UPDATE 3: Extra events in Perth and Sydney due to demand – see this latest post.! You must pre register to avoid disappointment for the Sydney final event on Friday. (download PDF!) The email to use is: ‘cool@exemail.com.au’ OR FAX: (02) 4861 2029
There is no one quite like Christopher Monckton, with his background in Latin classics, journalism, work for the Thatcher government, and dogged persistence to analyze the numbers. Last year he spoke in New York, Washington, Copenhagen, and across Canada (and that’s just the ones I know of, off the top of my head). Monckton is a gem of a man, and this is a rare opportunity to see him in action. He’s been storming the world for years now, a constant thorn in Al Gore’s side. Monckton challenged Gore to debate in March 2007. Al Gore claims “he want’s to convince the world”, but he’s had almost three years and still can’t find a single day to explain the “overwhelming” evidence on TV with Monckton present.
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at The University of Adelaide, has made a huge impact around the globe with his book Heaven and Earth which has gone into its seventh print run. It will be an extraordinary double.
Monckton pulls no punches: “Shut Down the UN, Arrest Al Gore”.
“The fraudsters and racketeers from Al Gore to the people at the University of East Anglia who have been making their fortune at the expense of taxpayers and the little guy,” should be criminally charged, said Monckton, in response to the climategate scandal.
“We the people have got to rise up worldwide, found a party in every country which stands for freedom and make sure we fight this bureaucratic communistic world government monster to a standstill – they shall not pass,” he added.
Monckton said that the United Nations should be “closed down,” adding that he talked to a senior UN ambassador in Canada who told him that he no longer saw any purpose in the UN and it exists “only to enrich itself at the expense of the nations it claims to serve, it’s time it was brought to an end.”
“We would all save billions if we shut down the UN and just about all of its hideous bureaucracy,” said Monckton.
Lord Monckton emphasized how the emails released as a result of climategate prove that global warming alarmism was still prevalent in public but behind closed doors, warmist scientist are admitting that the “deniers” as they label people like Monckton are correct.
Climate Change and Global Warming Australian Tour details
Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Scottish Peer, former advisor to Margaret Thatcher, and International Business Consultant
Professor Ian Plimer – School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide, will accompany Lord Christopher Monckton and says the following of him:
“although I modestly state that I am a good performer, he is superb and I have seen him fielding a very hostile BBC and other networks. He has the ability to change thinking….”
What do we really know about the Science of Climate Change?
Alarming “hype” has been dominating the media. Here’s what the Australian public needs to know about the rational science.
We deserve to hear all sides and make up our own minds about the Climate Change Debate.
Dates and Details
Details are being finalized. This is the latest program; expect some changes. I’ll be making updates as they come in. Send your name to the contact so you can find out more. To prevent spam the @ symbol in the emails has been replaced with “AT”.
UPDATE: In Perth and Adelaide you must book or RSVP, but elsewhere entry is via donation at the door ($20). There is no ticketing system for most venues. This is being organized by volunteers on the fly. Other donations are also being collected at the moment. (See the Climate Sceptics Site.)
UPDATE 2: Extra events in Perth and Sydney due to demand – see this latest post.!
SYDNEY
Wednesday 27 January,
12:15, Luncheon, The Union Club, SOLD OUT
17:30 Public lecture, Sheraton on the Park download PDF
contact: John Smeed, phone or SMS 0417 269 216 johnsmeedATadna.com.au
NEW!
Friday February 12th, MC, none other than Alan Jones
12:30 – 2:30 Grand Ballroom, Hilton Hotel, 488 George St Sydney
$30 at the door, cash payment for admission, You must PRE REGISTER so final numbers can be arranged and people won’t have to be turned away. Venue capacity is 1200. (But that’s how many came to the first event in Sydney!) No food or drinks included.
NEWCASTLE
Thursday 28 January
12:30 Public lecture, Newcastle City Hall – Banquet Room Download PDF
contact: Anthony Cox, 0412 474916, akcsj AT optusnet.com.au
BRISBANE
Friday 29 January
SOLD OUT! 12:00 – 2.00 Brisbane Institute luncheon Panel Debate Brisbane Hilton – Grand Ballroom, Download PDF
Pre-registered and pre-paid event. $130 for lunch and debate. Monckton, Plimer, Barry Brooks and Graham Readfearn. SOLD OUT!
contact: Karyn Brinkley<KarynATbrisinst.org.au>
15:00 Public Lecture Brisbane – Irish Club, Tara Ballroom Download PDF
$20 at the door, no pre-registration or booking required
contact: Tony Gomme <tonygomme1ATyahoo.com.au>
NOOSA
Saturday 30 January
2pm Public Lecture “The J”, Noosa Heads, John McRobert, Download PDF
contact: Simon Gamble, jgambleATbigpond.net.au<!–
MELBOURNE
February Monday 1
12:30 SOLD OUT “Sandwich Luncheon”, 6/112 Millswyn / Max Rheese (Aust. Climate Science Coalition)/Des Moore (Inst. For Private Enterprise) infoATauscsc.org.au
17:30 Public Lecture, Sofitel Hotel Grand Ballroom, Download PDF
contact: Case Smit, case.smitATgmail.com
CANBERRA
Wednesday 3 February,
15:00 – 17:00 Public Lecture, National Press Club, Download PDF
Afternoon tea and light refreshments will be available.
To register and pay $20, please contact NSW Farmers Assoc 1300 794 000
contact: Alix Turner, alixturnerATbigpond.com
ADELAIDE
Thursday4 February
19:30 Public lecture Intercontinental Hotel (formerly Hyatt), North Terrace, Download PDF
contact: Damian Wyld, thomasmoreATchariot.net.au, Ph 08 8379 0246
Bookings Essential,
PERTH
Monday 8 February
Luncheon Parmelia Hilton Hotel,
18:00 Public Lecture, Parmelia Hilton Hotel – ARGYLE ROOM now (capacity 690), Swan Room for the overflow. Download PDF
contact: Daphne Dimitri for Gina Rinehart, daphne_dhimitriAThancockprospecting.com.au
RSVP by Feb 3, Donation $10 at the door. (Insanely cheap!)
NEW! Thanks to the Australian Institute of International Affairs (WA)
Tuesday February 9th, 6 – 8pm
Westfarmers Lecture Theatre, Business School, University of Western Australia
Hackett Drive (off Stirling Highway at Matilda Bay) Crawley. Car Parks 8 and 9 (Accessed via Hackett Entry 4 and 3 respectively.)
$20 at the door, (please bring a $20 note) cash payment for admission, no bookings! (No food or drinks included). Doors open at 5pm/
Both Monckton and Plimer draw vitriolic ad hominem attacks, as if all their dozens of different scientific points can be debunked with a campaign of smears. Monckton especially attracts fire “because he’s not a climate scientist”, but then, neither is Al Gore. The dogged focus on details from their pasts, and the pedantic focus on minor points, tells us just how effective both these men are.
We need them both to speak in the UK. Better to wait until we come out of the big freeze though! The country is still covered from top to toe with a good layer of global warming.
20
Where or where does he get the energy? Hang on… I take that back. If I thought I could get Gore arrested… I’d work tirelessly.
How bad do I want the man arrested?
I’d crawl a mile on broken glass
Just to kiss the foot
That kicked his ass…..
🙂
10
I have been temporarily banned from a web site for (politely) criticising Gore. It does seem that the alarmists are getting rattled.
10
I saw the (an) interview on the Michael Coren show with Moncton here in Canada. For a guy (Lord) that’s not a scientist he sure knows a lot about science. Very impressive. By the way Mr. Coren invites both sides to his shows and all sides keep coming back because they are given a fair shake, although his hotliness Gore of our local multi-millionaire Dr. Suzuki have not had time to pop in. I’d like to drop “down under” and see him in person just to get out of this arctic freeze we are in now.
10
Under the category of wishful thinking: how can I get these men to advise Obama?
10
Give him a nice warm welcome!
10
I find Monckton’s defense of freedom and science refreshing and sound. I could forgo his dilution of his message with religious dogma but his science message is generally very well presented.
What little I have read of Palmer’s works I find to be much more reality based than any thing I have seen from the AGW side of the discussion. At the very least, its based upon a long geological view of Earth’s history rather than the geological blink of an eye of the so called officially recorded climate history so repetitiously pointed to by the AGW proponents.
JoNova reasonably reports and expects the following:
To defend one’s self from the onslaught, I suggest studying the major rhetorical fallacies discussed at The Nizkor Project web site. If one or more of these fallacies are found in any argument, the argument is at best weak and usually invalid to the core.
The responses to the tour will be both illuminating and diagnostic of the respondents’ state of mind.
10
Lord Monckton vs. Al Gore? That wouldn’t be much of a debate. Kind of like a lion vs. a rat. No contest!
10
Great to see this happening. Lets grab all those we know who are open minded but still questioning and take them along
10
[…] Monckton and Pilmer tour details […]
10
I’m looking forward to hearing both gentlemen. My only concern is that I may miss out on tickets! Bound to be a huge demand and response to attend.
10
How can it be called an Australian tour when it doesn’t include Tasmania?
Quoting Tim Bowden: “Tasmania is the testicle of the nation. It infuses it with vim and vigour. What a pity there aren’t two of them!”
10
Hey Pomous Git… that is funny.
Here in Canada we’ve crowed Lord M with the great Canadian name: “Yukon Gusticles”
Ya got have em to use em!
10
Crowned him… it should have read…
10
I sent the following to our press club ceo this morning. ‘I understand that Lord Monckton may be speaking at the press club on
February 3rd.
Please allow this to happen as many country Australians are deeply
interested in this subject. Our only chance to hear this speaker will be if
you host him as a speaker. It will also give the press to question him
with viewers having unedited comment’
This was sent as this is not yet confirmed, suggest as many people as possible write similar emails to ensure this event happens.
Clive Popham
10
Excellent, a visit to Newcastle as well! We so often miss out…
10
Algore is in hiding or seeking asylum somewhere till it thaws. Gore will hide and at some point return with new power point screens.
10
Last year I watched Kenneth Clark’s CIVILISATION on DVD. Clark was not telegenic by today’s standards but he knew his subject and created a fascinating journey through the centuries.
I lamented at the time that there was nobody that really compared to him forty years later. Maybe Christopher Monckton is that man.
10
This is a not-to-be-missed event, so make everyeffort to attend.
And Nick – if you’re a visiting American, okay, but we use the word “arse” in Australia. It has so much more kick!
10
John,
Sorry Mate! I’m a Canuck. The only experience I have with Aussies was when my high school kicked their “arses” in rugby one time. Long time ago.. and when I was in Hawaii in 1984. A plane load of Aussies was held over night. The six guys stood at the drinking pole (a telephone pole) inside this pub. They stood there, all of them with the pants down around their ankles … and calling everyone “Sheila”.
🙂
10
Well with Gina Rinehart backing the Perth gig at least it is clear where the money is coming from! That is some seriously heavyweight backing!
10
Might one ask that his talks are filmed and made available on youtube or similar.
He clearly enunciates what us poor tongue tied peasants try to say.
(He says he suffers from Graves Disease which makes his eyes bulge- If someone calls him “a bug-eyed sceptic” would you please deck them on my behalf.)
10
I had the great pleasure to listen his presentation in Berlin last month – a very impressive experience.
I am sure you´ll enjoy him – poor AlGore the day he will meet him.
10
Please have a look – crashing Greenpeace in style – Lord Monckton in Berlin
http://cfact.eu/2009/12/13/crashing-a-greenpeace-protest-in-style/
10
Hey Nick, no need to apologise mate, it’s just that I’m trying to hold our culture together. Lot of the our younger generation are forgetting our language (too much TV). I hope the Aussies didn’t leave you with a bad impression, we can be over the top at times when on the ‘turps’. 😉
10
Here’s a great clear and concise video of the “scam” – http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
10
… speaking of Mr Gore, don’t seem to have heard too much from him lately. Funny that.
10
John (#25)…
I’m with you, Mate. Fighting a losing (or should that be “loosing” 🙁 ) battle against the Americanisation of our language, I’m afraid.
Speaking of Lord Monckton, it is always so surprising to me to see someone quite so British using American spelling. I have even seem him on more than one occasion using that abomination “gotten”.
Anyway, all that aside, I am totally envious of all who will get a chance to see him in action around Austalia. He is a true hero, and I fervently hope his input in Australia will further the cause of rationality.
10
Steve (#28)
It makes it worse if you’re born under the Virgo star sign! 🙂
10
Nick (No. 2)
You might enjoy this from my blog
http://suspectterrane.blogspot.com/2009/11/caution-mountebank-at-work.html
10
Tom G
The link in your blog article is dead. Here’s what YouTube say, “This video contains content from NBC Universal, who has decided to block it.” Wonder why? 🙂
10
Hi John,
They didn’t bother me! I wanted to join them! We were all 30 something back then! Party mode all the time.
I don’t think you have any fear about losing the aussie language. We love it here! I’ve adopted some of it myself.
For example when I wreck something .. I think …. “bugga”.
🙂
10
John:
Thanks – I have edited the post to replace the link with a brief explanation of what everyone missed from his Gore-ship.
10
Tom,
There are other clips of parts of His Goreship’s gaffe. For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNk7zCI8E_8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGV7Dr2iDvU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BooOfsZgac
10
Steve:
Thanks – I will link to them.
10
btw KUSI has an hour-long prog Thursday (friday in australia):
KUSI: Global Warming: The Other Side
KUSI meteorologist, John Coleman, has an amazing story to tell of science gone bad, and new revelations as the “climategate” scandal comes to the United States.
Join us on Thursday, January 14th, at 9pm, Pacific Time, for the special report that will explode the global warming myth!
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81175327.html
10
UPDATE to Post:
This is being organized by volunteers on the fly and there is no ticketing system as such. To cover costs, admission to Lord Monckton’s public lectures will be by way of a donation (of $20) at the door. Other donations are being collected at the moment.
10
SYDNEY contact added John Smeed, phone or SMS 0417 269 216 johnsmeedATadna.com.au
10
You’d have thought that a few grand on plane tickets, and then being hosted by fellow sceptics across the country, would not cost that much. I guess there must be big bucks after all in being a famous climate sceptic. I wish I’d studied Latin at school with more enthusiasm. What did I read $100k for the trip plus a 2k per day stipend?
Will non-skeptics be allowed in? I’m interested to see if Plimer and Monckton will respond to genuine questions on their science, as they normally dismiss them as ad-homs and smears.
I guess one could indeed say that when it comes to climate, Cogidubnus rex, in atrium est.
10
Mattb,
Did you attend the Plimer debate organised by the Australian Inst. of Geoscientists in Perth during july last year? It was free and we had standing room only. Plimer’s debater ignored the science and could only offer moralistic homilies and the occasional ad hominem.
The cost of having the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, accommodation and etc is considerable and all from private donations unlike the billions dished out to the Non climate sceptics who are paid by government, or money stolen from us.
Incidentally Plimer and Monckton don’t need to justify their scicence, rather it’s the global warmers who need to justify their pseudoscience, or quasi-science as another critic describes it.
I’ve had to deal with your line of argument elsewhere, but for the sake boring people, science is about falsifying an hypothesis, pseudoscience about proving an hypothesis. Problem is that one can never prove a scientific hypothesis, but they can be falsified, and AGW has been comprehensively falsified by observation and measurement.
As the late Carl Sagan pointed out, “You can never convince a believer of anything, for their belief isn’t based on evidence but on a deep need to believe”.
10
No I missed that one sorry Louis. But this is the great Lord Monckton – I don’t want to miss that.
I disagree that they don’t have to justify their science actually. Just because AGW is quasi science as you put it does not mean that quasi science should be accepted to debunk it. if AGW is quasi science then why would opponents need to resort to similarly dubious methods? Don’t tell me you back in Plimer’s book 100% in spite of the many documented problems – it will be interesting to see which graphs etc that have been exposed will make it to his presentation – maybe that unsourced one from the great global warming swindle that the courts removed.
It is a shame that the Perth Arena is not built in time for this lecture tour, would have been quite fitting to have the Lord speak in the building he inspired.
10
Mattb
Similarly dubious methods? What fraudulently altering the temperature data to show warming? Using dodgy statistical methods that when fed random data produces signficicant trends?
We don’t have to prove our science at all – all we need to do is to falsify the AGW hypothesis that is based on the idea of climate sensitivity – that doubling atmospheric CO2 will cause that atmosphere to warm from 1 to 5 Kelvin. Measurement and observation show this is not happening, so the hyposthesis is falsified.
Actually AGW is pathological science as defined by the late Irving Langmuire.
Apart from that anything that Tim Lambert writes (I assume this is where you get the skuttle but about his graphs) needs to be taken with a bit more than a grain of salt. Lambert has a proven record of confusing facts with fiction.
10
MattB #39
That’s quite cynical of you Matt. Ofcourse I well remember you being just as cynical about Al Gores $1000 plus greet n meet session for Copenhagen.
You did comment just as cynically on that one didn’t you Matt?
10
was there a post about that to comment on?
10
Louis if you can falsify it using legit science then why pad it with all this nonsense like a fair bit of Plimer’s book.
OF COURSE the falsification has to be legit! Are you really suggesting it doesn’t?
10
And what is that? discrediting somehting just because Lambert says it too? What was that Carl Sagan quote again?
10
What a pity Lord Monckton is not coming across the ditch to New Zealand.
Hey! I dont like his politics, ( he appears to be the darling of the Far Right Gun Lobby in the US) but it his science that impresses me
10
we have been advised that monktons charge is $20,000 per talk
after all over expenses, money is being donated towards this
the $20 admission is so everybody can attend, any money left over from the tour will be given to monkton
source,, sunshine coast daily
10
I note that Nizkor’s discussion of “Appeal to Authority” claims that it is reasonable to use an Authority as the source of your argument providing the Authority in question is “legitimate”, unbiased and acting within “legitimate” area of expertise.
This to me is just a way of hiding a circular argument, and I note that they don’t actually provide a category for circular arguments (but they do provide “Begging the question” which describes some circular arguments). How do we decide whether an Authority is “legitimate”? We need some other Authority, thus passing the problem around without ever really solving it.
Weirdly, in the section under “Circumstantial Ad Hominem” they state:
This is rather in contradiction to what they state in the “Appeal to Authority” section:
I think the only self-consistent approach is to consider “Appeal to Authority” as a logical fallacy for all possible Authorities, but a convenient shortcut to thinking when there is a suitable Authority that is traceable back to some recognisable source. As with all shortcuts, we must accept some risk of error, thus bringing up the concept of weighted reasoning (which is something humans do all the time) and thus conclusions that fall in between true and false. A simple list of fallacies cannot adequately deal with weighted reasoning.
This all presumes that no one is deliberately manufacturing evidence for personal profit and feeding that evidence into the thinking system as a mechanism of deception. This manufacture of evidence is well demonstrated by stage magicians who can make people absolutely sure they saw something impossible. Evolutionary theory states that where there is a niche for someone to make a profit, there will also be someone exploiting that niche, so merely understanding that some form of deception and exploitation is possible seems to impose the conclusion that we must have examples of this methodology in practice.
Reasoning in the face of deliberate sabotage is vastly more difficult (and no reason to believe it is even possible).
10
MattB
It has been falsified by the evidence, that is despite accelerating atmospheric CO2 levels, global temperature has been falling. Nothing more need to be said on the sceptical side.
10
Monckton is first class – I just wish he’d leave off his pink crowns and portcullises from his excellent articles – only a very minor crit.
10
Tel @ 49: I note that Nizkor’s discussion of “Appeal to Authority” claims that it is reasonable to use an Authority as the source of your argument…
As always, one must analyze statements in full context. Out of context snippets can mislead.
The discussion also says both that one must establish the authority is worthy of being used as a reference and that even that Appeal to Authority is a weak argument BECAUSE its not based upon the evidence.
In other words, if Appeal to Authority is all you have, you don’t have much. This is true even if the so called Authority is a demonstratively valid one. As you point out, that line of reasoning is highly error prone. unpersuasive, and best not used. I think the project makes that point but not quite as directly as you.
10
The team can misuse billions of taxpayers money to fudge and falsify to their heart’s content but falsification of the hypothesis has to be legit means. Oh how noble!
The hypothesis has been falsified by observation but the team will use any means to keep it alive.
As they say all is fair in love and war and if it takes counter propaganda to change public perceptions so be it, and who better than Monckton.
10
This is hilarious. In one breath the skeptics handbook says: ‘concentrate on the science’; ‘science is not like politics or law’. WTF is this exactly?
10
Can’t say I like Plimer’s approach.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/12/15/2772906.htm
There is no doubt that he is being evasive, and I’m not a ‘warmist’.
10
Further,
It is often said that Plimer’s facts are incorrect in his book, does anybody have a response to this?
Not being a scientist, I’m not willing to make assumptions.
10
SamG
“It is often said that Plimer’s facts are incorrect in his book, does anybody have a response to this?”
I read the book and can attest that a statement that Plimer’s “facts are incorrect” is too broad. Based on my own knowledgte and research I know many of the facts are correct. The scope and breadth of the book goes beyond my own knowledge in some places so I can’t attest to all of the facts. I would estimate that I have first hand knowledge of
10
Watch the video. I think Plimer is doing the movement a disservice. He can’t even answer a simple question.
Not good for the P.R. We can’t let Tony Jones look good because we know he’s biased from the outset.
10
[…] Monckton & Plimer Tour Australia: Dates & Venues « JoNova […]
10
I watched the video and agree, it wasn’t worth my time.
But some other comments might be made.
The Met office has steadfastly stuck to its prediction of a mild winter, yet the UK is freezing its butt off.
The U.S. has experienced multi year colder than normal winters with this year being the worst.
Right here where I live in Southern California the last at least 3 years have been unusually cold with heavier winter frost and lower overnight temperatures than I can remember (been here since 1969). Summer temps about the same as always.
I read that in the Peruvian Andes the winters have become so cold that it overwhelms the ability of people to protect themselves and their animals. In a place used to winter cold people are dying from temperatures so low they can’t deal with it. So much for the argument that warming puts more moisture in the northern hemisphere and that causes the freezing temps. This is in the other half of the world!
QUESTION: do these things not give any reason for the AGW pushers to question their position? How about just a little bit there Mr. Monbiot?
Monbiot stood there in Copenhagen where the cold weather appears to be a surprise if not unprecedented in recent memory and still says were warming continually.
I guess 1 + 1 = 3 after all.
10
Roy Hogue, I’m a skeptic so you don’t need to convince me.
I get disappointed when I see guys like Plimer not being able to hold his own. The man is touring with Lord Monckton, how does it help Monckton’s position here?
I dislike Monckton’s theology brought up in his seminars. I dislike the fact that when he comes to Australia, he will be interviewed by shock jock, Alan Jones. Shock Jocks polarize people.
Lumping all skeptics into the conservative camp is misrepresentative.
It should be made quite clear that there is a balanced argument to be made against AGW that doesn’t involve partisan politics, which is more indicataive of entrenched ideology than sound reasoning.
Plimer needs to change his approach or get off air. He just looks bad.
Again, are Monbiot’s allegations true?
10
SamG,
As to Plimer not giving a direct answer — absolutely. He was not prepared with information right out of his own book (gee, I need to look it up?). That’s not the way I would enter a debate.
I posted on another thread that we need a calm, reasoned presentation to the public that is not bogged down in anything extraneous but explains the science and the implications of climategate. We don’t need high profile people as much as high profile science. But we have no big-bucks benefactor and the AGW people have all the money (ours).
Sorry, don’t have time to converse right now. But I have to hope for the best with Monckton and Plimer because that’s all we have going.
10
It might help if we stopped haggling over scientific details and focussed instead on the real agenda behind AGW as explicitly stated by a former Canadian minister of the environment – paraphrasing “so what if the science is dodgy, it’s not about the science but about redistributing wealth” , and that is, in its essence, the issue -a revitalised communism hiding under a green cloak of vegetation. Monbiot said as much in one of his columns after ClimateGate.
And all you can do is to metaphorically rearrange the deck chairs on the climate Titanic.
10
I’ve posted before about Plimer’s TV style. It’s awful. Altogether too laid back as he’s deliberately trying to avoid seeming confrontational which is what you have to be with people like Tony Jones.
I just wonder why Monckton didn’t choose Bob Carter, a much better media performer. He could be tied up earning a crust, I suppose.
10
I have an open mind about this. I don’t necesarily believe yes or no on human induced climate alteration (HICA). However, when I read hysterical assertions about motives from BOTH sides I am skeptical.
In short, thus far I am skeptical of the ‘skeptics’ and these two guys make me even more so.
10
Louis, it seems to me that Monckton would not be touring the globe whipping up the masses if it was not for his concerns about global world government etc etc. I feel he would be doing this even if the science for AGW was without argument the surest piece of science we knew. Given the two options he’d rather deal with AGW’s impacts than have this world government imposed.
