Mr Williams, CEO of News Limited in Australia says we do not need to worry about the domination of the Murdoch press because we now have digital media! "Let’s see if it works" said Dick Smith.
Read Dick's subsequent probing letter to Mr Williams.
Kim Williams AM
CEO and Managing Director
News Limited
2 Holt St, Surry Hills NSW 2010…
Filed under Uncategorized
Filed under Uncategorized
To those who haven't been paying attention to Monckton's Burke & Wills-style tour of Australia (everybody), I have decided to bring this exchange, between Tweeter @Jansant and Monckton's Wagga debate organsier @rodgerrodgersu, to your attention.
Hi
I am wondering if the Climate Change Debate that Monckton will be attending (19th March) will be open to he public?
Filed under Uncategorized
All of us in the sane world who understand and accept the scientific evidence for human-induced climate change and global warming, and are active in the blogosphere, always come across AGW deniers claiming to be sceptics. Anthony crybaby Watts for example certainly doesn’t like being called a denier because of perceived anti-semitic overtones in the use of that word. Well, they may not like being called deniers but that is what they are. That said, let’s just pretend for a moment that the word denier is offensive due to anti-semitic overtones. What other words could replace it? How about cynic, contrarian or detractor? All good words, especially cynic, because when deniers reject the science underpinning human-induced climate change, more often than not they are questioning the motivation of the scientists themselves rather than the science itself. This is certainly due to, in the case of Anthony Watts, a complete lack of scientific training and understanding. His sycophantic flying monkeys are even worse. They just blindly repeat everything Watts says without even thinking to pass a sceptical eye over any of it. That behaviour probably has another word for it requiring a different label for those individuals who practice it. Perhaps something along the lines of “sewer”, because that is a conduit for the type of information Watts and his ilk spew out. If there are any plumbers out there with a catchy word I’d like to hear from you. Whatever these people are, they are not sceptics.
So what exactly is a “sceptic”? Perhaps the following article by DoubtfulNews.com will help.
Media Guide to Skepticism
Purpose: To provide a clear, easy-to-read guide about the “Skeptical” viewpoint as subscribed to by many who might call themselves Skeptics or critical thinkers; to distinguish practical Skepticism from the popular use of the phrase “I’m skeptical,” and from those who claim to be “skeptics” regarding some well-established conclusion (such as climate change).
What is skepticism?
Skepticism is an approach to evaluating claims that emphasizes evidence and applies tools of science. Skepticism is most often applied to extraordinary claims – those that refute the current consensus view.
The Skeptical process considers evidence obtained by systematic observations and reason.
The conclusion that is reached at the end of this Skeptical process is provisional because additional or better evidence may come along that points towards a more suitable explanation.
Example: Mr. X tells us that a new pill greatly improves his memory. This claim, if true, is important and extraordinary. So, it would be fitting to apply Skepticism to this claim. We would want to see evidence that his memory is improved and that the pill was responsible for that. We consider alternative explanations that could explain why Mr. X would say the new pill improves his memory: he may be mistaken, he might be going through a less-stressful time of life, he wants to feel like he spent his money wisely on the pills, he was paid to promote the pills, etc. Good evidence that his claim has validity would be quality research results (multiple studies) that show many who take the pill displayed a measurable improvement in memory. And, preferably, we would be provided a plausible explanation for how the pill works to improve memory. If the manufacturer of Mr X’s pills do not have well-controlled studies of large groups of people that show that the product actually works, we can’t just accept his word that they work as they say because the alternative explanations are more likely.
The more extraordinary the claim, the stronger the evidence must be to support it. If a claim is made that would require us to revise or overturn well established knowledge, we should be very suspicious and ask for a greater degree of evidence.
Example: Psychics claim that they are able to predict future events. That would not be in accordance with what we have observed about the human mind. It would not correspond to well-tested ideas in biology and physics. It does not make sense in terms of what we know. So, in order to justify discarding all we already know, the claimant must have a great deal of solid evidence that withstands scrutiny.
