The Government says it wants a “climate expert” to sell the message to the public, and who do they pick? A small mammal expert whose predictions on the climate are so wrong any normal person would slink off in shame. But not Flannery, the Teflon prophet, reality doesn’t stick to him. How can it be that the outrageously wrong get away with it with reputations intact (and get rewarded too)? Blame the mainstream media. Blame also a government that thinks it’s a good use of public money to promote known failures.
Flannery will be paid $180,000 a year to be part-time chairman of the Gillard Government’s Climate Commission, to convince us to agree to her plans to “put a price on carbon”. In other words, he’s not an expert in climate science but in science-PR. Bolt describes how Flannery changes his PR tune to suit his employers. The man has no scruples.
He claims the “committee is independent”. But we all know that they will come to no other conclusion that to support a tax, call carbon “pollution”, and rave about all the evidence (that they can’t name specifically). That $5.6 million dollar committee is just a thinly disguised $5.6 million dollar advertising campaign.
Despite the reality of floods when he predicted droughts, of 3mm sea level rises when he predicted a meter a year, Flannery is not going to admit he was wrong, or that he helped waste taxpayer funds. Nor that his promotion of a culture of endless drought may have influenced the managers of a certain dam to store water even as deadly flood water collected around them. People blame skeptics already for hypothetical deaths that may come, but bad science is already killing people.
What’s the point of this committee?
It’s sure isn’t science: the “new climate change commission which has been set up to build community support for a carbon price”. The committee is nakedly about promotion of a government agenda. They didn’t even bother to hide it.
“We don’t take advice from the Minister. Our role, really, is just to get a little bit more clarity and understanding in the public around these big issues.
“We’re going to have make a decision around this and everyone will be better served by getting a better understanding around the science.”
A “decision”? Not about “to tax or not to tax” but about “to do a town hall speech” or to do another “televised prime time advert” in the form of a press conference.
When the outcome of a committee is a preconceived conclusion, the point of it is clearly propaganda.
–Jo
PS: Henry Ergas does a good job making sense of the Garnaut report.
Polling du jour
From Bob Carter.
Folks,
An important poll is being run by The Age in Melbourne, asking whether people are for or against a carbon tax. Amazingly (given that it’s The Age) the current result is running 56% to the “Noes”.
The PM, Julia Gillard and her carbon-dioxide-obsessed government, will be watching the result, especially given yesterday’s announcement of a new Climate Commission, headed by Tim Flannery and with a budget of $4.5 million over the net 3 years to help “convince the public of the science of climate change”. See: The Australian
Voting is at, The Age
Bob
Professor Robert (Bob) M. Carter
Poll results: 89% of 1824 people say NO.
…
From reader Bruce:
The companion poll over at the Oz looks like this so far:
Is Tim Flannery the right person to be Australia’s climate commissioner?
Yes 15.26% (375 votes)
No 84.74% (2085 votes)
Mr Combet, we don’t like being fed propaganda or to be taken as fools.
…
ADDENDUM — Where are the bandwagons of skeptics?
Flannery on Lateline fills in the not-so-detailed-details and tells of bands of skeptics touring the country to mislead people.
TONY JONES: Ross Garnaut has been accused by prominent sceptics of politicising the Queensland disasters, and in the past these sceptics, some of them, have actually been travelling in kind of bandwagons around the Australian countryside convincing people that climate science is fraudulent.
Will you be doing the opposite? Will you be travelling in a bandwagon to the same locations trying to convince people that those sceptics got it wrong?TIM FLANNERY: We’re definitely going to be doing – visiting regions and we are going to be engaging with people. I don’t think we’re going to be out there trying to convince people point blank that we’re right.
I think we’ve got a lot of listening to do as well, try to work out where people are at and just try to explain the basics of climate science. The waters have become so muddied, in part, as you’ve said, because of these bandwagons of people really trying to mislead people as to what mainstream science is saying. And we’ve got a big job there.
Running at 72% No now with 478 votes.
10
Only 526 votes (74% NO) as of 1340 (SA time) 11/2/2011 and the poll closes in 4 hours.
Extract the digit, guys and gals.
10
I just voted. The result is now 74% NO from about 530 votes.
10
As I write that Age poll is running at 79% NO to 21% YES, let’s hope it gives those hopeless fools a scare.
10
The companion poll over at the Oz looks like this so far:
Mr Combet, we don’t like being fed propaganda or to be taken as fools.
10
“independent” in this case means “detached from reality”.
Nice job if your soul is cheap enough.
10
What more proof would anyone need, to show that we are truly run by idiots who, to protect themselves have to appoint idiots to advise them.
More bumbling incompetence from a Labor govt
10
I’ve added quite a bit to the post since I first put it up… thanks to Bruce for letting us know about the other poll too.
10
Now at 83% NO from 900 votes. That’s roughly 96% NO of the new vote since I first posted. Expect a swing back folks. The Greens must be having a long lunch!
10
The Age made the mistake of making the poll a simple “yes/no” answer. They could have gone for…
a. “Yes – because you want to save the planet from evil gassy humans”, “No – because you hate polar bears and love fresh kittens for breakfast”.
b. “Yes”, “No – I want a carbon tax instead of a climate tax”.
or
c. “Yes”, “No – I would rather have 100% death duties instead”.
10
we need an ad on TV, tho probably no channel would agree to air one –
tim and julia –
there is no scientific consensus,
there will be no tax consensus,
leave carbon dioxide alone.
10
This is absolutely sickening! At a time when every spare dollar is needed to rebuild homes and infrastructure damaged in recent events and facing imposition of a flood levy and then one of the most useless but costly taxes in our history, the “crying poor” Gillard Government is throwing another $4.5 million away presided over by the hapless and hopeless Tim Flannery.
With consumers struggling to keep up with power prices already inflated by inclusion of costs of so-called ‘energy greening’, this carbon tax will force more households into poverty as prices inevitably rise across the board. Worse, it will have no measurable effect in achieving its’ stated objective of ‘stopping’ climate change.
