The Spectator gave me an unusual assignment. An open-ended request to gather thoughts over a couple of weeks and note them in a diary. It’s an interesting genre because it brings out messages that might not come to life otherwise. This was printed in the Australian Edition of The Spectator Magazine, out today.
Jo Nova opens her diary
Another friend, Troy, has had that transformation: not from a climate ‘believer’ to ‘sceptic’, but from being only vaguely interested to being hopping mad. Friends like Troy know my husband David and I are sceptical of man-made global warming, and have listened (if only politely). Then one day they’ll call us, suddenly very interested in details of missing upper tropospheric patterns or Vostok Ice core data or some other unlikely topic. It’s always the same pattern — no matter whether they’re an accountant (like Troy), a lawyer, or our high school babysitter. They’ve admitted some doubt in public, and then been shocked at the force of the response. The sneering derision — Oh My God! How could you? — is over the top. It has an extraordinary effect, as if a fuse has been lit under them; they’re majorly cheesed, and they want to be armed for their next encounter.
Thus the religious zeal of the army of man-made warming followers is now working against the climate change campaign. Each time a passive sceptic comes across a zealot, the event sees the blooming of another passionate sceptic. They’re popping up all over the place. On this point, in our kitchen, David worries that I am giving too much away here by divulging this strategic weak point. As if, I cry! They’ve spent ten years training acolytes with pat answers and rude remarks — they can hardly undo that damage now even if they wanted to. There are teams of bullies out there primed to recite DeSmog vitriol, and, like viruses, they can’t be called back in.
As soon as you admit you are not a believer, suddenly you find out how many people agree.
And there is a major silent undercurrent of passive sceptics. I am reminded of the taxi driver I met on the way to a speech here in Perth in October. I announce that I’m ‘talking about climate change’ and there’s a dead silence. I add, ‘It’s not what you think. It’s a scam.’ He comes to life, practically claps while he drives (I worry about the steering wheel) — ‘That’s fantastic,’ he enthuses, ‘Can I come see you talk?!’ It’s just another sign that under the veneer of solid public belief in ‘climate change’, nearly everyone outside of the core believers only has a paper-thin conviction. As soon as you admit you are not a believer, suddenly you find out how many people agree. Kevin Rudd has never had a conversation like that, so he has no idea of the strength of the sceptical undercurrent. It’s a confirmation bias, and it has flummoxed him and many others. Behind the wall of confidence and ritual nods, few realized beforehand that the polls would swing so rapidly. It reminds me of that line about keeping your enemies close. Rudd, Wong, Turnbull and co. mistakenly surrounded themselves with believers — it is a fatal flaw in politics.
Apparently my ‘network’ influence is comparable to NASA (judging by the size of the balls). Hilarious!
I glow. A compatriot, Anthony Watts, emails me with a wry link. I find I’ve made it to a select list of global sceptics touted by Oxfam. Apparently my ‘network’ influence is comparable to NASA (judging by the size of the balls). Hilarious! The consultancy that produced this is named — in a parody of itself — Unsimplify. They don’t seem to realise that any half-wit can ‘complexify’. But it’s high praise from my opponents about my apparent global political influence: ‘A small group of dedicated people… succeeded in accomplishing the most impressive PR coup of the 21st century.’ Shucks. The late nights feel worthwhile. I’m beaming.
Unfortunately, the global network chart itself is so meaningless it’s self-satire. Oxfam paid for this ‘research’. It’s a scandalous waste of donors’ money. Is the world in danger from anthropogenic climate change? We won’t find out by following ‘html link networks’. (The evidence, man, the evidence…) David and I laugh late into the night about it though.
Another day I post my reply to a professor who went out of his way to embarrass himself on ABC Unleashed. He claims he’s talking evidence, but instead talks about Ivan Milat, AIDS, the length of the IPCC report, and somehow he thinks that scoring lots of Google Scholar hits is a reason to set up a trillion dollar market. I’m thinking ‘delusional’. While I’m unmercilessly tough on his reasoning, 40,000 black ants have set up a six-lane highway in our dining room. But I don’t want to be too mean, so I block off the crack in the wall, and put down a sheet of paper with honey on it. I’m hoping they will congregate there for dessert, and I can move them outside with their free meal. It’s futile. Six ants order sweets and 40,000 ants start hunting for another exit. I laugh at the irony. I outwit a professor, but the ants outwit me.
Read the rest here …
There’s quite a collection of other Spectator Diary Entries including Melanie Phillips, Miranda Devine, Lord Monckton (writing about his Australian tour) and even Joan Collins (writing about corruption in government, banking and politics, can you believe). As I noted last week, there is cutting commentary in The Spectator that is hard to find elsewhere.
Christopher Monckton also wrote about the his keynote at the NY conference last year(which is about to happen again, this time in Chicago). His keynote went down a treat. It was the right speech at the right moment to the right crowd. (No, I can’t imagine he could or would deliver exactly that speech anywhere else, but it was a lot of fun to be there, and worth a read in The Spectator. You can also download the video from the Heartland site.)
Other articles published by Jo Nova in mainstream media.
PS: I also note tonight there are exactly 1111 people (Update, and now over 5000 in July 2011) signed up to receive emails on the site. Feel free to join them if you’d like the odd irregular email from me… (see under the “Subscribe” header on the top right.) You won’t receive any emails from the site, except the ones I send, or the comments threads you choose to receive emails on.
About that taxi driver…. I have had similar experiences here in England. I strongly suspect that, in polls, many people say that they are concerned about global warming because they think that they are supposed to be concerned, rather than because they genuinely are concerned. The question is how many.
30
Nice stories. Of course, the dangerous global warming meme may be visualized as a kind of infection – it is an infection – but the society also has an immunity system. Now, the infection is trying to take over the society.
So the cells of infection try to reproduce and infect weak cells of the society, but by doing so and revealing their aggressiveness unmatched by the knowledge, logic, and facts, they also become visible to the healthy cells in the society, which may start to realize the threat and conspire to protect the society as a whole.
Still, the outcome remains somewhat uncertain.
I’ve had lots of fun conversations with people who are not really interested in the topic. Of course, some true laymen often have some of these pretty simple attitudes. Men can’t make the difference because they’re too small, the ice age is coming and it’s the real danger, etc. Still, those simple reactions are based on some kind of common sense, even though not a terribly scientifically advanced one.
It’s the more educated people – who have nevertheless failed to study the actual content of the climate – who have become the main passive carriers of the infection. They heard other educated people saying that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, and so on, so they repeat it. When you trace it, this meme was really started by some stupid environmental whackos, but because the educated people have already heard it from other educated people, they trust it and find themselves important in trusting it.
So while I agree that the true zealots are thankfully doing a disservice to the AGW movement, I think that the real threat is among the people who are not zealots but who just uncritically parrot these memes because they’ve heard their peers doing the same. Politicians and other key jobs often come from this environment so of course, I think that the dynamics of the infection within this community is the most important question that will decide about the fate of this hysteria.
30
I’ve noticed a distinct change in attitudes in Germany as well. Reader comments after warmist articles are 90% sceptical.
Now the Russian RIA Novosti has a piece in German on Russian scientist Oleg Pokrovsky who says to expect cooling…pols are sitting on the wrong horse…IPCC ignored too many factors…
http://www.de.rian.ru/science/20100423/126040500.html
I wrote an ENGLISH summary at my site (click on my URL)
20
Australian emission trading scheme almost dead & buried.
See link below. Looks like there won’t be a vote on the ETS unitl after the Federal election.
All we have to do now is ensure that Tony Abbott becomes prime minister!
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/its-not-over-rudd-vows-to-fight-for-emissions-scheme-20100423-tj3v.html
20
I have to agree about the silent undercurrent of skepticism, and how large it has become, almost unnoticed.
I think “they” now realise how big it really is. Infact, there is some evidence of this in the way the UK election media coverage is being played out.
So far no one has been allowed to openly question the cost of EU membership for Britain (net cost £50 billion per annum…).
No one has been allowed to openly question the cost of “green solutions”, although the Lib dems have said
they’d pump 3 billion into wind turbine production in the UK, to the benefit of 12,000 jobs…………
When there are 2 and a half million unemployed in the UK already, and the number is rising
(this does not take into account the number of part time employed that are seeking full time employment).
The BNP (luney facist party) is now getting media coverage, not as much as Labour, the Conservatives, or the Lib Dems, but
they are being put on air regularly now.. Why. ?
The big three are all pro EU, and “Green”, and “renewable energy friendly”, the BNP ain’t.
Niether is UKIP EU friendly, or “Green”, and that’s about the end of the similarities between the BNP and UKIP.
But that is not how the media portrays the BNP and UKIP, they are portrayed as “bed fellows”, two of a kind,
when they are not. This is the reason why, to weaken the UKIP vote.
If the media can create the impression that UKIP (wrongly) / BNP (quite rightly) are not “viable alternatives” then
the electorate will vote for no one, or one of the main three parties.
We’ll discount the “Green party” as eco facists, much like the BNP but worse.
Most people just see them as dilluded “hippies” anyway, not realising the dangers they pose.
But now “we” get back to the numb of the matter. The real danger in the UK election, the Lib Dems.
Why? The Lib Dems are more pro Europe than either Labour or the Conservatives. The Lib Dems are “Greener” than either the Conservatives or Labour. AND, the Lib Dems are proposing more regulations of banking than any of the other parties.
In many important respects the Lib Dems leader, Nick Clegg, is the British (political policy) equivalent to America’s Barack Obama.
The real danger in the UK elections is not the BNP, or the Green Party, who are both dangerous extremes,
it is the Liberal Democrats, who are far more extreme than either of the other two main parties.
The BNP is the second most dangerous party, because it will weaken the UKIP vote.
If any UK readers doubt my assertion that UKIP is not a sensible choice, then read the parties energy policy and compare it with the other main three parties versions..
20
As I have noted in the past, when you are at war with reality, you WILL lose. It may take a while, but reality will win. The flip side of that is: when you are working with reality, sometimes you win and win big. That too may take a while, but you will win none the less.
The challenge, as always, is not to be collateral damage as a consequence of the war against reality. Our prospects of surviving the war are looking much brighter these days. We may be bloodied and scared but we will be alive.
The good thing is that most of us are accustomed to doing the almost impossible with the nearly inadequate. It has been thus for so long that I doubt we would know how to work otherwise.
20
Luboš Motl: I think you nailed it. The problem and solution is with the intermediate scientists. The ones that historically trusted the “system”. Once they wake up and see what has been going on then we’ll see progress.
30
Joanne: You ARE a gem! You and the other credible, hardworking (rational) skeptics deserve a (REAL) Noble Prize for your efforts to drive a stake into this monster.
I got so mad after a bit of investigation that I attempted to put some of the results of a “layman’s” investigation out into a google document, available at:
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddrj9jjs_0fsv8n9gw
I doubt whether anyone but some of my friends have bothered to read it (and I think they were mostly skeptical just based on gut feelings).
10
Three climate books popped up this week.
One from a nasty warmist. Hit book rated in sales between 2,000 and 37,499th on amazon for popularity. Joe Romm.
Spencer and Sussman also introduced books of some sceptical view. Both were around 35-40th in sales rank. Thhat is a sample on where people stand as measured by where they spend their money.
10
Nice imagery JN. It is hard to reason with ants. The AGW camp hates people (population in general ant sometimes themselves) ant they want to control every aspect of your life. After all they will say “39,994 ants out of 40,000 can’t be wrong”. Keep pounding and thanks.
10
Judith Curry robustly defending herself, Bishop hill gets favourable mention or 2.
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/23/an-inconvenient-provocateur/
Last week, a single blog comment by Judith Curry, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, outraged the proprietors and readers of Real Climate. Curry had mentioned the IPCC and the term “corruption” in the same sentence. I then discussed the brewing firestorm here, and that triggered a spirited exchange in the comment thread, of which Curry was an active participant.
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/17/some-spicy-curry/ defends herself…
Judith Again: comment 40 (nailing sceptics well funded by oil:)
“The corporate and NGO funding for the skeptical side pales in comparison with funding that the enviro groups have. Do your homework.”
This amy Excite you: comment 35
“I have actually found the people who habituate the technical skeptical blogs and their proprietors to be much more open minded than most of the “warmist” blogs.”
and no organised denial machine: 35 again
Keith, re the skeptics, I would say there is no real organization among them. During the heyday of the oil funded libertarian think tanks and Karl Rove, there seemed to be some well organized talking points; Marc Morano seems to be the current leader of this particular wing of the skeptics (with support from Chris Horner and Myron Ebell). As far as i can tell, the academic and blogospheric skeptics don’t pay much attention to Morano. The academic skeptics (e.g. Lindzen, Christy, Gray et al.) don’t agree with each other at all (note: the academic skeptic that I find to be most reasonable and open minded is John Christy).
Comment 37 from Robert Peilke jr !!!
Roger Pielke Jr. Says:
April 19th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Keith-
10
Jo, I think your diary notes are excellent.
As an aside. I am mildly curious to know if you actually think with such clarity, or if you edited the text for publication? 😉
At one point you wrote:
They were “two-ulcer” people, placed in a “three-ulcer” job.
It makes you feel sorry for them, in a way.
For the rest of their careers, people will be very civil and polite to their faces (academics are like that), and the institutions will close ranks around them – for the time being – for the good of the institution.
But these guys will know that they have lost credibility, and that snide remarks and glances will be going on behind their backs. Academics can be a vindictive lot.
20
The (growing) undercurrent of skepticism seems to be having a noticable effect upon the UK general election and media coverage of it.
I have described my view of it, and why I voted Lib dems as the most dangerous political party in the UK general election on a thread at the GWS forum, as below,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-657-post-4647.html#pid4647
” I split the parties from the 6 listed into two groups, “the main three”, and “the rest”.
The main Three.
Labour (traditional mainstream Left) is “New labour”, not really labour orientated at all in all honesty.
But it is what it is under Gordon Brown / Peter Mandelson et al.
The Conservatives (the traditional “Right”), is really the “new conservatives”, long gone are the free market, and Kensian economics of Thatcher,
but it is what it is, under David Cameron / George Who ???
The Liberal Democrats, the real joker, no upturned stool jokes now you know. No, not a word about the “Jeremy” (Thorpe) days…
Revitalised Liberalism, what does it mean, well apparenty it means very pro EU, very pro “Green” and “Renewables”. AND,
it means the most regulation of banking of the three main parties as well, alone lines suggested by
the (French – hard Left) EU banking “very nice chap obviously”.
The Lib Dems are the “Greenest”, most “Euro”, and most “regulatory” of the main three parties,
there is no doubt about that.
In my book, that is case closed, the Lib Dems are the most dangerous party in the UK election.
The Rest.
BUT, the mass media is portraying a different party as the most dangerous in the UK 2010 election,
their choice is the “obvious” choice the BNP.
WHY?
Well, because they are facist lunatics, and there is no doubt about that. I agree.
But that does not make them the most dangerous party in reality,
the BNP has a snowball in hells chance of winning a few seats, let alone the election.
The BNP is at worst an irritant, nothing more, vocal, extreme, and obviously stupid, that’s all.
The Green party are really eco-facists, but most view them as harmless “deluded” but well intensioned “hippies”.
They are not merely “deluded hippies”, they ARE far more dangerous than that,
but stand, in reality, as much chance of getting votes as does the BNP.
So, although both parties are “dangerous” neither stands a chnce of getting mass support.
Both parties can be sumed up in their voter attraction by one word descriptions.
BNP = Immigration. Green party = “renewables”. Neither has realistic mass appeal.
UKIP however is different, it is not as generally portrayed a ultra right wing bunch of fuitcakes by the media.
Yes UKIP is anti EU, and yes UKIP is “skeptical of climate science justified political policies, but neither is by default “right wing”..
There is an ever growing tide now of climate scepticism, that is spreading universally it seems.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/the-sil…kepticism/
This will bolster UKIP support, possibly massively.
UKIP seems to have well thought out and reasoned policies / approaches, that are and allow for balanced / new information.
This alone separates them from the BNP, and the “Greens”.
Infact UKIP’s stance on many issues makes eminant sense, so may well become popular if more widely known / understood.
This is the most dangerous party to the present “status quo” politically.
So, to some, UKIP is THE most dangerous party in the 2010 UK general election.
A good way to “neutralise” or diminish the UKIP danger, amd possible vote would be to
associate them with another vaguely similar party, for example the BNP.
Conveniently there are some policies which look the same from a distance, so, that is what the UK mass media has done.
