Re: Climate change ‘brown wash’
Kellie Tranter attacks imaginary deniers who she doesn’t name, cite, or reference. All her inferences and innuendo are backed up by assertive confidence, a pile of convenient guesses, and nothing else. Everything she accuses the Deniers of is something that those on the Big Scare Campaign do–and if the Deniers do it at all, those who sell-the-scare do it 100 times more.
Shouldn’t we be suing the guys who lost the data we paid for?
And countermanding her legal speculation: sanctions for those who provide inaccurate or misleading information are surely more appropriate for the workers who are paid by the citizens to give balanced and careful reporting — rather than those who offer a product for voluntary purchase in the private market.
The citizens are, after all, forced to pay for the services of the Department of Climate Change, the CRU, the CSIRO, BOM and ABC. No citizen is forced to buy Heaven and Earth. The official organisations are chartered to provide the whole truth, not just their favorite parts. Who in their right mind expects a single speech or book from a private individual to encompass the entirety of scientific knowledge?
Last time I looked, there were no laws saying non-fiction items must be impartial and unbiased.
The Brown-washing article was incorrect, inaccurate, based on fallacies of ad hominem, reasoned by mere authority, and was stocked with countless unsubstantiated claims about imaginary malfeasant authors. It’s so vacant, and lacking in any reasonable argument that it doesn’t just reflect not-too-well on the author, it begs us to ask why our tax dollars are being used to propagate this kind of abject literary and logical failure.
I’m not calling for anyone to be silenced, it’s just a question of value for money.Why did the editors of ABC Unleashed think a generic unresearched smear was worth publishing?
It’s the sheer lack of research that marks this as mindless
Tranter addresses her imaginary unnamed denier, imagining how rich they must be becoming:
Now suppose you’re a “brown washer” and you put yourself up as an expert on the issue of climate change. You knock up a book on the subject. You’re paid to deliver lectures, and you’re using the lectures to promote your profession or trade as an author. Hundreds attend and many purchase your book because they are relatively unsophisticated in scientific matters and want to know more. You’re in “trade or commerce”.
But as I noted in Climate Money, the money for those with lectures, books, junkets and committees vastly outdoes the rewards of skepticism by 3500 : 1. It’s not just a vague ad hom by Tranter, its so wrong, it springs back to hit those she defends who write the manifestos of doom instead. Al Gore is making millions from things proven in court to be wrong, and Tranter seems to think that’s ok.
This point had already been negated by well referenced material already published on… the Drum itself.
Tranter doesn’t just do inadequate research, she must have actively avoided reading anything written by the group she writes about. She might despise “deniers” but watch her become one while talking to her imaginary friend:
You don’t mention, nor do you offer any evidence to refute or alternative hypotheses to explain, that carbon dioxide affects global temperature due to the well-known greenhouse effect, or that no known factor apart from greenhouse gases can account for the past century of warming – not solar cycles, nor cosmic rays, not magnetic fields, not urban heat effects.
Tranter sure can muster the bluster. Skeptics don’t even mention evidence…? With 10 seconds of Googling, a ten year old could prove her wrong.
With 10 seconds of Googling, a ten year old could prove her wrong.
Try to imagine which skeptical book Tranter actually read: was it Heaven and Earth with 2000 references? Could it be Steve Goreham’s Climatism with er… only 1079 end notes. I guess it wasn’t Bob Carter’s new book Climate: The Counter Consensus, because its references and notes run for 57 pages.
I’m not suggesting an argument is right because it has hundreds of references, but if Tranter wanted to research whether skeptical books are based on evidence, she might actually have to thumb through one. Her imaginary-theoretical-skeptic offers no evidence, but that’s just it, anyone can write about their imaginary friends, let’s not use taxpayers dollars and pretend their opinion is worthy of a national discussion.
Skeptics don’t just discuss the evidence, we discuss what evidence itself is. (And also what it’s not.) Has Tranter heard of the word empirical?
This is what the ABC calls “contributing to the national debate”?
We could ask Kellie why she didn’t bother reading a single skeptical argument before trying to smear the unpaid grassroots volunteers who are trying to save her freedom and money. She’s pinned her status to defending one scientific theory without reading anything from the prosecution. Perhaps she answers this herself:
Why don’t you deal with this evidence? Could it be incompetence or ignorance, that you’re not aware of it? Could it be ineptitude or cowardice, that you can’t answer it or won’t try to? Could it be cowardly self-interest, that facing it would make the premises of your arguments untenable and your output unsaleable? Could it be calculated deception, that acknowledging scientific truth would invalidate your fallacious assertions and hence your entire position, so that self preservation requires that you deny its existence?
Except I wouldn’t suggest anything so dark and premeditated. It’s more Pavlovian. Tranter has learned that in the right circles you can say baseless smears and you win applause. She’s just being obedient.
Evidence?
There is one paragraph packed with keywords of what she thinks is evidence. But she rote-repeats the arguments from one of the 2005 online Guides-to-being-an-Alarmist written by one of the many vested interests: (I’ve added my points inline).
You fail to mention the consistent global scale temperature trends of the past century: (you mean the one that started 150 years before humans heavily industrialized and hasn’t changed trend since?) the ocean warming far away from cities (the same oceans that have cooled in the last 5000 years?), the ice sheet melt and sea level rise (which also started 150 years too soon, and would happen regardless of the cause of the warming), and the melting of mountain ice caps (ditto). You ignore the direct satellite measurements that have tracked the gradual progression of the enhanced greenhouse effect (the possible evidence of carbons pitiful 1 degree of direct effect, but not of the catastrophic feedbacks eh?): the measurements that show the widening gap between the solar radiation going in and the longwave radiation getting out (again: got no feedback, got no disaster). You show five years of data to make a point that you know is invalidated by a longer time record (and you show 130 years of data which is invalidated by 1000 years, 5000 years, 150,000 years, and 500,000,000 years… need we go on?).
Tranter argues that “deniers” who write books for profit with misinformation ought to be sued. She forgets that in a free nation she is free to point out all those flaws by writing her own book (instead of just baselessly asserting they are there without a single example) and in a free market she is free to get rich by shaming those who don’t tell the truth. But in a free market she’d have to impress someone to part with their own money, instead of a government employee spending other people’s.
I wouldn’t suggest she’s being dark and premeditated. It’s more Pavlovian. Tranter has learned that in the right circles you can say baseless smears and you win applause. She’s being obedient.
How is it, that humility and wisdom are in such short supply that an untrained non-scientist who apparently doesn’t know what evidence is, and can’t quote a single scientific point in support of her catastrophic claims, thinks she knows that “truth” of complex climate science and is able to predict the long-term weather? She rails at skeptical scientists who are not true “climate-scientists” (what ever they are). But the absurdity of an uninformed lawyer definitively declaring “those scientists are wrong” escapes her. She is buried by her own reasoning. The legal lobbyist for women’s-business-rights thinks that Professors from MIT, Princeton, UC and UAH (to name a few) are wrong, but can’t say why, so she ignores them and attacks the sunday-afternoon-beer-n-barbeque-skeptics instead.
When it comes to “experts”, she’s picked her own, and doesn’t mind that hers have hidden or lost all their raw data and been caught seeking out ways to avoid FOIs. Her experts come with the backing of bureaucrats who want power, bankers who want our money, and NGOs who earn hundreds of millions saving us from “scares”: they have glossier reports, and better conferences — ergo, they must be “right”.
The oddest thing is that Tranter is so sure the legal system would help her chosen heroes. When skeptics suggest climate scientists are frauds who manipulate data, hasn’t she noticed that none of the accused have launched legal proceedings to protect their names? Those honest climate scientists are not rushing to legal discovery of documents, (especially not the ones they’ve admitted they’ve lost).
Taxpayers money is used against the taxpayer
This article is an good example of how taxpayer’s dollars are not just wasted, but are actively used against the taxpayer. Tranter should be free, of course, to sell her articles and convince the masses, but things that are so easily proven wrong, so unresearched, unreferenced, and unsubstantiated are the communication pollution that makes the country poorer.
