I’m wondering how the sooty owl, rescued by a reader of this blog last week, is fairing? 
Footer
About Me
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read morePayPal
I’m wondering how the sooty owl, rescued by a reader of this blog last week, is fairing?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read more
Important essay by Walter Starck recently published by Quadrant Online…
“Before any purported scientific evidence can be used as a basis for legislation or government policy it should be subjected to adequately resourced critical examination aimed at evaluating its scientific credibility. Part of this process has to be the assessing of uncertainty and conflicting evidence, as the scientific method demands. This might most effectively be conducted in a quasi-legal setting where the hard questions must be answered under oath, testimony cross-examined, opposing expertise presented and evidence challenged.
If poor, misleading or otherwise improper scientific conduct is found, the penalty of disqualification from any further public-sector research funding and/or employment would work wonders in restoring a robust scientific ethos. Maurice Newman speaks eloquently of what needs to happen and his words are worth remembering.
The objective, analytical, evidence-based approach that we know as the scientific method has proven the most effective tool we have for understanding the world around us. In only a few centuries it has yielded advances in the quality of life unimaginable to previous generations. The ongoing pace of those advances is now threatened by the corruption of half-baked politico-religious notions and naked self-interest parading as a higher purpose.
Dishonest science is more than a spat between academics. It is a matter of critical national importance. It is time for the public to start demanding action and political leaders to see that it happens. A formal mechanism for the critical evaluation of science, with sanctions for malpractice, is long overdue and sorely needed.
Walter Starck is one of Australia’s most experienced marine biologists, with a particular interest in coral-reef and marine-fishery ecosystems”
More here… http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/10/time-put-warmists-oath/
” I’m wondering how the sooty owl, rescued by a reader of this blog last week, is fairing? “………….WHoooo done it?
I received the following note from Graham Young this morning, sent to me in his new position as Executive Director of the Australian Institute for Progress…
“Re: Patrick Moore speaks on climate science
Canadian Patrick Moore was one of the founders of Greenpeace. For 15 years he pursued whalers and sealers around the high seas, and protested nuclear tests on the Rainbow Warrior. As an eco-activist his credentials are impeccable.
Moore is also a scientist who broke with Greenpeace when they campaigned to ban chlorine and opposed aquaculture. He’s a third generation logger who is pro-GM, pro-nuclear and skeptical of the risk of CO2 induced catastrophic climate change. He believes in environmental sustainability.
Come and hear Patrick Moore next Wednesday, November 5. Click here to book online.
And if you have friends who might be interested, please forward this email on to them.
We’ve tried to get an environmentalist to debate him, but so far without success. However, we’ll keep our invitation open until the night, so you might even get two for the price of one!”
****
I replied that I couldn’t make it, and thought that Patrick Moore was a poor choice if they wanted to learn something about climate science.
But on reflection, I could have offered to be “the environmentalist to debate him”. I am particularly keen to know what Moore’s current position is on whaling. I would also like to challenge him on some of the detail of the science of climate change.
” Maurice Newman speaks eloquently of what needs to happen and his words are worth remembering.”
Sorry to say it , Ms Marohasy, but the piece Maurice Newman wrote in The Australian , has to be verging on the edge of “uncertainty” !!??……f’rinstance…I didn’t think anyone since 1975 used the word ; “Socialism” !…..and the term ; “One world Government”..?? Which “world” would THAT be?….
One despairs as one approaches old age, that the picture of “genteel retirement” “painted” by the likes of Mr. Newman and Prof’ Spurr, is less a portrait of a serene elder than the madness of a Goya torment!
REPLY to:
jaycee October 28, 2014 at 12:10 pm
Quote: “One world Government”..?? Which “world” would THAT be?….”
You could ask VPOTUS Joe Biden, who as recently as May 28, 2014; Biden challenges graduating AF Academy cadets to create ‘new world order’
http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/biden-challenges-graduating-af-academy-cadets-to-create-new-world-order-1.285882
As for that “socialism” word, did you miss the recent peoples march for the climate in NY?
Some reported a billion people turned up.
Here is some photos.
See if you can spot that ‘socialism’ word.
http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2014/09/23/climate-movement-drops-mask-admits-communist-agenda/?singlepage=true
Don’t forget to come back & tell us if that word appeared anywhere outside your head, as you claim it is absent from there.
Wow Jaycee.
You are an absolute champion at missing the point and fishing up red herrings aren’t you?
In this OP, Starck is highlighting the difference between pure science and the what is known as the scientific method and the rise of ‘consensus science’ and its current favourite bedfellow “climate science”.
