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


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Stop making sense. Forget science and become emotional

 

Rebecca Huntley,

Stop making sense….

Rebecca Huntley proffers reassurance to the faithful fans of man-made weather. Why make sense when you can just weep your way through national energy policy?

Stop making sense: why it’s time to get emotional about climate change

Rebecca Huntley, The Guardian

It’s a soothing piece of public self-therapy, offering forgiveness to those, like her, that struggle to make sense in the first place. Having lost the debate on climate science, and being reduced to petty namecalling, Huntley’s job, apparently, is to distort what people think science is.

The science behind climate change has been proven correct to the highest degree of certainty the scientific method allows.

Why stop there? Climate change has been proven beyond the highest degree of certainty allowed. It’s gone right off the scale and into the supernatural. It’s a place where 16 year old sages prophesy the future and tell the world to stop floods with windmills.

If you weren’t confused about the definition of climate change, Huntley is here to make sure you are:

But climate change is more than just the science. It’s a social phenomenon

The last thing a prophetic cult needs is accurate language. People might spot how contradictory the arguments are.

Is she a social scientist or a God?

Then again, I’m a social scientist. I study people. I deal mostly in feelings, not facts. A joke I like to tell about myself during speeches is that I’m an expert in the opinions of people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

And we’d like to see her say that to Richard Lindzen or Roy Spencer.

How does she know all those skeptics don’t know what they are talking about?

Huntley is living the Dunning-Kruger-confirmation-dream:

Have a look at the must-watch 2018 Ted Talk by the meteorologist J Marshall Shepherd, on three kinds of bias that shape your worldview. The first, and probably the most obvious, is confirmation bias, namely that we zero in on evidence that supports what we already believe.

We can’t wait to hear Huntley describe the core scientific arguments of leading skeptics. Could we send her a pop-quiz?

Confirmation bias is even more pronounced in a world where we can use our social media to filter out information we don’t want to absorb and where we follow influencers who reinforce our existing beliefs.

Case in point, see @RebeccaHuntley2 on twitter. Good luck finding a counter message in between retweets of Labor election ads. Look who’s filtering their information?

The second bias is called Dunning-Kruger, which describes our human tendency to think we know more than we do as well as to underestimate what we don’t know. Again, I see this happen in focus groups all the time, when participants with no scientific credentials or training pick apart the science of climate change.

Perhaps like the social scientists who think that opinion polls of climate modelers are more important than 3,000 ocean buoys, 6,000 boreholes, and 28 million weather balloons, not to mention 800,000 years  of ice cores, and 30 years of satellites?

The third and final bias is cognitive dissonance. When people encounter actions or ideas they cannot reconcile psychologically with their own beliefs, they experience discomfort. They then try to resolve their discomfort by arguing away the new evidence.

Rebecca Hunter believes climate change has been proven correct to the highest degree of certainty. Her cognitive dissonance is so large, she’s argued away the entire science debate.

• This is an edited extract from How to Talk About Climate Change in a Way That Makes a Difference, by Rebecca Huntley (Murdoch Books, $32.99)

It’s a hard job, but someone’s got to play “expert” and convince the struggling believers that they don’t even need to pretend to be scientific anymore.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.7/10 (75 votes cast)
Stop making sense. Forget science and become emotional, 9.7 out of 10 based on 75 ratings

121 comments to Stop making sense. Forget science and become emotional

  • #
    Kevin a

    Alan Jones has made his return to broadcasting with fiery claims Australians have endured an “alarmist campaign” over COVID-19.
    https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/current-affairs/alan-jones-lashes-australias-virus-response-on-debut-sky-news-tv-show/news-story/d97ca656476eeb1caa96a1c26026d1aa

    202

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      And he is right. I fit Alan’s self description, but it is not right that the economy should be shut down just to protect me. There are precautions I can take if it becomes necessary.

      It is my firm belief that it will be impossible to avoid this disease. Sooner or later we will have to face it off head on. We can’t deal with the rest of the world on the basis of waste a fortnight.

      232

    • #
      Bill In Oz

      Off topic so red thumbed !
      Why is it so hard to stay on topic ?
      Bugger.

      19

    • #
      Geoff Croker

      The MSM is chasing clicks to get advertising. Expect lies and hyperbole. There are no clicks for poorly researched facts and details.

      Journalism in the MSM has been defacted. It is now just an ism.

      Blogs will become the main source of facts and detail. Banners are becoming just noise.

      As real life is more interesting than made up “factoids”, even TV will eventually lose to blogs with vids and movies.

      Clicks are rapidly moving away from the MSM. The age of MSM personality is evolving to guest slots on blogs.

      31

  • #
    Betapug

    “The problem isn’t that Johnny (nor Rebecca) can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.

