This weekend, I’ve got another article in The Weekend Australian. It’s a credit to the Murdoch News team that they are willing to print both points of view. This point is one that resonates with many people — a consensus can be bought with monopolistic science funding. It explains why research could run off the rails. We paid to find a crisis.
…
—————————————————————————-
Climate change suspect must be given a fair trial
GOVERNMENTS across the world have paid billions to find links between carbon dioxide and the climate, but very little to find the opposite, and that’s a problem.
Teams of professionals have searched high and low for any possible hint that CO2 poses a threat, and that is all very well, but no one has been paid to find otherwise. CO2 has been convicted without a defence lawyer.
It is self-evident that any expert in a field will reap more rewards, fame and fortune if their field is critically important. Why would anyone expect such experts to go out of their way to hunt down evidence that might suggest their field ought not be the centre of a global economic transformation?
Would people with the right training choose to forgo Sunday golf in order to download Hadley radiosonde data and shoot holes in the national temperature record? Actually, they would and they have, but it’s taken years to build, and it’s a silly way to run the country.
When results come in that conflict with catastrophic model predictions, hordes of researchers scour every nook and cranny to find early warm biases, or recent cold biases, and they may legitimately find some. But no one is paid to hunt down the errors or biases leading the other way. The vacuum sucks.
Did anyone really expect that teams of volunteers without offices, budgets, access to data or PR writers would spontaneously arise and point out any flaws? Would people with the right training choose to forgo Sunday golf in order to download Hadley radiosonde data and shoot holes in the national temperature record? Actually, they would and they have, but it’s taken years to build, and it’s a silly way to run the country. This was always a loophole begging to be exploited.
We wouldn’t let a company issue a prospectus without being audited. But we’ll transform the national economy based on a report issued by a foreign committee that no one has been paid to criticise. There are no audits on the science from institutions like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA or the CSIRO. No due diligence study has been done. Hallowed peer review amounts to unpaid anonymous reviewers, often picked from a pool of people who agree.
Where is the Institute of Natural Climate Forces, or the International Bureau of Solar Science? Where are the researchers whose reputations and grants rise in value if they find holes in the theory of man-made global warming?
If, hypothetically, there are scientific gaps in the theory of man-made global warming, for the most part we are leaving it up to volunteers to find them. It’s as if the government has funded a team of QCs for the prosecution, but spent nothing on legal aid for the defence.
…
In law, if there is no defence, it’s a sham.
In business, if there is no competition, it’s a monopoly.
In science, if there is no debate, it’s propaganda.
…
Between 1989 and 2009, the US government paid over $30 billion towards “climate change”. And don’t be fooled by the meaning of “climate change”, which ought to encompass all the factors that change the climate. The inherent bias in the system is so strong that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change actually defines “climate change” as being “man-made”. I kid you not.
“Climate change” means a change of climate, which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
The IPCC was originally established to investigate things “relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change”. That was their mandate. They would have no reason to exist if there’s no disaster, and they were never going to announce that they studied it all and golly, but it’s all OK Chipper, and we’re headed home. Thanks for the funding!
What committee ever voted for its own extinction?
When the very term “climate change” means man-made, the mindset is biased. It’s a one-way road to an endless circle of confirmation bias.
When the very term “climate change” means man-made, the mindset is biased. It’s a one-way road to an endless circle of confirmation bias. The Orwellian overtones are extreme: How do you ask “what causes climate change?” and get any answer other than “man-made”?
Where are the programs to find out if man-made emissions didn’t cause global warming?
Exxon was a rare funder of climate skeptics but with a contribution of $23 million over a decade, it barely paid 1 part in 3500 of what the US government did.
When people ask “how can thousands of scientists be wrong?” they forget that a consensus on a highly complex, immature subject can be purchased, or unwittingly created. If a government spent $30bn to find better uses for carrots, there would be carrot appreciation societies, carrot conventions, 400 patents on carrot-based wing-nuts, tents, and textiles, and 4000 peer-reviewed references on worrying declines in carrot hue, nutrients, fertility and genetic diversity, not to mention gender inequality in dietary carrot content.
That’s not to say that excessive one-sided funding proves anything about the climate, but nor does the existence of a consensus of government-paid climate scientists.
We’ve paid to find a crisis, and what-do-you-know, we “found” one.
We’ve paid to find a crisis, and what-do-you-know, we “found” one. (Yes. It’s true, we got what we paid for.) Hundreds of scientists have been doing their jobs, most diligently, turning over every stone labelled “CO2”. But no one has been paid to turn over the other stones.
When politicians and journalists say they can’t find a credible voice of dissent, it’s only because they define “credible” as someone holding a government-funded position — and by definition, there are no government-funded sceptics.
US president Dwight Eisenhower warned against government domination of science in his farewell speech in 1961:
“In this [technological] revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalised, complex and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the federal government.”
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present.
The so-called “free market” leaders of the world missed the need for healthy competition in science. Their big mistake on climate policy was failing to see the effect of monopoly science. They could have set up institutes and research centres whose aim was to find non-man-made causes of climate change.
These alternate institutes and conventions would compete with the usual grant applicants for research, and it would be in their interest to find reasons the climate was changed by the sun, or geomagnetic effects or orbital changes, or who knows? Through natural competition (and may the best argument win) we’d have learned more about our climate, and we’d prevent a climate monopoly from potentially skewing the research.
As with all unbalanced systems, people are rushing to fill the vacuum. The volunteers are coming. Never before in science have so many unpaid people used their expertise to become whistleblowers.
As Eisenhower feared, government has come to dominate science. We need organisations that are timeless centres of excellence, rather than crisis-response teams. Groups of scientists need to compete to make the best, most accurate predictions, not the most alarming ones.
One thing is for sure, the mess of climate science needs to be cleaned up and we need to find ways to fund science that don’t pre-empt the answers, or stifle competition.
Joanne Nova is a freelance science presenter, writer, professional speaker and former television host, and is author of The Skeptic’s Handbook.
Other articles published by Jo Nova in mainstream media.
Related Articles: How the monopolistic funding ratchet slows scientific progress.
——————————-
UPDATE: Prof Peter Ridd, wrote to let me know he’s had similar thoughts, published in January through OnlineOpinion. ”
“How to fix the broken scientific system”
“The process of argument is as essential to the scientific system as it is to the legal system. A big difference is that argument is guaranteed in the legal system with the two sides of the argument formally recognised in the legal system itself, but because of the structures of the present systems in science, a robust argument cannot be guaranteed. Because of this there cannot be a sufficiently high level of faith that some of the big scientific issues of our time such as Anthropogenic Global Warming, the fate of the Murray-Darling, or the imminent demise of the Great Barrier Reef, have been properly tested in the scientific equivalent of a court of law.”
Way to go Jo!!
Good luck to all our Aussie friends – stop Gillard and her insanity.
31
Jo, thanks for an excellent article. It needs widespread coverage.
21
You write very well. The article is a good one as it points out some of the core flaws of the whole movement. Indeed, no government bureaucracy every put itself out of business – it just kept on doing what it had been doing even when there is no need. And of course defining all climate change as man-made (for the sake of discussion) is disingenuous. It means they are not using science to further their goals, but PR tactics that stretch back to the 3rd Reich.
The tide is slowly changing, but the war chest of the Warmists is huge, and many people are simply apathetic. The greatest ammunition skeptics have is the truth. but it will take time as the Warmists continue to move the goal posts.
11
Great.
Common sense articulated.
Joanne, one site that could do with your balanced contribution is http://www.thepunch.com.au.
There are several hundred comments every time a ‘climate change’ related post appears.
It seems a lot of Aussies go there from links on news.com.au.
I hope you’ll consider contacting the editors and offering your services.