That the ABC did not even allow or invite a rebuttal questions their partiality. That they thought this piece was worth stamping the ABC logo on in the first place, is a mark of how low standards of logic, reason and analysis have become. This is not robust community debate, it’s putting the uninformed on national soapboxes.
My 26 posts tagged “Evidence”
Anthony Cox discussed the legal aspects here.
You know, after reading your piece here, I think I shall no longer refer to people like Ms. Tranter as warmists. A much more appropriate term is “climate conformist” becasuse that’s all the scientists, bankers and bureaucrates are doing is conforming to an agenda.
10
Thanks Jo for another excellent piece!
It has occurred to me recently that one of the more damning things about the attitude of warmists such as this person Kellie is that you would think that if evidence was provided to them that their vision of apocalypse/catastrophe might be wrong they would look further at such evidence – this good news – right? But the opposite happens – they become deniers.
10
Hear, hear! Right On! Good On Ya, Mate! And all other expressions of agreement. Joanne, when you question someone’s religion, he/she feels he/she must shout Hosannas lest the power structure (their God) punish them. As someone once said, trying to defend your religion with scientific evidence is not only bad science, it’s bad faith. Although I haven’t read Ms. Tranter’s book (I won’t donate to her cause), from what you say (and I believe you), Ms. Tranter is full of Hosannas.
10
They have allowed this!
Note to newbies.If you came here from the
ABC and are not a regular visitor find this also:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/suing-the-skeptics/
10
Jo
There’s more about the ABC from Bob Carter. I was pleasantly surprised to see my comment put up at Drum Unleashed. It took a while though…checking the nine Official Inaccuracies they must have been! There is also some reasonably robust debate which suggests Aunty might be responding but will she publish the rebuttal?
10
I just got back from the ABC’ article by tranter. I posted several comments. It is no big deal if some or all of them do not get past the censors. The team from this site turned the proponents of the CAGW theory into roadkill! Good job everyone!!!
10
As has happened in the past, reason and logic have been suppressed by religious fervor and zeal.
Agendistas (think apparatchiks) and Warmbies (aimlessly following the search for (someone else’s) BRAINS!) are true believers, blinded by their diligent observance of every rule and tenet promoted by those “in the know”.
Fortunately, as in the past, a renaissance of sense and observation will leave them behind and a new future, free of blinkered optics, will allow us to grapple with the challenge of the future, free of past impediments.
Here’s to the arrival of those individuals that are leading the heretical charge away from orthodoxy and towards knowledge.
10
Nice one Jo – let’s see if the ABC replies – I wouldn’t hold my breath.
10
It is not surprising that so many lawyers move on to higher pursuits such as politics, journalism & comedy. Some even try to combine all three.
You get the impression that a few even keep a special set of “rose coloured glasses” for looking in the mirror.
10
I apologize for my comment about Ms. Tranter’s “book”. Apparently, she wrote an article, not a book. I read her article (no cost to me), and now I wish she’d written a book so I could not read it.
10
2 Aug: Australian: Stephen Matchett: Not enough PC hours to fill ABC’s day
WELCOME to ABC News 24 where we believe in keeping it green…
Over to you Ginger.
Fantastic Jemima, great George. Yes I can confirm there is lots of weather out there and it is surprisingly nice in some cities and average in others.
But I don’t want to give too much away in case it encourages climate-change sceptics.
Good-oh Ginger. Get back as soon as you have the rostered scientists ready to explain why everybody who does not agree with us is an idiot.
Sure thing Jemima. Back to you George…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/not-enough-pc-hours-to-fill-abcs-day/story-e6frg71o-1225899696525
10
If there is one thing I’ve learnt over the course of my life. It’s that people judge others by their own standards. (Or assume that everyone has the same morals and principles that they do)
If ever I hear a rumour on the grapevine that someone is accusing me of branding their calves.
I can be fairly certain that they have either already banded some of my calves, or they are just about to.
However the opposite tack also works, I’ve found that if I continually return straying cattle with their calves unbranded.
Eventually even people with previously dodgy reputations will reply in kind.
If the skeptics continue to be polite and honest, while sticking to the science and maintaining their integrity. Eventually people on the other side will be embarrassed into behaving in the same way.
10
I am not at all surprised Ms Tranter has expressed herself in this way. For when our knives are in their hearts and we begin to twist the blade, the pigs squeal. They’re taking their last gasps of air before going under.
10
ABC’s experiment with opinion seems doomed to failure. If you think Tranter’s article is bad, take a look at the effort of a paid ABC employee…
One swallow does not a summer make
I have no problem with the expression of opinion. But if Sara Phillips wants to spruik climate doom perhaps she can do it on her own time and not the tax payers, and not with the backing of the ABC logo. (A reposte to this piece in ABC NEWS WATCH tomorrow).
10
did you notice the sidepage link to the Chaser’s sketch on Julia’s climate change policy. 🙂
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/homepage/video/ywc_citizensassemble_edit.flv
10
I find Tranter’s holier-than-thou attitude very hard to take. It simply oozes from every word she wrote. Even Al Gore is easier to take than this. Desperation brings out the worst in people and the worst people too apparently.
10
One of the reasons that the Warmists feel the need to seize on any kind of weather (hot, cold, wet, dry) as ‘proof’ of global warming is because they have made a large misperception as to the kind of people who oppose their shrill alarmism – i.e. the Skeptics, or Denialists.
They make, in fact, a fundamental psychological error known as the Pre/Trans Fallacy (PTF). [http://www.praetrans.com/en/ptf.html].
In simple terms, they classify people as either Green (good) or Non-Green (bad). But the situation is more complex than that. Non-Green actually includes two very different sets of people.
First, there are those I would call ‘robber barons’ — a group of greedy capitalists who truly do not care for the planet, and are major exploiters of people and resources, and utterly careless of any damage they do to the environment. These days, you’ll mainly find them in the developing world, in China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia and so on.
Second, there are businessmen and other individuals who *do* care about the environment, but are realistic when it comes to a balance between development and environmentalism. In other words, they are sensible of Green concerns and indeed largely share them, and are capable of integrating those concerns into a business and development worldview.
These two groups would be called, respectively, pre-Green and trans-Green.
The problem of the Warmists is that they see all non-Green as pre-Green (a perfect example being their insistent caterwauling about Big Oil). Thus they perforce treat people who are trans-Green as though they were pre-Green, hence the name Pre/Trans Fallacy.
The Green worldview which mistakenly equates all non-Green with pre-Green (and therefore as primitive, evil and destructive) informs almost all the Warmist behaviour, including:
* demonization and vilification of skeptics
* inability to accept any part of skeptic argument, or enter into rational debate with skeptics
* dishonesty in the service of a ‘noble cause’ (defeating the primitive, evil and …. etc)
* persistent belief that they are the underdogs, heroically fighting the hordes of primitive, evil and …)
Because Warmists see all skeptics as pre-Green, any means therefore becomes acceptable to ‘win’ against this dastardly enemy, which in truth, does not exist in the form the Warmists see it.
What’s the answer? Time, probably. You can’t force people to adopt a more inclusive worldview — if you don’t get it, you don’t get it. The assertion that trans-Green is a more inclusive worldview than Green is supported by the steady trickle of Warmists who have moved to a more balanced take on global warming. It would be, I think, almost impossible for a skeptic to become a fanatical Warmist, as that would be a backward step in their psychological development.
So, what do you call a Warmist with self-awareness? A skeptic.
10
Dear Ms Tranter,
I do hope you are better briefed as a lawyer in prosecuting or defending a case as you seem to be in climatology and the flowering habits of acacias. To get into a snit about the alleged early flowering of wattles in winter as proof of AGW betrays total ignorance and sloppy research. Which particular species of the 900+ acacias are you referring to? A Google on “winter flowering wattles” returns 10,900 hits, including this little gem from Your Own ABC at http://www.abc.net.au/science/scribblygum/july2003/default.htm , “Up to a third of Australia’s 960 species of wattle will flower in winter. This winter blooming means that somewhere in Australia, no matter what time of year, a wattle is flowering, because they also flower in spring, summer and autumn.”
Needless to say, I did not read past your priceless gaffe!