These are cases of applying scientific skepticism. Skeptics value contributions of science but also those of logic and math that lead towards the best explanation. Skepticism can be applied to subjects such as history, art and literature, as well, by using critical thinking and respect for the evidence for any claims that are made.
What does it mean to be a Skeptic?
You will often hear “I’m a skeptic” or “I’m skeptical” from people who are not sure about or who doubt some concept. That is a common, casual use of the term. Simply calling oneself a “skeptic” is not the same as practicing it. It’s easy to “doubt” things; everyone is “skeptical” about something. Good Skepticism involves understanding why one might or might not doubt the claim.
A Skeptic subscribes to a number of tenets.
Respect for the evidence. The application of reason to evidence is the best method we have to obtain reliable knowledge.
Respect for methods, conclusions and the consensus of science. Science is a particular way of obtaining information that is designed to reduce the chances of coming to an incorrect conclusion. Using a scientific process will minimize errors (but not eliminate them entirely). So, Skeptics are often vigorous advocates of science – in medicine, in schools, and for informing policy decisions. Fake, junk and pseudo-science is called out as a ruse. Logic and math are also components of science that can be valuable in assessing claims.
Preference for natural, not supernatural, explanation. Natural laws give us rational boundaries in our quest to determine explanations. Miracles are an example of using a supernatural agent (a god, saint or angel who operates outside of natural laws) as part of the explanation. A Skeptic will look for a natural explanation that does not call for a supernatural, unproven (and possibly unprovable) entity to be included.
Promotion of reason and critical thinking. Many Skeptics are good at identifying mistakes in arguments and reasoning.
Awareness of how we are fooled. People routinely fool themselves and are fooled by others. This is most commonly seen in our over-reliance on our senses and memory – for example, “I know what I saw,” or “I remember it like it was yesterday.” Skeptics are wary of eyewitness testimony because observation is fallible and memory is malleable. Stories of events, even from trustworthy people, make for very poor evidence on their own. Even collectively, anecdotes don’t tell us much about the validity of the claim. Skeptics also understand that people tend to look for, remember and favor the evidence that supports their preferred conclusion.
What Skepticism ISN’T
This section contains possibly the most important things to know about Skeptics. There are a many misconceptions about what it means to be a Skeptic. Not everyone who says they are “skeptical” are applying Skepticism.
Skeptic is not the same as “cynic” or “disbeliever”. Good Skeptics do not dismiss claims out-of-hand. The “Skeptic” is often seen as the “debunker”, the “downer”, or the “balloon buster”. It may appear that way for those who are very attached to certain concepts to which Skepticism is being applied, such as existence of ghosts, Bigfoot or UFOs. Skeptics aren’t skeptical of everything, either. In classical Greek Skepticism, the individual did not commit to stating “knowledge”; everything was doubted, there was no certainty. That is not a popular stance today. When we speak of modern Skepticism, we are talking about those who seek the conclusion best supported by current evidence and reason.
Skeptic does not equal “atheist”. Many Skeptics are atheists, but not all. Skepticism is a process of evaluating claims, not a set of conclusions. Skeptics are a diverse group so lack of religious beliefs should not be assumed. Scientific Skepticism is applied only to testable claims (such as “prayer heals”), not to untestable claims such as the existence of God, who is supernatural. “Is there a God?” is a question outside the realm of science. However, philosophical skepticism can be invoked in considering claims about the supernatural.
Skeptic does not mean “denialist” or “truther”. A practicing Skeptic is informed by the scientific consensus. So called “climate skeptics” are not practicing Skepticism when they doubt global warming based on selective belief and by ignoring the results that science has given us to this point. “Denialists” (of climate change, evolution, conventional medicine, etc.) reject science that does not support their view. “Truthers” insist that the real “truth” has not been revealed and instead put forth the explanation that a conspiracy is afoot. These stances do not give fair weight to well-established knowledge we have.