11
The analysis with a court case is a good one. Here are a number of ways that the consensus falls short of the English Common Law ideal.
1. A case must be demonstrated against an actual crime. The argument that the accused is guilty of first degree murder because they look like a thug and thumped someone in the playground when they were six years old does not wash. Neither does an alleged pattern of escalating violence be admissible under English Common Law. But a lab experiment and computer projections are part of the central case.
2. The appeal to others opinions would be rejected is hearsay in a court. But the votes of esteemed scientific bodies and unnamed scientists are central to the CAGW.
3. The Hockey Stick is a could example of circumstantial evidence. If it had passed a battery of statistical tests, had a sound methodology and the proxies that made up the series were not flawed or cherry-picked and the studies had been strongly replicated elsewhere, it still might be rejected. (The verification levels are simply not high enough to be accepted in a criminal prosecution.) To make such circumstantial evidence central to the case would cause any fair Judge to throw out the case and the accused would have grounds for suing for unlawful prosecution.
4. The prosecution does not decide on the rules of evidence.
5. Would the campaigns and attacks by pro-AGW bodies against dissenting scientists amount to witness or jury knobbling?
Another analogy is to compare the politicians to medical doctors. If administering a painful and potential harmful treatment, they should have a moral duty of care. That is they should have a reasonable expectation that the patient will be better off for being treated than not. Medical doctors would be especially careful in trying new and untested drugs with high risk of potential side effects.
11
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
11
I can’t wait for MattB to “pop” in for his hit and run absurd comments!!! I can here him now avoiding the point of Jo’s extremely well written and well considered article by saying something like “yeah, and Exxon Mobil payed $23 Million to sceptics. It just proves how corrupted all you are by Big Oil money!!!!”
I really wish he would either pull his head out of his proverbial or just go away and crawl back under his rock!!
11
Wow, what a well thought out and well written piece.
11
Where is the Institute of Natural Climate Forces
LOL sooo true
11
I don’t comment often, Jo, but I had to tell you how exceedingly well written this was: punchy and persuasive.
11
11
As Peter Lang mentioned in comments here on Thursday, Professor Garth Paltridge has written with simple clarity about how Julia Gillard bought her scientific consensus, in an article that Joanne reproduced here earlier this year among other places.
http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2858-garth-paltridge-a-less-than-nobel-consensus.html
11
Great article Jo, read in holiday in Mexico and distributed.
Hope this nonsense stops soon.
Amr Marzouk.
11
Great article Jo.
One day (sooner rather than later hopefully) when this whole AGW house of cards falls over, you and other people (Andrew Bolt etc) who have campained so long and hard for the truth to be told and stood up to this fraud will be lauded as heroes of the common people.
Cheers,
11
The biggest most impressive thing I can think of that came from Government funding of science was the Atomic bomb, I think that tells a story in itself.
11
The basic science of AGW is very pedestrian; embarrassingly so.
The problem is the confusion created by the vast number of factors influencing temperature alongside the chemical and physical interactions of CO2 in the biosphere.
The temperature question is complex but not beyond resolution.
The factors are easily quantified if you take the trouble, but cause embarrassment to the AGW Cause if taken into account.
Why would any scientist on a grant take the trouble to do the full analysis when they can get away with doing work on one small element of the process; namely the behaviour of CO2.
There are reasonable CO2 mass balances done on many sources and sinks of CO2 but you will find nobody wants to integrate the parts into a complete whole.
The reason is that such an analysis shows the human produced component of CO2 to be disappointingly small against the real sinks and sources.
The human effect on temperature from human made CO2 activity in the atmosphere is undetectable.
The IPCC Summaries are not good science but are a very interesting study in Group Behaviour patterns; Group Think.
Everyone feels warm and fuzzy. Even the science is FUZZY.
It’s the universe of politics at its finest; the entrainment of innocent young minds and the intimidation of those who see the truth.
11
Do they measure CO2 to forecast the weather? See:-
WeatherAction [Piers Corbyn]
http://www.weatheraction.com/
and –
space weather.com
http://spaceweather.com/archive.php?month=07&day=03&year=2011&view=viewspaceweather.comTimeMachine
11
PhilJourdan: #3
Phil, I absolutely agree with your sentiment, but I need to correct you on one minor point:
It goes back further than that – in fact it goes back to the United States in 1917:
Source:
Even the original name, “The Committee on Public Information”, smacks of propaganda.
11
PhilJourdan: #3
The source reference should read: http://firstworldwar.com/features/propaganda.htm
11
Jo, you know, it seems that few of our leaders read history, and even if they have done so there appears to be little understanding of what they’ve read.
Your quote from Ike’s parting speech is one of many truisms that I’ve read and caused me to wonder; why is it so that leaders of today don’t take guidance from the follies of yesterday?
11
Being part Dutch I find the selection of carrots interesting. It is thought that the strong orange colour is due to man-made selection. Orange is the national colour for the Dutch (yes, the flag is red, white and blue, but often accompanied by an orange sash) because of the historical connections with the House of Orange. They therefore selected carrot varieties that appealled to their patriotic sense of colour.
Carrots actually come in a variety of colours: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrot
11
Slightly OT, but this is why the Murdochs are being hounded and demonised by the BBC and Guardian over here in the UK. They want one biased point of view: theirs. Murdoch offers a balanced alternative, which is naturally unacceptable.
Great article, hope it gets spread widely.
11
Jo a finely written article but I doubt it will affect the minds of our politicians. The seem to be so aloof to the populace they don’t care whether it’s going to warm or not.
This fight is no longer about hot or cold weather. It’s about our elected representatives doing what their constituents asked them to do, govern our country for the betterment of ALL Australians. They are the ones who should have scientists working for us and determining the correct action to take for the advancement of our country and not towing the IPCC boys club line.
As far as I see it they have failed us and should therefore be deposed. It’s our duty not to let them steal what generations of Australians have worked so hard to do.
I hope I am wrong but when you see artcles in the press about the Carbon Tax watchdog given extraordinary powers to prosecute. We are treading on dangerous ground.
It is time for all Australian’s to get together and fight this fascist regime, we can’t let them keep going.
Jo, you are an inspiration and I agree totally with Popeye @ 13. You will be lauded as a true heroin when we out this government and turn this stupid state of affairs over. Keep up the good work and thankyou !!
Say YES to an election now !!
11
The UK Department of Energy and CLIMATE Change have a very similar definition, that excludes all natural….
“Climate Change The process of changing weather patterns caused by the increased number of greenhouse gases in the global atmosphere as a result of human activity since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.”
’A guide to carbon offsetting for the public sector’ –Department of Energy and Climate Change
http://www.realclimategate.org/2010/11/crazy-climate-change-quote/
I’m on twitter now aswell
As: Realclim8gate
11
SNAKES IN SUITS!
http://ponerology.blogspot.com/2010/05/ponerology-101-snakes-in-suits.html
Ponerology:The Science of Evil:Ponerology101:Snakes in Suits
11
Telling article that accurately portrays the corruption of science in the pursuit of abhorrent political goals. No wonder the Greens and the Left generally hate the Murdoch press, see it as a threat to their agenda and want to silence it.
11
At the core of this, is the Orwellian language sleight of hand, centred around the words ‘climate change’.
Most of the so-called rock solid science, is merely studying the fact that the climate does change.
The fraud is in the language sleight of hand that then occurs.
‘climate change’ = ‘man-made climate change’
11
Hey Jo,
Maybe the australian can follow up by publishing the climategate pdf as one of those fallout peices in the paper?
From there we would just need a doubletap to finish off this zombie tax (a metaphorical reference to zombieland rules)
11
Only a fanatical believer in AGW would be able to objct to such a search. But we are overwhelmed by heavily funded people and organisations with a powerful vested interest. So it will never happen. Only decades of basic measurements will eventually show that climate change is out of our control and not something man-made. And while there is a religious component, AGW remains almost invulverable.