10
Rick,
Well said. Would it be correct to summarise this in laymans terms as simply being that a lot of people view the world in stereotypes?
It has become clear to me that many of the AGW proponents really do lack the maturity to see outside of a tribal view.
10
I, for one, am heartened when pieces like this are published, because it only undermines the conformist view of AGW. Anyone that can’t skeptically dissect this rubbish and see it for what it is doesn’t think too much about their vote anyway.
This reminds me… was there ever any clarification why the UWA logo was stamped on the AGW pamphlets handed out at the Watts speech night?
10
remember this fantasy?
29 July: SydneyMorningHerald: Ben Cubby: Most want action now on emissions
“The results clearly showed we do not want to wait for the Americans and the Chinese to act, which was a surprise,” Professor Jordan Louviere, director of the Centre for the Study of Choice at the University of Technology, Sydney, said….
(para 11) The study was not designed to find out what proportion of the population support emissions trading…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/most-want-action-now-on-emissions-20100729-10wdr.html
well, thanx to some followup by “austn climate madness”, it was even more fantastical than first imagined:
29 July: Austn Climate Madness: Poll: Most Australians want tough action on climate – really?
Sounds pretty compelling, doesn’t it? A little research and an email to Prof Louviere elicits more information about the study (see here for PDF). It was different from most surveys in that it required participants to choose between alternative emissions reductions scenarios, rather than answering Yes/No questions….
But what is the obvious flaw with all this? Clearly, it is the assumption that the requirement for an ETS is not up for question, and that implementing one will somehow be beneficial for the environment. The choice is only between different types of ETS, and, naturally, respondents are going to choose the one which they are informed will hurt them least….
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=4388
10
Jo
This is all very true, but there’s one thing we should never forget.
At no point in her very flimsy article did Kellie attempt to demonstrate the validity of the Warmist case. Because she can’t.
Kellie, if you think you can present a valid argument for the Warmist case, please post it on this site. But if you can’t, then I suggest you retract your article and apologise on the ABC.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
read all to see how Amy pits winery owners against miners and manages to drag in jordan louviere’s manufactured public opinion propaganda. Amy’s “take” on Rudd’s demise is more than ironic, given it was in fact his mining supertax that brought him down:
1 Aug: AFP: Amy Coopes: Mines and wines in Australia climate battle
Nowhere are the tensions of Australia’s looming environment versus economy election more apparent than in the Hunter, a “wines and mines” region just a few hours from Sydney…
Former prime minister Kevin Rudd won a landslide 2007 election victory on a pro-green platform which saw him ratify the Kyoto Protocol and take a lead role at last year’s failed climate talks in Copenhagen.
His decision to shelve an emissions trading scheme which was twice rejected by lawmakers sent his popularity into such a spin the ruling Labor party dumped him in a shock coup favouring his female deputy, Julia Gillard.
Gillard vowed action on a carbon tax when she took office, but was criticised as going soft on climate change with an election policy to seek advice from the community and not act ahead of other major economies…
A survey of 7,000 Australians published this week found an overwhelming majority wanted emissions trading plans to start now and without action from other countries, with relatively high emissions cuts to be achieved by 2020.
“We’ve got such majority public support to start now, not to wait for what China and the US does, to make deep cuts,” said survey author Jordan Louviere…
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jDJb2hkZ7HAdpyRnUC_o04PWQGVQ
10
pat – I understood the main battle in the Hunter was between Coal Miners and Thoroughbred Horse Breeders like the Sultan of Brunei.
10
Rick Bradford #17:
I don’t find it necessary to categorise people.
People are even more variable than climate. There aren’t enough pigeon holes and individuals migrate readily from one to another, based on the complex, inter-woven web of opinions and ideas that they express. The only way in which people could possibly fit into a small set of pigeon holes is if they could be made to think completely in one way. You observe that people can’t be forced into that. Changing minds is strictly a DIY task.
There’s an old, German folk song: “Die Gedanken sind frei” (Thoughts are free) which includes the lesson that one can’t guess what others are really thinking.
While I’m always ready to criticise actions and ideas which I see as wrong — at least more wrong than they need to be — I hesitate to criticise people; especially those who express ideas that they believe that they should be expressing.
10
Yeah, as I understand it these 7000 people were randomly drawn from ‘pureprofile’, one of those ‘make money by doing surveys online’ sites.
Does anyone really think a survey like this is going to be an unbiased sample?
10
Perhaps a new term for this sort of journalism would be useful.
I offer ‘post-normal journalism’. This is journalism that is based on ideas like ‘false but accurate’ and is driven by agendas, not simply in the editorial choices but in the very reporting of the facts.
In post-normal journalism, the only side that gets to be reported in full is the one that aligns with one’s agenda.
The other side, as we see in this instance, is not worthy of fact-based reporting and it is therefore justified to misrepresent and even fabricate stories out of whole cloth if the story line serves the purpose. False but accurate, after all, allows for a great deal of creativity.
10
ABC Unleashed has Ian Dunlop defending the Greens holding out for a tougher (more expensive to us) ETS because we need, according to him, “emission reductions in the order of 40-50 per cent by 2020, almost complete decarbonisation by 2050 and continuing efforts to draw down legacy carbon from the atmosphere”. doubt if he’ll win many over with his ‘denial’ obsession:
ABC: Ian Dunlop: Demolishing the myths on emissions trading
There will always be scientific uncertainties on an issue this complex, with year-to-year climatic variations continuing to be used selectively by deniers to discredit the mainstream science; but the overall trends are clear and they are all moving in the wrong direction. It is tempting to believe the deniers are right, but faced with the mounting empirical evidence, prudent risk management dictates we should not gamble on inaction…
Christine Milne is quite right to hold out for serious climate change policy rather than this “Clayton’s” variety offered by the major parties’ deniers.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2969273.htm
the comments mostly come from jordan louviere’s eager CO2 tax payers,e.g.
groucho writes, in part: “John,(And the unmitigated IPCC witch hunt continues)I know you love fantasies, and insist on your rants about the Club of Rome,but this guy,Dunlop, has you deniers pegged.
Check out his background.It’s IN COAL! He knows what he’s talking about,and he is smart enough to believe the science and endorse acting on AGW”.
funny no-one mentions his many years with Shell.
btw groucho might like to know Dunlop is, in fact, a member of the Club of Rome, tho john was making a general point and did not appear to be aware of this fact either:
IAN DUNLOP
Ian Dunlop has wide experience in energy resources, infrastructure, and international business, for many years on the staff of Royal Dutch Shell…
He is a Member of The Club of Rome…
http://www.nblf.com.au/about-nblf/forum-steering-committee/
some Shell links to follow…
10
Reuters and Bloomberg have picked up on the latest deferral on Shell’s Prelude LNG project, but it seems Australian media don’t want to inform the public during an election campaign, because none are so far reporting on the deferral at the end of July. Afraid the public might be outraged perhaps!
30 July: Reuters: UPDATE 1-Australia defers ruling on Shell’s Prelude LNG
Australia’s federal environment ministry has deferred a ruling on Royal Dutch Shell’s (RDSa.L: Quote) untested floating liquefied natural gas (LNG) project for the third time, threatening to delay the project’s target timeline.
Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett had been due to announce a decision on Friday on Shell’s Prelude plan to develop the world’s first floating LNG plant off western Australia, but the ruling has now been put off until Oct. 1 since the government is in a caretaker mode in the run up to the Aug. 21 election.
This is the third LNG project to see a government delay of an environmental review, bringing the total value of gas export projects awaiting federal clearance to an estimated A$45 billion….
The environment ministry has previously deferred a ruling on Prelude twice, after Shell turned down the department’s demands for the energy major to submit a proposal on how it would mitigate the project’s greenhouse gas emissions. Shell said it would rely on buying permits under a carbon trading system should emissions trading be introduced…
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFSGE66T02H20100730
1 August: Bloomberg BusinessWeek: Australia Defers Shell Gas Project Ruling on Election
The environment department today cited the “caretaker” period leading to the Aug. 21 election as the reason for deferring a decision on the Prelude project. That’s when “major policy decisions” that could bind an incoming government must be avoided and “controversies” should be prevented, according to the website of the Australian prime minister and cabinet.