    Thomas Sowell

    420

    • #
      Jojodogfacedboy

      A total media ploy of trying to make everything emotional.
      Get more bang when describing child deaths then the number of people killed.
      The media can totally change the narrative of the story to the exact opposite by it being an opinion story then actually reporting the facts. And they get away with this constantly worldwide.
      If you’ve strictly watch the television media, then your only getting what they want to program you with. This is why President Trump using Twitter drives them crazy.

      210

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Everything comes down to how it looks in the cold light of morning….

        You can feel good, or be effective. Sometimes both can happen, but usually not.

        Emotions blind people to reality, which is why the Leftists use emotion to weaponize people against themselves…..

        100

    • #
      David Maddison

      Here are more Thomas Solwell quotes, all relevant here.

      https://youtu.be/BK-adW1VkYo

      112

      • #
        William Astley

        I double liked. “People who enjoy going to meetings should not be in charge of anything.” So true.

        120

    • #
      David Maddison

      It may interest people to know that Thomas Solwell started out as a student of Milton Friedman and Thomas was a Marxist at the time before he became a free market conservative.

      The Left hate him because he is black and a conservative. “He ain’t black.” as Joe Biden would say (except that he is, a minor detail).

      112

  • #
    tom0mason

    Then again, I’m a social scientist. I study people. I deal mostly in feelings, not facts. A joke I like to tell about myself during speeches is that I’m an expert in the opinions of people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

    Dear Rebecca Huntley,

    Please understand that modern versions of ‘Social Science’ is neither social nor a science!
    So often it just states the obvious in a cryptic language that is similar to but different from normal English. The use of it’s own peculiar language is just to give it a thin veneer of academic bona fides of a faux specialism.
    More often ‘Social Scientists’ just cherry pick examples actions people have previously done or experienced, and extrapolates and theorizes to generalities with little regard to circumstance, logic, or rationality (but again using cryptic language).

    All in all ‘Social Science’ is just a mishmash of Economic theory, Political theories, Sociology and Psychology without any pretence understand them to any great breadth.

    In your case not even this much is in evidence.
    You claim “I’m an expert in the opinions of people who don’t know what they’re talking about.” and thus far this has proven to be incorrect. Moreover you appear to be just another noisy opinionated MSM writer of empty headed sophism, who misunderstands the world and people.

    431

    • #
      Komrade Kuma

      Advertisement

      Rebecca Huntley, Self Promoting Motor Mouth and TV Talking Air Head (with very wavy hands and expert head flick of hair for effect).

      For bookings to puff up your Q&A, Drum or other audio-visual media Opinionazi show, call……

      101

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      “Social science” is like saying social media is a respectable font of knowledge….its an attempt to take a dog of an idea and make it half respectable while ignoring the fleas and that fact they can lick itself in polite company without any form of embarrassment…anyone who has owned a dog knows what I mean.

      100

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      A social scientist!

      A psycho-what?

      Note that the 97%ers are psycho-whats.

      40

    • #
      Mal

      Social science in humans is an oxymoron
      You need clinical and objective evidence based analysis devoid of emotions
      Humans are social beings and act accordingly
      Confusing belief in climate change as proof of its truth is just superstition

      40

      • #
        sophocles

        Mal said

        Social science in humans is an oxymoron

        Absolutely. There’s no Science in it at all.

        Ms Huntley claims: “I’m an expert in the opinions of people who don’t know what they’re talking about.
        At least her her boomerang came back but she didn’t catch it because she can’t recognize the self reference.

        She’s not an expert but an X-Spurt.

        10

        • #
          sophocles

          Climate change has been proven beyond the highest degree of certainty allowed

          So zero as a degree of certainty is allowed. She confuses with .
          There is plenty of proof of climate variation but none, zero, zilch for climate change.

          So Rebecca: Show us your evidence!

          10

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    How to Talk About Climate Change in a Way That Makes a Difference
    Worst Apocalypse. Ever. by Rebecca Huntley (Murdoch Books, $32.99)

    There. Fixed that for you.

    160

  • #
    dinn, rob

    mortal mind at disconnect from reality goes nowhere fairly fast but not always, sometimes just sinks and stinks

    60

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    The science behind climate change has been proven correct to the highest degree of certainty the scientific method allows.

    “allows” ?? Say what?

    I wonder if she can tell us what climate science research has produced a “5-sigma signal.”

    200

  • #
    Reed Coray

    Having yearned for years to have their disciplines given the imprimatur of “science” while repeatedly being labeled pseudo “science,” practitioners of the following “sciences:” political science, social science, health science, performance science, management science, visualization science, sustainability science, communication data science, occupational science, addiction science, public policy data science, and the newest fad on the block–climate science have given up trying to convince the world that their disciplines are “scientific.” In lieu thereof, they’ve decided to argue that their disciplines are “science” because they (the practitioners of the disciplines) feel scientific. Kind of like Hitler declaring victory at Stalingrad and moving on. Isn’t self delusion grand?