11
Shouldn’t “thousands of climate scientist be wrong” read “dozens of pseudoscientific computer modellers”!
11
Well written Jo.I have to ask what everyone plans to do when this legislation is passed.Whatever the science says,once it becomes law we will never get rid of it,just remember the other side wants the money too.There is external pressure pushing this agenda against public opinion and common sense and even if we have an election and throw these idiots out the other idiots will be forced to do the same thing.Another point since when has the ALP stopped sacking underachieving leaders,WHO owns the ALP.Never in my life have they put up with an incompetant POS like The Right Honerable Mrs Brown. Climate change is NATURAL and CO2 is LIFE ,cheers
11
Jo,
two of the key charts in the article you linked to http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/climate-money-auditing-is-left-to-unpaid-volunteers/ have gone AWOL.
11
Some bad news for Jo. I don’t know whether this is a News Ltd conspiracy at Hackgate levels but here it is:
In the paper version of The Australian which arrived this morning on the front page it says “Climate Change Link Questioned {p17}” in the banner at the top of the front page. Yay!
There is no page 17.
I looked and looked – I have no idea why its been pulled. All page numbers are in the right places, they go to p15 and stop. Jo’s article is not in the paper on any other page either.
Fortunately you can find it on the website…if you know where to look. But it is not on the main page. Hmm.
Sigh. If I wasn’t so old and cynical I’d find this Orwellian.
11
#31
The level of stupidity in your post is a good thing. It shows that science is never settled and that Darwins Theory of Survival of the fittest needs tinkering….
11
Ah, my eyes are kidding me. Found it. Just an editorial mistake – Jo’s article is on page 9 of the Inquirer section. Confusing but not conspiratorial.
Sorry everyone. I really am getting too cynical.
11
Excellent
I’d like to ask the many friends of ours who so kindly translated the excellent “The Sceptics Handbook” to also translate this article and pass it onto as many compatriots and blogs as possible.
If it doesn’t breach copyright, emailing it to the press in your country would be great.
p.s. Alarmists reckon their only problem is communication. Don’t they wish this excellent communicator Joanne Nova remained a warmist. (yes, the lady was once a warmist)
11
Wow!! Great job! (wish I could write so consisely and eloquently) …. will be linking to a couple sites here in the States.
11
[…] Where is the Institute of Natural Climate Forces, or the International Bureau of Solar Science? Where are the researchers whose reputations and grants rise in value if they find holes in the theory of man-made global warming? More » […]
11
I would be happy to contribute what I can to a fighting fund legal/scientific. I am very worried that we really are falling into totalitarianism. If the forcing of the Lisbon Treaty down people’s throats throughout Europe is any guide, we are in a fight for our lives. Is there grounds for a class action?
11
Jo your’e a legend. Shooting down a theory that is also a global industry, a global bureaucracy, a social political movement, as well as a dangerous psuedo-spirituality for the western secular middle class means taking plenty of kicks for the cause. As I found out this week by referring to Richard Lindzen in a letter to the editor on monday in “the west”. Out they came to smear him and me in print. One even said “his predictions were always wrong”. Puerile. But they are increasingly uncomfortable, you can tell, so everyone press on.
11
As indicated on several occasions in various topics on this site the answer to this question may already exist…Google “John Nicol Greenhouse” and come to grips with his analysis.
Additionally for the Australian contributors, ask your local MHR to share his/her knowledge of the interaction of CO2 with infrared radiation that convincee them that a CO2 emissions abatement scheme will counteract “dangerous” climate change.
I suspect they will avoid the specific question and waffle on about models incorporating 19th century physics. So much for moving forward to 20th century thinking.
11
With friends like “the Murdoch News team” who needs enemies!
11
Hit the nail on the head. When future history classes learn of the global warming scare, this will be the reference they use to find out why and how it happened.
11
Sigh…. I’ve already given you the answer. You haven’t yet grasped that while the government has a monopoly on ‘money’, it has a monopoly on everything.
From a fellow named Melchior Palyi way back in 1936;
Substitute government for “banks” & carbon credit for “standards of credit discrimination” & you see where we are today.
11
JMD: Don’t forget, in my other life, I have traded gold futures and written about the dangers of fiat currencies. But sadly, I doubt if that will solve our science funding dilemma.
Private industry is probably not up for spending billions on climate science research. It’s something that lends itself to a public effort — what we need is for the public funds to be used to set up competing institutes that don’t gain advantage by issuing alarming reports. Instead they need to compete to be the most accurate in their predictions — and build on a hard won reputation for never being caught with hyperbole, poor reasoning, or the use of corrupted, hidden data.
11
Extract from Alan Kohler’s weekend brifing:
My comment:
So it’s agreed: the carbon tax is bad for our economy.
The argument that it is a sensible insurance payment is valid only if the other emitters take comparable action
The argument about it being an insurance payment is valid only if proper due diligence and rational economic evaluation has been done. These have not been done. The partisan works by Sir Richard Stern and Ross Garnaut do not count. They are Labour/Labor party appointiees preparing a “sellers” document.
The key isse is not addressed by Alan Kohler: that the carbon tax is more about social engineering than about trying to control the world’s temperature.
11
[Snip, unsubstantiated insult, baseless assertion. ]
[Geoff – you need to do better than a drive by insult to post here. Name the peer reviewed papers we “deny” — JN]
11
This is the bit I really struggle with. I simply cannot see convincing evidence to support this statement. I’ve pointed out in comments on other threads that the planet is in rare a cold phase (with ice caps at the poles). It is rare to have ice caps at the poles. For 80% of the past 500 million years there have been no ice caps at the poles. The planet is normally much warmer than now. So what is the basis of the risk assessment of 20% probablity of catastrophe if we get warmer. I just can’t see it. I should also add that life thrives when the planet is warmer and struggles when colder. So why the concern with warming?
I believe the risk assessment has not been done properly. I do not trust it. On that basis, I do not want to pay the “insurance premium”. I suspect I am being scammed – by scammers (environmental NGOs and activists), incompetents (politicians) and gullible people in the public. I suspect the so called “insurance premium” (i.e. the carbon price) is a cover for other agendas (e.g. social engineering).
11
Where is the evidence that the carbon price will achieve this objective?
Due dilligence is done by a buyer to ensure s/he will get what s/he has paid for. But no due diligence has been done to ensure the taxpayer will get value for his so called insurance premium. In fact, it seems like a near 100% certainty that paying the carbon tax will have no effect whatsoever on the probability or the consequence (risk = probablity x consequence).
11
The paragraphs under “How much does Carbon pricing cost?” should be taken with a pinch of salt. Treasury’s “Core policy scenario” does not deliver the government’s emissions targets and is based on highly optimistic assumptions:
1. the world implements an economically efficient emissions trading scheme (most unlikely for the forseeable future)
2. 75% of Australia’s electricity generation will be delivered by technologies that are not viable and probably never will be
3. others
11
MattB @42,
That’s a really dumb comment. Do you read it regularly? If not, how are you competent to comment? Where are you getting uyour information from? The Labor-Greens media outlets (Crickey, GetUp!, Fairfax, ABC)?
