While the warmers gloat how the horrendous bush fires in Victoria are “proof” of their religious beliefs, it is in fact becoming apparent that green lobby demands to increase tree planting around rural homes in the state is one reason for the scale of the catastrophe.
Today’s issue of The Australian newspaper says that one of Australia’s leading bushfire experts, Rod Incoll, warned Nillumbik Shire Council in 2003 that it risked devastation if it went ahead with changes to planning laws proposed by green groups that restricted the removal of vegetation:
Mr Incoll, the Victorian fire chief from 1990 to 1996, and David Packham, a former CSIRO bushfire scientist and academic who also produced a report on the issue, argued against the regulations, which actively encouraged the builders of new homes to plant trees around the houses for aesthetic reasons.
Mr Incoll told The Australian yesterday the proposed planning rules were “foolhardy and dangerous and ought not to be proceeded with”.
“But they were nevertheless instituted,” he said. “That is certainly one of the things that people will be looking at as an aftermath of this tragic event.”
He said one of the commonsense rules was not having a tree within a tree height and a half from the house – about 50m.
“People had vegetation growing up in their eves. Vegetation clearance wasn’t observed. People didn’t understand the threat or believe the threat.”
Some areas had very strict controls about the removal of vegetation, “trees being the holy green icon”, he said. “Removal of trees is quite an effort in many municipalities and Nillumbik is one of them.”
Nillumbik shire calls itself the “green wedge shire”. It extends from the Yarra River, on the north[east] outskirts of Melbourne to Kinglake National Park. Its villages include Eltham, Hurstbridge, St Andrews, Strathewen and the outskirts of Kinglake.
There is much more of considerable interest in the article.
Victoria has always had very hot summers with temperatures over 40 degrees and every decade or so experiences massively destructive bushfires during them. The worst before now include Red Tuesday (1898), Black Friday (1939) and Ash Wednesday (1983).
The terrible death toll this time (181 confirmed dead as of this morning) is not caused by “climate change” (the earlier disasters cited had similar weather events of drought and extreme temperatures; there were no SUVs in 1898 or even 1939) but because many more people have moved to the affected areas and the affected homes and towns were dense with trees and other vegetation that made the areas desirable places to live but also created huge fire risks, as The Australian article points out.
77 Comments
February 11, 2009 at 9:51 am
Hear hear.
At last, some sense being talked. The Australian bush is not some bucolic retreat for greenie city slickers who want to live in nature. It is a dangerous place, which naturally regenerates through devastating fires.
Global warming bollocks.
February 11, 2009 at 10:09 am
‘While the warmers gloat how the horrendous bush fires in Victoria are “proof” of their religious beliefs, it is in fact becoming apparent that green lobby moves to increase tree planting around rural homes in the state is one reason for the catastrophe.’
Really? I have yet to see much, if any, gloating. Plenty of sympathy. Lots of empathy.Folk motivated to give practical support. But bugger all gloating.
One would expect a basket of reasons why these fires have been so lethal. Included could well be trees near homes. It could also be homes not properly constructed to allow for fires.Many more people moving to the rural areas. It might also be the decade long drought. The gale force winds. The forty metre walls of flame that top any trees and move faster than a car can be driven.The record setting temperatures State wide.
Or it may yet be god’s vengance on Victoria having decriminalised abortion,as one Australian pastor is claiming.
But I have seen no gloating,Poneke.Only the odd offensive blog post.
February 11, 2009 at 10:52 am
Why this ‘green bashing’? You erect a nice little fanatical straw man then bash him to death to fuel your own prejudice. All the people I know who vote green have degrees, often in hard sciences like myself, and have a genuine concern about environmental issues. And they certainly don’t ‘gloat’ about terrible tragedies like this. Shame on you for trying to use these fires to further your dishonest green bashing.
February 11, 2009 at 11:53 am
Weak, Poneke. All this greenie bashing doesn’t make global warming a lie.
February 11, 2009 at 12:01 pm
While the warmers gloat how the horrendous bush fires in Victoria are “proof” of their religious beliefs, it is in fact becoming apparent that green lobby moves to increase tree planting around rural homes in the state is one reason for the catastrophe.
That’s a remarkably irrational paragraph.
It may well be that the lobby to maintain vegetation in these areas — against the advice of bushfire experts –contributed significantly to the disaster.
To imply that because the same people also subscribe to the overwhelming bulk of the science on climate change, then climate change is bunkum (or, better yet, a “religion”) is feckless.
Here’s a passage from this week’s Time magazine:
Why is one expert warning prescient and the other mere bunkum? Are you actually contending that the CSIRO is a religious organisation?
February 11, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Tim Flannery, a very influential green, makes a very similar case in The Future Eaters. He has been calling for controlled burns and a change in the way Australian forest services manage their parks to replicate aboriginal practices.
His view is that the Aborigines developed burning to control undergrowth following their hunting to extinction of large browsing animals, in that they recognised small burn offs were useful and not harmful long term compared to large fires which were very destructive of flora and fauna – he says one is a cool fire that trees can survive while the others are hot.
The arrival of Europeans has again changed the landscape and recreated massive fire risks.
So it is not as simple as ‘greenies caused the fires’, more likely it is the conservative middle class.
February 11, 2009 at 12:11 pm
the management of australian chaparral is a little bigger than climate change poneke. controlled burning is poorly understood over there, and “fuel reduction” is poorly observed.
we’re all right in seeing tragedy over there, and part of the blame has to fall on poor management.
when i see those photos of devastated homes, i see a house constructed in a location where it’s surrounded by highly flammable oils.
February 11, 2009 at 1:10 pm
The Greens (party) here are very aware of the need for forest management and controlled burning. For years and years they have been calling for much greater investment in research, including the establishment of a world fire research centre in Australia.
The tragedy is how underresourced both the volunteer and professional fire services are in rural NSW and Victoria. Again, something that the Greens have been fighting over.
The Australian publishes these stories to whack environmentalists with. They’ve run a series of them, in what appears to be a deliberate campaign – to knock back against the fact that these fires will be linked to global warming and rises in extreme temperatures – 87% of all temperature stations in Victoria experienced records on Feb 7.
Here’s the link to the BOM’s analysis of the recent heatwave.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs17c.pdf
As Barry Brook quotes, from an unnamed BOM source:
“Given that this was the hottest day on record on top of the driest start to a year on record on top of the longest driest drought on record on top of the hottest drought on record the implications are clear…
Fires occur naturally in Australia, including large and severe ones, in lesser temperatures than those of the last week. What made this exceptional was just how dry it was, and just how hot it was, and these contributed to the severity of the event.
Unfortunately, conditions worse than these are forecast to become the norm in this part of Australia.
February 11, 2009 at 1:30 pm
otoh (and having just read one of your links), having a philosophy major tell us that this is definitely the result of climate change is a little… off.
February 11, 2009 at 2:30 pm
A disappointingly cheap shot to attempt to make petty political capital from this tragedy, particularly while it’s so fresh. The kind of ‘greens’ you’re attempting to snipe at have long vanished from the Australian political landscape. Insider’s right to draw your attention to Flannery’s The Future Eaters. Please do yourself the favour, even 15 years after its publication it’s still hugely informative and a great read.
February 11, 2009 at 2:34 pm
A disappointingly cheap shot to attempt to make petty political capital from this tragedy
The shot is aimed at extremist religious fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalism is anathema in all of its various guises.
February 11, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Heres a submission to Parliament done in 2003 by David Packham from Monash Universities; School of Geography and Environment.
Its quite clear what they needed to do and they didnt do it.
Did the “green” influence in the electorate cause these actions to be delayed?
http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/enrc/inquiries/bushfires/Submissions/154%20Mr%20David%20Packham%20OAM.pdf
February 11, 2009 at 2:44 pm
[quote]The shot is aimed at extremist religious fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalism is anathema in all of its various guises.[/quote]
Oh, I guess that’s alright then. Some of us mistakenly thought your comment had something to do with Green policies and deadly forest fires.
