CHOICE membership

Effects of climate change on the consumer


A scientist is a person who understands and effectively adopts the scientific method. A political scientist is a specialist commentator, a kind of social historian. The label ‘scientist’ is by custom as it is for other social sciences. Political science is near the far end of the methodology spectrum and rarely has much to do with scientific method.

Lumping somebody in with the many unqualified commentators who pronounce (often loudly) on the science of climate change regardless of their comprehension or accuracy is hardly complimentary. While we must accept that people have the right to state an opinion there is no reason to accept what they say unless they provide evidence for their position and show they know their stuff.

If you said my knowledge of climate science was in the same league as Lord Monckton ( the classically trained journalist) I would be mightily offended. His training doesn’t stop him doing world speaking tours on a subject he demonstrably knows nothing about. The same applies to many other professions who seem to think that the political controversy over climate change entitles them to explain things they don’t understand.


Not quite…Political science is:

‘the branch of knowledge that deals with the state and systems of government; the scientific analysis of political activity and behaviour.’

In relation to the study of political science, then this possibly sums it up well…

While I personally would find studing political science as interesting as watching grass grow, it does cover the problem solving and analytical assessing used in the physical and chemical sciences…just the core focus is different.

If you hear what he says, noting that his views on Climate Change are very different to BL. The links will give one an idea of how both individuals are on different ends of the climate change belief spectrum.

Growing up I assumed that a Lord was a wise person…how childhood fantasies can be destroyed.


Well we have to agree to disagree then, the methodology is quite different to physical sciences. Not all science is double-blind laboratory tests, there are historical sciences that cannot really do experiments on their main topics such as geology or archeology. But those still make predictions that can be tested. Political science makes guesses and then argues about why they were wrong.


So he is qualified to discuss how government works, in the same way that Ian Plimer is qualified to talk about how rocks work. Neither holds qualifications in climate science, and so they advance opinions rather than facts.

Except countries like China are taking more action to address climate change than Australia!


Science is not about doing 'double blind laboratory experiments. This is possibly a good definition of what science is about…

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

BTW, they do do double blind testing in political science. It is test procedure, designed to eliminate biased results, in which the identity of those receiving a treatment is concealed from both administrators and subjects until after the study is completed. It is a testing technique often used data collection such as surveys and other analytical technical to remove human inherent biases.

Most of the scientific community which provides commentary on climate change and is used by the IPCC does not have climate science qualifications. If we dismiss the thoughts and analysis done by individuals who are not climate science qualifications, we should likewise dismiss the IPCC research…something which would be a ludicrous suggestion.

The IPCC also has political scientists on its panel of scientists, which shows that they value the expertise and experience of political scientists in morning forward.

You may be surprised how wrong this statement is and is incorrect information reported in the media and communicated by activists.

On a high level, China is rated by the Climate Action Tracker as Highly insufficient while Australia is slightly better as Insufficient.

China’s CO2 emissions are projected to be around 118% higher than 2000 levels in 2025 (even greater in 2030), while Australia’s will have a overall reduction of CO2 emissions. There is conjecture within the politics/some media to whether theses reductions will achieve 26% reduction levels (Paris agreement).

If one looks at raw CO2e emissions, China is on track to increase its CO2 emissions in 2025 to about 16,000 million tonnes (- an increase from about 7,000 billion tonnes in 2000 levels), while Australia’s contribution is forecast to be about 560 million tonnes (a considerable reduction on 2005 levels, but currently may nor achieve the 26% target level).

China may achieve its Paris goals, just like Australia…however China’s Paris pledge is quite different to Australia and results in enormous CO2e growth to allow for further future economic development. Any reductions achieved by Australia and other parts of the world will be potentially swamped by the increase in emissions by China.

Unscientific research

Bjørn Lomborg narrowly escaped formal censure because his writings were judged to be political opinion, not science. He’s qualified in politics and little else. In my opinion, he’s a sociopath.ørn_Lomborg
He’s even spawned a web site, which charitably lists his devious lies as “errors”:
A dangerous fraud.


Effects of climate change on the consumer?

Disagreement of what constitutes science! :nerd_face:

I’ve set about wading through the NZ referenced report, in the link previously provided by @BrendanMays, rather than prolong a debate about who the climate skeptics are.

Respectfully @phb, I can accept there are issues with the lack of progress by some nations, and the negotiated political process. Even our own government has a lack of urgency despite the realistic advice of it’s own appointed experts. It is the government’s prerogative to choose to ignore that advice, or defer taking it more seriously.

The readily accessible beacon from my independent search of available information remains then performance of the UK. The big difference a political scientist might like to explain is how the UK Govt has demonstrated strong bipartisanship since 1989 while Australia’s Parliament has spent 30 years ‘flip flopping’, (to borrow a phrase from a noted Liberal who should know what that means)! The UK has made progress with a Parliament that has had three distinct factions and an antique upper house. Of course there are no states to contend with!

Perhaps there could be a topic rating the street cred of all climate commentators , and a simple score assigned to rate them in nominal SI units. The Abbott is my preferred naming of the unit of climate knowledge, with a rating of zero is defined by total ignorance. The scale may need to be logarithmic, as per the measurement of seismic activity. Total ignorance is acceptable, hence the scale reflects the degree of denial or misdirection of the facts, topping out with a max of ten on the scale. :rofl:


At some point, this thread on scientific research is probably the best place for discussions around science itself. I appreciate the two topics are linked though.