I thought this article in yesterday’s Australian http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/time-to-publish-or-be-damned/story-e6frgd0x-1226103763829 explained well why there is conflict between News Limited and Labor-Greens (and the coaltion when the stuff up). It is a good conflict. We need it. I wish the other mainstream Australian media would do a better job of investigative journalism and exposing bad governmentr policies and programs. By far the most important issues to be exposed right now are:
1. carbon pricing policy
2. sovereign risk
3. Productivity and Industrial Relations (Julia Gillard wound back 30 years of progress on IR reforms)
11
Peter Lang @46
This so called “insurance policy” being predicated solely upon warmist scenarios covers only for certain economic problems at best, or undermines our capacity to adapt at worst. Just as a housing insurance that only covers for fire is not much help if your house is destroyed by flood, tornado, earthquake, marauding Vikings, plagues of locusts, etc., so too does this lame idea founder on the same rocks that shipwrecks the whole precautionary principle in general. Namely, that our actions have to cover ALL potential responses to future problems and catastrophes, and this is best achieved by maintaining a healthy world economy, maintaining an educated and self sufficient population, encouraging passionate and objective scientific enquiry, and promoting progress by encouraging technological advancement. This is almost diametrically opposite to the approach of every world government of significance aside from India and China. So guess who has the best insurance policy at the moment? ( clue- it’s not us!)
11
Winston @51. All good points. I agree.
11
More Climate Science dictating the rules
link:
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/submissions/residential-building-disclosure.aspx
Here the Dept of Climate Change is controlling the building industry – BCA and ASA already have hugh amounts of data and regulations on this! This Dept of Climate Change will end up controlling everything.
Also the increasing investment into the solar cities program at http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/programs-and-rebates/solar-cities/publications-resources/mid-term-review-solar-cities.aspx that is another example of gross waste by the dictator like stance of the Department of Climate Change.
11
JMD @ 44
While a certain group of the worlds elites control the worlds gold and that all that is called money that comes into circulation is borrowed from these elites at compound interest, it is grossly in error or mischievous to assert that governments have a monopoly on money and therefore a monopoly on everything.
To quote from a source that you will probably recognise: “Every kind of loan proves infirmity in the State. Loans hang like a sword of Damocles over the heads of rulers,who, instead of taking from their subjects by a temporary tax,come begging with outstretched palm of our bankers. Foreign loans are leeches which there is no possibility of removing from the body of the State until they fall off of themselves or the State flings them off. But the [ ] States do not tear them off; they go on in persisting in putting more onto themselves so that they must inevitably perish,drained by voluntary blood letting.”
11
It is also, I think, to perceive how climate alarmists are so negative when it comes to upholding science yet denying the very good chance that science can overcome any fears (genuine or not) about CO2. In the recent COSMOS article sent to me there is an extensive piece about how nano carbon tubes are still a source of wonder. They can actually ‘burn’ without creating CO2 or disintegrating.
Also they can transmit energy at a fantastic rate. They have the capacity to be far better than muscles and so will be useful in robots.
We should not lose sight that from 1911 to 2011 science made tremendous strides. Thus, from 2011 to 2111 should see so much more.
11
Brilliant, Joanne, I’ve flagged your article on Climate Etc and Climate Audit as it is highly pertinent to current discussions on those very worthy blogs.
11
RJM385 @ 23, The powers that the carbon cops will have is just par for the course for all of these types of Quops (Quasi Cops). Because they tend to fly under the radar of public notice it is not generally understood that there is an army of these people in the various workplace health and safety and environmental departments at all levels of Government. These Quops sole purpose is to harrass, fine, and run into court, people from small business, manufacturing, mining and refining companies, and farmers and anybody else who attracts their attention. These Quop positions, particularly in the environmental area, are increasingly being filled with activists so the harrassment is increasing. In all of these circumstances the burden of proof is actually reversed and you are considered guilty until you can proove your innocence. This needs to stop.
11
As Einstein pointed out, one only needs one scientist to falsify a theory, and as CAGW has been falsified on many fronts from observation and measurement, then it is clear that it isn’t science at all, but an entrenched, technically sophisticated, belief system that asserts its litany in scientese.
Asking for funding for the sceptical side is no different to asking his Holiness the Pope to fund research disproving the existence of the Deity – not going to happen.
11
Peter Lang at comment 49,
makes a very telling point, where he says at his Point 2.
I know I harp consistently on the electrical power generating sector but this is right at the very root of this whole ‘problem’.
The point Peter is trying to impress here is something that people fail utterly at trying to grasp, and that is through no fault of their own, because they haven’t the understanding in that area, and no one, especially Politicians (who also have no understanding) is telling them about this complexity, which once effectively explained becomes more obvious.
I want you all to look at this pie chart for Australian electrical power consumption, and note how I have used that word consumption.
http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/australia-power-totals.jpg?w=340&h=244
Add up the consumed power from coal, both Black, and Brown, and that total comes to 76.3%.
Add in the total from Natural Gas and the total comes now to 92.2%.
Add on Oil and the CO2 emitting total comes to 93.1%
Now go across to the slice that says the current ‘flavour of the Month’ renewables, and the total comes to 2.4%.
Oh, what you need to realise here is that those Biomass plants are all at sugar mills, that burn the Bagasse to fire on site power plants that supply power only to the sugar mill, and they’re dotted up and down mainly the Queensland coastline.
They have lumped Solar in with those other two because on its own, Solar power would be less than 0.1%, less than that mind you.
So Wind and Solar might barely amount to 1.6% of power available from the grids for CONSUMPTION.
Read this next bit very carefully.
Wind and Solar will NEVER supply 75% of Australia’s power for consumption.
This again is another clever diversion, and I’ll show you how with a ‘theoretical’.
We have 5 Wind Plants (each with 100 towers topped with 2.5MW nacelles) and 2 solar plants at 150MW each. Their up front total, (called the Nameplate Capacity, or NP) comes in at 1550MW.
We have 7 large scale coal fired power plants averaging 1750MW for a total of 12,250MW.
So, using the NP we find that renewable versus Coal comes in at 12.65%.
However, what those renewables actually deliver is only available for part of the the time, and that is the power supplied to the grids for consumption.
For Wind, using the 25% Capacity Factor their power delivery comes in at 3400GWH.
For Solar, using the 15% Capacity Factor their power delivery comes in at 400GWH.
Total from two renewables is now 3800GWH
Using the recognised (and on the low side really for those large scale 24/7/365 plants) CF of 80% for the coal fired plants their power delivery comes in at 86,000GWH.
Now we find that renewable versus coal comes in at only 4.4%
See the difference.12.65% versus 4.4%
The NP inflates the percentage to make it greater than what it should actually be, power available for consumption, which is what is shown on that pie chart.
So you can see that they can construct a lot of these renewables so that it seems there is a lot of power being generated, but in actual fact it isn’t.
There has been a huge ramping up of construction of renewables in the US over the last 3 years, mainly Wind Power, and there is a huge number of them.
However, even with that monumental amount of money being spent on them, the actual power available for consumption from those two renewables has risen from 1.9 to 2.2% while the Nameplate Capacity has risen by a huge factor.
Looks great, but is totally unachievable.
75%.
Tell em they’re dreamin’
Tony.
11
CameronH: @ # 56
Too right about all these “police” in government – OSH, EPA, etc etc. The new unified OSH regulations are potentially frightening – extending the precautionary principle to new lengths – seems company directors will be prosecuted if the safety-police deem the existing workplace might cause a fatal accident, before it actually happens – La Code Napoleon – you are assumed guilty before having even done anything – that’s also the basis for the religious original sin view I suspect.
Hayek was right – we have unwittingly slid into a police state.
11
It’s Goliath with his tax-payer funded armour against David with his privately sourced stone. I’m guessing a repeat of history is in the making.
I see 60 comments here but only 40 recommends on the Australian site for the article. Hint, hint!
11
Jo
Great article and well worth publication in the National press.
The upshot of your article is that there is no need for a full blown conspiracy behind the junk science of global warming. All that is necessary is that people get financially and emotionally attached to a theory and defend that theory in the face of reason.
Again – well done!
Cheers,
Speedy
11
“What committee ever voted for its own extinction?”
It’s a good article.