The real tragedy is that whilst billions of underprivileged people in the world lack clean drinking water, proper sanitation, health care or education, billions of $’s have been wasted by the UN and compliant governments over the last 20 years on promoting and perpetuating what history may well prove to be arguably the greatest scientific fraud ever perpetrated.
After all that wastage of money and resources, apart from hinting at such an option, not even one of the most rabid activist scientists or environmentalists is able or willing to name or claim a single climate event caused by CAGW.
Can we make Flannery’s appointment the catalyst to help stop all this nonsense once and for all? Exchanging and arguing points of view on blogs all over the world is all very well but we seem powerless against the powerful, well-funded and resourced propoganda machines brainwashing a gullible public. I still believe there is a vast silent majority out there waiting for leadership and ready to be mobilised, but by the time the worst of the Labor/Green damage to the industry and economy becomes obvious it will be far too late!
How best to organise? I will do what I can but age has limited me somewhat. Ideas please.
10
But will they take any notice of mere plebs?
10
Allow me to summarize:
Assume that the evidence falls against AGW, at least assume that it is a contentious issue.
– There are no UK politicians prepared to say that AGW is woftam.
– There are no (Fielding aside) Australian politicians prepared to say that AGW is woftam.
– There are very few US politicians prepared to say that AGW is woftam.
The reason that politicians are reticient to support the truth is because of the media onslaught that would ensue. Most politicians accept the word of their media advisors and the media advisors tell them that an anti-AGW stance is the equivalent to being hung, drawn and quartered by the MSM. Media advisors are typically ex MSM employees.
The overwhelming majority of the MSM are very pro-AGW, methinks politicians believe that this represents public opinion.
This would seem to be the Hitleresque problem of coming to believe your own propganda.
In light of the evidence, will the MSM perform a backflip? Most unlikely. Which means that politicians are unlikely to change their public position. Which in turn means that carbon dioxide taxes are highly probable.
10
Yes it is government advertising. It is independent – by that I mean at arms length from the minister so he can cut off the gangrenous mess when it starts to look like festering. Flannery and his merry band of prophets will be thrown under the bus when they no longer serve a purpose. Flannery already is struggling not to be laughed at – the Australian of the year days are going to seem like a long distant memory by the time this is through. Who is going to be the first journalist that asks him about his predictions of Brisbane drying out? That rains would never fill the dams again?
And like all government advertising, it will be ignored by the people it is intended for, while a small clique of public servants who commissioned it will stand around congratulating themselves via powerpoint.
The waste machine rolls on, sucking up real jobs and replacing them with lobbyists, hangers-on, rent seekers, do-gooders and meddlers.
10
It will be interesting to see if the “tame MSM” comment much on these polls given the way the votes have gone. You’ll probably get something along the lines of ” we can’t take much notice of them because of the small number voting” ( but if it had gone the other way you can sure they would have been important results)
10
From the linked ‘Australian’ article
Hey Greg, you don’t need to form a committee. We’ve all got access to the internet, and it’s got plenty of information about climate change. International developments : we all saw Copenhagen and Cancun descend into farce. We can read any international site, right now, as soon as they are updated.
They truly do take Joe Public for idiots. Underestimating your voters is the first step to irrelevance. I bet they wish the internet filter was operational right now. It must be hell trying to spread propaganda when you don’t control the information. Maybe Greg can ring up Mubarak and they can commiserate together.
10
Gee & I thought those pretty blue “Aren’t We Good” signs which the Federal Government started putting on BER projects & sewage pump wells were bad enough.
However they may become historical collectors items in a couple of decades though(like Joh for PM T shirts)
10
I just voted no for Flannery as the rep but I am having misgivings… as I think about it he has made so many outrageous claims in the past that he will be easy to undermine. So for skeptics perhaps he is Labor’s best PR frontman as he is easy to discredit. It’s like Pachauri staying at the helm of the IPCC or Mubarak clinging to power in Egypt… all doomed to fail.
10
It’s now 87% NO from 1345 votes. That’s still 95% NO of the new vote. Either the Greens are unaware of the poll or are boycotting it. In any case, what it does show is that, excluding the Greens (perhaps 15% of the population), no-one else wants a tax on climate.
10
Below is a response I received from Greg Combet’s Office about my concerns regarding the Cancun Conference.
(Apologies for the length)
TAKE SPECIAL NOTE ABOUT THE “GREEN CLIMATE FUND” !!!!!!!
MORE WASTE OF AUSTRALIANS HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS BASED ON FRAUD!!!!!!!!!
==============================
Dear ———-,
Thank you for your email of 17 December 2100 to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, the Hom Greg Combet AM MP, concerning the Green Climate Fund.
The Minister has asked that I respond on his behalf.
The December 2010 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference in Cancun (COP 16) resulted in a balanced package of decisions, of whichthe decision to establish the Green Climate Fund was an important part. These decisions (the Cancun Agreements) covered the key elements of climate change, including mitigation action and transparency measures by developed and developing countries, and progress on finance, markets, clean technology, forests and adaption.
The Cancun Agreements set a global goal to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2 degrees Celsius. They anchor the pledges of developed and developing countries to reduce or limit the growth in their greenhouse gas emissions. And they also established a process to better understand these pledges and begin to build a more durable mitigation architecture.