February 11, 2009 at 2:51 pm
“religious fundamentalism”? what the?
questions about climtae change were first posed in the 1970s. i remember seeing them on “Spot On” one sunday arvo.
the scientific community has been compiling evidence and data sources ever since, and the debate continues.
sure there are some “global warming” groupies out there, but that hardly has the status of religious fundamentalism. for starters, there is no holy book, no founding figure, no religious observance, etc.
there is however some highly excitable rhetoric around the debate, with your ms. freya thingo being a classic example.
February 11, 2009 at 2:57 pm
questions about climtae change were first posed in the 1970s.
Yes, when it was claimed we were all doomed because the world was entering a new ice age, for heaven’s sake!
That followed several decades of global cooling that started in 1940 and ended circa 1976, since when the world began warming again.
There are clearly climate cycles that have been documented for century upon century, including the Medieval Warm period that allowed grapes to grow in the north of England, descending into the Little Ice Age 700 years later that saw the Thames freeze.
sure there are some “global warming” groupies out there, but that hardly has the status of religious fundamentalism. for starters, there is no holy book, no founding figure, no religious observance, etc.
Che, you are having me on, right?
The founding figure is James E Hansen, the holy book is An Unfortunate Truth and there are legions upon legions of fanatical followers who sit online 24/7 seeking to rubbish dissidents.
Warmers “believe” in climate change theory with missionary zeal and demand everyone else “believe” too. This is not science it is religion.
Huge numbers of scientists now are questioning this new religion.
February 11, 2009 at 3:02 pm
weeeellll… the way i remember it was that there was uncertainty about which way it would run, hot or cold.
and perhaps i’ve only been listening to the rationals, because i’m a believer in climate change, but have never heard of hansen, let alone read his book, or ever spoken to his legions.
i did however read the gaia hypothesis 20 years ago.
and imho, many of your “huge numbers of scientists” are about as qualified to comment on the validity of climate change as i.
regards,
dr. tibby.
February 11, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Yes, when it was claimed we were all doomed because the world was entering a new ice age, for heaven’s sake!
You’d be referring to the short-lived conjecture by a small number of scientists, helped along by the infamous 1975 Newsweek cover and eventually consigned to the dustbin by experimental data.
And you’d be comparing that to a huge body of knowledge endorsed by virtually all expert bodies (including our own) the science academies of 32 nations (including the Royal Society of New Zealand, both in 2001 and last year, explicitly), etc.
The full list is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_global_warming
To compare this remarkable consensus with the brief global cooling fad simply isn’t rational. And to imply that all the people and organisations are simply under the sway of a “religion” is irrational and insulting.
Huge numbers of scientists now are questioning this new religion.
And I can find you plenty of scientists and researchers who’ll say that vaccines cause autism and GE food is poisonous. It doesn’t mean they’re right.
February 11, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Meanwhile, in Britain, thousands continue to die from the cold. A one degree drop fall in the winter average will apparently lead to an additional 8,000 deaths.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/feb2009/cold-f04.shtml
February 11, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Poneke is absolutely right.
Greens high priest Peter Garrett was certainly gloating, making cheap political capital only two days ago and shouting from the rooftops that the disaster was a result of his beloved Global Warming. But of course that was before Australia’s two most eminent bushfire specialists pointed to their reports of six years ago.
As for some jumped up idiot in NZ pontificating to the effect ‘controlled burning is poorly understood over there’ it’s no wonder most Australians look upon New Zealanders with amused contempt.
The only people who don’t understand fire risk management are the Greens. The killer Greens.
Has Mr Tibby ever seen a bush fire? Has he ever lived in the bush? Does he know anything about anything?
February 11, 2009 at 4:07 pm
You’d be referring to the short-lived conjecture by a small number of scientists, helped along by the infamous 1975 Newsweek cover and eventually consigned to the dustbin
Yes. It was completely bogus. That was my point. What is yours?
I can find you plenty of scientists and researchers who’ll say that vaccines cause autism and GE food is poisonous.
“Researchers” like Barbara Sumner Burstyn and the odd minorly scientifically qualified fanatic like Ron Law, yes, Russell. But not “plenty of scientists.”
The value of vaccines is so proven after some two centuries now of their use that there really is a scientific consensus on that one.
GM food is such a new (though positive) development that it is right that mainstream scientists treat it with scientific caution even as they work to develop it.
Similarly the theory of human-caused climate change needs also to be treated with scientific caution and I am very pleased many scientists so do.
February 11, 2009 at 4:17 pm
I’m a resident of Nillumbik Shire and I’ve read both those reports. The Australian article is not sensationalist although they could have defined ‘green’ a bit better.
In this context green does not refer to The Greens, it refers to an element of quasi conservationists who have had a huge influence, not just in Nillumbik but elsewhere in the state.
And no, the fuel load was not the only issue. We have never EVER had temperatures like that. Nor have we had a ’so called’ drought for so long. These, I believe are early signs of climate change. Add a hot north wind to the mix and the potential for disaster is inescapable. We all knew that. Add the wind change to that awful mix and it lead to death, lots of death.
The ferocious conditions would have caused deaths no matter what. The question is ‘how many’?
The answer is ‘more than there should have been’.
If the whole state had had fuel reduction carried out the extent of this catastrophe would have been less. When the whole state is this dry the more fuel you have the hotter the fire becomes. It feeds on everything in its path and once it reaches critical mass it cannot be stopped.
If the communities of Strathewen and St Andrews [out lying suburbs in Nillumbik ] had been allowed to clear vegetation they may have had a little more time to get out but they did not even know the fire was coming.
It roared south pushed by the north wind. Imagine a long thin line of fire. Then the cool change hit and with it came a wind change. Suddenly the fire front became kilometres long – a big fat fire front pushed by a southwesterly wind.
Those suburbs, and that is what they were, the outer edge of Melbourne, were eaten up, just as those reports said they would be. The only thing the reports did not foresee was that 5 years down the track warming would make things even worse than ‘normal’.
Many things contributed to the monster that ate my state but human /error/ was very much a part of the mix.
Ideology was also a part of the mix – the ‘green wedge’ had to be preserved at any cost and despite all the warnings.
The CSIRO, the CFA, all sorts of experts have been sounding warnings but they were ‘inconvenient’ truths. They were ignored. 181 people have already paid the price for this blind adherence to dogma.
If the decision makers at every level of government continue to ignore the warnings of increased extreme events then in a few years time another unprecedented catastrophe will destroy lives. There will be another horrible record set. The death toll will double or triple or quadruple. We will all be oh so shocked. How could something like this happen?
How indeed?
How many such catastrophes is it going to take before we all face up to reality? This is not a pleasant debate for a slow sunday – this is life and death.
February 11, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Similarly the theory of human-caused climate change needs also to be treated with scientific caution and I am very pleased many scientists so do.
That isn’t how the precautionary principle works. If a huge weight of science on climate change is wrong, and we’ve acted on it, we get wind turbines and electric cars, and a few years of slower economic growth. If the vast majority of scientists are right, not acting in the period 2000-2020 means we live on a planet that is several degrees warmer and has radically different weather and sea levels.
Caution means erring on the side of serious action now.
Distrusting the science on vaccines has a huge cost in lives lost. Distrusting the science on GMOs much less so (we simply have conventional crops for a few more years.)
February 11, 2009 at 4:36 pm
pull your head in adolf, and read the comment from andrea. you’ll find we say the same things.
and fyi, 6 years in melbourne listening to these debates.
February 11, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Has Mr Tibby ever seen a bush fire? Has he ever lived in the bush? Does he know anything about anything?