IMO attacking the science is not a great strategy, as contrary to Jo’s advice in the skeptics handbook, generally speaking guys like Monckton and Plimer just can’t keep it simple, and don’t show discretion in the science they use to say AGW is false. It is like crying wolf, every blatantly false critique of AGW weakens the position of any genuine science.
personally I disgree with “that is despite accelerating atmospheric CO2 levels, global temperature has been falling” as 1998 was a combination of AGW and other warming influences leading to the hottest hear to date. But that is by the by. I must admit I’ve not read hanbook 2, but form memory the 1st book was all about hotspot and did not use the temp since 98 as a falsification. you also leave yourself open to a random warm year falsifying your falsification.
Basically my position is that I don’t judge the science to be falsified, I think we need to do something about it and that something is within our political, economic and scientific capabilities, but the LAST thing I want is the imposition of a global world UN government, or the creation of a financial scam or whatever.
I saw a quote from Monckton about if it was a problem then the solution is mass roll out of nuclear power and preventing deforestation. Now Peter Spencer won’t like the last option, but he is spot on with the 1st. And it is what we should be doing regardless of AGW.
Lastly some comment above touches on Monckton’s credibility. When your head spokesman’s previous venture in to global solutions was to suggest quarantining every known AIDs carrier, well then it is time to get a new head spokesperson. Sure it is irrelevant to AGW itself but in today’s world you need a clean track record.
10
muckypup:
There is a link to a video on this site where Monckton addresses a dewy-eyed Greenpeace supporter. He exhorts her to not put blind trust in anybody (not even him) but to do her own research.
Even so, she says she would still believe Greenpeace if the results of her own research contradicted them. A “true believer” if ever there was one.
Just like you, muckypup!
10
I agree with Louis, it is not about the science but about politics. It is interesting that the main traction that has been gained against the AGW hysteria has been the highlighting of the political agenda of the environmental facists by Monction and the impact of the ETS in Australia by people like Barnaby Joyce. Propaganda needs to be matched with clear statements of the economic and political impacts of these crazy policies.
10
Hi Mark,
EXCELLLENT! A bite!
Tell me all about yourself Mark. While you are at it, tell me all about me! You seem like you have a handle on pretty much everything. Thats what makes me skeptical of most posts on the site. So many people seem to know everything. And all couched in glorious libertarian idealogue. Admittedly I have been pleasantly surprised by some of the posts here. Ultimately I consider myself a rationalist; I would never claim to know everything. Whats more I am prepared to change my view when new evidence comes to light. Would you do that Marky boy?
Now come over here and give me a big KISS.
xxx
10
Hmm… is that you again, Rumble?
10
The focus on Plimers book is a little over the top. SO WHAT if there were some errors in his book. His book didn’t start a worldwide crusade, his book didn’t fracture politics, his book didn’t cause governments to introduce new taxes and laws.
On the other hand, the 4 volumes of IPCC “books” did do all of the above. Therefore it is only reasonable that the IPCC “books” are held to account at a much higher standard.
Yes, some authors critical of the IPCC “books” will get some things wrong, but the subject of global climate is so complex, so difficult to “nail” with a lab experiment or two that proving or disproving the conclusions of the IPCC “books” may take “many cuts” rather than a single blow, which is exactly whats been happening.
It’s been 22 years since the IPCC was set up. Yes it’s still alive, but it is covered in dozens of cuts and knicks, most of these cuts haven’t been fixed, are bleeding slowly but surely and has suffered a major wound since the climategate revelations.
Some might caricaturize the IPCC “books” as the black knight in Monty Pythons Holy Grail. here Us skeptics are waiting for the day it may be caricaturized as the parrot in the dead parrot sketch from the same Monty Python. here
10
Re # 15
Just had a reply from the national press club stating that Lord Monckton will not be appearing there
10
Roy Hogue #60
Roy, you’ll enjoy this, Met Office being taken to task for its performance bonuses amidst lousy predictions – http://tinyurl.com/yesmeml
10
AliW
The people at the National Press Club would sooner have a frontal lobotomy than have a speaker who goes against the establishment.
10
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by colindixon, Kevin and Ur Web Info News, ClimateGate_RT. ClimateGate_RT said: #JoNova : Monckton & Plimer Tour Australia: Dates & Venues http://bit.ly/8xWQR7 #HideTheDecline […]
10
Serves them right.
It seems to happen here in the states too! We create great wonderful organizations and then forget the little matter of accountability for how they spend our money.
The EPA couldn’t make their data legitimately show a correlation between second hand cigarette smoke and anything. So they simply lowered their statistical standards and presto, now it’s a “fact” — second hand smoke is as deadly as active smoking. No amount of complaint about their dishonesty made a dent in them.
I suspect that both cases are simply the politically expedient result.
I read that the Met office has just installed a more powerful computer than I can get my mind around. Its computing capacity is incomprehensible. I wonder what useful thing it will do.
10
I’ve posted before about Plimer’s TV style. It’s awful. Altogether too laid back as he’s deliberately trying to avoid seeming confrontational which is what you have to be with people like Tony Jones.
I just wonder why Monckton didn’t choose Bob Carter, a much better media performer. He could be tied up earning a crust, I suppose.
Mark
I’m surprised that this isn’t getting more attention. If skeptics don’t become careful with their arguments and don’t stop blabbering on about the same old ‘facts’, they will become what they are accused of; right wing denialists who are more interested in obstruction rather than facts.
I reiterate again. Plimer is doing the skeptic community a grave disservice by appearing evasive, inconsistent and emotionally driven.
I particularly disliked his line that journalists don’t know their science.
Then who is Lord Monckton?
Oh dear.
10
SamG:
OK, so we agree on Plimer’s media persona. I’d still be with those who believe his facts remain overwhelmingly just that; facts. If Plimer told a typically lazy journo that he/she didn’t know the science, then he was right.
Just as we shouldn’t resile from telling criminals that their behaviour is errant, we need to continue telling “true believers” that their “science” is crap. Because it is. Simple as that.
10
If you have written a book, as Ian Plimer has, ‘debunking’ the climate change ‘myth’ and use scientific examples to show why, then it is incumbent on you to use the rigour that you accuse the other side as lacking. Otherwise why would anyone believe you? As far as Monckton goes, I don’t think I am overstating things when I call him a raving lunatic.
10
Why, oh why do these “believers” persist in misinterpretation. Climate change is a natural atmospheric reaction to other natural systems, the complexity of which we can only guess about.
Climate scientists pretend that they know everything that there is to know about the climate. Humility does not seem to feature among their traits and they want me to pay a swingeing tax to satisfy their egos and their misguided belief that Gaia is hurting.
The deception and other egregious behaviour exhibited by the leading lights of the “Team” speaks for itself and does not need me to rehash it. Those who wish to follow these recidivist fraudsters are welcome to do so.
10
I would advise everyone to check out U Tube, as Lord Monckton is
no raving idiot. He speaks very harshly about AGW scientists and
Al Gore, but the UN treaty that fortunately wasn’t signed, brought
to light the hidden agenda plans for a UN World Government. Hiding
under the umbrella of preventing climate change. If it had been
signed they (this New World Order) would control every countries
resources and fine first world countries for being industrialised
and give these monies to third world countries.
Seen in this light can you see why Monckton and Plimer are tearing
away the science that these people are attempting to promote? In the mean time, the AGW believers, are trying to character assassin Lord Monckton, by inventing lies about him. He was
assailed by Green youths in Copenhagen, when they interrupted a session he was to speak at, the same group displayed their beliefs later by stripping down to the underdaks all on U Tube. And in a typical British manner Lord M called them Hitler Youth. I think they deserved that the description personally the way they behaved. If you don’t like the heat, get out of the kitchen!
10
Not a bad read about the CRU emails and how Gavin Schmidt attempted to bully Lucia Liljegren amongst other things.
http://bigjournalism.com/pcourrielche/2010/01/12/peer-to-peer-review-part-iii-how-climategate-marks-the-maturing-of-a-new-science-movement/#more-2402
10
It does the ‘skeptic’ side no good to be screaming hysterically about locking up Al Gore and calling the UN communists. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not defending either, I am just saying that you simply can not claim to be concentrating on the science when you are prosecuting some type of (lets face it – idealogically motivated) vendetta on the UN and Al Gore. As if any reasonable thinking person would ever put those two on a pedestal. Reasonable people want to see the science and arguments laid out in front of them so they can make an informed judgement. Hysteria and fanaticism are for religious fundamentalists.
10
Muckypup: Why don’t you read some of Monckton’s websites. Letter to PM Rudd 1.1.10 for starters. If anyone should be judged as increasing hysteria and fanaticism is the Gore and Green and UN IPCC movements. They have corrupted the data to try and sell their movies, TV Ads and books. And got rewarded for by the UN and Nobel prize directors. Monckton has succeeded in proving the Inconvenient Truth contains 35 errors. (Isn’t that fraud and/or deceit?) Now maybe Al was advised incorrectly. But if one willfully tells a lie to influence global politics, at the taxpayers expense that’s subterfuge of the worst kind. But Lord M is not ignoring the flaws in scientific rationale regarding climate change.
He admits that he wasn’t aware of the UN draft climate change treaty until another scientist pointed it out to him. See his UTube on the lecture he gave at St.Paul University (I think – just Google you will find it). You know what Goebell (I think I have spelt his name wrong, Hitler’s right hand man). said,
“If you tell a lie long enough – people begin to believe it” Monckton is pointing out the dangers of this ideology, and ignoring the plight of people dieing of hunger, abuse of their
environment by foreign companies, and now this. If you tell people their culture and environment is causing death and devastation to other third world countries, blaming them for climate change, and they become disadvantaged by government action subsequently, that is a crime against humanity. Well in my opinion. Especially if they are being paid to promote a big fat lie, that is criminal!
10
muckypup, I kind of get your gist but I wouldn’t go so far as to call Monckton a raving lunatic. Plimer however…..
Personally, I find the following a little difficult to explain but I’ll try. The position that someone takes on global warming (aka: climate change) is a personal one. it is not a scientifically derived position at all.
There are few people who actually deal with the science and for the rest of the public, they have to rely on what they are told. It seems reasonable that considering the amount of hysteria and political spin behind the issue, one may reasonably feel skeptical.
But given that even a skeptic is typically not a scientist, their position can be said to be personal, I repeat, not a scientific one. Instead we have to rely on professionals to bolster our views.
It must be emphasized that the science must triumph, or at least, investigative journalism should reveal the short-comings of the consensus. We should definitely refrain from conspiracy theories and hidden agendas because we just look like fools if we continue to do so.
Hardliners are a big no no, I don’t care which camp they belong to. They just want to be right. If there is any point in refuting the claims made by the mainstream press about the so-called consensus, it should be that staunch ideologues are enough of a concern to send alarm bells ringing. (Healthy skepticism). Let this launch investigation, not a bunch of scientifically misinformed opinions pretending to be scientific.
Gut feeling is a great tool if it launches a serious inquisition into the facts. It is however extremely dangerous when emotion obfuscates the facts.
I believe that skeptics should expect nothing short of factual evidence and should steer clear of editorializing the matter or using the subject as a platform for some personal angst. Isn’t that what leftism is about?
Let’s use Steve McIntyre as a good example. While Plimer comes across as a raving lunatic, McIntyre actually states in an interview that HE BELIEVES IN WARMING but is unsure as to what extent it is a problem. He also forbids editorializing and ascribing motive on his blog.
I want to state explicitly that none of us know if global warming exists or not. Maybe the scientists are crooked, perhaps againdas are running rife but the emphasis should be on the facts at hand, not the parroting of statements made at major skeptic blogs.
Jo Nova, do you have a view on all this?
10
SamG: Why do you assume that people who disagree with the global
warming theory are not scientists or possess independent knowledge
that the facts as presented are flawed. Some times, not always,
so called scientists corrupt the data to substantiate a weak
hypothesis.
Prof Plimer does not come over as a raving lunatic. He may be media shy, I don’t know. That is an uninformed comment, I’ve heard him speak. There’s some very smart people in this town who saw through the climategate right at the beginning. However, they are all for sustainable living without the ETS a stealth tax, in my opinion. He came to our town to give a lecture and we are a University town. This in Australia of course. If you don’t know by now that the global warming cum climate change debate is flawed and badly so, then do more research.
And if you still don’t see the political motives driving this fraud, with very likely hidden agendas, I expect you wouldn’t agree or understand that ‘Mein Kampf’ was a reason for the proganda the Nazi’s political machine supported the ‘Final Solution’ and the Holocaust is just a lie too.
Sitting on the fence is what you and MacIntyre are doing, but others like Lord Monckton (by the way he’s entitled to call himself Lord or Sir as he is a Viscount – peer of the realm – son of an Earl) has the passionate zeal to put up a very convincing
argument and even wrote to PM Rudd about his caustic remarks in November about so called deniers. Available on the Internet. Facts – do your independent homework and research. If you don’t understand the science facts just google ‘Climate Change’ or ‘Ice Not Fire Al Gore’ written by scientists years ago. I have a degree and during that major in Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology we studied the effects climate change from ice age to interstadial on human adaption and technology. It is a fact, Sam, that before an ice age or mini ice age, temps warm up a bit, then they plunge. If anything we are entering a mini ice age, and that’s what this is all about. North America, Europe and Asia are the regions that will be most effected, causing stress on agricultural production and energy supplies. And if you look at the movie “Inconvenient Truth” right towards the end, Gore suggests CO2 levels rising will create a new
ice age? Get my gist. Believe or not believe in a court of law, if there is a reasonable doubt presented then the case is generally thrown out.
10
Bush Bunny, you are now ascribing motive when you don’t even know what my motives are.
Perhaps you didn’t read my post carefully? I didn’t say that there are no AGW dissenters without scientific knowledge, I stated that most blog commenters rely on other people’s findings. Repeating such findings doesn’t necessarily constitute fact, it constitutes opinion.
That’s not to say that opinions aren’t valid but don’t call it science. Remember, one can be dishonest about their motives. Unfortunately there is reasonable evidence to suggest that the science is skewed and the politics is ill-conceived therefore it is reasonable to question any attempts to settle the science and halt debate.
In saying this, reading most blog entries is a fairly predictable exercise. The skeptics state the obvious anecdotes and the believers do the same. This is why I prefer McIntyre’s approach. Why would you assume that it is scientifically sound to propound that GW doesn’t exist? That is not the argument. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t?
Please keep in mind that most major deductions made by Steve McIntyre permeate throughout most skeptical blogs.
By the way, did you watch the video with Plimer?
10
[…] Monckton & Plimer Tour Australia: Dates & Venues « JoNova […]
10
Bush Bunny, Sam G.,
I’m not sure what to make of all this exchange between you. But here is where I sit.
I’m a guy who got used to doing some critical thinking. When I was young I got screwed a few times and the school of hard knocks is a good teacher if you pay attention. Right now (never mind Al Gore) the UN, President Obama and unfortunately even my own California state government, not to mention the rest of the world, are all asking me to make sacrifices that will hurt me. The only reason offered by any of them is that CO2 is going to do great harm to planet Earth if we don’t do as they say. Am I not entitled to ask why they believe this, what is their evidence supporting the CO2 claim? I think I am!
So I along with many others ask the simple question: what evidence supports your claim that CO2 causes any problem? They give no answer except that things are changing weather and climate wise and that means CO2 must be doing it. They have not shown a connection between one and the other. And CO2 as the villain flies in the face of clear evidence to the contrary in any case.
They are exposed as having no science behind them. My argument is simple. If they could shoot down the skeptics would they not do it? Of course they would! We cause them no end of trouble. The conclusion is obvious and inescapable to me. They have motivation quite different from science.
They continue down a path that will devastate humanity and science no longer has anything to do with it, if indeed it ever did.
Low key isn’t going to cut it. The verdict is in and they are convicted by their own failure to answer. There has been more than enough time allowed for them to provide some evidence. And now they’re further exposed by climategate.
There is no more possible debate about the science. The truth is the truth whether any of us agrees with it or not.
Monckton is marvelous in his ability to cut down to the point. I’m glad he is an in-your-face type of guy. More power to him!
Plimer needs some coaching on debate and needs to be better prepared than he was against Monbiot. Being right about the science is worthless if you can’t hold your own against your adversary. I hope he’s much better prepared in Australia.
We are up against an all out assault. They see public support waning. Copenhagen fell apart. They are more desperate than ever to get a grip on as much of the industrialized world as they can as fast as they can. We need an all out no holds barred counter attack before it’s too late.
The kid gloves need to come off and the boxing gloves need to go on!
10
Couldn’t agree more, Roy.
It’s one of life’s great ironies to me that while both our countries have troops fighting zealots in Afghanistan, we have our own zealots (and lunatics) threatening our own long term economic and cultural survival at home.
10
Yet another reason (if you ever needed one) why you shouldn’t buy a used car(bon credit) from certain people.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/82270.html
10
Disagreeing with carbon tax?
Absolutely. This infringes on your rights.
But I have gone off track. I was originally talking about Plimer, the conservative leaning of major skeptics and the need to be dogged about the science, which in interview, Ian Plimer is not.
I could be wrong. It may in fact be the conservative support that will win this thing over? (Abbott, Fielding, Bolt etc…)
S
10
so much for some sites having a balanced commentary. I thought this was quite tame and a reasonable point fo view. Not so according to John Cook at sceptical science.
—–Original Message—–
From: John Cook [mailto:john@skepticalscience.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 6:14
To: ‘Macha’
Subject: RE: Comment on Where did global warming go? Here’s where…
Hi Macha, I’ve deleted this comment as its off-topic. The evidence that the
trace element CO2 is causing warming is shown at this page:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhou
se-effect.htm
TSI is well investigated in the peer reviewed research:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
Thanks,
John
—–Original Message—–
From: Macha
Sent: Wednesday, 13 January 2010 11:46 PM
To: john@skepticalscience.com
Subject: Comment on Where did global warming go? Here’s where…
I don’t see the scientific evidence that shows how one molecule (CO2) per
~3,000 molecules of air can cause a catastrophy, less so when its 1 in
~80,000 (only the manmade CO2). I can follow the science that ENSO cycles
1-2yrs, PDO in 25-30yrs, and AO in 4-500yr cycles and are sometimes in sync,
other times not. It appears to me that convection and TSI needs to be better
understood by the AGW modellers too. CO2 is a minor bit-player NOT a driver.
10
Sam I hope you didn’t take my post as saying ‘YOU’ had motives.
Anyone interested in this climate debate, and the solutions suggested by the UN must be skeptical when the reasons for this
look to me at least to be politically motivated. A similiar situation in my opinion is present in the Republican Movement. They stipulate the rightness of their argument based on incorrect data.
I see a similiar situation entering the climate change debate.
Humankind do enhance CO2 levels, they are not the prime cause of
all the CO2 content in the atmosphere. And some countries contribute more than others. Now it is methane generated by cattle and sheep burps and breaking wind… Ads on SBS stipulate if all CO2 emissions stopped tomorrow – methane from
cattle and sheep would still contribute to global warming. Save the planet eat veg not meat. Now that is overstating the facts, eh?. And there are people (on the internet do a search) who tell us we will not be able to obtain meat in the future, so start learning to exist on only vegetables. This to me is frightening stuff.
I did a unit at University titled Earth in Crisis? We studied
human activities effects on the natural environment. It was very interesting. Dams, deforestation and urban developments were covered. The large cities of course are responsible for the majority of carbon or pollution. Anywhere there are large populations will have a larger carbon footprint. But – most are Western styled countries are trying to moderate this. One solution posed is to stop cutting down rain forests… the response …”If you want us to stop cutting down rain forests to drill for oil … pay us instead”. A similar situation with Peter Spencer claims, but on a much larger continent. If you tell me, your electricity is going up another 20%, non coal fire electricity plants using sugar cane residue will be terminated because the solar rebates are competing with them… I am worried, so doubt starts to filter in about the facts regarding the global warming, CO2 emissions and Climate Change. I am not a conservative I am a moderate liberal thinking person who votes Independent. The so called skeptics are trying in opinion to moderate the AGW debate, as they see the hidden agenda proposed by the UN initially as the driving force to keep this going. AGW believers have been found to be at fault by exaggerating the scientific facts. (I mentioned this to a Green’s senator, and he was furious with me!)We do need to pay more attention to our environment’s health…and to maintain agricultural production to feed us, we must adopt better strategies to suit the areas effected through water conservation and supply. Whether the climate changes or not, we have nothing to lose. I don’t believe shooting the messengers who are trying to present an alternative debate… however, I agree with some posters, why not offer feasible alternatives. This is what the skeptics have failed to do, but no change no solution. Disadvantaging and redistribution of global wealth as the UN suggested is not the solution. Sam Prof Plimer as you say should get a better prepared script… he’s an academic and more used to giving lectures than entering a debate with a polished media interviewer. Monckton is a more accomplished speaker and debater and has political experience or confidence to assist him. I agree if he comes to Australia, he should not insist people continue addressing him as Lord M… It wouldn’t worry me as I’m English by birth, but … Aussies tend to try and pull tall poppies and the Poms down to their more informal social communications style.
10
Hi Roy,
Well said. ‘Tis the singer not the song, eh?’ But as I have suggested, deniers suggest the data is corrupted, the solutions being offered do not help anyone certainly not the environment.
Mining, deforestation, dams, Monstano GM foods, and their patents
dictating what foods we grow, over population, wars that displace
people into concentration camps, refugees prevented from subsistence farming or droughts. All these are major considerations. But the IPCC solution or the draft that suggested
a world government control others resources etc., has now been denied has ever existed. Who are we to believe? Well – I am becoming confused too. Political motives are very strong
now, on both sides of the argument, but has the world been any different in recent times? New World Order etc., possibly Monckton is partly right we can only see what response the Copenhagen Summit has on Australia’s future ETS scheme… this could bring the government down eventually, or certainly cut their overall majority in the next General election. I hope
it will be resolved rationally.
10
SamG
What you say is more than reasonable ON PEN N PAPER, but is it in reality?
Example 1-) S McIntyre (whom I have great respect for) totally discredited the Mann hockey stick graph by using “good” science. This graph was the poster child, it showed the recent warming as unprecedented in a thousand years. Did McIntyres work stop the alarmism? No. In fact the alarmism continued as if nothing had happened.
Example 2-) You say “but the emphasis should be on the facts at hand, not the parroting of statements made at major skeptic blogs”.
If bloggers didn’t “parrot” the major blogs, the Australian opposition party would not have changed leaders, hence an ETS would by now have been introduced. IT WAS NOT JUST SCIENCE that achieved that momentous change, it was the sheer volume of “parroting” by bloggers to their elected reps that achieved the change. So there is something to be said about “parroting.”
Can you give me some examples of how your proposition would work in real time life? Maybe something the skeptical side hasn’t done to date.
10
Baa Humbug,
Well said @96. We have two fronts.
1. The science
2. The political
We can argue the science but the science is not hurting us one way or another. They fail the basic test and that, as they say, is that. See what I said in bold at 89.
We can fight politically. Action now being taken on the basis of bad science is beginning to hurt us all. This is where we must take counter action or suffer.
This is a war and wishy-washy never won even a battle, much less a war. I don’t want to be on the losing side of this fight.
10
For those who have argued along the line that skeptics simply want to continue to pollute and generally ravage our planet for their own benefit: I can only speak for myself and the few people I have known well enough to make this judgment about them — no we do not.
We have real problems and I am desperately in search of leaders who can distinguish real from trumped-up and start to deal with the real ones. They are not plentiful!
I have no time to repeat the long litany of problems already manifest as a result of the “CO2 is the villain” mind set. This uncompromising attitude is not leadership, its dictatorship. There are many stakeholders and writing off everyone who disagrees with the AGW position is an abomination. This is what Roy Hogue is fighting!
10
Baa Humbug
I can’t offer any additional suggestions to help mitigate the green movement, other than education. Right now, like you say, sheer power in numbers is creating change, even if a proportion of those numbers are just making noise.
I guess I’m being an idealist. I am glad to see change is in the air.
Still….that interview with Plimer made me squirm!
10
I wasn’t happy about the Plimer interview either. But I discount it as 2 journalists ganging up on a not so media savvy professor. They didn’t debate AGW,they highlighted the errors in Plimers book. In the end only the die hard proponents still remember that. Most of the public wouldn’t even know Plimer or Monbiot.
I have been emailing opposition leader Abbot urging him to take advantage of the “lull” in warming and preach calm. Enough of scare campaigns, enough of making laws in an atmosphere of fear, time to take a breath and proceed in a cool calm fashion. Too many people get hurt by the unintended consequences of laws made in haste and fear.
10
Hi everyone,
I hired a civic video DVD ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’
and those who have disapproved of my posts. Note the founder of
Greenpeace resigned after the organisation he founded, took on a political stance. I couldn’t get Al Gore’s DVD it was stolen some
months ago.
The truth is emerging…not only a crime against humanity but
a big political chance to discriminate about capitalism and democratic countries… and hold third world countries back, because they need electricity to advance. Good people who mean
well are also being conned. Politics motivates everything, and
monetary gain of the people in organisations paid good money to promote what they now know is a big fat lie!