The review of Shell’s proposal has been extended until after that period “because decisions on these types of strategic and complex matters, where there are no clear precedents, must be made by the federal environment minister — they cannot be delegated to the department,” the department said in e-mailed comments in response to questions….
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-30/australia-defers-shell-gas-project-ruling-on-election.html
10
On a somewhat personal note… I am out of the country for the election and have checked with the AEC – pre-polling is now available for those that can’ty make it into a polling station on the day.
Time to right the wrong of voting Rudd last time 🙂
10
Good read from a poster at WUWT.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EDBLICKRANT.pdf
10
#17. August 2nd, 2010 at 10:12 am
Rick Bradford says:
* demonization and vilification of skeptics
* inability to accept any part of skeptic argument, or enter into rational debate with skeptics
* dishonesty in the service of a ‘noble cause’ (defeating the primitive, evil and …. etc)
* persistent belief that they are the underdogs, heroically fighting the hordes of primitive, evil and …)
****************************************
GOT PROJECTION?
http://www.google.com/search?q=projection&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
10
Villabolo @ 32
You ask if Rick @ 17 has got projection? Maybe not.
Sceptics aren’t the ones putting together “black lists” and calling for their opponents to be gaoled or executed as criminals. (e.g. James Hansen comments.) The AGW camp’s silence on this would indicate consent – or do they already realise that hansen is not worth listening to? Do you buy into this? What’s your opinion – we’d love to know. Perhaps you forgot where sceptics are compared to Holocaust “deniers”?
You mean the parts where sceptical arguments never make it into the IPCC or the “peer reviewed” literature controlled by Jones, Mann et al? Yeah. That one. Or where Al Gore’s shocker of a “documentary” is posted in schools as educational? Or sceptical arguments never make past the firewall at “RealClimate”.com?
What part of “delete the files” is not clear to you? (Refer Climategate emails.) Perhaps you should recall the words of the late, lamented AGW advocate Steve Schneider: “We have the choice of being honest or being effective.” It was a motto he lived by, apparently.
Yes, one tends to believe one is the underdog when one is outnumbered 3500 to 1. Which is the difference in funding between AGW advocates (via government, business and NGO’s) versus essentially private donations for the sceptics.
You have to admit, Villabolo, that Rick at 17 has got a point. What’s yours?
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Well that’s one vote for change cast 😀 Sorry Mr Smith (Labor), you seem like a decent enough sort, but you stay silent when WA is about to be looted by your party … you can never have my vote again.
I must say, voting is a lot quicker when pre-polling.
10
Bulldust – have a nice trip. Diggers & Dealers – no Labor pollies have turned up, which means either they fear for their skins or they’ve gone all in for their miners-are-evil-capitalists class warfare bet.
I think the former as likewise no Laborites appeared when the $1b new coal loader opened here 2 days after the RSPT was announced…being hit by thrown lumps of coal hurts.
10
I just got involved in the Ian Dunlop Unleashed blog today. Funny how I posted my comment (pretty much a copy of the one from here yesterday about alarmist models) before reading Dunlop’s mini CV at the ABC:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2969223.htm
Quote:
Note the last line… ROFLMAO with added COPTER… this man has serious scaremongering credentials. This is your tax dollars hard at work? I feel the urge to demand a refund.
10
Jo, I so do not want you on my wife;s side when we are going through the credit card statement! ;=)
The wonderful observation, “She’s just being obedient”, says it all and can be applied to Monbiot etc. Sad really but then again, that is what all these people are being.
When my children were growing up and looked to be following peer pressure I would simply say, “Baa”! Why do I now have a picture of a sheep in my mind!
10
Will this make ABC news?
Peruvians are suffering the coldest winter in nearly five decades, with the temperatures in large parts of the country dropping to record lows.
10
@Bernd Felsche: #25
There is a considerable amount of science behind the notion that we can broadly categorize people by the breadth of their worldview, as you can see at http://rationalspirituality.com/articles/Ken_Wilber_Spiral_Dynamics.htm. I think you will understand my points more clearly if you read some of that work.
10
I love this 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
10
Maybe they could sqeeze this into a fishing show too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oq05oS-eqxU
10
I hate fishing shows, there’s nothing more annoying than grown men sitting in a boat drinking beer torturing fish for pleasure.!
10
Noticed that cohenite offered to debate science on the ABC Tranter article…no takers, can’t think why.(sarc) Lots of unreadable troll like comments though.
Jo gets it right again.
10
I like to use my own mind and not what scientists say I should be behind. “Scientists say….”
For years the God complex has been allowed in academics as these are the people who create and generate our knowledge base. To question these people(unless your a student) is unheard of as they are correct and have the backing of their “Peers”.
But no one has challeged these scholars before as their theories are now unbreakable LAWS.
Hard facts and GOOD physical eveidence show a great deal of our basic knowledge base is incorrect.
So….How do you fix a broken system of arrogant scientists that are teaching incorrect science?
10
If the ABC was relevant, Part 22
Kerry:
10
Joe – If you’d ever worked in academia, sat on academic boards, wrote an undergraduate course that passed an academic senate, and watched how these clowns operate as I did once in my career, you’d not only be as sceptical as I am – you’d be screaming to the rooftops!!.
10
If the ABC Was Relevant, Part 22.
(A question of integrity.)
Kerry: Tonight, John and Bryan unveil the real Julia Gillard.
Bryan: Good evening Prime Minister.
John: Good evening Bryan. What a pleasure it is to be here.
Bryan: Thank you Prime Minister. So I believe that tonight marks a drastic change in your 2010 election campaign?
John: Yes Bryan. From now on, you’re going to see the real Julia Gillard.
Bryan: Interesting, Prime Minister. And who was standing in for you in the campaign up to date so far? Not a bodyguard, I trust?
John: No Bryan, it was me. It’s just that it wasn’t the real me.
Bryan: And this is the real you, now?
John: Would I lie to you Bryan?
Bryan: Positively certain?
John: Yes.
Bryan: As distinct from the previous Julia Gillard, who wasn’t the real Julia Gillard?
Julia: It’s all changed. We’re moving forward.
Bryan: So the other Julia Gillard, the previous one, wasn’t the real Julia Gillard?
John: No Bryan, I told you that.
Bryan: And did you tell us that the previous Julia Gillard, who wasn’t you, was the real Julia Gillard?
John: No Bryan, I didn’t. I have a contract of integrity with the Australian people.
Bryan: So you didn’t tell us the old Julia Gillard was the real Julia Gillard, because that would have been dishonest. But you didn’t tell us that she wasn’t the real Julia Gillard?
John: That’s right Bryan. It’s a matter of integrity.
Bryan: And this is the real Julia Gillard now.
John: 100% genuine Bryan.
Bryan: And if you were to stop being the real Julia Gillard at any time in the near future, you’d let us know straight away, right?
John: You have my word Bryan. Trust me.
10
janama:
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:10 pm
I went a different route.
Created a turbine 18 times more efficient. Found that this conflicted with our current “LAWS” of motion and understanding of a psuedo-science called centrifugal force. Created another piece of technology that shows how centrifugal force can compress mass and store energy.
Using this knowledge base, I applied it to this planet and solar system.
Science has two routes in physics and unfortunately we are following the incorrect one.
10
Kellie Tranter mixes two separate issues – misrepresentation of your qualifications with allegedly wrong or misleading opinions and conclusions you express in lectures and books. However, she focuses discussion on the latter, so lets examine that.
Two informal opinions, one from a professor of business law and one from an ex ACCC lawyer and now university lecturer in Trade Practices law.
Regarding Kellie Tranter’s suggestion to apply Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1987 or its state mirror Fair Trading Acts to allegedly misleading opinions and conclusion by authors of non-fiction books:
The courts would not only summarily dismiss this argument [as a matter of law] but would likely see this as vexatious litigation.
Kellie Tranter’s legal opinion is in keeping with climate alarmism – they are both emotionally loaded nonsense.