    Note: I got the above list of “science” programs from the University of Southern California’s 2020-2021 catalog–see https://catalogue.usc.edu/content.php?catoid=12&navoid=4314

    220

  • #
    David Maddison

    Wouldn’t the correct name for a person claiming to be a “social scientist” be a “social theorist”?

    103

  • #
    James Murphy

    None of us are immune to confirmation bias, but this “social scientist” seems to think that no one is ever capable of rising above it, even for very specific topics. Obviously she has spent zero time around actual scientists or engineers.

    I’d still read her book if I knew that she wouldn’t get a cent from it. Who knows what other madness lies within it.

    120

    • #
      AndyG55

      “I’d still read her book”

      Nah.. life is too short for such trivial opinionated nonsense.

      There are many far better things to do. Basically anything else would be a better use of time.

      The more emotional they get.. the more they will be LAUGHED at. :-)

      130

    • #
      RicDre

      “Who knows what other madness lies within it.”

      The Shadow knows!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JSroiDGJ3E

      60

    • #
      Terry

      ‘…but this “social scientist” seems to think that no one is ever capable of rising above it…’

      The entire purpose of The Scientific Method.

      90

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      James Murphy

      Wait a few years and check in the secondhand bookshops. I picked up a few “WE are all Doomed” books published in the 1970′s (about the coming Ice Age and Running out of food and oil) that 20 years later weren’t wanted.
      If you can’t wait 20 years don’t worry. Life is speeding up — I picked up Al What’shisName’s DVD ‘Truth is Incovenient’ (or similar title) only 4 years after it was concocted at a low price ($US 5-6). I might watch the whole thing someday.

      60

    • #
      Bill In Oz

      Who needs to read her madness ?
      Who needs to waste their time on it ?
      I will not be buying or reading her book.
      Emotional dunbnuttery

      43

  • #
    David Maddison

    If you search her name on YouTube you will see her videos in which she appears and she has an incredibly small number of views of each video, usually tens or hundreds. The most viewed video she has (by far) is a TEDx talk entitled “The Truth in Social Research” with 18k views but that is a statistical outlier, probably due to the TEDx brand.

    52

  • #
    a happy little debunker

    I wonder how many genders she can identify?

    80

    • #
      David Maddison

      All 71 of them? (71 genders was the last count I saw, there might be more now.)

      72

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Are the interbreeding?

        60

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        71? and counting.
        It’s more like an infinite continuum of brain/body mix.

        The two “normal sexes are:

        Female, with a female brain and female form/body.

        Male, with male brain in a male body/form.

        If during pregnancy there’s a stressor that interrupts the development of the foetus at a critical point then critical transition points can be missed or only partly enacted.

        Initially,
        in the very early stages immediately after conception, we all begin life as female.
        Should the ultimate destination for the egg be female the process moves through setting up the female form and female brain.

        For the male there are two, among many, critical points where the existing female brain and female form must be switched to produce the required male items.

        There are many transition points and should these be stopped there are consequences.

        The easiest way is to describe the ultimate gender dysphoria ie. The perfect gender mix up.

        In these cases the person will have either;

        A male brain in a female body. Originally conceived as male where the transition of the body to male was stopped but the brain change was O.K.
        Second is a female brain in a male body . In this case the body change was OK but the brain switch was stopped.

        These are the perfect cases and because the transitions and time taken to form the body and brain there can be disruption at many lower level critical points and this can lead to a great range of brain and form mixing.

        Then if some of these people can reproduce there’s a whole world of mixups possible.

        LGBTQIR and terms like this are a sad indictment of the modern world because they signal the fact that the truth is not important. The important thing is to have a cause which can be used to focus activists venom against the world at large.

        Any pregnant woman can suffer serious disruption to foetal development if stressors occur. No arguing, no drinking alcohol etc.

        Men can help in pregnancy by acknowledging the potential for women to need help and a calm environment.

        Thanks to all the mothers.

        KK

        20

        • #
          Orson

          One could also read “As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl” by John Colapinto – or the couple of documentaries on the life of David Reimer. Plot spoiler: the leading medical and psychiatric expert authority lied instead of admitting failure, with grave and tragic consequences.

          30

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Thanks for those references Orson.
            The David Reimer thing sounds like a real tragedy and it emphasises the futility of the gender reassignment fad.

            The idea that people can be “deprogrammed” from gender dysphoria by chemical and psychological means is totally off the planet.

            Unfortunately there are few exceptions to the idea that people need to live with what they were given at birth.

            Mostly I suspect that attempts at gender reassignment are mostly of benefit to doctors running the clinics and not to the victims.