10
UPDATES to BRISBANE
BRISBANE
Friday 29 January
12:00 – 2.00 Brisbane Institute luncheon Panel Debate Brisbane Hilton – Grand Ballroom
Pre-registered and pre-paid event.
contact: Karyn Brinkley
15:00 Public Lecture Brisbane – Irish Club, Tara Ballroom
$20 at the door, no pre-registration or booking required
contact: Tony Gomme
10
Hi there,
I wish Lord Monckton and Ian Plimer would include New Zealand in their Australia tour.
We could use some sense in this Climate Change debate.
If I can do anything to help facilitate this please let me know.
Cheers
Roger
10
Baa Humbug@100
“They didn’t debate AGW,they highlighted the errors in Plimers book.”
Do we really know they are errors? Just because Plimer is a poor TV performer doesn’t negate his work.
Like others here, I’ve hinted that Ian Plimer shouldn’t give up his day job for a media career, but that doesn’t necessarily negate what he writes.
Media savvy “lefties” concentrate their attacks on some arcane and usually irrelevant point. If they perceive weakness they hammer home the attack. I’m not crying “unfair”, Plimer is a big boy; he should have been aware that he was on enemy territory and prepared accordingly.
We should learn from bad experiences, they are life’s teachers.
10
Mark, I have called for people to confirm or deny Monbiot’s allegations but nobody can tell me. I don’t even have Plimer’s book.
I’m only too familiar with how Tony Jones conducts himself. While it is fair to say that he is a skilled journalist, on matters of AGW his diversionary tactics are for all and sundry to see. That is; dwell on one or two points for the entire interview, thus attempting to character assassinate the subject.
But Monbiot’s and Jones’ questions were remarkebly simple and Plimmer couldn’t answer. I think that the allegations are therefore true and Plimer was dodging them.
This by no means negates the skeptics argument but for the intellectual elite, whose demographic the ABC represents, it’s a score for their side.
Television is remarkably finicky and audiences superficial. Thus I think the Lord needs to give a Plimer a lesson on televisual etiquette.
10
SamG:
I do have Plimer’s book and can tell you that it is absoluteley loaded with references to “peer reviewed” papers. It’s easy to appear evasive if one finds oneself in unfamiliar hostile territory.
Ian Plimer has to bone up on his media persona or leave the field entirely. “If you can’t stand the heat…”
10
[…] JoNova (No Ratings Yet) Loading … Filed Under: News, Views and CommentsTagged: ETS, global […]
10
Hi
Wasting breath folks. Check out on Google “Great Global Warming
swindle… http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com.uk..There is the producers website for starters. With an index so you can tune
in on various items. U Tube as an 8 segment copy of the DVD.
Then come back and argue the point. Incidently Lord M has no
involvement, but another member of the House of Lords does. Monckton can call himself Lord whatever, as he is a Viscount, and a son of an Earl, and is not a member of the House of Lords.
I hope that I can make apologies for not attending any of the public lectures maybe through JoNova.
Best of luck
Bush bunny from Armidale NSW
10
Sorry the website for the producers is http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk
I think I have it right this time?
10
I must say, it’s rather flattering to receive a reply from Lord Monckton himself.
I called him a true gentleman:
Dear Mr. *******, – Thank you for getting in touch. The question that Professor Plimer and Mr. Monbiot were discussing was whether there has been global cooling this century. Since 1 January 2001, on all measures, there has in fact been rapid and statistically-significant global cooling. See the Monthly CO2 Reports at http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org for the least-squares linear regression tends on the global-temperature datasets, which show this quite clearly. Indeed, one can go back 15 years, to 1995, and find no statistically-significant “global warming” over the period. However, the global temperature dataset is stochastic – one can never tell which way it is going to jump next. Particularly over very short periods (<100 years), stochastic datasets are highly sensitive to the start-dates chosen for the linear-regression trends. For instance, if we were to begin our calculation on 1 January 2000 instead of 1 January 2001, no cooling trend would be evident. George Monbiot is right to say that the last ten years have been the warmest decade since 1850: however, this is scarcely surprising, because the planet has been warming for 300 years, during 280 of which we cannot – on any view – have had any measurable impact.
Frankly, the television is not the best place to get facts of this sort straight. One needs to be able to produce the data charts to show the quite spectacular failure of global temperature to rise as predicted over the past 15 years, and this was not possible in the format provided by the broadcaster. The real question which ought to have been addressed is what caused the only warming of the past 60 years, which occurred over a period of just two decades – the 1980s and 1990s. The answer, as best I can discover it from the peer-reviewed literature, is that there was a reduction in cloud cover from 1983-2001 which caused a positive (i.e. warming) radiative forcing of 4.5 Watts per square meter of the Earth's surface. Using the IPCC's analysis, just 0.8 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing was attributable to CO2 plus all other manmade greenhouse-gas emissions over the same period. The total radiative forcing was thus 5.3 Watts per square meter, but the warming over the same period was just 0.45 Kelvin. All of these are measured quantities, from which we can derive a value for the climate-sensitivity parameter lambda: it is 0.45 / 5.3 = 0.085 Kelvin of warming per Watt per square meter of radiative forcing. However, the UN's implicit central estimate of lambda, obtained purely by modeling, is 3.26 / (5.35 ln 2) = 0.88 Kelvin of warming per Watt per square meter of radiative forcing. Unfortunately, this modeled estimate is an order of magnitude larger than the value we obtained from measurements. The implication is that the UN has exaggerated the warming effect of CO2 and all other greenhouse gases on temperature tenfold. It would have been good to have a proper scientific discussion of this kind, but adversarial television between an eminent professor and a politicized journalist, moderated by another politicized journalist, was unlikely to be the best forum for the truth to be reached. – Monckton of Brenchley
10
This guy gives meaning to the British word ‘tosser’ but he has good argument …
http://fora.tv/2009/12/17/FORAtv_Exclusive_Interview_with_Lord_Monckton_at_COP15#fullprogram
10
I don’t think he is a tosser, it’s just that most of us aren’t used to hearing the English language spoken correctly.
10
It is not the way he speaks, that is neither here nor there, it is the self attribution and promotion. He may well be smart and well connected (and educated in Cambridge) but after I’ve heard the ‘me’ message 3 or 4 times I begin to assume neurosis. He is not alone in this, and it does not detract from his argument, just impacts on the enjoyment of hearing it.
10
Roger (#103)…
Lord Monckton was invited to include New Zealand in his schedule, but he was unable to do so.
I am in New Zealand, and it would have been awesome to see him here, I agree. Maybe he will be able to come here some other time.
Having said that, I admit that in terms of international politics, Australia is a more important and “ripe” target at the moment for the input
of someone like him, so I feel he is right to put his focus there.
10
r:?
Probably because I am English by birth I don’t find his personal
presentation as you do? I found him a typical English gent something Aussies try to ridicule. He had every right to call
those stupid public rabble who interjected the forum he was speaking at ‘Hitler Youth” Even if one was of the Jewish faith.
I think the founder of the Greenpeace movement whose resigned now, right… the extremist lefties have now got a new slogan to bash that has no relationship with the scientific facts that are completely variable, depending on where you live and what part
of the planet you inhabit. However, what rational thought is
established then measures can be taken to improve one’s environment. Until we find a way to generate electricity to
provide consistently (or even have back ups to supplement the present electricity suppliers) any ETS scheme will be a band aid.
One can live without air conditioners. Although people find
it easier to live in a cooler temperature. I’d love solar
energy, but I can’t afford to install it. Although I did install
a rainwater tank attached to the laundry and one toilet. And I
got most back from the State government rebates but still waiting on the Feds.
So benefits attached to sustainable living can be worthwhile.
But to discriminate against industrialised countries for the benefit of developing countries, whose political situation is
often causing their problems is not the way to go. Who knows
what amount the Chinese, Indians, Indonesians and Americans are
contributing to the CO2 level increases. When you have the
South Americans burning down forests to make way for mining,
and oil exploration. Or coal surface uncontrollable fires (Google and see). Now I hope ‘r’ that you won’t hackle Lord M
just because he speaks nicely and is a confident speaker.
And actually ‘r’ he hasn’t got a posh accent by English standards, like Prince Phillip, he has what we call an ‘International’ accent. Go Lord M!
10
Bus BUnny on the contrary I’m pretty sure it is because I’m English originally that I cringe even more every time I hear him speak.
10
[…] Lord Monckton and Professor of Mining Geology Ian Pilmer, author of the best seller Heaven and Earth, will be touring Australia at the end of January and the beginning of February. Please see Jo Nova’s web site for dates and venues: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/monckton-plimer-tour-australia-dates-venues/#more-5933 […]
10
Prof. Plimer is on YouTube in a number of interviews and seems quite lucid and credible.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnF7ilVzeo for a typical session.
10
John Carter
that doesn’t constitute a grueling, probing interview, The interviewer is in agreeance and it looks more like a book promo than an interview.
10
‘Scientifically the evidence is inconclusive. But anecdotally, [people] are convinced. You can wait a decade for ‘proof’, or you can just [see for] yourself …’
Source: Jo Nova on Food Additives.
10
muckypup: (Are you really LOL?) You have picked on a point I question too, believe it or not. Even if the science can be proven inconclusive or based on corrupted data, depending which camp you are politically biased to support in judgements. That’s
not to question how politics and economic greed have damaged the natural environment including the human environment. Land use re farming methodology has to be reviewed and improved particularly in Australia. The EU has come under a lot of criticism and things are NOT too good there it would seem. One good thing that will come out of the Copenhagen Summit that failed and was doomed to fail I always felt, is the fact, that some of the third world countries were complaining that their economic and environmental destruction was caused by developed nations. Tax them to pay for others often political mismanagement. Bangledesh is sinking, it is below sea level in parts because of altering the flow of the Indus river. Ice caps and glaciers are melting… they do seasonally, and atolls have always been vulnerable to sea inundation. Even in Cairns in Northern Queensland, a king tide will flow down the gutters of the main street. Just say they have a big tsumini one day. They got warnings last year.
Look at Haiti, a modern day tragedy. A country blighted since the 1700s by political unrest. Although some twits are saying it
is God’s judgement, because they signed a pact with the devil.
(Voodoo, etc). The political corruption by former president’s
one that raided the treasury before he was exiled was another
problem that developed countries have tried to correct.
I don’t believe we have to do nothing. But stop calling it global warming, CO2 emissions and climate change as the cause.
If any great change in the climate be it natural or otherwise
humans must adapt. And the one thing they must do is maintain
a stable agricultural base, to not only feed their own country
but others. If an ice age does occur, then any land used for
agriculture will be under stress and people will die. Either way we have to change some of exploitative measures that are proven to harm the environment. And repair the damage done to the environment as well as we can without disadvantaging any group
of people. And I would advise anyone on this post to view John
Coleman’s site and go through the 5 part series, to get another
balanced view, that seems to correlate to my studies at Uni.
10
Bush Bunny, (I’m not much a pup anymore but still quite mucky!)
Your post is more eloquent than I could be and the closest Ive seen to my view on this topic. I will check out the site you mention.
10
John Carter and Sam G. Hi again! I watched the interview suggested, I think Prof.Plimer related to his point of view running through his book. He has spoken publically in the town I
live in, and he presented himself very well. I haven’t seen the
interview mentioned where he bombed out so some poster’s suggest?
If you have the website please convey it to me.
However the link led to other sites, and I was attracted to Michael Crichton’s interview. Now Michael died in 2008. Although I am admirer of many fictional authors, if I had to choose Michael Crichton would be my most favored. He was also speaking back in 2005 about environmentalism becoming a religion, and a political thought and consensus that transpired.
Prof.Plimer got one thing right. Politicians are influenced by
people’s voting for them. Now Chairman Rudd has backed the wrong
horse although at the time he was elected people in Australia
although not backing the Green’s political party, were convinced Climate change was a fact in life, caused by AGM. Now they are
not so convinced and within three years the tables are changed.
If Sen.Wong, Garrett and Rudd continue this when people are not
convinced they are managing it … they will either change direction, make some conciliation to please both sides of the argument, or if they continue and force ETS, there will be problems politically. Let’s see how he responds to Lord Moncktons letter that is available on the internet for everyone
to view.
You have to consider (in my opinion) many people are uninformed about the issue, they are not historians, anthropologists, palaeoanthropolists, climatologists, etc., they don’t often see
the big picture. They might be politically biased (like the Green movement) I’ve met them, I queried something a Green senator stated, and I was not appreciated I can tell you! But just questioning it is enough I feel for the average person, who has average intelligence, to doubt what they are being fed. And if you are politically savvy, like me, you will also doubt sometimes, the stance the politicians choose to take albeit for everyone’s good.
10
Just some trivia as such. When this global warming debate started
quite a few years ago, the then president of the Russia Putin, commentated…”A few more Celcius degrees of temperature will help our agricultural production, we welcome it!” Warmth is better than cold you see.
More warmth, more rain etc.
10
Bush Bunny:
“Even if the science can be proven inconclusive or based on corrupted data, depending which camp you are politically biased to support in judgements.”
Actually it isn’t science – it’s a political philosophy couched in scientese – it’s all about rhetoric expressed in a complex mathematical and statistical sense. It is technically sophisticated witch-doctory.
Science is about explaining novel “observations” using extant scientific facts using the scientific method.
AGW was an idea looking for evidence, and while they think they are doing science, by using the scientific method, they are categorically not doing science at all.
10
Bush Bunny,
Thanks for some good arguments that apply to real problems!
I have always considered global warming to be a “political disease”. That term seems to fit so nicely. And once we recognize that it’s political we should all remember that politics is always about power, about who will have it and who will not. And power is always used for the benefit of the powerful.
Now that people are beginning to wake up it’s our job to foster this emerging awareness and use it to play politics to our advantage just as ruthlessly as anyone else. Because if we don’t we’ll still lose. I read Lord Monckton’s letter to Rudd. It tackled him head-on point by point and is just the kind of approach we need.
10
Gud on you mates. But remember we can also benefit this planet
of ours utilising science to help us not distract us through political manipulation. I have faith in human beings and I thank
those like Senator Barnaby Joice in Australia, (not Tony Abbott yet as he is politically motivated) Senator Fielding Lord Monckton and Prof Plimer for offering what many thought was the Convenient Truth. Many others too, the late Michael Crichton, and particularly John Coleman whom I have followed for years over the internet.
Have to go to bed now, very late… for me. but see you again soon. Thank you Joanna for your good sense.. you need a medal
10
BB @ #115
Please read my comments again — there is no suggestion that his ‘international’ English accent is the issue.
Perhaps this wrap-up covers it:
“In 2010, healthy scepticism will continue to rise against the global warming alarmists. But only if those such as Monckton treat the public with respect by sticking to the facts and using measured language, not fanciful claims and name-calling.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/heated-moments-mar-monckton/story-e6frg6zo-1225821369435
And, no, I will not be in the audience heckling Mr Munckton. I will read/hear, with interest, what he has to say in due course. It is about free speech and neither here-nor-there whether he has a hereditary title or a following of supporters. I just do not get off on ‘fanciful claims’ of the self elevating variety — there is a thing called humility which seems to be a challenge for some.
10
r: @ 128:
Where is your similar complaint about the AGWers lack of humility? In addition, where is YOUR humility?
At best I see a pot calling a kettle black. Except for one difference, Monckton has EARNED his lack of humility by hard work, deep study, and long efforts to counter what he sees as a fraud. Were, pray tell, can we find evidence that you have earned yours?
10
Well I do hope some of us can make it to one of the tour meetings.
There is a nice lunch too in Brisbane… $130 per head, but it’s
too far for me to go. So when any of you attend, please let us
know what happened.
The Australian comment ‘r’ was pretty low key. He wasn’t rude
to the Greenpeace lass, just stated his point of view. As far
as it is a communist plot etc., well with that secret UN treaty and
World Government intentions, then I am afraid I can see what he
means. Sen.Fielding also echoed those words too.
10
I note all the criticism of the advertised and so called Climate change AGW debate between Plimer and Monbiot chaired by Tony Jones on our ABC. It seems most of the critical bloggers do not know the background to this programme. Ian Plimer was set up. While Plimer was in UK he was scheduled to debate Monbiot on AGW. In fact Monbiot chickened out and agreed only to debate a few contentious points in Plimer’s book, not the theory of AGW. Finally Plimer gave his talk in London despite Monbiot’s non appearance. Consequently I was suspicious when Monbiot agreed to debate Plimer on the ABC. The programme was a set up between Jones and Monbiot….there was no debate on AGW but a concerted attack by two very experienced journalists on Plimer’s credibility and on a couple of scientifically debateable points in Plimer’s book, Heaven and Earth.
10
Thank you Cathy. I think most of us realized this but it’s great
to hear from someone who obviously has more knowledge of this debate. I’ve heard that the USA and Britain and other countries
are not supporting any ETS taxes… I think they are getting the message from their constituents… if not they are falling in league with possible fraudsters and with political agendas not
favoring developed countries. Why should developed countries with their CO2 emissions be blamed for the rest of the political and environmental problems facing undeveloped countries. Why should developed countries be taxed unfairly to pay these countries when the truth is we are not to blame. Making our standards of living become more expensive just because we are better equipped for supplying our citizens with a better quality of life. And after all said and done, we aren’t contributing to climate change at all?
I think governments who have supported the Al Gore et al agenda
are now rethinking their position. Should they persist then
I believe voters have every right to suspect their intentions.
Now CSIRO have suddenly decided droughts in Australia are not due
to CO2 emission but a natural climatic pattern, where does this
leave the Greens and Kevin Rudd, Senator Wong and Mr Garrett.
They’ll have to do a big reversal or continuing, in my opinion, could bring their government down eventually. Aussies are tough
people, dealing with a tough climate since the word ‘Go’ and I think unless PM Rudd does a quick back flip, the likes of Tony Abbott might win the next election, just because the Fed ALP backed the wrong horse, Al Gore..et al. I hope Lord Monckton really has a successful visit to Australia and the media give him
full coverage … That’s hoping… praying … but not expecting.
I am writing letters to my local ministers state and Federal, and the local press. I would advise other Australians to do the same. Pollies get the point, I have suggested all the Green senators, and representatives, not that there are many, PM Rudd
Sen.Wong and Garrett should never be employed again as they are not representing and supporting the best initiatives for the betterment of the Australian people.
10
Hmmmmmmmmmm, CATHY. Interesting.
Irrespective; Plimer still came off looking second best.
That’s the problem.
10
Bush bunny, you are anything but a “bunny”. That’s a great comment (#132). I read somewhere that the CSIRO have suddenly decided droughts in Australia are not due to CO2 emission but a natural climatic pattern. So where does this leave the Greens, Kevin Rudd and Senator
WrongWong.10
I read that “the CSIRO have suddenly decided droughts in Australia are not due to CO2 emission but a natural climatic pattern” right here, silly me 🙂
10
To illustrate the 2 versions of the Plimer – Monbiot debate see climaterealists.com site ….the Monbiot affair (also in Quadrant online), and then in contrast Monbiot’s site with his special pleading as to why he refused to debate Plimer in London but then agreed to do it on the ABC provided it wasn’t an open AGW debate but an answer to his volcano quibbles. It will be interesting to see if Tony Jones has done some corrective reading over the Vacation when he tackles the healthy increase in AGW scepticism. I presume he will bow out of interviewing Christopher Monckton
10
I’ve changed my name to Nick M, there’s too Many “Nicks” in here 🙂
AAaahhhh, Judgeing from what I’ve heard in the media so far, Christopher Monckton is going to need a bigger venue for Melbourne that the Sofitel. 🙂
10
UPDATE! The Brisbane Big Debate luncheon has totally sold out. 440 seats all gone.
The Canberra event is now finalized. The National Press Club finally
ran out of excusesagreed. Booking details and a new PDF above.10
Googling around, and just happened on this site. Generally, commenters here seem to have their minds made up. That is, closed.
I have read Plimer’s ‘Heaven + Earth’ and some of Monckton’s writings, and would dearly love it if they were right. But they want it both ways: they believe themselves to be right, but contend that it doesn’t matter anyway if they are wrong. Ultimately, they have to explain away mainstream science and the fact that something like 95% of the world’s climatologists are against them. So they resort to conspiracy theory. To quote from Crikey via *: “If Monckton and Plimer are right, all the major scientific bodies in the world are engaged in a conspiracy to introduce communist world government by (drumroll!) auctioning tradeable carbon emissions permits. The question is, can I convince an audience sympathetic to delusionism that this is a really silly thing to believe?”
Answer: probably not.
*http://www.micaros.net/2010/01/quiggin-to-debate-ian-plimer-and-lord-monckton/
10
[…] Lord Christopher Monckton has arrived in Australia to discuss the man made global warming theory. Professor Ian Plimer, authour of the bestselling book Heaven and Earth, will be accompanying Lord Monckton on his whirlwind Australian tour. For details on Lord Monckton and Ian Plimer’s tour dates and venues please see Jo Nova’s website here […]
10
Captain Marvel:
January 26th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
“Googling around, and just happened on this site. Generally, commenters here seem to have their minds made up. That is, closed”.
In fact our minds are made up (and have been for some time) that the “science” IS NOT SETTLED.
Regards “closed minds” I contend that the alarmists have been telling us not to bother argueing the science coz it’s beyond reproach and has the consensus of thousands of scientists to back it up. THAT IS A CLOSED MIND
10
Captain Marvel
you are mostly right about the zealous nature of blogs but that applies to any blog for and against; not just ‘skeptic’ ones.
I’m afraid partiality is a quirk of human nature and you’re going to have to live with it. To give you an example, I’m really relying on conservative politics/media to put up a fight, quite simply because libertarianism doesn’t have a big enough voice. It’s either left or right and that’s it. Do I necessarily agree with conservatism or militant-style retaliation? No.
The second portion of your post is misleading. Unlike the zealots you refer to, true skepticism isn’t a matter of disputing the existence of AGW, even though many posters here would beg to differ.
Healthy skepticism disputes the mantra that says ‘the science is settled’. It contends the hidden agendas of government, greenies and the left per se. (As you’ve alluded to) It questions the validity of new tax legislation and as it has already demonstrated; it aims to point out corruption in science and politics.
This stuff is really important to understand.
So far the balance between outspoken skeptics and activists is too skewed towards the latter. That does not mean that ‘95%’ of scientists are believers, it means that many are not prepared to take on fanatical viewpoints (like blogs). I’d wager that most scientists believe in some anthropogenic warming….how much? I don’t know.
I’d also wager that some anthropogenic warming exists. How much? I don’t know.
The questions are:
How much AGW is occurring?
and is it detrimental?
Nobody in fact knows the answer to this because the science is in its infancy. All we do know is that much of the ‘science’ is exaggerated, and the eco-movement demonstrates classic symptoms of social hysteria, for which many people are taking advantage of. Most journalists do not know the science and most of the public are ignorant but ultimately, you have to make up your own mind.
10
Baa [sic] Humbug: ‘In fact our minds are made up (and have been for some time) that the “science” IS NOT SETTLED.’
(1) Why do you put the word ‘science’ into scare quotes? Because that is what those “s are.
(2) It appears to me that you wish to avoid confronting the main point in my post: “Ultimately, [Monckton and Plimer] have to explain away mainstream science and the fact that something like 95% of the world’s climatologists are against them. So they resort to conspiracy theory.”
(3) Do you believe that the issue of anthropogenic global warming is an international conspiracy by grant-hungry scientists, if not a communist plot?
(4) I will concede that the “95%” was off the top of my head. According to the link below, it is more like 97%.
SamC: “Nobody in fact knows the answer to this because the science is in its infancy. All we do know is that much of the ’science’ is exaggerated, and the eco-movement demonstrates classic symptoms of social hysteria, for which many people are taking advantage of. Most journalists do not know the science and most of the public are ignorant but ultimately, you have to make up your own mind.”
“…science is in its infancy… much of the ’science’ is exaggerated… social hysteria… taking advantage of… most of the public are ignorant…” Pretty loaded language, wouldn’t you say?
All science could be said to be “in its infancy” in that it has most of its learning and development in front of it. Astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology… you name it. That will still be true 100,000 years from now, if our species manages to survive that long. No science has ever reached finality in the sense of finalising every question and issue in its field.
But to the best of our knowledge the Earth is warming and anthropogenic greenhouse gases are what’s doing it. That also happens to be the safest assumption to make.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php
10
I’m having problems logging in. Hope this is OK now.
95% of scientist’s agree? Captain Marvel? Interesting how people choose pen names. But I still appreciate your input. You offer something we can digest and consider. Come off it where’s that evidence to support or bolster up your own philosophical, religious or political opinion? That’s what it is philosophical, religious or political, not scientific.
This climate change rort is beyond contempt. Anyone who supports it is a dreamer or has political agendas that have no
support from scientific data provided so far.