Why is it that anything connected with Climate Alarmism fails to pass the most rudimentary analysis?
10
I don’t like the fishing shows for precisely the same reason but watching gangs of overgrown men with hangovers or withdrawal symptoms fighting over a bit of leather seems worse.
The people who do watch these things still get to vote.
10
Always accuse your opponents of your sins – to deflect attention away from your sins.
10
Rick Bradford Re: 17 and 39;
Interesting observations and interesting links.
After reading some of the ABC blog this morning, I am very worried. It is clear that the believers (as posting on that blog) in AGW are fanatical-just short of whatever it takes to become militant. They are frightened and frightened people do frightening things.
My question is how does one reform the thoughts of warmists?
10
Don’t bother, the only people who can change are the moderates.
Just make sure the extremists don’t find ways to undermine the institutions of democracy that ensure the moderates are the ones who make decisions.
10
Kellie is plainly playing up to some others with the nitwit “trash the sceptics in two paragraphs” routine – the questions are, to whom and for what.
I see the same rhetoric all the time from junior politicians and bureaucrats who compose this fluff, carrying the delusion that they are “pleasing” other people by doing so.
Kellie is probably trying to get a retainer for some legal work from some political or NGO outfit. Kellie has demonstrated nothing but an understanding as deep as a piece of paper (if that) – the sad part is, she might not be aware of it.
10
Totally off topic for this thread, but interesting none-the-less:
Source: World Climate Report
10
Mark D.:
Regarding changing minds of warmists? Just maintain the integrity of skeptical scientific debate. The ones who are keen to learn and swayed by logical argument will accept your arguments, and those that are not receptive to debate will not.
This is not the way of politics as far as I have observed. I never studied politics, but it seems to me that much of it revolves around a tribalistic approach to separate people into camps regarding this issue or that. Then you have a vote to see which camp won the day and start the process all over again on a different front.
Science should not be confrontational. Real scientists are generally humble folk with a sense of humility derived from being proved wrong on several occasions. I doubt there has ever been a prolific scientist that has not been proven wrong many a time, if not most of the time. This is how scientific understanding advances.
This is not what you see from advocates. They are dead certain and will shout you down, divide camps and claim consensus (a vote of numbers). This is not science. The fact that PNAS actually condoned this approach is what is so reprehensible.
So maintain personal integrity and try not to get drawn into tribalistic shouting matches and you will win the minds of the sensible, silent majority. I wish i could do this consistently, but I get the proverbial rush of blood from time to time in these blogs 🙂
10
Hunter: #27
Post-Normal Journalism – very good, and very apropos.
10
Bulldust @56:
Yes, it is up to the scientists to get it right. For that reason it is very important that they be left to do their work in peace.
It is tricky about some scientists being advocates. Say you detect a large meteor heading for earth, and you realise that there is a course of action which could stop a looming disaster. Do you stay low key and hope that someone notices, or do you become an advocate? If a group of people start trying to prove you wrong, because they don’t like the course of action you propose, do you fight them?
Back on the “weather is not climate” theme, here in Perth we’ve just had a July where average minima were 2 degrees below the long term average. As I go cycling in the morning, it was not all joy, but did mean some spectacular views of the Swan River, dead smooth in the early morning sun. Beautiful.
10
Mark D @52:
You probably don’t need to reform the minds of hotties. The chances of realistic action on CO2 emissions is low, and so 30 years from now with all their predictions proved wrong, you’ll just be able to laugh at them.
10
John @ 58
Very true – but what if the “scientists” are not being scientists? What if they shut down debate, delete or falsify data, discard inconvenient proof, corrupt the peer review process, and engage in propaganda on behalf of governmental and NGO agendas? Should they get away with telling lies simply because they have a science degreee? No.
True science has always been based on scepticism. Unfortunately, the mainstream of climate “science” would have it differently.
Regards,
Speedy.
10
John Brookes:
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:39 am
Say you detect a group of climate scientist heading for your wallet and you realize that no course of action is necessary as there is no looming disaster. Do you stay low key and hope that someone notices or do you become an AGW skeptic? If people who possess average intelligence and have a little common sense start trying to prove the climate criminals wrong, because the citizens want the taxpayer funded gravy train to come to a screeching halt, don’t you think the warmanistas will fight to the bitter end?
10
Real scientists demand other people to tear apart hypotheses they put forth – which other people generally do, with enthusiasm. This hallmark of Western science began at least with Archimedes and probably before him.
These climate “scientists” who behave otherwise bring themselves nothing but disgrace in the long run – and they know it. They put up an arrogant front to postpone the inevitable, at which time they can blame others for having “duped” them.
I requested to visit with Ralph Cicerone, president of NAS, about the matter. His office is not far from mine. I wanted to speak with him about the matter.
I detailed in a letter to his office exactly why I wanted to meet with him personally. Sure, he’s a busy man – but he could find 30 minutes for me in a year, couldn’t he?
My requests were ignored for three consecutive months of repeated requests, then flatly refused, as being “insufficiently important” to warrant a personal meeting with him.
Will Cicerone ever have to answer for this in his career, even his lifetime? I doubt it
10
Huh? Joanne blocks only profanity and the unseemly – she doesn’t block anyone who disagrees with her view
I think you have unfortunately arrived at the wrong address to accuse somebody of something wrongly –
Go ahead though and persist, people here enjoy the show of the ill informed making fools of themselves
10
John Brookes @ 58:
I often raise the meteor example when discussing the Precautionary Principle. The thing is, it would be easy for other scientists to point their telescopes in the right direction and verify your sighting and portent of doom. Verification is absent in the CAGW camp. Outside of the world of modelling and parameter assumptions no one can verify that the predictions of CAGW are valid.
Personally I wouldn’t mind seeing a few millions or billions lobbed at anti-meeor defences as we know that big ones have hit us before. The K-T boundary is ample evidence of the potential for impact and associated ramifications.
10
Brian G Valentine: #62
I have always thought it important to distinguish between research scientists, and public servants who happen to have a doctorate in science.
In the former case, an understanding of how the cosmos works, and the demonstration thereof, is paramount.
In the latter case, providing a scientific rationale for what the government of the day believes, or wants to believe, is the safest option.
It comes down to courage and integrity and a belief in the concept of truth.
10
@61, Eddy Aruda.
Say some psychos in the 1960’s wanted to stop the Moon Program because they claimed that it was a ploy by NASA to steal Government funds. Proof? Who needs proof? Just open your mouths and that’s all the proof you need.
[Seriously, try to stay on topic and post something meaningful.] ED.
10
Villabolo @ 66
I think that governments should be responsible for the way they spend our money, don’t you? And if they intend to essentially dismantle our economy by removing our existing energy sources and replacing them with fickle, unreliable, expensive and environmentally unpleasant “renewable” sources, while at the same time casting our civilisation back to the Dark Ages, then they’d better have a good reason to share with us.
After all, it shouldn’t be difficult. The IPCC has said it is “90% certain” that global warming is man made. Why can’t they demonstrate PHYSICAL proof that global warming
*Exists
Is harmful, and
Is man-made?
Show us the proof and we’ll show you the money.
Cheers,
Speedy
PS; What is your position on suing, gaoling or executing sceptics? (Refer post at 33 yesterday). Do you think Kellie has a legal or moral leg to stand on? If so, what is it?
10
Meanwhile back in the water, Sea surface temperatures for 1st August 2010 are cooler than 2003, cooler than 2005, way cooler than 2009 and the same as 2004. The great sea surface temperature dive continues.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps
10
Funny thing, villianlobo~ there were people in the 60s who wanted to stop the Space Program.
And they are on YOUR side of AGW today.
10
Siliggy,
Isn’t it that deep ocean heating though? You know the secret delayed heat? The excited molecular energy that hasn’t turned into heat yet because of the 700 year delay?
Jeez don’t you know you can’t measure the heat yet because the secret heat sensor hasn’t been invented yet!
10
Mark D: #70
“Isn’t it that deep ocean heating though? You know the secret delayed heat? The excited molecular energy that hasn’t turned into heat yet because of the 700 year delay? ”
Might also be because they have the physics basically wrong and that in ignorance of this, suggest a 700 year lag.