Like me, Mr Tibby has lived for a long period in Melbourne including during times of bushfires. We are both very familiar with the nature of the Victorian countryside and with bushfires over there, as, I understand, are you.
Please do not call one of the most erudite and respected bloggers in New Zealand a “jumped up idiot.”
February 11, 2009 at 4:54 pm
well, i actually blushed there.
if it’s any indication, a friend grew up in a little place called Guildford. very remote, but i spent time hanging out there.
when they were young (1980s) they had frogs living in the pond outside their parent’s place. in 2004 they were forced to dig a very large well to keep getting water, because the water table had dropped further than it had any time during living memory. lowered rainfall is the cause.
now, there has been a change in the climate for that area, it’s indisputable. the only question is whether it’s part of a localised pattern, or a bigger picture.
February 11, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Why do none of my posts appear?
*sigh*
February 11, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Che Tibby
February 11, 2009 at 2:51 pm
“religious fundamentalism”? what the?
Freeman Dyson answers quite succinctly.
All the books that I have seen about the science and economics of global warming, including the two books under review, miss the main point. The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world.
Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists—most of whom are not scientists—holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.
Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the belief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494
February 11, 2009 at 5:32 pm
“The founding figure is James E Hansen, the holy book is An Unfortunate Truth and there are legions upon legions of fanatical followers who sit online 24/7 seeking to rubbish dissidents.”
Straw men again Poneke – I’ve never actually met a ‘greenie’ who’s read that book, and the reality is that there are hordes of right-wing denialists eager to rubbish any global warming post at a moments notice, and it’s getting worse.
“Warmers “believe” in climate change theory with missionary zeal and demand everyone else “believe” too. This is not science it is religion.”
Rubbish. Again, stop with the straw man thing. Believe with missionary zeal? How about believe because the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence is that GW is happening and we’re causing it.
“Huge numbers of scientists now are questioning this new religion.?”
I can only say one thing to this ludicrously unsupported (and unsupportable) comment – Yeah Right!
February 11, 2009 at 7:55 pm
” Please do not call one of the most erudite and respected bloggers in New Zealand a “jumped up idiot.” ”
Now I know you’re taking the piss.
February 11, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Such a fervent post Poneke! Go on, you cast those Religious Warmists into Hell!
February 11, 2009 at 8:26 pm
I was astounded to hear on Nat Rad this morning as news item attributing ‘increases in growth of trees and shrubs in recent years in Australia due to the levels of Co2 in the atmosphere’
Talk about the long drought needs to be put in context of the spring and summer rainfall to date.
Compare this map of the last three {Nov – Dec – Jan} month’s % of rainfall in Victoria.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/rain_maps.cgi?map=contours&variable=percent&area=vic&period=3month®ion=vic&time=latest
With this map showing Jan 09 only…
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/rain_maps.cgi?map=contours&variable=percent&area=vic&period=1month®ion=vic&time=latest
With this map showing Feb to date..
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/rain_maps.cgi?map=contours&variable=percent&area=vic&period=1month®ion=vic&time=latest
The first shows rainfall over most of the region for the three month period between 80% and 120% of normal. The second, for Jan only shows 90% of the state having only 20% or less than normal. And this trend comtinues for Feb to date as shown by the third map.
Thus, the months of Nov and December were MUCH wetter than normal and would have contributed to a large growth in grasses and scrub material which subsequently dried out in the 5 weeks preceeding the fires.
February 11, 2009 at 9:52 pm
From a correspondent of mine in another forum:
“I think they’re probably Eucalyptus regnans forests up around that part of Victoria, which are extremely big trees that produce big fuel loads. You’re looking at a tonne of fuel or more, per hectare, falling on the ground each year.
In these fires, the fire was carried mainly by the canopies rather than the undergrowth (what is traditionally considered fire fuel), which is what led to the massive flame heights and rate of spread. With ambient air temperature so close to the flash point of eucalyptus oil, the canopies are essentially filled with flammable gas, ready to explode.
So fuel reduction burning (which aims to reduce ground material) would not have stopped the spread of these fires through the canopy; but it should have reduced the chance of the fires igniting and moving to the canopy to begin with.
These were exceptional circumstances, completely outside of human control beyond cutting the forests down completely, but they were probably circumstances we’ll see more frequently in the future.”
Now, Poneke, I object to your use of the word “gloat”, which implies taking pleasure or satisfaction. I see no sign of that in the article you link to, nor anywhere else, and I find it offensive. I
As it happens, I do think that climate change has played a role here, but that doesn’t cheer me up – it makes me profoundly depressed. And I think that’s true for almost everyone who thinks as I do.
I also take issue with your implicit argument that because some people take global warming as an article of faith, it must be wrong. Clearly, any theory about anything can be believed without foundation or evidence by some people. Your average bear could not explain coherently why they believe the earth goes around the sun, except by recourse to authority, nor could they suggest what observations might test that idea. Nonetheless, it does move.
(Does this make me a “warmer”? Is there a class of persons who think the world is getting warmer through human release of fossil carbon who are not “warmers”?)
It would be nice if you could acknowledge that a reasonable person, whether by dint of their personal expertise or their estimation of expertise in others, can believe (in the sense of a rational assessment) in global warming. One would think, reading what you have written, that this is not possible.
February 11, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Dear Angus- what subterranean level do you inhabit?
Or am I missing a most occult joke?
February 11, 2009 at 11:45 pm
The founding figure is James E Hansen, the holy book is An Unfortunate Truth and there are legions upon legions of fanatical followers who sit online 24/7 seeking to rubbish dissidents.
My apologies. The holy book (which of course is a film) is An Inconvenient Truth.
I rushed that comment and didn’t proof-read it.
Mea culpa.
February 12, 2009 at 12:05 am
On a slight tangent, the more usual variety of fundamentalist was mentioned above and here, saying that the fires were “divine retribution”. Although perhaps a bit of fundy myself I found those comments insulting, completely lacking humanity, and a rather strange way of representing the love of Christ (1 John 4; 1 Corinthians 13).
Some churches are actually trying to help, not making snide remarks. My prayers are also with our mates in Oz.
Adolf, got any links to back up your statements about Peter Garrett? No news outlet reports Garrett saying anything at all about the fires. Nor is Garrett a Green as you claim, he’s Labor. You’ve really got your wires crossed this time. (and we wonder why bloggers are not part of the MSM).
For once I agree with Russell Brown. The IPCC makes quite conservative judgements on these matters ~ the preponderance of evidence confirms the AGW phenomenon. As to the tone of the first article Poneke mentioned, far from gloating of the wildfires, it was more of a sober warning and lament.
It seems weird that people are trying to blame the messenger (environmentalists) rather than face the issues raised.
Adolf, got any links to back up your statements about Peter Garrett? No news outlet reports Garrett saying anything at all about the fires. Nor is Garrett a Green as you claim, he’s Labor. You’ve really got your wires crossed this time. (and we wonder why bloggers are not part of the MSM).
For once I agree with Russell Brown. The IPCC makes quite conservative judgements on these matters ~ the preponderance of evidence confirms the AGW phenomenon. As to the tone of the first article Poneke mentioned, far from gloating of the wildfires, it was more of a sober warning and lament.
It seems weird that people are trying to blame the messenger (environmentalists) rather than face the issues raised.
February 12, 2009 at 7:41 am
regarding “an inconvenient truth”, i’m right there with you. good film for bringing the issue to the fore, and expanding the debate, but… otoh it got some people i know recycling, which is a good way to help the chinese with their strategic stockpiles of plastic (“peak oil” don’t you know).
and club politique was actually long enough ago to make it, you know, “pioneering”.
February 12, 2009 at 8:37 am
Read about the difficulties and hazards related to controlled burns, and links to other interesting articles.
http://www.150.theage.com.au/view_bestofarticle.asp?straction=update&inttype=1&intid=1858
February 12, 2009 at 8:42 am
Excellent post ropata. Having been affected by the Sydney fires of early 1994 I’m really rather dismayed to see the same kind of beady-eyed post-disaster point-scoring being trotted out once again, even while the fires continue to burn.