UKIP and the BNP are regularly portrayed by the British media (of all “sides”) as being
the same, “two of a kind”, “alternatives”, “British”, etc, etc, etc..
If the British media manages to “paint” the picture that UKIP and the BNP are similar / the same,
then the UKIP vote is diminished. Job done, the “main three” are still in control.
If a hung parliament is the result then the Lib Dems become THE powerbroker,
no doubt with pro EU, “Green”, and “regulatory strings” attached to any agreements.
Result..
In many ways I see Nick Clegg (Lib Dem leader) as the British equivalent to America’s Barack Obama.
What you see, is NOT what you will get.
From the above I hope I have explained why with no doubt at all in my mind,
Nick Clegg, and the Liberal Democrats are THE biggest danger to the UK in the 2010 general election.
Hence I voted Liberal Democrat in the poll on this thread.
It’s the only time I’ll vote Lib Dem………. ”
Please tick here if you agree Lib Dems are the most dangerous political party in the UK 2010 general election,
though you don’t have to agree with all the reasons I give above.
10
Lubos,
I think your term “educated” should be the “intellectuals”, who, apart from being educated, also believe they are above us, the lumpen masses, and since intellectuals never need to verify their ideas in the harsh and merciless physical reality, but from peer review and consent, then that itself is the transmission mechanism of this “intellectual” virus.
For those of who who can get access to a copy of Michael Talbot’s “Holographic Universe” book, in it he recounts an experiment on students in some US pyschology department. In that experiment he noted that when an individual was asked to state whether statement 4 = 5 + 2 is true or false, he would always state false.
But when in a group of peers, and the same example was put to them, and unbeknown to each other, the students were to state it was true, then the students who individualy stated it was false, then followed the group think and accepted it was true. (I might not have all the facts of this anecdote right, but the gist of it is accurate).
This is why I have always assumed that there isn’t, in the scientific sense, a monumental conspiracy at work, but well-meaning scientists who have fallen into the trap of pure deductive science not based in empiricism – and that type of science becomes primarily an intellectual adventure, when empirical testing of their ideas always confirms it.
The one factor which I cannot understand is how progressives, or left leaning types, can, with no afore-thought, state they “hate” so and so. I know of ‘progressive’ individuals who simply said they ‘hated’ President George W Bush for no good reason. And it’s these people who also blindly proselytise the AGW religion, I find.
10
Enjoy the break Jo, you deserve our thanks and a good rest. But come back refreshed and stronger than ever to carry on the good fight.
10
penny WRONG is STILL at it, trying to SELL OUT AUSTRALIA!!!
Climate treaty some way off, Wong says – ABC News:-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/21/2878385.htm
10
Wait are you saying you have connections with big balls? OK that one was too good obvious not to touch… wet paint for the keyboard.
With respect to other quiet sceptics, I had the same experience with a chap at work. The topic came up and he had some interest. I showed him WUWT and your site and next thing he is all fired up and we went to the Monckton talk in Perth. We keep up the sceptic chat at work and he enquires periodically about sceptics getting together in Perth – any news on that front?
There are plenty of sceptics out there in the wings that need just a small nudge to get interested in the subject. The biggest con politically is that no one really knows much about the legislation and it is the last thing the Government or ABC is going to explain to the public. They know they will lose all support for it if people understand the implications of the ETS. Notice how Rudd has been all fired up about health and the ETS is yesterday’s oatmeal?
10
Luboš Motl:
You hit on an important human characteristic, which is that we tend to parrot others in an attempt to fit into society. I am sure sociologists (or whichever is the correct field) will say it is a survival trait of the species.
Don Watson in “Death Sentence” bemoans the same quality in terms of mimicking poor English. How many times do we hear people using deadening terms like “going forward”, “thinking outside the box”, “lack of detailed programmatic specificity”? Yes the last one was Rudd’s… a master of dead sentences. He is a veritable Sith Lord of Dead Words.
My personal bugbear is “very unique”… so I reply “Is there less than one of them?” But I digress >.>
10
There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them: George Orwell.
As a farmer I’m very familiar with climate variations, and they don’t worry me.
The ‘true believers’ however scared the crap out of me.
You are right Jo, I didn’t even know sceptical Bloggs existed. Until I went looking for a real information, and found that it simply didn’t exist.
10
I live in the country also Binny – none of the farmers or townsfolk here believe in AGW – they all believe in climate change though.
10
Please keep up the good work, Jo, and congratulations on the recognition you have achieved by your work. I keep wondering if Rudd is going to pull some rabbit out of the hat to whitewash his crazy Emmissions scheme, which it seems to me would bankrupt the countrt and lower our standard of living horribly by raisig not only the cost of everything but taxing us more at the same time.
20
Prime Minister Rudd might have noticed that if he shuts up about climate the whole thing goes quiet. He hasn’t lost a single vote by shelving it and swinging voters aren’t throwing their arms up either. The people demanding action on climate are the usual suspects who will never vote for Abbott anyway(that’s the opposition for you overseas). It’s a big an issue as he makes it and he doesn’t need it anymore. I don’t expect to see ets again after this election even if he does win as expected.
10
Well done Jo. I also agree with your general premise in this thread that alot of people are sceptical “under the surface” but have been afraid to say it openly because they either lack the confidence to disagree with the “scientists” or they felt they did not have enough facts. But the release of the e-mails in the UK was an act that gave them some sort of “permission” to openly express their thoughts. This is why Monbiot and co are so worried and are trying ramp up the BS machines.
Re the court cases coming up from both sides , I think it can only help the sceptics because there is less room for a whitewash of the facts ( it won’t be perfect because lawyers can twist things but it will be better than the “inquiries”)
10
Congratulations Jo!
Now if we can only get something going here in the states!?
Roy
10
I have received letters from energy companies preparing me for future increases in energy prices to cover “increases in distribution and transmission network charges, the cost to us of environmental obligations including the Federal renewable energy scheme”
It would be a mistake to think that the government is not pursuing its policies because there is not much discussion going on at the moment. The bureaucracy will continue to follow the government’s directives and then it will be fait accompli.
10
Louis Hissink: #12
I like the new avatar – tres chic.
There is an Amazon reference to the book. There is also a two-part video on uTube, with the same name (but with presumably different content – very surreal).
In Intelligence circles, there is a concept called “satisficing”. This describes a natural tendency for people to select information that fits a preconceived idea, and ignore information that does not support it. As more supporting information is selected, the more the proposition is “satisficed”, and the less probability that any counter information or arguments will be accepted.
This is the situation that the green movement, the conservationists, and the politicians, now find themselves.
Their attempts to organise, and their threats to litigate, are no more than frustration that we sceptics are forcing a change of view in people who were just going with the flow.
They are actually like small children throwing a tantrum because they cannot get their own way. But dangerous small children, for all that.
20
The weakness of the warmists offensive strategy is their blind and unwavering belief the skeptics are a small, organized and well-funded group paid to post. The first rule of warfare is to understand your enemy and the pro-AGW theorists continue to paint a picture of the skeptics as they wish we were instead of making the effort to understand us as we are. Perhaps it is willful blindness because the thought that we could be their friend, family, neighbour or co-worker frightens them. And it must be particularly unsettling that our effectiveness is not that we’re organized but that we are so many and so well-informed.
10
Politicians and a lot of “mainstream media” have hung themselves on the mast of global warming. To change now would result in a loss of their credibility in every other area. They can’t do it. This is proven by the fact that not one of note has changed their position in the wake of climategate or any of the scandals surrounding the IPCC report. In fact their position has been to totally ignore the contradictions, falsehoods and corruption or inform us that “they don’t matter, they don’t change anything, the core evidence is still overwhelming in support of global warming”. When asked to specifically identify this evidence the decline to answer. They will not change because they cannot. Unless the voting public rise up against the “global warming” industry we will endure ETS, taxes, regulation and restriction of our lives. It does not look good.
10
“You hit on an important human characteristic, which is that we tend to parrot others in an attempt to fit into society.”
Is that not the basis of the entire skeptical movement?
10
Marlene Anderson: #25
I could not agree more.
There is a need for those with a socialist leaning to … well … socialise. They get their perceived strength from being part of an organised group of like minded people, who can all agree on what they stand for, and why.
Their philosophy relies on one or two “organisers” (i.e. “leaders”), lots of “followers”, and a significant amount of “group-think”.
They have a lot in common with Joanne’s black ants. You can’t ask them to accept something that the group hasn’t discussed, and agreed to. Honey is outside their frame of reference. Those who become distracted by honey, or alternative ideas, will be feared by the group and quietly shunned or otherwise encouraged to leave.
This is why they are so convinced that they are right, even though we point out the mistakes in the science, and the flaws in their logic. They all agree that they are right. There is no shades of grey here, so we, by definition, must be wrong, and therefore we need to be feared, countered, or otherwise neutralised.
The way that “they” would neutralise “their” group, is to remove the “organisers”, or cut off their funding. So that is what they want to do to the sceptic organisation.
But the sceptics have no organisation (apart from a loose network of blogs that are sometimes cross-referenced) and no apparent source of funding. We are as smoke.
How can they fight smoke? Surely there must be somebody orchestrating what we do! How can the majority of sceptics agree on a position, and stick to the script, if there is no central organisation?
The real answer of course, but one that the true believers cannot accept, is that the sceptical position is based, not on consensus, but on the scientific process, and we have all worked out the “truth” for ourselves, using that process. We each have our own script, based on how we happened to arrived at the “truth” in our own way.
Of course, it helps that a lot of sceptics just happen to be retired scientists, engineers, investigative journalists, and other professional researchers. But there are other folks, who do everyday jobs and have never done an hours research in their lives, who have also reached the same conclusions. And then there are those for whom the Inconvenient Truth just smelt bad, but they couldn’t understand why. They are also now starting to understand that what the sceptics are saying does not smell that way.
The “alarmists” will attack what they can – taking down uTube parodies, for example. They might even try to shut down the blogosphere and Twitter. But the discussions will still continue via email, and telephone, so what would be the point?
They have made their run at the climate scare, and they failed. Time now to find a new cause to die for. How about world population growth?
10
MattB # 27
No Matt, you seem to be confused again.
It is the cultists who feel a strong need to fit into society, so have a strong incentive to agree to the group-think. The sceptics tend to work things out for themselves – that is what being a sceptic means.
10
Rereke Whaakaro @11
To outsiders it often seems that an academic instruction closes ranks to support a colleague but it has more to do with the reputation of the institution and tenure. In reality they generally end up suffering death by a thousand cuts. Research funds are reduced, they lose their PHD students they get allocated less in general resources, given smaller offices, lose the support of their peers etc.
10
allen mcmahon: #30
Point taken, thank you.
Mercifully, this process seems to be done discretely in the normal course of events. I sincerely hope the same is true in this instance.
10
Binny @11 Janama @18
As a farmer of beef cattle I am exposed to bullshit on a daily basis but it is of a far higher quality than that emanating from the AGW camp. What has been interesting in the last year or so is the number of people I know from a diverse range of occupations who have become skeptical of GW. I confess to still have the odd warmer amongst my friends but life would be boring without them.
10
Rereke Whaakaro @31
It will be interesting to see what influence Mann, Jones & Briffa have over the next few years or if they just disappear of the radar. Unfortunately there will always be others to fill the breach but after the events of the last year I am sure they will be more circumspect.
10
MattB@27
Whereas the CAGW movement is based on producing unrealistic scenarios in an attempt to mislead society.
10
Nice piece Jo. I had my own “wake up” moment in 2008. Prior to this I had just accepted that scientists were doing their job. This is where I am now…Butterfly study: a case study in confirmation bias
10
“As soon as you admit you are not a believer, suddenly you find out how many people agree.”
One of the best truths written. Global Warming is a lot like Obama. People act supportive to avoid a negative label.
10
There’s an old German song “Die Gedanken sind frei” => “Thoughts are free” which explains why the anti-alarmists will eventually succeed.
Recent lyrics and English translation at Wonkypedia. If you can read German, follow the link to the “Deutsch” entry and see how the song itself has evolved through the centuries.
10
Good one Jo. The majority of my friends, family, associates etc think AGW is rubbish and wonder why I bother. Then I know some teachers who follow the line- like ants. You’d think they’d at least check. I’ve always taught kids the most important thing to learn is how to ask good questions.
KS
10
Great article Jo. I am so proud that a young Aussie girl will go down in world history as one of the major players in the collapse of the AGW myth. Angelina Jolie must surely play you in the film adaption.
10
Shaun Walker: #39
April 24th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Hey Shaun. I understand the compliment you’re paying Jo, but Angelina Jolie???? Can’t we think of someone with some brains?
Merril Streep would’ve been ok but she too old.
Cameron Diaz
too dumbnot smart enoughAny ideas people?
10
Surely it would be Aussie Cate? That guy from Ghost “Stay off my train” can be the Lord.
10
MattB: #41
Matt,
Can you please explain why?
10
They’re fighting back. My husband nearly went to the public lecture referenced below, at Australian National University, so as to heckle. He’s not particularly sceptical, but the implication that the time resolution of these 55 million year studies is sufficient to distinguish a decadal spike had him annoyed. I guess the “misinformation in the public domain” might be Jo Nova! Kudos! And maybe Prof Phil Jones also;
“..the warming rates for all 4 periods [from 1880] are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other” [BBC Q&A]
ANU Public Lecture April 22 – Global Climate Change: Perspectives from the past- Dr Bradley Opdyke, Research School of Earth Sciences:
People are constantly asking how today’s climate compares with detailed climate records from tens of thousands of years ago to tens of millions of years ago. To the best of our knowledge, we have to search back 55 million years to find a time interval where the rate temperature changes were anywhere near the rate of change that is occurring now. This time interval is called the Paleocene- Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). In this lecture, Dr Opdyke will compare data from the Eocene to data collected from around Australia in the Late Quaternary (the past half million years). He will finish the lecture with some facts and figures concerning the modern climate and some of the misinformation that has been liberally spread in the public arena.
Dr Opdyke graduated from Columbia University with a bachelor’s degree in Geochemistry in 1984. Dr Opdyke’s research has spanned Paleoceanographic studies from the Cretaceous to the Quaternary. He is also acknowledged to be a global expert on ocean acidification.
10
RE: MattB #41
Careful or we will start casting your lot. Schneider (Rocky Horror), Gore (The Blob), Hansen (Any film with a wacky scientist).
10
Michael (#36):
I have come to realise that this may also be one of the reasons people don’t identify themselves in online discussions. True?
10
Ken (#38):
As the father of a primary school daughter, this is a question of particular interest to me.
I have recently read an article which argued that the school teacher’s job is to follow the prescribed curriculum. It is not expected that the school teacher should be at the cutting edge of science.
Much as the idealist in me would love to see a teacher challenging orthodoxy, in areas (of course) where I myself find orthodoxy wanting, I am nonetheless afraid that I was persuaded by this article. I no more blame the teacher for teaching what the system tells them to teach, than I do blame the police officer for enforcing a bad law, or the soldier for fighting an unjust battle.
10
Film adaptations ? Heh
I admire your optimism.
The fall of AGW will get the same amount of attention in feature lengths as the evils of Uncle Joe Stalin and the Soviet gulags.
There must be a vast library of work on that topic – but for the life of me I can’t recall actually seeing any.
I kind of hope that Eastern Europe will develop a film industry so we can finally get the word out – thiry years after communism’s collapse.
10
Steve Schapel: # 46
It seems that systems vary between countries, so it is hard to generalise, and I am certainly no expert.
But to ensure consistent national standards, most governments seem to have a centralised “syllabus advisory unit” that defines what will be taught in the schools, and how. This unit will consult with academia, as being the experts in various fields, and will take advice on what should be taught in schools to prepare students for university.
Now, if one of the fields being considered is “Earth Sciences”, and they consult with climate scientists working on investigating AGW, what do you suppose their advice would be?
Yup: “You have to discuss global warming, its effects, and what we must do to prevent it or mitigate against it”. Thus, the propaganda is perpetuated across the generations.
The front-line teachers have little input to this process. They are doomed to teach what the bureaucracy requires to be taught.
10
I noticed the Judith Curry comment. Actually it is a well known
term in academic circles, and is known that ‘corrupting the data to suit the hypothesis’ is a well known activity. And event in well known in academic circles. Not just scientific either. In my interpretation it means not providing a full picture of a theme. And this lot involved in proving AGW is causing climate change, is to provide a incomplete picture of the reality.
If as M.Mann says the globe is warming well it is from the last
mini ice age, 160 years ago. That’s not wrong. But to link it in to AGW as the causation factor is wrong. So CO2 has increased, so what? It’s a small % GHG. However in congested
urban environments this will with MV exhausts cause pollution.