But to the real reason for this quick post – “brown washer” – what the heck does this perjoration mean? I did a quick search on Bing and nothing of releavance.
10
Rereke Whaakaro #65
Science, cargo-cult science, pseudoscience – topics of interest in forthcoming AIG News out later this month.
Also note Tim Lambert hoed into Judith Curry for writing non scientific comments etc on his blog. True, if by scientific one means the lexicon of post-normal science that dominates scientific discourse today. As Judith isn’t writing PC scientific comments, she has now been identified as an apostate and will be hounded by the post-normalists (PN’s) typified by Tim Lambert, Eli Rabbett and others.
I also refer to Bob Carter’s latest article on Quadrant Online, and his reference to D.C. Edmeades summary of the metamorphosis of science over the last 50 years into post-normal science.
The problem the post-normalists have is that they have blathered their way into an intellectual cul-de-sac that is unique insofar that it is also self-referencing feedback loop that only stops when it self destructs. Hopefully the destruction does not include the rest of us and society as a whole.
Oh and Ian Castle passed away yesterday morning from a heart attack. Condolences to the family could be posted to the Lavoisier site.
10
Hello Louis,
I am guessing that “brown wash” (akin to whitewash) is what you can make at home by mixing a generous quantity of manure (of your choice) with a sufficient quantity of water to make it a brushable solution.
Similarly, in a more viscous mix, can be thrown into the blades of a fan for more rapid coverage.
Just be careful, because you always want to maintain a physically elevated position relative to the applicator or mixing vessel. (because you know which way it flows)
10
Don’t ya hate it when that delays your morning coffee. We have an old jug in the family thats due to boil in 512 years time.
10
#69. Otter:
August 3rd, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Funny thing, villianlobo~ there were people in the 60s who wanted to stop the Space Program.
And they are on YOUR side of AGW today.
____________________________________________________________________
Typical knee jerk reaction from an arrogant know it all. You have absolutely no knowledge of where I stand on any issue let alone who would be on “MY” side.
Let’s see if you are even familiar with the terminology. I’m a ‘Neo-Civ’ not a ‘primitivist’.
10
Funny — you look a lot like Dr. Strangelove to me. The nicest thing you could say about him is that he was an amoral elitist. Reading the “neo-civilization mission statement”, that might not be far off.
(BTY: Otter has a pretty good nose for Trolls — not that it’s particularly difficult in this case.)
10
Villabolo @75
Oh Goody word games!
Since even Wiki has no explanation why don’t you explain what “Neo Civ” is.
And speaking of arrogant, how about your first post here: GOT PROJECTION?
10
Pretty amusing (over at The Drum) watching the regular Trolls from here (DavidR, Brenden, etc.) whine (or whinge, Down Under) about how unscientific and unfair Joanne Nova is because she won’t let them post what they want.
Apparently folks, you are hurting their feelings by not putting up with empty invective and argument by authority. Have a little consideration, won’t ya?
10
#67. Speedy:
August 3rd, 2010 at 6:46 pm
All your points have been responded to in the past ad nausem.
As far as far as what Hansen suggesting in trying Oil Company executives for crimes against Humanity for deceiving the world on a matter which would involve the deaths of hundreds of millions I agree with retribution being enacted against those psychopaths. By the way, Hansen mentioned no specific form of punishment if found guilty.
To me this should include morally depraved politicians like Inhofe who are attempting to criminalize scientists for speaking out on the issue. Anyone who violates the freedom of speech of another under those conditions is automatically worthy of death.
So the bottom line is, Speedy, spare us this sanctimonious, “Nazi cries out persecution by Jews”, crap and wait in 5 year intervals as Reality first smashes your teeth in and then kicks your posterior across the street.
No, most people who don’t want to discern Nature won’t, even when it’s in their very faces. They will simply reinvent their lies. What will be the official falsehoods of Denial when Global Warming speaks to you in a language that tolerates no rebuttal?
It will be “Natural Global Warming”!, your False Prophets will emphasize. It matters little that many nowadays say it is. There will be a need to standardize THE LIE so all of you can do the Denial goosestep round and round the oil refineries forever and ever, Amen.
It will be Geo-engineering that will save us from this dastardly “Natural Warming”. Thus your False Prophets will continue to burn the ancient remnants of Life at the smoke-stack billowing altars of your demon god Mammon.
The Lies will be anything and everything that will allow the Psychic Vampires to escape responsibility from their actions.
So let the Corn in Kansas surrender to the Cactus and the Winter Wheat of Wisconsin yield to Weeds but I’ll be damned if I wait till then for retribution.
10
#71. BobC:
August 4th, 2010 at 5:46 am
“Funny — you look a lot like Dr. Strangelove to me. The nicest thing you could say about him is that he was an amoral elitist. Reading the “neo-civilization mission statement”, that might not be far off.”
__________________________________________________________________
Unfortunately, I didn’t realize the word ‘neo-civ’ is semantically vague and taken by many to mean things that the old and original definition never implied. I have nothing to do with the New Age gobbledygook your link revealed.
I mean the word in the literal sense. That is, a person who believes in an alternative civilization to this one as far as infrastructure, design, etc., is concerned.
As far as my Avatar is concerned, the ideology of the actual character is 180 degrees removed from mine. I chose him as my Avatar for personal reasons.
10
Got projection?
10
@ villabolo:
Besides hurling insults and spouting off with a bunch of non sequitur drivel, can you post something intelligent? You have been quite a disappointment so far, but then i am an optimist. 😉
10
The really, really funny thing about this is that villalobo is accidently correct in his Moon program reference. The Apollo program WAS a plot by NASA to “steal” US government funds. A bunch of long time spaceflight enthusiasts from Von Braun on down at NASA were very lucky and astute enough to be in the right place at the right time and use the geopolitical situation to put a spectacular space feat in front of a naive and incompetent(Bay of Pigs anyone?) young president who took the bait. There was much enthusiasm for action, many true believers and industry got billions.
There’s an interesting parallel in the whole “let’s re-engineer our whole society to prevent global warming” movement. Carpet bagging banksters and companies like GE get to make billions, if not trillions, the AGW true believers and the closet communists get to realise their dreams of control and governments get a huge new tax source justified on the grounds of “saving the planet” so nobody who “cares” can oppose it and those who do will be demonised.
Now look at what happened after Apollo. Enthusiasm waned as the costs were realised, a deeply flawed Shuttle got designed and after a few more months now the US will have no way to put people into orbit. There may be a lesson here.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m a long time spaceflight enthusiast. A ship carrying people, lifting for the other side of the sky, is something I find deeply moving. Many people like me now recognise that Apollo set back the spaceflight cause as there was an alternative in incremental development of vehicles like the X-15 and X-20. At least Apollo did no long term damage to anyone (other than the spaceflight cause) or to human freedom unlike the potential of the AGW fanaticism.
10
Don’t get your hopes up Eddy… do a Google on Villabolo and you won’t find the calibre of comments elsewhere to be any better. Baseless smears, here’s your avatar. He has already accused Steve Goddard and/or Anthony Watts of fraud for instance… that’s just for starters:
http://msnbc.newsvine.com/_question/2010/07/07/4630892-are-you-satisfied-with-the-british-panels-conclusion-that-while-climategate-scientists-were-not-always-forthcoming-their-science-was-sound
Of course that is MSNBC, so I presume that is the equivalent of our ABC’s “The Drum” or “Unleashed.” He is also fond of saying skeptics have personality disorders:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/15/lord-monckton-censor-john-abraham/
I am making the assumption that all these Villabolii are one and the same, but the style appears consistent so it seems like a safe bet. It seems our new friend also wishes you to pick up the kids and do your shopping in a reclining bicycle:
http://campfire.theoildrum.com/node/5772
As we would say in Australia… a couple of kangaroos loose in the top paddock.
10
As an engineer, I always found it to be important to have all the terms defined and understood by all parties.
I may not be discerning enough, but that sounds pretty similar to the “New Age gobbledygook” I linked to. At any rate, utopian movements that aim to completely change The World/Mankind/Civilization/etc. only work if they are enforced by total dictatorship, and then only succeed in killing vast numbers of people. Why would yours be any different?