He even provides a succinct history of what actually constitutes a ‘climate scientists’ or a ‘climate expert’.
Did you see this list provided in the Quadrant article?
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
And further, here is the Newman piece that Starck is referring to:
http://www.thegwpf.com/maurice-newman-calls-for-independent-inquiry-into-australias-met-office/
I can’t see either the word ‘socialism’ or a reference to ‘one world government’ in this piece.
Perhaps it might help if you actually read and comprehend what is offered before trying to claim some type of moral high ground based on some type of ‘higher purpose’?
Starck even had something to say about that type of behaviour. Here:
” The ongoing pace of those advances is now threatened by the corruption of half-baked politico-religious notions and naked self-interest parading as a higher purpose.”
“…to create ‘new world order’”…….” Some reported a billion people turned up.”
New world order is a tad different than “ONE world govt” “…..surely not a billion?
Wrong article, Debs’..try today’s Australian….I read it on The Guardian.
What I do find interesting, is that Mr. Newman is sparking on the same theme as Ms. marohasy…at almost the same time…is this a conspiricy I see before me?…..nah!..I doubt it…like the rest of us realists..I doubt she could be bothered!
Amazing…That proposal by Mr. Starck was exactly the proposal I was going to push when it becomes obvious that climate change damage would prove the delinquency of those who used their political influence to stall methods of allieviating the damage!
A-bloody-mazing!…I was going to push for a kind of military dishounour thing, where the epulettes and buttons are ripped off the uniform and the sword broke over the knee kind of thing..except in a academic way…you know; the PhD. shredded, the diplomas ripped up before the eyes and relegated to plain citizen status….maybe even having the academic gown rent in a meaningful way…that sort of thing…Oh well…looks like we are on the same page, eh?….great minds think alike, I’d say!…Now…to start a “book” on who gets to the post first!….I’ll give odds-on to the “warmists”…any takers?
Hey Jaycee
I’m on the same page as you.
But of course we have to deal with real evidence, not homogenised data.
Of concern to me, instead of holding people accountable for their past wrongs, my side parades them as heroes. I’m thinking Patrick Moore.
Now there, Jennifer, you’re one up on me, I do not have your access to, nor enthusiastic presbyters reporting to me so much information and links!..really, all I (metaphorically) have is my own keen observations and the sharp, burning sensation when I turn my face to the sun on a blazing, hot summer’s day..
I have no heros…that is for children..I neither worship the idol nor seek out the oracle..such pilgramage is for zealots…what will be will be…however..I do love to hear the songs of the magpies in the mornings and I would hate to lose such pleasures just through being too bloody churlish to admit something IS when I’d like it to be not so !
You know what I mean?
Jennifer I still think you’re wasting your time arguing with Moore about his past life. But if you feel so strongly about it then why not debate him?
I couldn’t care less about his younger period 30 or 40 years ago and I still say that his tour is a plus for the sceptics. I think it was Churchill who said that if you weren’t a socialist by 18 you didn’t have a heart but if you were still a socialist by 40 you didn’t have a brain.
I’m sure I don’t agree with that much, but young people always tend to be idealists, it’s just the way things are.
Thanks Neville. I did make the offer. It was declined. Apparently they can’t find an environmentalist to debate Patrick Moore in Brisbane. And yet they reject me. Clearly they aren’t really interested in diversity of opinion, or anyone with real knowledge of the subject area challenging their man.
Jaycee,
This is what I mean when I gave you that championship point.
It is indeed the wrong article and you have avoided the point that Starck was making and fished up a red herring by referring to the wrong article.
You quoted Starck here:
” ” Maurice Newman speaks eloquently of what needs to happen and his words are worth remembering.””
which actually had the link for the Newman article he was referring to:
http://www.thegwpf.com/maurice-newman-calls-for-independent-inquiry-into-australias-met-office/
But you refer to a different article which only has your own interpretation of a couple of phrases/words.
Perhaps you could supply that guardian link?
I also notice that you have done an outstanding job of misinterpreting Starck’s point about scientific rigour and accountability and why it is so important.
You managed to miss it again when Jen pointed it out to you.
Well Jennifer at least you made the offer and I think they were wrong not to accept. But full marks to you anyway, gutsy as always.
” And yet they reject me! Why?”…Perhaps..Jennifer..your reputation preceeds you!
Deb’…
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/28/tony-abbotts-business-adviser-says-anti-western-un-spreads-socialism
From Starck:
“The norm in science is disagreement and debate, with evidence being the final arbiter. A claim of consensus is only made when supporting evidence is weak.”
