The poll of Australians commission by the Australian Climate Science Coalition is more sophisticated than the BBC poll, and shows a similar trend against the theory of man-made global catastrophe. But, perhaps not surprisingly, as with the nature of fraud and misinformation, the results also contain contradictions. It’s quicksand out there in voter-world. Half the population is no longer sold on the emissions trading scheme, but the other half is unaware of what is unfolding. A bare majority of Australians still want to do “something” to combat climate change (I wonder if the same number of people want to do “something” to combat the weather), but even those who want action don’t want to spend very much.
Table 20: ACSC Poll of Australians Jan 2010
The things we know for sure:
- Skepticism is growing in Australia since Climategate (and all the other gates) and the failure of Copenhagen.
- There is a great deal of ignorance out there on both sides of the fence. (The science communication on this topic has been poor, worse, and awful.)
- The population is politically split: The half that doesn’t believe in the scare campaign is also the half more likely to vote conservative or independent.
- People are polarized. It’s not a bell shaped curve, where most people are in the middle, and the fringes thin out. It’s a U-shape, where the middle is deserted. From the graph above, 28% strongly support action, while 33% strongly oppose it. On this matter, around 60% of Australians are passionate, and half of them are wrong.
A divided nation
Since October, there has been an 8% shift away from the belief that the risk of a carbon-related catastrophe is real. This translates into about 1.7 million Australians who have changed their minds. Now, only 49% think the risk is real, 33% don’t, and the rest are not sure.
Note the slight contradiction: 49% think it’s real, but 51% think we should act on it irrespective of what other nations do! (So 2% of voters aren’t sure there is a problem, but think we should act anyway?) Whichever way you look at it, we Australians are an altruistic lot, eh? But, this altruism mostly appears to be wishful thinking. Those who believe we should act have no real idea what the cost of “going non-fossil” would be, and many don’t want to pay much. Roughly one-in-ten Australians is willing to spend only $10 (or less) extra per month for electricity; another one-in-ten is willing to spend up to $20; only three-in-ten are willing to spend more.
The trading scheme is picking up a decidedly nasty smell
The idea of the trading scheme is now deeply unpopular, with 39% strongly opposing it, and only 8% strongly supporting it. Those who strongly oppose have grown from 30% last October; that is to say, nearly 10% of the population has shifted in three months, losing faith in, or becoming actively against, the idea. Rudd’s Emissions Trading Scheme is also known as the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). It now looks like a burden. The ruling Labor Party might even prefer that the conservatives vote it down, because Labor could then build something new up. If the scheme got voted in, it would be one heck of a dead-weight to carry to the next elections.
As I said in November, when word of the fraud and corruption spreads, people will not just vote against the ETS, they will be energized and passionate to act against it, to smite it, and to tell their friends. And it would appear that conservatives have told their conservative friends, but that the left-leaning voters are unaware of the collapse of the scam unfolding around us.
Now it’s time to tell your other friends
The two most widely read publications in Australia (especially among the left-leaning) are the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, which have done a sterling job of green-washing recent developments. Likewise, educated left-leaning Australians watch the ABC, which panders to the scare campaign 110%, as Andrew Bolt described so well last week. Hence, many good people are simply unaware that Climategate is anything more than a story of poor climate scientists being attacked by hackers, and that Lord Monckton talks about problems with climate sensitivity that none of the alarmists can answer properly (but, they may be aware that his eyes protrude). Such is the poor standard of investigative reporting in our largest daily papers and public broadcaster. Embarrassing.
So, it’s time for those who are aware to let their left-leaning friends know what is going on, in the politest, most considerate way. I know it’s hard, and some liberals may be tempted to shoot the messengers, but for people inculcated with the double-whammy of the SMH/AGE newspapers (e.g., how not to do journalism), combined with ABC propaganda, nudges from friends may be the only things that will tip them off that a major socio-political scandal of historic proportions is about to pop out of the box.
Misinformation everywhere
What’s also interesting — though sobering– is that many conservatives think that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, which is flatly wrong. Possibly these people who’ve rejected the spin stories and picked up that they are being sold a con have just rejected everything they’ve been told on the topic. It’s a kind of backlash. The science communicator in me winces. The accurate, simplest summary of what’s going on is that:
- Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
- Yes, doubling CO2 warms the planet — by around 1 degree.
- There is no evidence that anything more than 1 degree will happen (indeed the empirical evidence suggests that clouds and humidity change to dampen the effect to just a half a degree). The 2-10 degree projections are baseless scares. You can find out more here: The one fatal flaw is in the feedbacks.
If the science communicators had being doing their job of describing accurately how much we know, and what we don’t know, there wouldn’t be as much of a knee-jerk reaction against the “green press”.
About the poll
There were 1,737 responses to the on-line opinion poll. It’s a more “lefty” group than the average population, so the results were adjusted (taking their voting intentions into account) to match recent phone polls that have a more representative pool of voters. The poll was done Jan 27-29, before our conservative party put out its policies.
If the “green” groups keep pushing “green” energy, most of us will be in the dark.
Michael
The future Failed United States of America.
20
It has recently become acceptible to make fun of the green zealots. As more fraud is exposed, it soon won’t be funny but just make people angry.
30
“There were 1,737 responses to the onlineopinion poll, it’s a more “lefty” group than the average population so the results were adjusted (taking their voting intentions into account) to match recent phone polls that have a more representative pool of voters.”
This sounds like “hide the decline”. Before everyone flames me and votes me down, I am being facetious. They haven’t tried to delete the data or lost the original measurements.
For some reason I wish more Aussies would migrate across the Tasman and help dilute the blind belief in the IPCC.
10
Because I studied Meteorology many years ago and therefore have had an interest in weather and climate all over this Earth, I recognized the lies when they first appeared. Al Gore was a total fraud from the beginning, his statements were fear propaganda used to achieve his aims, whatever they were.
During his trip around the world before the last election, why did he meet mostly the leaders of left wing political parties? It was obvious to me.
I find it’s mostly young people, university educated or not that are ignorant of the science and accept the political spin from the Government.
This site seems to attract intelligent comment and along with all the links offers the best education on the topic.
20
“There were 1,737 responses to the onlineopinion poll, it’s a more “lefty” group than the average population so the results were adjusted (taking their voting intentions into account) to match recent phone polls that have a more representative pool of voters.”
You have to wonder whether there has been a deliberate “dumbing down” in the education system? I think there are UN Charters on education and would not be surprised if part of the reason for this is so that the UN can promulgate its agenda through compulsory education.
Critical thinking has been eliminated. Young people can believe two things that are completely contradictory and do not realise that they do e.g. how many people oppose capital punishment of those who have committed crimes also support abortion of those who are the the time of their demise non-criminal.
10
[…] Conflicts of interest and corrupted science, BBC ecobias, Climatechange secretary’s girlfriend conflict of interest, Another correction the IPCC needs to make!, Australian climate poll, […]
20
Mr Rudd must be proud to be an Australian!
The fantastic reception of Lord Monckton is a tribute to Australians. While the rest of the world is confused and bullied by their politicians and media. NOT here. “Fair suck of the sauce bottle”, “Fair crack of the whip”, an open and honest population where everyone can “have a go!”. It is great that a visiting dignatary can be welcomed here, as Lord Monckton has been.
What do you think Kev? You must be proud to be an Australian
10
Bring on the Federal election. I recommend the coalition party to invite Lord Monckton to be included in their election campaign. Also, imagine the scare campaign that could be easily mounted on how much the AGW scam will cost the people if the ETS was ever to be introduced. It never ceases to amaze me to see how many Australians are prepared to commit financial suicide for practically no benefit to the climate. Sometimes I wonder about the intelligence of the typical voter. Oh well, what ever happens they deserve everything that happens to them. For me I’m prepared for the worst – no debt.
10
I guess I’m something of an anomaly. I have been more or less a “lefty” most of my life, though perhaps “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” might be a better description. However, I decided right from the beginning that AGW was a crock and see no reason to hold back or retreat from technological or economic progress to fight a non-existent problem.
I do not normally watch ABC for news of current events, but I am familiar with Canada’s CBC, and the two are cut from the same cloth. I prefer my news to be objective and unbiased, but I find all newspapers and broadcast news are more or less biased one way or the other, be they state-run media, newspapers or FoxNews.
10
From the Australian newspaper, “THE Rudd government has outlined its grand plan to create a scientifically-engaged Australia.”
It wants to get Australians thinking more about science and will establish, for the first time, a national framework aimed at “catapulting science into classrooms, boardrooms and lounge rooms”.
This is a frightening proposal.
The science will, of course, be “the science is settled” science, the consensus science, the IPCC science, the Al Gore science, the CSIRO censored science, the one eyed science.
So he wants to create a scientifically engaged Australia, WE ALWAYS WERE.
To our requests for debate both the PM and Ms. Wong “scientifically engaged” us by covering their ears and chanting, the science is settled, the science is settled, we have consensus.