            KK

            30

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Perhaps one of the most important points about gender dysphoria is that the victims had no say in what happened. Stressed mothers and drinking mothers are the prime factor in this problem.

            Later attempts to change things are based on false assumptions and misunderstanding of the situation which has only been clarified in the last 20 years.

            KK

            10

    • #
      MudCrab

      Genders are sexist.

      To make assumptions of a person purely by one of 71 options reduces their achievements as a person.

      By extension to identify yourself to a stranger by opening with your gender also reduces YOU as a person. It openly suggests that nothing else you have done, or are likely to do in the near future, has any standing relative to how you have decided your dangly bits like to bounce. You are, in extent, simply a tick box in a census data field.

      Name:?
      DOB:?
      Gender:?

      What about your hope and dreams? What about your tears and laughter? Your failures and success?

      Nope – I am a GENDER.

      Honestly, have some self worth.

      30

  • #
    David Maddison

    As Ben Shapiro says:

    Facts don’t care about your feelings.

    182

  • #
    Yonniestone

    In the article photo Rebecca looks to have a nice house, I’ll guarantee after pointing out that the house and everything in it was produced with the help of fossil fuels she’d justify it with some wild claim of carbon offsetting or how the timber is storing carbon.

    No rational person is going to win debates with people like this, have a look at the comments in the article to see what you’re dealing with.

    40

  • #
    Robber

    “The science behind climate change has been proven correct to the highest degree of certainty the scientific method allows.”
    I wonder does she even know what the IPCC says? “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.”
    Rebecca, how’s that for a high degree of certainty?

    70

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      I still think Jim Hanson’s 1988 prediction of the temperature rising 3-7℃ by the 2020′s might have been a little off target. Along with his claim that The Maldives would be underwater by 2018.

      110

  • #
    David Maddison

    QUOTE
    “The science behind climate change has been proven correct to the highest degree of certainty the scientific method allows.”

    Is that just another way of saying their mantra that “The science is settled.”

    102

    • #
      RicDre

      “The science behind climate change has been proven correct to the highest degree of certainty the scientific method allows.”

      Actually, I think she’s right, the science says the Climate will Change, et voilà! the Climate Changes. On the other hand, if she is talking about Anthropomorphic Global Warming she’s way off.

      110

    • #
      Analitik

      Is that just another way of saying their mantra that “The science is settled.”

      That was what immediately leapt to mind when I read it.

      20

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘ … participants with no scientific credentials or training pick apart the science of climate change.’

    That is my MO your honour and may I just add that its a delicious experience.

    91

    • #
      Terry

      ‘ … participants with no scientific credentials or training pick apart the science of climate change.’

      I will take “no scientific credentials” employing The Scientific Method anyevery day over the opposite.

      60

      • #
        el gordo

        All of us here are enthusiastic students who know far more about climate change than this social scientist. As Jo said: ‘Her cognitive dissonance is so large, she’s argued away the entire science debate.’

        90

      • #
        el gordo

        The Scientific Method.

        ‘ … a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.’

        The IPCC think they are within guidelines.

        20

  • #
    Ruairi

    Emotion makes climate doom real,
    For alarmists who love its appeal,
    To obviate science,
    Leaving total reliance,
    On believing as fact what they feel.

    290

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    The title of this post got me straight away;
    wonderful sarcasm Jo.
    Then on reading Becky’s linked melodrama it became clearer, not your work, she was describing herself.

    The failing of current education in schools in Australia is legendary, but it has moved on to higher, “advanced” education where all classes are now conducted in a cloud somewhere remote from the real world. Becky may be reflecting current psychology but twenty years ago real psychology degrees taught the essence of “thinking” as being “how” we think and not “what” is thought. The focus was on how we respond to our environment and interact with it, not on “what it should be according to the laws of Becky and the Grauniad.

    Come down off the cloud, feel the solid ground underfoot and be thankful you are sane.

    KK

    90

    • #
      AndyG55

      “all classes are now conducted in a cloud somewhere remote from the real world”

      Not all classes, KK. ;-)

      20

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        I stand corrected.

        I was particularly thinking of the “humanities” courses where the course content outlined in a newspaper article a few weeks ago was decidedly loony, touchy feely.

        As mentioned previously, I’m sure that there’s still a lot of good work being done that is on target and is appreciated by students and employers.

        KK

        00

  • #
    Terry

    There’s that word “Social” again.

    In modern parlance, its meaning is “Not”.
    SocialNot Justice
    SocialNot Science
    SocialNot Scientist

    Give yourself whatever Title/Credential you like. We know what you are.