11
Well done Jo. I see from comments on Andrew Bolt’s blog about your article you have got under the skin of the PR section of the Dept. of Climate Change or maybe they work for the ALP. Usual ad homs and lots of words which really do not say anything, but they think it looks impressive.
They don’t usually comment much in the weekend so I think you can take that as a compliment, Jo.
OT but I see the attempts to sully Murdoch goes on. While I don’t condone what went on at the NoTW people like MattB should note the following figures– for 2006 , for illegally aquired data by journalists in the UK ( and these would only be those that got caught)
Trinity Mirror: 1663 incidents by 139 journalists
Mail Group: 1248 incidents by 95 journalists
News International: 182 incidents by 19 journalists
Just shows the ethical standards of the UK media are not very high.
11
This is one of the best articles I have read on the state of science and science funding. Thanks and well done Jo
11
People can be pro or con based only what they saw on TV, but it is those who can back up their belief with reason that make the difference. The alarmists have nothing when it comes to rational argument, so their side cannot get past blind faith, relying instead on pure numbers of ‘the faithful’.
It is the sceptical side that has the potential for growth in effectiveness, and it only needs something like 10% of the people to have the knowledge that backs up their sceptical position to create a tipping point.
That’s why I’m heartened by the comments here, many of which show a deep understanding of the issues. Five years ago very few people had this level of understanding.
11
Elsie @56,
I understand the point you wanted to make. But your quote is an example of the worst of the dishonesty, distortions and misinformation being spread by renewable energy enthusiasts. Read this destruction of the article about nano tubes (and the destruction of climate science reporting as well):
http://seekerblog.com/2011/07/22/fake-green-energy/
Here is another example of an article about a new proposed energy storage technology.
http://www.solarserver.com/solar-magazine/solar-energy-system-of-the-month/hydraulic-hydro-storage.html
Pity they never asked anyone who has done engineering with rock. They would have pointed out that:
1. the cylinder would not stay in tact; it would collapse in a pile of rubble
2. the walls would collapse
3. If rockmass was solid granite, i.e. without existing fractures (impossible), then the walls would expand inwards and close the gap being excavated, as the horizontal stresses were relived.
Nonsensical, un-costed, proposals are being made like these all the time by renewable energy advocates sitting at a computer without doing any of the necessary engineering checks.
10
Brett_McS @ 67
The problem with democracy is that the majority [over 51%] of people only know the message that they get from the media – they are fixated on enjoyments,such as sport,alcohol and TV and never stop and think about what is happening in the the world, why it is happening and and who is causing it to happen;nor whether it is for good or for evil.
They depend on others with the capacity to understand to inform them. And if you have their respect and can explain things in terms that are not overly complex I have found there is a willingness to listen.
“The Media is the Message” Marshall Mcluhan. What percentage of Australians read The Australian? Maybe letterbox drops are the answer?
11
Jo this is a wonderful article – it is real – it is happening – people need to know the facts and understand the issues should this all become law.
Excuse the (self) ad here, I just blogged on a futuristic what if…..
As always it was a struggle for them both, but after 60 years of married bliss, they knew what each other needed in the way of assistance, and they did their best to provide it for each other. So when the loud knocking came on their front door, Mary was the one to struggle up from her sitting position to answer the caller. John was not as yet fully dressed.
Mary grabbed her walking stick and shuffled down the hall to see who might be calling at the early hour. She pulled back the security chain, opened the door and was shocked to be confronted by two uniformed Federal Police Officers wearing guns.
http://justmeint.wordpress.com/2011/07/30/sunday-morning-morons-and-scare-tactics-a-green-nightmare-futuristic-tale/
11
[…] WE DEMAND JUSTICE !!! Published in the Australian today, Joanne Nova explains just why a carbon tax is unwarranted. The science that Julia Gillard claims is settled is anything but. It’s been bought with billions of dollars in government funding and it appears that the Australian government is the last in the world to find out the truth. CO2 MUST be given a fair trial! “We’ve paid to find a crisis, and what-do-you-know, we “found” one. (Yes. It’s true, we got what we paid for.) Hundreds of scientists have been doing their jobs, most diligently, turning over every stone labelled “CO2″. But no one has been paid to turn over the other stones” It’s such a relief to see that the mainstream media is finally starting to publish what many of us have known for years. The branding of CO2 as a pollutant was a turning point for me. A lifetime in Horticulture meant that this was completely unacceptable. CO2 is plant food, a gas of life. Without it plants die and so do we. The links between CO2 levels and global warming were tenuous at best but with millions in funding at stake some scientists have been more than happy to find politically correct answers. People like Joanne have been grafting away on a voluntary basis for years to alert an unsuspecting public to the fact that they have been hoodwinked by the climate alarmists. Mainstream media recognition of this is long overdue. http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/climate-change-suspect-must-be-given-a-fair-trial/#more-16311 […]
11
This is utterly ridiculous.
Science is not a trial. CO2 is not a defendant.
Where were the government funded defence counsels for tobacco smoke and asbestos?
In a post on Andrew Bolt’s blog the other day I pre-empted one of Nova’s jokes here by refering to the anticancer grant scammers and the health industrial complex for urging the use of sunscreens when everyone knows that sunlight is essential to the production of vitamin D. Photons are innocent.
But I was being ironic.
In years gone by, and even now, proponents of AGW sufffered at the hands of conservative governments shooting the messenger. It is still happening, as Charles Monnet of the US Minerals Management Survey has recently testified.
20
But’s the vibe Tony,.the Vibe, got nothing to do with reality.
11
The investigation and suspension of Charles Monnett resulted from from a complaint of scientific misconduct by unamed complainants who cannot even do primary school arithmetic. It is a clumsy,ludicrous and outrageous smear.
When this error is pointed out to the investigator and the general amazement in the room with the investigator joining in the chuckling the investigator explains his position:
ERIC MAY: Like I said, we receive allegations; we investigate.
CHARLES MONNETT: Don‟t you wonder why somebody that can‟t even do math is making these allegations and going through this stuff?
But then Monnett goes on to explain the difficulties he and his collegues have encountered in conforming to the Minerals Management Survey’s agenda.
This was of course a big mistake professionally.
11
The Free Market model of funding is interesting.
It requires the de-subsidising of research as determined by the few.
That alone won’t reduce the imbalance of funding to one “side” until subsidies to manufacture, deploy, use and exploit particular technologies are also removed. Those are the deepest troughs. And a small additional trickle from those troughs to “favourable” research can easily offset a reduction in direct research funding. Remove those subsidies and expose the products to market forces.
We do need a better model to fund science; and R&D in general than governments (politicians) picking winners.
A free market approach to research is achieved by allowing a diversity of players to share in the funding pie on a (quasi-)equal footing.
Perhaps this can be done by tax breaks (of more than 100 to somewhat less than 200 percent) on R&D; where all such research is published and publically exploitable by virtue of being publically-funded. R&D could be outsourced to institutions; up to a limit, to eliminate market pressure that would otherwise produce research-shell-companies. The incentive for non-government bodies to invest in such research is to fill the void of knowledge that prevents them developing their own product/company; at no nett cost to themselves.
11
Another great article Joanne – thank you – I will spread it around. The central premise of your argument is undeniable – I wonder how the “no debate” crowd will react. With Lord Monckton coming to NZ the invitations have been sent out to various warmist notables to discuss or debate with him. The response from the Green Party is classic. Have a read here.
10
A little more detail:
The background is that the scientists were actually surveying whale numbers, but noticed four dead polar bears floating in the open sea. This was extremely unusual. In fact in over twenty years of observation no dead bears had been seen in open water. And it coincided with a record low ice sheet cover in 2004.
They had noticed 4 bears swimming in a survey area just prior to a severe storm. Four drowned bears were observed after the storm, but one of those was outside the survey area (transect). So they used those three rather than the total 4 in the calculation. Strangely honest for fraudsters.