They can’t predict the weather properly nor can they predict what will happen in 20 – 30 years time. Climate is what we
expect – weather is what we get. Period. That’s commonsense not science. You get hot days and cold days usually seasonal, then you get a freak weather event, snow in Australia or California when it should be spring or summer. We had snow here in Australia on the 22nd December one year on the Northern Tablelands our Summer. A late frost will kill off blossoms and some plants, life happens. But it wasn’t normal for this part of Australia. One person suggested that the Aborigines changed the landscape that Eucalpi were forced to become fire adapted. Well they were not. This happened millions of years ago, because of natural bush fires caused from lightening strikes, still are. Hasn’t just happened in the last 40 thousand years! Other trees,are not fire resistent, but they have been around for over 40,000 years too.
By the way the CSIRO (Australian) withheld their report about
droughts etc., until after the ETS voting occurred. People were beginning to query why they withheld their report, now we know?
The Greens by the way were not in favor of the ETS tax, but in favor of taxing farmers for methane gas emissions per head of cattle and sheep. Against the ETS tax because they thought it favored industry.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, once trying to deceive”. That’s what is happening now, and another more serious political warning… “Evil will persist – if a few good men (and women) do nothing..” Or words of that effect.
10
Thanks for hopping in, Bush bunny.
Yes, climatologists the world over are engaged in a huge coordinated rort and conspiracy. Your last post confirms you in that view. It also confirms my original point put on at 1:30 PM today. “Ultimately [Plimer & Monckton] have to explain away mainstream science and the fact that something like [97%] of the world’s climatologists are against them. So they resort to conspiracy theory. To quote from Crikey via *: ‘If Monckton and Plimer are right, all the major scientific bodies in the world are engaged in a conspiracy to introduce communist world government by (drumroll!) auctioning tradeable carbon emissions permits. The question is, can I convince an audience sympathetic to delusionism that this is a really silly thing to believe?’”
This is where I came in. Believe on, Bush bunny. I believe you certainly will, and have a feeling that your mind is set like concrete on this issue.
Goodnight and good luck.
10
Captain
That reference really illustrates my own point that blogs are full of zealots. There’s that wonderful word again: ‘Denialist’…Hold on; is that a science blog? I’ll take it with a pinch of salt.
Your statement (again) is misleading.
Ultimately [Plimer & Monckton] have to explain away mainstream science and the fact that something like [97%] of the world’s climatologists are against them
Who are these anonymous scientists- really? I hear about half a dozen names thrown around regularly but you say 97%?
I might as well pull out this doozie . At least there are names on it:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Further, there really are no conspiracy theories. Socialists have always and will continue to undermine the status quo. I’ll grant you not all AGW proponents are communists but a great deal of disenfranchised, capitalist hating types have jumped on the AGW bandwagon. It is also well established that most intellectuals are leftist, including our own tax funded network, the ABC. For you, this might be loaded language but it is simply an observable fact.
Some climatologists may (or may not) belong to this fraternity, many are simply fallible human beings like you or I…..but I really don’t know their motives. Don’t pretend that a stupid poll vindicates people from having a belief system, under the banner ‘science’. You can not prove that either side is true or false.
Furthermore, one shouldn’t downplay the unprofessionalism of some climate scientists. I’m talking about not archiving data, fudging graphs and ignoring FOIA’s.
I believe my last comment was pretty fair and moderate for a skeptic blog and I think you will find similar opinions out there.
There’s a good chance that AGW exists but to what extent, we don’t know. My gut feeling all along has been that ‘the science is settled’ mantra is a red herring; not unreasonable to think so.
Your comments about Plimer and Monckton are largely irrelevant because you’d still be poking holes in their arguments if there were 50% more outspoken critics. For your info, I’m not a big fan of Plimer’s style but in a debate that’s outrageously skewed to one side, criticism of dissent is very telling.
10
JoNova
A suggestion:
I think that post ratings encourage favouritism and zealotry.
There is no need to rate people’s posts in my opinion, it is not a popularity contest. I’d encourage people to occasionally sympathize with opinions different from their own.
10
Captain Marvel with great respect? Just because you feel as you
quote “.. your mind is set like concrete on this issue..”
May I suggest you turn to my profile, that I believe is publicaly viewable?
I am on another blog ‘On Line Opinion’ ‘Lord Monckton – Climate change a crime against humanity’. That is a more controlled
site than Joanna’s – tonight, I tried to add a comment three times before being successful. I was interrupted with a pop up allegedly from some government site, to tell me I was not allowed to comment on this site? It was being monitored by the government. (Big Brother is Watching you, eh?) I was cut off from my broadband twice, etc. I persisted and I eventually got through with two posts that is only allowed in 24 hours on one subject.
I am definitely into environmental sustainablility. (For over 20 years). Depending on what country one lives in. We can’t make rules for all but judge what is best for their country’s environment or micro climate.
I am intelligent, sensitive and for giving this good earth a go
providing social, ethic and also protecting our national heritage and improving it. Protecting our wild life etc., I regularly donate to IFAW. (Although I nearly stopped recently because they became political on hunting in UK! And Clarissa Dickson Wright is one of my valued authors but I felt the Australian branch had no involvement so continued my monthly donation or any donation I give yearly for good causes). I gave up the RSPCA although at one time I was a committee member of the Armidale Branch… I thought they were not generating their funds to various accepted local pensioner’s assistance who could be helped, and had over $55,000 in their bank account! Nor would I think donations should go into law suits
generated when their directors were the legal representatives and charged $300 k against a small farmer, who wasn’t convicted with cruelty against her animals, but still charged with legal expenses having had dairy cattle and cows, and the RSPCA shot
the mothers of calves on foot, because they thought they were skinny. Leaving the calves alone, traumatised, and had to be hand fed by the farmer. Well dairy cattle are thin they are not meat cattle. I complained… and was pressured to leave! (Google Ruth Downey?)
Certainly to provide our Australian citizens with a life that depends on the betterment of the welfare and well being via a better standard of living. Appreciation of the management of our environment, depending where we live. Improving soil science to increase better fertility and restoration of degraded soils. Stop using pesticides and herbicides, and improving the soils water conservation naturally from the addition of humus or compost and cell grazing methods for stock animals…. and … improving the health of our meat producing animals. I am still a minimal meat eater. I live in hear shot of a sales yards and hear the animals bellowing at night. I don’t like it. I feed wild birds, and set nests for them in my garden. We pay taxes, rates and electricity/gas charges just for living, and I don’t think any of these taxes should be increased just because some banana republic thinks they can capitalize on another’s country’s better standard of living believing we are damaging theirs as a result of our damage regarding and creating global climate change! This is a load of BULSSHH. And can be considered political not only by undeveloped countries but countries who could be into the one world global economy and also capitalising on green industries.
Wind generators, for example Denmark, the biggest oil producer in the world (oh, yes but the North Sea oil is running out) are the only wind generators manufacturers in the world… that have been found wanting.
My mind isn’t set in concrete, but mud possibly LOL.
10
….Right, who gave me a thumbs down !
😉
10
Sam G: I didn’t qualify for your petition, I would have signed it but haven’t a B.Sc. just a BA majoring in Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology. But have other tertiary certificates including Cert IV – Organic Agricultural Production.
Anyway, best of luck with your petition.
Kind regards
Bush Bunny from Australia.
10
PS Sam G., I equalized the thumbs down by putting a thumbs up!
Bush Bunny
10
wonderful
10
We could change the words on the “like or Dislike” cue. I hoped people would use thumbs up for any comment they found appealing, informative or interesting, and save thumbs down for the very rarest comments that break laws of logic and reason, are insulting or inane. But “dislike” doesn’t mean the same to other people.
I’m open to suggestion. I do want to highlight the most valuable comments.
10
It’s no big deal but “like or dislike” might be more representative in a place that has broad readership rather than a skeptic or pro-AGW blog. It’s highly likely that apologists will receive higher values than critical posters here.
A better consensus would be indicated by the ability to ‘reply’.
By replying, I get to articulate nuances instead of pressing a button.
10
Captain Marvel comment #139:
I reply to your comment: “they have to explain away mainstream science”. The “mainstream science” used in the UN’s IPCC has been exposed as corrupt by Lord Monckton, who openly accuses them of such. If his allegations were proven false, it would land him in court on libel charges. Doesn’t that raise a question? And you go on to say: “the fact that something like 95% of the world’s climatologists are against them.” That is incorrect. It’s only the corrupt IPCC scientists against them. Over 30,000 scientists have signed their names on multiple petitions and statements rejecting the junk science on global warming.
10
I hope our prime minister will take the time, to attend one of these meetings.
If he’s worth his salt he will, after all he does want to introduce a life changing tax on us. which he says will cool us all down.
10
I have spent 65 years of my life self-learning physics in an attempt to illuminate more clearly matters pertaining to Matter and associated Mysteries.
I now consider that my work on this subject has an ability to shed some light on the Global warming debate, and that includes an unknown reason for the internal heating of the Earth. Such warming leads to warming of the oceans and therefore the atmosphere. Warming of the oceans demands increased evaporation and so increased cloud cover. Increased cloud cover results in reflected sunlight back into space, and so resulting in excessive cold winters in the northern hemisphere.
For the past 15 years, I have attempted to get permission to submit my work for evaluation by University Academics all to no avail. Therefore I now supply my email address in the hope that there may be a Physicist, retired or active, who would be prepared to read and comment regarding the value or otherwise of my work. George.dawn.robynn@gmail.com
10
John: Do the hacked emails if genuine reveal a lapse of proper scientific standards on the part of their authors at the Hadley Centre? Yes. Do they demolish the IPCC and its case? You’ve got to be joking.
If you go to one of the Monckton-Plimer Medicine Show meetings, ask Monckton what he thinks of his old boss, Margaret Thatcher, who said that she thought “we ought to give the planet the benefit of the doubt.” That is, the benefit of what little doubt there is. According to the link I cited back at comment 143 (nb not the only link to such available) 97% of the world’s ACTIVE CLIMATOLOGISTS are against the denialist position supported Monckton and Plimer. (Apparently they took time out from running their global conspiracy to answer a questionnaire.)
The Medicine Show will of course roll on round Australia. The throngs of the True Believers will be parted from copious amounts of their cash, but most I am sure will emerge believing ever more firmly in denialism; that they have had value for their money, and have had what they deserved.
Monckton and Plimer will no doubt agree with them. On all counts. I would incline to be less generous.
10
Captain Marvel, sceptics are sceptics, alarmists are alarmists, and never the twain shall meet!
10
Too many generalizations in this thread.
Captain Marvel, you, like many skeptics are relying on slogans to impart the so-called truth. You, like john, are both believers.
That is probably tongue in cheek but it’s basically something that I hate about blogs because it endorsers the sort of polarity so fundamental to belief systems.
Although I have been guilty of name calling, using terminology such as ‘denialist’ and ‘alarmist’ is so tiresome. What are you guys thinking?
A thread on ethics might be nice. Other than that, more moderation is required.
10
Hey when did the perth gig become rsvp only? Hmm hope I’m not too late (or censored out of the meeting).
10
But SamC, I am a sceptic. I am sceptical of the proposition that we can return all the fossil carbon laid down over hundreds of millions of years to the atmosphere, and do it over a period of say 500 years, without there being any effect on the Earth’s climate. I am sceptical of the proposition that business as usual is harmless. Scepticism is essential to science, which is why I am a sceptic by nature and training, and why I resent the effeorts of the denialists to lay proprietary claim to the word.
The more I learn about paleoclimatology and the heat trapping properties of CO2, the more concerned I become.
10
Here is my take on the issue
There might be global warming or cooling but the important issue is whether we, as a human race, can do anything about it.
There are a host of porkies and not very much truth barraging us everyday so its difficult to know what to believe.
I think I have simplified the issue in an entertaining way on my blog which includes some issues connected with climategate and “embarrassing” evidence.
In the pipeline is an analysis of the economic effects of the proposed emission reductions. Watch this space or should I say Blog
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Please feel welcome to visit and leave a comment.
Cheers
Roger
PS The term “porky” is listed in the Australian Dictionary of Slang.( So I’m told.)
10
Did anyone go to the Union Club for the lunch. The evening one
was sold out, and over 1,000 people did get in, and 300 turned
away. One person who allegedly attended the luncheon gave it
a thumbs down as being theatrical? Likening it to a quote from
Shakespeare’s Macbeth. No reports in the media about the Sydney
talks or luncheon. Now that’s surprising (NOT).
I’m not sure if it was on this blog, but one poster quoted ‘Margaret Thatcher’ as saying ‘Give Earth the benefit of the doubt?” Hmmm, not sure but Rupert Murdoch said it recently, too!
Roger Surf your blog is great…thank you for being directed to it.
10
Captain Marvel said it LOL Post 158. However how can people make up their minds (unless one is paid to do so, of course!) when one side of the debate is pushed aside? The media are supposed to be non partisan, but I worked for the tabloid press, and I can assure you they tend to listen to their advertisers. If you are advertising millions a year to push the sale of solar panels, wind mills, etc., to prevent Climate Change, you aren’t going to actively go against this belief? You pay, you are heard… that is why I suspect that the two billionnaires sponsoring Monckton and Plimer have nothing to answer for although getting criticism in the media and on some
blogs. Of course Chairman Rudd won’t attend or Senator Wong, or Mr Garrett. Might send a representative though…?
While Al Gore gets $US200,000 for a talk, then I suspect he won’t be in a hurry to hand back his Nobel prize money, or his fees will dramatically drop, eh? Now the Indian who helped make up the IPCC report admits the glaciers aren’t melting in the Himalayas. “…Sorry folks so we made a little mistake?..” Not good enough old chap. And the draft UN Climate Change treaty, read it. I am sorry, but I have, as well as others, saw
the political control behind this Climate Change debacle for what it was years and years ago. Talk about the King Canute test to turn back the tide.. well even King Canute didn’t believe he could … and proved his point by getting his shoes wet.
10
Captain Marvel: Then your realize from your studies, that
Greenhouse gases that include a very small amount of CO2, and is
95% water vapor, clouds. In winter cloud cover at night prevents frost forming… clouds keep the planet cooler by day, and warmer at night. In desert areas temps plummet at night as you know. Why do you think Bedouins were black, black tents etc.? So to prevent any gasses being trapped you have to remove the clouds. Tell that to a farmer in the bush, who is
praying for rain. Big Urban cities create a lot of pollution, that rises and then drops. Anyone remember the great SMOGS in London during the 1950’s? Well because being near the Thames
and the sea, increasing industrialisation and domestic pollution was trapped and SO2 formed SMOG. Evil yellow stuff, that killed 6,000 people. Smog masks were sold to those inner city workers. I was one. My slip was changed twice a week because of the Steam trains and how there was 2 inches of black on the hemline. That’s pollution! Coal (Anthracite not the Brown coal used in power plants), was banned being used as fuel in the early 1960s. And smogs no long posed a threat to human life, and whales and dolphins started returning up the Thames. Swallows started re-nesting on inner city buildings, an omen of
good luck, some said. Cold winters, 1947, then 1963 when the Thames froze over at Windsor, stopping all water traffic.
Trees release CO2 at night. Convert it through photosynthesis
and release oxygen in the exchange during the day. And store some Carbon in the soil. At one time, flowers were removed from medical wards as they were suspected they would release CO2 into the air.
Higher humidity creates clouds from the oceans and the lower and nearer to sea level the air is more humid. I can recall going to Sydney from Armidale 3,500 absl, and felt the humidity change. Mind you one could smell Sydney from about Windsor, smelt like an older style railway station because of the pollution.
Now that is elemental 11th year science. So where are CO2 emissions fitting in. Ziltch…does it contribute to weather patterns, no, not without water vapor, no clouds, no rain. Pollution yes.
Will an increase in 2 C degrees contribute to climate change and world devastation, no. So ask yourself – who are benefiting
from believing and promoting this lie? I could name a few
and those who think world control over countries who haven’t elected them is the biggest con of the lot.
For every cause there comes an effect. But the solution posed
by IPCC is not the solution it is a big fat con! With hidden
agendas that will not benefit Australia, the reverse.
10
Roger & Bush bunny: your comments are noted. As I said at comment 139: “Ultimately, [Plimer and Monckton] have to explain away mainstream science and the fact that something like 95% of the world’s climatologists are against them. So they resort to conspiracy theory. … The question is, can I convince an audience sympathetic to delusionism that this is a really silly thing to believe?
Answer: probably not.”
Nothing I have read above does anything to alter that assessment. As for the AWG ‘bias’ of the media: guess who is bigger, BHP Billiton or all the vendors of windmills and solar panels put together?
And BHP is only one Australian player in the fossil fuel game.
*http://www.micaros.net/2010/01/quiggin-to-debate-ian-plimer-and-lord-monckton/
10
I’ve seen one or two comment regarding Monckton’s view on AIDS and quarantine of all victims. He proposed this very early on, when there were very few victims (compared to now). Nobody can ever tell, but perhaps it *could* have saved millions of lives. At the expense of some freedom, it is true. He freely admits this is not a politically god idea, but could have been practical way back. It has been too late for a long time now.
Q1: Why is this not acceptable when quarantine of Swine Flu victims is expected?
Q2: Why is this not acceptable in retrospect when we can see that millions of lives could have been saved? One assumes that if the epidemic continued abated, the quarantine would have been lifted.
It’s all a question of how much freedom for all costs for the individual. I’m not saying I agree with him, I am saying is argument was sound, reasonable and thought out, not emotional or political. Even if you do not agree with him, at least respect the fact that the argument is well constructed and well intentioned.
10
“god idea” = “good idea”
“continued abated” = “continued unabated”
apols
10
Fully agree that Plimer was unnecessarily evasive. I think I understood why he behaved the way he did, deliberately not getting riled, but it fed Monbiot’s argument that he cannot defend any of the scientific points.
Monckton has never been trumped as far as I have seen. he fields every argument, every attack, even when accusing Jews of behaving like Hitler Youth. His argument stood up – the activists had in fact behaved exactly like the Hitler Youth used to do in public meetings when contrary views were expressed. Monckton had the audacity, and courage, to state this and back it up.
I heppen to know more about the HY than most – my mother was in it (as all of her generation in Austria were – no real choice in the matter) and her father was a actually a Jew, although married to as ‘Aryan’ as they come.
10
Actually Jerome, I didn’t trust the Hitler Youth. Whose to know
if that guy (only one by the way), was indeed a Jew? In fact my
first impression was that guy had Arab blood not Jewish? (I’m not Jewish by the way but have Jewish friends in Israel as well).
I think Viscount Monckton will knock the socks of Rudd, Wong and Garrett and any Green senator or rep who approaches him. Actually the Greens were against the ETS tax. But they wanted
cattle and sheep to be taxed? He is a mature, experienced and
articulate speaker.
Now the Indian Government are quite annoyed with the Chairman
of the IPCC for quoting the WWF in his so called ‘scientific’
argument. I wouldn’t be surprised if he isn’t given the push
from the climate change organization he runs in India. How embarrassing eh?
The writings on the wall – now the Chinese and Indian’s are putting the pressure on other countries over this…and dear
old Ted Kennedy’s long held democratic seat was won by a Republican? And Brown up for a General election soon? Watch out for the fireworks.
10
I would like to see these meetings receive a lot more publicity than I am hearing.
What’s wrong with the ABC? It is the tax payer’s station, is’nt it? We need to put the pressure on them, so his message will be received in as many ears as possible.
10
They are doing some good work. John and Brian check out the ABC
network and see how they are treating this climate change scam.
Also 2GB with Alan Jones, 25 January. Very good. Lord M is getting coverage slowly. But I don’t approve of the pussy footing
the opposition are taking… neither here or there.
10
i have been to monkctons show. absolute bullshit. please research the science deniers
[Note the word “Denier”–normally I don’t allow people to bully and name-call on the site. There are plenty of other blogs for that. The rest of this thread gets progressively dominated with this rude uninformed poster who refuses to respond to reasoning. I’ll leave the comments here since people have replied to them, but usually, this sort of behaviour is an immediate flag to be moderated. Don’t take what appears here as any way indicative of what is normal for this site. –JN ]
10
Such as when dear! You can’t spell even… give your reasons for making a statement like this .. bullshit … or forever hold your
piece… you can’t make statements like that, give us your reasons
please? If you have any rational or logical ones notwithstanding
you probably haven’t any! Come on don’t be shy, we are opened
minded here.
10
PS folks I bet ‘sucked in’ doesn’t reply? Considering the late hour I am burning the midnight oil (no ref to Garrett either LOL)
but watching the emails etc., from overseas. Very interesting
the Guardian UK responses to Milibank are very scathing.
10
Dang how did I miss captain marvels comments directed at me? #143. I sense he will google his name so it may not be too late to reply.
(1) Why do you put the word ’science’ into scare quotes? Because that is what those “s are
I put them in scare quotes because I choose to. You criticise this but look what you do just a few paragraphs down
All science could be said to be “in its infancy” . This makes you a hypocrite, agreed?
(2) It appears to me that you wish to avoid confronting the main point in my post:
Noooo, I responded to “commenters here seem to have their minds made up”. I didn’t ignore the rest. I have not read Plimers book, therefore I chose not to comment on it’s contents. Do you not follow that simple principle? Obviously not.
(3) Do you believe that the issue of anthropogenic global warming is an international conspiracy by grant-hungry scientists, if not a communist plot? No
4) I will concede that the “95%” was off the top of my head. According to the link below, it is more like 97%.
Do you always post “off the top of your head”? How about posting after careful thought and consideration, lest you waste our time and make an idiot of yourself.
The rest of your post is not directed at me so I won’t comment.
I will say however that this blog is hosted by a person I consider to be fair and reasonable. Googling on to this post and attacking bloggers using bad manners is unacceptable. You have shown yourself to be an argumentative fool not worth debating.
10
sucked in,
What science? There isn’t any to research.
10
comment #172
Craig, Andrew Bolt has a video link to a “debate” here at the ABC that may explain why Monckton doesn’t get much publicity from them. He simply makes a mess of any “scientist” they put up against him.
10
There is an issue that we need to fix. Christopher Monckton does not have the title ‘Lord’, so using it we look silly.
Have a look at Monckton’s Wikipedia page.
His title is “3rd Viscount of Brenchley”. Therefore, we need to call him ‘Viscount Monckton’.
10
I have been researching about Viscount Monckton.
Here is an interview by the Guardian (UK) in 2007.
10
Comment #180
Dana, I prefer to call him, “Messiah”.
10
roy, there is lots of science to research . i am surprised you have made no attempts to do so before offering your opinions.?there has been climate study for decades. peer reviewed sources abound everywhere
10
bush bunny, i think i spelt bullshit correctly? you should worry less about spelling and more about content . when someone says [ monckton ] that there was ‘an explosion ‘ of land plants during the cambrian period because of massive amounts of c02 in the atmosphere, that is scientifically incorrect. there were no land plants during the cambrian period. when someone says [ monckton ] that the polar caps ‘almost melted ‘ during the medieval warm period. that is also incorrect. when he says that the glaciers are not melting. that is also incorrect. 90% of them are in retreat. when he makes absurd conspiracy theories about all the worlds climate scientists being involved in a communist plot. ??? well, do i really need to continue? i think the term ‘bullshit ‘describes moncktons views perfectly? your comment that you are open minded could also be descibed as such
10
john, he inherited the title lord. he may be a lord but he aint no scientist. and this is supposed to be a scientific issue. calling him a ‘ messiah’ shows your religionist attitude to the subject. that does not lend itself to discovering the truth. the reason scientists do not debate monckton is because he is a crackpot. against a climate expert monckton would look as silly as plimer did on the abc recently
10
john, how come all of your sources eg monckton, bolt , alan jones no doubt ,are not scientists? you really need to raise your level. bolt is another in the gallery of unqualified media commentators. may i suggest researching the science yourself rather than through proxies ? i will only be too glad to point you in the right direction
10
baa bumbug, ”good science ” is in its infancy. though it is mature enough to have put a man on the moon. what you use is not good science and i dare say if it was used for a lunar exploration the rocket would explode on the launch pad ?
10
Be careful with Wikipedia.
Moncktons entry has been something of a battlefield.
More contentious perhaps than even AGW itself.
So as not to look a complete na na, you may like to try Addressing Viscounts, courtesy of Debrett’s
and the Guardian is hardly a trusted source on Monckton either.
Well justconsider their stance on AGW…
10
the guardian is one of the finest newspapers going. their stance on climate change reflects this. the press in australia is low iq junk. by comparison
10
I have noticed a lot of peaple have tryed to make this Monckton character to be a crack pot.
The real issue here is crack pot or not is what he is he telling the truth?
The best thing any of us can do is check out the facts for our selves. I have, and I believe he is telling us the truth, to the best of his ability.
10
sucked in, Monckton admits he’s not a scientist, but he does have the so-called climate “experts” running scared. In fact, he’s won every debate so far in straight sets. Whoever “the establishment” throw at him next had better have done their homework. Ask yourself this question: “Why hasn’t Monckton been taken to court by those so-called scientists whom he’s exposed as being grubby?”
getting warmer, you may suggest anything you like, but I don’t have to prove anything to you or anyone else. I believe what my sources say, that’s all that matters.