February 12, 2009 at 9:43 am
Yes. It was completely bogus. That was my point. What is yours?
That you seemed to be drawing a false equivalence between a flash-in-the pan theory about cooling that briefly commanded headlines in the 1970s and a well-developed warming theory endorsed by the very large majority of qualified scientists, expert organisations and science academies, and, increasingly by observational data.
It’s a particularly lazy argument to dismiss global warming by referring to a theory that hardly anyone believed anyway.
“Researchers” like Barbara Sumner Burstyn and the odd minorly scientifically qualified fanatic like Ron Law, yes, Russell.
I find Law unbearable, but as you say, he has some claim to qualification. If only the same could be said of Owen McShane and Denis Dutton, the architect and the aesthetician, who so loudly hold forth on climate science.
Why on earth would I believe them and not NIWA?
If I’m to apply the same tests to the leading climate change “skeptics” as I would in trying to assess any other scientific controversy, the “skeptics” fail the test over and over. They inflate their credentials, they form little think tanks named so as to give a misleading impression of their scientific credibility, and they recycle the same selective facts.
What they very largely don’t do is participate in and publish genuine research.
So if I have a choice between James Hansen and leading “skeptic” Fred Singer, it’s only rational that I would lean towards Hansen, the guy who has been studying climate since the 1960s (work for which he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996), over Singer, the former tobacco industry shill.
But not “plenty of scientists.” … The value of vaccines is so proven after some two centuries now of their use that there really is a scientific consensus on that one.
Sadly, the vaccine-autism belief still has sufficient currency for both major US presidential candidates to have aired it last year. The money being squandered on research trying to prove such a link is the source of controversy in the autism world.
Similarly the theory of human-caused climate change needs also to be treated with scientific caution and I am very pleased many scientists so do.
Your description of a large body of genuine research in terms of religious fundamentalism, while colourful and catchy, isn’t really commensurate with “scientific caution”.
February 12, 2009 at 9:49 am
I find this post unbelievably offensive… You’re using a massive tragedy to score points over “greenies”.
Not cool Poneke.
February 12, 2009 at 10:11 am
> I find Law unbearable, but as you say, he has some claim to qualification.
Well, yes, he does. And even the Ministry of Health admitted – in a backhand way – that introduction of the MeNZB vaccine was a massive failure. Maybe it saved one life, at a cost of more than $200 million dollars. That is a good starting point for the global warming debate. Should we throw good money after bad, merely hoping that we’ll save a few lives, or can we do better with spending that kind of money?
February 12, 2009 at 10:40 am
If you go to Wikipedia and look up all the bushfires since 1851, you find that this current fire is remarkable only for the loss of life.. which probably indicates a change in human habitation and habits rather than much else.
1851 5 million hectares burnt, 1939 2 mill, 02/03 1.3 mill, 06/07 1.1 mill, 1944 1.0 mill, 1983 500,000 ha, 2009 365,000 ha.
Conditions for all the fires are pretty much identical, temperatures over 43c, and 47c reported in 1851, long droughts prior etc etc.
So this was a small fire notorious only for the loss of life and a record temp. because of some particular circumstances that might have been replicated in 1851.
If we must bring climate into the argument, then read Tim Flannery in “The Future Eaters”, and more especially his knowledgeable critics.. there we find that Australia is a drying (not dying) country from what it was long before the Aborigines arrived.
To paraphase Twain “There are idiots and there are politicians. .but I repeat myself”.
Similarly, to say Australia is in the grip of climate change is to repeat the bleeding obvious of what’s been happening for tens of thousands of years.
The better question is why this fire is so small (given the conditions).. after all, the almost entire effort of the firefighters is being directed to saving life and houses. An acquaintance in Rural Fire suggests it’s topography and weather changes that’s slowing it down.. and certainly a mate in the centre of the worst hit areas says his house (and possibly his life) were saved by a weather change when the fire was within 2-3 km.. the temp dropped 15 degrees in 20-30 minutes.
JC
February 12, 2009 at 12:18 pm
“If I’m to apply the same tests to the leading climate change “skeptics” as I would in trying to assess any other scientific controversy, the “skeptics” fail the test over and over.”
Rather like the unfortunate — for those Anthropogenic Global Warming disciples — discrediting one of the most egregious examples of ‘research’ that underpinned the entire IPCC/Kyoto founding principles — Michael Mann’s so-called ‘hockey stick’ curve, which purported to show an extreme and unprecedented rise in global temperature in the 20th century. That shoddy research has been subsequently torn apart so comprehensively that it has been called the most discredited study in the history of science, and has been quietly dropped by the IPCC, leaving man-made global warming theory still lacking in any definitive scientific proof.
February 12, 2009 at 12:50 pm
‘If you go to Wikipedia and look up all the bushfires since 1851, you find that this current fire is remarkable only for the loss of life.. which probably indicates a change in human habitation and habits rather than much else.’
And not fire fighting abilities? As an example,how many specifically designed fire fighting helicopters were available in 1851?
I understand that the fires are still ongoing.
February 12, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Russel Brown said…
And you’d be comparing that to a huge body of knowledge endorsed by virtually all expert bodies (including our own) the science academies of 32 nations (including the Royal Society of New Zealand, both in 2001 and last year, explicitly), etc.
George Darroch said…
That isn’t how the precautionary principle works.
Mathematical realities is not the same as physical realities. Geez, do you guys understand the difference?
Let me take you on a short tiki tour of what’s the difference between the two.
First example, physicists had postulated a particle known as tachyon, which is said to travel faster than light. It is also been proposed that it has an imaginary mass (ie, a complex number mass). Can someone tell me, what the heck is imaginary mass? I do understand the concept of complex numbers, but imaginary mass? It’s got to be a joke, unless a philosopher somewhere, can explain to all us here, what the heck imaginary mass is. This particle has never been observed or verified experimentally. The existence of tachyon is a mathematical reality, ie, the equations derivations and computer modeling showed that there is such entity that possibly can exist in nature that is yet to be discovered. Is this possible to exist in nature, ie, the mathematical reality corresponds to unobserved physical reality?
Nope. This has to be dismissed as fantasy and such entity exists in equations only and not physical reality? Why? It is full of meta-physical contradictions, and I am surprised that Mr. Philosophy (George Darroch) hasn’t come across this contradiction, especially when you label your blog main page’s title as : Contradiction. May I suggest George Darroch that you enrol in some meta-physics papers at your university.
Second, this is the widely accepted (ie, majority consensus) interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (see link below) by physicists and if I may borrow, Russel Brown’s words : huge body of knowledge endorsed by virtually all expert bodies.
Watch the following YouTube animation of this experiment.
Dr Quantum – Double Slit Experiment
The mathematical prediction of the wave-equation in Quantum Mechanics, says that there is some probability that a material object (electrons, atoms, super-atoms, etc,…) can be found at 2 different locations/places at once, that is the object traverses thru 2 different paths at once, which is called super-position (amazing mathematical predictions). George Darroch, should pick this out as a contradiction by applying meta-physical arguments.
The phenomena in the double-slit experiment can be observed in the lab using electron lasers. Facts are facts, ie, the observations of what is happening in the experiment is undisputed. What is disputed is the claim that objects can go thru 2 different points in space at once. It is akin to saying that there is some probability that Poneke can be in Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt at the same time (ie, simultaneously), which we know it is non-sense. But the mathematical predictions (via super-position) says that is actually what happens in the double slit experiment, ie, particles goes thru the 2 holes at the same time.