Some years ago, the Sydney council put flower pots along the Sydney Harbour bridge, the plants died in 4 weeks, probably from lack of water! But the claim was because of Carbon Monoxide fumes. Now if those plants been watered regularly and fertilised, and still died, the consensus of opinion would be
they died from a bad atmosphere and toxic petrochemical fumes.
But I doubt whether that altered the weather in Point Piper or
somewhere 10,000 km away?
10
Rereke? Just to add to your comment. The Inconvenient Truth video was banned from UK schools, by a court of law. Google and see. Because it was considered political influenced. The schools
could show it but were reminded this was not scientifically correct and a political campaign.
10
Bruce the original ETS bill ex Rudd, is dead and gone, but Tony
Abbotts with amendments isn’t. I have been writing to my MP (Tony Windsor Independent New England) for months about this. He told me that the original ETS bill won’t be passed, but doesn’t mention with assurances that the one the Opposition provided will?
Abbott does cut out agriculture from the original admittedly. But the Green bank that UK is shunting hasn’t. And no where can
I find what the Oppositions and new amended ETS contains?
Turnbull has still a voting power, and once a director of Goldman Sachs in Australia will be promoting CCTs. I asked politicians to ask those voting for an ETS or Carbon Reduction
Scheme to stand up if they have personally invested in CCTs or
clean/green energy investments. No replies?
10
Bush bunny: #50
Good point. I had forgotten to mention that.
Of course, the reason it went to court was that it ended up being in the syllabus, as a teaching aid, as per my comment #48.
There is no way of knowing how many teachers included the caveat in their lessons, or to what extent.
10
Ms Nova suggests there is a large undercurrent of AGW scepticism among the general public, and several posters here report that (like me) this agreees with their experience. At April 24th, 2010 at 2:50 am, Lubos Motl provides a good analysis of the situation and says:
This raises the interesting consideration of why “common sense” and “scientific results” often disagree.
Scientific investigation eventually determines a probable ‘truth’ and that ‘truth’ often disproves common sense. But – very importantly – common sense is a better guide to behaviour of a complex system until scientific investigation provides an adequate understanding of that system.
The most educated people are trained by their education to distrust common sense.
But most people are trained by their experience to trust common sense. Indeed, the fact that common sense is supported by experience is why it is common.
Importantly, the application of reductionism together with generalisation from the particular is usually misleading when applied to complex systems. But scientists of low calibre are often tempted to apply them to complex systems. This application is very bad science, and common sense provides a ‘feel’ that it is not right. Indeed, good scientists ‘feel’ when an idea is probably right because it is ‘elegant’, and recognise that an idea is not ‘elegant’ when it explains little. The following few – of very many – examples are pertinent.
Example 1
Some scientists heat a variety of different liquids in a laboratory at normal pressure. The scientists observe that all the liquids turn to gas but each liquid becomes a gas at a specific temperature which they call its ‘boiling point’.
Some poor scientists then assert that, “Liquids boil when heated enough”.
The general public disbelieve the poor scientists because most people have heated egg white.
In this case the poor scientists have generalised observations of a simple case to a complex system.
Example 2
Some scientists observe that air rises when heated.
Some hypothetical poor scientists then assert that, “Air must be hotter at altitude than at ground level because all the hot air rises to altitude from ground level”.
Nobody believes the poor scientists because everybody knows it is cold on the top of Everest.
In this case the poor scientists have assumed the observations provide an effect on a complex system that is similar to the effect that would occur in a simple system.
Example 3
Some scientists observe that carbon dioxide gas absorbs IR in the atmosphere with resulting increase to the temperature of the surface of the Earth..
Some poor scientists then assert that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause additional increase to the temperature of the surface of the Earth.
Sensible people reject the assertion and claim it requires proof because the surface temperature of the Earth does not correlate to the amount of carbon dioxide in the air.
Again, in this case the poor scientists have assumed the observations provide an effect on a complex system that is similar to the effect that would occur in a simple system.
So, science leads to the ‘truth’, but common sense should be applied to assess behaviour of any complex system until science provides solid evidence to explain all observed real behaviour of the system.
Politicians know this, and it is why they say, “Science should be on tap and not on top”. But politicians then use that knowledge to select the poor scientists whom the politicians can use to generalise a simple case to a complex case as a method to justify actions the politicians have chosen to take.
And gullible fools fall for this. I have lost count of the times that gullible fools have accused me of denying that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. They have been gulled into thinking that the absorbtion of IR in the air must result in additional carbon dioxide in the air causing additional surface heating. But that is as false an assumption as claiming that it must be very hot on top of Everest because hot air rises.
Common sense says of all such assertions, “Prove it before you you use it as an excuse to take my money or to enforce change to my lifestyle”.
Richard
10
Richard at 53 are preaching to the converted.(No disrespect intended) However, with the UK National General election due, how many people believe in AGW and also support the government’s solution to avoid this. If I seem put on a back burner as more social problems are important to the average British person. And how many in the next UK election are going to vote for Cameron, rather than that Nick Cregg? That’s where it eventually will become.
Personally, I think possibly that the Tories will win, and the thought of a coalition or hung parliament is a bit beyond conception other than during the WW11 coalition, where it worked. I don’t think it will be. I think the Tories will romp in!
Look I am concerned that the AGW and IPCC ideology is not considered or legislated. I spend about 60 hours a week covering the various blogs and news report about climategate.
I think the problem is that if the climate gate is totally
endorsed, it will cause massive devaluation of CCTs and clean energy investments. Personally the latter doesn’t worry me, green energy and clean energy is part of our future
but the devaluation of CCT’s does as a lot of pension funds have been invested in them like the BBC. And this has to be
supported by the government in some ways.
No ETS or Cap ‘n Trade legislations, then why would Carbon Trading Investment be an exchangible finacial product? If it were, it would not change the climate, just make certain industries more expensive for consumers to avail?
I am tired folks have to go to bed, I do support you all, but
I’m getting old,
Lots of love
10
BBC Newswatch yesterday (23/04/2010)
(Fiona Fox) and she is doing a ‘climate science’ review for the UK Science Minister!!!!
“to have a sceptic in every interview is misleading the public about ‘climate science'” – Fiona Fox
“People like Richard Black and Roger Harrabin, fighting internally to say we DON’T have to have a sceptic every time we have a climate story.”
Fiona Fox: Chaired a report, for Lord Drayson, the science minister, looking into the quality of science reporting
“Fight the good fight for accuracy, in fact
On Climate change there has been a real change..
People like Richard Black and Roger Harrabin, fighting internally to say we DON’T have to have a sceptic every time we have a climate story.”
Definetly worth watching the whole program(15 minutes), my wife spotted this program last night.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/newswatch Newswatch 23/04/2010
Richard Black and Roger Harrabin are key members of the BBC’s environment team , are they inadvertantly acting as the bbc man made ‘climate change’ newsmedia gatekeepers?
LISTEN very carefully, about 9mins 24 secs in, Fiona Fox nearly had a BIG slip of the tongue
and said Climategate. changed direction very rapidly… 😉 🙂
This is the same Richard Black at the BBC, that Michael Mann’s frist thought was to call, when Paul Hudson – Whatever Happened to Global Warming, story appeared on the BBC website.. (month before ‘climategate). Paul Hudson, received some emails, a month before ‘climategate’
1255352444.txt
From: Michael Mann
To: Stephen H Schneider
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:00:44 -0400
extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job).
from what Ican tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?
mike
————————–
Proof, that the BBC environment team,ARE acting like Gatekeepers for all things AGW..
I doubt if Steve Mcintyre can just give, the BBC’s Richard Black a call
10
Barry? this video isn’t available in Australia.
But thanks anyway?
10
Baa @ #40: Jodie Foster, I think!
10
Bush Bunny @#51
Make no mistake. If the ALP wins control of both houses after the next federal election, there is a very real possibility that we will have an ETS. Hopefully the Liberals will either win the election outright or maintain control of the senate & prevent this from happening.
Although the AGW scam is unraveling here and in the US and starting in Europe, I don’t think it is happening fast enough to undermine the Australian push for an ETS – unless there some sort of quantum change in the attitudes of the scientific establishment and the MSM.
10
Bear with me if this is off topic,
Louis Hissink, I have local news to report back to you; in another thread you said:
on 2010/04/12
And I replied:
You may be happy to know that more people in the US now know at least a little more about the Fabians. Thanks to you, I made a big sign and brought it to our regional Tea Party rally April 15th.
Today I read in a local newspaper editorial piece:
I had numerous people ask me about my sign at the rally. So a few words here at Jo Nova from across the world turns into a valuable (albeit brief) education to at least a few thousand people!
10
Now for the other news; in the same editorial piece read:
Perhaps this editor is not listening to the “silent” undercurrent……YET!
P.S. there were about 700 – 800 people at the rally.
10
Rereke in #42 – Because Cate Blanchette is one of Australia’s leading actresses and surely most people would be stoked to have her play them in a film. It is hardly an insult is it?
THe train guy from Ghost – because he looks and acts completely mad. Can’t a guy have some fun any more?
10
Richard S Courtney: #53
April 24th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
BRAVO mon ami.
MattB:
April 25th, 2010 at 12:35 am
OK for once I’ll agree with Matt BUT ONLY IF – lots of botox is used
10
Joanne,
Tell your husband not to worry too much about “giving too much away”. Over at The Air Vent, there is a topic where people were asked about themselves and how they came to form their opinions on climate change. The number one thing that pushed people into the skeptic camp was a trip to Real Climate. I’ve seen this time and again. I even have suggested that Real Climate is a sort of web “double agent” run by coal and oil interests to drive people away from the alarmist camp. Why else would they not learn their lesson after so long.
10
MattB @27,
You are unequivocally wrong, 180 degrees wrong, dead wrong and just plain out to lunch and off your rocker. I can’t say it strongly enough. You don’t have a clue!
I became a skeptic because of just one thing — when I began hearing that it was all decided, a done deal and no debate was possible, the hair stood up on the back of my neck. Why? Because I knew that science is not that way. You cannot be making such statements that it’s all decided, that you know all there is to know about it and therefore no debate is possible unless you’re dishonest. Yes Matt, dishonest!
After that I began to look for information. And from both sides I might add. But you can’t find much from the pro AGW side like good supporting arguments. It was all just the consensus nonsense and propaganda, the hockey stick of course, ad nauseam. By contrast, the skeptical side had plenty of good data, sound arguments and refutation of the pro side to offer. But most convincing of all was the simple fact that the skeptics were not only willing to debate the other side on the science but were begging for an opportunity to do so. Guess who refused to debate, Matt, guess who.
Which side had something to hide? Which side has now been exposed as dishonest?
If you’re an honest man you can answer those questions correctly without any trouble. I’ve watched you go on and on and on making a fool of yourself for a long time. Now I’m calling your bluff. GIVE ME YOUR ANSWERS TO THOSE TWO QUESTIONS.
10
Prior to Climategate:
I wasn’t skeptical at all because actually, I paid almost no attention to the global warming scare. Why? Throughout my life I have been amply acquainted with all sorts of fashionable yet superficial people expressing all sorts of fashionable yet vague concerns about fashionable yet vague problems. I’m old enough to have been an adult in 1970 during the first earth day and those original earth day predictions have not aged well and are ridiculous. Almost subconsciously I relegated AGW to this category.
After Climategate:
My apathy evaporated as soon as I read the Climategate emails. I saw immediately that what we have are petty-intellectuals in love with their ideas funded by public institutions and AGW was potentially a scam. After getting on skeptic websites and educating myself a bit on the technical claims my worst fears have been confirmed: it’s all political and all about power and money. Specifically, those with power, getting as much of your money as they can.
Now I have become a fanatic anti-CAGW campaigner and I tell anyone who will listen to me that CAGW is a fraud and how legitimate climate researchers have been tarred and ignored and good people in the field of climate research have had their careers ruined simply because they wouldn’t go along with the fraud.
MSM is doing nothing to get the truth out to the public. Where are the hard-hitting investigative journalists? Their mental laziness, sloth, and continuing adoration of the charlatans and demagogues behind this is revolting. History will not treat these people kindly.
10
Richard S Courtney: #53
Richard,
I have been struggling to find a way of explaining why complex systems should be treated differently to simple systems, in terms a “lay person” could understand.
The same thing could be said about your way of explaining this idea – recursion lives!
Thank you.
10
MattB: #61
Of course a guy can have some fun. But in polite society it is useful to put it in context so that your intentions are not misunderstood.
Thank you for your explanation. I agree that Cate Blanchett is an excellent actress – good choice.
However, I am still confused about your original reference that said: “That guy from Ghost “Stay off my train” can be the Lord”
How does that relate to Jo’s article? I am obviously missing something here.
10
MarkD @ # 59
Mark, you write :
Hardly a presence and just a mere thinktank? I think not Mr Editor of the newspaper and to put it in the current vernacular, he misspoke.
This is great to hear Mark, the sooner folks start to realise who are manipulating the AGW movement the better.
The Fabians are better known as the Keynesians these days, and once you make that connection, the infiltration becomes even more obvious. Keynesianism IS Fabianism.
Here in Australia we have a political class whose often stated belief is that they are elected to run the economy – in the same fashion that a CEO runs a private company to make a profit I suspect, though how running an economy achieves these goals is another matter. But the pretence of running “the economy” is nothing other than a synonym for “command economy”.
In Australia we have had a concatenation of economic fiascos with the Fabians/Keynesians “running the economy” – insulation, school building, etc etc etc. The budget surplus we had has been spent (mainly into the pockets of the rent seekers and trade unions under the guise of stimulating the economy but actually redistributing the wealth).
I now read that the US has an even larger disaster looming – the pensions promised to all the public employees employed at the state and local levels – and the Europeans and English, as well as Australia have the same disaster waiting for them over the horizon.
Hence the AGW agenda – not so much to save the planet as to fund the ballooning public pension schemes of the incumbents.
In Western Australia the state government has decided to become proactive in the resource industry safety and intends to employ an additional 1100 safety inspectors. People taken out of the private sector which creates the wealth, into the sector which doesn’t.
Net effect is that the private sector shrinks, the public sector grows, and in order to increase the per capita wealth creation from a shrinking private sector, we are admonished to be more productive and innovative.
This is no different to an overseer on a Roman galley, finding a couple of his slaves had died en route, to command the rest to row harder.
For those who value liberty http://www.lewrockwell.com and http://www.mises.org are worthwhile resources to counter Keynesianism, (though Lew Rockwell’s site should really be named Rothbard as Mises realised the need for a limited government, under the principles of a republic ruled by law, which the Rothbardians reject).
I don’t think the Tea Part movement would take hold here in Australia, since many are descended from UK Rednecks, and fairly uninvolved politically. Most Australians expect the state to care for them in their twilight years on the basis that, because, they paid taxes during their working life, then on retirement they should be kept by the state by it’s pension system: but that pension system is essentially unfunded, and it number of public servants keeps increasing, so it’s fairly obvious what is happening; just look at Greece.
But if there exists an undercurrent of mass scepticism, as detailed here by Jo’s wonderful diary entry in the Speccie’ (and I am working 12 hour shifts at the moment supervising a drilling rig north of Leonora in WA so I can’t get a copy), then there is hope.
The sooner folks realise that it’s the Keynesians (aka Fabians) who are the problem, the faster this nonsense can be stopped.
(Rereke – I’m pleased you like my new avatar – I am a fan of Rocky and Bullwinkle :-))
10
In case anyone wonders, I allocate 1 hour before dawn to quickly read the internet blogs etc to get up to speed on watt’s happening. I start work just after dawn, and get back by sundown.
10
Grego99: #65
Actually, history won’t care. The names “Michael Mann” and “Phil Jones” may appear from time to time, but within a generation or two they too will be forgotten.
How many people today know the names of the “scientists” who supported phrenology in the late eighteenth, early nineteenth centuries? How many people today know what “phrenology” is?
If you choose to say that, “Michael Mann had the gall to remove the Maunder Warming Period from his charts”, then you are using the name of Franz Joseph GALL – a leading light in that particular form of bad science. Perhaps in the future people will use the term “crued data” to mean data that has been “adjusted” to support a given agenda?
History has a habit of repeating itself, so we keep seeing these scams over and over again. Perhaps we need to teach “History of Science and Ethics” as part of the BSc degree?
10
I agree with the comments by “Luboš Motl”.
I would liken it more to a CANCER.
ALL parts must be “excised” otherwise it continue to grow!