    101

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    The doctor will see you now, Ms Huntley …

    The Climate Anxiety Doctor Is “In”
    https://www.hakaimagazine.com/article-short/climate-anxiety-doctor

    Climate scientists, who spend their working lives detailing the nuances of the planet’s increasingly grim prospects may be particularly susceptible to climate-related mental health issues, but the general public is also at risk.

    50

  • #
    TdeF

    We have had the voice of Authority, someone from NASA, even if it was the Jet Propulsion laboratory. The Ex Vice President of the United States. Pseudo scientists like dead wombat historian Flim Flannery who has never been right about anything. Lately the child savant and teenage dropout who addressed the United Nations, Grumpy Greta. And her minions dressed up as witches from the Extinction Rebellion.

    Now we have the sad clowns and fact free social science fiction. To be fair to Rebecca Huntley, it is honest with no pretence about actual science. Science is the problem. It’s all about emotions. If you feel terrible and depressed and worried, it is justified and it’s all someone else’s fault. Things outside your control. So why not write a book about how you feel? It’s good therapy before you move on in the face of an actual deadly crisis, another of James Delingpole’s Four Horsemen of the Ecopolypse. Now the Climate, Carbon, Covid Crisis.

    .

    123

  • #
    Penguinite

    As Judge Judy often says, “you can’t tell me what people think unless by some miracle you can see inside their heads”. Please take your self-styled psychology and try practising on your self!

    60

  • #
    RickWill

    Stop making sense: why it’s time to get emotional about climate change

    This is simply not possible. How can someone STOP something when they never STARTED. CAGW is NONsense. It is a religious belief that makes no sense. The nonsense defies the simple observation that the Earth has maintained a climate hospitable to carbon based life forms for billions of years despite massive perturbations from various causes. Nearly all life on Earth and within Earth is based on carbon extracted from the atmosphere. Recycling some of that carbon locked away by deceased life forms simply enhances existing and new life; surely that is clear by now.

    100

    • #
      David Maddison

      I doubt a single one of the catastrophists would even know what the carbon cycle is.

      And it annoys me intensely how they constantly confuse carbon with carbon dioxide.

      162

      • #
        TdeF

        There you go with that science stuff. What so many people fail to realise is that science is the problem. There are billions of things in the universe and carbon is just one of them and clearly we can live without it. No one uses it. The truth will out, like 71 genders not just a silly two. Why would there only be two? That’s ridiculous.

        As the WHO dictates “Gender refers to the roles, behaviours, activities, attributes and opportunities that any society considers appropriate for girls and boys, and women and men. Gender interacts with, but is different from, the binary categories of biological sex.”

        So there. And the United Nations is so right. Like Climate Change.

        112

  • #
    Steve of Cornubia

    From the ‘New World Encyclopaedia’:

    A dogma (from Greek: Doxa, “Opinion”; Dokein, “to seem to believe”) refers to a religious teaching or doctrine that is held by an organization (usually a religion) to be authoritative and indisputable. Dogmas are considered to be explications of divinely-given truths and therefore their denial is usually seen as tantamount to a rejection of the religion. Dogmas are found in many religions where they are considered to be core principles that must be upheld by followers in order to belong to the religious community. Rejection of a religion’s dogmas usually is considered to be heresy and may lead to an individual’s expulsion from the group or other forms of punishment.

    Sound familiar?

    50

    • #
      TdeF

      Yes, like the Buddhist who had to tell the priest that his Karma had run over the priest’s Dogma.

      72

    • #
      crakar24

      Nothing wrong with religion however there are far more noble religions to choose from if you want to devote your life to them than AGW

      30

      • #
        Dave in the States

        Nothing wrong with religion, but when it becomes part of the state and state policies and the state’s regulations are enforced by the sword or by economic sanction, it becomes a problem.

        History is clear to that point. History teaching is another failure of modern education. It has been supplanted by the social sciences, and now sosci mythology is invading STEM studies

        30

      • #
        Steve of Cornubia

        The point I was trying to highlight is, as has been said many times, that AGW behaves much like a religion itself, demanding complete adherence to its doctrines, worship of its senior figures (i.e. Cardinal Gore and St. Greta), the requirement to have faith and simply ‘believe’ in its teachings, irrespective of compelling arguments against it.

        So we can see the parallels but, more like the medieval religions of Europe and the Middle East rather than the more modern variants of Christianity, there is also a vicious intolerance of non-believers or anybody/anything that challenges its supremacy.

        Other parallels exist, such as the need for self-flagellation (economic pain) or penance (I must offset those airmiles) in order to prove oneself worthy, and the tendency for AGW’s high priests to demand sacrifices by others, while living in luxury themselves.

        50

  • #
    Serp

    How I miss the halcyon days of the mid twentieth century when one had actually to search for idiocy on the shelves of libraries or occult bookshops; alas, a possibly unintended consequence of the internet has made it accessible to all which is the first step to mandating compulsory stupidity in which to judge by its de facto energy policy Australia leads the field.