The Cancun Agreements build on the work of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference held in December 2009 and bring key elements of the Copenhagen Accord into the negoriations under the UNFCCC. This includes the commitment made in Copenhagen to mobilise joint international climate change finance of US$100 billion per annum by 2020, in the context of meaningful and transparent mitigation action by developing countries. Achieving this scale of finance is critical to laying the foundation to help drive the strong mitigation action needed to meet the goal of limiting the global average temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius or below. It is also important for providing assistance to those countries most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
In Cancun, Minister Combet was invited by the President of COP 16 to chair the hight level negotiations on climate change finance, along with his Ministerial counterpart from Bangladesh. One of the main outcomes of these negotiations was agreement to establish the new Green Climate Fund. No country expressed specific objectives to the establishment of the Green Climate Fund. Indeed, countries saw it as a crucial element of the overall package of decisions agreed at COP 16. With 193 of 194 countries supporting the package of decisions taht included establishment of the Green Climate Fund, and only one country (Bolivia) raising concerns, the package was adopted by COP 16 and will serve the basis for future work.
At COP 16, Australia worked actively with other countries to agree on the process for the design of the new fund. This will occur during 2011, through the creation of a Transnational Committee. The Transnational Commitee will have 40 members, with 15 members from developed countries and 25 members from developing countries. It will meet for the first time in March 2011.
As you note in your email, the decision that contains these outcomes of COP 16 can be found at:-
http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_16/application/pdf/cop16_lca.pdf
Thank you for raising these issues with the minister.
Gregory Andrews,
Assistant Secretary,
Finance, Markets and Forests Branch
7 February 2011
==========================================
10
“The Government says it wants a “climate expert””
Andy Pitman: “Flannery is not a climate expert.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/no-need-to-go-gaga-over-gaia/story-e6frg6zo-1225983237159
Case closed.
10
You all underestimate how much Flannery will have work as commissioner for self-justification. These will be his duties. He will have to:-
* Find that his and his employer’s political correctness is correct.
* Repeat that the science is settled no matter what.
* Predict doomsday.
* Tell us that taxing us will save us.
* Explain why we must be financially punished while he is financially rewarded.
* Never change his mind.
* Ignore the sceptics and their arguments.
* Ignore public opinion and tell them what they want (they don’t know).
* Ignore contrary facts.
* Ignore his own failed predictions.
* Assume superiority.
* Call the sceptics names.
* Worship the sign of the Hockey Stick.
10
Maybe people are starting to read more…???
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html
“Some climate alarmists would have us believe that these storms are yet another baleful consequence of man-made CO2 emissions. In addition to the latest weather events, they also point to recent cyclones in Burma, last winter’s fatal chills in Nepal and Bangladesh, December’s blizzards in Britain, and every other drought, typhoon and unseasonable heat wave around the world.
But is it true? To answer that question, you need to understand whether recent weather trends are extreme by historical standards. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present.
As it happens, the project’s initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. “In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years,” atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871.”
In the Wall Street Journal… amazing…
Maybe people are beginning to realize that the basis of the extreme weather claims is a bit weak…
The studies referenced can be found on line.
10
This is a re-post, I posted it as Off Topic at the previous thread, however it is right on topic here.
Greg Combet on Newcastle radio, at approx 7.20am eastern summer time stated on 2hd Newcastle, “the climate committee is totally Independent from the Government and the likes of Tim Flim-Flam Flannery would not be pushed around by politicians such as himself, that the committee was made up completely of climate experts giving Australia the best outcome on climate policy.
My heart soared, I felt joy surge through my body, then a flock of pigs flying over crapped all over my car and I returned to reality, where we all know he doesn’t have to put pressure on the committee as their all converts already.
10
Bruce @ 5 posted:
At 5.30 I voted and the results show up as
While the percentages haven’t changed a great deal, where have all the other votes gone.
10
This sounds remarkably like the “independent” Climate Change Committee in the UK http://www.theccc.org.uk/. It’s stuffed full of warmistas. Its remit is:
10
I’m afraid the Govt and the Climate Change Commission with Flannery as the Commissioner have turned into a propoganda organisation
I’ve lived in a Communistic country and quite frankly the current media with a few exceptions are a propoganda machine
What hope do the populace have fed with the AGW propoganda through the ABC (publicly funded) and other stations
It’s a bit sad when the publically funded broadcaster in a democratic country simply follows the Govt line (or is it a matter of group think)
and where’s journalistic ethics (particularly investigative) end up in all this
At the foot of the dungheap – sad isn’t it
10
Bob M #25
I copy pasted off the webpage at the time I posted, but yes its 123 yesses to 673 noes now. Percentages are about the same.
I dream of the day when someone gets Newspoll to ask a real question like these ones, rather than the usual wimpy ‘do you believe climate change is happening’? Our pollies might get a shock.
10
Is it Pravda re-incarnated?
10
incoherent rambler @14.
I fear you may be right. See how the sharks circled Tony Abbott after slimeball Riley tripped the booby trap. The gallery were out sniffing blood. Pity it wasn’t from Riley’s nose.
I do note that Senator Inhofe and others are moving to have NASA concentrate on space programs leaving the climate to the several other agencies such as NISDC, NOAA and UAH. They want the $billion per year that Hansen wastes redirected to space research so they can keep up with the Chinese, Indians and Russians. Unlike NASA the other agencies seem to respect science and the scientific method. Should Hansen go Gavin would go too and RealClimate would cease to exist. What a bonus.
So while we can look to the US with some hope we will have to put up with the jerks in Canberra who appear to be living in a different country than the rest of us. Cloud cuckoo land perhaps.
10
The dopes cant even use honest terminology
The persistent need to call it “climate change is about as dishonest as one can get.
What they really mean is a probable increase in temperatures from a marginal increase in GHG’s like C02… hence its AGW…but that’s not good enough, so on the advice of one of the notoriously manipulative NGO’s they conspired to use the more inclusive and confusing term of Climate change…thereby conning the public
Take note that the frauds that pass themselves off as climate scientists in this country and elsewhere, and involved in the IPCC had also silently gone along with it …in exactly the same way these con artists also think that Al Gore is God like and his AIT the received wisdom.
What a bunch of frauds
10
Putting Flannery in charge of the Climate Commission is like putting a drunk in charge of the brewery. He’s just going to become even more intoxicated, and he’s going to be well paid for it. He will not produce anything sensible. How can the government claim the commission is independent and keep a straight face? It just shows how stupid the Government think the public are.
