35 thoughts on “Monday Message Board

  1. On the other hand Tony if you type in “Environment” or “environmental science: you get several hits.

    Very few of them ,you’ll be surprised to learn are devoted to the destruction of free market capitalism and making Al (the Anti-Christ) Gore ruler of the world.

  2. You might also want to do a google search on the words “climate science University course” for Australia.

    Amongst the first 10 of the 60,000+ hits:

    University of Souther Queensland Graduate Certificate in climate Science;

    Murdoch University (Global Warming and Climate Science – BSc)

    University of Western Australia (Bachelor of Science (Climate Studies))

    And while there may be no current courses in New South Wales with the words “climate science” in their title. UNSW is currently advertising for a LECTURER/SENIOR LECTURER
    (CLIMATE SCIENCE, CLIMATE IMPACTS
    AND/OR CLIMATE ADAPTATION)

  3. “On the other hand Tony if you type in “Environmentâ€? or “environmental science: you get several hits.”

    That should read “several hundred hits”.

  4. Ian,

    The environment
    is not climate science or climatology.

    But do not worry Ian, I am sure NSW will get up to speed soon and start producing the needed ‘climate scientists’ to tackle climate change…. or is there to many of them already.

  5. Tony, ever actual strudy Environemtnal science.

    In between sacrificing unbaptised Christain babies to Satan and scourging yourself for the in of being white, you’ll study subjects like this.

    http://www3.griffith.edu.au/03/STIP4/app?page=CourseEntry&service=external&sp=S2004ENG

    and

    http://www3.griffith.edu.au/03/STIP4/app?page=CourseEntry&service=external&sp=S2301ENV

    and

    http://www3.griffith.edu.au/03/STIP4/app?page=CourseEntry&service=external&sp=S1004ENV

    But hey I’m sure the average Amerrican pre-med degree covers that stuff, right?

  6. Oh and Tony here’s the list of authors of the IPCC TAR 4 chapter on the underlyign science of climate change.

    Want to put any money on whether there are any vets or pediatriiicans on the list?

  7. Here’s the staff page for the Bureau of Meterology Climate Research Group.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/climatehp.htm

    Dr. David Hendon

    B. A. (Meteorology), 1979,
    University of California at Los Angeles

    Ph. D. (Atmospheric Sciences), March 1985,
    University of Washington, Seattle.

    Julie Arblaster

    Bachelor of Technology in Atmospheric Science (Hons), Macquarie University
    Masters of Science, University of Colorado

    Want me to go on?

    By the way. congrats on ignoring all the non-NSW climate science courses offered in Australia.

    That level of cherry-picking is worthy of McIntyre himself.

    Next of coruse you should seamlessly switch to using the existence of these courses as proof that global warmign is a huge money-grubbing scam and as evidence than innocent young people are being brainwashed by the green propaganda machine.

  8. Perhaps it is worth considering that deep scepticism in the anthropogenic global warming theory is in itself susceptible to the charge of being a belief. If the goal is to increase one’s understanding of the Earth’s climate system, then reflexive dismissal of new results (whether related to AGW or not) is hardly the path to intellectual growth.

    Being sceptical in scientific analysis is nowhere near the same thing as the denial barrage passing for critical analysis in the mass media. Digging into a scientific result, in order to understand it, sometimes leads to its later refutation. This is scientific progress. But proclaiming a result to be false, without bothering to understand the reasoning and evidence behind it, is not scepticism – it is just denialism.

    A few true sceptics exist but I don’t see them in the national newspaper, presumably because they exceed the abysmal standard of evidence (ie none) set by some recent articles. Wouldn’t want an opinion piece with a real sceptic saying “but on the other hand…”; it would wreck the illusion of science just being a slanging match between opposing sides.

  9. A while back there was a disucssion here on interent economics.

    One issue I meant to raise at the time is the provision of public goods on the internet.

    It seems to me that anti-virus and anti=spam software have strong public good characteristics. Once the software has been written, the marginal cost of additional copies is extrmeely though.

    Unprotected machines generate significant net externalities. (For example, a significant percentage of total net traffic is spam generated via zombie networks. Get rid of that traffic and overall net speeds would increase and ISPs wouldn’t need to invest as much in increasing network capacity.)

    The question is, why doesn’t the market currently adequately fund such software?

    Note please, I’m not arguing for some form of government intervention, I’m asking what it would take to encourage companies like Microsoft and Bigpond to make the anti-virus and anti0spam software freely available.

    One possible answer is that the current situation with multiple competing software makers maximising the chances of stopping new viruses and minimises the potential damage from any fault in a particular program.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s