This is a dangerous move to introduce a prostituted, corrupt, twisted, version of science, it will take years of Coalition Government to repair the damage.
10
I think this ad is just a taste of things to come if the AGW mania continues. So, why doesn’t Al Gore appear in the ad? They would require the whole green police force to collect all the evidence to put him behind bars for life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq58zS4_jvM&feature=player_embedded#
10
The graph shows neatly the polarizing nature of it, and how Australians are propagandized and befuddled by it. Politicians are generally in the business of ‘appearing’ to do something while not hanging their backsides out too far, but in this case I suspect that is all many Australians are after this time. Do they just want to perceive that something is “being done” without getting burnt. Could that be why Abbott’s plan streeted Rudd’s in an online poll 3:1. Because it represents less of an intrusion/dislocation with their lives?
10
Albert writes: “I find it’s mostly young people, university educated or not that are ignorant of the science and accept the political spin from the Government.”
Which science? THIS SCIENCE? (I know I’ve posted this before, but Ms Nova keeps repeating her insistence that I post links to the evidence, so I’ll keep posting links to the evidence).
Here are papers that demonstrate the (EMPIRICALLY ASSESSED) warming properties of CO2:
The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide – Martin & Barker (1932)
Rotation-Vibration Spectra of Diatomic and Simple Polyatomic Molecules with Long Absorbing Paths – Herzberg & Herzberg (1953)
Total Absorptance of Carbon Dioxide in the Infrared – Burch et al. (1962)
Absorption Line Broadening in the Infrared – Burch et al. (1962)
Line shape in the wing beyond the band head of the 4·3 μ band of CO2 – Winters et al. (1964)
High-Temperature Spectral Emissivities and Total Intensities of the 15-µ Band System of CO2 – Ludwig et al. (1966)
Absorption of Infrared Radiant Energy by CO2 and H2O. IV. Shapes of Collision-Broadened CO2 Lines – Burch et al. (1969)
Investigation of the Absorption of Infrared Radiation by Atmospheric Gases – Burch et al. (1970)
Collision-induced scattering in CO2 gas – Teboul et al. (1995)
On far-wing Raman profiles by CO2 – Benech et al. (2002)
Collisional effects on spectral line-shapes – Boulet (2004)
Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO2 IR bands between 10 and 20 μm. I: model and laboratory measurements – Niro et al. (2004)
Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions – Miller & Brown (2004)
Spectroscopic challenges for high accuracy retrievals of atmospheric CO2 and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) experiment – Miller et al. (2005)
Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence – Predoi-Cross et al. (2007)
Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1 – Toth et al. (2008)
Okay, so we now understand (from EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE) the process and properties related to CO2 induced warming. In other words, we understand the MECHANISM by which warming might be occurring. Now let’s check if this process translates into the real world (Again, using EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and AVOIDING straight temperature because the conspiracy theorists around here claim that all temperature records have been faked as part of the global conspiracy).
Wang, K., and S. Liang (2009), Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D19101, doi:10.1029/2009JD011800.
Rolf Philipona, Bruno Du¨rr, Christoph Marty, Atsumu Ohmura, and Martin Wild (2004), Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect
W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin (2006), Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate
Murphy, D. M., S. Solomon, R. W. Portmann, K. H. Rosenlof, P. M. Forster, and T. Wong (2009), An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D17107, doi:10.1029/2009JD012105.
Yep, the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE shows that the mechanism is occurring in the real world, just as our understanding of the science to date and basic physics told us it would. Now we should measure the impact this mechanism is having on the earth (EMPIRICALLY).
Catia M. Domingues, John A. Church, Neil J. White, Peter J. Gleckler, Susan E. Wijffels, Paul M. Barker & Jeff R. Dunn (2008), Improved estimates of upper-ocean warming and multi-decadal sea-level rise
von Schuckmann, K., F. Gaillard, and P.-Y. Le Traon (2009), Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003–2008, J. Geophys. Res., 114, C09007
Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications
James Hansen, Larissa Nazarenko, Reto Ruedy, Makiko Sato, Josh Willis, Anthony Del Genio, Dorothy Koch, Andrew Lacis, Ken Lo, Surabi Menon, Tica Novakov, Judith Perlwitz, Gary Russell, Gavin A. Schmidt, Nicholas Tausnev (2005), Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications
Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo, and Jeffrey Kiehl (2009), Earth’s Global Energy Budget
Global Trends of Measured Surface Air Temperature – Hansen & Lebedeff (1987)
Dynamic patterns and ecological impacts of declining ocean pH in a high-resolution multi-year dataset – Wootton et al. (2008)
pH variability and CO2 induced acidification in the North Sea – Blackford & Gilbert (2007)
A large discontinuity in the mid-twentieth century in observed global-mean surface temperature – Thompson et al. (2008)
That’s just a quick sample of the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for the AGW case.
Is that the SCIENCE you’re speaking of Albert, or do you mean that they are ignorant of the massive global conspiracy you claim involves all sides of government, tens of thousands of scientists and the investment banks. The conspiracy to rob hard-working folks like you of your life savings in the name of a completely harmless and non-warming agent called CO2?
[See my reply in #87 — Many of these papers just show Co2 is a greenhouse gas, which is not the same as showing that water vapor increases, or cloud cover changes, or other feedbacks occur in such a way as to amplify the baseline warming of 1 degree, due to carbon (which I don’t dispute). JN]
10
In reference to the ABC’s 7:30 report’s attempted hatchet job on Lord Monkton. I would like to make the following observations. First of all its the 7:30 report of course they going to try and do a hatchet job on him. But remember three months ago they would not even have acknowledged his existence. Secondly the 3 scientists thatwere called in to counter Monkton. Focused only on Monkton’s more outrageous political statements(a deliberate ploy on his part,the same strategy has kept the environmental movement in the headlines for three decades) not one of these scientists even attempted to dispute Monkton scientific claims in regard to climate change. More tellingly they went to great lengths to say that the scientific debate should continue free of political interference. Three months ago the scientific debate was over and it was time for the politicians to act. By 7:30 report standards this has been a seismic shift.
10
Contract the opinion polls with the knowledge tests and the inverse is appalling.
IOW, ignorance is bliss AND the basis for a ignorant opinion.
10
That should be CONTRAST, not contract.
10
And three sentences devoted to methodology. No discussion of sources of bias, or of precision.
Why are you even discussing this ?
A waste of time.
10
#13
“Thanks” for a worthless post. That’s not how “referencing” works, toots.
In SUM: If A then B, B can cause A.
A=Temp Rise
B CO2 Rise
Gee, that’s high school logic; were you asleep?
10
#13 – can you repost but this time withn the following ammendments:
Papers not authored or co-authored by Mr Hansen or Mr Trenberth
Papers that in no way reference the University of East Anglias work on AGW
Papers where their Data and any models which have been made publicly available for critique
Oh, and no papers referred to by the IPCC – they may have their origins with the WWF or any other number of NGOs.
I am just interested in information from sources that aren’t corrupted thanks.
10
The lack of a bell curve is a reflection that the issue has become excessively politicised. It is the nature of politicians to think tribally and gather people to their side of the debate while distancing themselves from the opposition. The sad thing, as you say, about a lack of a centre is evidence that the debate has become grossly polarised. Ideally everyone ignorant (meant in the proper polite usage) of the science should be in the middle, but it has become an issue on which one simply has to have an opinion.
The problem with the polarisation, IMHO, is that it means this issue is now beyond the grasp of science and well and truly entrenched with the politicians and advocacy groups. No amount of science, one way or the other, is going to shift a significant number of people from one camp or the other. As a critical thinker I find this an appalling state of affairs, but here we are.
BTW great to meet some of you in person last night 😀
10
Sharpshooter – I think you were a bit too quick on the draw and a little too caustic with your response.
Lara has at least made the effort to produce “evidence”. To attack and belittle her the way you did is resorting to the strategies of team AGW. You owe her an apology.
We can all make mistakes in logic. It is part of the human condition. And it does not take a lot of effort to politely point this out which will enable the dialog to be maintained.
10
Jo,
Interesting bar plot – given the Greens are a minority party, then their 70% support for an ETS etc seems a bit high in terms of absolute numbers. I would have weighted the responses by the percentage of the national vote each political party gets to get a more realistic survey.
OT but if any of you want a written version of Monckton’s portrayal of Government speak about spades, it’s been published in this week’s Australian Spectator.
10
It’s nearly footy season here in Australia, so here’s a report on that theme..
The game so far…
The Warmers got of to a flying start and posted some early scores thanks to some fancy footwork and flashy displays by the likes of Gore, Mann and Hansen. An early setback (Garritt withdrawn following a horrifying mouth and brain injury) was filled by Wong.