10
With Kommissar Flannery at the helm, the age of Lysenko rises once more.
10
Indeed so, and not only in this context. Christopher Hitchens identified that maxim, ignored by governments concerned only with their survival, as the root cause of the Egyptian revolution in progress.
10
Yes Jaymez..I totally agree
It makes my blood boil to see them trying these sorts of things on.
Obviously they think that tax payers and the electorate in general are a stupid bunch of morons there for them to manipulate.
Flannery has already been a party to states spending billions on de sal plants that with better planning and more dams etc ,were not required.
10
Latest poll results………..
Is Tim Flannery the right person to be Australia’s climate commissioner?
* Yes 15.01% (451 votes)
* No 84.99% (2553 votes)
Total votes: 3004
10
Latest poll results…….
Would you support a climate tax?
Yes 11%
No 89%
Total votes: 1822.
10
Maybe Prof. Flummery et al should ask the Brits.
http://www.building.co.uk/news/subsidy-review-puts-hundreds-of-solar-panel-projects-at-risk/5013002.article
Is the penny starting to drop there? Should note that you get one visit to this site before registration is required.
10
Percival Snodgrass @#38
If that’s the view of the Marxist Age readership, Flop Flannery sure has his work cut out!
10
Notice the editor of The Australian gives Flannery’s selection a serve:
But What Exactly Will He do?
The Australian
February 11, 2011 12:00AM
THE climate commissioner has got it wrong in the past
TIM Flannery is an accomplished communicator and not a bad bloke, but he would not have been our choice for climate commissioner, a three-day-a-week job for which he will be paid $180,000 a year. Professor Flannery, a mammalogist and a paleontologist, is no expert on global warming and has made a hash of the subject in the past, even speaking of sea-level rises of 80m by 2100. That’s 160 times the maximum figure predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 2007, the Australian of the Year famously argued that in Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies were so low they urgently needed desalination plants, possibly within 18 months. Australians, he said, needed to stop worrying about drought and start talking about the “new climate”. Somehow, we don’t think he had this year’s floods in mind. Given this tendency to hyperbole, it is good to see experts and economists among others on his panel and to know they will be backed by specialist scientific advisers. Enough expertise then, but to what purpose? No doubt it placates the green lobby, smarting from Labor’s decision to chop such green schemes as “cash for clunkers”. But do we really need Professor Flannery to explain climate change? If he wants to be useful, he should urge the government to start selling uranium to India, pronto.
The Ed has it right on Flannery but the “experts” also seem about as relevant to climate change and how to deal with it it economically as Tim is. In other words potentially another typical Gillard stuff up is now underway.
I was under the impression that lawyers were trained to think rationally. Gillard is proving that was a figment of my imagination. It was suggested to me, by one familiar with them, today that all they need is a handful of well practiced stock arguments (to bring a smile to a judge’s face) and beyond that their rational faculties are generally below par.
10
This is excellent news! The Flannel will not be able to help himself. He has the taste for celebrity and won’t be able to control his stupid for as long as his ego receives validation. I’ve never seen him being seriously grilled by a journalist, ever. Hopefully this new position will expose him to a bit more scrutiny.
ABOT: I’ve been doing alot of experimentation on The Drum about what posts make it through moderation and what don’t. It would seem that arguments that use generalisations will get through. While, arguments that use specific data with references don’t get through moderation. It also appears that any posts detailing the benefits of nuclear power get canned, particularly when new technology is described in detail. Just a thought on strategy and tactics with our public
propaganda machinebroadcaster, should anyone choose to submit for Unleashed…10
Re “Ken Stewart:
February 11th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
But will they take any notice of mere plebs?”
Seems to be some sudden notice in Middle Eastern circles?
10
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/do-you-want-a-carbon-tax-poll-on-today-at-the-age/ […]
10
There was a 30 minute programme on BBC Radio 4 last night looking at the aspect of “Selling” Climate Change to the public. It’s on iPlayer for another 6 days, if you can access it. Failing that I made an mp3 recording which I could upload somewhere if anyone wants to hear it.
Programme details here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y92mn
And there’s a link to iPlayer at “Listen Now”
They said right from the start that the programme is not about which side is correct, but it looks at the way people are quickly tiring of having the “Global Warming” message rammed down our throats, and how it can be communicated differently. In other words they are getting desperate….
10
This might be O/T for this post but not O/T for the topic climate change.
It is about the paper by Trenberth and Fasullo on the missing heat in the earth budget.I would like to know If I am reading it correctly.I post a summary.
http://www2.ucar.edu/news/2013/missing-heat-may-affect-future-climate-change
Are they saying that if this heat can’t be found CC might not be happening.?
And when they say.
It is critical to track the build-up of energy in our climate system so we can understand what is happening and predict our future climate.”
That if we can’t track the build up we will never know if what we are doing to fix CC is working.
Has this paper been covered in any detail here in the past.
Is this very important or am I reading something into this that is not there.
This seems to line up with his email saying they could not find the warming and it was a travesty we can’t which he says he was taken out of context.
10
And even our esteemed ABS gets in on the act–
As the WSJ reported-
which makes you wonder why our illustrious ABS hasn’t also canvassed the attitudes of CWA members to ascertain their relevant views on the effects of climate extremism on pumpkin scones.
This insidious global gruesome greasome is everywhere like cancer.
10
And don’t forget to write in with those delicious pumpkin scone recipes to dear Karen folks-
10
The appointment of Tim Flannery to chair the Climate Commission makes a mockery of the Gillard government. It is as big a joke as Rudd’s Australia 2020 Summit and his 1000 attendees.