Skepticism is not a religion. Skepticism doesn’t tell you what to think. It tells you how you should think about something to get to the conclusion that has the best possibility of being true. Skepticism may not always be the best approach to decisions at the moment, sometimes decisions based on emotions can feel like the right thing to do. So applying skepticism to everything in life is not always the best policy. There may be other factors to consider.
Skepticism is important
Why use Skepticism as a process to evaluate claims? Critically evaluating claims for flaws, mistakes and inaccuracies lessens the potential that you will believe something that isn’t true. Skepticism and critical thinking can be applied in everyday life where an invalid claim might have serious effects on you or people around you – such as in consideration of a medical treatment, a financial investment, a consumer product, or life choices.
Proponents of a claim will frequently say, “You can’t prove it’s not true.” That’s a ridiculous statement. It’s not up to the Skeptic to show that an extraordinary claim isn’t true. It’s up to those making the claim to provide evidence and reasons why it IS true. We must have evidence that a person DID commit a crime, for example, not prove that everyone else in the world did not.
What do Skeptics do?
Skeptics have a loose community consisting of publications, web sites and online forums, organizations, and events. Skeptics are all around the world, organized into casual and formal groups and associations. It is a community made up of people with varying backgrounds, ideas, goals, communication styles and skill sets. It also gets very fluid at the edges. You might be a Skeptic and not even know it. Many people don’t self-identify as a “skeptic” but selectively follow the practices of Skepticism in their lives. Some people are disinclined to take on any labels or join a group.
Many Skeptics enjoy the fringe subject areas, they like solving mysteries and appreciate being around people who think as they do or who argue rationally when they don’t agree. Some Skeptics are activists who promote critical thinking and Skepticism in their communities and the public as individuals or as part of local or national organized groups and online.
Some of the topics Skeptics are involved in are science education, alternative medical treatments, the paranormal, dubious consumer products and services, hoaxes and scams, UFOs and aliens, monsters and folklore, superstition, and why people believe strange things.
Those who represent Skepticism in the public sphere are happy to provide a science- and reason-based viewpoint for the media. The backgrounds of the those in the Skeptical community are varied. Many participants in the skeptical community are experts in particular areas like the paranormal, medicine, cryptozoology, history, archaeology, textual analysis, linguistics, psychology, astronomy, physics and magic.
Skeptical Resources
Here are the best means to connect to the people and ideas of scientific skepticism.
The directory for all things skeptical online
Organizations
The major Skeptic organizations have as their mission a goal to promote scientific skepticism. There are three major national skeptical organizations in the United States.
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI)
CSI (formerly known as CSICOP) is a nonprofit scientific and educational organization, started in 1976. Their mission is to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. They publish the Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptical Briefs. They host an annual conference called CSIcon and many local events, workshops and lectures in conjunction with their overarching organization, the Center for Inquiry. Contact: info(at)csisop.org More
James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF)
Founded by magician James “The Amazing” Randi in 1996, the foundation is dedicated to promoting “critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.” They organize one of the largest gatherings of international skeptics and critical thinkers, The Amazing Meeting (TAM), every year and offer the One Million Dollar Challenge for those who claim paranormal abilities. Contact:
+1 213 293-3092 More
Publisher of Skeptic magazine, the Skeptics Society is a nonprofit, scientific and educational organization led by Dr. Michael Shermer. Their mission is to engage leading experts in investigating the paranormal, fringe science, pseudoscience, and extraordinary claims of all kinds, promote critical thinking, and serve as an educational tool for those seeking a sound scientific viewpoint. They sponsor a monthly lecture series at the California Institute of Technology. Contact: skepticssociety(at)skeptic.com More
Publications
Famous Skeptics
- Harry Houdini (1874 – 1926) Magician, psychic debunker.