    60

    • #
      Another Ian

      Serp

      Obviously we passed the “Age of Sublimity” back then somewhere because we’re sure in the “Age of Ridiculous” now

      00

  • #
    crakar24

    Its a bit like having a BLM march during a pandemic does not make sense, but actions have consequences as we are seeing now. Ignoring the evidence is what we did years ago when we burnt women at the stake, despite our technological advances we are still rooting in our beliefs.

    50

  • #
    Another Ian

    To help with the “worry list” from an email just now

    Allen’s lollies are changing their name for their redskins and Chico’s so they don’t offend!

    This is a woman’s response to Allen’s …

    We’re going to have to change the name Smarties because not many people are very smart.

    Change M and Ms because they’re not inclusive of the entire alphabet, get rid of White Knight peppermint bar…

    Not sure whether it’s white privilege or whether it’s discrimination against whites or whether it’s white on the inside or chocolate on the outside, but will get rid of them while we’re in the mood.

    Will get rid of bananas because it might reflect a state of mind, likewise nuts, fruit cake and crackers.

    Will get rid of liquorice bullets because they might be violent.

    Freckles chocolate humiliate the skin blemished.

    We will no longer have red meat or white meat.

    We can’t have pink Lady Apples because there are no masculine ones. No more Granny Smith apples because it shows ageism.

    No more jelly snakes, red frogs or Caramello bears add Freddo Frogs because that could be a conservation issue.

    Can’t have coconut because they’re brown on the outside and white on the inside and sometimes used as an insult.

    We can’t have Flake chocolate because it describes your character.

    We can’t have milko chews in case there is some threat of violence upon him… And we can’t drink his Mother instead.

    We can’t have Mars Bars because all the other planets will be upset.

    We can’t have Easter eggs because that’s an insult to mammals.

    No more dark chocolate or white chocolate… Let alone any chocolate Brownies.

    Mr Edward Coon’s clever technology with cheese can be disregarded now because somebody might get offended.

    Little Tikes play toys you’ll have to be recalled so the Catholics don’t get upset.

    Red wine and white and dark ale and light ale should be colour neutral.

    Rainbow lifesavers upset heterosexuals.

    A greenhouse should not be named such for fear that it might upset a claustrophobic Irishman,

    and the list grows.

    Or we may simplify life and keep things as they are… And call a spade a spade instead of a long handled lifting device.”

    40

  • #
    Alice Thermopolis

    “It’s time to get emotional about CC because I’ve just written an emotional book about getting emotional about climate change, which I hope will sell a lot of copies, as I get emotional about money too.”

    Deja vu all over again.

    Clive Hamilton – and others – did it all over a decade ago, until he vacated the field and is now venting his alarmist spleen on China.

    Second wave of DACC/DAGW is here, desperately trying to edge covid-19 out of the headlines.

    40

  • #

    A tilt against confirmation bias in THE NEWS… data in context counts.
    H/cdquarles @ The Chiefio.
    https://uncoverdc.com/2020/07/06/primer-on-the-democrat-party-and-the-media/

    50

    • #
      TdeF

      Amazing. However the newspapers went on to make individuals like Randolph Hearst and later Ted Turner into billionaires. In those days the billionaires were in newspapers, beer, steel and banking. As with the Medicis. In the dying days of newspapers, what we are seeing is a reinvention of their original purpose as tools of vested interests, the original promoters of slavery. And hypocrisy never bothered the rich.

      21

  • #
    Speedy

    The prefix ‘social” seems used simply to bypass the need to justify a given cause or argument. “Social” License, Social Responsibility, Social Justice etc. It’s code word for “sacred cow.”

    40

  • #
    John

    “Social scientist BAHAHAHAHA”.
    Ben Shapiro.

    20

  • #
    PeterS

    This is really nothing new. With respect to climate change it has been going on for many years. The only thing that has changed is over time fewer and fewer “leaders” are willing to retaliate and denounce such nonsense like the trash spewed out by the people like her. Today we are down to only one leader in the West; Trump who is willing even to make some attempt to do so. However, I detect he is getting tired of doing it alone. He also won’t be around forever. Everyone else is now kowtowing to the leading emission reduction advocates or remaining silent. Under more traditional circumstances, we would be joining with Trump and start exiting from the Paris Agreement. No, instead we have the likes of PM Morrison still committed to reducing our emissions and bragging about how well it is going to meet and beat the target. We are left with only one of two possible outcomes, neither of which appear to be very likely. One, the rest of the Western leaders change their attitude. Two, the silent majority stops being silent. One way to stop being silent is to stop voting for either major party to force a hung parliament and allow a minor party or two who are for the truth and not silent. I have little hope for former outcome and somewhat more hope of the latter but still not much. If neither is going to happen then expect the current decline to continue until we reach a point where the people are shocked to take appropriate action, whatever than might be. By that time of course things will be dire but if that’s what is necessary to change things then so be it.