The complainants add the four live bears seen swimming before the storm to the 3 dead ones seen floating in the same are after the storm and come up with a total sample size of 7 bears. Everyone but the complainants gets the point that the three post storm dead bears floating way out to sea were belonged to the prestorm group of swimming bears.
ERIC MAY: Okay, and we‟ll – let me, let – “of bears before the storm, then the total number of bears after the storm is 63,” and that‟s where I came up with the sixty –
CHARLES MONNETT: That‟s just stupid. I – did you do that?
ERIC MAY: No.
CHARLES MONNETT: That is stupid.
ERIC MAY: I‟m a, I‟m just – I interview –
CHARLES MONNETT: In the first place, there‟s – it‟s 200 percent, okay?
ERIC MAY: So explain – tell me why that‟s wrong.
CHARLES MONNETT: Well, because acting like they were all seen at the same survey. We flew the whole thing twice to see that, right?
ERIC MAY: – they – it occurred on different trips.
[The investigator finally gets it.]
CHARLES MONNETT: Somebody is deficient in fifth grade math.
ERIC MAY: (Laughing)
CHARLES MONNETT: Seriously. I mean, give me a break…
ERIC MAY: Like I said, we receive allegations; we investigate.
CHARLES MONNETT: Don‟t you wonder why somebody that can‟t even do math is making these allegations and going through this stuff?
11
Philip Shehan (aka Brian S) is showing his true totalitarian colours. Always trying to shut down the debate, and denigrating anyone who disagrees with his dogma. When he is unable to mount a serious argument, he goes off topic. Typical Alarmist tactics.
Why do you object to government funding for scientists to look for OTHER causes of global warming?
Are you frightened that they may indeed discover that the contribution to global warming by humans is too small to be of any consequence, and is swamped by natural variation.
BTW Brian, do you honestly believe that CO2 is as harmful to humans as asbestos or smoking?
11
Ok, I’ll bite.. so Philip – a couple of questions for you:
1) What evidence was there that the 3 floaters were apart if the original group? Empirical evidence please.
2) How are the polar bear population faring these days compared to say 5 years ago?
3) What evidence exists which shows that more than two polar bears have never died in a storm before 2004?
In a previous post you mention government funding for tobacco smoke or asbestos. Apart from this being an irrelevant attempt at projection, I think it’s fair to state that Phillip morris and james hardy have never had their positions on these matters used for a blatant and obvious attempt at centalised wealth redistribution in the name of combatting a trace gas under the guise of preventing pollution from an element in the periodic table.
If course, I know, some people want the climate to stop changing (that would be a first) and other people really want carbon to be removed from our food sources. To them I say good luck, please lead by example.
11
Philip Shehan @ 71
What an excellent couple of examples to highlight Jo’s point Philip.
Both nicotine and asbestos can be deadly substances. But they also could have their potential uses. Many things in everyday use today are made from and/or contain substances that if not used properly, can be deadly. Despite their dangers we nonetheless studied them and learned how to employ their good properties, while shielding ourselves from the bad.
If this had been the case with asbestos, today we would probably be taking advantage of its excellent insulation properties, while shielding ourselves from exposure to the fibres by encasing them in some kind of poly-carbon or ceramic. Instead, we threw the baby out with the bath-water in a fit of hysteria.
If it had been the case with nicotine, we would possibly now understand why heavy smokers have half the number if hip and knee replacement operations than non-smokers; why heavy smokers have a significantly lower rates of osteoarthritis, and why smokers appear to be statistically less prone to Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Diseases than non-smokers. But once again hysteria won the day over good science.
Philip, can you personally state, categorically, that a rise of a couple of degrees C will in fact be detrimental to life on this planet?
No?
Then perhaps you can direct us all to one of your beloved “peer-reviewed” published papers that establishes, categorically, that a planet a degree or two warmer will be catastrophic rather than beneficial?
No?
How about ditto on both counts for increased CO2?
You don’t have an “open mind” Philip – you have a swinging door for brain.
11
Philip Shehans comments at #71 #73 #76 are precisely why Jos article is so relevant.
Philip invokes the Charles Monnett investigation. Those who are interested can find many opinions and articles plus the relevant Monnett Gleeson paper by googling, but in short here is my take on it…
Monnett spots 4 polar bears floating on the water whilst surveying in an aircraft. He makes some assumptions about this and publishes a paper, results of which makes the usual activist alarmist rounds, you know, “oh the poor poley berras are doomed coz we drive SUVs, that sort of thing.
Were the bears actually dead? Dunno, Monnett never landed the plane to check. Maybe they were resting a la the Monty Python parrot.
If dead, did the bears die by drowning? Who knows, the bodies weren’t recovered, no autopsy was performed.
If they did drown, was it due to exhaustion because the bears had to swim longer distances due to less ice due to Global Warming. (hang on, I need both hands to draw this bow a little longer)
Having reported a storm, and the bears (they think it was these bears) being alive before the storm, turn up dead after the storm. Any chance the bears got caught up in a sudden storm which had absolutely nothing to do with Global Warming? Nah! it had to be my SUV. Poley berras handle storms well, SUVs not so well, everybody knows that.
Having spotted 3 bears in one sector, dead from unknown causes, Monnett, a leading Polar Bear researcher who has no biases against mineral exploration at all 🙂 decides that if 3 out of 27 bears die in one sector, he is quite entitled to extrapolate that to all the sectors and claim that 11% of all polar bears died from ice melt caused by mans emissions of CO2.
That’s rock solid climate Science folks. We don’t need independent, non-activist researchers who are not members of Greenpeace or WWF to muddy the clear waters with duplicate research. Take it from them (and Philip Shean) that the science is pure, is solid, is unaffected by confirmation bias, is not prone to normal human failings like greed, envy, pride etc and is carried out by modern day scientific giants such as Hansen, Jones, Flannery and Trenberth (who has devoted his every waking minute in search of missing heat for the benefit of humankind).
How dare you red-neck, rightwing cospiracy theorists question the integrity of scientists who devote their lives for the betterment of humankind whilst earning minimum wages. Flannery doesn’t live in the most expensive house on the shores of Hawkesbury River, Monnett wasn’t in charge of $50 million dollars of research grants, Hansen hasn’t been given millions in awards gifts and grants, he earns minimum working for NASA.
Remember, the only BAD scientists are the ones working for mining companies, tobacco companies and the retired ones who are bitter about the young turks on the cutting edge of planet saving research.
11
bunny accuses me of trying to shut down debate when what I am doing is supplying a counterargument to Ms Nova’s assertions. This is entirely usual on Mr Bolt’s blog.
His mistake is that funding is allocated on the basis of being for or against particular side. It is not.
Madjak has a valid point. I have some experience in refereeing scientific papers and if a referee on that paper I would have questioned the statistical significance of the results and the point you raise and possibly other points but I have not seen the actual paper. Perhaps the referees did and received acceptable answers.
Apparently bears can swim for days or even weeks. This may give some idea of the area involved here but gain your question is entirely legitimate and Monnett gives answers in the transcript. Cannot directly link the pdf here but it is in Mr Bolts section.
That said the anecdotal noting of the unique observation of drowned bears open water where an extremely unusual number of swimming bears had been seen is at least anecdotally noteworthy and interesting. Apparently the context of his occuring in a year of record ice melt and unusually large stretches of opn water nmakes these observations unwelcome is some quarters.
If presented at a conference these matters would have been raised in a respectful manner in the question period or over drinks at a poster presentation.
There was no assertion that bears had never drowned before. They had not been observed before. The scientists were not even out there looking for bears, swimming or dead. But the sightings were so unusual that none of those on the flights had observed even one dead bear before nor multiple swimming bears, and on checking no previous observations of such a noteworthy event had been noted or recalled by those who had been making observations over the decades.