- Martin Gardner (1914 – 2010) Popular math and science writer.
- Isaac Asimov (1920 – 1992) Biochemist, professor, science fiction and science author.
- Paul Kurtz (1925 – 2012) Philosopher, professor, author, organizational founder.
- James Randi (1928 – ) Magician, investigator, author, organizational founder.
- Carl Sagan (1934 – 1996) Astronomer, astrophysicist, author.
- Richard Dawkins (1941 – ) Evolutionary biologist, professor, author.
- Stephen Jay Gould (1941 – 2002) Paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, science historian, author.
- Elizabeth Loftus (1944- ) Cognitive psychologist, world-renowned expert on human memory.
- Joe Nickell (1944 - ) Paranormal investigator, author.
- Carol Tavris (1944 – ) Social psychologist, author.
- Eugenie Scott (1945- ) Physical anthropologist, Director of National Center for Science Education.
- Lawrence Krauss (1954- ) Theoretical physicist, cosmologist, professor, author.
- Michael Shermer (1954 – ) Science writer, organizational founder, editor of Skeptic magazine.
- Steven Novella (1964 – ) Clinical neurologist, writer, editor.
- Brian Dunning (1965 – ) Science writer, video and podcast producer.
- Richard Saunders (1965 – ) Science educator, video and podcast producer.
- Richard Wiseman (1966 – ) Psychologist, popular science author, paranormal investigator.
- Christopher French (?- ) Professor, anomalous psychology researcher, editor-in-chief of The Skeptic (U.K.).
- Benjamin Radford (1970- ) Paranormal investigator, author, deputy editor of Skeptical Inquirer.
- Derren Brown (1971 – ) Illusionist, mentalist, TV personality.
- Tim Minchin (1975- ) Comedian, actor, musician.
References
What is Skepticism? Brian Dunning
What Is Skepticism, Anyway? Michael Shermer, 2013
Why Is There a Skeptical Movement? Daniel Loxton, 2013
Bigfoot Skeptics, New Atheists, Politics and Religion Steven Novella, 2013
The New Skepticism, Paul Kurtz, Prometheus Books, 1992
Acknowledgements
Eric Weiss from Skepticsonthe.net, David Bloomberg, Kylie Sturgess, Torkel Ødegård, Barbara Drescher, Robert Blaskiewicz, Massimo Pigliucci, Chris French, Adriana Heguy, Daniel Loxton, Eve Siebert, Eddie Scott, Daniel Loxton, Howard Lewis, Iain Martel, Tiffany Taylor, Terry O’Connor, Stephan Naro, Paul Wilkins, Richard Saunders.
Permission to reprint is granted as long as the following attribution is given: By DoubtfulNews.com, 2013
Media Guide to Skepticism by Sharon Hill/Doubtful News is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Filed under Climate Change, Uncategorized
Human beings are pretty damn clever. We have adapted and invented our way out of some extremely grim situations. And we can do the same in the face of climate change! The ideas and innovations necessary to ensure our security, and the security of future generations, are within our power. What's needed is a smooth, effective conveyor belt to carry those ideas and innovations from our heads, into the world, and up to sufficient scale.
Filed under Uncategorized
Where the Truth Goes to Die.
Until recently I was in the habit of attending a writers forum every Monday. The group was made up of poets, short story writers, journalists and would be novelists. The conveyer of our group was a wise elderly lady who in terms of the written word, knew her stuff. Primarily I am a creative writer of short stories and poetry.
Filed under Uncategorized
In compiling my list of politicians and their acceptance or rejection of the science that demonstrates unequivocably that human-induced climate change is real and serious, I have come across a number who haven’t made a definitive statement either way. With some of those, the position is a bit ambiguous as they do make general statements about emissions or protecting the environment. For the purpose of this list though, the criteria to be classified as an acceptor is a definitive statement acknowledging what the science tells us. To search for that acknowledgment (or rejection), I go to a site that allows me to search every speech recorded in Hansard by a given member for specific words and phrases. My word of choice is of course “climate”. So how did Karen Andrews go?
