This will probably only be interesting to a few people, but I just started this course and I find it very interesting.
All the information has been accessible on the internet for free for a while, but having it compiled like this for free makes it a bargain for me.
+1
The $100 option is obseenly overpriced, IMO.
EdX is OK, as their courses are Free.
Coursera also offers related course - all Free - eg, from DK, USA, etc. (Most are in English.)
We say: Turn Off TV, & Turn On to Learning things TV won't teach you.
$100 for a piece of paper is certainly expensive, but if this is recognised in Australia by official training institutions like Unis or TAFE (I have no idea whether it is or not), the it's still a much cheaper alternative to attending classes.
Having said that, I definitely won't fork out any money for it!
Coursera gave a free Cert of Participation, & the only "cost" for a Cert if Attainment was proving it was you, whenever you took an assessment or handed in your other work.
Now, that's a "cost" we can all afford.
It won't do any good. "Coal is good for humanity" remember?
Seriously, a bigger bunch of idiots we've ever had the misfortune to have in charge of our lives and our childrens future.
Hopefully next election they get the severe kicking they deserve. I'll probably be voting for Nick Xenophon's party btw.
Whose side are you on?
PS Does Nick X. support New MSR Nukes?
"Know New Nukes" as it Reads, NOT as it Sounds:
Cf: app "Thorium" remix for 20+ doco's on:
Cf R.HarGRAVES' book:
FYi, AU's gov't is NOT in charge of MY Life. :-)
Laws of AU, yes… but NOT the gov't of the day, per se, thank G-d! ;-)
You begin ti sound like the Greens when you write such things.
Notice all those people you refer to are right wing. As night follows day……
Right wingers make up the bulk of climate change deniers.
Right wingers also have, on average, lower IQ than left wingers.
Its pretty rare to come across a scientist with a PhD who votes right wing.
Got a link to this research?
Sounds like the process of deduction, although could swap IQ for common sense and would be a little nicer?
Google "right wing" "IQ" - 2 research papers on this
and then "right wing" "climate change denial" - lots of research on this
You are making the claim, you provide it.
The Ross Garnaut-commissioned CSIRO’s report "Australians’ views of climate change" last year polled 3096 Australians and found that the biggest single predictor of whether Australians believe that global warming is caused by humans is their voting intentions. The CSIRO found that 82 per cent of Greens voters and 63 per cent of Labor voters believed climate change is occurring largely due to human activity, while 59 per cent of Liberal/National voters think it is a normal fluctuation in the Earth's climate. Voting intention would seem to be a strange thing to correlate with an issue that is essentially scientific.
Note "last year" means 2011.
An American study found that of all anthropogenic climate change denial, 80% came from the right wing & 20% left wing approx (IIRC it was 82/18)
I'd also expect that to be increasing, since the increase of climate denial in the blogosphere and right wingers struggle (unwilling) to understand the difference between a blog & a peer reviewed article on climatology……
I'd expect Managers of our Science Labs may tens to lean Right, but I haven't researched this claim.
Insurance companies' Annual Reports may provide evidence - in the form of rising claim numbers & amounts - of increases in storm-counts & their intensities, due to Climate Change.
There is very large skew of right wing voting in management positions
Research shows that wealth induces right wing voting, as well as age (older people have more accumulated wealth, on average)
Aging also correlates to right wing voting
I could go on & on & on about this stuff - there's heaps of it.
Then there's right wing voting, religious belief & IQ levels……
Not surprised I got negged, in fact I would have expected that it would have been negged out of view by now.
C'mon Ozbargainers - its the easy way to deal with cognitive dissonance!
I get all my climate science from Professor Piers Akerman.
Ibsuggest you take measures to avoid the Fallacy of the Single Source.
Is this course on climate change?
My understanding is that it is related to the psychology of climate change denial
You just need to look at the biggest countries in the world to know that if climate change is real, we are doomed. In any case my fiction reading list is already full with "the life and times of Jesus Christ"
my fiction reading list is already full with "the life and times of Jesus Christ"
LOL - as somebody who works in the "climate change avoidance" industry, I'd say it's debateable which is more factual.
It's also very difficult to work out which is more profitable. The JC text has a 2000 year head start, but the other is gaining fast and it has the advantage of backing from some big businesses and governments.
Oh wait….
Can we enroll Messrs Abbott, Joyce, Bolt, Jones (in fact all of the Syd AM talkback radio) I'll kick in some $'s for their certs.
Although the following statement seems like it's not a proper scientific based factual lecture, but a religious how the argue with the non believers crap.
"Learn to make sense of the science and to respond to climate change denial"