10
john, climate scientists do not debate monckton.they consider him nothing more than a crackpot and not worthy of the attention so the debates he supposedly won were not against anyone reputable. what scientists are taking him to court ? and why ?you can believe what your sources say, but your sources are unqualified which means so is your opinion? i have done my homework and i can pick holes in moncktons claims. imagine what an actual climate scientist would do to him ?
[Al Gore won’t debate anyone, let alone Monckton. He won’t even do it for $200,000. Obviously if had the answers, he wouldn’t be so chicken. -JN]
10
sucked in, you really need to open your other eye. I wrote that you should ask yourself the question: why haven’t the so-called scientists who Monckton has accused of using junk science taken him to court for libel?
10
craig, monckton is telling the truth ”to the best of his ability”. but his ability to do so is very limited. his science is bogus and not backed by peer review. he has had no work published in any peer reviewed journals. any science undergraduate could destroy his argument. monckton says the planet is cooling without providing data. nasa says its warming and provide data. its a no brainer as to whose views are credible
10
john , i repeat that qualified climate scientists do not take monckton seriously enough to debate, let alone take to court. what he said about them if not slander, was just his unqualified opinion. it would be water off a ducks back to most scientists, who are too busy doing research to pay attention to a crackpot with a silly conspiracy theory
10
john, does nasa use junk science ? rather than parroting moncktons non peer reviewed opinions. why not provide some examples of the junk science you mention ?
[The site is full of them. 1. http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/horrifying-examples-of-deliberate-tampering/. 2. http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/ Lots more. http://joannenova.com.au/?page_id=4992&preview=true- JN]
10
Reply to sucked in
Try this address,www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth.papers/wmo-Bull.Jan08galley.pdf
10
I think we all should do some serious resurch so we are not sucked in to popular opinion.
There is plenty of data which can be found with out much difficulty.
I beseech you to find out for your self.
10
lorraine try this address skepticalscience.com. craig. the deniers do no research at all. they are too busy creating confusion and misinformation they use the same tired old arguments that are not backed by peer review. they try and undermine data rather than produce any themselves.or if they do produce data it is corrupted. eg the great global warming swindle charts, i have checked out both sides of the argument intensely.and the scientific consensus has a far stronger argument. popular opinion can be wrong at times. in this case it seems to be correct ? i beseech you to research the credentials of people you believe, and also who is funding them. in the case of carter, singer, nova and ‘probably ” monckton it is the oil industry. the heartland institute is funded by exxon and they do much of the publishing of the non peer reviewed denier material. do you really think the oil companies are interested in the truth? theyd sell their own mothers
10
lorraine, you are probably referring to the trenberth email where he says something about not being able to explain ”the cooling? ”i reccommend you read the contextand the full meaning of the comment. its a little like the ”hide the decline ’email, that deniers salivate over. both of the scientists were not referring to a decline or cooling of the global temp. one had to do with data analysis techniques involving tree rings? 4000 e mails were stolen deniers cherry pick four or five and say that that proves a conspiracy . if there was fraud virtually all the emails would show it
10
Are you a socialist sucked in?
I don’t believe all the skeptical arguments myself but to deny the all pervasive eco-agenda is naive.
The ‘big oil’ argument is getting pretty repetitive; as if to say that greenies aren’t evil personified. C’mon.
Much of the swindle argument still stands. Unfortunately, the media are pretty good at character assassinating skeptics over one or two errors but conveniently dismiss flaws inherent to their own ideologue….how convenient.
Like I’ve said, don’t pretend that being vindictive doesn’t preclude you from belonging to a belief system. In your case, it is warmism. Or are you going to pretend, like the average leftie, that your motives are pure and beyond critique?
Try to be a little less transparent next time. I can almost sense the self righteousness giving you a hard-on
10
Peer review doesn’t negate an argument. As climategate demonstrated, the peer review process has been hijacked by in-house gate keeping.
10
lorraine, the full meaning of the trenberth e mail is this ”global warming is still happening. our planet is accumulating heat. but our observation systems are not comprehensively able to track where all the energy is going. consequently we cannot fully explain why surface temp has gone down in the last few years ”. there are natural variabilities that cause fluctuations in surface temp. that does not mean that global warming [ the entire heat of the planet ]rather than just surface temp is not happening
10
sam. peer review while not perfect is the only way science has progressed. a few emails taken out of context and misinterpreted do not constitute a ‘hijacking ‘ of anything. the other 3995 emails indicate nothing of the sort. there is a certain amount of inner politics in all areas.of human endeavor. that does not undermine the entire system?
10
sam, the media is owned by people like rupert murdoch who is staunchily anti climate change. the oil company argument is repetitive. thats because its true and a valid argument. it is the deniers who are smearing the entire scientific community continually. they do not have the science to argue any other way. there is no scientific consensus that god exists comparing climate change [ warmism ] to a religious ideology is poor reasoning. give me an alternative explanation as to the present warming backed by data and research, and ill look at it with an open mind. but you cannot, because there is no natural explanation. the skeptics [ deniers ] have a lot more than one or two errors. the basis of their argument is that the world is not warming [ wrong ] and that the scientists are involved in a communist plot [ absurd ] the scientists could make more money by saying that they dont know whats causing the warming and needs heaps more money to find out.? all scientists are on a wage anyway they would gain nothing personally from increased funding. why would the worlds capitalists want to become socialists and have their wealth redistributed ?a lot of things give me hard on, self rightousness doesnt quite do it. a photo of karl marx may do the trick though?
10
But are you a socialist?
10
by the way sam, my motives are pure. i do not like dishonest liars and the corporate scum that are behind the skeptics platform. i am not beyond criticism but you’d better support it with reason and decent science. i am not a greenie either, though their concerns over the environment are valid and a counterweight to the right wingers who couldn’t give a shit about the environment or future generations
10
getting warmer:
February 1st, 2010 at 11:32 am
Bad analogy on your part……Challenger, good science can also go wrong.
10
You have answered my question.
Please stop making a fool of yourself. There are ‘dishonest liars’ everywhere but nowhere more prevalent than non-profit, philanthropic, environmental and charity groups, who are all to keen to ‘enlist’ disenchanted, manipulative, narcissists types who want a shortcut to savior status.
So-called environmentalism, would have to be one of the most insidious movements, along with totalitarian ideologies such as communism, which so far, is responsible for the death of millions, via yet another altruistic cause.
Does it have to be said time and time again that capitalism isn’t a problem, and the environment is in a far better predicament than what leftist propagandists make it out to be?
If there were an issue, it is with imperialism/corporatocracy, but the system need not be damned so that you can erode at free-trade and the upper class.
Capitalism works as well in theory as it does in practice. Much more preferable to the deluded socialist paradigm which is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Please, your ignorance is astounding and arrogance breathtaking.
10
SamG, it’s obvious that sucked in is a leftie, he’s displaying all the telltale signs:
“rant rave rant rave …corporate scum … rant rant rave …. right wingers who couldn’t give a shit about the environment and future generations … rant rave spit convulse … my motives are pure [classic leftie self deception] … blablabla … oil companies funding the deniers … no proof necessary because its obvious!! (hyperventilate)… heartland institute is funded by exxon because i say so … rant rave (apoplectic fit) … do you really think the oil companies are interested in the truth? theyd sell their own mothers! … (self-righeous smirk) …”
Nice rant, sucked, but not very convincing.
10
Yes, Anne-Kit Littler; I agree.
I can see him protesting in his Che t-shirt.
http://www.thoseshirts.com/lousy.html
10
What’s fortuitous for leftists is that they get to condemn human activity and spout utopian nonsense in the luxury of a free democratic society, which again points to their astounding arrogance.
Something that they’d never be able to do under a socialist government.
I think it’s the dishonesty I detest the most. At least a greedy corporatist is a greedy corporatist. A cardigan wearing leftie advocates what they are not.
10
sucked in:
You’ve chosen a fitting screen name.
Nothing in your posts is science. Just attacking individuals whilst hiding behind generalizations like “have checked out both sides of the argument intensely” and “my motives are pure”.
Your contradictions are indicative of your stance.
“the deniers do no research at all”. How do you know? Proof pls
“scientific consensus has a far stronger argument”. How many times do we have to say science is not about consensus. Where have you been all this time?
“and also who is funding them. in the case of carter, singer, nova and ‘probably ” monckton it is the oil industry”. Probably won’t cut it. Either produce proof or resign this myth.
“any science undergraduate could destroy his argument”. But they haven’t and he has been around since the beginning. If we were trolls we could also say any high school kid could debunk AGW but they can’t be bothered. It’s all weasel words.
“i have done my homework and i can pick holes in moncktons claims”. Go ahead we’re waiting.
“you can believe what your sources say, but your sources are unqualified”. Any detail or just some more weasel words? How do you know what sources?
“i repeat that qualified climate scientists”.. Can you tell us where one gets a climate science degree or doctorate? Which uni offers the course and since when?
“referring to the trenberth email where he says something about not being able to explain ”the cooling?” First you post this, then in the next breath… ” lorraine, the full meaning of the trenberth e mail is” Do you know or do you just know “something about”? make up your mind.
“our observation systems are not comprehensively able to track where all the energy is going”. Bwaahhahah you mean your peer reviewed top notch super qualified scientists have LOST somewhere around 3-5 trillion watts of energy “somewhere” in the globe? here energy where are you, come out come out where ever you are bwaahhahaha I can’t take it anymore I think that’s enough for now. But if you like, I’ll compose myself and continue.
Weasel Words aka sucked in
10
People like weasel words aka sucked in, have a myopic view of the universe, the world and everything in it. They accuse people like me of callous disregard for the planet and it’s species. They mostly have good intentions about the planet but just can’t seem to get past their ignorance, so they settle for the “but we’re trashing the environment” dogma taught to them by the hardcore wannabe world controllers. WWF, Greenpeace et al.
They fail to realise that nature is not a delicate, fragile, on-the-edge phenomenon. Nature IS BRUTAL, that’s why 99% of all species that has ever existed is no more.
Nature doesn’t give a (s)hit about you, me or any other living thing. No exceptions no rainchecks.
Proffessor Meg Urry, Israel Munson Professor of Physics & Astronomy
Chair, Department of Physics, Director of the Yale Center for Astronomy & Astrophysics put it best when she said…
“Nature is what it is” her full quote was ““Scientists observe nature, then develop theories that describe their observations. Science is driven by nature itself, and nature gives us no choice. It is what it is.”
But extremist green groups believe us humans are somehow anti nature, a disease on the face of the planet and that we must be culled. They think at some stage in the past there was an eden like state on the planet, when humans were “one” with nature.
When was that? asked the late Michael Crichton, “Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago. When plagues swept across the planet, killing millions in a stroke. Was it when millions starved to death? Is that when it was Eden?
Todays doomsayers, the AGW alarmists, are no different to their predecessors. Predictions of doom one after the other, time after time. “We are running out of oil. We are running out of all natural resources. Paul Ehrlich: 60 million Americans will die of starvation in the 1980s. Forty thousand species become extinct every year. Half of all species on the planet will be extinct by 2000”. And on and on and on.
They’ve been wrong every single time thus far, so why the hell should I believe them now? What’s so different now? Oh! now we got computer models, if we feed it some doom scenarious, hey presto we’re doomed, look, the super dooper multi talented number cruncher says so, so it must be true.
Give me a break.
10
baa humbug, every major scientific breakthrough and achievement has undergone peer review. it is an integral part of the scientific method. thats the filtering process needed to distinguish fact from nonsense. sometimes it is wrong but most times it is right .im glad you admit to being a denier as opposed to a skeptic . the reason i know deniers do no research or at least research that is valid, is because non of it gets published in legit science journals. and because most of what they say has already been shot down by scientific consensus. even a non scientist can pull plimers work apart. the scientist have not lost ”all’ energy but part of the energy in relation to surface temp. surface temp is but one small aspect of the total global warming anyway. total global heat can be measured and is the empirical evidence deniers always ask for.in regards to the trenbirth email i first pointed out the misinterpretation of the email due to only part of it being quoted. having read the complete email i i then put it in the correct context and meaning. i see no contradiction in this . i am not sure about monckton and his oil connections. he is however friends with singer and carter who definitely are. novas book ;the skeptics handbook ‘ is published by the the heartland institute. they are funded by exxon.i can tell your sources by what you say . you parrot the usual people plimer, monckton singer carter. all rogues or non scientists .
10
past doomsdayers did not have science on their side. there was certainly no scientific consensus on all of the scenarios you mention. climate change is the exact opposite. it has science and the scientific consensus to back iti in relation to picking holes in moncktons.argument ? firstly, monckton stated that there was an explosion of land plants during the cambrian period. there were no land plants during the cambrian period. thats the first hole, he makes no distinction between natural c02 and man made c02 which accumulates in the atmosphere. thats hole number two . he claims that the globe is cooling when nasa and the world met have just released data proving that it is warming. hole number three.. how many more holes would you like? according to you there is no such thing as a degree in climate. there are at least fifteen different scientific disciplines studying climate. if you are studying climate that means you are a climate scientist.you need to read at least one page of their findings. you will find it interesting im sure ?regardless of what deniers say, the models are quite accurate . not perfect because you are predicting the future.. so far predictions made by scientists a hundred years ago in relation to climate change are spot on. id start worrying if i were you. if not for yourself at least for future generations. i know considering others is against your ideology but please try.i think you need another break… a long one
10
anne i think my arguments are most convincing. the ethics of corporations is common knowledge. capitalism is only interested in short term profit and nothing else . their track record speaks for itself.
10
sam g, capitalism is the problem. it relies on never ending growth, never ending populations to feed it, never ending use of resources which means never ending resource wars. as for communism killing millions?? capitalism was involved in the slave trade, child labour and resource wars. throw in major world wars and i think they do quite well at mass murder as well.
10
Hey, just wanted to check SI’s claim that the publisher of the Skeptics handbook is ‘heartland foundation’ which is in turn funded by Exxon.
SI where did you get that info?
10
baa humbug. the planet does not give a shit about your denialism either. it will continue to warm. your mis understanding of how delicate the eco system really is, undermines your complete argument. it takes only a small effect to dominoe and become a catastrophe. take one species out of the food chain as they did in china in the 50s when they wiped out all the sparrows. and you end with a famine that killed 50 million. you may be willing to risk the consequences of climate change but anyone with any sense would not.
10
An issue with Monckton is that he enchants the audience with empirical examples. These are good presenter skills, but they are shallow scientifically. This makes his message enjoyable but weak.
For example, was Greenland really green during the medieval warming period?
Apparently, Eric the Red was sent to exile from Norway, and he had to set a colony at Greenland. He needed people to follow him, so he called the place Greenland and presented it as a green place.
At that time there were forests at the south shores of Greenland. The Vikings started overusing those resources instead of adapting to the environment like the Inuit did. After a few decades of unsustainable living, the Vikings exhausted the resources of Greenland and had to flee. A similar situation with the Easter island in the Pacific ocean.
Another example with Britain and wine making. Did Britain produce wine during the medieval warming period? Yes they did, they had some grapevines at the south of England. Well, nowdays there are over 800 grapevines in England. The empirical information about grapevines in old times is not strong evidence. Instead it makes our message much weaker.
10
baa humbug, so monckton has been around since ”the beginning”? the beginning of what ? i use no weasel words unless im talking about weasils and then it is imperative.by the way any high school student could not debunk climate change. you are an adult, and you are making no inroads whatsoever. and sam g why would i make a fool out myself when you are available?
10
getting warmer,
I was just waiting for that answer. Yup, a ton of peer reviewed papers are out there and they’re all in the same leaking boat. All they have to offer is their author’s opinion that CO2 is warming our world and we’ll all soon be suffering if we don’t do as they say. This stuff is a logical fallacy — appeal to authority or more accurately, proof by authority.
The big problem is that someone’s opinion proves nothing. A claim — in this case that CO2 is causing warming of the planet — stands or falls on the evidence supporting it. Where is that evidence? Do you have it? If so, out with it! If not then don’t accuse the rest of us of ignoring the science because as I said, there isn’t any to ignore.
And before you and “sucked in” sound off, you should do a little research yourselves. If you do you’d find that you aren’t the first to make fools of yourselves in front of people who actually do know what the “science” is all about.
10
My concern with Monckton is that he is not well regarded in Britain.
He is what we call a colourful person.
In addition, the BBC is doing a documentary of this tour and most probably it will not come out well.
If Australia comes out as the laughing stock in this tour, then it is going to be a huge hit on our efforts.
I cannot take it if we make our bet on Monckton and he fails us miserably.
10
People who don’t follow the religious dogma are called heretics. So I’m a heretic, not a denier.
Peer review is integral ha? Tell that to the Wright bros who were knocked back and mocked by all the usual “peer” journals. They resorted to publishing their manifesto in BEE KEEPERS MONTHLY. So cry about your vaunted peer review to Jones Mann Briffa et al.
“because most of what they say has already been shot down by scientific consensus”. Yeah? So tell me about the ones NOT shot down if only most were shot down. Specifics, not weasel words.
Still no mention of any uni offering degrees. More weasel words. Hey, how about if you study shit, does that mean you are a shit scientist? remember what Confucious said, “Mnn who paints toilets not necessarily shithouse painter”.
Wow look at all those posts, one after another after another. You were easy to get going, need a cup of tea and a lie down?
Id say SUCKED IN REALLY GOOD. Thanks Weasel Words aka sucked in.
Take a spoonful of sugar with your tea, it helps the medicine go down
10
well said bill. at last someone with a bit of reason. the medieval warm period was only regional ,apparently, restricted to parts of the northern hemisphere. and caused by the north atlantic oscillation as you said greenland was hardly a lush paradise claimed by deniers. the vikings had quite a hard life there and eventually left. monckton claims the polar ice cap almost disappeared during this period. more of his lordly bullshit.
10
Dear All
We are in the process of completing a double DVD set of the Friday 29th January 2010 Lord Monckton seminar and debate held in Brisbane. On this double DVD set you will have the full debate held at the Hilton in which Lord Monckton and Prof. Plimer debate against Prof. Brook and Graham Readfearn. Also the full Irish Club seminar hosted by Prof. Carter and speeches by Lord Monckton and Prof Plimer. Also (and we are very excited about this!) We have almost two full hours of one on one interviews with Lord Monckton, Prof. Carter and Prof. Plimer.
Just to give you a little background we decided to make this DVD basically because we were involved in helping to setup Lord Monckton’s Brisbane visits (as volunteers) and could see that a lot of people would miss out on the event due to location or inability to pay the $130 for the Institute debate. We were also very aware of the media blackout on this hot topic, and wanted to work out a way to get the word out. So we got together with some film maker friends to do something about it!
Our aim is to produce these DVD’s for as little as we can but also ensure a percentage goes back to the financial backers Case Smit and John Smeed who as you will probably know are retired Australians who funded the $100,000 it took to host the tour, for flights, accommodation etc. for all cities and international fares.
We are very excited about our individual interviews (over 2 hours) we conducted with Lord Monckton, Professor Ian Plimer and Professor Carter, the hardest part now will be editing it down to a double DVD set! I can tell you these gentlemen can TALK!! We got some very interesting footage, which I am sure our viewers will very much enjoy as it is very informative.
As we have not completed the editing as it was only filmed on Friday 29th of January 2010 we are expecting to have the DVDs available for sale in the next week, or so. We appreciate people are keen to watch it, so we will be working as hard as we can to achieve this. We all hold “day jobs” too (I know… hard to believe we can’t exist on those “big oil” cheques!) so the juggling continues! On Sunday we were thrilled to be approached by BBC for some of our footage for a documentary being made by them!
We are currently estimating that the double DVD set will cost around $35 which will cover all production, editing, packaging and postage and also allowing us to donate a portion to Case and John, for whom we are so grateful for their genuine concern for all Australians thus taking the great leap of faith they have.
At present if you are interested please email on TheGreatClimateScam@gmail.com expressing your interest to purchase and as soon as we have the finished product we will email you with details. We envisage payment through Paypal methods or cheque payment, this can be arranged at a later date.
Jo if you need to verify anything please feel free to speak directly with Case or John.
Kind Regard to all,
Leah
10
‘sucked in and getting warmer’, hmmm… makes an apt sentence to describe you pair of halfwits. As bedwetters you are doing a great job of convincing yourself, but a terrible job of convincing anyone else of your alarmist ravings. Al Gore is now labelled a carnival huckster, are you sure you want to join his troupe?
10
Leah, the BBC is doing a documentary on the Monckton tour and it is possible that it will come out soon.
If it does, we lost our thunder (with unedited footage rather than the edited BBC documentary).
What we need is to digitise the footage and make it available through the Internet using those so-call Bittorrent distribution method. Since you own the footage there is no problem to distribute it. Ask if you want to do this.
10
This has been going through my mind the last few weeks. I consider myself a skeptic.
However, does that make me an atheist?
A skeptic is a person that questions the dogmas, one of which is religion.
10
More nonsense. Almost every major conflict has been directly linked with the cold war or anti-Americanism. Where do you get your facts from, Michael Moore?
This statement encapsulates your disdain for humankind:
In other words, your solution is:
population control
redistribution of wealth
The decommissioning of fossil fuels
The cessation of most human activity
Poverty for the masses
=communism
But let’s see. The left are against nuclear power, GM food, the dissemination of exotic plants (i.e. nativism- because it precludes human activity), disease control, heck, they’re against most things which enable humans to prosper….things which allow humans to use less resources. (errrr…no; solar/wind doesn’t count)
Ultimately, Karl Marx is your answer. The quintessential sadist.
Why? Because humans require infinite resources and no other organism/system does- right?
Because human beings are distinct form the planet and all other organisms -right?
Human beings ought to be forced to adhere to an insipid, self deprecating ideology because you said so?
Because you know what’s good for people– right?
You have your head so far up your own arse that you can’t even acknowledge your need to punish the human race.
enter global warming.-how convenient.
And please do not discuss slavery with me after reading what you advocate for the entire globe.
Incidentally, it was Abraham Lincoln, the first republican president, who helped abolish slavery in the U.S.
10
Thanks for the offer Bill we are intending to put some of the footage on YouTube also, but this will be after we complete the long laborious task of editing as we have orders lined up for the DVD already!!
The BBC documentary by Rupert Murray will be a totally different approach to what we have produced as I spoke with Rupert about this on Friday myself, he has in fact ask for a copy of some of our sound bites!
Our DVD is fully edited, other than the debate in which we want to keep in tact for obvious reasons.
10
roy, the properties of c02 are well known. it traps radiation of a certain wave length. more of it means more warming. i suggest you read a basic science book on the subject. also you think by numbers, using the the 43 steps of the niskor project . eg ad hominen attacks mean your opponent is wrong, straw man arguments and the old favourite ”proof by authority ” meaning that any idea that comes from authority is obviously incorrect? you are at odds with the entire scientific community roy. . you play semantics not science. the evidence for c02 warming the planet is circumstantial. just as the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer is, or dna analysis in regard to a crime scene,is , seeing that the police were not at the crime scene when the crime was committed. circumstantial does not mean ‘wrong ‘ especially when it is strong enough? you may know the science of climate change but your conservative ideology prevents you from accepting it. i am afraid that is ‘your’ problem not the problem of science. you can go on believing that volcanos emit more c02 than man, that the sun is responsible for present warming , even though the cooling of the stratosphere indicates otherwise. you may even like to think the globe is cooling, regardless of what nasa says or that c02 has no impact on climate . but as i said the problem is yours and makes you look like ronald macdonald on the issue
10
Bill
An atheist believes god does not exist.
An agnostic hasn’t made a decision.
I wouldn’t use skepticism as a general term in the AGW debate. I think it’s more important to be specific about your case.
10
sam g, so all wars stem from anti americanism. does that include the two world wars? the entire american economy was built on the back of its slaves slavery was abolished because it was a far better idea to put them to work in factories. it does not take away the fact that the capitalists murdered and enslaved million for profit. i have a healthy disdain for people like you not for society in general. i am for population control, better use of resources, which would mean getting rid of the profit motive that fuels our present way of life, which is not sustainable. i also believe in democracy as did marx. a well run democratic socialist society would benefit the masses. the present global system is leading to poverty on a massive global scale. not to mention all the things that come with poverty ,war, terrorism and crime. i am not against nuclear energy . exotic plants are not a serious issue to me . and karl marx formulated communisn because of the sadism he saw in the capitalist run factories in the north of england. his aims were altruistic and compassionate . he was a great man regardless of how others perverted his ideas [ stalin ]im not for the cessation of human activity. i would society function ? i also said nothing about punishing the human race? im not even in favour of a carbon tax, feeling the money we waste could be redirected . finally ,if i did have my head up my arse, it would smell better than your opinions . you need another lay down
10
bill. skepticism is healthy. most in this forum are not skeptics. a skeptic will change their opinion if confronted with a sound logical argument based on evidence be it empirical or strongly circumstantial. the people here are ;deniers ; which is a form of mental illness
10
john , you are resorting to adhominen attacks. according to niskors 43 steps you have just derailed your argument. and i would never try and convince you of anything . you are too far gone. i only try and resuscitate the intelligence of those who are worthy. al gore says hello
10
Leah:
February 1st, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Hi Leah.