In Karen’s 153 speeches to parliament, she used the word “climate” just 5 times. Given that climate change is arguably the most important issue affecting the Earth, perhaps Karen’s use of the word “climate” was more about quality than quantity? You be the judge.
Mar 1, 2011 Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2010-2011; Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2010-2011: Second Reading
“We have great beaches, a wonderful climate and many things to do. Why wouldn’t you want to holiday with us on the Gold Coast?”
Okay, that’s one down. Perhaps the next four will be hard hitting…
Nov 2, 2011 Questions without Notice: Qantas
Nov 2, s011 Bills: Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Online Games) Bill 2011; Third Reading
Nov 2, 2011 Bills: Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection Service and Other Measures) Bill 2011, Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment (Tuition Protection Service) Bill 2011, Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Bill 2011; Second Reading
“We have an excellent climate on the Gold Coast, with wonderful beaches and an equally beautiful hinterland.”
Well, there you go. Three separate speeches on three very different subjects on the same day and she just recycled the same irrelevant line for each speech. Lazy lazy lazy. I’m beginning to think she should look for work as a travel consultant. Well, one to go…
Feb 9, 2012 Bills: Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011; Second Reading
“With the current economic climate, the Gold Coast’s building and construction industry…”
So disappointed. I was sure we were going to get five statements about the Gold Coast’s beautiful climate. Instead we got four of those and one about the economic climate. Nothing about climate change though. To me, the thing that makes this failure to discuss climate change so astoundingly stupid, is that the Gold Coast, being at sea level with many properties only just above on reclaimed swamps shaped into canal estates, is an area destined to be extremely vulnerable to the effects of climate change. With the Gold Coast deriving most of its economic returns from tourism, Karen Andrews’ travel agent-like sales pitch seems even more ridiculous. What tourists are going to come to a beachside resort city with no beaches?
In 2010 the federal Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency produced inundation maps for the Gold Coast. The first shows projected sea level rise of 0.60m by 2100. The second, a more serious sea level rise of 1.1m by 2100.
Well it seems that at least somebody is taking the threat of climate change and its projected effects on the Gold Coast seriously. But the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency are not the only public officials who are. The Gold Coast City Council released a document identifying all the climate risks and strategies for adapting to them. It’s called the Climate Change Strategy 2009-2014 Gold Coast City Council. From the Executive Summary…
It is anticipated that climate change will impact Gold Coast weather patterns and amplify the occurrence of extreme events like cyclones and heat waves. Climate change will require more intensive responses to natural disasters like drought, bushfire and flood. Council will lead our community in preparing for these unavoidable events by increasing efforts to mitigate future impacts.
Further, in 2011, the Insurance Australia Group made a submission to the Barriers to Effective Climate Change Adaptation
Productivity Commission. In it calls on government to undertake a number of actions in regard to climate change focusing mostly on mitigation and adaptation as they pertain to infrastructure. Here is the Executive Summary…
Weather and climate are “core business” for the general insurance industry. At its most basic, insurers underwrite weather-related losses (including physical damage to insured property and interruptions to business continuity) by assessing, pricing and spreading the risk and then meeting claims when they arise.
Adaptive measures can complement insurance in dealing with the consequences of climate change. Insurance is a means to provide compensations for financial losses. However, it is preferable to prevent losses from occurring subject to the cost-benefits involved. The optimal solution is a combination of the two – implementing preventative measures to reduce loss frequency and severity and insuring against rarer and more costly events. Government preventative infrastructure spending reduces future losses and enables more affordable property insurance schemes.
IAG appreciates that the Federal Government is mindful of a general policy, adopted by successive Australian Governments in recent times, to the effect that where commercial markets, including insurance markets, operate efficiently and effectively on their own, the government should be reluctant to intervene.