    80

    • #
      David Maddison

      Well said PeterS.

      Trump is the only worthy leader of a major Western power.

      I am extremely disappointed in SloMo. He is only slightly less bad than Turnbull.

      91

      • #
        PeterS

        Yes Trump is really all the West has to be against the mantra of reducing emissions. At least they have nuclear so any future leader can fall for the same mantra without relying too much on renewables, much like UK is already doing – they have stopped using coal and pretend they are pro-Green but in fact they rely a lot on nuclear, both of local origin and from France. We on the other hand are caught between a rock and a hard place. We stay with coal and we are blasted by many while PM Morrison pretends he is doing great with emissions reductions. We go nuclear and we still get blasted but with the addition of many who are pro-coal joining with the anti-coal crowd to rubbish the idea. I wonder how long this stalemate can continue before the silent majority stop being silent.

        40

  • #
    Furiously curious

    Left Wing Privilege :- you don’t need to have an original thought, just scream slogans.
    – you can live comfortably in the distant past – slavery 200 yrs ago was terrible. You’re not responsible for
    Gulags, or Uighur camps, or the 19 countries, where it is still rampant.
    – you only have to critique one other culture – most of the rest are enemies of your enemy, so they are friends.
    – you can keep demonstrating in insignificant, friendly, Australia – China, while being more justifiable, might be
    a bit too tough.
    – you don’t have to buy a ticket back to your racial homeland, as the other racists should, as you have so much
    virtue.
    – you wont be harmed when the killing starts – (but give it a bit of time to build up steam?)

    There could be quite a list?

    70

  • #
    tygrus

    “Forget science and become emotional” has been there all along, what’s new?

    People have been behaving like this for a long time:
    * If you don’t agree, throw a tantrum.
    * If the science doesn’t have the evidence to match your opinion, make stuff up and fiddle with the corrections/adjustments.

    Logic, common sense, civil debate and the scientific method have been lost or corrupted along the way and they can’t blame skeptics for that.

    Check out retractionwatch.com for science in general. About 1000 to 1300 articles withdrawn or retracted (per/yr) from the 1.5 to 1.9M published per year. A very small percentage but they do occur. I trust science but not blindly and not with emotions.

    20

  • #
    Evidence Please

    Instead of attacking a journalist, why not put your energy into actually providing evidence against AGW ?.
    That’s what a sceptical scientist would do. Just submit a properly prepared paper dripping with empirical data for your peers to check.

    16

    • #

      Why? I don’t need too. Hundreds of scientists have already done that.
      http://joannenova.com.au/tag/evidence/

      90

      • #
        Evidence Please

        They’ve only disagreed, not proven, that’s why you’re still hiding here.
        The many thousands more from every major scientific institution have mounting evidence and your best effort is to attack a journalist .
        The burden of proof is with you.

        04

        • #

          You want our money. Start dancing…

          40

        • #
          Deplorable Lord Kek

          The burden of proof is with you.

          Wrong!

          The burden of proof is with those making the claim.

          The null hypothesis is hat climate change is natural.

          All change we have seen is within the scope of natural variability (especially considering the LIA only ended around 1880).

          50

        • #
          AndyG55

          “have mounting evidence” No they don’t….. as YOU keep proving.

          You have yet to produce ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for the very basis of the AGW scam…

          ie warming by atmospheric CO2

          You haven’t even tried to….. its downright PATHETIC. !

          Its as if you KNOW that you have absolutely nothing except anti-science blathering.

          Remain EVIDENCE-FREE.. it is all you seem capable of.

          30

        • #
          AndyG55

          The atmosphere has been proven to be in thermal equilibrium, using over 2 million balloon data sets.

          If you are so devoid of scientific comprehension that you don’t see that this precludes warming by atmospheric CO2, hence any human caused global warming…

          …. then you really are showing your total lack of education.

          Its all just blind “belief” to you, backed by nothing but an abyss.

          To cause warming, that CO2 has to overcome the natural rate of cooling of the atmosphere.

          It DOESN’T and it CAN’T.

          40

    • #
      robert rosicka

      The onus is on you to prove it does exist EP , this is a skeptic site afterall !

      80

    • #
      Speedy

      G’day EP
      Actually, in REAL science, the onus of proof lies with the protagonist of a given theory. Global warming theory’s biggest flaw is that it fails even the most basic of null hypotheses. Where is your evidence that the warming of the late 20th century was any different from the climate variations that preceded it? They undeniably occurred, they were more statistically significant and they definitely didn’t involve human intervention.
      What’s your point?
      Cheers,
      Speedy.

