being blocked in the Senate from doing so – it certainly isn't certain that even a strong lower house victory would deliver the numbers.

    The other side of this, of course, is whatever result the election brings. If, as expected, it brings a large majority in the lower house and a strong mandate, then Tony Abbott could either call on the Labor party to support the removal of the carbon tax in the senate (and thus sideline the greens, as they should be). If the Labor party decided to be obstructive and continue to support the tax, then Abbott as PM could call a double-dissolution election, which is a full election of both the lower house and the upper house. As long as PM Tony still had the public support, you would expect this to be very harsh on the Greens and Labor as the voting public would probably be (quite rightly) miffed at having to go back to the polls even though they had already delivered their verdict. The likely outcome would be a return with increased numbers both in the Senate and lower house.

    Against that scenario (DD election), whomever is leading the Labor party after the next election would probably best roll over and trash the tax that destroyed their party, and support the Liberals in removing it. The Libs made very few noises about the 'workchoices' legislation being overturned after the last election because of imagined mandate of the people. It all depends on the personalities after the next election how it goes, but given there is likely to be a caretaker Labor leader after a massive loss, I'd bet on whomever it is just letting it go and looking for a new battle. The Greens will come through pretty much unscathed, because they won't go back on their position, and will still be screeching doom mongers and economic fruitloops. But hopefully they might lose a senate place in the next election to at least drop their numbers back a bit.

    The essential issue is that Tasmania, being a small % of both population, landmass and GDP output, gets a disproportionate representation in the Senate, simply on the basis that Tasmania is a 'full' state (unlike the ACT or Northern Territory). Based on a number of historical reasons, the Greens party germinated in Tasmania and spread like a disease to the rest of the country. Tasmania is a net loss, GDP wise as industry isn't welcome, and is home to a very large population of NIMBY types who like the fruits of civilisation but want to keep themselves at arms length from actually doing the dirty work. To put this in NZ terms, imagine if the residents of Stewart Island had as much say in blocking legislation as the residents of Auckland. That's why we're in this bizarre situation in the first place. The one token lower house MP means nothing, it's the senate power of the Greens that this whole thing swings around.

    So while the carbon tax is doomed either way, it's much better if it never gets up in the first place. Much simpler to dismantle that way.

    00

  • #
    Austrialien

    ”Certainly the southern part of the Murray-Darling Basin, which includes the Lachlan, [is] looking at hotter and drier projections in the future,” a senior research fellow at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW, Dr Jason Evans, said.

    Maybe he’s up for a debate with Piers Corbyn

    “Ruddprime loans will eventually blow the warm air out of Juliar’s sails”

    00

  • #
    Manalive

    “Murray has not had a worse drought than the most recent one in the last 1500 years…”

    Hmmm, who am I going to believe, Allie or my own eyes?

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Manalive,

    By the look of the eyes in your avatar i would be asking the same question……….

    Seriously,

    The motto of science today should be “Evidence not required” and the irony is if someone was brave enough to do a robust and thorough study of the MDB the only logical result would be the exact opposite and what would they get for their troubles?

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Hmmm….

    Rap…. Catastrafarianism…. Intelligence

    Spot the odd word out….

    ’nuff said..

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    pat

    passed by sky news last nite and saw a headline in the text news menu called “carbon tax debate”. reading it showed no debate whatsoever, but rather it reported GE had commissioned a survey which showed australian business is already planning for the carbon tax. no ifs, buts or maybes. the mention of GE was at the very end which required scrolling and was probably missed by most people who checked the piece. why is this London-based Economist Intelligence Unit doing this survey on behalf of GE for Australian business?

    16 May: BigPond: Aust businesses prepare for carbon price
    The report by the Economist Intelligence Unit is likely to give heart to the federal government, which is planning to introduce a carbon price by July 2012…
    Almost two-thirds said they were holding back investment until there was greater certainty on carbon pricing, the GE-commissioned study found.
    GE is a multi-national technology, services and finance company…
    The Climate Institute’s John Connor said there was credible evidence, from such sources as Treasury, Access Economics and CSIRO, of job growth under a carbon price…
    Meanwhile, the independent Climate Commission will hold a forum at Parliament House in Canberra next week, with Labor, the coalition, Greens and independent MPs flagging their attendance.
    ‘The broad attendance reflects the bipartisan agreement on the need for action on climate change,’ said Professor Tim Flannery, the head of the Climate Commission.
    The commission has asked each MP to bring along a constituent to take part in the event on May 24, a parliamentary sitting day.
    http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Finance/2011/05/16/Aust_businesses_prepare_for_carbon_price_613668.html