Trying to turn this into a charge of scientific misconduct on the basis of a ludicrous complaint from people who can’t even do grade five arithmetic is gobsmacking.
Not equating CO2 with nicotine, asbestos or sunlight. Just pointing out that whole analogy of science to a courtroom contest is utter nonsense which has never before been seriously tried on.
These attacks on scientists are simply messenger shooting.
20
Baa Humbug @ 80
Seems Monnett is under investigation for ‘scientific misconduct’.
“The wildlife biologist whose 2006 article about polar bears drowning in the Arctic Ocean helped galvanise the global warming movement is facing accusations of scientific misconduct and is on administrative leave”.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10741748
11
Philip Shehan: #81
July 30th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
The area involved is not as large as you seem to think.
Perhaps you should read the paper before speculating.
11
Philip Shehan: #81
July 30th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
Sounds like you know exactly what the complaint was and why it’s ludicrous. Would you like to share?
11
Baa Humbug. For starters: “he is quite entitled to extrapolate that to all the sectors and claim that 11% of all polar bears died from ice melt caused by man’s emissions of CO2.”
He made no such claim. Your analytical powers are on par with the complainants.
The 11% refers to the survey area covered as a pecentage of the total. The claim that this equates to 11% of bears dying from ice melt caused byy AGW is nonsense concocted in you own head.
Telling the differnce between a bloated carcass with its paws in the air and a swimming bear with repeated passes overhead is explained in the transcript.
There was no link in the paper directly linking the observations to CO2 emissions. In fact in the interview he explains that the internal approval process for publication of material by people from the US Minerals Management Survey is checked for what he terms political correctness that is not offending the mining/drilling lobby too much and this a cause of much concern in the group.
And as the link in my 4:01 post explains, this may not be entirely unconnected with Monnett’s current problems.
11
Baa Humbug, No I have not read the paper only the lengthy transcipt where the compliants are discussed. Would be delighted if you would kindly supply a link. As my previous post suggests, perhaps you should ahve read it more carefully.
11
So Philip,
I notice you haven’t answered my questions, so I’ll add a couple more below – as well as the unanswered ones:
1) What evidence was there that the 3 floaters were apart if the original group? Empirical evidence please.
2) How are the polar bear population faring these days compared to say 5 years ago?
3) What evidence exists which shows that more than two polar bears have never died in a storm before 2004?
4) What did the autopsies of the polar bears prove they died of?
5) When did you complain that the attacks on sceptics were doing nothing for the debate?
11
Baa Humbug @ 80:
I think you misread that. They surveyed 11% of the area and found 3 dead polar bears. They used this to determine that in 100% of the area there would be 27 dead bears.
What I love is the recent study(using a sample size of 11, if I recall) which claims that 25% of bear cubs are dying from long distance swims. Then, that has to mean that another 25% of bears are dying from starvation and disease, given that polar bear cub mortality rate is 50%. Nothing to see here, move along folks.
I’m hoping Charles Monnett gets locked up for this. His paper is not science, it’s fraud. Plain as day. How anyone can defend it is beyond my powers of reasoning. Time to pay back $50M to the US tax payer Chuck.
11
Philip Shehan: #85
July 30th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Oh my goodness, you are absolutely correct Phil, 11% of bears dying is nonsense…..
NOT 11% BUT 75% OF BEARS MAY HAVE DIED.
Phil I sincerely apologise about the 11% figure. It seems our valiant honest scientist passed peer review with the claim that a much more realistic 75% of bears may have died.
Regards blaming AGW…..
Yep, again you are absolutely correct Phil, no AGW was mentioned (nudge nudge wink wink say no more) 😉
11
Philip Shehan @ 81:
Your condescending tone tells me your are an acedemic, most likely a professor at some irrelevant university teaching irrelevant skills to students while you suckle on the teat of government. Don’t your realise that in the real world, when you want to draw unguarded opinions and beliefs from people you act dumb and play the “I’m too stupid to understand this” card? Chucky, has made some serious slip-ups during his responses which will no doubt lead to a full enquiry. I assume you read the transcript, right? Or, did an assistant just give you a brief summary?
21
I hadn’t realised that the term “climate change” had achieved the official definitions stated above, where it incorporates the anthropogenic CO2 factor. Wow! Amazing!
So, what words do we use now to refer to, y’know, (unqualified unclassified) changes in the climate.
20
Steve@91
I think they refer to that as noise.
11
This “cash for comments” science that CSIRO and Bom indulge in is all a bit like asking a barber if you need a haircut!
I am in the cattle industry and I know for a fact that in 08 – Rudd sent a green inspired person into Meat and Livestock Australia bearing $26.8 Million to fund research into cattle methane emmissions.
She immediately started to push red tape at feedlots in a bid to get the momentum going and bugger me a couple of years later we’re told that Agriculture is lucky – your exempt from the ETS.
The day I saw the press release of he govt junket money -I posted two well repected reports that proved that the cattle cycle v the plant fermentation eg white ants etc -cycle were neutral.
It is all about creating a bogus problem then getting all our friends rich and powerful while providing the so called solution. Everyone please join the CONVOY of NO-CONFIDENCE as we must stop them voting these bills in next month
11
Good Work.
Jo, have you or anyother journos written on the ‘opportunity cost’ to governments, and the poor suckers that elect them, of all the money and govenment action spent on “climate science” at the expense ofr other government programmes?
If so, I would be glad to be provided with, or pointed in the direction of such work.
One of my basic concerns is that while all these scientists are working/researching the weather with the science brain drain,what other science is being ignored. Same with politics. Is putting a carbon tax on australia really more important to say Wilkie and The Greens in APH than say ending the war in ghan.
11
Rob Moore @ 93
By their fruits you shall know them.
YouTube – Kevin Rudd, Copenhagen Treaty,World Government 1/2 Alan Jones Talks to Lord Monckton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTLGn4c9i6w
11
Monnett should have just noted that he saw 4 dead bears at once and that was unusual. Detail the conditions that surrounded the event.
His assumptions about the bears being or not being previously observed bears, the extrapolation across the entire region, assuming dead bears had never been seen before (it wasn’t their mission), the climate change angle, that is all junk science even when expressed in uncertain terms.
Each transect followed a different random path with a gap in between, how does he know whether dead/alive bears were those previously observed or not? He’s not going to see their name tags from 1500 feet up is he.
11
Baa Humbug Once again you are having problems with comprehension.
Yes, the inference is that 75% of the for bears observed swimming in open water drowned during the storm.
You originally claimed that that 11% of all polar bears died from ice melt caused by man’s emissions of CO2.
Plus you have not provided a link to the article. I tried but it was paywalled.
Sure you read it?
Waffle. The ability of “skeptics” to write the kind of stuff you have and complain about other’s “condescension” is entirely typical.
I am indeed a scientist. I have indeed read the entire transcript. My sucking on the government teat involves biomedical research at The University of Melbourne. If you ever suffer from bowel cancer you may have reason to thank us for a treatment.
My attitude to people who make accustions of scientific misconduct on the basis of their inablility to do 5th grade arithmetic is not one of condescension. It is one of utter contempt.
12
Maybe the polar bears had become aware of AGW and its doomsday predictions and out of despair formed a suicide pact.
Is P Shehan really Brian S?
11
Madjack I have responded that your concerns are legitimate but in no way constitute scientific misconduct.
I have answered some of them if you go back and read my comments carefully.
There were no autopsies as the bodies were not recovered but observed floating in the open sea. The unremarkable conclusion was that they they were the non-survivors of a group that had been seen in swimming in the area and drowned in a storm. Perhaps they died of heat stroke or heart attacks or gave up and swallowed cyanide capsules. I can’t prove they didn’t.