Just to note to readers that the claim (ie, the majority consensus of Physicists) that the particles went thru the 2 slit-holes at once has never been verified experimentally, since the moment one (a conscious observer) attempts to detect (by using measuring devices) which of the 2 holes that each particle went thru, the particles themselves (mysteriously being aware that they’re being watched) decided to go thru one or the other hole but not both, therefore, there will never ever be any experiment that can verify that the particles went thru the 2 holes at once (so called Bohr Complementarity Principle – BCP).
But how did Physicists (consensus view) come to a conclusion that the particles went thru 2 holes at once, even though BCP forbid anyone confirming or verifying such phenomena?
Well, since the mathematics (solutions to wave-equation), says that is exactly what happened (super-position), therefore they leapt forward & followed what the math tells them, ie, the math say that the particles went thru the 2 holes simultaneously. Again, this (being at 2 places at once) was inferred not from observations, but from equations. This interpretation of quantum mechanic has to be dismissed because it is littered with contradictions.
To say that an object can be at 2 places at once is unphysical and must be rejected on metaphysical grounds. This rejection doesn’t mean that QM is useless, because it is one of the most successful physical theory ever developed. What’s needed to be trimmed from QM and most of Physical sciences is the over-reliant on mathematical predictions, because to do so, it brings in mysticism into science and this is clearly shown by Physicists’ consensus on the interpretations of the double-slit experiment that particles are in fact travel thru 2 different places at cone, even if that implies something unphysical, which it definitely is.
So, there are just 2 examples, that I brought up here, so that those readers here, can ponder about, this whole AGW debate. The fact is, AGW’s validity is debated on the mathematical grounds and not overwhelmingly on observations and also, mathematical realities do not necessarily and directly correspond to physical realities, as my examples on tachyon particles and being at 2 places at once as in the double-slit experiment shows. Correlation does not mean causation and there is a huge difference there. Consensus means nothing, if the claim is not being rigorously verified as the consensus on the QM double-slit experiment shows.
February 12, 2009 at 12:59 pm
A quote from Catherine Delahunty’s maiden speech as a Green MP
“The international financial crisis is inextricably linked to climate change”
FFS
February 12, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I thought that this New York Times article would be useful for the lots here who have blind belief in the elevation of mathematical realities to become actual physical realities.
Far Out, Man. But Is It Quantum Physics?
This is scientific mysticism in its worse form (geez, even scientists with PhD in Physics endorsed this bullsh*t mathematical realities as physical reality facts).
Sure, we can learn alot from equations be it climate modeling, chemical modeling, biological modeling, mechanical modeling or whatever, but they don’t replace actual realities and any solutions that are found to be inconsistent with existence itself, must be dismissed, because if they’re not, then one must consider that he/she lives in a universe where everything is illusion.
February 12, 2009 at 5:24 pm
The story of Liam Sheahan today has caught my eye. He copped 50 K worth of fines and another 50 in costs for bulldozing the trees around his house. Totally illegal of course as nothing is more precious than planning requirements but it saved his house and his family. The clearing of trees around homes will likely become mandatory in the wake of this tragedy. Mr Sheahan deserves a refund and an apology.
And is it just me or is the warmie outrage getting louder?
Don’t worry guys everyone still believes in Global Warming.
Stinking hot in the summer and freezing cold in the winter, only rising levels of CO2 could cause that.
February 12, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Thank you JC for bringing some perspective. The simple fact greater numbers living in harm’s way makes every new disaster register new high death tolls than previous ones. And that accounts for most weather related disasters in the world.
February 12, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Sure, we can learn alot from equations be it climate modeling, chemical modeling, biological modeling, mechanical modeling or whatever, but they don’t replace actual realities and any solutions that are found to be inconsistent with existence itself, must be dismissed …
Of course. If real measurements never corresponded with your models, you’d be questioning your models. But that’s not the case with climate change.
The past 10 years have been the 10 warmest on record, globally. When your observations converge with your models, you can start drawing conclusions. Indeed, you’d be daft not to.
BTW, warmest day on record in Auckland today. It didn’t feel all that hot because the humidity was only 50%.
February 12, 2009 at 7:08 pm
BTW, warmest day on record in Auckland today.
Nice try Russell, but there were no SUVs in 1872. Let me elaborate.
The temperature you refer to for today, 32.4 deg, was recorded at Whenuapai in far west Auckland, and was exactly the same now-equal record temperature as recorded in Albert Park in February 1872. Records from Whenuapai date from only 1946 while Albert Park ones began in 1868.
The very distinguished climate scientist Jim Salinger of NIWA was insistent on Checkpoint tonight that the reason for this temperature today was the heat coming across the Tasman from the Victorian bushfires. He repeatedly declined Mary’s attempts to get him to blame global warming.
Also, please don’t keep trying to paint me as a “climate change denier.” Climate always changes.
All I am being skeptical about is the extremist Armageddon claims of imminent catastrophic human-caused climate change. The latter is a theory that has yet to be borne out.
By all reasonable means let’s stop polluting the world with carbon emissions, but to stop pollution, not to stop human progress, which is the force behind this new religion.
We are not parasites on this planet.
February 12, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Russel Brown said…
If real measurements never corresponded with your models, you’d be questioning your models.
The short answer to that was the temperature trend dip in the 1960s/1970s. Can you point out what models & measurements in the entire IPCC report that verify or clearly explained the dip?
To help you out, there is none. Not a single explanation is mentioned in the IPCC about that. Does it tell you a thing about modeling? I’ll leave it to you to figure that out.
There are some uninformed blog commentators who usually say, but the 1970s is different from now, and it doesn’t apply. Nope, the models developed so far are supposed to be universal, because laws of physics couldn’t have been suspended during the 1970s and only been activated in the last 2 decades or so, because satellite data has been collected on a regular basis since then.
Here is a fact to ponder, physical theories are questioned when they don’t generalize and history tells us this (from Newton to Einstein to modern day). There is no such thing as a theory that only fits here (this specific period) and useless elsewhere. If it doesn’t fit everywhere (wider domain), then there is something wrong with it, period. Newton laws? It wasn’t generalize, and there was born general relativity. Quantum theory? It wasn’t generalize enough , now Quantum-Gravity is just been born. String theory is also one that has been developed to supersede QM and relativity because those 2 are inconsistent with each other and also some other physical phenomena cannot be explained via those 2. When you move into a generalized theory, the flaws in the old theory is exposed wide open and this is fact.
My example here is just to show, how warmist proponents say that the models fit observations, but avoid to mention that it fits only part of the global temperature time-series but not the entire spectrum of the time-series. When inconsistencies like this arise, then you know not to trust it.
February 12, 2009 at 7:52 pm
“Well no actually. This temperature, 32.4 deg, recorded at Whenuapai in far west Auckland, was was exactly the same temperature as recorded in Albert Park in February 1872. Records from Whenuapai date from only 1946 while Albert Park ones began in 1868.”
I’m looking at my 1960 “A Descriptive Atlas Of New Zealand”.
It notes temperatures in Auckland of 90F (32C).
It notes records of 90F in Dunedin and Invercargill, and of course over 100F (39C) on the East Coast of both Islands. It has coloured maps of highest temperatures by month.. so in Auckland Jan/Feb have 90F, March 85F and April 80F.
Fifty years ago, temps in the 30s were simply part of the pattern for Auckland.
Incidentally, it states that the highest temp recorded by an official station was 100F at Lincoln College in Jan 1956.. however, this was duplicated within the month by 100F at Gisborne and Roxburgh while Ashburton set a new record of 101F.
NZ might certainly have been warming up way back then, but it seems a bit of a stretch to put it down to Man and CO2.
JC
February 12, 2009 at 9:39 pm
“BTW, warmest day on record in Auckland today. It didn’t feel all that hot because the humidity was only 50%”
Is this another case of cognitive dissonance overload?
The population of Auckland would be sweating it out today with temperatures having hovered over the 30 deg centigrade mark and the 8.0pm humidity running at 86% (Metservice) with http://greylynnweather.net/ recording a humidity of 91%.