The Skeptics were caught flat footed by the Warmers blitzkreig attack, and did not seriously trouble the scorekeeper in the opening stanza. Players like McIntyre, Monckton, Evans and Maharosy put up a stubborn defence but were no match for the well-oiled Warmer’s machine.
Towards the end of the first quarter, cracks began to appeear in the Warmer’s defence. Solo efforts by Fielder and Joyce showed that when asked the tough questions, the Warmers, particularly Wong, had none of the answers.
The game swung in bizarre fashion at quarter time, with Skeptics captain Turnbull electing to play for the opposing team. Budgie-smuggler Tony Abbott assumed the mantle and regrouped the troops. Suddenly the game turned and the Warmers appeared tired and vulnerable. Gore went missing, Mann was in decline and key utility Pachauri appeared to fumble everything that came near him. Wong and Rudd were an embarrassment in front of goals as the focus of play moved to the opposite end of the ground.
At half time, the Skeptics are playing with rhythm, with confidence and a will to win. They are finding players starting to appear from everywhere and the home crowd is lifting. The scores are level at half time, but it is safe to say that the momentum is with the Skeptics, and provided they maintain this energy, it is difficult to see them losing from here.
Back to the studio.
10
Bravo Speedy!!!!
10
RE: footy update – Speedy #23
Huge half of footy coming up for warmers. No fresh legs on the bench and they look to have fired their best shots in this one. They are going to have to really dig deep and who will they look to that hasn’t already gotten into the umpires bad books. Numerous players already on report in what has been an undisciplined performance. They are getting nothing from some of their big signings like Gore/Flannery etc and the next tier look a bit underdone. Pachauri seems to have his mind on something else entirely.
The sceptics, well, they are coming home with a wet sail. Their workrate is an inspiration and their obvious camaraderie something to behold. Nova keeps finding the ball while Bolt is as dependable as ever. They haven’t been put off their game plan by some off the ball stuff and look very focused. You can just imagine what Monckton will be saying to them at half time: Good fellows(fellas), this is in the bag if we persevere to the utmost (really want it). We have absorbed their best (those bastards are buggered) and we are moving forward stoutly and without reservation or compromise (we got em on toast) Let us make our points succinctly with dignity (smash em)and keep our sense of humour at all times (make sure they hurt).
Yes the second half will be a beauty – back to you Speedy
10
Love your work Matty – I’m officially outdone!
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Lara Bickle:
February 9th, 2010 at 9:06 am
Well done Lara. You make a point and cite papers to back it up. That’s what we’ve been asking alarmists to do all along, so kudos to you.
Can you check those “empirical” evidence you cite for the following for me please.
CO2 spectrum is relatively narrow, however water vapour spectrum is much much wider. In other words, whilst your friendly neighbourhood CO2 is trying to do it’s job, WV swamps it and does it better and more comprehensively. So already the Greenhouse is SATURATED, try as it might, it can’t do anymore.
To use an analogy, Mr CO2 is running around at a Greenhouse Banquet trying to grab some food on his plate. But Mr Water Vapour is running ahead of him with a wheelbarrow scooping up all the food. All that’s left for Mr CO2 is some crumbs.
Nobody disputes the radiative properties of CO2. What’s in dispute is can it do more.
Geological history of the planet says it cannot.
To use that analogy again in the geolocical context, once upon a time, at the same Greenhouse banquet (really popular banquet this, it’s been going for 4.5 billion years) there was a whole football team of Mr CO2’s, not soccer or Aussie rules football, but Gridiron team full of Mr CO2’s. Even then, all they could get were some crumbs off the banquet tables. It turns out that Mr WV attends the banquet with a tip truck. Greedy Mr Water Vapour.
10
Did I forget to mention, I was talking to Bolt’s uncle before the game and he tells me that he shaves with a broken beer bottle, gargles with gasoline, and that there are no live rabbits left in his hometown. No wonder they won’t go near him. Has been a rock all day at centre half back. McIntyre’s finesse has been a delight too – hard to see this unit cracking – and Watt’s just keeps going. Catch you at 3/4 time speedy.
10
Lara Bickle:
February 9th, 2010 at 9:06 am
Which one of your references EMPIRICALLY shows that a doubling of CO2 will lead to more than a 1 deg increase in the Earth’s temperature?
10
Humour has always been prerogative of the winners. It’s hard to laugh when you are losing.
10
Lara Bickle
Thank you for your comments. What I meant was most young people that I meet are ignorant of BOTH sides of this discussion and don’t want to know, they prefer to trust the Government.
Many years ago I agreed with the pioneer scientists who reported warming, they were considered lunatics, however the basic science supports their view and finding, we know today the science is far more complex and I have the view co2 is not the most powerful driver of climate, this debate has split the community that should be concentrating on things where we can make a difference.
No one will ever convince that the environmental movement wants action to save lives, if they were that way inclined, they wouldn’t have let millions, mostly children die from their DDT bans in countries where people were dying en masse, I judge their sympathies by the body count of children.
Climate change paranoia resembles the DDT ban. It seems to be the same players, the usual suspects, the same U.N. Environmental Protection with the same legally binding International controls ratified by member Nations, the same promises, the same fear propaganda, the same one eyed view of science with false claims exposed too late, the same feigned pity from people filling their pockets from human misery, the same Greenies taking credit for saving humanity as they watch millions die from their evil and twisted ideology that prefers to see Chinese, Indians and other developing nations remain bonded to abject poverty because they want to save the planet, the same lethal consequences.
10
Hi Lara,
The Australian farmers have borne the brunt of ‘green’ lobbied legislation by the States, which the Feds used as carbon credits to meet Kyoto obligations. For no compensation. None. Bugger all. Farmers have lost their livelihoods and their lives over this national disgrace.
The Tower of Hope Rally was held in Canberra for and by farmers to show their support for Property Rights for farmers, and indeed for all of us. God bless them all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3Wl6T8afCo
If the science is not settled, then why is Rudd taking a wrecking ball to our economy and our food security?
Property Rights to use your land are as essential to our democracy as the Right to Freedom of Speech. If landowners don’t have a basic right to their property after they have forked out money to buy it, it is valid to ask: what rights do they have? Property Rights are essential to prosperity and growth. If you cant demonstrate that you have assets to your name, its pretty hard to get a loan to start a business to guarantee any prosperity. Property Rights are the foundation stone of social mobility. Property Rights are another word for accumulated savings.
10
Matty (28)
I wonder if we’ll get the right score if we listen to ABC “Grandstand”? It would be a first…
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Sorry, can’t help myself,
Just a recap on events (hopefully in a funny fashion):
One day on the banks of a billabong
a very clever Rail Road engineer
decided to make
Skeptic Stew,Skeptic Stew,Gooey,Brewy,Yummy,Chewy,Skeptic Stew
Mann came ambling up the bank
“Good Day Puchari” he said
Holding his hockey stick
What is this AR4 report about?
“I’m brewing up a gooey, chewy report
to silence the skeptics”
replied Puchari with a toothy grin
“if you ask me” said Mann
“the best thinking for a gooey skeptic stew is a Hockey Stick,
with a nice sharp curve at the end” says Mann
“A Hockey Stick” laughed Puchari
“What a good idea. Righto, in it goes!”
So Mann scooped up his hockey stick
and put it into the Report
Around the report Puchari and Mann danced and sang
Skeptic Stew,Skeptic Stew,Gooey,Brewy,Yummy,Chewy,Skeptic Stew
Waltzing out of the shade of the Ironbarks
came Phil
he took a look at the report
“Oh ho, Puchari” he said
“What have we here?”
“Gooey, Chewy skeptic stew”
boasted Puchari
“If only that decline at the end of the hockey stick wasn’t there” he sighed
“A fudge factor in the model should sort it out”
“Fudge factor?” said Puchari
“That would make it look good,
Righto in it goes” said puchari
So Phil and Mann hid the decline in the hockey stick
And then destroyed or hid the data to cover their proverbials
Around and around the report they danced and sang
Skeptic Stew,Skeptic Stew,Gooey,Brewy,Yummy,Chewy,Skeptic Stew
The World Wildlife fund came along, sliding off their sun soaked stone
“Silly Puchari” said the World Wildlife Fund
“You don’t have glaciers disappearing in this report.
You can’t scare people into believing this without 2 billion people not getting water”
“Theres a lot to be said for disappearing Himalayan glaciers by 2035” said puchari
“Righto, in it goes” said puchari
So World Wildlife Fund put in the section about the Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035
Around and around the report they all danced and sang
Skeptic Stew,Skeptic Stew,Gooey,Brewy,Yummy,Chewy,Skeptic Stew
Up through the Cold wet northern hemisphere winter popped one of Pucharis scientists
“Wait a bit, Not so fast” he shivered
Shaking the Snow from his hair
“Now I’ve been listening to the Europeans
and they seem concerned about sea level rises in Scandinavia.”