I own a video shop. If you have no objections, I’ll purchase a couple and rent them out free.
10
muckypup, its not that hard to find things out. the heartland foundation is a major denier concern . they come out with all kinds of misinformation. they sometimes are forced to retract articles after being found out. joe novas ‘donor’ she keeps secret. and for good reason it is exxon. most of the rogue scientists , lindzen, carter , singer are ”consultants ‘ for exxon. they were once reputable scientists but are now selling their wares to the highest bidder. singer was also a ‘consultant ‘ for the tobacco industry when they claimed ‘nicotine was not addictive ‘? anyone connected to the energy industry must not be trusted. they have a vested interest in spreading misinformation conspiracy theories and the like. they attract audiences because people find it easier to accept nonsense than change their way of life
10
sorry muckypup its the heartland institute not foundation. debating numbskulls is giving me brain fag
10
Ahem!!! Anybody for population control should visit this site first.
10
sucked in,
The properties of CO2 are indeed very well known and the gas at its present concentration in the atmosphere is well beyond the point at which it can do any significant additional warming. You need to study up on your physics. But by the general tenor of what you post I wonder if you understand physics or are just parroting what you’ve been told.
And FYI, the link between smoking and lung cancer is not circumstantial. There is an exceptionally strong correlation between the two. The correlation holds up even if you demand a confidence interval far greater than the usual 95% minimum acceptable to statistical math. There is no such correlation for CO2, not even if you bastardize the math and accept a lower than 95% confidence interval. It doesn’t work.
Also FYI, Marx did not formulate communism. He had nothing to do with it. He lived during the years 1818-1883 and was long dead before communism came along.
You are simply not believable. You should do your homework more carefully.
Now there’s one more thing — if you had the nerve to use your real name as I do, I would do the basic courtesy of capitalizing the first letter. I would appreciate the same courtesy from you. A difference of opinion is not the same thing as disrespect for the individual. joannenova is a site for adults. Just a word to the wise. So take it for what it’s worth.
10
Dear Baa humbug
Sounds great! if you can email me as per above that would be good.
10
No, most major conflicts involving capitalism were the cold war (including Vietnam) and Terrorism in the middle east etc.
The world wars, like the names suggest, involved several countries and are not relevant to the argument.
Nevertheless, most leftists sympathize with terrorists, naturally through mutual feelings of anti-Americanism.
Your entire argument is flawed. Most civilizations are built from a cornerstone of barbarism, why do you feel the need to single out America or strictly capitalism? Can you name a socialist regime that is impervious to human frailty? I’m sure you will try.
It always astounds me that such deeply flawed individuals espouse such great things.
Because you lie about capitalism being the scourge of civilization, your ideas for a better society would no doubt produce the same human derived inequities which you state drive capitalism.
I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Many have tried and failed and most have proven to be nothing more than totalitarian murderers.
Capitalism works because it enables people to accumulate wealth and wealth is what the people want. This is where you fail to understand intrinsic human nature and this is where your theory is jut a fantasy.
Capitalism at its far extreme is what’s unsustainable, not capitalism per se. Furthermore, altering human perception is a mammoth task and is beyond the realms of implementing a new political/social structure.
In short, people are not perfect therefore no system ever will be.
So in conclusion, I’m going to stick by the idea that the human race is flawed and each day we teach our children to be basket cases. Some of these basket cases learn to suck it up and deal with their problems and others pretend they have attained cultural enlightenment by adopting the principles of leftism, ride bikes around Northcote in Op-shop clothes, listen to Tony Bigs and flatter themselves by thinking they are above people more successful than themselves.
The most completely delusional part os that they truly believe that they can create a new system without having changed themselves.
10
sucked in,
Now do you really want me to go on and address all the other things you’ve said? I’ll be happy to do it, just keep on as you’re going. Or you can step back, take a good look with an open mind and see for yourself why we don’t believe you on global warming. Alternatively, show us some empirical evidence that links CO2 with any phenomenon observed by any of those scientists you accept as authorities without proof.
10
Leah:
February 1st, 2010 at 10:50 pm
Sent you an email with my details
cheers
10
plenty of posts about “PEER REVIEW”.
I happen to be a fan of the late great John L Daly. Following is a very prescient article by John way back in 2004, long before climategate emails.
The Greenhouse Industry
On this website, frequent reference has been made to the so-called `Greenhouse Industry’. The term itself implies that scientists and policy-makers involved in climate change gain an economic benefit from over-emphasising the theorised effects of man-made `global warming’. That such a benefit exists is undeniable – consider the explosive growth of climate-related research institutions and academics in the last 25 years, with all the opportunities for travel to exotic locations for conferences and the improved prospects for promotion which exists. This is one of the few sciences where a kind of Hollywood `star’ system applies, where fame and applause greets those scientists who tell the industry exactly what it wants to hear. This star system is the very antithesis of science, yet is encouraged quite blatantly by the industry and its leading body – the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN-IPCC).
Stephen Schneider, Ann Henderson-Sellers, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, and most recently Michael Mann, are the most notable examples of this star celebrity system operating in climate science.
The New Censorship
But what makes this distortion of science possible in the climate sciences? The key reason appears to be the censorship of ideas which has taken place via the traditional scientific `peer review’ system. The system of `peer review’ was established during the nineteenth century as a means to uphold quality control in science and to exclude patently flawed science from the publications of the scientific community, known as `journals’. This of course involves something of a trade-off between the wider social values of free speech and the narrower values of preserving the integrity of science itself.
The ideas and papers excluded from the journals in this way could always be published in non-scientific publications so that the censorship only really applies within the journal community. Since the emergence of the internet, it is now possible for anyone to publish material without editorial interference – something seen as a dangerous curse by some, and an opportunity for genuine free flow of ideas by others. In this new environment, science has taken a backward step in defence of its privileges vis-a-vis publication of papers and ideas. Scientists are increasingly refusing point blank to entertain any new knowledge or ideas as being in any way valid *unless* they are published in one of their own journals. Since scientists and their institutions have privileged access to policy makers in government and industry, it amounts to an arrogant assertion of a monopoly over knowledge itself.
Once any monopoly is established, abuse and corruption soon follows, and it is the climate sciences which have led the way down that dangerous path.
The climate sciences are the most politicised of all the sciences, with intense public debates raging about both the existence of, and extent of, `global warming’, with over $4 billion spent in the US annually on research into this real or imagined phenomenon. It is in this politically charged atmosphere that `peer review’ has exposed its dark ugly side, the use of a system of quality control which works passably in other sciences, but which has become in the climate sciences a ruthless instrument of censorship by one partisan school of ideas against any dissent to its supremacy.
If the above interests you, read the rest here
10
Certainly not surprising that Christopher Monckton’s lecture tour has aroused all the committed warmaholics or carbonistas. His talks have been hugely successful with capacity audiences,and over 300 turned away in Noosa and Sydney and standing room only in Brisbane. At long last with all the fault lines appearing in the so called peer reviewed IPCC reports,there is a groundswell of interest in learning the real scientific facts obscured in the alarmist AGW mantra.The medieval warm period and the equally sharp warming 1910 till 1940 mirror the warming 1970 till 2000. Since 2000 CO2 has risen 5% but temperatures have declined. Climate change is real but despite billions of dollars being spent in the last 20 years, no one has been able to identify the global anthropogenic contribution to the gentle warming since our little ice age when The Thames in London regularly froze over. An ETS or the so called carbon (sic read CO2) pollution reduction scheme will do nothing to reduce this hypothesised global warming. Thank goodness that Monckton is managing to get some sanity into this crazy scare
10
roy empirical measurements show that a certain type of radiation enters the atmosphere on a wave length suitable for c02 absorbtion. empirical measurement show how much of that radiation has eccaped the atmosphere. thus it can be deduced how much radiation remains or is trapped. if co2 is not doing anything what is ?. we are going through a solar minimum, [ empirical ] whlie temp increases. please explain ? you also dismiss circumstantial evidence which is very valid in this case .. the alternative explanation for warming [ empirically proven ] by measurements is far less feasible. do you consider monckton an authority or perhaps plimer?.the scientific consensus along with ‘some’ empirical evidence and a mountain of strong circumstantial evidence convinces me of climate change.in the same way that i am convinced that smoking causes lung cancer or that the hiv virus causes aids. you may be right about climate change but you provide no empirical evidence , no circumstantial evidence, no scientific consensus . many of your ‘authorities have ties to the energy industry .. your argument is very very shakey you are not interested in learning a thing. your mind is made up and you play semantics. please try and convince me with a ratuional counter argument and i will listen.cant see it happening
10
cathy, the medieival warming period was local not global. all previous warming can be explained by natural means eg increased solar activity etc . present warming cannot as we are going through a solar minimum.man made c02 has been accumulating for 250 years manmade . global warming is not just happening now. natural variables eg el nino, lanina. also effect the climate short term. the thames freezing over was weather not climate.
10
SI, don’t waste your energy, seriously.
RE: EXXON HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT DONOR TO HEARTLAND
I looked up about the Heartland people. It seems that Exxon were making quite significant donations on a yearly basis up until 2006 (around 120k) after which time the foundation stopped making the individual donors public.
I raise it is because there seems to be a general view amongst the diehards on this site that alarmist claims of oil company involvement in “skeptic” (I use the word loosely) causes is fallacious.
00
Roy, sorry, you seem like a smart guy but it’s a little stupid to put your real name up on a discussion board and then tell people its your real name. Internet 101.
00
so c02 is a spent force as far as warming goes roy? where is your empirical evidence for that ? the atmosphere is ‘full up ” is it. ?the atmosphere has heaps more room for c02 seeing that it is multilayered not just’one’ as you are indicating by your nonsensical claim that c02 has done as much as its going to ? the temp on venus is 765 degrees, fuelled by the c02 saturated atmosphere.how come if co2 has a limited effect ? you have no understanding of c02 whatsoever.the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer is purely circumstantial. thats why the tobacco industry put up such a fight ini the courts . if it was a ‘fact ; that smoking causes lung cancer every smoker would get it ? even if a smoker gets lung cancer it could be caused by other factors eg . other pollutants, genetics , stress or unknown factors. where is your empirical evidence that smoking causes lung cancer ? there is a 95% correlation?? empirical is 100% roy . sorry it is you who needs to do homework. are we 95% sure that the sun exists ? co2 traps heat, more c02 means more heat. that is absolutely logical. . you need to learm something about reason not everything has to be based on empirical evidence . many things are not. that doesnt mean they are invalid or do not exist . reason is the defining judge and you have non
00
cathy, temperature has not declined. according to nasa and the world met this is the hottest decade in recorded history. the complete heat of the planet is what global warming is not just surface sea or atmospheric heat. and that shows warming. monckton may be popular with with the misinformed. he is not a scientist
00
I have read recently a book about the science of the health effects of tobacco.
A big part of the book was the case in the US where the tobacco industry managed to influence for several decades the public opinion that smoking is safe and no action should be taken.
The tobacco industry used a public relations company called Hill & Knowlton.
Now I see that the Heartland Institute has been doing tobacco advocacy work for the tobacco industry. The Heartland Institute says they cut through the propaganda and exaggeration of anti-smoking groups.
http://www.heartland.org/suites/tobacco/
Putting the science aside for a minute, I would NOT follow advice from Heartland Institute who are paid-for promoters. If the Heartland Institute gets money from the tobacco industry just to say what the tobacco industry wants, I am not part in anything they say.
And this Heartland: Climate Handbook is a publication that appears on their website.
http://www.heartland.org/books/SkepticsHandbook.html
If we have any association with the Heartland Institute then our work on climate is severely undermined.
I do not know about you, but I am not a person to be taken for a ride.
What are your thoughts on this?
00
baa humbug . more conspiracy bs. the oil industry has huge power and influence particularly in america. bush and co went out of their way to suppress climate science findings for their mates in the oil industry. it is the oil companies who get to make trillions if we do nothing about climate change. scientists are on a wage, they gain nothing personally from increased funding . more conspiracy junk. you do not need to suppress poor science. and that is what the deniers use . the peer review system is still the only half decent way of finding truth. you try and undermine it because the science you advocate does not stand up to scrutiny.
00
any connection to the heartland institute undermines all denier claims . and the main reason for that is the heartland connection to exxon. it is therefore logical to conclude that any scientist connected to exxon is also compromised? there goes carter, singer, lindzen, three of the big guns. who is left . ” plimer” who is connected to the mining industry.?
00
sam g . how old do you think the concept of capitalism is? the british empire was a capitalist venture. people are ant iamerican because their policies create misery for people they exploit. the corporate power props up corrupt dictators and regimes. the capitalist banking system creates poverty and misery to further the ambition and greed of a few. any system that represents the small minority is a poor one. the americans have backed terrorism when it suits their needs . anyone who fights back is labelled a terrorist. the germans considered the french underground terrorists. captialism is a failure. proper socialism has never been tried. so you cannot criticise its track record . it does not have one . true socialism is democratic. its in its infancy in some countries in latin america and is proving far superior to past capitalist governments.you generalise about socialism. haiti is a capitalist country cuba a socialist one. i know where id rather be living.
00
sucked in,
Your mistake is to believe that we skeptics need to prove something. We do not! We make no claim of any sort; much less do we demand that the human race make such drastic changes in lifestyle as to be certain to kill off a large part of the human population. It’s your side that claims CO2 is warming the planet. It’s your side that demands the sacrifices. So we have every right to ask, where is the evidence? And you can’t show it to us. If we argue against you it is precisely for that reason and that reason alone.
First, since you claim the Earth is still warming, what is your evidence for that? Satellite temperature measurements show a quite different picture.
Next, circumstantial evidence in science is only good for one thing. It can show you where additional investigation needs to be done. It is not acceptable as a proof of anything. In a courtroom, an all circumstantial case can only convict if: a) The evidence clearly shows that the defendant could have done the crime; b) The evidence must not have any reasonable way to show that someone else did the crime. The circumstantial evidence theory you rely on has the flaw that there is another quite reasonable culprit, the sun. Sunspot activity has gone to zero and it’s quite well known that old sol’s output is reduced under such conditions and therefore we are now experiencing cooling (verifiable by satellite measurements by the way). How will you explain away the evidence that cooling is also happening on Mars and other planets in the solar system? We warm and cool according to our only source of heat, the sun.
As for my knowledge of CO2 — do you understand what logarithmic means? The physics of CO2 are so well known that I’ll not even argue it any farther than this. You can find all those details for yourself if you’re honestly interested.
You lose on all counts. Your case is made even worse by quoting NASA as an authority since hanky-panky at NASA has now been well documented. They are as dishonest as the IPCC.
Please, your emperor has no cloths on.
00
roy a little empirical evidence for you in regard to c02 ‘ saturation ‘ [ from nasa \”’ satelite and surface temperature measurements observe enchanced greenhouse effect at the wave length that c02 absorbs energy . this is empirical evidence that c02 effect is not saturated”’ i know you will reject this because you are not a skeptic but a denier . you will play semantiics or bring in some nonsense of proof by authority etc. but any third party looking at the argument would think you really are ronald macdonald .
00
sucked in,
Give me a reference that I can look at for myself.
00
Weasel aka sucked in
I thought I had enough entertainment for one day, but I’ve had a couple of drinks and I think I’ll use you for some more entertainment.
But first….
I don’t give a chit if big oil spends it’s money on whatever they wish to spend it on. It’s THEIR money. Your grant swallowing (since 1988) scientists (all legit as opposed to big oil money according to you) receive money from TAXPAYERS, that’s you and me, well me at least. So the grant sink has a much much higher responsibility to be accountable, they’re using OTHER FRIGGING PEOPLES MONEY. Do you get that? No one is forced to spend their money with big oil (I bet you do voluntarily) but try NOT PAYING YOUR TAXES. It’s ripped out of your pay before you even get it in your hands. Does that make sense to you you troll.
You cited Venus. In poker parlance, I see your Venus and raise you a MARS. Mars has 5% of earths volume of atmosphere but consists of 95% CO2. Any runaway greenhouse on Mars?
By the way, CO2 DOES NOT TRAP heat. You are just parroting something you read. But if you do really have a good understanding of the radiation effects of CO2 you should be able to explain how this effect applies to the earth system…..go ahead I’m waiting.
Now wheres that bundy and coke of mine.
00
roy i think you must have your own satelite because nasa satelites say its warming. and ill take their word over yours if thats ok ?. you start your response with a porky. . roy versuses nasa ? somehow i dont think nasa is too worried . circumstantial evidence is good enough if its reinforced by other sources and if there is no other rational explanation and you do not have one? there is no evidence of climate change on other planets . you deny climate change on earth and then insist it is happening on planets millions of miles away. where is your empirical evidence climate change is happening on mars ? lol more conspiracy theory knocking nasa now?.they put a man n the moon but they cannot be trusted to take satelite measurements ? where is your data coming from? the sun is going through a solar minimum it does not explain present warming. if it was not for greenhouse gases capturing heat we would freeze. i am sure people far more qualified than you understand logarithmic and c02 and have taken the sun into account and numerous other things etc etc before making their findings. again i am waiting for your empirical evidence that smoking causes cancer, also can you explain venus ? when is your next trip to mars to gather empirical evidence there ?you argument is based on silly claims of a nasa conspiracy and limited knowledge of things you do not understand. have a nice trip to mars
00
baa humbug . you have had a few drinks? you need a few more . ”trap’ absorbs . call it whatever you like the fact is co2 makes things warmer? from my limited knowledge[ but not as limited as yours ] radiation at a wave length that co2 absorbs[ traps] enters the atmosphere. hits the earth and then escapes [ does a runner ] and the c02 absorbs what does not escape. this accumulates [ man made variety ] and things warm. i will check your figures on mars cos i think you are wrong. obviously the position of the planets to the sun is a factor. i think the worlds top scientists understand c02 a little better than you baa or even me for that matter. there is runaway warming on venus which id 97% co2 . is there a connection ? of course. now baa go and drink yourself into a stupor and hope that it activates your brain in some way
00
baa you were right about c02 on mars but your view is only partial. dust and ;albido ‘ drive martian climate not c02. the fact that mars has a weaker atmosphere than earth also effects temperature as heat escapes. now back o venus ?
00
baa , seeing that the sun is solar minimum at present and seeing that the earths tilt and orbit are stable . i was wondering whether you can explain present warming ? i am waiting ? now where is that bed ? ill give you 8 hours tot think about it
00
sucked in,
You say this and you say that. NASA says this and NASA says that. But you can’t give me a reference to anything supporting you.
Just explore this very site and you will find all the things I mentioned along with links to their sources. You apparently cannot support yourself with any link to any authority on the subject.
There’s a word for such as you but I’ll not say it here in polite company.
Have a nice day!
00
sucked in,
You have posted on this thread 34 times as of post #261.
Not once have you sourced any of your assertions to a peer reviewed document. Much less one that can be independently verified to be consistent with reality. You have simply asserted.
You have repeatedly asserted partial truths out of context and pretended such was a devastating blow to our contention. That being man’s emission of CO2 will cause a catastrophic runaway green house effect is false to facts of history, false to physics, and, in particular, false to the three laws of thermodynamics.
As Rob says, we do not have to provide and prove an alternate theory. All we have to do is find ONE and only ONE fatal flaw in the central theorem of AGW (aka man caused global climate change). This blog, among other things, presents a massively multiple refutation of said central theorem in as full a context as is humanly possible. Scientifically, the theorem cannot stand.
That being the case, what is your point?
00
sucked in,
One more thing — learn to actually read what someone else says before you go off on some tangent.
00
Good try weasel but you don’t get off so lightly.
Answer this. What is the wave length(s) that CO2 absorbs (traps) radiation and what is the wave length that water vapour (H2O) absorbs (traps) radiation?
00
Hey Roy, I understand exactly what you’re trying to explain to weasel but it’s difficult on a blog typing away. If he answers me properly I’ll explain it to him nice and simply.
00
Hey Lionel welcome, long time no “see’
00
sucked in,
You have made four more posts since my previous comment. My analysis still applies.
Again, what is your point?
Are you a modern day Black Knight?
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw
00
Baa Humbug,
Good luck!
00
You gutless wonder weasel, running off to bed.
Regards the Sun. Why don’t you ask your fellow alarmists at the IPCC. According to their document (AR4) WG1 fig. SPM2 their Level Of Scientific Understanding of the suns influence is LOW, that’s L.O.W. And you’re asking me? But I’ll answer you anyway.
The sun was highly active throughout most of the 20th century, hence your warming. For the last cycle and this new one just underway, sun is less active (hence no more warming) Remember Kevin Trenberth? Where is the warming? It’s a travesty. Warming where are you? Are you hiding in the oceans? No. Are you hiding in the poles? NO Are you hiding in the forests? No Where I youuu? Dang it’s a travesty we don’t know where the warming is.
00
You are right Roy. the greenhouse IS saturated. What trolls like weasel will never understand is that water vapour absorbs radiation at much wider frequencies than CO2 i.e. whatever CO2 can do, WV can do better. Hence, if the globe was going to warm in a runaway effect, it would have done so long ago due to the limitless amounts of WV available by way of the oceans. It needn’t have waited all these centuries for man to inject a bit of CO2 into the atmosphere.
00
Bah Humbug,
Thanks.
By way of explanation for my absence. I have had surgery on my right shoulder and typing was literally a pain. Especially since I am a two handed touch typist and right handed besides. My left hand sucks at one finger typing.
However, I have been following everyone’s exploits and itching to comment. Fortunately, I now can without too much discomfort. The current troll appeared to be a good place to start. Its time to take out all of the remaining “Black Knights”.
00
Nah Lionel, it’s just a flesh wound
00
Welcome back and hope you get back to full fitness asap.
00
Baa Humbug,
And now with solar activity declining apparently there is much less water vapor up there. I forget the details, but if I find it again I’ll post it for you.
00
By the way Roy, (I reckon weasel is still reading) you are right about NASA GISS. the sattelite temps do not agree with surface temps. They did when sattelites were first launched, but there has been a DIVERGENCE of temps since. Something that J Hansen hasn’t been able to explain other than to say sattelites are not calibrated properly. I know weasel is reading, so weasel, just google “divergence of sattelite temperature” and you’ll get your answer.
00
You know Roy, I’ve been saying for a while, if the idiots had of studied the sun first, then the oceans, they would have had a good base to at least start to understand what makes our climate tick. But of course they’ve had an agenda all along, so they pinned it on CO2, not realising it would come crashing down around their ears as it is now.
00
At
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/monckton-plimer-tour-australia-dates-venues/comment-page-6/#comment-27800
I post the issue with the Heartland Institute, which does public relations job for the industry.
One of the jobs they are currently doing is advocating for the tobacco industry,
http://www.heartland.org/suites/tobacco/
Do you know about this? If we associate with the Heartland Institute, does that invalidate our efforts?
00
Bill Hayes, I would suggest you actually READ what the heartland institute has to say about smoking. Your comments about “public relations” and “advocating” bear absolutely no relationship to the organization, or what the link you supply says. They point out that, for example, that the claims of harm due to second hand smoke, are utter and complete rubbish, with NO basis in scientific information or analysis. And they suggest that smokers are actually people with rights. By the way, I loath smoking, would love to see tobacco cease to exist, and as a recent member of the asthmatic fraternity, don’t allow that swill in my home, car, etc. I have lost two very much loved sisters to cancer, one to lung cancer. I loath the product.
Your posts on this issue, and efforts to demonize the heartland institute have as much basis in reality, as sucked in’s pathetic posts due with the global warming scam.
00
OH, that should be ‘do with’, my finger fart.
00
Baa Humbug,
Right on all counts.
As to whether our “sucked in” friend will appear again or not we must wait and see.
I find them utterly predictable and frankly it’s a lot of fun tweaking them to see if they prove me correct. This one was by far the worst — shovel in hand, frantically digging himself ever deeper into a hole while his mouth runs off like a broken record, repeating the same few bars of the music over and over (figuratively speaking of course).
00
gentle_cynic,
I’m with you 100%. The EPA committed statistical and scientific misconduct when they asserted that second hand smoke was dangerous.
Since the beginning of statistical math the minimum confidence interval acceptable as showing even a weak cause and effect relationship has been 95%. The EPA’s data could not pass the 95% confidence interval test. So what did they do? They tried 90% and voila, there’s a correlation. Too bad this little charade smells like dead fish. And it was pointed out at the time by many good scientists and mathematicians.
We need not be afraid of any association with the Heartland Institute.
00
Oh, and Bill, you cannot be taken seriously, if you seriously offer wikipedia as a source for pretty much ANY subject…. It has become so tainted (polluted would be more accurate) that school districts are prohibiting/advising students not to bother with it, and refusing to accept papers using wiki as a source. Your summation of eric the red in post 221, implies you barely scanned the article, and did not actually see what was offered. The article does not match your post. And since as many as 5,000 articles dealing with the MWP have been deleted or falsified by one energetic AGW advocate, as well as the well known falsehoods about many (all?) skeptics from this source, why would you bother to even go to Wrekipedia in the first place??