IAG recognises the crucial role of government in providing a comprehensive and clearly defined regulatory framework that promotes community resilience to risk and facilitates more affordable premiums and more predictable claim costs. Government has a particular role in encouraging and regulating risk-appropriate development of the built environment and providing an appropriate emergency services framework.
To further mitigate against risk, IAG believes there is a need for greater emphasis by government on community adaptation to extreme weather events, including stronger building codes to protect structures from extreme weather hazards – tropical cyclones, severe storms, hailstorms, bushfires and flood – more risk-appropriate use of land and greater emphasis on hazard mitigation infrastructure.
Until now, building code standards have focused in principle on protecting life and safety. IAG suggests there is scope to enhance building standards so that they also cost effectively protect the property itself, and its owner’s financial interest, without sacrificing safety performance.
Government has a crucial role to play in risk-appropriate land use planning and zoning. Land that is, or becomes, at unacceptable risk from hazards such as tropical cyclones, severe storms, hailstorms, bushfires and flood should not be zoned for residential or commercial use. Without sound and consistent government controls, there is little to prevent ongoing building in locations of extreme vulnerability.
Cooperation and data sharing with government is essential to ensuring that the risks can be mapped and understood, and significant solutions are yet to be implemented.
The general insurance sector argues that there is a clear social and economic case for eliminating or at least reducing State insurance taxes and charges as a priority in any reform of Australia’s taxation system.
It is in the insurance industry’s interest to educate the community on how to become more resilient to increasingly severe weather events, as well as how to reduce their impact on the environment.
There are also numerous papers dealing specifically with the issue of climate change in Australia generally and on the Gold Coast more specifically. For example, here, here and here. The fact is, climate change is real, caused by us and serious. For places like the Gold Coast, it will ruin the tourism industry it so heavily relies on, unless serious mitigation and adaptation is undertaken. The LNP Member for McPherson, Karen Andrews, is either completely oblivious to the important issues that will face her electorate, or she is deliberately burying her head in the sand. The other option of course is that she thinks she knows more than the experts. Whatever it is, she is an idiot and does not deserve to represent the people of McPherson. It is the inaction of people like her and her party full of climate change deniers that will ruin the livelihoods of the very people who vote for them.
Filed under idiot politicians, Uncategorized
Political Comparisons. Australia and the United States.
What seems to have been lost in the endless political sleazy meanderings of the past two years is the remarkable similarity between US republican election strategy and that of the conservatives in Australia. From the day President Obama was elected in 2008 Republicans sought to delegitimise him. Out came the Birthers supported by Donald Trump who claimed he wasn't born in America, and of course then came those who said he was a Muslim and a communist.
Filed under Uncategorized
An Abbott in the Lodge - Never
A guest post by John Lord 19/1/2013.
David Marr's quarterly essay "Political Animal" gives an engrossing, even gripping insight into the persona of the leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott. I made many observations as I read it and I cannot of course comment on everything. I must say though (given Tony Abbot's statement that he finds gays intimidating) that I was a little bemused at how Marr even got to interview him.
Filed under Uncategorized
 | uknowispeaksense on Follow the money |
 | john byatt on Follow the money |
| uknowispeaksense on OPEN THREAD |
 | Mk on OPEN THREAD |
 | Gregory T on U.S. Geological Survey: Warmer… |
 | Schlomo Wahl on OPEN THREAD |
| Another Week of Anth… on climate change for dummies… | |
| uknowispeaksense on OPEN THREAD |
| uknowispeaksense on OPEN THREAD |
| uknowispeaksense on OPEN THREAD |
| Schlomo Wahl on OPEN THREAD |
| Schlomo Wahl on OPEN THREAD |
| Schlomo Wahl on OPEN THREAD |
| uknowispeaksense on OPEN THREAD |
| Schlomo Wahl on OPEN THREAD |
+1 213 293-3092 