Take it from me, you will need to show Scandinavian countries underwater in your report”
Puchari nods his head
“Sinking Europe, I should have thought of that,
Righto, in it goes”
So into the report went the sinking europe theory
They all read through the report again, all the while singing
Skeptic Stew,Skeptic Stew,Gooey,Brewy,Yummy,Chewy,Skeptic Stew
Just then, Hansen comes along
“Look here” says Hansen
“We need to make sure the temperatures are rising
Otherwise no-one will believe the report” says Hansen
“Leave it to an activist to think about that one” says puchari
“Righto, in it goes”
So Hansen ensures only the 1500 warmest Weather stations are used for the report
“Ah Ha” cried Puchari
“Now my report is missing only one thing”
“What’s that?” asked the Governments of the world
“Your sovereignty – you see this Global warming thing requires some very drastic action. We must suspend democracy and increase taxes” says puchari
“Raising taxes I’m all for” says Mr Rudd and Ms Wong
“But surrendering our sovereignty, that will take longer”
“Wait!” says the public
“Stop!” say the skeptics
“What the heck happened here?” as the Mainstream medias viewers
“So that’s what all this is about? says the public”
“Arrggghhh, we’ve been busted” cries Puchari and his “Climate scientists”.
10
Now, I normally don’t comment, but this- pardon me- bullshit, made my need to have my say in this- Al Gore knew what he was talking about, and i’ve been checking temperture, solar, and CO2 records for the past 20 years, and- guess what? solar levels have DECREASED, while the otherr two are on the rise. So please. make sure you actually know what you’re talking about. Why would they Fake it- and why do you deny it in the face of science? get a Ph.D. in this subject and then I’ll consider it. But frankly, the data does not lie.
You people who activey deny climate change are stopping the solution from happening- and making it worse.
Do it for your kin- who will live in the world that you’re ruining. Fix the problem.
10
RE: Speedy – Climate football
Monckton and various others have remarked about the lack of humour coming from the other side. (see post #35). Admittedly saving the world is a very serious matter for those engaged in it, but it is very telling that we own the laughs.
As for the ABC coverage of the game: don’t be surprised if there is a mysterious break in transmission and an apology. The free kick count will be 86-0, and the commentary subdued, Tony Jones hunched in the back of the box as the floodgates open. Goal umpire will have a sore neck watching the ball go over his head.
10
Intel
I agree – Al Gore knew EXACTLY what he was saying. Whether he believed it himself remains to be seen. Rising sea levels – he claimed 20 feet per century? A bit embarrassing then to find that it is actually only 6 inches per century and has been that way for the last 8000 years (with decadal variations). Even more embarrassing, he bought his $4 million condominium about 200 metres back from the waterline. So if he really believed his own words, he wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole. Why should YOU believe his words, when he doesn’t himself?
Funny, what he does doesn’t equate to what he says. Know his household power bill perchance? Probably (actually it is) more in single day than you or I use in a single month.
You should be feeling angry – you have been conned by cynical scientists and politicians who are making a packet at our expense.
Best Wishes,
Speedy.
PS: Solar activity has actually declined over the last few years. Check out Solarcycle24.com. The critical issue is the magnetic field strength, which is a driver of cloud nucleation. And also an area that the alarmist camp gloss over.
10
Intel @ #35
Where did you get the idea that anyone here denies climate change? What we are concerned about is that there is no evidence that there is a man-made problem and that any efforts to “Fix the problem” will have any effect whatsoever, (apart from making a lot of the world’s most vulnerable even poorer or dead and the privileged even richer).
10
Matty
In the footy trade it’s a goal umpire affliction known as sunburn to the tonsils.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Intel:
February 9th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Intel when you say solar levels are low you’re referring to total solar irradiation (TSI). Yes that has decreased, but it was very high thru most of the 20th century. Only in the descending phase of cycle 24 has it been low. TSI is not the only solar activity that affects earths climate.
Why would they fake it? Most certainly it’s because of the two things that make this ugly world go around..MONEY & POWER
May I suggest you do some more research on the suns role on our climate
10
There is a poll on yahoo at the moment which asks the question
Q. Do you support Kevin Rudd’s ETS proposal?
Here is the website:-
http://au.news.yahoo.com/polls/popup/-/poll_id/51862
78% of people so far are OPPOSED!
Why not vote?
10
SUBJECT: POLL IN THE AUSTRALIAN ON GLOBAL WARMING
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/
Over 64% so far have NO CONFIDENCE AT ALL in the “so called science” of climate change!
Why not cast your vote?
10
I always think that the interesting stuff is in the exceptions rather than the rule.
In the case of this poll, it is the 5% or so of people who identify as Greens who either Oppose or Strongly Oppose measures to curb CO2 emissions, with the larger portion of this group strongly opposing.
That just plain looks weird. It is a bit like the clergy indulging in pagan rites 😉
Could it be that this represents those Greens who actually understand the way that science is supposed to work? Could it be that these are believers who are truly embarrassed at all of the PR hype that has surrounded AGW?
Jo, from your comments, you obviously have data from other survey questions, are you going to publish those results here as well?
10
Intel writes “I normally don’t comment, but this- pardon me- bullshit, made my need to have my say in this- Al Gore knew what he was talking about, and i’ve been checking temperture, solar, and CO2 records for the past 20 years, and- guess what? solar levels have DECREASED, while the other two are on the rise. So please. make sure you actually know what you’re talking about.”
You normally don’t write? You should. 😉
I still reckon Al Gore is a giant tool though…
10
Rereke asked “Jo, from your comments, you obviously have data from other survey questions, are you going to publish those results here as well?”
The PDF link to the full survey is broken, but here’s a copy for you: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=V0FP8UYA
10
LTL-FTC,
This poll result comes as no surprise to me. AGW scepticism has become as politicised as AGW itself. Bloggers who let their commentators throw phrases like “left-wing conspiracy” and “global socialism” are doing the cause a huge disservice. This is a general criticism not directed at anyone in particular, btw. AGW is not a left-wing conspiracy or a cause pushed by scientists with a left-leaning agenda. This is about fascism. AGW is about dominance and control.
It might be time for the right-wingers like Lord Monckton and Andrew Bolt to stand aside. Their political agendas are not helping to debunk global warming. I’m so tired of the ‘lefty bashing’ which goes on in this debate. An enquiring mind like mind has to trawl through endless snide, anti-leftist remarks to pick up the relevant arguments debunking AGW in the blogosphere. I’m a lefty and most of the people I know who think AGW is bunk are lefties. And, the people I have found most ready to be convinced about the real science of global warming are politically left.
So let’s focus on the real agenda. AGW is about fascism, lefty fascism from bureaucrats and righty fascism from big business. Let’s not lose sight of that fact.
I could also go on about the whole “media left-wing bias” BS but, I won’t… Only to say the only bias in the media is alarmist bias, both left and right.
10
Sadly the left-right political thing in the AGW debate was inevitable as a by-product of the politicisation of the climate science field. The tribalism is part and parcel. I don’t like it either, and I am sure Jo despises it, but here we are.
There are two possible approaches IMO:
1) Ignore the political debate and associated mudslinging and stick to the science only;
2) Get into the trenches and get dirty.
There really isn’t much of a middle road in this, which was discussed in the post on WUWT today:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/08/sir-david-king-half-right-on-the-ipcc-and-global-warming-policies-despite-bad-logic/
The problem is that once politicised the debate is too noisy for group “1)” types to be heard over the battlefield noise.
10
Waffle,
Surely the word is totalitarianism? Whether it’s left wing or right wing doesn’t matter, the efforts are totalitarian and the results are predictable.
I personally think it’s a combination of both. Just as this issue polarises views in the community as a whole, it is also a polarising debate within left wing and right wing circles.
10
Unfortunately, the ‘debunking science’ has become politicised. This blog entry is a classic example.
So the data has been adjusted, kinda like what the CRU and cohorts did…
Oops. Where are a warning bells? This study is bogus. Our adjusted data is now creating false results. Let’s get back to science, not propaganda.
10
Actually Waffle those 5 just tell us that some of the folks who are undecided either way believe that we should err on the side of caution. YOu also don;t give the possibility of voters who think it is real but also think we shoudl only act if others do too.
10
MattB,
That’s an implied statement. Which is as scientifically ‘robust’ as using correlation to extrapolate results. Let’s have a look at those survey questions;
Nope. Can’t find the “Do you think we should take a cautionary approach to socio-climate policies?” question.
10
Waffle – I’m just meaning to point out that there is no contradiction between 49% thinking it is real and 51% thinking we should act nomatter what other nations do. I was merely giving a type of person who could conceivably vote that they are not sure on the science, but think we should act on it regardless of global action. I’ve not said that is why they answered as such, just that it is not a contradiction. Sorry don’t get your knickers in a twist.
10
Albert # 31
Good points, all.
I can remember living in London during the period of the black smog’s. As a kid, I had to wear a face mask to go to and from school. Half my classmates had asthma. Now THAT was pollution!