I often ask myself how it is that Rudd’s Labor government and Gillard’s Labor government have been so incompetent, delivering relatively little except spin spin spin. Well, I think it is obvious now. Utter stupidity. Just for once, you would have thought that Gillard would have been smart and appointed a real climate expert to head the Commission. But no… just as our once prestigious scientific agency CSIRO is now headed by a banker, not a scientist, we now have Flannery … some would say a wanker who is not a climate scientist, to chair the Climate Commission.
10
Govt spends $5.6 million to have a bunch o’ nuts to tell us what the Gov’t has already told us? Brilliant! And they need to do this, why?
Oh that’s right. Because they changed their minds about a carbon tax (“Not in my term as PM”) and then changed their minds again (“We must have one”).
Remember when Rudd spent $30 million advertising his hospital reforms; now Jool-i-yar has scrapped that. How many ICU beds would that have fitted out?
What next? An $10 million ad campaign to “sell” the flood levy concept?
Enough, I say! Orf with their heads! A pox on all yer guvmnt advertizing!
10
Waffle, do cut and paste all the comments that make it and don’t make it on the ABC site. Yes please, send them here! The ABC rejects page would make a good post – and if youre right, we can put the comments up side by side, ABC “ticks” versus ABC “banned”.
10
Now, now Mervyn. No sulking just because we can’t all be a well stuffed part of Gillard’s promised ‘citizens assembly’ on climate change 🙁
10
rukidding: @46
RE: The abstract you linked at:
http://www2.ucar.edu/news/2013/missing-heat-may-affect-future-climate-change
(I should start checking the UCAR Newsletter more often.)
I have to agree with you — they can’t find the heat buildup that the AGW theory requires, and if it doesn’t exist, then AGW is falsified. However, I don’t like to allow the dodge of calling it “Climate Change” (CC), since that is an attempt to define anything that happens as caused by human emissions of CO2. (Might as well blame industry for the diurnal cycle.)
This comment is rather telling:
These guys don’t use data to come up with theories. For them, the theory takes precedence and is not to be questioned — data is selected to support the theory (the “Capital Mistake“, according to Sherlock Holmes).
Had the Argos float system shown the upper mile of the oceans to be warming, you can bet they would be loudly proclaiming that the “missing” heat had been found. That, after all, was the purpose of the Argos system.
Since the Argos data shows that the upper mile of the oceans are cooling, then this system is “inadequate to track this “missing” heat. And exactly how the heat “may be building up in the deep oceans” without first going through the shallow oceans is a real puzzler — but it must be so, since we can’t question the theory. Anyone who understands the scientific method can see that selecting (or “adjusting”) data to support an approved theory is simply a method of deluding oneself.
Scientists with a better grasp of how science should be done have a different perspective. Here is a summary of Roger Piekle’s and other scientists’ analysis of what the observationally determined fact that there is no heat being stored by the climate system means.
10
Jo, my last censored post was in Wise words from Ross Garnaut on 10/02/2011:
This post is largely in response to all those cries of “not one peer reviewed paper…” by BLZBob(09 Feb 2011 5:17:56pm) in I love a sunburnt sceptic
This was my response:
My response was in the early evening on the 9th so, you can clearly see the censorship. The ABC are letting emotive sceptics make comments but, anytime you push some serious science in their face, like you have a clue, you get censored. It’s a fairly standard strategy of making the opposing side look like a bunch of ignorant idiots while, the warmistas get to link to any publications they want to enhance their claims.
Thanks for the indulgence Jo. And, yes. I’m now creating an archive of my comments and will be mounting a serious campaign against the ABC. I’m not going to tolerate this type of fascism in my country.
10
Just looking at the follow up, it’s interesting to see JDM get some links in. Perhaps, he/she is a regular poster at The Drum. Though perhaps this well crafted caveat was the reason:
10
Meanwhile, Obama’s science adviser, James Holdren, says that the problem with AGW is that the skeptics need to be “educated.” Maybe he means, “re-educated.” Sheesh.
http://thetruthpeddler.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/obamas-top-science-advisor-calls-global-warming-skeptics-an-education-problem-unbelievable/
10
The poll results in The Australian and the normally “centre left” SMH and The Age are heartening. However, as I predicted a Carbon Tax at this time still seems inevitable with the announcement a carbon tax of some sort will be introduced in 2012 with a full Emissions Trading System (Cap & Trade) from 2015. Below is story in today’s Australian. Everything we are seeing now is predictable. Garnaut, Flannery and his “committee” have obviously been enlisted (paid) by the government to try to swing public opinion back in support of Carbon Taxes.
Now is the greatest time of challenge for Australian AGW sceptics to help to resist this tide of government”advertising” in support of Carbon and AGW! Hopfully the public see through this but we also need a coherent and unified government opposition (Abbott). Unfortunatly they seem self absorbed in their own internal squabbles 🙁
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/labor-to-impose-carbon-tax-next-year-ets-in-2015/story-e6frg6xf-1226004719022
10
Obviously Flannery, Garnaut, etc are extremely well paid. Thus, no matter how high they propose a carbon levy they will always be in a position to pay their electricity bills. Probably they will not even look at them but expect their staff to pay the bill not even knowing what it is. They will continue to use electricity at a great amount. The ordinary person will be condemned to use less A/C, lighting, entertainment and so on. If these ‘watermelons’ were genuine they would be like true comrades in arms and use only the amount of electricity rationed to the populace. But they regard themselves as too important and above the crowd which they pretend to have its interests at heart. How many times has this occurred in history? Far too many times.
10
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Schultz, Joanne Nova. Joanne Nova said: Flannery's “Climate committee” is a government advertising scheme by any other name. http://tinyurl.com/4r72uhy […]
10
Flannery is a zoologist from a museum who knows nothing about planetary climates; Garnaut is an economist who knows nothing about the agony of poor people having to pay huge amounts more for essestial electricity. I suppose they are the kind of people whom governments can’t help but choose, since those who do know about these things are not supporters of AGW. We are assumed to be morons with an ability to live on whatever kind of pigswill their spin doctors send us.