10
AL GORE’s 35 INCONVENIENT TRUTHS
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
10
So it’s Bullwinkle! I knew I’d seen that face before but oh my lord what a long time ago.
10
[…] och politikerna försöker upprätthålla ett sken av att ”vetenskapen är enig”. I ett inlägg berättar Jo Nova hur hon möter en allt starkare underström av skepticism ute bland vanligt […]
10
I believe the psychologists’ term for this is projection… you really should have the condition looked at MattB.
10
Hi All,
Consulting onsite with a local rabitting on to someone else behind me, and the one way conversation was going like this….
You see, there will be 9 billion people by XXXX…. The environmental impact from global warming is horriffic….. It’s all too late….. I am building a house out in the country to survive when peak oil happens in 2012….. We can’t have everyone…… I’ve done the calculations myself…… The only solution which might save us is to nuke India, China and africa…. Then we might have a chance…..
Pretty much sums up the whole fabian scaremongering thing and the coalescence of alterior motives that come under the CAGW banner, I reckon.
I was sitting there grinding my teeth, but again, in the interests of professionalism, I didn’t get started. I did, however, make mention of the recent North Korean developments their ABC hasn’t mentioned. I think it scared him, I know it was mean of me, wasn’t it.
The thing is, this guy has a degree, and was obviously very easily swayed with perspectives and was definitely a follower. It wasn’t that he isn’t intelligent, he must’ve been, it’s just that he lacked the street smarts to ask the right questions..
10
Jo
You hit on a good point when you mention people will only open up about their scepticism once they realise they are talking to a non-believer. The trouble is that scepticism is not politically correct – but that will soon turn around once people get the message that they have been conned.
And humour is one of the best ways of pricking that particular bubble.
Happy ANZAC Day people, by the way…
Cheers,
Speedy
10
“However, I am still confused about your original reference that said: “That guy from Ghost “Stay off my train” can be the Lord”
How does that relate to Jo’s article? I am obviously missing something here.”
Rereke – I didn’t start the film adaptation conversation – so you’ll ahe to ask someone else how they got there… but my reply was in context with the film discussions.
10
MattB #78
You are obviously confused again Matt, you really must concentrate.
Shaun Walker first mentioned a film of the blog (interesting concept) at comment #39. Shaun suggested that Angelina Jolie play Jo – I will not speculate why.
Baa Humbug responded to Shaun at comment #40, saying that he didn’t think Angelina Jolie would come across as being smart enough, but could offer no real alternative, so he asked the group for suggestions.
And then, up you pop Matt, at comment #41 saying:
And hey, as I said before, I think Cate Blanchette would be great, but I still don’t get the rest of your comment, and I would really like to know what was in your mind at the time.
10
Obviously, this “Cate Blanchette” is one of the fanatical followers of the Church OF Al Gore!
She has certainly lost us as fans!
Cate Blanchette – CLIMATE CHANGE PRESENTER:-
http://www.theclimateprojectus.org/newsletter_view.php?id=7
10
MattB,
JUST TWO SHORT QUESTIONS WITH TWO SHORT ANSWERS BUT NO REPLY? Is that because you can’t answer without shooting yourself in the foot?
You want to play in the game but when the chips are all down and the bet has been called your hand is busted.
It’s insulting for you to lump skeptics together and say, “…we tend to parrot others in an attempt to fit into society.” And that’s exactly what your next statement says you mean. “Is that not the basis of the entire skeptical movement?”
You’ve been around joannenova for a long time but you can’t tell the difference between the personalities here and those on believer sites. You missed the whole discussion you were trying to participate in along with the whole point of this thread. There is no skeptical movement.
Your failure to answer two simple questions — and by the way, very fair questions under the circumstances — is itself an answer. And it doesn’t flatter MattB to say the least.
10
Rereke Whaakaro @79
The scene in Ghost that MattB was referring to was when Patrick Swayze becomes a ghost he meets a very aggressive ghost who refuses to share the train carriage with him, obviously an allusion to Lord M’s not wanting to share the limelight. But typically MattB puts foot in mouth for later in the film the train guy teaches Swayze to move physical matter which allows him to save Demi More’s life a perfect allusion to the Lord’s ability to teach people that AGW is a scam.
10
What we have from MattB is typical of the AGW movement, cherry pick the data to support the hypothesis when an evaluation of all the data proves the opposite. If this is an indication of Matt’s analytical thinking its no wonder that he supports AGW so rather than ridiculing him we should simply refuse to engage with him after all its’ totally pointless to get into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
10
Ahh Allen you think I am not aware of the Train Man’s double role? Maybe after all I am not just here to insult? Hmmm worth thinking about that. Mostly it is the boggly eyes though. It was not about sharing the limelight – it was about him at 1st encounter appearing to be an absolute nutter.
And Roy – It is 2pm on a sunday afternoon, it is ANZAC day, I’ve just put my 2yo down for his afternoon nap and I’ve spent all morning at the park with my 4yo…. MAYBE MY ENTIRE LIFE DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND SEARCHING THREADS FOR OBSCURE AND RUDELY AKED QUESTIONS FROM MORONS????
As for your ridiculous questions:
Which side had something to hide?
Answer – every side generally has something to hide.
Which side has now been exposed as dishonest?
I can answer this by saying that until cliamtegate certainly only one side had been exposed as being dishonest (or I prefer wrong rather than suggesting dishonesty to be honest). These emails have uncovered some less than desirable human traits… but “dishonest”… in part… wrong? I don’t think so.
10
Rereke in #79 – discussion is of film adaptation, I suggest an actor for Jo’s role, then suggest a supporting actor. Is that too hard to follow… if so I suggest you ‘fess up to being a bit thick;)
10
Allen in #83 – is this the random comment thread? Thanks for getting that off your chest.
10
I’ve done a whole lot of ignoring MattB and I’ll do a whole lot more I’m sure. But certain things are not to be ignored. If he wants to throw what amounts to an insult at everyone as he did at 27 then he needs to hear that it wasn’t appreciated and why it wasn’t appreciated. I couldn’t care less about his other nonsense!
10
allen mcmahon: #82
April 25th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
That’s priceless Allen. h/t
10
MattB,
I guess I touched a nerve. Good! Now you have some idea of what it’s like to be insulted as you did at 27. Words have meaning and once said they can’t be unsaid. I have left you alone to believe whatever you want to believe and I’ll keep on doing that. But when you make an insulting remark so carelessly you’re going to hear from me. If you don’t like it then think a little harder before you hit the Submit Comment button. And for your own sake, if you’re going to comment day in and day out then at least try to understand the people you’re going to be talking to.
10
If 27 is an insult then maybe climate blogs are not your scene Roy.
10
MattB
Despite disagreeing you, over the months I felt that you made valuable contributions with your comments and I appreciated that you did not resort to personal insults,I have commented in the past supporting you, however your recent behavior has changed my attitude. Your comments regarding others is exemplified @84 @85 and reflects more on you than them. If this is a measure of your regard for the other contributors to the blog why do you continue to frequent the site. Are you as stupid as you obviously consider others or just malicious?
10
MattB is like Fox Mulder (X Files). He “wants to believe”.
Like all his kind, he is a chronic goal-post shifter and pathologically incapable of accepting that all sound theories must have a falsification argument.
Anyone else here remember that Tom P character who haunted “Climate Audit” some months ago. Saw no problem at all with “cherry-picked” tree rings. After all, they gave the desired result, didn’t they?
10
Roy (#87):
Why? I mean, seriously, what does it achieve?
10
Roy in 81… just read your post again (slowly) and then consider that all I did was use a phrase to describe skeptics that had been used a few posts earlier to describe people who are on my side of the fence? You are faux-traged it has been used as an insult to your “team” but quite happy to for it to be used against mine?
10
Rereke (#48)…
Yes, that is exactly the point I was trying to make.
10
Dear Richard,
common sense and scientific results often do disagree. Scientists often have to develop uncommon sense because their previous intuition – or common sense – is seen to be insufficient. Just look how crazy quantum mechanics or relativity are – but they’re true. Our common sense is not enough because it’s been trained for very different situations than the “extreme” situations encountered in relativity and quantum mechanics.
However, such a switch from “common sense” to “uncommon sense” of the advanced scientific results is also risky because the “uncommon sense” often fails to be rooted in long human experience. Unless one does the science really properly, the probability that the “uncommon sense” fails is probably even bigger than for “common sense”.
That doesn’t prevent various “intellectual classes” in the society to consider it “hot” to prefer “uncommon sense” over “common sense”. They actually find it hot. They think it’s great to find, hold, and promote insights and opinions that disagree with common sense. And let me tell you: it’s great, not only because one feels to stand above the ordinary people. And some (or most) of these “uncommon” insights are wrong, too. 😉
Of course, I am among those who often prefer “uncommon sense” over “common sense”. However, I also appreciate that unless one is careful, it is very likely for “uncommon sense” to lead people astray. And if the “uncommon sense” is being promoted – by the people who feel “clever” just by spreading “uncommon sense”, even though they’re usually intellectually equal or inferior to the people with “common sense” – rather than carefully and critically developed and studied, well, then it’s almost guaranteed that such “uncommon sense” turns out to be nonsense. And that’s arguably the case of AGW and similar disaster scenarios.
Best wishes
Lubos
10
MattB #85
Ah, you assume that I watch movies. From that, I deduce that you assume that I am totally sighted. You should never assume anything, Matt.
You should also know that the appearance of Christopher Monckton’s eyes is due to a medical condition, and one that does not, in any way, affect his intellect, which is considerable.
So I put it to you, that it is better to be thought thick, than to be shown as being shallow, and perhaps callous.
It is laudable that you spend time with your children. Enjoy them while they are young – the time available to you to do this will be less than you think. And please, please, teach your children to respect the opinions of others. Other opinions are just as valid as your own, even if different.
If we all thought the same, the world would be a dismal place. Just ask anybody who grew up in Soviet Russia.
10
RW @ 97
Some very good advice!
10
Totally OT – I just need to vent my frustration of the TV series Dr Who.
It’s not about the damn companion and her problems.
It’s about the Doctor and the interesting multi-dimensional problems he faces.
I can’t watch it anymore.
10
janama: #99
I feel your pain, brother.
Of course, MattB will probably ask, “who is Who?”.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist it.
10
‘So I put it to you, that it is better to be thought thick, than to be shown as being shallow, and perhaps callous.’ ~Rereke W.
Darn it, I can’t find that quote! I seem to recall from I, Claudius: ‘If I, as a half-wit, can keep my head, when all about me are losing theirs…’
It has been at least a decade since I watched it so I know this is not exact. But it seems to fit your response to mattb. Not to mention, since he sees us as half-wits anyway……
10
janama@99
EXTERMINATE -EXTERMINATE-EXTERMINATE
10
MattB,
I guess you can’t understand what’s going on here on joannenova and with skeptics generally. So even at risk of being seen to put words in someone else’s mouth, I would be a skeptic if I was the only living skeptic on the planet and I think the same is true of the regulars who contribute here.
There is no skeptical movement and we do not do what we do from some need to belong to anything. Believing otherwise is a big mistake on the part of the AGW people as has already been pointed out. And it’s your mistake as well.
If you think there is such a movement then out with it. Where is it headquartered? Who runs it? Where and when does it meet? What does it do? Who pulls the strings?
I value and follow this site to learn and keep up with what’s going on. Contributing anything is secondary. I get value here! Belonging is ridiculous. To what would I belong? Joanne has no membership list.
You’ve been around longer than I have and yet you fail to understand the people you talk to every day. Your grip on what’s going on here is abysmal. I cannot speak for anyone but myself but your post at 27 was one more MattB response that you didn’t think through and about which you didn’t give a thought to anyone else before hitting the Submit Comment button because you fail to understand us. And it was an insult. And then you resorted to angry name calling.
Now you have dragged this out. I’ll not respond again. I despair of getting you to understand what joannenova is all about. So if you continue the way you have you’re always going to be getting the little red thumbs down checked and people challenging you.
10
Lubos:
I write to make clear that I agree and support all that you have said in your posts at #2 and #96. Indeed, my comment at #53 says;
So, my comment was intended to be supportive of yours. Hence, if anybody reading our comments has gained any other impression then I apologise and I hope this post corrects the matter.
Richard
10
Steve Schapel @93,
I was once solidly in the ignore them camp. And actually I ignore MattB nearly 100%. But when he shows that he doesn’t even understand the people here and can say to me what he said at 94 in his defense, then I’m bothered by that. Sometimes something needs to be challenged.
10
There’s an old saying, initially applicable to other species but nonetheless relevant at some blogs, regarding those (fortunately) few visitors who have no interest in learning, and nothing useful to contribute, but lots of time for both inane comments and debate — if you don’t feed it, it’s more likely to go away.
10
Otter: #101
I don’t know about “I Claudius”, but perhaps the original thought came from a poem, called simply …
“If”
by Rudyard Kipling
10
Rereke @107,
I’ll save that and look at it when I’m tempted to be discouraged.
10
“MattB”….
THE OPPOSITE OF SKEPTICAL IS GULLIBLE!
Clearly, that describes YOU!
10
Al Gore, goldman sachs etc……
We’re looking for some USEFUL IDIOTS to help make us BILLIONAIRES.
10
Observation: I have met a number of people who admit to having been AGW believers who have looked at the evidence and then become AGW skeptics. However, I have never met an AGW believer who was once skeptical, examined the evidence and then become an AGW believer.
Does this gibe with anyone else?
10
Kevin: @ #109:
April 26th, 2010 at 7:10 am
Ah, but which is the greater term of endearment ?
10
Grant (#111)…
Very true, and very significant.
10
Roy (#105):
I understand what you mean, and I understand the temptation to bite back. But to me you have to have a reasonable expectation of a positive outcome, which in this case I don’t think there is – except for that of getting it off your chest.
And then, unfortunately, in fact very unfortunately, there is a tendency for such challenges to encourage a mob response. So whereas your own posts, as always, have been exemplary, it is interesting to note that since you made them, there have been at least two other posts in this thread, from people hiding behind noms de plume, who have stooped to the level of crass name-calling, which I find unattractive.
10
MattB:
You would be better served by posting arguments based on facts, or at least your perception of them, than the tack you have been taking lately. It is now a rare ocassion on which your posts are anything more than flamebait.
As for how AGW supporters describe skeptics and vice versa, I have seen RC bloggers accusing skeptics of everything the skeptics have accused them of. Neither scores any real debating points in these little jousts, but it doesn’t stop the jibes coming.
Anywho, back to MattB… keep up the barrage in your current form and people will just start ignoring you completely. You would hate that, no?
10
Grant @ 111, a very astute observation. One that I am sure is disturbing (happily so) to the warmist cabal.
10
Steve,
I understand your point. But unfortunately others must take responsibility for their own actions and words. I cannot be the cause of anyone else deciding to do something. Their decision comes from within them.
I’ll not reiterate them here but if you go back and look you’ll find some rather heavy handed rebukes to MattB. Some far beyond what I’ve said in language and demeanor. And my expectation is exactly this: Matt now knows, whether he’ll acknowledge it or not, that he went far beyond what I will find acceptable. I don’t care if he wants to be a warmer among skeptics. But I care when he hasn’t the common courtesy to try to understand the people he’s talking to before he goes off half cocked.
I’m not angry at you or anyone else except MattB and I’ve spoken my mind to him. I didn’t even let my full complaint come out until he called me a moron. And now, as I’ve already said, I hope this is over. I don’t enjoy doing it but I’ll do it if I think I have to. So let this be the end.
10
I’ve visited Unleashed, and much as I’d prefer to not return there, I may have to make the effort. I have to know how that ‘professor’ connected global warming to Ivan Milat.
For those that don’t know, or have forgotten him – here’s Ivan.
10
If you guys stop feeding it, it’ll probably go away because it need attention.
10
There’s not much news so I decided to make some up, taking a line from Jo’s ant problem:
Climate Sceptic gets First Hand Evidence of Climate Change.
Famous Climate Scientist Dr. James Mannsen has revealed new evidence of man’s growing influence on the world’s climate. Wearing a lab coat and an earnest expression, Dr. Mannsen disclosed how outspoken climate change sceptic Joanne Nova was confronted with the truth on Saturday when millions of hungry ants – “Climate Refugees”, as he termed them – invaded her living room to escape the impact of man-made global warming.
Consensus
Waving his arms to convey the horror of the situation, Dr. Mannsen revealed the significance of this event. “Millions of ants constitute a significant consensus”, he noted, “and further proves man’s serious impact on the environment through the unbridled emission of CO2 and other serious greenhouse gases like oxygen dihydride. It is ironic that such evidence should be found even in the living room of one of global warming’s most strident critic.”