Which part of Auckland, one wonders, didn’t feel all that hot because the humidity was only 50%?
February 13, 2009 at 12:12 am
That dip is widely known to be caused by the cooling effects of sulphate pollution.
Check out page 40 of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (pdf). The models clearly reproduce/explain the dip.
February 13, 2009 at 12:16 am
Russel Brown said…
When your observations converge with your models, you can start drawing conclusions. Indeed, you’d be daft not to.
That’s exactly, what I have described in the Physics example of the double-slit experiment above. The wave-equation solutions says, that an object can go thru 2 places at once. Although such phenomena can never be observed (because it is forbidden by complementary principle), the mere observation that the interference takes place even when the electrons were fired one at a time can mislead some to believe that is exactly what’s happening. A person who would believe that must be daft. Why? It obviously violates causality.
Q :- But the math must be correct (ie, being located in 2 places at once), right ?
A :- No, not at all. The math is bullshit. This is when equations departs from reality.
Q :- But sure, the majority of Physicists agreed (or have reached a consensus) that being at 2 places at once is a fact of nature?
A :- No that is, irrelevant. Physical reality is not decided by consensus of scientists. Nature dictates to us humans and not us telling it of what it should be by having a consensus vote or formulating some equations purporting those to be its laws.
I have to say with certainty, that any Physicist who believes in the double-slit interference as being at 2 places at once is definitely daft. I would also extend this label to include those Physicists and their proponents who truly believe their global climate models as the ultimate representatives of physical realities.
I would like to end this message, with a philosophical rebuttal of those who cling to mathematical realities as if they’re somehow correspond to physical realities, with some quotes from here.
The Contradiction of
“Instantaneous Action”
February 13, 2009 at 12:52 am
Pete said…
That dip is widely known to be caused by the cooling effects of sulphate pollution.
Can you point out those models, because I can’t find any. State the name of the model/s, in which chapter, section, that they appear, etc… It’s easier to be referred to a specific chapter and a specific model.
February 13, 2009 at 1:15 am
There a few weeks of shit rainy weather at the end of December, a few weeks of insane heat – 3 days in the 40s, it didn’t drop below 20 degrees for a whole week. A week of average weather then one day of 46.7 degrees with 50km/h winds.
With the rain, there was growth, then it dried up in the month leading up, then that day with the wind and the heat it was all too much. Now whether that’s down to climate change or not we’ll find out in the coming years, but January was the hottest on record, and the 7th of Feb was the hottest day in Victoria ever. There was just 1mm of rain in all of January.
When the fire can leap with embers carried many kilometers by a 50 degree wind gusting 100km. When the fire creates its own weather with winds powerful enough to smash windows and cut down trees. A few trees next to a house are nothing.
People were powerless that day, absolutely powerless, so it’s not surprising that some are lashing out at who ever they can, blaming councils, blaming politicians. People did what they were meant to, what would have worked on any normal bad fire day, but it wasn’t enough, and nothing short of hiding in a survival bunker could have been enough for many of the victims.
It was a natural disaster no doubt about it. Sure the arsonists, contributed, so maybe did the council bylaws, but without either we’d still be in this position of mourning.
February 13, 2009 at 2:41 am
Russell (February 12, 2009 at 9:43 am),
I find Law unbearable, but as you say, he has some claim to qualification.
Of course, how you use what qualifications you have matters too! Firstly, I believe Law implies he has more qualifications than he actually has. Secondly, I’ve seen him write things that would only come from the pen of someone either ignorant in immunology, or someone so “sold” on the anti-vaccine story as to be blinded by it. That said, the latter does happen to a small number of otherwise qualified people. (But then there are a very few biologists who try support “Intelligent Design”, too.)
Looking for active, current research in decent peer-reviewed scientific journals isn’t a bad clue to judging someone’s credibility in science. It’s not perfect, but it’s useful.
Sadly, the vaccine-autism belief still has sufficient currency for both major US presidential candidates to have aired it last year. The money being squandered on research trying to prove such a link is the source of controversy in the autism world.
I’m not so sure it’s belief as such, so much as people who don’t know the science blithely repeating what they have heard or read somewhere without any critical thought. Witness the politicians as you say, and any number of blog “discussions”. There is very little, if any, research trying to establish a link between vaccines and autism. Money has been spent disproving the proposed link (proposed by the anti-vaccine crowd, that is). It’s a shame this isn’t put to better use, but then if you don’t do this, how are you supposed to say there is no link to these people? The real shame of it in my eyes is that the money was essentially spent trying to find simpler ways that make the point for these people that they might understand, when the scientists involved were already happy with their more complex derivation of no link.
James,
You can always argue over money, but that’s not arguing if the science was right or not. If Law and others stuck to only the money, they might be able to argue away, simply because you can always argue about that! But they didn’t, they tried to argue about the science. There is also a tendency to people to focus on fatalities, rather than affecteds, which your post does also. It’s more meaningful to look at the larger group of people that are affected.
February 13, 2009 at 9:57 am
Pursuing futile culture wars across the ashen hills.
February 13, 2009 at 10:30 am
> There is also a tendency to people to focus on fatalities, rather than affecteds, which your post does also.
You ignore the fact that it was the Helath Ministry which focused on the number of deaths from meningococal disease. Indeed, they advised the Government how many lives would be saved by the vaccine and argued that this showed the vaccine was money well spent. Dishonestly, officials were using statistics for deaths from all strains of the disease when the vaccine would be targeted at one strain only.
The fact is that the number of people affected by the disease is small. I note, however, that some of those who thought it was OK to spend more than $200 million on the vaccine seem aghast at National’s decision to fund herceptin for 12 months. Opponents are upset that taxpayers’ money is not being well spent. How ironic.
February 13, 2009 at 2:00 pm
I thought that I should share this concern about the philosophical corruptions in Physics that has started long time ago all the way back to the era of great scientists with their monumental contributions to modern physics as Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Dirac, Born, de Broglie and others .
This era was particularly important in the history of physics, because most of the ground-breaking work, started at about this time. This was the time, when mathematics was elevated into a level that philosophical principles became a 2nd class citizens. Whatever the mathematical model solutions found, were taken at face value as reality (as one to one correspondence to reality). The math predicted something regardless of how strange that thing might be, which can be something that was yet to be discovered/seen, and physicists , just followed them blindly, without any question at all to the validity of the mathematical prediction. There is nothing wrong with following mathematics blindly in that way, but there is something wrong, when the solutions say something unphysical and every scientist just take them blindly as a MUST , ie, it is taken as reality itself.
The rise on taking blind faith in climate science is no accident at all. This trend of Physics being blindly relying on mathematics as substitutions for physical realities was started by the likes of Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, et al, which I stated above.
To physically exist, objects must adhere to certain meta-physical principles and the most prominent of those is causality. To physically exist, causality must not be violated and anyone who claim or support such absurdity (ie, violation of causality) must be dishonest to him/herself mentally & logically. Such ignorant person is using his brain (which exists, no doubt about it, unless the person is deluded, where everything is illusion) to do the denying of existence , ie, to deny that causality is absolute. Such person will believe that causality works here (classical sense) but doesn’t work there (quantum sense).
The problem with such proposition, is that it makes physical reality subjective and not objective. In such scenario of subjective reality, one can claim that material objects don’t exist, until you (the conscious observer) look or take measurement. This is absurd and must be dismissed, since reality is absolute and it’s there with or without an observer to observe/measure it. But such misunderstanding of reality is all tracked down to the very blind acceptance and treatment of mathematical predictions as reality.
This is the root of the problem in physics, the elevation of mathematics as a substitute for reality. In saying that, mathematics is a great tool in physics, but it cannot be substituted for reality, without checking the primary of meta-physics to see if they’re consistent or not.