10
Anyone on the ‘climate committee’ who believes that a carbon tax is necessary to save the world.
Should waive their salary for serving on the committee, this will prove their point that sacrifice is necessary, and that they are prepared to lead by example.
Committee members that don’t believe a tax is necessary can keep their salary because they don’t believe any sacrifice is necessary.
10
Waffle, Jo:
I too have had problems making it onto the drum unleashed. my latest attempt was to the following on the Wise Words from Ross Garnaut thread.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/43878.html
My response was as follows, the only modification I made was to change it from first person to third person.
http://www.climatedepot.com/r/9081/Climate-Con-Exposed-Real-Estate-Prices-In-Tuvalu-Unaffected-By-Impending-Sea-Level-Rise-Armageddon
I don’t claim too know a great deal about the science, I however always try to quote accredited items for clarity, I’m starting to think it’s these traceable accredited articles that are not welcome at the ABC.
10
My comment (which probably won’t get posted) at The Australian in relation to this thread (linked before):
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/labor-to-impose-carbon-tax-next-year-ets-in-2015/story-e6frg6xf-1226004719022
In relation to Milne’s quote (in quotes below):
10
I’m with Mervyn @ 49. I cannot think of how Gillard could done this worse than she has from a political point of view. To announce a carbon price of some sort is going to be put in place in Australia on July 1 2012 , before this committee has met , putting the most high profile warmist s Chairman & not putting anyone with an opposing view on the committee.
I don’t get it , unless her crowd are the most arrogant and insular Govt. around.
Time for the Australians to learn from the Egyptians.
10
Lets hope when Tim goes out to visit the pockets of skeptisism he will start in India and China. He will then see where all the Australian jobs are going.
10
There is no link between tax and climate. A carbon tax will only increase tax.
10
Now were being compared to peadophiles.
From Real Climategate:
I ask am I also oversensative, or is this close to libel.
10
“Cookster” (57),
Don’t you love it how NO COMMENTS have been published on the story from the Australian that you linked to!
They probably received none which supported it!!
I certainly gave them a serve!!
10
Some interesting stories about this DESPICABLE, DECEITFUL and ANTIHUMAN website “realclimate”……..
Climate Science Corruption: Practiced And Perpetuated By Scientific Societies:-
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28741
Climatologist slams RealClimate.org for ‘erroneously communicating the reality of the how climate system is actually behaving’ – Rebuts Myths On Sea Level, Oceans and Arctic Ice:-
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3661
More Hypocrisy: RealClimate and Funding Issues — Geoffrey Allan Plauché:-
http://www.veritasnoctis.net/blog/2007/05/30/more-hypocrisy-realclimate-and-funding-issues/
10
The infiltration of CAGW propaganda is rife.
A global company I work for uses Media-watch services to send employees a daily summary of, supposedly relevant, news items. The lead chapter is from any radio or MSM pages that contains or uses the company name. No biggie here.
But subsequent chapters come under other banners; Environment and Energy are two classics. These (only) have links to the PRO CAGW MSM media reports, even letters to the editor from Jo Citizens. eg. I’ve never seen an editorial from Andrew BOLT’s column or even a commentary from Paul Murray (NB: I find him quite open minded on the Co2 issue).
An all this is from a mining company!!
Its no different to the reports we see that the education system is pumping our kids with the “fact” that CO2 is bad!.
There must be some money to be bad with a carbon tax – maybe the lobbying for credits and discounts is working? That means Jo Citizen is going to cop the final bill, just like credits for green power has.
10
BobC: @53
Thanks Bob for having a look at this and to confirm that I was not reading something into it that was not there.
I am a little disappointed that not more people here commented on it.
Either Jo has covered this at an earlier date or does not think it is important in the overall picture.
As this missing heat would appear to have the potential to stop global warming dead it its tracks I am surprised there is not more comment on the Trenberth and Fasullo paper.
10
Here comes Gillard’s great green tax – the one she promised we’d never get!!!
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/here_comes_gillard_great_green_tax_the_one_she_promised_wed_never_get/
IF THE COMMUNIST GILLARD GOVERNMENT INTRODUCES A TAX/LEVY WHATEVER YOU WISH TO NAME IT, ON CARBON DIOXIDE (THE BREATH OF LIFE) BASED ON THE FRAUD THAT IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR GLOBAL WARMING (ANOTHER FRAUD) THERE WILL BE A CIVIL WAR IN AUSTRALIA!!!!!
LET THEM TRY THIS BULLSHIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS!!
YOU CAN ONLY PUSH PEOPLE SO FAR BEFORE THEY RISE UP AND DESTROY YOU!!!!
I’m FUMING!!!!!!!!!!!
10
OT – OMG
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/02/greenland-play-dramatises-inept-responses-to-climate-change.php
10
Jo, I posted a comment on the ABC in reply to this comment
Ken :
10 Feb 2011 6:20:39am
So Hawkeye,all that research indicating anthropogenic influence on climate change is bull. I/m open to persuasion so could you and Andrew Bolte et al start providing links to the same number and quality of peer reviewed refutations of human induced climate change?? Please!!
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/02/08/3133130.htm
My comment:
List of 850 publications critical of the theory of AGW. Link below. Oh, and Moderator, dare you to let this through! We wouldn’t want to come away with the impression that the ABC are using their position to censor well supported contributions by non-believers, now would we? http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
10
The US Congress has fired the first cannon shot today that will, IMO, start a worldwide avalanche.
“House bill unveiled late Friday cuts EPA budget by $3 billion, blocks funding for all current and pending EPA climate regulations for stationary CO2 sources.”
If all agencies are defunded, then they cannot promote, oversee or enforce their totalitarian regulations.
10
rudd allocated $30 MILLION DOLLARS of hard earned Australian Taxpayers funds to BRAINWASH Australians about this global warming FRAUD!
Rudd spends $30 million to tell more warming lies……….
