Here’s the proof: Australians prefer the facts

The Australian public trusts our scientists a lot more than our elected politicians. Photo: Katherine Griffiths

What’s the difference between a politician and a scientist? Well, in Australia at least, the public thinks scientists are way more trustworthy than their elected representatives. At least five times more trustworthy.

It’s not a trick question. It’s actually one finding in a sober piece of research carried out by the Australian National University’s Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, in an effort to understand how this country engages with science and whether it listens to scientific advice or not.

Coincidentally, it sheds interesting new light on the running sore in the polliesphere.

The bottom line appears to be that Australians are not quite so easily bamboozled as some media commentators or politicians seem to assume. Most of us have a preference for tested evidence over belief, opinion, ideology or unsubstantiated assertion.

more…

Liberal MP and former research scientist Dennis Jensen ‘really concerned about future of science’ in Australia

One of the very few qualified scientists in Federal parliament, the West Australian Liberal Dr Dennis Jensen, has criticised the government’s decision to have no minister for Science and to cut funding to key scientific organisations. Dr Jensen, speaking in parliament yesterday, asked how the government’s policy could be coherent when it involved on the one hand setting up a $20bn medical research fund, while cutting other research areas. He speaks to Marius Benson.

Audio Clip

more…

CrazyNeutrino said:

Liberal MP and former research scientist Dennis Jensen ‘really concerned about future of science’ in Australia

One of the very few qualified scientists in Federal parliament, the West Australian Liberal Dr Dennis Jensen, has criticised the government’s decision to have no minister for Science and to cut funding to key scientific organisations. Dr Jensen, speaking in parliament yesterday, asked how the government’s policy could be coherent when it involved on the one hand setting up a $20bn medical research fund, while cutting other research areas. He speaks to Marius Benson.

Audio Clip

more…

Learn from the Nobel experience

Posted in Carbon Tax by Dr Dennis Jensen

So to anthropogenic global warming, where consensus, the view of “important people” and scientific institutions are invoked in the defence of this idea. This is despite the science of AGW being less “settled or secure” than that of quasicrystals or of the universe’s expansion prior to revolutionary thinkers and observers challenging the accepted view.

The whole premise of mankind being responsible for climate change, particularly for carbon dioxide emissions, is not the result of fundamental physics, but of computer model outputs. Computer models must be judged in terms of their predictive capacity, and it is here that these models have proved to be lacking. It has been said of computer models it is garbage in, garbage out except in the case of climate change computer models, where it is garbage in, gospel out.

These models are validated by hindcasting, or seeing if a trend follows what has been observed in the past. This is simply glorified curve fitting. Just because there appears to be correlation does not prove causation.

Problematically, the predictions made by the Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change using these much venerated models, have not matched what has been observed.

http://www.dennisjensen.com.au/blog/72/learn-from-the-nobel-experience

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Liberal MP and former research scientist Dennis Jensen ‘really concerned about future of science’ in Australia

One of the very few qualified scientists in Federal parliament, the West Australian Liberal Dr Dennis Jensen, has criticised the government’s decision to have no minister for Science and to cut funding to key scientific organisations. Dr Jensen, speaking in parliament yesterday, asked how the government’s policy could be coherent when it involved on the one hand setting up a $20bn medical research fund, while cutting other research areas. He speaks to Marius Benson.

Audio Clip

more…

Learn from the Nobel experience

Posted in Carbon Tax by Dr Dennis Jensen

So to anthropogenic global warming, where consensus, the view of “important people” and scientific institutions are invoked in the defence of this idea. This is despite the science of AGW being less “settled or secure” than that of quasicrystals or of the universe’s expansion prior to revolutionary thinkers and observers challenging the accepted view.

The whole premise of mankind being responsible for climate change, particularly for carbon dioxide emissions, is not the result of fundamental physics, but of computer model outputs. Computer models must be judged in terms of their predictive capacity, and it is here that these models have proved to be lacking. It has been said of computer models it is garbage in, garbage out except in the case of climate change computer models, where it is garbage in, gospel out.

These models are validated by hindcasting, or seeing if a trend follows what has been observed in the past. This is simply glorified curve fitting. Just because there appears to be correlation does not prove causation.

Problematically, the predictions made by the Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change using these much venerated models, have not matched what has been observed.

http://www.dennisjensen.com.au/blog/72/learn-from-the-nobel-experience

You are so easily proved wrong Observer, so please go away as you are turning into an annoying pest.

Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Crazy, quoting Dr Dennis Jensen

that’s Gold