And yes, the MWP was global, and warmer than our current climate state.
00
gentle_cynic:
This just cuts it for me. You claim there is no scientific basis or analysis of harm due to second-hand smoke. If you use Google Scholar and search for “second-hand smoking cancer”, you get thousands of results. The results show that even second-hand smoking can lead to cancer.
You mention that both your sisters died from cancer. I am sorry for your loss which must be twice as hard. However, I find it extremely difficult to believe that you hold such views on smoking. We are supposed to be skeptics, doing critical thinking. Even empirical observations show that cigarette smoke enters your body in second-hand smoking. Of course, scientific evidence, the deciding factor, show that smoke affects second-hand smokers and can cause cancer. Is there a conspiracy for second-hand smoking?
The purpose of the Heartland Institute is to continue the work of Hill & Knowlton and delay as much as feasible any regulation on smoking. The current stage in their efforts is to present second-hand smoking as harmless.
I cannot accept this. If you have such beliefs on smoking then I highly doubt your view on climate change is sound.
If I do not see positive comments on the health dangers of smoking from skeptics in this forum, I will have to reconsider my views on climate change and listen to the majority of the scientists.
00
Since you seem to not understand what science is, or even what a skeptic is, this will obviously be a waste of time.
**You mention that both your sisters died from cancer — However, I find it extremely difficult to believe that you hold such views on smoking. We are supposed to be skeptics, doing critical thinking***
My views on smoking etc are quite clear. What part of ‘I loath’ did you manage to not understand? Skeptical and critical thinking is exactly what I am, and what I am doing. Critical thinking and examining data and method proves second hand smoke to be an extremely weak threat. And screaming and ranting about it does nothing to change that. Again, if you actually had read the heartland page you linked to, you would not merely repeat the same worthless saws over again.
Your assertion about the heartland purpose is amusing. Besides not reading the links you post to ‘inform’ or ‘argue’ your point, you are now a mind reader, and know the deepest thoughts of the members of the heartland institute. Very impressive. NOT.
**I cannot accept this. If you have such beliefs on smoking then I highly doubt your view on climate change is sound.***
And is this an example of your ‘critical thinking’?? No, it is an example of NOT thinking, and a childish petulance. I use very strict standards in my assessments. You use none at all.
**If I do not see positive comments on the health dangers of smoking from skeptics in this forum, I will have to reconsider my views on climate change and listen to the majority of the scientists.**
If you have not already listened to the ‘majority’, which should be called the orthodox, then you cannot know anything or have valid opinions on the subject. Any more then the sadly rather well named ‘Gorons’ who have only received falsehoods, can be said to be informed or have valid opinions. If you wish to drum up support for anti-smoking, go for it. If you somehow manage to link the shabby science behind second hand smoke risk to the solid science against AGW, then again, you obviously have no understanding of what science, critical thinking, or skepticism are. Since your attitude (non-scientific) on smoking (and the MWP) are based on junk science, yes, it would make sense for you to base your attitude on AGW on junks science, as well. Rather sad.
00
gentle_cynic:
It’s amazing, you walk the line of the tobacco industry and the Heartland Institute on smoking.
The tobacco industry has been dragging their feet since the 50s, claiming that smoking does not cause health problems and disputing the scientific evidence.
This is documented in http://books.google.com/books?id=J0P3IdSYO_MC and other sources.
Now the tobacco industry claims that it is personal choice whether you smoke, and that second-hand smoking does not affect the health whatsoever.
If you attempted to search Google Scholar, you would find numerous articles on SHS (Second-Hand Smoking), such as
Second hand smoke stimulates tumor angiogenesis and growth
escholarship.org
http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/64b2w0k2
How many deaths are caused by second hand cigarette smoke?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1747612/
Source: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ped/content/ped_10_2x_secondhand_smoke-clean_indoor_air.asp
Is there a global anti-smoking conspiracy by medical scientists?
Viewpoints and beliefs don’t exist in a vacuum. If you have a distorted view on smoking, then your view on climate change might not be good enough.
It terrifies me if other people who question climate change have similar views on issues like smoking.
What’s your view on evolution? Is that a shocker as well?
00
Bill, get a grip.
If you cannot discuss climate change, and wish to rant and rave about junk science in support of a ban on smoking (a pastime and product that I have repeatedly stated ‘I loath’, but you are too dense or dishonest to acknowledge it), go for it. But on a board dealing with smoking. If I DON’T accept JUNK science on second hand smoke (the only kind I have been discussing), then my accepting SOLID science on AGW is suspect?? You are not a skeptic, you are merely a troll.
****It’s amazing, you walk the line of the tobacco industry and the Heartland Institute on smoking.***
Wrong, and you know it. You don’t even know what the heartland inst. says on the subject, and I do not ‘walk’ the tobacco industry line, so I would appreciate a little less (actually a lot less) deliberate dishonesty on your part.
***The tobacco industry has been dragging their feet since the 50s, claiming that smoking does not cause health problems and disputing the scientific evidence.***
Dishonest. Yes, the tobacco racket has played the ALGORE game, but the HI does not claim direct smoking is harmless. They just are honest and scientifically correct on second hand smoke. You are the one now disputing the scientific evidence.
And I am familiar with the junk science you offer up. And how worthless it is.
***(in the US)
* an estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in non-smokers who live with smokers *****
And example of a deliberate falsehood. And I still loath smoking.
**Viewpoints and beliefs don’t exist in a vacuum. If you have a distorted view on smoking, then your view on climate change might not be good enough.***
You are the one with the distorted viewpoint. 95% confidence level didn’t get the hoped for result?? Move the goal posts. 90% confidence level. SUCCESS!! No, fraud. If someone doesn’t agree with you on smoking, even though you are scientifically inept, then they are wrong about everything else. I do not march in lock step with, or allow ill-informed or dishonest people to do my thinking for me.
***t terrifies me if other people who question climate change have similar views on issues like smoking.*****
You are a troll, and a rather sad one.
**What’s your view on evolution? Is that a shocker as well?**
Whats your view on false memory syndrome?? STICK TO THE TOPIC. Climate change.
00
In case no one has recognized it, Bill is using a tactic common to the hard left, and other like minded and equally bankrupt groups (ie climate hoax movement). Don’t debate a single issue: muddy the waters with barely related or completely unrelated issues, to waste time and open the option for an army of straw men… Instead of confirming/disproving CO2’s role in climate change, start dragging in coral reefs, polar bears, sea level, and prove your moral and awareness superiority. NOT.
00
I would really prefer not to bother with Bill again. Any suggestions as to continuing?? (none expected).
No enlightenment, no new data, no fun.
00
Gentle cynic… suggestion “ignore!”
You’ve tried your best; put your energies into educating those who are prepared to listen and look at the real evidence which grows daily at alarmingly new rates. Sadly it’s one big expensive and possibly tragic hoax. Anyone who is hanging on to it being real at this stage is beyond help and will always refuse to believe.
00
Hot off the press FYI…just passing forward for those interested.
2 February 2010
For Immediate Release
“ETS supporters betray Australia.”
The Carbon Sense Coalition claimed today that those who vote for the Wong Ration-N-Tax Scheme are betraying every backbone industry in Australia, for no climate benefits whatsoever.
The Chairman of Carbon Sense, Mr Viv Forbes, said that there is no evidence that carbon dioxide drives temperature changes on earth.
He added:
“Even if the world did warm, there is no evidence that this would be harmful to life on earth. Ice ages cause mass extinctions; warm periods are always bountiful.
“Moreover, higher temperature must produce higher evaporation from the oceans and thus more rainfall. If this is combined with more abundant carbon dioxide, the aerial plant food, earth would have another green revolution.
“The war on carbon dioxide has been heavily promoted by European interests dependent on aging and costly nuclear power and unreliable Russian gas. Their goal is to hobble those competitors reliant on efficient and dependable coal power, chiefly the Anglo-American world and Australia’s major customers in China and India.
“Many foolish local politicians have thus become foreign agents.
“Any Ration-N-Tax Scheme will reduce Australian jobs in mining, farming, fishing, forestry, transport, travel, tourism and power generation, all of which are totally dependent on carbon fuels. It will benefit bankers, speculators, traders, lawyers, regulators and artificial industries dependent on subsidies.
“It will export jobs and assist all competitors who have no ETS shackles.
“The carbon killers in the Australian Parliament are thus assisting the world spread of nuclear power, encouraging the overuse of gas, promoting costly fantasies like wind power, assisting carbon speculators and destroying real Australian industry and jobs – all for no proven climate benefit whatsoever.”
Viv Forbes
00
Bill Hayes,
Like our late but not lamented friend sucked in, you are digging yourself into a hole. Either you didn’t read my post at 287, you don’t understand the statistical math involved or worse, you deliberately ignore it. I’m going to guess that it’s you who gave me a thumbs down. Too bad because the case for second hand smoke is exactly what we’ve all said it was, a bunch of crap.
Next time someone tells you they estimate some number of deaths from second hand smoke, ask them how they know what caused the death in the first place. You’ll find that they’re guessing. In fact, just because a heavy smoker dies of lung cancer or heart disease means nothing. It’s quite impossible to determine the cause of any individual case. Literally impossible!
Frankly I’m getting angry at the likes of you who, knowing nothing, pretend to know everything. The bottom line is that the EPA committed scientific fraud with its finding that second hand smoke was as dangerous as active smoking. Everything after that has been just so much BS.
So if you cannot learn anything from those who know something about the subject at least quit making a fool of yourself and go quietly away.
00
it was interesting that you mention the dangers of second hand smoke because it was climate denier fred singer who stated that second hand smoke was harmless . the number of people who have won cases in relation to second hand smoke [ entertainer roy castle for one ] is numerous. why is their a smoking ban in clubs now? a fear of being sued by employees. i personally accept that smoking causes cancer even though it cannot be empirically proven. as i said all along strong circumstantial evidence is enough to win the argument. the case for climate change is as strong if not stronger than the smoking debate. the deniers do not even have the ability to see the contradictions in putting plimer and monckton on the same bill. monckton believes that climate has low sensitivity to c02 and plimer, sitng previous warm periods says the climate has high sensitivity. i am not sure if bill is having a go at me or roy ? but just in case its me ill finish by saying i could go away, but global warming aint going anywhere
00
leah, more unsubstantiated conspiracy theories . now its the russians is it ? you also do not understand the consequences of man made climate change . it will devasate the planet. drought and flood do not make the planet ‘ bountiful ‘ even past naturally occurring climate change caused mass extinctions. how is a mass extinction bountiful ?
00
leah , i think the hoax is on you . do some research on the matter
00
baa humbug , water vapour is not a forcing agent. it does not collect in the atmosphere co2 has a radiative forcing of 3.7 wm2 . this effects surface warming , which increases evaporation and thus more water vapour. water then amplifies the heat . water is not the problem as its the forcing of c02 that creates it in the first place ? i see you having a huddle with your denier mates lionel and roy.? a real meeting of the minds there ?
00
roy. lionel and baa, my source is the entire scientific community. countless scientific groups with a track record of excellence and years of research. your sources are jo nova plimer . monckton and singer. there is absolutely no comparison. you are not skeptics which is healthy. you bring nothing to the table other than conspiracy theory and avoidance techniques . you quote nothing that has been accepted by any peer reviewed journal anywhere in the world ?
00
Weasel 11:48am
“water then amplifies the heat”
What does amplifies mean weasel? You need to stop cutting and pasting. Now answer the question.
00
Can I suggest that we all ignore these “fear mongers” from here on in. I for one haven’t the time nor inclination to continue to try and make them understand the science. Trolls are on most site, stirring the pot, and generally a waste of time. I commend those here for trying to instil a bit of sense into these trolls but our time is better spent working on educating the wider nation of the Climategate hoax. They know while they stir that pot we are not focusing on doing this.
00
sucked in,
So you’re back! I just love it when people like you come roaring in here, knowing nothing but pretending you know everything. You run roughshod all over a place where you could learn something but all you care about is putting others down to make yourself feel good about yourself. I had you pegged exactly right from your first post. I then played around with you, tweaking you just for the fun of it. You didn’t disappoint me. You kept digging yourself a deeper hole with every word. And you didn’t even know it was happening.
You are a pathetic little jerk! I wash my hands of you.
Thanks for the comic relief and have a nice day!
00
Hi Leah
Maybe we can look at it another way. We’ve had trolls come and go before, and unfortunately we’ll have them again. So a bit of target practice is good. I also try to inject some humour to make the whole thing palatable.
Often if a thread gets out of hand Jo will step in. (rather like telling off your kids for fighting, Jo will step in and say “play nicely you juveniles”) lol
00
roy, i am still waiting for the empirical evidence that smoking causes lung cancer? also empirical evidence for climate change on mars ? you avoid all questions. please explain present warming by natural means ? explain venus to me seeing that in your opinion c02 is largely unimportant ? you answer nothing. any reputable scientific group will agree with my argument as thats what my sources are ? i suggest you check what i say through a little research . its all on record. roy it is actually me who has been tweaking you . i enjoyed it . i was going to say thanks for the ”challenge” but it wasnt really.
00
Good oh, go for it Baa Humbug!
00
Sucked in
The term ‘climate denier’ is a term of abuse. Please stop quoting other people’s math as if you understand it. Please stop pretending that you’re not here to antagonize people and assert your leftist agenda, which as I have established, is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, dictated by highly flawed individuals.
To this date, the AGW fraternity have come under scrutiny for highly questionable acts. The AGW theory is also becoming unpopular with the public and despite your unsubstantiated claims, the science is not settled and the severity of warming is yet to be substantiated.
For a guy whose position is crumbling, you’re going to have to do better than attributing motive, parroting someone else’s deductions, abusing people on a skeptic site and demonstrating blind zeal for your new religion.
This is my final correspondence with you. It is patently obvious that you are here to dictate (surprise, surprise) and make spurious claims.
And you reckon you know what’s good for us. Good Lord!
The proof will be in the pudding. Let’s wait ten years and see who was right eh’?
00
baa,if that was target practice for you, please note that. targets dont fire back normally. you did the usual ducking and weaving which indicates it was actually ”you” who were the target ? you can feel safe in your denier site here . but for goodness sake dont take your argument into the real world. you will look foolish. i
00
sam g , waiting ten years wont prove anything again you are showing you still do not know the difference between climate trend and short term weather patterns . the climate change argument is over scientifically, the fight is now purely political. there is no scientific consensus that god exists so comaring science to a religion is irrational on your part. you have not proven scientifically that my argument is crumbling.. i actually feel very secure in my knowledge compared to alternative views. very comfortable indeed. this is your final correspondence with me? . i could easily provoke another unscientific response from you quite easily im sure.
00
Baa Humbug,
What’s that term we were trying to remember? Was it off-the-wall? I think so. And it seems to be the men’s room wall too. What a shame.
00
sucked in at 307,
You’re also a damned liar and you know it.
Have a nice day and goodnight.
00
Ten years?
If waiting ten years won’t prove anything, then why are we told we MUST change before 2020 (ten years from now, get it?) or it will be too late for this sector of the solar system to survive?
But on a more hubristic note, I suspect that I am a little older than many of you here, who probably were not paying close attention when this all began a bit over 20 years ago. At the time (I was already teaching at college level AGAINST the doom and gloom prophets), I remember quitge vividly being told in no uncertain terms that the 10,000 lakes region of Minnesota (US) would be dry in 20 years time (please send money to help prevent this). I remember many such predictions which people thought were at a time frame too long for anyone to remember and call them on it. I remember Many others. Such as, the year 2010 was to be the death knell for Alpine skiing – in the Alps. There would just not be enough snow for the resorts to be open. This of course was before ‘GLobal Warming’ was metamorphosed into ‘Climate Change’ because good ol’ mother Earth wasn’t playing by the IPCC rules and stubbornly refused to get any warmer.
Pardon a slight, unstifleable note of derision on my part – to wit, HA!!!!!
You can’t have it both ways: Climate change is making the world warm and each heat wave is proof, AND cold snaps and deep feezes are also a result of the same warming climate change but are only an example of weather.
Who do you think you are trying to hoodwink? And despite your tempest in a teapot idiocy, the science JUST AIN’T THERE! Talk about double-speak!! We are not stupid and are not in the market to purchase your snake oil. Especially if politicians are fixing the prices which will include plenty of excess fat.
00
sucked in:
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:48 am
baa humbug , water vapour is not a forcing agent. it does not collect in the atmosphere co2 has a radiative forcing of 3.7 wm2 . this effects surface warming , which increases evaporation and thus more water vapour. water then amplifies the heat . water is not the problem as its the forcing of c02 that creates it in the first place
Firstly, lets look at what your mates at the IPCC say about your 3.7Wm2
In the 1995 SAR (second assessment report) their CONSENSUS was 4.44Wm2
In the 2001 TAR (third assessment report) their CONSENSUS was 3.71Wm2
In the 2007 4Ar (fourth assessment report) their CONSENSUS was 3.47Wm2
Anybody taking bets as to what the CONSENSUS will be in the 5AR?
Now to your ignorance.
According to you, our climate has been merrily and gently keeping us alive. Even the little bit of CO2 was not a problem. BUT THEN, we started to inject 2ppm per year since the 50’s and those benign CO2 molecules took on a new persona. Now they are an angry dangerous GHG marching global temps towards an irreversible catastrophy.
Can anybody else remember the movie GREMLINS. Weeee little cute harmless critters (pre industrial) But if you FEED(back) THEM (CO2) they turn into nasty destructive monsters ready to wipe out life as we know it. Bwaaahahahah
By the way weasel, water vapour does not collect in the atmosphere????? mmmmm those clouds I see above me here in Brisbane must be just a mirage.
Gotto get ready for work.
00
baa , the ipcc report show radiative forcing regardless of variables.any of the radiative forcing measurements you mention are enough to increase surface temp and then evaporation .water vapour is not a forcing agent .it stays in the atmosphere for no more than a week then it gets rained out. c02 can accumulate for centuries. you do not even know there is a difference isotopically between man made co2 and the natural variety. the natural sinks cannot fully absorb the man made c02 and that is the problem.i on your way back from work, duck into the library and do a little research on greenhouse gases .
00
tom. you can have it both ways, climate and weather are two seperate things. increased global temp increases water vapour in the northern hemisphere in winter this adds up to more rain or snow. weather is far more chaotic than climate . scientists predicted extreme weather. that can mean cold snaps as well as heat waves. the science certainly is there. you have not been looking or have been distracted by misinformation and junk science from the deniers. the pasr doom and gloom was media reporting not scientific consensus. global warming and climate change are two different things. there was no ‘morphing’ global warming is whats happening temp wise, climate change is a consequence of that warming
00
roy. you just used an adhominen attack does that mean an undermining of your argument. well its a partial undermining. the rest of the undermining comes from the argument itself. still waiting for the answers to those questions. why not ask baa for help. he seems to spend a lot of time reading toilet walls. should at least be some interesting phone numbers there for him.have a nice day too
00
you make an interesting assumption that I have been ‘distracted’ by other people. I am a practicing scientist and a university science educator who has reviewed the science EXTREMELY carefully over a 22 year duration and I find the science itself, the interpretations the conclusions and the public message all wanting. This internet phenomenon of arguing in a real-time public forum is a Johnny-come-lately bonus to the discourse. There are many scientists like myself who are both capable of independent analyses and have taken the time to work it out on our own without the help of distractors and ‘deniers’ and we have a good set of reasons for concluding that the science is in its infancy and is NO BASIS for ramrodding public policy through.
00
My sides are splitting, I can’t take much more of this. “GLOBAL WARMING and CLIMATE CHANGE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS” Bwaahhahahah
“.water vapour is not a forcing agent .it stays in the atmosphere for no more than a week then it gets rained out”
According to this troll nature can differentiate between last weeks H2O molecules and this weeks Bwahahahah Bwahahahah
You don’t get it about the radiative forcing figures I quoted do you weasel? I’ll spell it out for you..
T H E Y K E E P C H A N G I N G T H E F I G U R E . The differences seems small but they make a huge difference to temperature estimates 100yrs out.
T H E Y D O N’ T K N O W
No more please weasel, my sides hurt.
00
Sucked in? Big yawn. Been off the net for 24 hours and found
I had 256 unanswered emails! Most from the this site..
Now we see the political/social/economic driving forces underlying the believers ‘science’. I would advise sucked in and his like to open your eyes… of course … you are blinkered I feel. Prejudiced and bigoted. What you don’t understand is you have been conned by the UN IPCC, Al Gore and the UEA. Yet you still have to realise others (a growing majority) here in Australia and UK and USA, are non-believers in AGW Watch the ‘Great Global Warming Swindle’ (on U Tube) and ask yourself why the founder of Greenpeace resigned from his organisation. You’ll also find towards the end the DVD (scientific) that disputes the global warming fad quite by accident… The Canadian report regarding the research done explaining why herrings and anchovy hauls seem to disappear and then come back without any explanation…? Cause – effect – solution?
As Lord Monckton suggests – be wary that the solution as expressed by introducing ETS taxes, could have worse and devastating effects on this planet especially when based on incorrect or corrupted data. Particularly democratic
countries be they follow differing cultures and political, social and environmental ways of making a living. Did anyone hear PResident Obama’s speech in Congress part of his Address to the Union. He wants America to pursue Clean Energy… adding to the amusement including himself and others, “I know that there are some who do not believe in Climate Change science …(laughter) however (be it right or wrong) America must become a world leader in Clean energy – he suggests he believes in nuclear, and drilling off shore for gas and OIL, but doesn’t mention windmills, and then said he wants people employed in making solar panels.
An excellent orator, Mr Obama, but you can sense that he is competing again internationally especially when he mentions
China as also a leader in Green Energy. (Fooled me, I know they are a leader into electric cars?) America must not be
left behind.
Cheers for now folks, I’m off to a Sustainable Living group
tonight and have to get ready.
00
tom . i will take your word that you are involved in science. however so is plimer and his work on the subject is laughable? you are also not a climate scientist. but as a man of science you would no doubt disagree with plimer that volcanos emit more c02 than man. and disagree with monckton that land plants flourished during the cambrian period ? i also assume you cannot explain present warming by natural means?
00
getting warmer:
February 1st, 2010 at 12:38 pm
“the guardian is one of the finest newspapers going. their stance on climate change reflects this. the press in australia is low iq junk. by comparison”
I’m sure getting warmer is still around. The Guardian ha?
Read this and weep
Nowhere to hide now
00
baa, whats wrong is your target practice back firing? suddenly no jokes as well. you do not even have a basic understanding of greenhouse gases . apparently it does not rain in queensland. when it does that is water falling from the sky that was put there by evaporation that was created by a forcing agent . we are discussing the correlation between c02 and water vapour. water vapour does not accumulate in the atmosphere nature seems to recognise that fact.? the understanding of greenhouse gases is well documented and it bears no resemblence to your view.c02 is a forcing agent of that they are sure. and a forcing agent forces climate to change. it does not happen by magic climate change is a consequence of global warming. the point remains that both are happening and you have no explanation for it ?
00
compared to the dishonesty of people like plimer the leaked e mail, poor as it is, is minor. there are thousands of climate scientists with years of research under their belt. the ipcc report is 1600 pages long, the vast majority of the research in there is spot on and fully backed by the scientists. usually any inconsistencies have been un covered by the scientists themselves . strange behaviour if they are part of a conspiracy? the complete heat of the planet is easily measured and shows increased warming. im afraid leaked emails and odd hiccup does not save your argument anyway.
00
bush bunny, the great global warming swindle i have watched and found tabloid rubbish. discredited charts that end in 1980 [ for obvious reasons ] that if they continued until now would show a warming trend . some of the footage had to be actually removed . one scientist involved in it claimed he was misrepresented in the programme and threatened legal action. and chief charlatan fred singer was involved. the man who said ‘ nicotine was not addictive ‘ when he worked for the tobacco industry and also claimed the sun ‘ had nothing to do with skin cancer. you really need to upgrade your education . may i suggest looking at ‘ skeptical science ‘. i do not get sucked in easily. i agree with the scientific consensus for the simple reason there is no alternative explanation by deniers and their scientists are tainted by the oil industry or offer nothing but silly conspiracy theories . it is ‘you’ who misinformed and gullible not me . you are doing the bidding of the oil industry who have a vested interested in stopping or delaying acion on climate change . they will fail. for the simple reason that climate change is becoming more obvious everyday
00
baa. there are natural variations in forcing agents. this can be caused by volcanic activity or aerosols etc. the readings you mention are completely in line with those natural variations. scientists are not ‘guessing what the forcing radiation of c02 is , as you inferred, but merely recording what those measurements were at the time. they do know ! it is you who does not understand . this weasil has your measure
00
sucked in,
You have made sixteen more posts since my previous comment. My analysis still applies.
There is nothing of substance. More assertions with out an independent verifiable source in the lot. We do not have to prove our case, though we have, but you do. You haven’t done so.
Again, what is your point?
Looks like you are a modern day Black Knight.