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/rudd_spends_30_million_to_tell_more_lies/asc/P60/
Is it any wonder we are being bombarded with so many LIES about the weather!
10
Bubbagro @ 75.
Thats great news. What is the EPA’s total budget ??
10
the govt needs to be told to stop wasting taxpayers’ money on CAGW and instead attend to far more serious matters:
12 Feb: Australian: Hedley Thomas: Dam warnings fobbed off by ‘experts’
Morgan, the solicitor, adds: “People here are very angry at the authorities because of the operation of the dam. At first, I think, many were too traumatised to do much about it. We decided to keep our heads down. Now we are frightened that there will be a whitewash and nothing will change.
“What we want most is prevention so that something we know was avoidable does not happen again. We were watching the weather, we could see what was happening for weeks. We knew this was coming and that’s what makes it so galling: that because we’re not hydrologists and engineers and we’re not in the flood operations centre in the city, we don’t get heard.”…
The river’s immense torrent as a result of an unprecedented release at the dam of about 7500 cubic metres a second on the evening of Tuesday, January 11 swept away large mature trees, and fencing, and flooded wide plains above the river. Bernitt knows that a natural river flood with its gentler fall from a peak would not do the damage that his 230ha property and dozens of others suffered. The ground and thousands of tonnes fell away in massive pieces.
This is a phenomenon, he says, that occurs when the peak falls suddenly, as happened after SEQWater quickly decreased flows from the peak of rate of 7500 cubic metres a second…
Brad Zanow and his brother Darren are particularly angry because they say their written and oral pleas to SEQWater in the months and weeks before the flood were brushed off by management. At a meeting in SEQWater’s Wivenhoe boardroom in December, Brad and Darren and other townsfolk, openly concerned about the coming intense La Nina-enhanced wet season and alert to the severe weather risks being broadcast by the bureau, said they urged a much more conservative handling of the dam.
They lobbied for the full supply level to be lowered.
“But they weren’t interested because their ‘model’ didn’t allow it,” says Brad Zanow.
“Then when all the rain was still coming over the weekend [of January 8-9] we said ‘surely they have to let water out now, give themselves some room for more rain’. Instead, they held it. They tried to manage it and then they ran right out of capacity.
“There was a huge amount of rain coming, it was forecast. I’m no expert but this is common sense, not hydrology.”
Darren adds: “I think they gambled they could contain the water and they lost. But everyone else wears the cost.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/dam-warnings-fobbed-off-by-experts/story-e6frg6z6-1226004673314
obviously the following will continue to happen unless the East Creek pipe situation is remedied:
7 Feb: Courier Mail: Jodie Munro O’Brien and Robyn Ironside: Flash-flooding hits Toowoomba as southeast set for relief from humidity
Police have had reports of water over the roads in Toowoomba, in particular around the East Creek vicinity.
There are also reports of Bridge and Tor streets in Toowoomba’s west being under 1m of water as is James and Kitchener streets where a mother and son drowned last month..
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/days-of-humidity-finally-set-to-end-for-southeast-queenslanders/story-e6freon6-1226001030811
10
Percival S. @72
Now you know why the Govt. took all your guns! An unarmed society is a society of
slaves…er subjects.10
Why on earth does the government still continue to heap accolades, money, position and power to discredited Political-Paleantolgist,Tim Flannery? (He must have some compomising photos of a VIP in his posession.)
10
bubbagyro @75,
This is a good warning shot at the EPA’s regulators turned political behind kissers. But it can’t get through the Senate much less escape a veto by Obama.
The real test comes when appropriations bills come up and the House pulls the plug in what it’s willing to pass. If they stick to their guns there’ll be a bitter fight but also a golden opportunity to get concessions from Obama and the Democrats.
Beyond that, the next budget cycle will be an even more bitter fight for control of the purse strings.
So far it’s symbolic, just showing the voters that they intend to keep their campaign promises. I wonder if that’s helpful. Better to plan carefully ahead and put the political muscle where it really has a chance to get the job done.
I would not want to be Speaker of the House of Representatives right now.
10
More likely because it is quite a ways off topic on this mostly political thread (which, understandably, has got the Aussies inflamed).
The political class and the Greens are seeing their chance for total power slip away, due to losing the scientific argument (thanks to blogs like Jo’s), and are doing a “full court press” attempt to get the taxes and laws passed before it’s too late.
What is needed now, is a “citizens’ revolt” Western Style (e.g., Vote the SOBs out). This is happening in the US: A bill was just introduced into the (just elected) House of Representatives to defund the EPA’s attempt to institute carbon taxes by regulatory fiat, and I expect to see, in the next few months, NASA’s CC funding stopped and other steps taken to prevent the “Green Coup”.
That said, the fact that the best measurements show that the “Warming in the Pipeline” claim is bogus allows us to show that the 0.7 deg warming over the last century (even accepting the “adjusted” values) is the expected and total warming from the measured increase of CO2, including all feedbacks known and unknown. (There is no even slightly rational pretext of claiming that there are “Feedbacks in the Pipeline”.)
I have a tendency to think of Climate Scientists as frauds — But if they didn’t actually believe in their models, they wouldn’t have supported the expensive and impressive Argos float system. They fully expected the data to support their hypothesis that heat was being stored in the ocean. Not only does the argos data not support that, it shows that the Earth is losing heat faster than it is gaining it – that there is “Cooling in the Pipeline”.
They have been “Hoist by their own petard“.
10
Roy:
This is part of the appropriations bill!
This is why we will see a very visible fight, with both sides playing high stakes “chicken”.
Will the Democrats decline the gambit or accept it?
Either way, King’s gambit is a win for white.
10
Perhaps they have just read “The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment”, written by the son/father team of Craig D. and Sherwood B. Idso, and want to pay us to produce CO2!
10
Millions of people holiday in warm climates (mild weather) to get away from cold extreme weather.