Personally (probably because I am an engineer), I like the model of adjusting society to better work with Human nature as it is. You never get perfect results, but you do far, far better than any utopia ever tried (or imagined, probably).
Winston Churchill (the master of the Bon mot) said it pretty well: “Capitalism is the worst of all possible systems — except for all the others.”
I would substitute “Classical Liberalism” (personal, political, and financial freedom — not exactly what “liberals” today believe in) for “Capitalism”. “Capitalism (a word popularized by 19th century Socialists, who wanted to pretend that “Socialism” was something other than the illiberal loss of freedom) is simply what happens when people are free to arrange their own lives and property. Anything else involves some loss of freedom.
So, what freedoms would you remove to “make us better”?
10
The moderator at The Drum seems to be preventing any statements linking to difficult to argue against facts. I submitted two brief, polite comments neither of which have appeared.
Comment #1: (In reply to Brendon, who claimed that to see the “real long term temperature trend” you had to go all the way back to 1850 — the end of the LIA! How convenient a point to start at. I linked WUWT’s presentation of NOAA’s ice core data showing that the 8000 year trend is one of cooling, and that it has been hotter for most of that time than it is presently. LINK
Too much information for the drones at The Drum, apparently.
Comment #2: In reply to someone who claimed that Skeptic’s have “no peer-reviewed evidence” I linked Popular Technology’s list of 800 papers that Jo just featured. (LINK)
Mustn’t confuse the followers with facts, I guess — particularly if those facts contradict a favorite belief of the cult.
Good job the moderator is doing over there, keeping anyone from straying off the reservation. All in a day’s work for those supporting the cult, I guess.
10
Villoboli @ 79
You are obviously very passionate about your faith and your post provides a tidy summary of what appears to be a very messy mind. I’ll ignore the bland assertions and hints of violence for now. I’ll just home in on one thing – one thing we all looking for – the TRUTH. Give us the PHYSICAL evidence that global warming is
* Real
* Harmful, and
* Manmade.
I don’t have any great reliance in computer models – they simply reflect the ignorance and bias of the modeller. Unfortunately, a lot of climate science is model-driven and suffers accordingly.
I agree that there was an increase in temperatures over the late 20th century, but it seems to have cooled down since, even though CO2 has apparently risen. And using trees as thermometers, while ignoring more reliable proxies, is simply grasping at straws to get the answer that you’re paid to find. Prof. Mann has done well out of it, hasn’t he?
I should also warn you of something. This site doesn’t mind people holding different views but it does ask for reasoned argument and a certain level of decorum. Perhaps you’d like to re-read your earlier posts and see if you can do a little better in the future please.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Mike Borgelt @83,
In keeping with the tradition of asking those who make a statement to support it — I would like to see your evidence for the statement I quoted.
Thanks
Roy
10
Eddy @61:
You really believe that the climate scientists are making stuff up for monetary gain? I guess the answer is, “Yes”, or you wouldn’t say it.
My problem is that I believe that some skeptics are making stuff up, for reasons I don’t fully understand.
10
John @ 61
It’s your lucky day! Head over to Jo’s next post for over 800 papers demonstrating how tenuous is the science behind “Mann-Made” Global Warming!
And remember: Scientific theories are like balloons – it only takes one prick and they’re busted…
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
John Brookes:
August 4th, 2010 at 11:54 am
Climate scientists were poorly funded at the CRU and were told that they may not get paid on a consistent basis. Once the CAGW panic started the financial floodgates opened and the small group of climate scientists were as happy as fat rats in a cheese factory.
As President Eisenhower said
You believe that some skeptics are “making stuff up”? That is a spurious and unfounded allegation. Reasons you don’t fully understand? Cite some evidence or quit casting aspersions. An appeal to ignorance is not evidence!
10
@ Bulldust
I always give someone the benefit of the doubt until they prove that they are nothing more than a disingenuous troll.
10
Eddy Aruda @91: On John Brookes.
John Brookes is a lot less tentative over at The Drum — in fact, he is in full whinge:
Yeah, we suspected you were logically challenged, John. As an exercise, perhaps you could tell us what is wrong with Joanne’s analysis above?
It is a war of sorts — problem for you is that the losers don’t get to decide who is locked up. Mother Nature is going to decide this one, and you are on bad ground, betting the farm on your fantasies — it would take a miracle to save your side.
Yeah, if you are logic blind, it must be hard to understand what’s going on.
If you tried that over here, someone would ask you for supporting facts — oops! Fits in just fine with the intellectual climate at The Drum, however.
Some people are intelligent enough, John, to understand what the consequences are of loss of freedom and living standards. For the rest of you, read some history on the Soviet Union. They locked dissenters up for treason, also (if they didn’t shoot them).
10
@villabolo, I don’t think you appreciate what you’re saying? The Oil Companies have already figured out how to make their money out of the AGW scare, and hence they contribute many times more to pro-AGW causes than to any skeptics.
My mind knows exactly what I stand to gain or lose one way or the other. Being in NZ I am already feeling my pay packet is lighter thanks to our Emissions Trading Scam. Consumers end up paying more, while big businesses get gifted carbon credits, and ultimately more manufacturing will shift offshore so we lose jobs. We buy more cheap imported goods = more emissions shift to unregulated countries, more freight required.
Regardless of whether AGW is real or not (and I disbelieve it on the empirical evidence) the solutions proposed stand to make the ‘inner circle’ very rich, funded by the consumer. Big Oil is already in the circle.
10
The more you post, the more unhinged you sound. Perhaps you could explain just how Lord Monckton and Glenn Beck are guilty of “killing (40) millions”? (I won’t insist on how they could be guilty of that “one hundred times over”, since that would be getting close to the entire population of the world.)
(Is this kind of like the movie “Minority Report”, where they are “guilty” of future genocide, based on the “predictions” of Global Circulation Models? Do you regularly have trouble telling fantasy from reality? Have you considered seeking help?)
10
Roy @88. Sorry I can’t find the statement you quoted. Which post was it?
10
I liked thisfrom Tranter: ‘Back at the lab the pleas from scientists “to act now” have long faded.’ I can just see them in the lab with their little baby climates in fish tanks, and not enough funds to keep them alive.
10
OK I guess you mean for my statement?
Go read the history of the Apollo project and the whole US space program. I’ve read countless books about it and I think my statement is a fair summing up of what happened. Von Braun et al couldn’t believe their luck. Note I did put “steal” in scare quotes. It isn’t stealing when a government sanctions it, or so I’m told. Eisenhower was not at all enthusiastic about manned spaceflight and there is evidence Kennedy wasn’t either but he needed a win.
The technology of the day was just about adequate for the task. Most of the designs were frozen at least in broad concept by late 1963.
What good it did even for the geopolitical situation is debatable. It was certainly reasonable to question the expense and the priority in the 1960s and NASA was certainly very happy to get the money and prestige. What bureaucracy wouldn’t be?
10
Always knew you were a troll, John Brookes.
Doug Keenan publicly accused Phil Jones of scientific fraud in a recent UK debate. Wonder why Phil doesn’t seem inclined to sue in a real court. Hint, he knows that some real truth rather than whitewash will come out.
To make it easy for you, John.
1. Nothing extraordinary happening at the poles.
2. Oceans not heating up.
3. Areas of “heat waves” easily balanced by “deep freezes”.
4. Phil Jones agrees with BBC interviewer Brian Harrabin that there has been “no statistically significant warming over the last fifteen years”. This despite increasing CO2 levels.
5. Oh, and lest I forget. “We can’t account for the lack of warming at the present and it’s a travesty that we can’t”
Clear enough for you John?
10
villainlobo~ sorry to take so long to get back to you. You say I don’t know which side of the argument you are on (my words, no time to scroll back and copy yours)?