Unprecedented
Dr. Mannsen continued: “Ants are small, timid creatures and rarely seek the company of humans. So when millions, or possibly tens of millions, of these peaceful animals actually attempt to share a living space with people, you know there is something seriously wrong.”
“Denier”
Jo Nova noted Dr. Mannsen’s claims but regarded them as “unlikely”. “We’d had pizza in front of the movies last night” she said. “And they really went for the ham and pizza leftovers.” This assertion was rejected by Dr. Mannsen: “[This is] so typical of these people”, he said. “Ignoring the evidence that’s staring them in the face, and confusing the issue with home-spun science and half-truths. It’s no wonder some people get labeled as deniers.”
“It’s worse than we expected”
Jo Nova observed that it was approaching winter in Australia, and that overnight temperatures were 9 degrees Celsius (50 Fahrenheit). “Hardly the stuff of global warming”, she observed. Dr. Mannsen begged to differ: “It’s worse than we expected”, he cried. “Ants have a prescient ability to predict the weather. In the hands of a qualified and peer reviewed Climate Scientist, ant behaviour is a well recognised and accepted climate proxy, and nearly as reliable as computer modeling. In this case the ants have provided us with a climate scenario for around the year 2020, when all ants will be co-habitating with humans.”
“It’s official”
When asked whether this new evidence will be included in the upcoming IPCC report and join the body of peer reviewed consensus evidence of global warming, Dr Mannsen made a commitment: “Just as soon as we get the draft back from Greenpeace”, he said.
10
Denis is of course correct – if there were no skeptical websites full of loons I’d just wither up and stop blogging;)
Roy I honestly don’t know where I tipped you over the edge, other than thinking what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, but I’ll take comments on board and and try and be a bit more sensitive to the skeptical sensibilities.
10
Re-reading my post @120 – apologies for the “D” word. But you can probably tell who I think the real deniers are…
10
Speedy: #120
The sceptical press is not going to have a bar of that. You need to check your sources.
If you go back to the original source report you will discover that there were exactly 40,000 ants, of which 6 were “honey-seekers”, and consequently don’t count.
Could it be that you are inflating 39,994 ants into “millions, or possibly tens of millions” of ants, just to raise extra funding?
We expect you to come clean about this. The public has a right to know. Just how much annualised funding do you get, on a per ant basis?
10
Hey MattB … guess what? Putting 😉 at the end of the line does not mollify the insult.
Totally agree Denis… some people on the web just get off on riling people up because they don’t seem to have anything better/constructive to do with their time. Not quite sure what motivates them to be honest.
10
Rereke @ 123
The term “millions” or possibly “tens of millions” was intended to raise awareness of the issue, not necessarily for scientific accuracy. After all, sometimes we climate scientists need to stretch the facts to make a point. A lot of times, actually…
And the additional funding will be greatly needed to fix this latest crisis.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
MattB @121,
Thank you, I appreciate that very much. And it was lumping skeptics into sauce for the gander. We’re a bunch of highly independent thinkers and while people have various reasons for following joannenova and contributing input, I don’t think anyone is here just to belong somewhere. It’s our only real strength against those who are becoming threatening. We have no general they could take out and leave the rest of the army unable to function. So a little understanding of how people see themselves is in order.
Roy
10
Speedy: #125
No peer review, I notice. Not even the local cat-fanciers association. It’s just Zoodoo science! Well, no personal glacier for you.
10
Rereke
What were you thinking?! Peer Review? Peer Review is what the sceptical side need! The word of a good and noble climate scientist is enough – no?
If you insist, then I’m sure that we could get the thumbs up from like-minded “scientists”. Truth is only relative, as we all know…
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
Speedy
Please leave your relatives out of this. Fraud and misrepresentation are bad enough without bringing nepotism into it as well.
10
Rereke Whaakaro:
April 24th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
“Bush bunny: #50
The Inconvenient Truth video was banned from UK schools, by a court of law.
Good point. I had forgotten to mention that.
Of course, the reason it went to court was that it ended up being in the syllabus, as a teaching aid, as per my comment #48.
There is no way of knowing how many teachers included the caveat in their lessons, or to what extent.”
I think we really must strive to keep our side of the debate accurate guys.
The sad indoctrination of my grandchildren was not banned. The court case judge found that the case was proved against several of Gores claims (11! but that would be a good batting average for the IPCC output). It still continues to be shown but my grandchildren are putting up a good fight in the debate after the garbage has been shown (sadly, much to the teachers disgust!)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3308930/Al-Gores-An-Inconvenient-Truth-can-be-shown-to-schools.html
10
There is news. The wine industry in Australia is in deep trouble, grape growers are desperate. What has gone wrong? Has Global Warming and the never ending drought trashed their farms leading to the dreadful food crisis we were all warned about?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/23/2881626.htm?
Quite the opposite actually, a huge bumper crop for the second year running. Growers are beside themselves with the level of oversupply. Victims of their own success it would seem.
What would a rational person do when confronted with large amounts of cheap wine? Well buy it cheaply and store it seems like a logical option, or export it would be the other option. After all, the whole point of wine is that it represents an easily stored and traded commodity and has done for many thousands of years. Sadly, recent Australian government policy imposes a tax on the storage of wine (please note US readers, your country has it’s share of insanity too, cutting off our own feet is something we as a nation are entitled to do, so stop laughing).
Thus we have a situation where a government at panic stations over Climate Change destroying our agricultural sector has found a way to ensure the destruction of that same agricultural sector by taxing their productivity.
Takes special brilliance.
10
Tel – grape growing in Australia has changed dramatically in the past couple of decades. You used to drive the Hay Plain to Mildura via a wasteland yet now it’s awash with irrigated grape vines all established by city folk investing in rural agriculture.
De Bortoli created the idea back in the early 70s where they created irrigated grape vines in Griffith – they originally serviced the expansive cask wine market yet have grown to be an established quality wine producer. Their Botrytis wines are world class.
Most wine now is a blend – created by blending large scale irrigated juice outputs with established vintage vineyards. The foremost blender was Wolfe Blass who has now competition from a series of wine companies that also blend – i.e. they blend the large scale irrigated wines.
10
Anchor’s red wine vinegar benefited from the grape glut a few years ago. The quality is always good but back then it was even better.
Personally I’d be very happy if there’s another monster crop coming. My salad dressing isn’t what it used to be.
10
Tel: #131
April 26th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
As a note of interest, earlier this year I searched thru the whole IPCC AR4 report to see if I can find something, anything, that might benefit from global warming.
Lo and behold the ONLY thing to benefit from AGW was grape growing and wines. An increase in both quality and alcohol level.
From memory, growing regions in Europe, South Africa and South America were researched.
10
Pete H: #130
I stand corrected. That is what happens when you give credence to newspaper articles – you think I would have learnt by now.
10
I have an O.T. question for anyone who knows the answer.
What effect does the removal of divergent tree ring records from the IPCC AR4 temperature graph, have on the overall temperature record? (i.e. with the remaining instrumental record in tact)
Just interested.
10
Here you go, I found it…
From the AR4 WG2 chp 1 pp 105 it seems AGW is GREAT FOR WINES both in quality (up 13.3 points) and alcohol (up 2%)
Here in Oz we have a media personality named Jack the Insider. Jacks always having long breakfasts, brunches, lunches and extra long dinners whilst gathering political “insider” information.
Upon hearing the news about wine quality and AGW, he was heard to say…
“Rejoice, tipple a glass or three and keep pumping that CO2 into the air”.
10
SamG:
You can read about the entire saga at Steve McIntyre’s site:
http://climateaudit.org/
Do a search for Yamal. Numerous threads to peruse.
There are other sites as well but McIntyre was one of the original bloodhounds that hunted down this fraud.
10
Thanks Mark, I have read all that stuff.
Unless I missed it, has anyone homogenized the data without the tree ring proxies and compared the differences, Apologies for my ignorance in advance. I’m no statistician.
The reason why I ask is because much has been said about the divergence problem. I want to know how relevant the tree ring records are in multi proxy studies.
10
SamG:
Why not just post your question there? I’d be surprised if nobody came to the rescue.
Have you seen Craig Loehle’s paper based on non-treering proxies?
10
No I haven’t. do you have a link?
I try not to post on technical blogs, I really don’t know enough.
What I am doing though is taking some of the comments from advocacy blogs and looking them up myself.
I find an incredible amount of the knowledge is recycled (on both sides). Many of us tend to agree with something because it is affirmed by someone else. But do we know what it means? I think one has to be careful not to be easily by agenda.
For example, many skeptics believe that anthropogenic warming is non existent, But this is a mistake. it’s actually a matter of degree and the influence of climate forcings. Anyway, I’m ranting and this is O.T.
Thanks.
10
Hi , this is My first post here and is a little off topic but I thought some of you would find this one amusing,
“However, according to the Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat, the Arctic polar ice cap would be completely gone by summer 2008 .”
source http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/a/Arctic.htm
Gotta love the Wikipedias For accuracy (snigger)
10
Found it
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
10
#141: SamG
I don’t think so……it’s worse than you think ! Take a look at:
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddrj9jjs_0fsv8n9gw
10
SamG: #141
April 26th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
Sam you’ve made my caution metre hit the red zone. You asked…
You were given a reasonable suggestion by Mark #140 re: Climateaudit.org
But then you say…
The reason why we ask questions is because we don’t know about a subject that interests us. Claiming you don’t post on technical sites (climate audit?) because you don’t know enough doesn’t make sense.
DO YOU WANT TO KNOW SAM? There is ONE PERSON on this planet who can answer your question accurately. His name is Steve McIntyre and his weblog is called CLIMATEAUDIT.ORG Now I’ve linked to it for you. I expect I may see SamG posting this question there very very soon. I’ll check regularly.
By the way, what makes you say “many skeptics believe that anthropogenic warming is non existent,”?
You “don’t know enough” but you know enough to claim it’s “a matter of degree” and about “climate forcings”
Anyway, maybe I misread you. Looking forward to your question post at climateaudit.
10
Baa Humbug
I won’t be posting on Climate Audit. Prior to its move to wordpress, it did have a general forum that I could have posted on but I can’t find it at present.
C.A. is fairly technical (although less lately), asking elementary science questions there would be somewhat distracting. I’m sure I will get answers via other sources.
I’m currently investigating the voracity of the advocacy’s refutations.
For example, their claim that Monckton misunderstood professor Pinker’s paper -another subject I’m interested in.
I might for example, ask if anyone has a source for Monckton’s rebuttal to this?
Since nobody has a categorical answer to the question of AGW, I figure that I’ll use my bullshit detector to see who’s telling the truth.
10
That’s ‘veracity’
I’m hungry all of a sudden 🙂
10
denis: #144
April 26th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Nice little website you have there denis. Concise and informative. A one stop shop almost. Well done
10
Baa Humbug:
#148. Thanks, and coming from you (I’ve seen your posts here and elsewhere in the past) that’s really great!
(That document is a “google doc”, actually uploaded from a Word document. I put up a much earlier version on the ClimateGate website, but that website was closed down. (The owner couldn’t afford to maintain it any longer. I have noticed that the warmists (aka “gullibulers”) earlier chants of “just follow the money” have quieted down considerably – and for good reason.
10
Sceptics are made, not born!
Like most sceptics, I was mildly interested in the topic of AGW and made an enquiry on the Guardian CIF blog about standards for surface temp. measuring. My comment was jumped on, I was accused of being a ‘troll’ and the general level of scorn and vituperation heaped upon my innocent question made me angry and very determined to find out just what the heck was going in. Now, six months later, i understand that AGW is a bone fide religion in every sense and woe betide anyone who is an ‘unbeliever’ in the eyes of the faithful!
Almost every day sees a new piece of chicanery revealed, two enquiries here in the UK, complete with really biased panel membership selection have delivered less than credible findings. Prof. Judith Curry of Georgia Tech has commented that the report of the Oxborough panel into the CRU was ‘an executive summary rather than a report’.
10
Kiwi:
Re: #150
It is amazing that these folks can stay in denial after reading Costella’s “ClimateGate” and/or visiting “Watts Up With That” website, this website, etc. The major news media is a co-conspirator. And you will see lots of arguments about anything in this area by smart people who have not devoted one minute to looking at the science. Sooner or later they will. They’re slowly (very slowly) coming around. For the major news media to admit its mistake would be the end of them, so they instead ask the Marx Brothers wonderful line:
“Are you gonna believe me or your own eyes?”
(see my google doc referenced back in #144). Bah Humbug (a credible reviewer) critiques it in #148.
10
[…] Climate skepticism becoming the citizens rights to freedom ; […]
10
It would appear that Kevin Rudd’s ETS will not go ahead until 2013 at the earliest. It will probably never see the light of day again.
10
And they wonder why we are sceptics.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/global-warming-the-oxburgh-inquiry-was-an-offer-he-couldnt-refuse/
10
Baa Humbug @ 139:
I used to enjoy reading Jack the Insider’s (JtI) blogs and participated with the occasional response myself. He made the mistake of getting into climate change some time back and I set him straight on a few mis-representations he made.
He immediately became defensive and resorted to deferring to “Marcus” of the “CSIRO” who basically threw a few good punches and I was not sufficiently well-read at the time to debunk them effectively.
“Marcus” turned out to be a guy with a BSc in soil science (or something like that – soil biology maybe), who is probably some lab tech with too much time on his hands.
Anywho, JtI resorted to insulting me a few times on the blog and I no longer participate in his blogs. The guys has the blinkers firmly affixed when it comes to AGW… he is a complete zealot. Not only is he convinced it is real, but he does not have sufficient knowledge himself to argue the simplest of points on the subject.
I lost all respect for JtI that week.
10
Doncha just love articles like this?
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/another-polar-rescue-must-send/story-e6frfhqf-1225856131380
10
Bunny @ 155 — I hope you are right. Given the timing of the “shelving” ( before your budget and elections ) I think you probably are right.
So from a Kiwi — congratulations to Australia for coming to your senses before any damage was done.
10
Us skeptics have a problem – and this problem is getting me dangerously close to crossing over to the “darkside”. Could someone please address this for me as it is causing me some anxiety? I went to Dr Bradley Opdyke’s public lecture at ANU hoping to heckle but now I have a lot of questions that I haven’t found answers to on skeptic sites.
My problem is related to data. No-one has yet shown how natural variability has caused the rise in measured temperatures. Milankovitch cycles agree with the paleoclimatic record – when we look at the points in the past when Earth was receiving most solar flux (as calculated from our knowledge of the Milankovitch variations), we see that the earth’s temperature has been highest in the empirically-determined paleoclimatic record.
The problem is that the last peak of solar flux caused by the Milankovitch cycle was about 6000 years ago. What that means is that we are in the part of the Milankovitch cycle where the temperature should be decreasing to an ice-age. The measured temperatures however are not decreasing – multi-decade trends show that the amount of thermal energy stored in the atmosphere, land and oceans is steadily increasing, and (one way) this stored energy is manifesting itself is as rising global average temperatures.
Solar activity is at a relative minimum as well – from about 1998 there has been a decline in solar intensity, yet everyone is saying that this is the hottest measured decade on record, and evidence suggests that the temperatures now are about what they were 6000 years ago.
So my problem is this: given that the temperatures should be decreasing, what phenomena is responsible for the temperatures bucking the expected negative trend of the decreasing Milankovitch forcing?
And the other problem is, why is the rate of warming as measured in the last few decades (0.13 deg C per decade) much higher than the usual rate of Milankovitch warming (maximum of about 0.001 deg per decade between ice-ages and interglacial warm periods)?
What is the specific cause of this apparent anomaly? Apparently there was a period of rapid warming about 55 million years ago (5- 10 deg C over 10 000 years), but that has been attributed to an enormous “methane burp”. The rate of warming now is greater than it was then. What is the cause for the measured trends?
Why has the thermal energy stored in the atmosphere, land masses and oceans been increasing so rapidly? What is the specific natural cause for this?
Could someone please help me and provide quality references?
10
Puzzled @ 160:
It never occurs to the AGW side that sometimes the most truthful answer to a question could be “buggered if I know”.
Instead, they come up with highly contentious and contestable theories which (surprise, surprise) involve spending squillions of bucks on fixing a non-existent problem and funding them in their sinecures.
You raise a few aspects which have been done to death here and on other sceptic blogs. I am puzzled why you seek to raise them yet again.