When they arrive at their destination they breathe a (CO2) sigh of relief, thankful that their warm destination will have the weather they seek – OOPS!
10
bubbagyro,
Yes, you’re right. I misunderstood what it is.
I think the fight will be very vicious as such things go. But if Republicans hold fast the administration must eventually cave in. The trick for Republicans is to not turn off the public support while doing it.
10
At least it is not just me. Anytime my list is brought up there, they allow misinformation to be stated about it and censor all my replies. This has been going on for over a year now at ABC (Australia).
10
“Can we make Flannery’s appointment the catalyst to help stop all this nonsense once and for all? Exchanging and arguing points of view on blogs all over the world is all very well but we seem powerless against the powerful, well-funded and resourced propoganda machines brainwashing a gullible public. I still believe there is a vast silent majority out there waiting for leadership and ready to be mobilised, but by the time the worst of the Labor/Green damage to the industry and economy becomes obvious it will be far too late!
How best to organise? Ideas please.”
Keith H
HERE ON EARTH IN PERTH
Why not join the fun on 3,4,5 March at the Perth Writers Festival?
Tim Flannery will be offering ‘provocative and visionary solutions’ at UWA.
For details, go to http://perthfestival.com.au/events/pwf/tim-flannery/
His book is described as: “required reading for politicians and corporate leaders.”
He is a speaker at:
TRUTH & FICTION Opening Event on Friday 4 March 7pm; &
SCIENCE IS THE NEW ART (with Annie Proulx) Sat 5 March 9.30am Octagon Theatre ($11.30).
Perhaps Flannery “science” is the “new art”?
Alice (in Warmerland)
10
Ru@71
Have finally finished following all the links both you and Bob have left (amazing how you can lose hours on this site).
What I find interesting is that despite increasing scientific evidence that the theory of AGW has been falsified (I was also reading Lindzen’s testimonial to the US Congress on WUWT), we have a Govt blindly going ahead. Now I know there’s a lot of cash in it for them, but you have to wonder how long they think they can keep this kind of evidence suppressed from the general public? Some of the media are weakening in their resolve to tow the party line and given that multiple polls seem to be suggesting a turning tide, in the very least people are not eager for a carbon tax, imagine how the general public will feel when (and it is a matter of when) they find out just how deceived they’ve been. Perhaps an even greater wake-up call than what came with Climategate? It could well relegate Labor to opposition for another decade! The problem is, IMO, that so much infrastructure has been set up around AGW, a carbon tax will add another layer of complexity also, it’s becoming difficult to dismantle, even as the evidence starts to pile up.
10
[…] also the response of two Australians: Joanne Nova and Andrew Bolt to Flannery’s […]
10
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/minister/greg-combet/2011/media-releases/february/mr20110210.aspx
This link is the full details of the governments new Climate Change Commision, the latest propoganda machine to convinve us all we need a new carbon tax to save the planet…
Apart from Flannery, who had a 14% public approval rating noted in a recent poll theres a few others of interest…
an interesting surpise…
“Mr Gerry Hueston is a prominent businessman who recently retired as President of BP Australasia, after a career with BP spanning 34 years in a variety of management and senior executive roles in New Zealand, Australia, Europe and the United Kingdom.
Mr Hueston’s other previous roles include Chairman of the Business Council Sustainable Growth Taskforce, Chairman and Board Member of the Australian Institute of Petroleum, Board Member
4
of the Business Council of Australia, and Member of the Chairman’s Panel of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation.
Mr Roger Beale
Mr Roger Beale is an economist and public policy expert, and currently the Executive Director of Economics and Policy at Pricewaterhouse Coopers. He is a former Secretary of the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and was a lead author for the UN’s Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report.
Mr Beale was made a Member of the Order of Australia in 1995 in recognition of his contribution to economic reform and was awarded the Centenary Medal for leadership of the environment portfolio in 2001. In 2006 he was promoted to Officer of the Order of Australia in recognition of his contribution to the development of national environment policy.
Professor Lesley Hughes
Professor Lesley Hughes is the Head of the Department of Biological Sciences at Macquarie University and an expert on the impacts of climate change on species and ecosystems. She is the Australian Representative on the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change, and Co-convenor of the Terrestrial Biodiversity Adaptation Research Network.
Professor Hughes was also a lead author for the UN’s IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, and a member of the Expert Advisory Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity for the Australian Greenhouse Office and the Department of Climate Change. Her research has been published extensively in peer-reviewed journals.”
So not only is there a direct connection to the big Oil Industry but mainstream Economics and the IPCC…
so the Commission is loaded iwth ‘yes’ people on the payroll..no other qualified scientists and definatley none who have been skeptical of the need for new taxes to manage CC…
So in short another 5 millionion bucks is being spent on aproopogand amachine to tax one of the essential elements of life on earth…ho hum
10
Thanks John Reeves
But what is just as interesting is the make up of the Science Advisory Panel.
All the usual extremists are there Karoly,Pitman, McMichael et al
I dont know why they dont just write their reports and take their money now, and leave us all alone.
What this mob is going to say is predictable from DAY 1, as will be the behaviour of the ABC, ..who no doubt in the interest of fairness and good “reporting” will give others equal time…..PIGS
At least it wont be long before Flummery and is advisors make some outlandish unsupported claims, and their credibility will be descend to being just a laughing stock.
Meanwhile in the USA one can hope that the Republicans do de -fund Hansen and his shonky outfit
10
[…] As Jo Nova notes, while it may be a good day for the Australian taxpayer, it is far too late now to recoup the billions which have already been wasted on the "expert" advice of Flannery and his alarmist chums David Karoly and Will Steffen. This agency propped up billions of dollars in pointless futile government spending trying to change the weather. Nothing will bring back money spent on desal plants that were mothballed when the floods came that real scientists predicted. Likewise the money burned on solar panels and windfarms is gone for good too, and still going. […]
10