In Germany, they had acid rain that drilled holes in the leaves on the trees in the aptly named Black Forest. And although no forests were actually destroyed, THAT was still pollution!
It was those two major problems that gave impetus to the modern Green movement in Europe.
In the early days, a reasonable proportion of Green members had applied science or engineering degrees. They new what caused the problems through empirical measurement and analysis, and they also knew the science and engineering techniques required to fix the problems at source. In short they knew all about the cause and the cure. What they lacked was the financial means and political clout to do it – that was where the Green movement, as a political force, came in.
The problem for the modern Greens are manifold. They no longer have a backbone of physical scientists and engineers. Instead they have a preponderance of social science and liberal arts majors; not that there is anything wrong with that, except that these disciplines tend to eschew the aggressive aspects of peer review, preferring to find consensus. They do not require, nor follow, the rigour of the scientific method; and they generally have no need for the depth of mathematics and statistics required for complex computer modelling. But worst of all, they no longer have an obvious and visible dragon to fight.
Most are second generation Greens, Their parents had the big polluters to fight; it gave them a cause. Now the children need a cause too. By extension, the big polluters of their parents’ generation are morphed into the industrial capitalists of the west; an idea fomented by socialist radicals who have infiltrated the movement. What they needed though was a defining issue; but there was none.
So somebody, somewhere, chose to demonise the one molecule that underpins the whole of the food-chain, and hence all life on earth.
Brilliant! You can not get rid of it without getting rid of life itself. What a master-stroke!
Having too much CO2, is an “issue” that will never go away. And it is just enough of a green-house gas to be credible with the post-modern scientists and earth-mother believers, even though the science does not really support it.
It was the PR coup of the millennium. Joseph Goebbels would be so proud.
10
Intel # 35
You might be surprised at the number of PhD’s.
We tend not to use appeals to authority around here – it is considered bad form – and spoils the fun.
10
Well Said Rereke, Once again *tips hat*
10
Lara Bickle #45
Thankyou Lara.
10
Waffle #46
Communism and Fascism, in the simplest of terms:
Communists want to own the means of production and distribution, and have the state determine how each will be used.
Fascists want private enterprise to continue to own the means of production and distribution, and have the state determine how each will be used.
The only difference is who owns the “assets”. In both cases individual freedoms in actions, thought, and dreams are lost.
Right now, the Australian Federal Government, acting as the state, has determined that trees cannot be cleared from privately owned farmland because the Government wants to claim the carbon credits for the nation, and without any recompense to the farmer.
Now, it is not my place to conjoin the words Australia and fascist in the same sentence, but if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck …
10
Patrick (9), just about sums up my stance to which I would add that I have always questioned the idea of CO2 being a pollutant along with CO and soot particles. (If you lump them together under the term of “carbon emissions”, you automatically prohibit the use of all kinds of heat engines, which really does mean the end of civilisation as we know it.)
However when I first started following the debate on the Internet about three years ago, I had some trouble rooting out sceptical sites and at the beginning really found myself among the rednecks. I was appalled by the polarity of the debate and was glad to find more balanced blogs like Watt’s Up with That, and this one where I have long been one of Jo’s regular visitors.
It’s sad to see the debate still polarised, but thanks to the blogosphere, the brainwashing media are no longer having it all their own way. It’s cheering to see Lord Monckton standing up to them so well and showing them up for what they are. Giving media interviews is unfortunately the thorny path towards reaching the general public rather than preaching to the converted. The noble lord does not seem to have had this chance with the British media. In Australia it gives a bit more hope that from being a “thinking minority” (not a particularly vocal one I may say) we may yet be reaching a tipping point in public opinion.
10
Who was it who said :
“Communism is where a man with nothing says he wants to share it with everyone”?
10
I have been watching this issue for far too long and after reading goodness knows how many scientific papers have not found a single one which shows a direct link between rising CO2 and serious global warming. In fact I haven’t seen one which shows a direct link at all. I have however seen computer models with wild predictions but that is not science. Who are theses scientists who are in the collective description “all scientists agree that there is man-made global warming ” ? We learn that the scientists who carried out the studies for the very first IPCC report said they could find no discernible effect of CO2 on climate yet Mr.Santer changed the report to say there was a connection. Corruption from the start. And it continues. Can someone please give me the name of the scientist and the title and date of his report which links rising CO2 to global warming ?
10
Tony writes “I have been watching this issue for far too long and after reading goodness knows how many scientific papers have not found a single one which shows a direct link between rising CO2 and serious global warming. In fact I haven’t seen one which shows a direct link at all.”
Tony, this is due to your ignorance of the evidence, not an absence of evidence. The following is but a small sample:
Here are papers that demonstrate the (EMPIRICALLY ASSESSED) warming properties of CO2:
The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide – Martin & Barker (1932)
Rotation-Vibration Spectra of Diatomic and Simple Polyatomic Molecules with Long Absorbing Paths – Herzberg & Herzberg (1953)
Total Absorptance of Carbon Dioxide in the Infrared – Burch et al. (1962)
Absorption Line Broadening in the Infrared – Burch et al. (1962)
Line shape in the wing beyond the band head of the 4·3 μ band of CO2 – Winters et al. (1964)
High-Temperature Spectral Emissivities and Total Intensities of the 15-µ Band System of CO2 – Ludwig et al. (1966)
Absorption of Infrared Radiant Energy by CO2 and H2O. IV. Shapes of Collision-Broadened CO2 Lines – Burch et al. (1969)
Investigation of the Absorption of Infrared Radiation by Atmospheric Gases – Burch et al. (1970)
Collision-induced scattering in CO2 gas – Teboul et al. (1995)
On far-wing Raman profiles by CO2 – Benech et al. (2002)
Collisional effects on spectral line-shapes – Boulet (2004)
Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO2 IR bands between 10 and 20 μm. I: model and laboratory measurements – Niro et al. (2004)
Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions – Miller & Brown (2004)
Spectroscopic challenges for high accuracy retrievals of atmospheric CO2 and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) experiment – Miller et al. (2005)
Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence – Predoi-Cross et al. (2007)
Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1 – Toth et al. (2008)
Okay, so we now understand (from EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE) the process and properties related to CO2 induced warming. In other words, we understand the MECHANISM by which warming might be occurring. Now let’s check if this process translates into the real world (Again, using EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and AVOIDING straight temperature because the conspiracy theorists around here claim that all temperature records have been faked as part of the global conspiracy).
Wang, K., and S. Liang (2009), Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D19101, doi:10.1029/2009JD011800.
Rolf Philipona, Bruno Du¨rr, Christoph Marty, Atsumu Ohmura, and Martin Wild (2004), Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect
W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin (2006), Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate
Murphy, D. M., S. Solomon, R. W. Portmann, K. H. Rosenlof, P. M. Forster, and T. Wong (2009), An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D17107, doi:10.1029/2009JD012105.
Yep, the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE shows that the mechanism is occurring in the real world, just as our understanding of the science to date and basic physics told us it would. Now we should measure the impact this mechanism is having on the earth (EMPIRICALLY).
Catia M. Domingues, John A. Church, Neil J. White, Peter J. Gleckler, Susan E. Wijffels, Paul M. Barker & Jeff R. Dunn (2008), Improved estimates of upper-ocean warming and multi-decadal sea-level rise
von Schuckmann, K., F. Gaillard, and P.-Y. Le Traon (2009), Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003–2008, J. Geophys. Res., 114, C09007
Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications
James Hansen, Larissa Nazarenko, Reto Ruedy, Makiko Sato, Josh Willis, Anthony Del Genio, Dorothy Koch, Andrew Lacis, Ken Lo, Surabi Menon, Tica Novakov, Judith Perlwitz, Gary Russell, Gavin A. Schmidt, Nicholas Tausnev (2005), Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications
Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo, and Jeffrey Kiehl (2009), Earth’s Global Energy Budget
Global Trends of Measured Surface Air Temperature – Hansen & Lebedeff (1987)
Dynamic patterns and ecological impacts of declining ocean pH in a high-resolution multi-year dataset – Wootton et al. (2008)
pH variability and CO2 induced acidification in the North Sea – Blackford & Gilbert (2007)
A large discontinuity in the mid-twentieth century in observed global-mean surface temperature – Thompson et al. (2008)
That’s just a quick sample of the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for the AGW case. How about you list the papers you claim to have read and we’ll decide whether you’ve been deliberately or accidentally avoiding any of the hundreds upon hundreds that directly support AGW?
10
Sam Patterson – I am aware of several those papers. I know that the first few parts of CO2 will heat up with radiation but after an initial spurt it no longer causes significant heating of the atmosphere. However much extra CO2 you add there is effectively no increase in temperature. Thanks for your comments but you haven’t shown a paper which shows a direct link to the forecast of serious global warming. There are computer programmes which show the effect but I have not seen any empirical evidence.