Climate modelers similarly follow this trend started by Einsteing, Bohr, et al, in blindly adhering to mathematical predictions as the ultimate substitute for reality. The statistical inferences used in the IPCC report are not physical models (ie, they’re not Physics), and not reality. The physical models used, are not widely generalizable (I say yet) at this stage. There are problems with finding the right initial conditions, which is still a guesswork. Different initial conditions will lead to different results. There are variables that are deliberately left out, since to include them, will make the models intractable. The use of linear models, which in reality, the world’s climate system is non-linear. There are other issues, but still the religious followers truly believe that their math is all that is needed. The same religious followers will believe those math, when applied to climate projections, but when pressed to invest their money using the same model in financial market projections. I can bet that such people will tell you to f***-off. Even Russel Brown will say that to a climate modeler who approaches Brown about applying his climate models into the financial market, the very models that Mr. Brown is endorsing.
Anyway, there is a new book on a new theory and supposed to expose wide open the flaws in modern physics (Relativity & Quantum Mechanics). It is called the Theory of Elementary Waves or TEW for short. TEW has the similar mathematical formulations & predicted the same observations as relativity & quantum mechanics, except that the mathematical bullsh*t that is so dominant in modern physics is eliminated. It puts philosophy back to front seat and mathematics to the backseat. There is no such thing as Uncertainty Principle, no traveling thru 2 points in space at once, no faster than light travel, no travel back in time to kill Hitler (sorry Poneke, I know you fansy time-travel), etc, etc,… This theory restores causality to Physics which was dismantled by Relativity & QM. There is no contradictions at all in TEW compared to tons of metaphysical contradictions that exists in Relativity & QM. All this make sense. The author has made it readable to the general public .From Amazon:
Theory of Elementary Waves-Explanation Fundamental
If this theory will make ground breaking predictions in the coming months or years, then we will see mathematics being relegated to where they rightfully belong in Physics (this includes climate Physics) and that is, at the back seat, where physical-reality/existence/metaphysics- philosophy, etc, must take the front seat.
February 13, 2009 at 5:19 pm
James,
I started my comment with “You can always argue over money, but that’s not arguing if the science was right or not.” It’s ironic for you “argue over the money” in reply to it.
If you claim the MoH focused on the deaths, and that this upsets you, why do you then do even worse and present only the deaths yourself? (You are in effect accusing them of what you do worse yourself.)
Even if you were correct, it wouldn’t take away my points. Anyone can argue how money should be spent (especially retrospectively!) and accusing the MoH of presenting simplistic accounts, even if it were right, would only make both of you guilty of it in my eyes, not vindicate you.
My understanding is that main complaint with National’s decision to fund herceptin for 12 months for most of those objecting was the manner in which the decision was made, not the money involved.
February 13, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Stephen. Hard to be rational but that article is.
February 14, 2009 at 12:31 pm
This has all been quite fascinating reading, and I’ve learned a lot, including that Che Tibby used to be a resident of Oz, I’d like to get it away from Falafulu Fisi’s interest in meta-physics. So….
On a related but completely different tack, I’m staggered that no-one seems to be discussing the matter of making houses more fire proof. The aerial pictures we seem of the small town, Kinglake, seem to show that the houses burned even more than the trees did – there are still some patches of green, but no houses left.
This despite the trees being waiting fireballs: “ambient air temperature so close to the flash point of eucalyptus oil, the canopies are essentially filled with flammable gas, ready to explode.”
So are the houses even more prone to being a fireball than a tree full of flammable gas? The aussies don’t even use much timber in their houses – I could be wrong, but a brick outer layer is almost compulsory, and judging by the photos of the ruins, a thin tin roof. Given that even a couple of thin layers of Gib can be fire rated to over an hour, and undergo furnace tests to prove that, I’m still somewhat dumbfounded that people didn’t seem to have any enclosed, fireproof room in the same way that people in Kansas have a basement tornado room. Another possibly obvious point along with the obvious “don’t have trees surrounding your house if you live in a forest fire area”, would seem to be “don’t have a plastic water tank for fighting forest fires with”.
There are a number of things that it must be coming clear, with hindsight, that Victorian building regulations are woefully inadequate. Earth building techniques, such as rammed earth, or even living semi underground (the wombats survive that way, and hell, it would be a lot cooler as well) all seem to have been ignored by Kinglakians.
February 15, 2009 at 9:48 am
An outcome will surely be a compulsory protective bunker with every dwelling. Would not be expensive.
People move to live in forests. Forests don’t move to people.
February 16, 2009 at 9:14 am
Falafulu, if ‘mathematical’ physics is so broken, then how do you account for every one of Einstein’s predictions being experimentally proved, not to mention how climate models are tracking the wider climate changes now becoming evident? And speaking of religion, I have some Christian friends who would absolutely love your attempts to inject some ‘real world’ into physics so we can all return to a rosy 1950’s view of life where everything is determinate and fixed and there’s no uncertainty (principle or otherwise).
February 16, 2009 at 9:30 am
@maximus. looks like the australian newspapers are saying exactly the same things. much noise about regulatory improvement. dunno if anything will happen but.
the friend in guilford had houses made of mud brick. cheaper than wood and, well, fire-proof.
they also used big eaves on the houses instead of trees. this meant “fuel-load” was kept to a minimum, and was in fact way the heck over the other side of the car-parking.
dunno how fire-resistant the roofing material was though.
but all those things you’re suggesting are, well, “for freaks” (these friends were considered crazy hippies). “real australians” live in houses above ground, and use expensive air-conditioning to keep themselves cool…
February 16, 2009 at 9:58 am
I few years back an Australian friend took me up to the Blue Mountains. I was marvelling at the lovely houses in the bush and amazing views and he said he would never want to live there because of the fire danger. I was really surprised that there were no fire-specific building regs.
Also yesterday I came across this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RuinsOfHome.JPG “destroyed by bushfires in 1968″
February 16, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Published on the Stuff site this morning…
“The climate is heating up far faster than scientists had predicted, spurred by sharp increases in greenhouse gas emissions from developing countries like China and India, a top climate scientist believes.
“The consequence of that is we are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we’ve considered seriously,” Chris Field, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, told the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Chicago.”
Then you look at the weather in Chicago and wonder how deep the snow drifts are outside this meeting….
Weather for Chicago, IL, USA –
-2°C
Current: Light Snow
Wind: N at 10 km/h
Humidity: 65%Sun
-1°C | -5°CMon
2°C | -3°CTue
6°C | 1°CWed
3°C | -7°C
Yeah, obviously the warming is far worse than anyone thought!!!!
February 16, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Dw said…
Falafulu, if ‘mathematical’ physics is so broken, then how do you account for every one of Einstein’s predictions being experimentally proved, not to mention how climate models are tracking the wider climate changes now becoming evident?
Dw, perhaps you should try and re-read what I have said. I didn’t say that physics is broken, and can you tell me where exactly I have said that. What I have stated is the abandonment of reason in favour of mathematical predictions. These are not the same. Mathematical realities is not a requirement that it actually exist in nature and this is where Physics has distracted in looking for realities.
Fact one. All the predictions in Physics that seemed to violate or contradict existence itself have never been verified experimentally. Those predictions were entirely inferred from mathematical models. That should ring the alarm bell. Some still hope that one day technology will catch up and validate those unphysical mathematical predictions.
There are still some scientists who believe in time-travel, for no other reasons but solutions to relativity equations tell them that it is. This phenomena is non-causal (a contradiction in terms) and if you believe that it is possible, then you might as well believe in psychics. There are scientists who are wasting their time, money and effort in researching these unphysical phenomena which they hope will be proven to (be possibly) exist in nature.
These scientists might equally fund research into ghosts. What are their commonalities ? Ghosts, time-travel, being at 2 places at once, superluminal and infinite speed object, instantaneous action, etc,… are all non-causal, ie, for those to be physically real, they do violate causality. Now, do you believe in psychics Dw? If not then why not?