So, which side are you on? Is the Earth warming naturally or is the Human race causing it? Bacause the people who wanted to stop the space program DO believe that humans are causing it. My own best friend, and best man at my wedding, is part of that group. Unfortunately 🙁
10
BobC:
August 4th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Thanks BobC! Now that I know what his true colors are I will respond to his disingenuous posts “appropriately.” 😉
10
@ BobC
Question: Do you know what is so terrible about four CAGW Trolls going off a cliff in a Cadillac?
Answer: A Cadillac seats six!
20
AGW exists because:
Al Gore lost an election
Al Gore needed some sympathy for losing
Al Gore needed to be recognised for SOMETHING, even though he was intentionally sidelined by his own administration as a flake who had the potential to do more damage to his political party than help it
George Bush is a warmonger
The UN needed some relevance for SOMETHING other than existing as a collection of leftist political hacks who could not survive in the realities of their respective governments
Jim Hansen would be nothing more than a hyperventilating paranoid if it wasn’t true
Left of centre governance would be reduced to proven Socialist failure without a means to justify repetition of the same mistakes
10
Mike Borgelt,
It was from your post at 83. The reason I asked is that you expressed a rather strong opinion on NASA. Since I have some misgivings and generally think NASA has outlived it’s usefulness I wondered why you hold that opinion.
For myself I don’t bother to go back very far into the past. The current NASA has been a rudderless ship for a long time. They do too many things and can’t ever decide how to allocate resources. And recent administrations have not clarified their mandate a bit. It’s a built-in conflict of interest.
And now we’re in the position of relying on the goodness of the Russians to get to and from the International Space Station. I can think of nothing more stupid than being in effect, beggars at the door. So we go from the space shuttle to relying on a basic transportation mode run by a nation on the ropes financially and politically. How long will it be before they lose a flight or decide they can’t keep it going? For that matter, how long will it be before there’s a deadly failure aboard the space station or it’s hit by some flying space junk and undergoes explosive decompression?
I’m ready to kill off NASA entirely and replace it with an agency that has a real mandate again — hopefully a narrow one consisting of unmanned space activities that do not risk lives for an ego trip. Things like GISS belong elsewhere, like directly under NOAA.
The U.S. pays the lions share of the cost of the International Space Station but we can’t even fly there and back on our own. And I seriously doubt that it will ever return a benefit worth the cost. Since only the Russians can fly there, let them take over the thing and foot the bill. I’m tired of seeing my tax dollars go into the black hole that is NASA.
10
OT, but this is great! With two lawyers in the family I know lots of lawyer jokes (they tell me themselves) — now I will just apply them to CAGW and climate scientists!
10
Thought people might find one of the newer comments at the Drum amusing (or frightening, if you consider that people like this vote):
By Jay:
What’s even more frightening is that I’ve seen PhDs who don’t reason any better (although they could spell better).
Interestingly, our Trolls do much better than average in their comments at The Drum — I guess the gauntlet they have to run here prepares them well for simulating logical arguments, and most of the other readers can’t see through the holes (excluding the comments from regulars here that make it through moderation).
I guess you could say that Tranter had a friendly (if not too bright) audience.
(Perhaps Jay isn’t really stupid — perhaps he has been taught, by our public schools, that whatever he feels strongly about must be right. This is not better, however, since it just creates people who act stupidly in an aggressive manner.)
10
Funny (scary) excerpt there BobC, the last time I was at the grocery store I was able to buy tuna, and a host of other “fishy things” at about the same cost as it was years ago. Did “Jay” happen to mention where the oceans were “fished out”?
And about Deforestation, has he ever been outside of a big city apartment? World wide less than -1% since 1990 http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/forstats2009.nsf/0/DF3B0B1FE0DB19A9802575F500330190?open&RestrictToCategory=1
Destroyed landscape? I think he was just on a rant.
As for contamination, tragically yes there is more work to be done there but I believe we in the US (at least) are cleaner pollution wise than we have ever been. It’s a shame the amount of money spent on AGW could have gone into cleaning up the brownfields and dump sites that remain.
10
Mark D — Re: Deforestation.
There is a “coffee-table” book, common in S. Dakota motels, that pairs the photographs taken by Custer’s 1874 expedition to S. Dakota with modern photographs taken at the exact same locations. (Link to book at Barnes & Nobel)
There were, besides Custer and his men, only nomadic American Indians in S. Dakota — hence there were no towns, industry, logging, etc., yet the photographs show that the forests are currently, 2 – 3 times as dense and more widely spread than they were in 1874! Many bald mountain tops with rocky prominences are completely covered by forest in the modern photographs. I was stunned at how many more trees are currently in western South Dakota than in 1874. (No one actually takes pictures of eastern South Dakota.) The increase in total forest biomass probably exceeds a factor of 4 or 5!
This happened inspite of population growth, industrialization, logging, etc. — and has, apparently escaped the notice of the environmentalists who still assume a progressive deforestation.
More anecdotal observations on “deforestation”:
There are many late 19th century photographs of Colorado mining towns (Boulder, Cripple Creek, Victor, etc.) that show barren hillsides surrounding the towns. Today, these hills are heavily forested. (I had always assumed that the trees had been cut down to build the town and mines but, after seeing the S. Dakota photographs, I have begun to wonder if there might be another explanation.)
On the East Coast, my daughter and son-in-law drove my wife and me to Walden’s Pond (from Boston). The ~ 1 hour drive was through continuous forest. At the Pond, I read that Thoreau chose Walden because it was the only forested area around.
At Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park in Georga, Confederate troops placed cannons along the ridge-top of the mountain to cover the valley 800 feet below and attempt to deny Sherman’s army passage. The cannon emplacements are still there, but their field of view is about 50 yards. If you were to cut down several acres of the 75 foot high trees in front of each cannon emplacement, all you would be able to see would be the tops of the 100 foot high trees filling the valley below. Drawings of the battlefield done at the time (in the museum) show no trees on Kennesaw Mt.
10
BobC, I think the Tree Folks get worked up when they see maps like this:
http://mvh.sr.unh.edu/mvhinvestigations/images/oldgrowthforests.png
http://mvh.sr.unh.edu/mvhinvestigations/old_growth_forests.htm
The casual apartment dweller would come to believe that after 1990 there were NO forests left. Of course the living forest is not just “Old Growth” but the anti-logging types make much noise about old growth being somehow much better. Of course that flies in the face of logic since old growth had to start somewhere. At any rate, obviously there is no de-forestation going on at any great degree in USA and probably all of North America.
To add to your historical photographic evidence: Another historical fact that is lost to many, is that, besides fearing raiding parties from competing tribes and natural cold, native peoples had a healthy fear of forest/brush fire. Many tribes burned off and otherwise “dominated” the forest to prevent deadly fires. That may account for the early photos having less trees.
10
So — “Old growth forests” might simply be forests that people have burned off regularly for thousands of years. That would be ironic. (Save the world! Burn a forest! Let’s hope it doesn’t catch on.)
The focus on “Old Growth” forests is obviously to make the situation seem dire. The assumptions are clear in some of the questions at the linked site:
Good question: It should be logically impossible (according to their definitions) for an “Old Growth” forest to expand in less than 200 years. Before that, the new part wouldn’t be “old growth”.
10
Bob, recently a local golf course plan was refused permits partly on the basis that a 100 year old maple forest was “old growth”. Never mind that virtually the entire area was logged white pine about 120 years ago.
The moment a normal event is pronounced “dire” is exactly when you can be sure that politics has intervened upon science or common sense. This I can prove over and over again!
10
A bit late for this thread but I just found an interesting article on a review of “impartiality in reporting on the BBC”.
They have been accused of bias in reporting, particularly on climate change & were reviewing but STOPPED! The article suggests they stopped because they would not have liked the outcome. Any body surprised?
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=319
10
[…] This post gives very important info […]…
[…] This post was mentioned on twitter […]…
10
Ah soooo good to see a website created for the intellectually handicapped and the morally bankrupt.
At least by posting on here you cretins are keeping out of the spotlight and letting the grownups get on and deal with the issue.
Oh and by the way the earth has been proven to be round and not FLAT LOL LOL LOL LOL
Now off you go to your finger painting classes.
[Damo, what a brilliant discourse you have made here. Why would I believe you are less handicapped and not a morally bankrupt cretin?] ED
10