10
Sam P
An impressive list of references but you seem to have missed the point. Most skeptics accept that Co2 has warming properties most accept that without feedbacks Co2 could have increased temps from pre industrial times to the present by 1C. But before we accept the possibility of CAGW we want empirical evidence that increasing Co2 from here on in will do …… well anything to negatively affect climate.
We only ask because despite increased levels of Co2 temps have not risen for more than a decade, arctic and antarctic ice is increasing, sea levels stable for past two years, ocean heat content down etc etc.
10
Tony
Arrhenius demonstrated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in the late 19th century – we all know that. It is significant, as you point out, because it helps (along with water vapour) in trapping infra-red radiation – without these two gases in our atmosphere the temperature would be about 33 C colder. We’re all in violent agreement up to this point.
What happens if we add MORE CO2? That is the question. We all know that CO2 obeys the Lambert equation, so its incremental absorption of infra-red (14.5 micron) decreases in a logarithmic fashion as the concentrations increase. That is why you see typical temperture increases bandied around for doubled CO2 at about 0.5 – 1.5 C.
The so-called runaway greenhouse is a result of increased CO2 levels increasing temperatures to the extent that further greenhouse gases make further contributions to temperature (e.g. outgassing of CO2 from the oceans as the temperatures rise, or increased water vapour in the atmosphere.) In which case, the CO2 is relegated to the role of fuse in the global warming bomb. Fortunately, its a fuse that doesn’t work.
How do we know? Firstly, the conditions that could cause this runaway already exist – say a nice warm humid day in Singapore. They certainly have existed before with the paleo climate several degrees warmer than present and showing a past where CO2 levels were up to 15 times higher than they are today. CO2 makes a dud fuse.
The final evidence is that life on earth has thrived through all of these changes. We exist and therefore (or because) a runaway greenhouse didn’t. (Despite the variations shown) The earth’s climate is remarkably stable, despite all of these disturbances. It won’t worry about such a trifling thing as humanity.
Don’t worry about it. Worry about the people who are trying to save us.
10
Sam Paterson,
None of those papers represent empirical evidence for AGW. The whole AGW thesis hinges on the verity of climate sensitivity, and to date no one has verified it experimentally, and hence empirically.
I have to add that you can never prove any scientific theory, but you can falsify them, and in the case of AGW it has been falsified empirically as Speedy #64 points out.
10
[…] Australian Climate Poll: 60% passionate (but half in the dark … […]
10
Louis (65)
Spot on! The issue isn’t whether CO2 heats up the atmosphere – it’s how much it does. The fact that we here here, despite some pretty serious deviations from the conditions we currently experience, does suggest that it has a miniscule impact.
Anyone disagree?
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Sam Patterson:
February 9th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Oh wow, lookey at all them papers. Peer reviewed and all, one after another.
How on earth could a mere uneducated dumbass skeptic like me compete with that? All I’ve got is a measly little report from the United Nations Environment Programme. You know them don’t you? They’re the mob the IPCC works for. Here are some of the things they say after collating not just a dozen or so peer reviewed papers like yours, but thousands, from their 4000 climate scientists, Nobel winners one and all.
A Climate in Peril. A Popular guide to the Latest IPCC reports (2009).
“The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1988.
“The IPCC does not conduct any research. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature relevant to the understanding of the risk of human induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”
My comments in brackets.
KEY UNCERTAINTIES [s–t we don’t know enough about]
“*Difficult to determine the effects of climate change….because other unconnected causes may be exerting an influence. [We don’t know enough.]
“*Hard to be sure, at scales smaller than an entire continent, whether natural or human causes are influencing temperatures. [We are sorry for alarming people every time there is a hot month.]
“*There is still uncertainty about the scale of CO2 emissions due to changes in land use, and the scale of methane emissions from individual sources. [We’re not sure how much of the stuff is up there, but it’s all bad.]
“*It is uncertain how much warming will result in the long term from any particular level of GHG concentrations, and therefore it is uncertain what level – and pace – of emissions cuts will be needed to ensure a specific level of GHG concentrations. [But, go ahead and fruck up the global economy on our say so anyway. What’s a few trillion among friends?]
“*Estimates vary widely for the impacts of aerosols and the strength of feedbacks, particularly clouds, heat absorption by the oceans, and the carbon cycle.. [Well fruck me dead, what else is there in climate?]
“*Possible future changes in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are a major source of uncertainty about rising sea levels. [But, lets say sea level rise anywhere from 9mm to 90 metres, that should cover it.]
“*Projections of climate change impacts beyond about 2050 are heavily dependent on scenarios and models. [After 2050 we’re in Avatar land.]
“*Satellite data recorded since 1978 show the annual average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 per cent each decade.” [Wow, I’m alarmed. In 400 years it should all disappear.]
ATMOSPHERIC GHG CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) THEIR LIFETIMES and GWP
“*Water Vapour..1-3ppm lasts a few days. Global Warming Potential…?
[We know fruck all about water vapour.]
“*CO2..365ppm…variable lifetime…GWP of 1 [Stuffed if we know how long this s–t stays in the atmosphere.]
FEEDBACKS
“*One factor which complicates climate science – and therefore leads to wide ranges of uncertainty – is the existence of feedbacks.” [Yet something else we don’t know enough about; it’s a frigging travesty.]
PROJECTED CLIMATE CHANGE AND IT’S IMPACTS.
“*Backed up by new studies and observations, the IPCC is more certain of the accuracy of the projected warming patterns and other regional climatic effects than it was in the Third Assessment Report. [We knew fruck all in the 3rd report, and we are more certain of it now.]
“*The IPCC scenarios (often referred to as the SRES scenarios, for “Special Report on Emissions Scenarios” published by the IPCC in 2000) explore alternative development pathways. They take into account demographic, economic and technological factors and their resulting GHG emissions. The emissions projections based on those different assumptions are widely used in forecasting future climate change, vulnerability and impacts. It is open to anyone to decide which of the different scenarios seems most probable, as the IPCC doesn’t take the risk of attaching any probability to any of them.” [You pays your money, you takes your risk you sucker.]
Well Sam Patterson #61 That’s all I got. I guess you win. Oh, by the way, did you “pay your money?”
10
Lara Bickle and Sam Patterson:Trembeth et al do post moderne science. Ideology, modelling and the massaging of data trump accurate measurement. Take a look at the Cru emails.
10
@ Jo
In September last year (09) I was just a simple minded person about AGW.
I looked into a web site about how the hockey stick was true.
At that web site they used language like, On this matter, around 60% of Australians are passionate, and half of them are wrong.
I did not like how they were talking so I did some reaserch for myself.
Please don’t put yourself in the same boat, because I really like your site.
Thanks
G Hall
10
The next time a Greens supporter accuses anyone here in conversation of being a conspiracy theorist for daring to mention that the AGW ethos might be a very convenient means of facilitating globally administered wealth transfer from rich nations to poor…please refer them to greens.org.au – Policy page, policy E5 “Global Governance”.
Makes for very interesting reading, what was that mentioned in previous posts about global socialism/fascism etc?
Oh, and BTW lets cut the BS, Mons Rudd et al,and call a spade a spade – Carbon Trading (for anyone who knows how it works, or more to the point how it doesn`t in the case of the EU experience) ought to be more appropriately termed as “Payment to Pollute”. I may be missing something here, but what is the point of (effectively) a carbon tax, passing on costs to the consumer and then those consumers being “refunded” by the government out of the tax collected with “any balance” then being used for renewable energy sourcing – when science is still arguing about whether positive or negative feedbacks will rule the day?
Sorry, my bad, I forgot that the science was settled.
10
Thanks to the link to the farmers meeting Thumbnail.
A farmer in my area grows grass seed which he exports to Dubai for their irrigated Dairy farms.
He cleared some regrowth to plant a clean paddock of grass. A local greenie dobbed him into the authorities and he was fined $10,000 and banned from making any changes to his property for 10 years!!
10
Tony writes “Thanks for your comments but you haven’t shown a paper which shows a direct link to the forecast of serious global warming. There are computer programmes which show the effect but I have not seen any empirical evidence.”
Okay, so the only evidence you will accept for future warming is post-hoc? After the fact? You’ll reject ANY information that points to global warming in that case DESPITE the post-hoc historical EMPIRICAL evidence I provided? This is not only absurd, it is the very pinnacle of deliberate close-mindedness.
I note that you did not provide a list of the “many scientific papers” you have read, and assume that you CANNOT provide such a list because you haven’t read them. That would make sense, because on the basis of your criteria, you would reject almost all science, including… well, gravity. You cannot know that if you jump off the ground tomorrow you won’t float off into space because there are no empirical studies that demonstrate to your satisfaction that future jumping will be subject to gravity….
Totally Nutters.
10
So, what’s the real agenda behind the ‘climate change’ push?