Fact Two. There is no requirement at all for mathematical realities to correspond to physical realities and this is a mistake, because this is how Physicists have abandoned reason, since everything and anything that solutions of equations say (or spit out), they regarded those as some yet unknown physical realities, even if the solutions suggest or imply unphysical phenomena. If you examine predictions made in Physics over the last 80 years or so, all mathematical solutions found from models are interpreted as physical realities. Nothing is discarded.
As I have stated in my previous messages, that there is nothing wrong with developing mathematical models to approximate or mimic physical realities, but there is a huge mistake when Physicists infer everything from the models as some unseen realties that they are needed to be searched for, even the solution imply unphysicalities. Now , do you follow my point here? Mathematical modeling to approximate physical reality is excellent, however blind faith in modeling is what needed to be rooted out. Can you see the difference? The solutions must be guided by meta-physical principles & premises first and foremost and mathematical realities should be used as a tool to probe those and not the other way round. If it is not done in this order, then don’t be surprise that Physicists will come out in the near future with mathematical models of ghosts, God, ESP, psycho-kinesis and all things unphysical.
It won’t take you long that some Physicists have entertained the idea of ESP, ghosts, etc,… Try Googling some psychics, materializations, homeopathy websites, etc…, and you can see some Physicists hinting that it may afterall, these things exists. Try this website.
This is the problem with Physicists starting out first with consciousness as a primary and not existence as a primary. It should be the other way round or otherwise, one would end up with contradictions if consciousness is treated as a primary. Treating consciousness as primary is exactly the same thing as treating mathematical realities as primary and what we end with? Contradictions everywhere.
Fact Three. Physical reality is absolute, and there is no contradiction at all in there.
Just to note here, that the multiple universes theory was formulated to make quantum mechanics a local theory (ie, to eliminate instantaneous actions at a distance with no or zero time duration including being at 2 places at once), but it brought in still more contradictions. This means that number of possible universes in existence but forever cut-off communications with others is infinite. Infinity is a contradiction in terms and must be rejected.
The mathematical derivation used in multiple universes theory start from a different angle compared to quantum mechanics, however the end result are almost the same.
Formulating relativity and quantum mechanics doesn’t mean that they’re useless as you tried to make it out as if it was something I said. What I stated to cut the blind faith in mathematical solutions that are purported to be realities, that’s all. Relativity and QM are not going to collapse simply because the unphysical solutions are being chopped from the models. That’s why physicists are being mislead today, since all solutions are regarded as realties, nothing is being discarded.
Climate modeling is no difference. There are certain solutions which are infeasible and unrealistic, but they’re being taken in as somehow they’re reality.
Finally, here is the original paper by the author of TEW, which is freely available (PDF). Had this theory was developed by the founders of QM and relativity, we would still have the advanced technology as we’re seeing today, but we have a theory that is causal.
February 16, 2009 at 1:48 pm
this what i really love about the climate change issue. it snows in the USA during winter, and that’s contrary evidence.
and that might why poneke could be right. you need to believe that too much CO2 in the atmosphere is a bad thing, despite the legions of half-informed and outright deniers saying a return to the phanerozoic is a bad thing… (and yes, i can use google too).
February 16, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Lawrence, this is not a question about global warming but about your general knowledge. Having spent last winter in the Great Lakes area (Toronto), I can tell you that that is VERY warm for February. Daytime highs are usually zero or below for almost all of the month. And Chicago is a colder city than Toronto. So, sorry, temperature statistics actually don’t support the point you’re making. Not saying that they prove global warming isn’t happening, but that IS warm for a typical Chicago winter.
February 17, 2009 at 8:48 am
Just for warmist folks here who truly believe in mathematical predictions. Look at the consequences of this nonsense, ie , the philosophical corruptions in physics. There are many books that has popped up over the years, trying to link paranormal (non-causal or acausal phenomena) to mathematical predictions in physics. For example, there is a new book by a former Havard professor, Diane Hennacy Powell, which claims that science/physics explains psychic phenomena.
The ESP Enigma: The Scientific Case for Psychic Phenomena
Look at how many physicists listed here do entertain the idea of after-life, even Nobel laureate Dr Brian Josephson (solid-state physics) is listed on that site.
There are many examples of this, like the endorsement of another popular book, The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism, by founding father of Quantum Mechanics (and Nobel Laureate), Dr. Heisenberg.
One obviously doesn’t need to understand mathematical modeling to see an increasing trend (started long ago) in blind belief in those methods, which resulted in this nonsense of linking paranormal phenomena to physics.
I know that Russel Brown doesn’t believe in psychics and so do I. I don’t know what grounds that Russel’s rejection of psychic is based on, but mine rejection of it, is solely based on physics, logic & philosophical principles. I bet that he believes in mathematical realities (its obvious from his messages on this thread). One can reach a conclusion that Russel is self-contradicting himself if he doesn’t believe Prof. Diane Hennacy Powell’s claim of psychic connection to science. Prof. Powell’s book is based on blind belief in mathematics which has dominated the last 80 years or so in modern physics. One doesn’t have to look further at Prof. Powell’s first paragraph from that page above, which stated:
combines philosophy, physics, and empirical data to examine supernatural traits like telepathy (the ability to access someone else’s consciousness), psychokinesis (the ability to use one’s consciousness to affect external objects), clairvoyance (the ability to broaden one’s consciousness to remote time and space) and precognition (the ability to see into the future). She spoke to TIME about Abraham Lincoln’s eerie dreams, Einstein’s theories of time-travel and the idea that anybody can be a psychic.
Ken Ring (the sun-based Auckland weather forecasting guy) doesn’t believe in climate mathematical modeling, in which case his grounds for doing that is dodgy. I agree with Ken Ring there, but again, I do question global warming based on my knowledge of physics and numerical modeling (in which numerical computation is a subject that I know really well, since it is what I do for a living). But Ken also believes in Eastern mysticism , which is published in his book, “Almanac”.
If one can examine carefully of where both Russel Brown & Ken Ring’s stand in relation to their evaluation of the validity of physical/climate science , one reaches a conclusion that their view are 2 different sides of the same coin, without them realizing it. One believes in mathematical predictions (scientific mysticism ) and the other believes in eastern philosophy (ancient mysticism).
When scientists abandon reason in substitution for mathematical realities, then we (as civilization) might stop searching for the truth (ie, reality exists and causality is obeyed) and start practicing paranormal nonsense.
February 17, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Falafulu, another triumph of bad reasoning. Ken Ring and Russel have the same defective belief in mysticism because…oh wait, because one doesn’t believe in AGW & the other does. What about Newton’s laws of motion? Was he similarly deluded? And Keppler? Oh but again wait, Newton’s laws didn’t predict the orbit of Mercury – we had to wait for Einstein for that. Your argument betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method and the application of physics and mathematics to the real world.
February 17, 2009 at 12:37 pm
what dw said: plus, the use of mathematical modelling is based on the theory that increased CO2 emissions will effect the climate.
the theory itself is sound. if the maths being used to attempt to model how the theory might pan out is dodgy, it doesn’t effect the theory itself. it’s just bad maths.
furthermore, the theory itself is sound, even if the climate doesn’t change. theories are great like that.
February 20, 2009 at 4:31 pm
falafulu, just because some scientists believe in an afterlife also doesn’t invalidate use of mathematical models by the wider scientific community. You appear to be drawing a long bow equating the beliefs of some to all scientists who use models. I know many scientists including physicists, mathematicians, and astronomers from many different disciplines and all of them have a healthy respect for the limitations of modeling. As a person who also extensively creates and uses models, I have never met your mythical ‘modeling fantasists’. Perhaps your desire to discredit modeling in climate research has led you to draw this false equivalence conclusion and tar all scientists with the same brush.