      60

    • #
      AndyG55

      Poor evidence-free

      We are all still waiting for you to PRODUCE SOME EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that human CO2 causes warming

      You have so far been an ABJECT and COMPLETE FAILURE

      Funny thing is, that you seem totally content to live your whole life that way.

      50

    • #
      AndyG55

      Did you know that warming by atmospheric CO2 has NEVER been observed or measured ANYWHERE on the planet !

      That is why you are totally unable to produce such evidence. !

      IT DOESN’T EXIST.

      20

  • #
  • #
    UK-Weather Lass

    The Guardian was once my favourite paper and one of very few UK news providers to offer balance. However it is now almost impossible to challenge an editorial regime which has swallowed consensus climate science whole and is now unable to countenance any opinion suggesting that that may have been a very silly thing to do. It is now just as much a paper of confirmation bias as those papers it has attacked in the past (e.g. Daily Mail etc) and that is sad. These days it is hard to shoehorn in a comment that survives moderation if you challenge certain of the biases present in the newspaper and that never happened when I first started reading it. The paper would once engage in debate but now, as happens too much with climate science, it seems the Guardian’s belief system is so fragile it has to censor, ban or name and shame any detractors no matter how reasonable their climate science research history may be.

    30

  • #
    Deplorable Lord Kek

    The second bias is called Dunning-Kruger, which describes our human tendency to think we know more than we do as well as to underestimate what we don’t know. Again, I see this happen in focus groups all the time, when participants with no scientific credentials or training pick apart the science of climate change.

    “participants with no scientific credentials” are in fact quite entitled to “pick apart the science of climate change.”

    this is because the arguments for ‘climate change’ are supposed to take the form of an argument from expert opinion.

    this argument is not demonstrative. it is inherently defeasible and whether it is acceptable depends on a number of factors, like (eg) whether the expert is an expert in the relevant field, whether the field is a genuine area of expert knowledge, whether the experts agree and whether the expert is impartial and reliable (see, eg, Douglas Walton, Appeal to Expert Opinion (Pennsylvania State University 1997).

    if the expert opinion is not appropriately made out, then the opinion cannot be relied on.

    but instead of making out an argument from expert opinion, what we see in academia, politics and the media in general, and Ms Huntley in particular, is what Locke termed the argumentum ad verecundiam:

    “When men are established in any kind of dignity, it is thought a breach of modesty for others to derogate any way from it and question the authority of men, who are in possession of it. This is apt to be censured, as carrying with it too much of pride, when a man does not readily yield to the determination of approved authors, which is wont to be received with respect and submission by others: and it is looked upon as insolence for a man to set up and adhere to his own opinion, against the current stream of antiquity; or to put it in the balance against that of some learned doctor, or otherwise approved writer. Whoever backs his tenets with such authorities, thinks he ought thereby to carry the cause, and is ready to style it impudence in any one who shall stand out against them.”

    Or more simply: how dare you question the experts!

    [So, I guess Ms Huntley can consider herself Dunning-Krugered.]

    40

  • #
    Another Ian

    Now this does sound like a plan!

    “Guest post: Cardimona – Wind energy’s Achilles Heel”

    https://catallaxyfiles.com/2020/07/07/guest-post-cardimona-wind-energys-achilles-heel/

    10

  • #
    RobbertBobbert

    Jo and readers…

    Huntley…studying law at the University of New South Wales… She also attained an honours degree in film studies, writing her thesis on the political debate around the un-banning of Pier Paolo Pasolini’s controversial film Salo………
    From 1997 to 2002, Huntley studied at the University of Sydney to obtain a PhD in Gender Studies, exploring the campaign for the women’s vote and the Australian Labor Party (ALP) campaign in the 1983 and 1993 federal elections…

    Blinded By The Hard Science

    10

  • #
    Orson

    Why does “gender studies” sound no different than climastrology to me? Maybe it’s worse. Why? The “field” as practiced rules out facts from biology, as Camille Paglia complains.

    30

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Camille certainly stirs people up according to some biography pieces.
      Can’t really get a good picture of her main points though.

      00

  • #

    In a way, she is echoing Scott Adams, who views the world thru a persuasion lens. In this world, facts are meaningless and persuasion is everything. This is a skill stack that everyone on Our Side needs to be conversant in and able to use.

    Another observation is that we’ve labored mightily to build a world where decisions are arrived at via reasoned, rational analysis of data. The system is broken because the data is crap. And if the data we are basing our conclusions on is garbage, the system to get from input to output becomes at best irrelevant, at worst horribly counterproductive. Cheers –

    00

  • #
    peterg

    Two sides can play at the thinking v feeling game. How would the common punter feel about embracing an ideology that will slash living standards, quality of life, and eventual life expectancy?

    00