Have you asked yourself how the legislation will affect your rights in the long-term? It was through similar legislation to fulfil ‘our’ obligations under the United Nations’ Kyoto Protocol that Peter Spencer and the rest of the Australian farmers were deprived of their property rights.
What do you think will be the outcome if either version of the same type of legislation, now put forward by both main parties, is passed?
Start by combing Tony Abbott’s proposed legislation with a fine toothcomb.
And while you are about it, go back over Labor’s legislation, now reintroduced.
The Americans have come to realise what will be the results for them if similar legislation is passed in the US.
“I bet you thought that if you bought a house, you actually own it and can, with reasonable exceptions, do with it what you want. You probably think that if you want to live in a log cabin, with wood stoves that belch smoke into the air for heat, and an old washer and dryer that don’t have those little EnergyStar stickers on them you can because it’s your life and your property.
You paid for it with money you earned with the sweat of your brow and what the heck is America anyhow if a body can’t live in the home they want furnished with the appliances they want?
Ah, silly you. You didn’t reckon on the Democratic Party’s desire to control every miniscule aspect of your life.
Does your home now belong to the state?
Let me introduce you to a little section of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill called the “Building Energy Performance Labeling Program”. It’s section 304 of the bill and it says, basically, that your house belongs to the state.
See, the Federal Government really wants a country full of energy-efficient homes, so much so that the bill mandates that new homes be 30 percent more energy efficient than the current building code on the very day the law is signed.
That efficiency goes up to 50 percent by 2014 and only goes higher from there, all the way to 2030. That, by the way, is not merely a target but a requirement of the law. New homes must reach those efficiency targets no matter what.
But what does that have to do with current homeowners like you?
Well, I’m glad you asked. You’re certainly not off the hook, no way, no how. Here’s what the Democrats have planned for you. The program requires that states label their buildings so that we can all know how efficient every building (that includes residential and non-residential buildings) is and it requires that the information be made public.
To that end, the bill suggests a number of circumstances under which the states could inspect a building, including:
(A) preparation, and public disclosure of the label through filing with tax and title records at the time of:
(i) a building audit conducted with support from Federal or State funds;
(ii) a building energy-efficiency retrofit conducted in response to such an audit;
(iii) a final inspection of major renovations or additions made to a building in accordance with a building permit issued by a local government entity;
(iv) a sale that is recorded for title and tax purposes consistent with paragraph (8);
(v) a new lien recorded on the property for more than a set percentage of the assessed value of the property, if that lien reflects public financial assistance for energy-related improvements to that building; or
(vi) a change in ownership or operation of the building for purposes of utility billing; or
(B) other appropriate means.
State empowered to inspect your home
Pay close attention to (iii), (iv), and (vi) because those hit you right where you live. What that’s saying is the state will be empowered to inspect your home if you want to:
1) renovate your house in any way that requires a building permit,
2) sell your house, or
3) change the name of the person responsible for any utility bill.
By now, if you haven’t swallowed your tongue and are in need of medical attention, you’re probably wondering if there’s a penalty for not being in compliance with the new efficiency ratings.
The answer is no, and yes. Here’s where the bill gets really sneaky. So far as I can tell, there is no direct penalty if your house does not meet the bill’s target.
However, it does require that the number of buildings inspected by the state meet certain percentage targets and if they do not, the state loses out on a significant portion of the money it could get from Washington.
In other words, the bill demands certain things from the states, but ties funding for those demands to compliance with the demands.
Did I say the bill gets sneaky? I was wrong. The bill strong-arms the states like a couple mob heavies leaning on a witness in a Rico trial.
In turn, the states are going to put the screws to you, so it gets the billions of dollars Washington is dangling in front of them. So while the Federal government won’t directly punish you, it will provide the states with lots and lots of rectangular, green reasons to do so.
And it gets worse. The Federal government has graciously offered to help homeowners with the retrofits the states will force them to do through a program called the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Purposes (REEP). REEP sets aside a pool of money in each state for property owners who have to turn their polar bear-killing buildings into lean, mean, green machines. But, and I’m sure you’ve guessed this already, there’s a catch.
Before I get to that, here’s the magic formula (and don’t read ahead and spoil the surprise!):
(i) AWARDS – For residential buildings–
(I) support for a free or low-cost detailed building energy audit that prescribes, as part of a energy-reducing measures sufficient to achieve at least a 20 percent reduction in energy use, by providing an incentive equal to the documented cost of such audit, but not more than $200, in addition to any earned by achieving a 20 percent or greater efficiency improvement;
(II) a total of $1,000 for a combination of measures, prescribed in an audit conducted under subclause (I), designed to reduce energy consumption by more than 10 percent, and $2,000 for a combination of measures prescribed in such an audit, designed to reduce energy consumption by more than 20 percent;
(III) $3,000 for demonstrated savings of 20 percent, pursuant to a performance-based building retrofit program; and
(IV) $1,000 for each additional 5 percentage points of energy savings achieved beyond savings for which funding is provided under subclause (II) or (III).
If you want to hit that 50 percent savings mark that all new homes have to hit, then you can get as much as $12,200, including inspection, as you scoop all those awards. That’s a pretty good chunk of change that should cover most, if not all of the costs of a retrofit on any moderately-sized older house, right?
Easy, peasy, lemon squeezy.
Except for that catch and boy is it a doozy.
(ii) MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE- Awards under clause (i) shall not exceed 50 percent of retrofit costs for each building. For buildings with multiple residential units, awards under clause (i) shall not be greater than 50 percent of the total cost of retrofitting the building, prorated among individual residential units on the basis of relative costs of the retrofit.
10
SUBJECT: NEWS.COM.AU GLOBAL WARMING BRAINWASHING
News.com.au is attempting to brainwash ppl into believing AGW!
Check out the captions on these pics
http://www.news.com.au/pictures/gallery-e6frflv9-1111120489924?page=1
PATHETIC LYING BS!!!!!!!!
10
Lara Bickle,
I go to bed reading about this same useless evidence. I get up the next morning and I read this same worthless evidence. I take a break from work and here’s this same worthless evidence. It’s been this way for over 2 days.
How long will it take for you to realize that we think your sources are biased and worthless? There simply is no empirical evidence that CO2 can significantly warm the planet except in the minds of those who want it to be that way.
Please, give us all a break and find someone else to continually repeat this nonsense to.
10
Sam patterson – My point is simply that there is no direct evidence that CO2 is causing serious global warming. I did not say there was not warming because the planet warms and cools all the time. It is important not to confuse climate change with global warming. Global warming is uwards only climate change is up or down.
10
Re George :71
said,
Well at least they include:-
“8. extensive structural reform to democratise the UN.”
although we’ve seen how ‘for the good of the people,’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘chosen (and can be unchosen) by the people’.
10
Bill,
I just had to fix a hangnail. My God! That must be caused by global warming too. Everything else is. Well, no, not quite.
Polar Bears are well known to swim long distances in Open Ocean. I have been told, though I can’t confirm it myself, that one is known to have made the trip from Canada to Greenland. These are natural born swimmers and are very good at it. That’s why I laughed at Al Gore’s assertion that they’re drowning. The Canadian Wildlife Service still to this day doesn’t have them listed on their registry of endangered species either. What BS!
10
Hello Joanne…I guess there’s always more work to do, isn’t there???
Wow, here’s the latest error found and it involves your Country. The IPCC report says one thing and had it backwards….http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1900.last
here’s the Study involved…..http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1899.last
ClimateGate,NorwegianGate,GlacierGate,DroughtGate….what’s next???? Does this surprise you?? Not I!!!
10
OOPS! Forgot one!!!
AFRICAGATE!! I thought there were five….Uhm…a Senior moment. 🙂
10
@ Rereke!
You have an interesting take on this.
This video series may just explain why our fervent young people, products of a ‘liberal’ education, just get it wrong. They chose wrong over right, bad over good, failure over success, over and over. And they show virulent antagonism to those who show them the facts.
This link has six videos, and the transcript.
Please, if you have the time, look and listen. And give me your thoughts on this, or another thread.
10
Just for the interest value: here’s Sarah Palin speaking in California on global warming. She’s a sharp lady. I hope she get’s up to speed on international matters in time to make a run for the White House in 2012.
http://www.fresnobee.com/384/story/1814171.html
10
Why do Lara Bickle and Sam Patterson cut and paste the exact same talking points?
10
John,
This has been tag-team harassment for 3 days now. They’re in cahoots with one another. One gets banned or thinks it’s about to happen and the next one takes over.
It would be interesting to know what organization(s) they belong to. I’d bet anything they’re spouting a party line from some off-the-wall group.
10
Posted 8:35 MST Edmonton AB February 9
This appeared just a little awhile ago at What’s Up With That. It is a fantastic read. I recommend it to all.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/climategate-plausibility-and-the-blogosphere-in-the-post-normal-age/#more-16262
Enjoy
10
Lara thanks for posting peer reviewed papers. Assuming you know something about these papers, and are interested in discussing them, could you pick three (say) and post them with links to the paper (or at least the abstract) and describe in a sentence why these show that higher carbon levels lead to warming of more than 2 degrees.