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw
00
Lionell,
He’s just a self appointed guardedan of his own opnion. There is nothing you can say to him that will change his mind. He doesn’t even care if he’s right or not. He came here to put down the unbelievers and that’s that for him. He’ll come back at you with some reason that he’s right and me too.
00
Joanna, this sucked in poster is nothing but hot air, he is taking up email space and is lieing to substantiate his rather
lacking point of view, and is typical of what I have experienced a hacker and destroyer of an opposition blog.
Sucked in! You are lieing, you haven’t seen ‘The Great Global
Warming Swindle’ or you know full well the graphs you mention did NOT end in 1980… get real…or off what ever you are taking – a dose of commonsense might help mind you.
You remind me of a person (hypothetical) who back ends a car,
jumps out screaming at the offended driver ‘ Your bloody fault
you Moron” before checking who he was speaking to. In this
case it was the Commissioner of Police.
Do you know the education some of these posters have, their qualifications etc. I for one are better educated than you
obviously with tertiary qualifications and an interest and qualifications in organic agriculture, horticulture, soil science that does need to examine climate…weather etc. Now you should do your research and not corrupt just to substantiate what you wish to believe and promote
If you had viewed the DVD I suggested, obviously you have no
comment about why the founder of Greenpeace resigned. This DVD
now on U Tube if you can’t get the DVD was produced in 2007.
Somewhat after Al Gore’s dire predictions. And most are still
employed in allied organisations who have much alternative
and correct argument’s to smash down Al Gore’s predictions.
00
sucked in – Doesn’t rain in Queensland.. you must be a joker!
Part is in the Monsoon belt, they do suffer cyclonic activity too.
Where the goodness do you live? I hope it is not Australia?
00
i was being ironic bush, you are not suitably intellectual to pick up on it unfortunately. the charts ended in 1980 thats what all the fuss was about. you may be better educated than me academically , but not in relation to the subject we are discussing. and lets face it the 2500 climate experts involved in research are far better qualified than either of us ? there is no substitute for logic and reason . deniers have neither. they will nitpick areas of climate science [ unsuccessfully ] and then let plimer and co get away with porkies like volcanoes produce more c02 than man? that molton rock is heating the sea ? [ plimer ] that malaria is prevailent in cold climates?[ plimer] that there was an ‘explosion of land plants during the cambrian period [[ monckton ] this is not healthy skepticism but cowardly ideological thinking. i wonder if roy can produce the empirical evidence that smoking causes cancer yet ? another example of intellectual cowardice. i will finish by saying the obvious. c02 absorbs heat . morec02 logically means more heat . mankind is adding more c02.. quite simple.. good luck in your research bush
00
sucked in? In your opinion I am not intellectually equal, but
academically superior. Yet academics involved in either side of
argument aren’t intellectually equal to you, either. Go to bed dear and happy dreams. You must be having heaps of nightmares recently, LOL. Ice melting, people dieing by the millions from ingesting too much CO2. Or breathing it out… Tell me sucked in, what is the gas ratio of our atmosphere. I am not going to tell you! And how much is CO2?
Tell me folks, is Al Gore an intellectual or academic?
00
lionel. my source is the scientific consensus. read the ipcc report a number of my sources are contained within. what are your sources plimer or monckton. you just parrot scientific jargon . you can explain the mechanics of the climate car, but cannot explain why its about to plunge over a cliff. the ipcc report has more substance than your non researched , non peer reviewed claims. all based on conspiracy theory, you use the same techniques as a creationist. this is not skepticism but buffered ideology. why not put your views up for peer review ? i mine already have been and passed with flying colours. no doubt you will now respond with more conspiracy theory? about how peer review cannot be trusted etc . do you really believe that volcanoes emit more c02 than man? and that the planet is cooling, despite nasa s empirical measurement that it is warming? you will now reply with a conspiracy theory about nasa being part of the communist plot as well ?
00
sucked in: True intellectuals do not resort in being rude to
people, something that I feel is for the sore loosers in a debate,
trying to negate the man (or woman in this point) – not take on
intellectually his/her point of view.
Did you again, again, see why the founder of Greenpeace resigned?
It was because of people like you!
00
sucked in: NASA been found wanting too, did you not know yet?
Are you in a country that has access to broad band, I don’t think
you do?
00
That’s it, poor sucked in, hasn’t bothered to read what the world
are now informed about. No broad band eh? NASA, UEA, the UN IPCC draft treaty, Dr Pachauri’s disgrace, Al Gores, gore (buying a 4 million dollar condo in an area he said would be inundated by rising sea levels soon!) and Greenpeace and WWF have fudged their so called scientific data to substantiate the formation of a world government to tax and fine developed countries to finance under developed countries. (In what I wonder?) Some who would love a reliable electricity supply to move ahead and make their lives tenable. Did you see the Kenya
segment of the DVD in The Great Global Warming Swindle, sucked in?
00
Oh sucked in also, did you know 3,100 scientists are sueing Al
Gore for misrepresentation of the facts.
00
bush, i do not know whether you are more academically educated than me . i. what im saying is its rather meaningless anyway. academic intelligence is one thing. intellectual intelligence based on logic and reason is another. if you are using the ggws as a source ,your education on climate change is very limited . plimer is better educated than me academically, but he is also a charlatan which means his academic qualifications mean nothing. the small amount of c02 in the atmosphere does not matter. the climates sensitivity to it is far more important. its also a forcing agent which also adds to its significance. if i put you in a room with a good amount of co2 [ very tempting ] it will poison you . i dont go to al gore for anything he is not a scientist, like monckton
00
Oh just one last word, sucked in? What are you doing to save the planet just to use a catch phrase. Well I spent 2 hours at a meeting run by a Sustainable Living group in my home town. We are doing everything possible to improve our environment, change to solar, have fresh water rain tanks, use organic principles for our gardens and farms (some are 33,000 acres big), water conservation, and using soil science. Promote clean energy, etc., ride bicycles instead of driving cars. I bet you are a vegan too, or a member of PETA, or believe that all people should be able to smoke pot. (Well I tend to agree with the last point with moderation). I bet you are one of those people who were paid $25 dollars just to be in the rent-a-mob
groups in Copenhagen.
00
You can’t answer questions posed can you?
What is the composition of our atmosphere?
Why did the Greenpeace founder resign?
You should be able to answer Q one as an alleged climate change
expert. LOL!
00
I’m not letting you off the hook sucked in?
What is the composition of soils. Come on, and expert in climate change as obviously soils hold 60% of Carbon sequestration, so long as they are healthy?
Don’t be shy, if you don’t answer the questions you are checked
mated.
00
bush ,there is only 2500 climate scientists doing the hard yards of research. these 3100 ‘scientists must be cardboard cut outs? . a liitle like that 31000 so called scientists signing a petition a while back. mainly undergraduates who did not volunteer what their science was ?, some celebrity weather men. retired scientists who have been out of the loop for years. check the inhofe debacle as well. all this nonsense added up to absolutely zero. just another energy industry ploy. you need to ge your head out of plimers book and get a little insight
00
bush bunny what is the sound of one hand clapping?. to checkmate me the lead up needs have been a success . so far you are just staring blankly at the chessbooard.i there is a lot more to climate than soil composition. over 15 scientific disciplines are involved in its study. what is causing the present warming seeing that the sun is in solar minimum? im also not a climate expert. it just appears that way when compared to you
00
Wrong sucked in! The petition that I would have signed willingly
was for B.Sc graduates, or MA’s or Ph.D’s. I would have signed
it but I have only a BA. in Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology.
We did study earth’s climate and how humans responded to it, in
good times and bad. Including the medieval warming period and then the mini ice age… Nearly 50% had Ph.D’s. To get a Ph.D
in science is very very hard. But most disciplines do take in
knowledge that involves soil and atmospheric composition, very basic too.
Have you worked my three questions out yet, or just side stepping them? I want to educate you you see?
00
well done bush ,i am humbled your environmental efforts. what i know is that c02 absorbs radiation. morec02 obviously means more heat. we are contributing to c02, therefore we must be contributing to warming? to know the function of the various greenhouse gases is more important than percentages. i know that c02 is a very small percentage of the atmosphere and water vapour very large. but as i said to know that c02 is a forcing agent and that the climate is sensitive to it is the important thing. can you explain the lag factor to me?
00
sucked in @ 334: my source is the scientific consensus.
Not relevant and a contradiction in terms. Consensus is a political concept and has nothing to do with science. Science is a matter of verifiable, verified, and reproducible evidence and experiment.
You are still making unsubstantiated assertions and have done it consistently in your over 50 posts on this thread. Apparently you don’t know what scientific substantiation is. I will inform:
1. A clear and objective statement of your central hypothesis.
2. A clear and objective statement of the mechanism by which your central hypothesis is achieved.
3. A demonstration that said mechanism actually exists and works as you say.
4. Independently verifiable evidence and/or demonstration that said mechanism is actually at work in the context specified by your central hypothesis.
So far you have done none of these things. At most you have given technical sounding unsourced assertions that may or may not have an actual foundation in fact. We have no way to check what you say is other than mere assertion nor to test what you say has any validity. Its as if you had said nothing. At least nothing of any scientific merit (ie. specifically reference, independently verifiable, statements of evidence or demonstration of the validity of your central hypothesis).
You haven’t even stated your central hypothesis so we can tell what you are talking about. You post endless blather that gives only the impression you stand in opposition to something. What that something is, is not clear.
As near as I can tell, you are nothing but a modern equivalent of the Black Knight in the Monty Python skit. You have no arms to use to point to the evidence nor legs to stand on the demonstrations of the validity of what you assert.
Again, what is your purpose?
00
bush, how many phds are there in america. how many phds did not sign it ? how many climate scientists signed it ?. as i said your academic qualifications means nothing if they are limited by a lack of reason and blinded by ideology.
00
lionel, the scientific consensus is all we have to go.on sometimes it is wrong but all knowledge has been a result of peer review and scientific consensus. you wrongly assume that to not be accepted by the peer review system means you are right ? do you question plimer, singer carter or moncktons claims using the same techniques . i very much doubt.it ? because they reinforce your ideology? do you believe smoking causes lung cancer even though evidence for it is purely circumstantial? do you agree with monckton that there is no difference between man made c02 and the natural variety? or that there was an explosion of land plants during the cambrian period? i could ask you another hundred questions like that. a true skeptic would say i am skeptical of all views on climate be it the scientific consensus or plimer and co. the fact that you accept the junk science of someone like plimer means your argument is totally politically and ideologically driven and is thus unscientific and has no credibilty whatsoever
00
Lionel? et al: I have a theory, I think I have worked it out? sucked in is very young, I mean sucked in, the tempo of his/or her argument pattern seems to suggest this. My Gawd, if you generate your efforts, quite considerable so far into a chosen field with associated credibility, you will do well one day. Your defensive assertions without following up answering certain questions seem to suggest it is not part of your intellectual or rational thinking at the moment, and you must mature one day from real life worldiness and that happens with passionate younger people and adults… look I have sons you know, I’ve heard some of their implausible and narrow arguments… At least they are thinking! Am I right sucked in
you are maybe 15 – 17 years of age?
Black knight? No response Lionel so I would think that it has gone over his/her head? He/she hasn’t heard or is worried about Monty Python. They have never heard of it nor can see
your point. I think poor sucked in, is a kitten trying to take
on some tigers. Answer my questions if you have nothing to hide. Any adult who wants to enter this blog would know. Or at least google and find out!
How many Ph.D’s in America I wouldn’t have a clue. What’s that got to do with the price of eggs, sucked in? And climate
studies are an integral part of many scientific disciplines. And if you had really viewed the DVD available on U Tube, you would know most of the people there were involved in climate sciences!
00
bush bunny. nasa put a man onthe moon but cannot be trusted to read satelite measurements . if virtually all data collecting is questionable and corrupted where are you getting your data and information from ? conspiracy theories is all you have . did you know that plimer is a director of several mining companies or that fred singer , carter and joo nova are ”consultants fit exxon. you can see no conflict of interests there ? of course you cannot . because you are not a skeptic but a denier. please read the dictionary definition of the two i
00
you mention the phds bush not me . and as you say what has that got to do with the price off eggs. what are your sources for that claim? i do not care less about gore he is not a climate scientist
00
sucked in, you brought up the scientists? I think you are now
arguing a point for the sake of argument, and I am now leaving you to ponder and move on to a more interesting site. Where they
moderate you if you get off the point.
00
i am not 15 years old, its funny watching you referring to lionel. the two of you cannot answer one question. you can try and convince each other of your scientific validity but fail on the most basic questions. what is causing present warming? do you believe that volcanoes emit more c02 than man and did land plants flourish during the cambrian period ?. please answer those questions. i am not interested in conspiracy nonsense or lionals smoke and mirrors jargon.
00
bush . the only thing i ponder is how you have the gall to express your misinformed opinions. in a public forum. . why dont you try a forum that is pro climate change just to see how you go? believe me it wont be very well
00
sucked in @ 349: …the scientific consensus is all we have to go.on….
Apparently it is all you have to go on.
Yet it is true, that even if all but one scientist thinks one way, and the one can demonstrate the falsity of their thinking, the consensus is demonstrated wrong. Even if ALL the scientists think one way and reality disagrees, they are still wrong.
What is, is not a matter of belief or vote. What you want, feel, believe, or demand reality to be is irrelevant to reality no matter how much you want or need it and no matter how numerous “you” are. This is a fundamental fact about the nature of reality that you cannot escape. In fact, you must use the fact of this fundamental nature of reality in any attempt to disprove it. Its called The Law of Identity: a thing is what it IS.
Unfortunately, you persist in making unfounded assertions. For example, you make claims about what I do or do not believe. Yet you provide no evidence to back up your claims. It looks to me you are throwing bullshit on the wall, hoping that something will stick, and that I will be sucked in. Sorry to disappoint you.
What I believe is not at question here. It is what YOU believe and why you believe it. I see you making endless assertions, unfounded claims, and personal attacks. I see no clear statement of what it is you are defending and even less that can stand in actual defense of it.
Again, Mr. Black Knight, what is your point?
00
sucked in? What gall, dearie. I am not misinformed nor are the great majority of the posters on Joanna’s site. You saying she
is misinformed too? It’s only you who are trying to negate
those on this site, who can’t tolerate your attitude.
If I was the moderator of this site, you would have been banned
from it, 50 or so posts ago. Think yourself lucky you are still
here to spew out your venom and flaming… what ever your view point most sites do not allow that!
00
Sucked in: Check out the rules and legal on Joanne’s site. I have just complained that you are not complying with them.
Bye for now dear.
00
“there are thousands of climate scientists with years of research under their belt”.
We’ve heard statements like this from the weasel numerous times now.
So lets have a little test shall we.
A person with a DVM is a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine
A person with a PhD is a Doctor of Philosophy
A person with a BChE is a Batchelor of Chemical Engineering
A person with an MBA is a master of Business adminestration
So weasel, what is the acronym for the 2500 climate scientists you so love? mmmmmmm?
00
PH.D’s can write a thesis that earns them this in many disciplines, usually not law or they can have it in anything. One got his Ph.D. studying the effect on school children who only owned one pair of shoes… fair dinkum.
May I suggest another mythical degree, Master of Environmental Science Society. Otherwise known as M.E.S.S. LOL!
00
weasel as soon as you answer my question re: acronym for a climate scientist, I’ll tell you what is causing the current warming. deal?
00
Bushy I think the acronym you’re looking for is DRC e.g John Citizen, Definite Richard Cranium
00
sucked in,
So you don’t like my characterization of you? Too Bad! If the shoe fits then wear it. You picked it up and put it on so it must fit.
Actually you don’t resemble anything I’ve ever seen on a men’s room wall — you are far worse.
Let’s take a few cases:
1) You never thought of tweaking me for the fun of it. To you it’s deadly serious. You’re not here to have any fun with anyone. But as soon as I mentioned it — and to someone else mind you, not addressed to you — you could not stand to let me get one up on you about anything, so you claimed that you were tweaking me. I called you a damned liar for that. And I’m right.
2) You make some of the most unsupportable assertions I’ve ever seen. For instance, the evidence that smoking causes cancer is circumstantial. No it is not. The correlation between cause and effect survives not only the usual 95% confidence interval test but also quite easily survives the demand for a much higher confidence interval, even several thousand percent.
3) Then there’s this one:
Chemically all isotopes of carbon are identical. No natural system can distinguish one from another. This is just another red herring, one more scare tactic.
You are a pathological personality. You cannot stand it that anyone disagrees with your version of the truth. And there is no more that can be said about you.
00
sucked in: You are indefinitely moderated until you meet site standards.
After 66 comments – too many claims you can’t substantiate, multiple breaches of basic rules of logic, (even after it was politely explained why you are wrong). Sadly, while your faith is tenacious, your reasoning is delusional, but if you know any global warming fans who aren’t please send them over.
If you apologize for wasting people’s time you can post again. Convince me that you are interested in honest conversation rather than mindlessly repeating lies other people thought of, and you… swallowed whole.
Apologies to all the other people here.
00
Please everyone, in future, if you see anyone use the bullying unscientific term “deniers” as a form of name-calling, can you report it to me immediately? Joanne At joannenova.com.au. Normally I would insist on an apology straight away and not allow any further comments. It seems to be a good rule for weeding out the people who can’t contribute to a scientific discussion.
00
WELL DONE JOANNE!
00
Just to qualify a point. I was on a blog once that had serious
discussion and several persons destroyed it by making irrelevant
comments, lieing about the status quo, character assassination of people that was quite unjustified, in the end, supporters started to move away. Well why blame them? It became a flaming tactic to nullify the original theme of the blog… Most people have opinions, and should be respected for those opinions but then a blog site can be completely reduced to personal flaming and inuendoes, threats in the case I received privately, death threats etc., my computer sent viruses, and even when I complained to the police, they said – get a good security anti virus guard.
So as it seems, sucked in was sent here for a reason I believe.
Now gone and forgotten.
New thoughts. the NZ stuff on climate change, when challenged
have lost the data, the dog ate it perhaps!
Pres.Obama and family are coming to Oz next month to visit Chairman Rudd. I have the opinion, Mr Rudd might be surprised about what Pres.Obama has to say… certainly his Address to the Union on Clean Energy was an eye opener.
00
Let me correct my statement about smoking and confidence interval. When I said several thousand percent I was thinking of something unrelated to confidence interval (senior moment?). I should have said. “even 100%.” One cannot test something repeatedly and find the result within your interval more than 100% of the time.
00
Bush bunny,
What you relate is all too common in my experience. I have been a contributor to many blog and blog like “e lists” for well over a decade. I have moderated several as well.
There is usually a core of the contributors who are serious about the central topic and strive to make a positive contribution. Then there are the intellectual thugs who seem to despise anything that is relevant and to the point. Their efforts are clearly aimed at taking over and destroying the value of the conversation. They do it by launching argumentation for the sake of argumentation.
I suggest that they are neither for nor against any particular thing. They simply want to destroy the good, in whatever form it exists, simply because it is good. Good meaning life giving, life sustaining, and life enhancing. In particular, human life and all that being human stands for and requires.
This is not just wrong, it is evil. As evil as evil can be. It has the self same consequences as any physical evil but its worse. It conditions the intended victims to accept evil as their fate. Interestingly, it can be countered simply by the potential victims saying NO to the thugs in a way they cannot evade.
Evil is not an invincible monolith. It is small, many, sleazy, cowardly, and banal. Each must be challenged and told no in very certain terms.
00
Smoking? did I miss something on this blog? As a smoker, I don’t believe smoking does you any good. It is so expensive nowadays. Penn and Teller suggested and proved that the secondary smoke inhalation was a fuffee.. Now personally, I think Carbon Monoxide from MV’s is more harmful than tobacco smoking, however, I don’t like to be in an enclosed area with smokers even if I am a smoker myself.
Years ago the Sydney Harbour bridge put in all these plant boxes
and the plants lasted for one month then all died, making people
to believe, that the Carbon Monoxide killed them off. Well I think that is possible… but inattention like watering could have added to it!
I’m tired folks, going to bed, it’s 3.09 on my puter, and I am relieved ‘sucked in’ has been silenced.
00
Hi, all.
Almost choked on my breakfast when I opened my email… Busy board here, like it.
If you want to confuse a hard core AGWer, ask them to explain the varying impact of the different levels of spf as protection against sunburn…. Seems a little off topic, but if you’ve ever compared them, it is oddly similar to the diminishing impact of repeated doubling of CO2 (hope this doesn’t make me sound totally off the wall). This occurred to me out of the blue, and I wish I had a camera to record the facial expressions… 2 from AGWer, to undecided. And 2 who refuse to speak to me.
00
So what’s this about anthropogenic CO2 is NOT absorbed by the biosphere/lithosphere/hydrosphere? The different isotopes of man-made vs natural CO2 can be distinguished by the natural carbon sinks?
Maybe that is not exactly what is meant, but by saying that unnatural CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for hundreds of years seems to fly in theface of this http://wattsupwiththat.com/
from the smithsonian – a supporting entity of AGW.
00
I have been following this debate pretty closely and I think ALL of you should have been warned. Shame on you children.
00
Good news, folks!
Abbot pencils in date with Monckton
00
muckypup:
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:05 am
Muckyup I must confess to being one of the protagonists in this. I should ignore these people but find it hard to do so when they attack the person and especially when they attack the blog host. It’s akin to visiting someones home and ridiculing the homeowner, it’s poor form and rude.
Having said that, my replies were also too heavy on the ridicule side, I should have toned down a little.
If anyone has been upset or offended by the banter on this thread, I apologise as the main protagonist.
00
This is irrelevant to the thread but Steve McIntyre has put up some interesting climategate links.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/31/climategate-news-and-links/#comment-219289
I’m sure we will all find some interesting material including an interview with Roger Pielke Jr. and an IPCC chairman going into damage control.
00
….that’s ‘co-chairman’, not Pachauri!
😉
00
Comic about Monckton Australia tour: http://www.towerofturtles.com/08_Monckton_Tours_Australia.html
00
Regarding these ‘cartoons’ (poorly drawn, name calling the only form of commentary), anyone with an IQ above room temperature (in Alaska, in winter, with all the windows and doors open….) wouldn’t find anything there of merit….
Not in the league of mallard filmore, bloom county. etc.
Try again. Or better still, don’t.
00
Two new events announced Above.
See Perth for Tuesday and then Sydney for Friday next week!
00
I guess the AIIA forgot to read its Environmental Policy: http://www.aiia.asn.au/displaycommon.cfm?an=2
00
Also sadly I didn’t see the update that the Perth Monday nighter had become an RSVP only affair early enough, and I can’t make the Tuesday as there is a Council meeting. Ahh well.
00
MattB,
The email that i received from Daphne yesterday says (in part):
First-come, first-serve.
i.e. show up early enough and you’ll get a seat for your $10.
00
Hmm the one I got said it was full and gave me the info about Tuesday’s event.
00
R.E. the comic strip depicting Monkton.
The left are in need of a little psychoanalysis, for they don’t quite understand their own agenda.
This I can understand, as I was once seduced by the leftist P.R. campaign. That is, welcoming your differences, preying on your anger and redirecting it towards the common foe: westernization and capitalism.
Yep. Every leftist deep inside is a totalitarian.
We were all teenagers once, many of us were angry and at least for me, it was attractive to have an enemy, especially when one had unconditional love for not so good parents. It made us feel good, it was the shortcut to martyrdom and cultural superiority. And that’s the trick of the left. One does not have to work to attain anything for themselves. Just entrench yourself with like-minded neo-hippies and your own benevolence becomes believable. In other words; the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The cartoon reveals the abovementioned self denial of the left.
They poke fun at Monckton’s claims of the left’s desire for centralized government and the veil of socialism behind the eco-movement. This they naturally deny yet why is the left so fanatical about the implementation of AGW legislation? Admittedly, there are some very clever leftists, including academics and journalists but if you pay close attention, none of them debate the truth about the science, it is all auxiliary.
Many members of this movement claim not to belong to a movement at all, as if to be above fashion (funny how anti-fashion is so ubiquitous). They hide their allegiances to the left by appearing benevolent, caring and sympathetic. This is where the self delusion lies. This is why the left deny their thirst for control, whether it be on an intellectual front (The Age/ABC) or the suburban army who reside in territorial stomping grounds throughout the city.
This approach helps me to grasp the debate. The lying, censorship, manipulation and evasion is not so much a calculated attempt to thwart the truth but the belief in one’s own imagination and superiority, resulting in a jihadist approach to political nad social ideas.
Why do something if you don’t believe in it?
00
Sounds good. I’ll be there on the 8th of Feb, here in Perth.
GM
00
Regarding Lord M’s contention that there was a hidden agenda in
the Copenhagen UN IPCC draft treaty involving a global government, etc.
Check out the Greens (Australia) site, I have sent it to Joanne
E5 Global governance …. but you can find it yourself. What
Lord M said is not a myth, still lives here in Australia.
00
Would like to make everyone aware of a short film that outlines the agenda for Carbon Tax in response to the recent National Address.
http://youtu.be/ZHyHDPvJYzs
00