&
” If there were sound scientific reasons for the adjustments the obvious response would have been a straightforward explanation of what had been done and why. Instead, the BoM engaged in bluster, techno-waffle and hypothetical arguments as to why adjustment might be appropriate. But never, not once, did it provide anything resembling a succinct explanation of what its record-ticklers had done. As usual, the BoM’s alarmist defenders shunned candour in order to focus on the personal denigration of Dr. Marohasy. By their reckoning, not being a card-carrying “climate scientist” makes one an unqualified “amateur” and, therefore, unfit to receive a civil response.”
So who or what has already been engaging in… Jaycee’s words ” a kind of military dishonour thing” ?
Starck comments that a
” quasi-legal setting where the hard questions must be answered under oath, testimony cross-examined, opposing expertise presented and evidence challenged…
MIGHT !… “work wonders in restoring a robust scientific ethos.”
He is arguing to restore respect for science and the scientific method as it has served us very well:
” The objective, analytical, evidence-based approach that we know as the scientific method has proven the most effective tool we have for understanding the world around us. In only a few centuries it has yielded advances in the quality of life unimaginable to previous generations.”
” In only a few centuries it has yielded advances in the quality of life unimaginable to previous generations.”
And yet…and yet I wonder how desperate it must have been to be an indigenous person back before white settlement, wadeing along ninety-mile beach, feeling for cockles in the cool ocean shallows with your toes…then taking the full dilly-bags back to the soft shelter of the coorong sand dunes and with the rest of your family, sit by the drift-wood fire, shelling and eating the fresh pippies whist listening to strange tales and songs under the sweeping blaze of a star-filled sky….
Ah, well….that’s just dreaming..
Jaycee.
2 of my best friends are of aboriginal descent. One has a science degree and one has a degree in economics. They both have lovely families.
One of them also works with the local aboriginal community on a voluntary basis.
He has already commented on the Starck article in an email to me and expresses a quite different viewpoint to yours.
But anyway, we’re lucky to live in this ‘land of drought and flooding rains’ because it is still basically a democracy where dreams can come true.
If you and your family would like to live on a pristine coastline somewhere, living off the sea and land and without any of the benefits that science has delivered us in the last couple of centuries, I’m pretty sure that no one will stop you.
I don’t think my 2 friends will be joining you however.
No…no..I too, Debbie..have a mortgage to pay………but say!..don’t you ever dream….?
Jaycee.
I am sorry to inform you that I’m much more interested in Walter Starck’s dream of restoring some respect for science and the scientific method in a progressive future, than any interest in your regressive & revisionist dreams.
BTW …that guardian link was about Newman’s opinions of the politics of the UN and not relevant to Starck’s OP at Quadrant.
Jennifer, Moore is no hero. He is however useful in getting people who would not give a skeptic the time of day to at least listen a bit to the skeptical story. He is selling his story, not doing climate science. His story is helpful to the cause of understanding how big green works. The enemy of my enemy and all of that.
Friedrich Nietzsche : “On the concept of decadence…1) Skepticism is a consequence of decadence…”…and if you think about it?…….
the man is a parody mascarading as a parody
why even bother?
Re Hunter
“Jennifer, Moore is no hero. He is however useful in getting people who would not give a skeptic the time of day to at least listen a bit to the skeptical story. He is selling his story, not doing climate science. His story is helpful to the cause of understanding how big green works. The enemy of my enemy and all of that.”
I agree, but think one W.S. Churchill might have said this better
”
“If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”
“
I think I’ll start a “gastronomic society”…..I like the sound of that…yes !…: “The Sedan Gastronomic society”..Step this way… : ” pbxmastragics.com/2014/08/15/
Aug 15, 2014 – Like Steve Martin in “The jerk”..: “What!…this is old wine….we don’t want your old wine!!..bring us the new wine!” puffytmd · August 17, 2014 at …”
Jen, sadly the Sooty carked it. Big, strong monster. His claws got me to the bone. I thought he’d survive as he didn’t appear to be badly hurt but in his assumed fight with another male he may have fallen from a fair height and done some internal damage.
I’ll be paying attention to see if the new male stays around.
And so, it would appear that even Hunter thinks in terms of the “usefulness” of a man.
I’m appalled.
By the opportunistic hypocrisy shown by the organisers and promoters of this Patrick Moore tour, but also by many of the commentators at this blog.
Blog closed. I’m going fishing.