10
Denis (#153):
Can you say why? For myself, I usually give a lot of credit to anyone who can change their minds, and say so, in the light of further information and/or deliberation. Don’t the MSM stand to gain credibility if they can admit and correct a mistake?
10
Puzzled @160
There is no “Us skeptics”.
Which measured rise in temperatures? There’s been none in the past 15 years where I live, based on data from a nearby ag. research station. All temporary fluctuatuions in temperature correlated very well to previously-measured levels of insolation (solar energy) atground level. the temporal lag between insolation and temperature is about a month; with very good correlation – although the correlation doesn’t prove anything; it simply fails to disprove.
In terms of the real driver of climate change; the sun; there are a number of ways in which solar variability; in the entire electro-magnetic spectrum and particle emissions can (at least hypothetically) have direct and indirect effects on climate. The sun is the dominant source of energy for the climate which we experience.
But it is not necessary to have alternative explainations for climate change to disprove the hypothesis of anthroprogenic CO2 emissions leading to catatrophic climate change (CAGW). It is sufficient to physically observe and measure the behaviour of the real world and to recognize that the CAGW hypothesis is false.
10
Re: #160: As noted by Felsche in #163, Skeptics have a common name – as do cats – but, just as cats, they don’t run in herds. They may have a common skepticism about the Church of AGW, but don’t feel bad (if you do join the dark side) they also treat their own skeptically.
Nobody I’ve heard of has ever been able to demonstrate an unfailing understanding of the cause of every variation in temperature experienced by the earth. There are cycles within cycles, and of varying lengths, some with durations of 100,000 years, one with a duration of about 250 million years, (the duration of one revolution around our galaxy). We’ve only had 3 of these since the earth was a “snowball”. Intermingled climate cycles provide a nice combinatorial problem, particularly once a bit of chaos is thrown in.
Satellite data shows basically a constant temperature for the past three decades. (Dr Roy Spencer, NASA).Surface temperature data is inherently unreliable, even before the questionable machinations laid on the raw data by the CRU crew.
The term “natural variation” would seem to be the operative descriptor if there’s no firm EVIDENCE pointing to some cause, and the temperature variation in question is of the same type and magnitude as has been encountered before man could possibly have been involved. CO2 has been eliminated as a driver of the earth’s temperature, so there’s no smoking gun. Of course that does not mean that there is not some contribution to warming by man, but without a smoking gun, and with temperatures lower than during the MWP, it’s a problem that is right now akin to worrying about whether the sun will rise tomorrow morning.
It also appears to be “natural” for temperature to take a turn up after several hundred years of cooling (the “little ice age”)
Our only issue is the recent increase in CO2, but it’s constrained (increasing at 2 ppmv per year), the plants absolutely love it.
We do need to keep our eye on the carbon issue, but there is no short-term solution to that. The 3rd world countries are now, inaggregate, the biggest carbon producers. Politicians love to invent a crisis, but if they impose a solution on us like the last “good deed” – making homes available to everyone — we’ll be in real trouble!
10
Especially for Australia/Western Australia:
The ETS may be dead, but there are new taxes ahead:
Mining industry faces new resource levies
(link plays video clip immediately, for those of you reading at work ;-))
The long-awaited Henry tax review, due to be released next Sunday, will have the facts.
Kevin Rudd may call it “resource levies” but a tax is still a tax whatever you call it, and will mean:
1) Higher prices for the end user (all of us) because the “polluter pays” principle is fairyfloss; any business worth its salt will pass on higher costs to the consumer.
2) The flight of those resource companies and entrepreneurs who can afford it – to other shores with more favourable tax regimens. As one commentator says in the video clip above, there are plenty of resources in the world!
Smaller projects and start-up companies will be the losers as greater tax burden may make them unviable.
Is it time for that old WA secession debate to be revived? 🙂
10
Mark: #158
April 27th, 2010 at 11:05 am
Hi Mark
You’ll find there’s alot more to it than “incompetent alarmists” getting the Arctic conditions wrong (they expect warmer conditions hence making their trips easy).
These exposure seeking, overhyping eco-evangelists aren’t as stupid as we might think. Consider the following.
And
And
Why do these alarmists always need DRAMATIC rescuing? Going to the North Pole is no big deal these days.
You can book a tour here.
The popular auto show Top Gear drove their Toyota around the Pole
A young couple walked to the pole this year.
An ex-Royal marine took a bunch of Chinese business people to the Pole AND HAD HIS SON FLOWN OVER BY CHOPPER to meet him there.
So what does all this mean?
Alarmists know they’ll get no coverage by the MSM if they successfully trek to the North Pole. Every man and his dog does the trek nowadays for goodness sake.
But stage manage a DRAMATIC RESCUE and watch the news hit the MSM, hence keeping the Arctic in the news.
Clever little alarmists.
The above info from dailybayonet.com
10
Shaun @ 42. Actress to play Jo.
1. She could play herself.
2. Sandra Bollock (At least she is a natural brunette)
3. ?????
10
Its not just Australian politicians that cracking “under the strain ” !!!!
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,691194,00.html
10
Bulldust: #157
April 27th, 2010 at 10:59 am
Hi Bully.
That’s so disapointing to know. I’ve been a fan of jack the Insiders humour. Ah well, another one to strike off the list.
10
Anne-Kit Littler @ 165:
You see me getting very defensive of WA when talk of the Henry Review riases it’s ugly head. The resources industry already pays normal corporate taxes and then pays royalties on top of that for the use of non-renewable resources. This is the same in most countries around the world.
A new special levy specifically for the resources sector (or an increase in the existing royalties) is simply an ambit money grab by the Rudd Government. I have a number of issues with this, including:
1) Resources belong to the states – therefore and resource royalties belong to the states in which the resources occur. This is different for the Territories and outside State waters, then Fed jurisdiction applies.
2) Sovereign Risk – if the Feds start tinkering with royalty rates or special mining levies then mining companies will attach a large sovereign risk flag to Australia. This can only serve to drive investment offshore.
Meh I could go on – time to have another referendum on secession if Canberra starts grabbing more of the State’s taxes (they already get enough by redistributing our share of the GST through the Commonewealth Grants Scheme).
10
Puzzled @ 160 . I’m not sure whether this will directly answer your query but its well worth the read
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/storage/A%20good%20trick%20to%20create%20a%20decline.pdf
10
And now in The Australian:
Kevin Rudd delays emissions trading scheme until Kyoto expires in 2012
Funny how the moral dilemna of our time became an inconvenient agenda all of a sudden.
10
AKL in 165… seriously Australian wages are through the roof… no one would choose to dig up our resources if there were ample opportunity to do so elsewhere. and when you say cost passed on to “us” we I’ve not bought much Iron Ore recently so I can’t comment, but in terms of the end product well “us” is every consumer in the planet, but reality is market sets the cost for most things and they’ll just have to factor in a bit of tax. Somehow we have to pay for schools, hospitals, roads, rail, cities etc etc that are required specifically because of the resource boom.
10
MattB @ 173:
So you propose we raise taxes now by a lop-sided ambit grab from a single class of industry? That’s what this is.
1) Royalties are the domain of the States – end of story – the Australian Constitution says so.
2) Canberra already steals royalties indirectly from WA through the Commonwealth Grants Scheme – we get less GST returned from Canberra than other states because of our mining royalties take compared to others. This is indirect theft of royalties any which way you cut it.
3) Now the Commonwealth is proposing a special tax just for the resources industry – a royalty by any other name is still a royalty. If you are taxing mining and petroleum industries specifically, it IS A ROYALTY. See point 1. This would be up for constitutional challenge.
MattB ytou really should research a bit of economics before throwing out woolly arguments like the one you just made. It is about as reasonable as saying we should just up income tax to 90% on people called Matt… why not? I bet non-Matts and non-Matt spouses wouldn’t care too much. Why is the resources industry different?
BTW some mining companies such as Alcoa are currently making a loss… It may be a mining boom for some metals/petroleum products but not all.
10
“when you say cost passed on to “us” we I’ve not bought much Iron Ore recently so I can’t comment”
“reality is market sets the cost for most things and they’ll just have to factor in a bit of tax”
Look, I’ve resisted commenting on your posts recently, but this begs a response, even if it is just a sigh born of exasperation. You really don’t have a clue how the world works, do you MattB?
10
PS> In many cases mining companies already make contributions to local communities to support the development of infrastructure … this is in addition to the taxes they pay. In WA many of these conditions were established through Acts of Parliament called State Agreement Acts:
http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_actsif.html
Just look up anything ending in “Agreement Act.” They are a tough read, but you will find heaps of clauses where companies are obliged to funding local community development.
10
Lol I should have know your guys economics would make your climate politics look positively left of centre:)
Seriously is the proposal anything like saying lets have 90% income tax? I mean really. I’m not going to be painted as the extremist here because I think that the Henry Tax Review might just come up with some good ideas to raise revenue as opposed to the current system.
Don’t take it as a done deal though – remember what Rudd did with the Garnaut Report?
Blokes like me are going to have to pay a lot to keep the baby boomers alive in a decade or so… I appreciate the help from the resources industry.
10
Another MattB pearl: “seriously Australian wages are through the roof… no one would choose to dig up our resources if there were ample opportunity to do so elsewhere”.
Seriously, MattB, there are other factors involved apart from wages. Political stability is one. Take Africa: here is a continent bursting at the seams with resources but despotic rulers and tribal wars in most African countries make any business venture highly risky.
I am sure resource companies have a check list handy when they plan future developments. Wage costs will be there for sure, but only one of many. You can bet your bottom dollar Government tax levels make an appearance as well.
Bulldust: A 90% income tax on people called Matt is an interesting prospect worth pursuing … Perhaps we need to limit it to Matts with a surname beginning with B?
10
Wine Industry in Australia. Well our local paper said our Cool
Climate Vineyard Industry in New England was booming? Had a bumper crop.
The hotter it is, the more sugar is contained in the grape. Organically produced wines, although expensive, are really good.
I had a Christmas party, and bought 3 bottles and people claimed
they were great.
10
PS. Re 1979, I had more than 3 bottles of wine though? LOL
10
ETS taken out of Budget. But where’s Rudd?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ets_taken_out_of_budget_but_wheres_rudd/
10
Worth a read!
Warmists get frostbite:-
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_warmists_get_frostbite_and_we_get_a_lesson/P20/
10
I’m like you Ann-Kit. I try to resist as well buttttt…..
THERE WILL NEVER EVER BE ENOUGH TAXES so long as incompetent fools in power WASTE what goes into the treasury coffers.
The amount of taxes that will/might be raised by the resources levy will pale into insignificance compared to the billions already wasted on the very well documented (and admited to) “green” projects. i.e. insulation programme, greening Oz programme as well as the billions wasted on the ‘schools buildings” programme, not to mention the hundreds of millions wasted on AGW.
How much of this new tax will it take just to recoup the millions wasted on the KRudd lemmings tour of 114 people to Hopenhagen?
Incompetent economic managers will always need higher taxes. Those who support these taxes are supporting incompetent govts.
10
From #177
I’m a baby boomer. HOOORAYYYY I get something useful out of Mattb afterall. He’s gunna pay for my pension in 9 yrs time.
I’m dancing in the streets, sinnnginnng in the rainnnn,
MattB’s gonna be feeeelin the painnnn
10
Puzzled:
all the talk is about a difference of .1C. I assume you get up in the morning and it X degrees C, by midday it’s X + Y degrees C.
Do any of these variables fall within .1C?
I doubt it and so should you.
That’s not just my opinion – it’s the opinion of Dr Richard Lindzen, Professor of The Massachusetts Institute of Technology one of the most respected institutes in Science
He’s branded a Denier!!
Go Figure!
10
MattB: Matt you tend to answer ideologically. And your Green political or free the world of capitalism is showing.
I agree that the arguments and so called scientific report by Mann, Hansen, Jones, the British Met Office (who are in trouble again setting standards to curb flights near the volcano and their wisdom resulting in great losses are now being queried) Al Goring the IPCC have been manipulated to coincide with the belief that global governance is the answer for underdeveloped countries all screaming – my island and national environment is being ruined by you lot. (Us of course!) When there is no truth in these scientific reports. So why haven’t governments
acted on this? Big investment in CCTs, Matt. This is the dark side of capitalism I agree. And these scammers are under investigation.
However on the other side of the coin, the CCTs investors and
investment banking are rubbing their hands. So are clean energy
industries. Cutting CO2 emissions and charging emitters tax on this, will do nothing to change the climate. Because they will just buy carbon permits. Or go off shore for the manufacture of
metals, etc. Charge more for their products or services.
James Hansen was in Australia Matt, claiming clean energy doesn’t work. And go nuclear! You live in Australia, do you
want to go nuclear? The cost of this is unimaginable. 5 billion per reactor, plus the technicians to run them properly
and the 200,000,000 liters a day to keep them cool?
Even the Greens are against the ETS bill! Because they say it will not do anything but tax the community and the big CO2 emitters will just charge more for their product. And the climate will still get hotter? What happens when it gets colder?
Just try to think, we humans are stuck in the middle, the meat
in the sandwich. Either way clean energy vs nuclear, electric cars vs MVs, electricity users vs solar unless the myth of AGW
is discredited, we are the ones who will end up paying. Freedom to spend our lives in the fashion we expect will be eroded. I refuse to give up eating meat or ride a bike. (I was a cycling road hazard when I was a youngster, you can imagine what I would be like now!) And CO2 does not effect climate.
And the climate will keep changing as it always has! RIP.
Matt you should be furious you have been conned. Not indignant and rude about Joanne et al. And I would be if I were you. Just remember what Lord M said. ‘Just weigh up the cost of the proposed solutions to change your climate, to your economy, your life style and your democracy”.
What arrogance to think we humans can change climate? Well it’s
that ugly big dollar or Euro, or whatever.
Sustainability is one thing I support to improve and heal our
natural environment. But you make me pay another 64% for electricity, or more for petrol, or make me pay more because
of ETS taxes, and I will get really irate! And anyone who supports Cap N’Trade or ETS is aiding and abetting those who wish to profit by disadvantaging others.
10
Aww Jo,
You’re my favourite Skeptic!
Always have been always will be!
Keep up the great work! We’re behind you 100% of the way!
10
Rudd has scrapped the ETS out of his budget! Thanks a mill
BRIAN 181 & 182. Yoou B-E-A-U-T-Y! SEE THAT JO, WE HAVE WON
FOR A WHILE! whoopee! OFF THE BUY SOME CHAMPAGNE.
OH and another thing, Ukraine is querying where all their Carbon
Credits sales have disappeared too. The monies all gone up in smoke, or someone has pocketed it!\
Brian you and Jo and others have made my day. Although I fear Rudd will get in again now.
10
ETS dead in Australia – Rudd had no intention of doing anything without bi-partisan support and as many coalition fingerprints on his scheme as possible. As soon as he got isolated with it his knees started knocking. He is a fraud and now the greens know it too. He has sold them a dummy but in what way can they punish him? 2013 is another election year and AGW wll be six feet under by then so it’s over, we win, they lose. Now to tidy up the science!!!
10
AK in 178 – seriously I wish I earned enough for 90% of it to do anything useful:)
10
“James Hansen was in Australia Matt, claiming clean energy doesn’t work. And go nuclear! You live in Australia, do you
want to go nuclear?”
Absolutely not a shadow of a doubt. And I don’t need climate change to be of that opinion. Hansen is right (again). Hansen also doesn’t agree with ETSs.
10
“What arrogance to think we humans can change climate?”
What arrogance to think we cannot…
10
Seriously Bush Bunny? You refuse to ride a bike?
10
“Even the Greens are against the ETS bill! ”
Indeed Bush Bunny I am on the record as being against Rudd’s ETS.
10
RE: MattB #194
And so you did Matt. You were even a bit more sceptical about Rudd than many of the sceptics and he has washed his hands here no doubt. Christine Milne will not sleep tonight but she must have known it was coming – or did she? She aint the sharpest.
10
Rudd has abandoned the ETS because he knows that is is a vote loser at this stage. You only need to point to the rorts in Europe to show how corrupt such a system becomes when rent-seeking financial institutions and governments start tweaking the system. Given how effectively Rudd’s Government has applied the insulation and school funding schemes, we can only begin to imagine how badly an Aussie ETS would fare.
It is the gross hypocrasy that it went from the moral dilemna of our time to being policy non grata in a matter of a few months that is amusing. Rudd’s policies appear to be as naive as Green ideology… and that is saying something.
Yes MattB, Hansen said nuclear is an option to consider… even Hansen can’t be wrong all the time… try as he might.