Maybe you need a thread on unscientific research. That which is targeted to a predetermined outcome. :face_with_raised_eyebrow:


By request, a thread for unscientific research :wink:


I agree.

The UK are also fortunate that they endorse other energies which are also dismissed politically in Australia, such as nuclear. The UK sees nuclear energy as part of the solution to reduce its emissions. I have tabled this in other posts on this forum. They also use biomass as a zero net emissions/carbon neutral…I personally am concerned about biomass as a carbon neutral energy source as deforestation (even if one assumes is carbon neutral), has significant other environmental and world impact. I just hope Australia does not go down this path.

As I indicated above that BL is a controversial, he is attacked personally by may who disagree with his opinions. No opinions or forecasts are accurate, neither are scientific hypotheses. This is why there is testing and data collection in science.

There have been alarmist activists with opinions which have made false statement like glaciers will disappear by 2020, dams in Australia will no longer fill again etc etc. These alarmist are not criticised by the same individuals who seem to attack those who encourage debate, discussion and hopefully result in better long term science and solutions. I can find equally find websites which criticise these alarmists, but these are from conspiracists or those which which lack any form of credibility.

Being alarmist/extremist is a position one can take, but alarmists must also support their opinions by facts. They expect others to support claims by facts, but are hesitant to do so themselves.

Rating individuals or denying one to have an opinion is very dangerous territory. The Chinese are now rating their citizens for some social functions (such as credit worthiness) and denying those with differing opinions the avenue to free speech is why some university are now adopting free speech codes to ensure that those who may have different views or opinions are not stamped out by a vocal minority (?) which disagrees with such views.

While not a perfect example, centuries ago the world (esp. learned individuals) was made up almost totally by flat earthers (there are still around if one beleives the media) who discredited those who tried and communicate the world being a sphere. If universally we discredited the sphere earthers and not allowed free speech which was against the norm, we may still think we live on a plain. The benefits of having those with differing opinions strengthens science, not diminishes it. This is recognised broadly within the scientific community and results in others testing hypotheses and scientific data of others. This is why the science is strengthened.

I am also very careful in when disputing facts to use credible authorities rather than opinion or vested interest websites. Such adds value to the discussion and ensures that an individual is not attacked, but only the information/data.


To be more accurate, there were many scientists who knew otherwise, contending with a politico-religious establishment that wanted the Earth to be flat and the centre of the universe. The experiment was done around 270 BCE by Aristarchus of Samos, and the Earth’s circumference measured (though that detail isn’t mentioned in the link below).

split this topic #192

A post was split to a new topic: NASA Moon landing: Why did the Apollo 11 flag wave and flap in space?


That is why I indicated that it wasn’t a perfect example.

There are examples where the ‘lynch mob’ won when a view was seen as not acceptable, such as Giordano Bruno. Even Galileo was condemned as a heretic. Both of their theories were proven unequivocally after their deaths.

How in someways times have not changed.


Another article regarding climate change.

An a display of global warming over the past 1901 to 2018.


An article regarding the UK expecting to use more energy from clean generation than from fossil fuels this year.


Is nuclear really “clean”?

Interesting that the value of interconnectors is being realised. From that perspective, Australia is in a unique position.


The issues around nuclear power as a pathway to lower carbon are explored in a separate community topic. Nuclear power

Do we need to raise it again in this topic? Nuclear power has not contributed to the real reduction in GHGs in the UK. It is not relevant to any improvement. Nuclear has it’s own unique legacy issues. The UK has had a similar level of nuclear generation for decades.

I suspect it will simply distract us and would hope that discussion if necessary is continued over there, please. :blush:

This topic is about, “The effects of climate change on the consumer”.

The article referencing the performance of the UK and it’s direction is relevant. Even without the issues around nuclear power the UK has demonstrated just how effective the bilateral consensus of their politicians has been in reducing GHGs.

It has been through other initiatives in replacing coal with combined cycle gas, wind and other sources that has driven the reduction.

It makes a great comparison for Australian consumers looking for leadership from parliament. It suggests how much more might be achieved through a bipartisan acceptance of the need for effective solutions. Australian consumers are now looking at the cost of playing catch to deliver real change. The UK has had a 30 year head start.

P.S. it may even be possible that the longer nations including Australia avoid effective responses, the greater the likelihood more nuclear will become an essential part of the solution? As others point out this is neither low cost or without risk.


Yes, but that thread is locked. Nuclear power is dead, but keeps rising zombie-like from the grave. It’s a silly idea that should be knocked on the head every time it rises.

The sad fact is that existing nuclear installations distort the picture for renewables and genuinely green sources of power in general. Those existing sources appear cheap, but new-build nuclear is not a viable option. Mention of nuclear in this context gives false hope to those who still cling to the obsolete technologies.


Perhaps ‘are’ would have been better stated as ‘were’.

nb. Topics can be locked when the entire contents of the thread are moved to another related thread; when the topic has been discussed thoroughly and sometimes to a conclusion; when a thread reaches a point where it becomes mired; and a thread may also be temporarily locked to allow the participants to ‘inhale and reflect on the FAQs’.