February 2007

I think I’ve finally realised a complete ethical foundation on which I can base all my economic decisions. It’s been a while in the making, and although I like it in its current state, it’s possible it will change in the future. we’ll see.

basically, it consists of two rules (guideline), in order of importance:

1. Do not Waste.

2. Do not Steal.

considering that they are in order of importance, what the second rule really means is “do not Steal unless not to do so would cause Waste”.

I think that covers everything. the rational is below. (more…)


Luckily for me, I’d never heard of Neal Boortz up until the release of the IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers, 2007. then in comments on an intro report on the SPM on realclimate ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/the-ipcc-fourth-assessment-summary-for-policy-makers/ ), a few people mentioned his latest attack: http://boortz.com/nuze/200702/02022007.html

have a read. it’s quite entertaining, even in it’s simplicity. I thought I’d take a look at it, and rebut some of the more interesting points. If you think I’ve missed an important one, let me know, I’ll have a go at it. (more…)

This blog is going to be slightly random, eco-anarchist centered rants, musings, and other bits and pieces. don’t expect it to be learnéd, cause I’m not yet. Expect it to be over-the-top, and slightly undereducated.  Infact, educate me.

“the best way to learn is to teach, the best way to teach is to keep learning, and that what counts in the end is having had a shared, reflected experience.” Goéry Delacôte

Look forward to arguing with you.


lets see. here are the relevant entries from Wiktionary (if you don’t agree with them, you can change them!):

skeptic – Noun – http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/skeptic

  1. Someone undecided as to what is true.
  2. Someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs and claims presented by others, requiring strong evidence before accepting any belief or claim.

denier – Noun – http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/denial

  1. Someone who denies something.

see, the obvious difference here is that a skeptic needs evidence before changing their mind. a denier simply doesn’t change their mind.

If you are an alcoholic, and I say “you’re addicted” your responses might be “I don’t think so, what makes you think that?” or “I don’t believe you, prove it to me”. that would be skepticism. It implies that you are open to debate, open to new information, and, importantly, open to changing your views, thoughts, and beliefs.

if, on the other hand, you simply said “no I’m not” without listening to the reasoning behind my statement, you would be in denial.

and that’s where the current “debate on climate change” lies, as it relates to whether it is happening or not (oh dear, I just thought of one of the most horrible puns ever: “climate change, weather it’s happening or not”). there are those who believe that it’s happening fast, those that believe it is happening slowly, and those that are in complete denial. there are no more climate change skeptics. if there are, it’s only because they haven’t had a chance to read all the evidence that’s available out there.

so if you’re still a little skeptical, have a bit more of a read. climate science sites such as http://www.realclimate.org, and http://www.ipcc.ch are a great place to start. If you come across someone claiming to be a climate skeptic, check their references. make sure they are up to date too, because as far as I know there has been no new evidence to contradict the climate change hypothesis (evidence, not proof) since Roy Spencer and John Christy re-adjusted their satellite datareading in late 2005 (exact date?) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements#The_satellite_temperature_record )

happy climate denier hunting!

I think I’ve found a new hobby! it’s more fun than clubbing seals, and it’s ethical too! it’s climate denier bashing! I’m not talking climate change skeptics here, skepticism is well and good, but most of what you hear these days ain’t skepticism, it’s denial pure and simple (I’ve posted a page on the difference in definitions).

I’ve already posted a few previously, here’s a new one:

Originally posted in response to a blog blasting the Scientific American for believing the IPCC (they could have chosen an easier target!):



you crack me up greatly.

if you actually READ the IPCC summary for policy makers, you’ll notice that the factor of five data is still there, complete and correct. it’s just that the wording “outweigh.. by a factor of five” was to politically forceful. the facts are there, but now people have to work it out for themselves.

there’s no such thing as a “fact” when you are dealing with the future. there are only probabilities. the science inherently recognises this. the models are basically simplistic chaos systems. they run multiple times, and then the range and average is taken into account to put forth predictions.

why are you even writing such a detailed critique if you have to beg for an definition of “global warming”? global warming it the [i]average warming of the globe[/i]. if point A gets 1C cooler, and point B gets 3C warmer, then the average of the two is 1C warmer.

I wonder why you question the Scientific American? I don’t read it, but I assume that it’s a magazine devoted to scientific evidence. but you aren’t questioning the science, are you? you’re questioning the political integrity of the magazine. well and good, but you have no more proven political integity than they do, and you have NO scientific evidence to back up your claim that the science reporting is “crap… dung… drek”.

nice reading you.

Went on a weekend holiday
Flew from Sydney to Byron bay
the Flights are so cheap there’s no bloody way
that I was getting on a train (more…)

posted in response to a forum topic using a Bob Giegengack biographical piece ( http://phillymag.com/articles/science_al_gore_is_a_greenhouse_gasbag ) in an attempt to discredit climate science

‘”For most of Earth history,” he says, “the globe has been warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has only rarely been cooler.”‘

I like that… I mean, for most of earth’s history, it was a ball of semi-molten rock. no life. sounds like fun to me. (more…)

Next Page »