10
MattB: I’m a baby boomer too, Matt! I’d rather ride a horse,
not that I own one nowadays. LOL.
10
Any chance letting the rest of us know WHEN ELSE this false prophet has been right?
10
Bush bunny: #197
April 27th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Bushy I got 11 Horses, you can ride one of them. or if you prefer I got 6 steers plus a Bison who’s arriving soon.
10
I concur with the thumbs down about my decidedly average paypacket.
10
MattB your overpaid.
10
MattB: RE @ 192. Climate or sustainability to help alter and improve or heal, the natural environment? Arrogance is to think we can change the climate! Is not in the human portfolio. In fact there is I believe a UN legislation to stop anyone trying to use measures to change the weather? However, preventing environmental damage is quite moral. But that is regional.
I studied it Matt at University. And cutting down trees like
they do in South America has been studied. It does change precipitation patterns. No water vapor from trees transpiration
makes cloud cover go higher and there less (not no)rain. And these precipitation patterns can effect areas 200 kms away, without rain forest habitats.
Have you visited an Australian rain forest Matt? The humidity levels change immediately.
I visited the New England National Park near Ebor/Dorrigo region. You check the BOM for Grafton radar, invariably you will see rain patterns,only spotted here and there always invariably around that area or Dorrigo.
There are pockets of some agricultural land there, and the fire break tracks separate pockets of temperate rain forest from grazing land. And in some pockets of the National Park, there
are sub tropical areas too. Plenty of fauna and flora, untouched. (And leaches too if you are unlucky to not wearing foot wear). For those who are not Australians, the New England
National Park, is a huge area, very majestic and a World Heritage site.
Fire breaks are only 20 feet wide. Walk in ten feet the temp warms and the humidity is amazing. As are the trees and vegetation. Forest fires don’t effect rain forests.
So Matt, humans can effect the weather and precipitation patterns at their detriment. But never change the climate.
Climate is what we expect – Weather is what we get. And weather
is what kills us. Savvy my thinking.
10
mattB: @ 191. MATT DON’T FIB. Hansen said or was quoted as saying that Australia should lead the rest of the world and be the first to legislate ETS.
Matt back down, please.
10
Baa Humbug. @ 199. Ta mate. Not sure about the steers or Bison. I thought you lived in Oz?
10
Speedy@122
I don’t believe for a second that you made that up. It all sounds like conclusive proof of AGW to me.
I used to be a denier but now I’ve seen the light!
10
By now you’ve all heard that our Oz gov’t led by Kevin Rudd has shelved the ETS scheme.
Grab your textas (marker pens) and put a big red cross on todays date, April 27 2010.
This decision will reverberate around the political world. One by one, the house of cards will come down on the AGW scam.
Germany has already shelved their outrageous “green” plans, the US is dithering about their cap n trade, the UK election campaign has nary mentioned climate change.
Add to that Denmark shelving their wind power revolution and the various scandals that scarred green trading schemes in Europe, and most importantly, the reluctance of developed countries to cough up promised “greening” monies to developing countries at the recent finance ministers meeting.
The end result? the death knell of AGW.
Make no mistake, this backflip by the Oz Prime Minister was not an easy decision for him. He went out on a (carefully calculated) limb when he made the now infamous Lowy Institute speech.
For our non-Aussie friends, it’s worth repeating some of what Rudd said..
In the paraphrased words of another former Australian prime Minister….
Well may we say God save the Queen, because nothing will save this coward Kevin Rudd.
10
Speedy @ 122 and also Doug S @ 205. Regarding Ants. Ants do
swarm due to temperature change, but also when rain is scheduled or their homes have received rain and they are looking for somewhere drier. Yet funnily last week while
walking the dogs, I picked one up in my pants. I felt something
sting me, whilst in the library. I thought to myself ‘It’s climate change? LOL’ It felt like a normal black ant trying to get away. I went into the ladies, found the bugger,
and I thought knocked it off. Then it started crawling up my
leg and stinging me getting very close to my crotch. I hid behind a library shelf and started pressing hard, I must have killed it.
But saw another person watching me suspiciously. True LOL.
Ants do react to temperature change. They swarm for many reasons. Often follow the leader to seek out new territories or food. Or they are sick. I had a horrendous story with home
invading ants in Bermuda. Another story.
10
Baa Humbug my dear mate. Ukraine is shouting corruption.
Seems the Carbon credits/Permits they have been selling the monies
have gone up in smoke (excuse the pun) they are screaming corruption. As the monies should have been put back into clean or environmental projects. Millions have gone walkabout.
Also in Italy, they are blaming organized crime on carbon credit
scams and cons.
The UK, most conservatives and people believe AGW is a scam too.
The US of A have abandoned cap ‘n Trade. Australia is the last
in the line, but at least heading in the right direction. They know their ETS bill wouldn’t pass, and that the 2.5 billion they
had planned to compensate people and organizations would be a waste of tax payers money.
Only to knock out the Abbotts plan too, mind you.
10
PS. Ants are good gardeners too, aerate the soil and also are predators on other nasties like termites (white ants).
It’s the fire ants you have to watch for and bull or meat ants.
Avoid putting down poisons, they are as lethal to humans as they
are for these generally organized insects.
Just put down a chalk mark around their ant home escape route.
They shouldn’t cross it. Plug up the entrance points into the
house on your side, but never their nests. Or like me you will find them on the march every where. Bermuda was one big ant hill. Or at least where I lived. I think I killed 4 billion ants that day. But – remember that 1950s Killer ants with Charlton Heston, well – it was almost like that at one time.
10
Sorry Bushy, having trouble composing myself. Can’t get that ant in your crotch out o’ ma head lmao
10
BB in #203 – look here is a source you trust telling you what I tell you about Hansen:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/jim-hansen-calls-cap-and-trade-the-temple-of-doom/
10
MattB: No doubt but the Australia media quoted Hansen while he was in Australia as stating ‘Australia should be the first country
to pass the ETS bill’ now maybe this was part of the MSM misquoting. Just Google mate, that’s where I got it from.
10
Sorry MattB: Did you read the Australian media report March 11th.
Just read it again and the comments. Hansen is double dipping.
He was one of the prime reasons for this AGW scam. He is promoting nuclear as he mentions that we have lots of coastal regions to place nuclear reactors that require as I have said
200,000,000 liters a day to keep them cool. I’m not sure if sea
water would do the job, Na is a very good conductor of electrical magnetism. Certainly tapping into our non renewable deep subterranean aqifers would drain them too quickly.
Then he says, Australia should take on a moral stance and show the way.
Luckily the rest of the world is getting wary of the Hansens,
Gores etc.
Check out Tory Aardvark web, ‘Australia dumps AGW’. I’m a regularly poster under Bush Bunny.
10
No he is not double dipping. He is simply of the opinion that an ETS/cap and trade is a useless tool to reduce carbon emissions. For the record I don’t actually agree with him as my opposition is restricted to the Australian ETS as proposed until yesterday, and is not a blanket opposition to carbon trading.
I have found the article you refer to: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/only-a-carbon-tax-and-nuclear-power-can-save-us/story-e6frg6zo-1225839327862
I think it would be impossible for a rationally minded person to read that article in full and think that Hansen supports the formerly proposed Rudd-ETS.
10
Baa Humbug @ 206,
I can see why Rudd was a failed diplomat. Talk about compromising yourself…
Was that his attempt at painting himself as a conservative?
10
MORE STUPIDITY FROM THE GLOBAL WARMING FANATICS!!!
Green Screen: A Living, Carbon-Capturing Face Mask That Filters Bacteria
http://inhabitat.com/2010/04/25/green-screen-a-living-carbon-capturing-face-mask-that-filters-bacteria/
Maybe penny WRONG could get one!
10
DougS & Bushy
The idea of ants being able to predict the weather is exactly the sort of platform the warmists use as a foundation for their porkies. In the satire case: Ants can tell the weather => therefore ants can predict the climate. Just like the warmist argument: CO2 is a greenhouse gas => therefore more CO2 will lead to catastrophic global warming. Give ’em an inch and they take a mile.
To paraphrase W.S. Churchill – a joke can be a serious thing.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Once again, the ABC have been pushing this ETS nonsense. Just this morning on the breakfast program, in the last hour alone they’ve already given two AGW alarmists air time with extended interviews. When and how can we put a stop to this one-sidedness?
10
even the SMH is questioning the dumping of the ETS policy until 2012:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/shelving-ets-blamed-on-political-realities-20100428-tqpz.html
Penny Wong cries that the evil and mad monk prevented this most important of all legislation from getting through. All they had to was convince a couple greens or independents… how hard is that?
I’d love to know how many wasted jobs there are in the Dept of Climate Change… Ibet it has an annual budget running up in the high tens of millions.
10
* by annual budget I meant just the salaries and associated costs of running the Dept, not the programs it operates.
10
The australian sticking the (opinion) boot in over the Rudd ETS backflip:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/rudds-dangerous-climate-retreat/story-e6frg6zo-1225859076778
Abbott is going to get a tonne of mileage out of this. Rudds is lacking the cajones to push the issue.
10
Bulldust
Maybe our Kevin had a revelation and saw it was all “Bulldust” as well? If he has had a genuine reappraisal of the science, then good on him. Next move is to sack Penny Wong and get rid of the Climate Change Department or turn their burden on the taxpayer into something useful.
Of course, I might be attributing moral and intellectual characteristics to him that are non-existent! He may well be spineless, opportunistic and shallow. There is a consensus being formed on that basis…
Cheers,
Speedy
10
This is what penny WRONG, Chairman rudd, The Greens etc. wanted, and STILL want to pass at some stage in the future!!!
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009:-
Everybody should read the section regarding “Monitoring powers”!!
This should be enough to send chills up and down your spine if you value FREEDOM!!
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=;db=LEGISLATION;group=;holdingType=;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr4127_first%2F0020;orderBy=;page=;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr4127_first%2F0001%22;querytype=;rec=0;resCount=#6c4b9bf970104c28a70c523038ad7b26
10
Sustainability Declaration
http://www.4bc.com.au/blogs/michael-smith-blog/more-on-the-sustainability-declaration/20091119-io49.html
56 questions to sell your home
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/comments/0,23836,26343525-952,00.html
Sustainability Assessors
http://www.4bc.com.au/blogs/michael-smith-blog/sustainability-assessors/20091117-ijpw.html
ETS Police
http://www.4bc.com.au/blogs/michael-smith-blog/ets-police/20100303-pi22.html
Open up! It’s the Green Police
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/open_up_its_the_green_police/
10
Brian
When we want to construct a memorial to this government, it would have to be a sewage farm. Because everything they have touched has turned to sh1t…
If these clowns can’t organise a bit of insulation in the roof, could you imagine what they would do with trying to control the earth’s climate? It would be the confluence of misanthropy and incompetence.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Bulldust says,”Penny Wong cries…”.
Not posible.
ROBOTS CAN’T CRY!
10
Climate Scientist laments: ‘Co2 is not the right villain’ — rising Co2 is ‘obvious boon to agricultural productivity’
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:Vf-Um3lqEQ0J:network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/07/steven-d-levitt-and-stephen-j-dubner-the-green-gadflys.aspx+national+post+levitt&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari
10
Brian:
You make a good point there – I sit corrected.
10
PRAYER FOR KEVIN RUDD
Dear Lord,
I know that I don’t talk to you that much, but this past year you have
taken away my favourite actor, Patrick Swayze, my favourite actress,
Farah Fawcett and my favourite musician, Michael Jackson.
I just wanted to let you know that my favourite prime minister is
Kevin Rudd.
Amen
10
As posted at The Australian (if it gets in)…
10
Speedy, I like the sewerage farm analogy!
Just remember all the CHUNKY BITS float up to the surface!
rudd, wong etc etc…
10
Bulldust
I’m only sorry I could only give you a single thumbs up for your comment at 230. It fits so well! Brilliant! Made my day.
Thanks,
Speedy
10
In the face of what Brian linked to, you guys still have time for funny….!
🙂
10
Bulldust: said – I’d love to know how many wasted jobs there are in the Dept of Climate Change
Figures show 262 ministerial staff – from a total of 444 positions – (59.1%) have departed since the Labor party came to office.
Deputy Prime Minister and Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard has lost 12 of her staff while Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has shed 14. Newly appointed Population Minister Tony Burke has had an 81 per cent turnover, losing 13 of his staff.
The highest turnover though goes to the Sports and Youth Minister Kate Ellis – with 130 per cent. The South Australian Minister has lost 13 workers. At least one was a part-time university student while several others left to have families.
The staff exodus alarmed recruitment specialists, who say the private sector “norm” is closer to 10 per cent a year.
Brooklyn Group CEO Brian Russell queried why advisers had left in droves.
“You shouldn’t be having 100 per cent turnover in any team. If you’ve got autocratic management, lack of direction – basic fundamentals – especially in a small group, people will leave,” he said.
“And every time you lose someone it costs the taxpayer money, huge money.”
The costs of replacing these workers is close to $800,000 based on parliamentary estimates.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/kevin-rudd-and-ministers-emerge-as-australias-most-demanding-bosses/story-e6frf7jo-1225853806064
10
Brian @ 228, Thank you, you made my day! There’s only two of us here in the office and I showed your prayer to my colleague.
We laughed our heads off! Very black, somewhat wicked, but very very funny …
10
jo, hope u r enjoying the break, but pity u aren’t here to enjoy the ride!
28 April: Canberra Times: Capital job fears on ETS pullback
Hundreds of Canberra’s public servants working in the Department of Climate Change fear for their jobs, following the Government’s decision to postpone its emissions trading scheme for at least three years..
Now, about 200 jobs allocated to the new Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority, as well as more within the department’s Emissions Trading Division remain uncertain.
Millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money have been poured into establishing the new regulatory body.
It recently employed communications consultant Gai Brodtmann, who was preselected on Saturday as Labor’s candidate for the seat of Canberra, to prepare a communications strategy.
Now, staff fear for their jobs.
A senior government source told The Canberra Times yesterday that many of the positions were only funded until the new financial year.
”After that, who knows?” the source said. ”There is stunned silence in the department right now.”..
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/capital-job-fears-on-ets-pullback/1814598.aspx
good to know real jobs will be saved:
27 April: ABC: Shelving ETS will save thousands of jobs: QRC
The Queensland Resources Council (QRC) says the Federal Government’s decision to shelve the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) will save thousands of jobs in the mining sector…
“The economic modelling done on the original CPRS [Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme] … in 2009 showed that Queensland would be the state hardest hit,” he said.
“We were still looking at losing something like 11,500 direct jobs in Queensland over the next 10 years under the CPRS.”…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/27/2883698.htm
28 April: NZ Herald: ETS go-ahead risks business anger
John Key’s refusal to postpone the implementation of the next phase of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) is setting the scene for a ‘winter of discontent’ with New Zealand business…
An early sign of that snowballing domestic business discontent came yesterday with the decision of the Employers and Manufacturers Association Northern (the major shareholder in Business NZ) to circulate a photo of Climate Change Issues Minister Nick Smith under the slogan “The Madness of Old Nick.”
Overlaying the photo were some pungent words that Smith made in 2005 when he savaged the former Labour Government’s plans for a carbon tax.
“The madness of the Government’s new carbon tax is that New Zealanders will be the only people in the world paying it. It will drive up the costs of living and undermine the competitiveness of New Zealand.”..
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10641266
10
Ahhh here is Emperor Rudd’s backflip, I mean backup, plan:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/7119628/pm-switches-to-renewable-energy-scheme/
Always good to throw bucketloads of cash at electricity-generation technologies that are waaaaay more expensive than fossil fuels.
It doth beg the question which magic pudding Kevvy is tapping to get all this money. I think the idiom about spending money like a drunken sailor has to be rewritten to “spending money like Kevin Rudd.”
10
Although I may agree there appears to be a large and silent undercurrent of skepticism, it still doesn’t remove the fact that Rudd is still a very popular PM by a large proportion of the voters. This can only mean one thing – there are too many brain dead voters who will vote Rudd back for a second term despite all the AGW untruths he and his cohorts have perpetrated onto the public, and his failings and the risks we will face down the road, financially, socially, and in other ways. It will never cease to amaze me how stupid people can be to think Rudd should be returned. There is a silver lining – if Rudd does get re-elected, we will be seeing the greatest real life catastrophe developing in front of our eyes that will make for very topical conversation over the years as the country is destroyed.
10
Quadrant online has designed a new Australian flag.
In view of all that’s happened this year, (boat people, insulation, buildings programme ets etc etc) I think it’s quite fitting.