    16 May: ABC: Business seeks certainty on carbon tax
    By online business reporter Michael Janda
    The study by the Economist Intelligence Unit, paid for by GE, shows that 70 per cent of the businesses surveyed are already taking steps to cut their carbon emissions, particularly by reducing energy usage…
    The surveys authors say it was conducted in February, before the Federal Government announced its plan for an interim carbon tax before an emissions trading scheme.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/16/3217817.htm?section=justin

    Wikipedia: Economist Intelligence Unit
    It is a research and advisory company providing country, industry and management analysis worldwide and incorporates the former Business International Corporation, a U.S. company acquired by the parent organization in 1986….
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist_Intelligence_Unit

    Wikipedia: Business International Corporation
    In 1986, Business International was acquired by The Economist Group in London, and eventually merged with The Economist Intelligence Unit. BI has been known to be used as a CIA front company…
    In the late summer of 1983, future United States President Barack Obama interviewed for a job at Business International Corporation. He worked there for “little more than year.”…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_International_Corporation

    16 May: Press Release: Policy uncertainty hindering corporate Australia’s low-carbon strategy
    There is little corporate consensus about the impact of climate change. Surprisingly, many Australian executives still question the science of climate change—40% of respondents say that the impact of carbon emissions on global warming hasn’t been sufficiently established to warrant wholesale changes in corporate strategy or behaviour. Respondents are also split on whether the opportunities created by introducing a carbon price will outweigh the risks in the long run.
    The majority of respondents favour some sort of carbon-pricing scheme, but they disagree about which one. One-quarter favour a carbon cap-and-trade scheme, while 20% prefer a simple tax on the carbon footprint of their operations. A further 12% want a consumer tax on the carbon footprint of goods and services consumed. Many of the companies interviewed for the report approve of the government’s idea of introducing a carbon tax—which gives them price certainty—followed later by a market-based pricing mechanism. Nevertheless, they are doubtful about the perceived accelerated timeline, and are eager for more details about the scheme…
    Large firms are more prepared for a low-carbon future…
    http://www.ethicalmarkets.com/2011/05/16/policy-uncertainty-hindering-corporate-australia%e2%80%99s-low-carbon-strategy/

    (multiple pages, names)Economist Intelligence Unit: Cleaning up: Australia’s readiness for a low-carbon future
    Cleaning up: Australia’s readiness for a low-carbon future is an Economist Intelligence Unit report, commissioned by GE…
    Elizabeth Fry was the author of the report and Sudhir Vadaketh was the editor. Gaddi Tam was responsible for design. The cover image is by David Simonds.
    We would like to thank the following interviewees for their time and insights (listed alphabetically by organisation):…
    http://digitalresearch.eiu.com/cleaningup/report

    it seems the cool young crowd who we are constantly told want action on CAGW don’t have a clue as to how “spooky” the whole thing is!

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Pat,

    GE will need all the money they can get after the Japs sue their ass off.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Save the planet – Nuke a green !!!!!

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    Science is a lowly paid and insecure profession. Due to low cutoff scores science faculties now enrol many very poor quality students. It is hard to believe that many students who barely scraped through year 12 suddenly became brilliant enough at university to get 1st class honours. However it happens all the time due to massive grade inflation and extremely low standards. These dullards then somehow go on to become academics. Truly scary stuff.

    00

  • #
    Taphonomic

    crakar24,

    While GE may have designed and built the reactor, I serously doubt that they were the ones that calculated the design basis tsunami.

    00

  • #
    AndrewWA

    Careful bananabender

    Generalisations can take you to all of the wrong places………………..

    I used to win jugs of beer at the “Oxford” from having the lowest University entrance score.

    Let’s say that I was a bit distracted in Year 12 by studying the 3Bs (booze, baseball and broads) and having way to many distractions (House Captain, debating team etc.)

    But I not only duxed my School but received the University’s Academic Prize in my graduation year.

    Effort, application and aptitude still provide rewards. Many excellent scientists have had humble and different backgrounds

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    @AndrewWA:
    May 18th, 2011 at 11:51 am

    Careful bananabender

    Generalisations can take you to all of the wrong places………………..

    I’m not talking about people like you. I’m talking about the plodding morons who scrape by relying purely on rote learning and sycophancy. I’ve met plenty of science PhD students and academics who are thick as two short planks. They have never had an original insight in their entire life.

    00

  • #
    Johnny Knoxville

    Ever heard of a teleconnection Josephine Of course not you’re a climate moron like Davey boy.

    Manalive illustrates why democracy is a bad idea. It’s called a dam. Enjoy your fellow travellers.

    00