I know you think that might sound unreasonable, but since I’m unfunded, I can’t just ask my non-existent secretary to do all that leg work, find the papers, read the abstracts and explain why Lara has managed to find a paper with empirical evidence that the IPCC and PRofessors of Climate science couldn’t find.
I mean, if you have found such a paper, I’m very interested, but what’s to stop time-wasting posters from just cut n pasting long lists of papers (which they know nothing about) and demanding that I read and explain why each one is wrong. So lets start with honest posters here explaining why a paper is right and mentioning the instrument that was used to generate the empirical observations.
Note that a lot of the papers in the list are only showing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, something I don’t dispute. There is no point in putting them into the list apart from the “PR win” of artificially fleshing out a list.
10
Lara, Sam,
I see that the other John here has already picked this up but… Would you mind explaining why the two reference lists are identical?
And, if I’ve counted them correctly in the rather badly laid out bibliography you’ve copy/pasted (have you read any of them?), there are are just 68 authors cited plus about another fifteen if we take into account the “et al.’s”) contributing to 26 papers. TENS of thousands of scientists, you say? The number of consensual scientists seems to have gone up considerably from the 4000 (was it?) they were going on about in Copenhagen. I’m now waiting with bated breath to see us reach the HUNDREDS of thousands mark.
As for a massive global conspiracy, no sceptic that I know of is claiming that; however there is plenty of evidence now of a small powerful clique throwing their weight around to make sure that papers reflecting only one optic are published or reach peer review whilst blocking authors who they don’t like from accessing the raw data. This small clique wields a lot of “global” power over many researchers and editors and through its influence on the IPCC has in turn had a big influence on the governments of the world.
Haven’t you read any of the leaked mails? Go on, force yourselves… I suggest Costella’s excellent overview – it’s free as well.
10
exactly John from France.
10
Thumbnail #82
Thanks for the reference. It was interesting,
I understand the argument, but I am not entirely comfortable expressing it in terms of political characterisations. I think people are generally more nuanced than that.
Where the speaker did make a good point was that modern liberals will define their causes in terms of what they don’t like, rather than what they want. Often, they cannot even articulate what it is they want, or what benefit it would give, if they got it.
10
John from France: Would you mind explaining why the two reference lists are identical?
We have asked for evidence. They have given evidence of warming. They have the asserted “overwhelming” evidence and the “consensus” of belief on their side. The nature and quality of evidence is irrelevant. Even though the books have been cooked, it is still evidence. The fact that consensus proves nothing is also irrelevant. After all, consensus IS evidence too. That context, history, quality of process, and verifiability of results is ignored is only a minor piffle for them. After all, these things are held as a matter of opinion and they have the consensus of “climate scientists” on their side.
Its a combination of the preponderance of the evidence and the talking points methods of argumentation. They make the false presumption that the more you say the same thing and the more people who say it, the more it becomes true. That it is neither responsive to nor relevant to the central question is irrelevant to them.
The really interesting thing is that they think their pile of verbal graffiti actually proves AGW is happening, that all its alarmist’s predictions are coming true, and that the shutting down of modern technological civilization is warranted. When we are not convinced, they simply do the same thing again, and again and again. All the time expecting a different result.
10
The truck that drives through the hole in the AGW theory:
10
Hi Lionel
That’s the Miskolczi theory isn’t it? I wish he would simplify his equations a little. There is a good summary of it at the SPPI site titled Saturated Greenhouse.
I was thinking about all the ice core data the pro AGW crowd rely on. Considering over the last 5yrs or so, the Arctic ice has been variable, but the Antarctic ice has been building. So if you extrapolate temperature vs CO2 from the Arctic you’d get a very different conclusion to that extrapolated from the Antarctic wouldnt you?
10
Bah Humbug @ 93: That’s the Miskolczi theory isn’t it? I wish he would simplify his equations a little.
Yes. It’s his Saturated Greenhouse theory.
I doubt that the theory would compare to empirical data to within 0.1 degrees if the equations were simplified. When you are dealing with interactions in a complex non-linear system, your equations will likely be quite complicated. However, his qualitative arguments are not complicated and make much more sense than the AGW hypothesis claim that a trace of a trace gas added to the atmosphere will cause catastrophic global warming. In addition, the saturated greenhouse hypothesis matches observations while the AGW hypothesis does not.
When I select a hypothesis to use as a working theory, I require it to match observations to within experimental error, at the very least. AGW loses on almost all counts except for the tainted evidence of a slight warming from the depths of the little ice age. That a trace addition to a trace component of the atmosphere is causing it is no were near being demonstrated to be the minor cause let alone being proven to be the primary cause.
10
SUBJECT: AL GORE’S BEACH HOUSE
Isn’t it interesting that the head of the Church Of Al Gore owns a beach house!
WHAT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING AND ALL THOSE RISING OCEANS?
===============================================================
FIGURE EIGHT ISLAND REAL ESTATE
This private, peaceful ocean side haven offers bright blue waters and long stretches of beach, and is home to notables like Al Gore, John Edwards, and others who relish seclusion and natural surroundings. This 1,300 acre 5 mile island does not offer hotels, shopping centers, and tourism. However if bird watching, quiet walks and sunbathing is your strong suit you may find life here appealing. There are only 441 homes, no condos, but it does offer proximity to activity rich Wilmington, NC. Enjoy the myriad architectural styles of neatly cared for properties if you can get onto the island. If this is your style, Figure 8 Island may be your place.
http://www.joepascal.com/figure-eight-island.html
———————————————————————————————–
Figure Eight Island is one of the places in North Carolina that is home to many celebrity houses. Celebrities like John Edwards and former Vice President Al Gore own houses on this island. The island has beautiful views as it is located between the Intracoastal Waterway and the Atlantic Ocean. The entire island only has about 440 houses making it an ideal place for couples and individuals to relax. It is also home to many beautiful exotic animal species. If you are looking for a vacation house, check out the Figure Eight island real estate. Wrightsville beach real estate also offers many bargains and great houses.
http://wilmingtonrealestatehome.com/561/figure-eight-island-real-estate-and-wrightsville-beach-real-estate/
10
SUBJECT IPCC Admits It Doesn’t Do Science !!
This admission (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/10/ipcc-reform) by an IPCC lead author in the UK’s Guardian is simply stunning:
“The Nobel prize was for peace not science … government employees will use it to negotiate changes and a redistribution of resources. It is not a scientific analysis of climate change,” said Anton Imeson, a former IPCC lead author from the Netherlands. “For the media, the IPCC assessments have become an icon for something they are not. To make sure that it does not happen again, the IPCC should change its name and become part of something else. The IPCC should have never allowed itself to be branded as a scientific organisation. It provides a review of published scientific papers but none of this is much controlled by independent scientists.”
READ MORE HERE:-
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/12721
10
Denny
I believe there was a Kiwigate too, though don;t have a link.
Read about NZ fudging of data few weeks ago
10
Jazza, here`s a link to the NIWA episode I believe you are referring to. Note that if you dig a bit deeper there seems to be a bit of he said/she said in relation to what it is exactly that “no longer exists”, someone else may be able to elaborate on that perhaps?
http://business.scoop.co.nz/2010/02/01/niwa-unable-to-justify-official-temperature-record/
10
Gee,
WIth all these gates, there doesn’t appear to be much of a fence left for people to sit on.
10
Scientists threatened for ‘climate denial’
By Tom Harper
Published: 12:01AM GMT 11 Mar 2007
Scientists who questioned mankind’s impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.
They say the debate on global warming has been “hijacked” by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.
Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.
One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.
“Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened,” said the professor.
“I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal.”
Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a “religion”, forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.
Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology – who also appeared on the documentary – recently claimed: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.
“Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”
Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: “The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do.”
Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-climate-denial.html
10
From Lara Bickle above:
Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo, and Jeffrey Kiehl (2009), Earth’s Global Energy Budget — quotes from the abstract (full article requires pay-gate to access and I ain’t giving a penny more than they can tax out of me).
Note carefully… last time someone made a measurement the TOA budget was in balance so 10 years later they add an assumption of imbalance in the belief that everyone knows Global Warming is happening.
Then they end up with a residual, which they assume must be “downward longwave radiation” in the belief that everyone knows Global Warming is happening.
And this is supposedly EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ? This is a joke right?
Laura, I suspect you don’t take the time to read and understand the papers you are referencing.
10
Jazza: Post 97,
Thanks Jazza..if you could find that one I would appreciate it…Could it be under “AustrialiaGate”?
10
Denny:
February 14th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Here you go mate, Kiwigate
CLICK HERE
10
Baa Humbug: Post 103,
Thanks Baa! Yes KiwiGate! They keep on coming…
10