LINK here if image thingy doesn’t work
Quadrant says the flag is “non-judgemental, all-inclusive, non-racist, non-homophobic, non-masculinist, and refugee supportive.
It represents our united nation under Kevin Rudd – our past and our aspirations: the flag of Ruddnation.
Men and women of Australia, please be upstanding for the flag of 2010.”
10
Joanne and Company,
Would like to state at this time “congrats” towards your Country in stopping the Cap and Trade Scheme until 2013! Great Job!!! You join Denmark in there same quest as have three States have signed Bills that no participation will come…For all “Realists” job well done… 😉
10
To show that you still believe in the global warming HOAX, why not wear this seed-sprouting face mask AND your tinfoil hat?
Seed-Sprouting Face Mask Protects You From Pollution, Sequesters Your CO2 : TreeHugger
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2010/04/to-show-that-you-still-believe-in.html
10
Bush bunny: @ 203
mattB: @ 191. MATT DON’T FIB. Hansen said or was quoted as saying that Australia should lead the rest of the world and be the first to legislate ETS.
Sorry bush bunny, I never thought I’d be supporting MattB, however in a long interview on ABC’s late line, with Tony Jones swooning over Hansen, and prior to Copenhagen Hansen definitely opposed any type of cap and trade.
10
Peter Costello said a while back that Rudd was mainly intent on getting as much coalition input into ets fineprint as possible so his own responsibility was diluted when it all went splat. All Abbott had to do was make him own it and we knew he lacked ticker. He had no intention of carrying that can, rather just implicate as many other people as possible. Heads must be spinning in ALP land – especially if they are running that excuse – “the coalition wouldn’t let us”. Rudd is simply stunning but the main rag here in the west shoved onto page six, a small piece it was too. Do they know this cow is drying up?
10
Bulldust: Please educate yourself before commenting on nuclear generation of electricity. Seawater will do fine to cool nukes. It is being used successfully in any places. The gadget is called a heat exchanger. One version is in your car most likely which exchanges heat from the engine which has been transferred into the coolant which rejects its heat to the atmosphere via the “radiator”(misnamed actually as it doesn’t radiate).
10
Bush bunny:
further to my post above, from the late line transcript:
TONY JONES: There’s been a huge debate in Australia over emissions trading. Are you saying that even with the best will in the world an emissions trading scheme in Australia will be ineffectual.
JAMES HANSEN: Absolutely. These cap and trade trading schemes are a terrible idea. You can see what they do. They are a way to continue business as usual because they include these offsets, for example. They’re not attacking the fundamental problem. Who they’re good for is the big banks. In the United States it’s going to be Goldman Sachs, and Bank of America, the trading companies.
They have trading groups within their bank who are very skilled and they’re going to make money, and where does the money come from? It comes from the public. There will be increased energy prices, big banks will make money, but the problem will not be solved.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2764523.htm
10
Peter of Sydney:
Unfortunately, you are dead right. There are now so many people on the Government teat I don’t know if the damage can be undone.
Hospitals are now sheltered workshops for Labor supporters. I know a doctor who was in charge of a ward in the local hospital. About three years back, it was amalgamated into a larger area. Half his beds were closed down and in their place he found about a dozen new admin. staff to riffle papers and make his life miserable.
10
An outfit calling themselves the Australian Youth Climate Coalition has written an open letter to Rudd in the Sydney Morning Herald:
Delay in Climate Action a Slap in the Face for Youth
They’re sprouting all the usual cliches and litanies: “The cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action…” etc etc, and they are telling us to look out for a …
“… Climate Reality Week – a week of educating our communities about climate science and solutions. Look out for banners draped across bridges, presentations at your local school and fliers at your local train station …”
Chilling stuff. Comments are open. Give’em your best!
10
Bob in 245 – great quote – you’d not blink if the name was Joanne Nova not James Hansen. Come to think about it has anyone ever seen them in the same place?
10
James “data shifter” Hansen is a proud owner of the Sceptics Handbook.
His only criticism was that sceptic was misspelt.
10
I caught a small piece of an Aussie news program earlier which showed Rudd saying part of the reason for his shelving the ETS scheme was a lack of international agreement/support. Interesting. Is this an excuse or is it genuinely more than local Aust. politics ?
10
plausible excuse. But since he said it was the greatest moral challenge, and I’m pretty sure he said that Australia should not be scared to act alone… well it is not going to get him many brownie points other than with those who were just along for the ride. I think he can spin it to look responsible, and it is hard for the opposition to get much over on him as noone who is upset that he is not going ahead with it will jump to the coalition anyway… and many may not fancy the greens.
10
He is copping it on may fronts… there is a growing undercurrent of AGW types like me who thought the ETS was average as a policy, and others who oppose any ETS (like hansen) in favour of the fee and dividend as hansen calls it… which as far as I can figure is a tax with all the income going to the people (some here may consider it a redistribution of wealth).
At the end of the day when the skeptics hate a policy, and the true believers hate a policy, then looking like a robot repeating a mantra just means that pretty much anyone in the audience with half a brain thinks you are a fool. He probably had enough of that.
10
I understand that you Aussies lost your gun rights! Evidently the Fabian society has taken over down there.
Hard for me to believe. My perception of you guys was largely based on Crocodile Dundee!
10
Not quite right, Denis.
Firearms have to be registered and a “need” has to be demonstrated eg. club shooting, game licences, that sort of thing.
You can own handguns of a minimum barrel length.
10
That’s at least somewhat of a relief. Is one of the valid reasons “home protection until/unless the police get there in time?”
What about “concealed carry” for the same reason?
10
No to both.
Authorities here are far more concerned with the welfare of criminals than householders.
10
denis: #253
April 28th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Ooooohhh lucky Denis, you dodged a bullet there mate. For a minute I thought you were going to say your perception of us was largely based on Priscilla Queen of the Desert
10
aw shucks…. At my age I’m bullet-proof y’know……but also sufficiently unacquainted with ur Aussie culture to have had the privilege of even knowing about this Desert Queen.
10
Bulldust: #237 and Peter of Sydney: #238
Kevin is doing what socialist governments always do – spend everything in the treasury, and then borrow heaps, to put the country in debt – plus – raise taxes in the productive sector to they can create more jobs in the non-productive sector (the public service).
Helen Clark, Labour Government in New Zealand did it, Gordon Brown in England has done it, and Kevin is playing a game of “me too”.
The reason is simple. By increasing the size of government, they can lower the unemployment by hiding all the non-productive unemployed as non-productive employed. They can hand out large amount of largesse to their supporting demographics, and they can big-note with the “big-boys” on the international scene, both of which gets more votes at the next election.
In the unlikely event that they loose an election, either by running out of credit, or through some monumental cock-up, there will be nothing left in the coffers for the incoming government to do anything productive to rescue the situation, so they will be out at the next election, and the socialists will be back in.
It is part of the Keynesian philosophy that they all subscribe to. Isn’t that right, Louis?
10
Mike Borgelt: #244
Yup. That is how nuclear ships cool their reactors. It stops them going “pop”
10
Whaakaro in #259:
M’God, you have also described the US government, particular the “progressives” (liberals, whatever). Is it not possible that the Fabian Society has landed everywhere? Could these be illegal aliens? (by that I mean real aliens — outer space visitors?)
If you don’t hear from me again, it’ll be because I was abducted….
10
HEllo Jo and crew:
I’ve been away presenting a couple papers and working on a new one in numerical modeling of fluid flow, so numerical modeling of atmospheric (fluid) flow has not been something I have been keen to pursue in off hours.
As a relevant anectode, I recently assigned my class an essay which involved reading variouis posts on my blog (http://suspectterrane.blogspot.com/)
and answering a question as to whether humanity has tipped the “Balance of Nature”. These are all non-science majors, and almost without exception they all espoused a long-term, deep seated mistrust of AGW hysteria, and were even grateful to have read the posts so they now have some perspective on environmental issues.
Let’s keep chipping away at the edifice – even if it is only 48 students at a time.
Tom
10
Make that “Have NOT been keen to pursue in off hours”
10
Tom G: #263
so ….you want to use the double negative?
so numerical modeling of atmospheric (fluid) flow has not been something I have NOT been keen to pursue in off hours.
10
Tom G. I like your blog!
I invite you to double check my stated observations on another thread (regarding water lost to the ocean by irrigation and wetlands loss) here:http://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/no-dr-glikson/ post 339
Thanks
10
@ Baa Humbug 198
Any chance letting the rest of us know WHEN ELSE this false prophet [James Hansen] has been right?
Great question, mate! Does he ever stop adjusting his numbers? Does he ever get it “right”? With the exception of the “Y2K” error he was caught in, he has constantly adjusted his numbers to show more warming in recent years and less warming in years further in the past. If the urban heat island effect is being calculated correctly, shouldn’t he show a decrease in temperatures from the raw data of recent years? Instead, it is just the opposite! The guy is the worst prognosticator since Paul Ehrlich wrote, “The Population Bomb”. Hansen’s tipping points never happened as predicted. Another nail in the global warming coffin!
10
“Sunset looms for Global Warming Industry.”
Link: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/sunset-global-warming.pdf
The Carbon Sense Coalition today called for Sunset Clauses to be inserted in all past and future Global Warming legislation.
The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that even though the Ration-N-Tax Scheme is on ice, Governments are still wasting billions of dollars to create an artificial global warming industry.
“As an example, the Australian government is spending $800 million per year on climate change research and probably more on carbon geo-sequestration. And every state has its own bloated climate change and energy bureaucracies.
“Next we are promised the “Mother of all Renewable Energy Schemes” to cost untold billions.
“There is no doubt that some enlightened or distressed future government will have the distasteful job of taking the well chewed subsidy bones off these greedy and unstainable industry dogs.
“There is no evidence that man is causing global warming, no evidence that the natural warming we have experienced is dangerous or even unusual, and no chance that politicians can control the climate.
“It is thus essential that every piece of global warming legislation is subjected to an annual cost-benefit analysis and a sunset clause which triggers repeal within five years, or sooner once it becomes obvious to all that man-made global warming is not a problem.
“Such a cautionary clause is needed to warn investors and promoters relying on subsidies, market mandates, tax benefits, ethanol subsidies, carbon credits, renewable energy targets or research grants that unsustainable industries are high risk and can only create sub-prime assets.
“As we have seen with the government roof insulation disaster, it is easier to inflate an artificial industry balloon than it is to let it down gradually.”
10
Revealed: the UK government strategy for personal carbon rations
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/20/revealed-the-uk-government-strategy-for-personal-carbon-rations/
10
Eddy Aruda:
April 29th, 2010 at 4:59 am
Eddiieeeee, where you bin? You appeared briefly once then disappeared again. All OK with you and yours?
Good to have you back.
10
I make it a policy NOT to comment on politics except in the UN and U.S., however I sincerely believe that this comment applies universally.
We must not lose sight that Climate Change or Global Warming – take your pick – but is primarily about stature (think PhD’s/Universities etc.), money, power, and politics, and not about CO2 or how temperatures are reported in Podunk or Tippydo. Although stature has taken a small hit recently (think ClimateGate), the other three are still still quite formidable threats and must not be ignored.
In my view that makes it an uphill battle of monumental proportions, which is not likely to be conquered next week, next month, nor maybe even next year.
Persevere! Or, as we used to say in the military, “Don’t let them grind you down.”
00
Speedy @217 Then should I tell you also that snails can also predict the weather. You see them crawling up your brick work take note.
An earthquake may be coming! Look all creatures can predict strange potentially dangerous weather. Hunter and gatherers
knew the seasons, and watched the animals as also heralds of the
weather. But that was before this AGW farce.
00
MattB et al: I have to go out soon, about James Hansen.
Check http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/43410
and
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=3344
Not sure about what date the greenleft one was written though.
I did read in one article that he did say that Australia should be the first to embrace carbon taxing, stop coal exportation.
Anyway I have to rush now, be back later.
00
Eddy Aruda @266:
I doubt that. Tim Flannery has a much better score-board of falsified predictions; going back over the past 20 years. e.g. I live in Perth, which according to the sainted Tim, must now be a desolate ghost town.
Yet Tim manages to con money out of investors and government for schemes that are certain to fail from the outset – like his geothermal “hot rock” disasters. There are no known engineering materials that can usefully survive immersion in super-heated sulphuric acid, allowing bore and pressure pipes to be used for the process. Any competent Mechanical Engineer could have told him that for $700. But investors and the government wasted more than $50,000,000 on wishful thinking while exposing surrounding areas to the risk of leaking highly toxic and possibly radioactive gases.
Tim doesn’t appear to realize that all “useful” geothermal in Australia is probably due to radioactive decay; all geothermally-active areas being associated with radioactive ore sources (mainly uranium). Tim’s against the Australia using controlled nuclear power to get useful quantities of energy to consumers.
00
Good stuff. Politicians like to surround themselves with sycophants. The problem with this is that they separate themselves from reality. This type of politics can only sustain you for so long before people start seeing through to your bullsh_t.
Term limits folks. It’s the only way.
00
Does anyone have a link for a list of failed predictions of dire climate or environmental doom?
I should think that would be useful.
00
POEM FOR PENNY WONG
Penny Wong Penny Wong
Where has little Penny gone
They seek her here
They seek her there
Is she hiding in polluted air?
“Delay is Denial!”, The Great Helmsman said it.
Was he just Garnauting false carbon credit?
Who is he, this Eco- Hero?
who cares more about marginals like Eden-Monaro
The Great Challenge now is hospital beds
Sitting on them while they paparazzi his head
He’d make a good patient, all medicines he’ll swallow
It comes so easy when you are completely hollow
Penny Wong Penny Wong
Where has little Penny gone?
They seek her here
They seek her there
Perhaps Little Gracie
Can find out where.
00
Department of Hot Air costing $90 million
TAXPAYERS will fork out $90 million a year to keep more than 400 public servants employed within the federal Climate Change Department – despite most now having nothing to do until 2013.
More than 60 of them are classified as senior executive staff on salaries between $168,000 and $298,000 a year. Their salary bill alone will cost an estimated $12 million every year.
A further $8 million will also be paid in rent for plush offices at Canberra’s Constitution Place until 2012, where it is believed 500 new computers will be delivered this week.
It can be revealed that despite Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s decision on Tuesday to suspend the failed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme until at least 2013, the department has ruled out plans to cut back staff.
A formal response by department secretary Martin Parkinson to a Senate estimates hearing on Tuesday – the same day as the scheme’s suspension – claimed the department would not offer redundancies.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Today’s poll
Should the Department of Climate Change be disbanded?
Yes
No
Vote now
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
The formal response, obtained by The Daily Telegraph, said there were no plans for “the immediate future” of any scaling back of staff, despite the agency losing its core function.
According to official figures, the number of top-paid bureaucrats being paid up to $298,000 a year has almost doubled since January this year from 39 to 61. That was to gear up for establishment of the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority, which will also now have no function.
The number of overall agency staff was also ramped up since last year with total climate change employees rising from an initial 246 to 408.
Of the 61 senior agency officials, only nine were inherited from the scrapped home insulation scheme.
The majority, 38, were employed on the CPRS and a further 19 were employed on the renewable energy scheme which has also been axed.
But none of the 408 staff within the department will be shed even though the department’s key function, the CPRS, has been axed.
Its own tender documents revealed a lease contract of $16 million for its offices which expires in 2012.
“The hundreds of public servants who have been beavering away on this policy, the 114 public servants who they took to Copenhagen for that matter in support of this policy … none of that’s changed,” Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said yesterday.
“Which is why I think that Mr Rudd for political reasons doesn’t want to talk about his great big new tax on everything but as sure as night follows day, if he gets re-elected, we’ll be stuck with it.”
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/department-of-hot-air-costing-90-million/story-e6freuy9-1225859616207
00
‘Execute’ Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: ‘At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers’ — ‘Shouldn’t we start punishing them now?’ | Climate Depot
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1096/Execute-Skeptics-Shock-Call-To-Action-At-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers–Shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now
00
Trycket från IPCC…
Den roll som FN:s klimatpanel spelar är egentligen ganska makalös. Dess auktoritet har varit enorm. Det är till att börja med ett politiskt organ som skapats och stöds av de flesta stater i världen. Staterna har gett den ett mandat att leverera ett u…
00
Brian @ 277:
and you haven’t even counted the retirement and health liabilities incurred by those new (and un-needed) employees, or the buildings, administrative support, supplies, educational benefits, and fossil fuel.
00
denis @ 264
Who are you? One of us needs to change their name, or at least the spelling of “denis”
00