Dispute the conclusion by all means but proferring it does not constitute scientific misconduct.
There is no evidence that polar bears never died in a storm before. I would bet my house that they have.
The point is that the observation of this number of swimming then dead bears is unprecedented in 3 decades of observation and concides with record low ice cover, and thus increased swimming distances.
The number of bears now compared to five years ago was not covered in the interview as it is apparently irrelevant to the complaint.
Your fifth point is totally irrelevant to the accusation of scientific misconduct against Monnett.
11
Cohenite: Yes. As many people on Mr Bolt’s blog know, B is my first initial and I am called by my middle name.
11
Phillip, Monnett concluded that no dead bears had ever been observed before, zilch, nil. He spoke to other team leaders (or leader) and posed the question “seen any floating dead bears before before?”. They said they hadn’t and that was good enough for him. These people were whale watchers not bear watchers. The system didn’t capture dead bears they needed a notebook for that.
These aren’t normal bears they’re super bears, and that stormy night they met their kryponite.
11
Therein lies a fascinating tale in itself of concocted consensus and government sponsored propaganda. (I wonder if that’s why Joanne chose that apt analogy?)
During World War II when the RAF enjoyed an extraordinarily high rate of enemy kills at night, British officialdom let the world know that carrots were responsible. Carrots are high in Vitamin A, and Vitamin A is essential for night vision. So it was put about that consumption of large quantities of carrots would result in supranormal night vision. So successful was the publicity, that widespread consensus was established supporting the claim.
In fact it was a myth, driven and propagated by the authorities. Carrots are not the only vegetable rich in Vitamin A. Furthermore, assuming Vitamin A intake above starvation levels, normal night vision cannot be improved.
Still, the Germans swallowed it, oblivious to the fact that the reason for the RAF’s success was a newly developed technology called radar, a secret that the Brits understandably wanted to protect, even by (deliberately) resorting to junk science. How easy it is for governments to construct a consensus supporting pure bunkum!
11
O/T, but had to post it for Jo.
unSkeptical Science has posted an article, basically, trying to dismiss the Spencer and Braswell paper. “How we know we’re causing global warming in a single graphic”
The thing that will probably raise your shackles is…
“Skeptical Science is conducting a social experiment with the University of Western Australia into science blogging. Your assistance with this experiment would be greatly appreciated. Please read this blog post and the comments below then click the ‘Enter Our Survey’ button at the bottom of the page which will ask questions about the content of this blog post.”
11
Well, that’s a relief Phil; I thought you might have been AS, who is in classic form at Bolta’s:
“I have never come across any research funding in Earth sciences that is contingent on a result. Additionally, most Universities publish the pay levels of it’s employees – look up Penn State , for example, where Richard Alley works for and you’ll see you don’t get paid a lot in academia. And of course all work for the IPCC is voluntary.”
So scientists, particularly climate scientists, are practically saints. Yeah right; look at this:
http://sciencespeak.com/ClimateFunding.pdf
Phil; it’s the Null Hypothesis; the NH is extinct, in fact never conceived in AGW; from day one the IPCC has assumed that AGW was proven:
http://www.ipccfacts.org/history.html
And now in preparation for AR5 they are going to use WWF members as lead authors:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/04/25/wwfs-chief-spokesperson-joins-ipcc/
What a joke.
11
Philip Shehan: 98 It was misconduct because there’s reason to believe it was deliberately misleading data. As the scientist involved is a warmist thats what they do (produce fake data fake models) like it or not. Its an agenda its an agenda get used to it.
11
Well done, Jo! If I did read any newspaper these days, it would be The Australian, but I prefer to send the money saved to support this website and those like it.
11
Seems the 2004 polar bear horror story is all they’ve got. What’s happened since?
11
You outta hook yourself up to the internet Brett_McS, free newspapers!
11
Excellent work Jo. Keep up the fight and keep the bastards honest. We are pushing S**T uphill with so many brainwashed fools falling for the official Govt line. At no time in history has our illustrious govt ever given something to the people without later penalty. A tax is a tax after all and no tax has ever made anyone wealthy except those who are pushing for it – ie: THE BANKERS
11
excellent jo – it’s been a pleasure getting to know you online.
keep up the fight.
11
@ JMD: July 30th, 2011 at 10:46 am & Joanne Nova: July 30th, 2011 at 11:09 am
It matters little if the currency be fiat paper or precious metal. As in the exchange of scientific information, it is the control of the amount and distribution of the matter in question that is important.
Change to a gold-backed currency (or even gold itself) and see who has the lion’s share of that. As before Bretton-Woods, the rich will reduce the money in circulation and cause deflation/depression to allow them access to assets at rock-bottom prices. Just as in climate science, the IPCC strives to control the direction, production and dissemination of the peer-reviewed literature to ensure their control (and mastery) of where and how much money is spent through their auspices.
Different medium, same method.
11
cohenite. Scientists are not saints. I have had dealings with some that I won’t go into here.
They are overwhelmingly serious professionals who take their vocation very very seriously.
Neither I nor any others I know have ever been paid or falsified data to produce a desired result. This is just another smear that “skeptics” run when losing the argument based on evidence. We publish what we find.
The IPCC has not assumed from day 1 that AGW was “proven”. The last report concluded it was established to about 90% probability. The report prior to that put the probability as 2 out o3 3. I ‘changed sides’ so to speak as the evidence accumulated between those reports.
the RealUniverse. Utterly ridiculous. Neither the paper (at least from the abstract and many reports of its contents I have read – still waiting for the non paywalled link from Baa humbug) nor the transcript of interview support that assertion. Please specify.
By the way I note with amusement that I get three don’t likes for merely confirming my name to cohenite. Says a lot about the rating system here.
11
Just getting the hang of the rating system here. A lot of likes is classed as “informative”. A lot of don’t likes is flagged “hot debate”.
Never use those amused or cynical face icons available on Bolt’s site, but I would be tempted here.
11
rjm385 @ 23:
“Jo, you are an inspiration and I agree totally with Popeye @ 13. You will be lauded as a true heroin when we out this government…”
Now, steady on rjm. Jo’s writing is incisive and compelling. But addictive? Let’s just call her the good old fashioned heroine that she is. This piece: another bulls-eye hit by Jo. No wonder the climate astrologists on the other side won’t debate. They are afraid of the sort of invincible, clinical logic that the likes of Jo bring to the table. One read of her fab article and they’ll all be changing into their brown corduroy pants tout de suite.
11
Many thanks Jo.
I took the liberty of passing the link and some detail along to Anthony Watt at http://wattsupwiththat.com in his “Tips and Notes” section.
If the US FedGov can ‘fund’ the groups in opposition to itself – why is there none for us “Climate Realists”?
Cheers.
11
Jo, you make the assertion that governments hired scientists to show the CO2 was causing catastrophic warming. This is an astounding claim! You are saying that these scientists are not interested in the truth, just furthering a particular point of view.
I can easily believe that scientists could become overly attached to particular ideas. I can believe that they may make errors of judgement because of this. But I can’t believe that they would consistently ignore reality. If AGW is substantially incorrect, then I’d expect the climate scientists to gradually discover flaws and move away from AGW.
It is much easier to believe that people who argue against AGW have their own axe to grind. An ideology that doesn’t sit comfortably with the idea that we should pay for the unwanted side effects of our energy production.
The most compelling evidence that the so called “skeptics” are not interested in reality is the number of wrong arguments that they mount against AGW. If you are searching for the truth, why muddy the waters with stupid ideas? If you are searching for the truth, why associate with people who continually say things you know to be wrong, and only rarely correct them? The Bolt’s and Jones’ of the world have no interest in the truth.
Having said this, there are greenies who are pretty bad. Gullible types who’ll believe anything, no matter how far fetched. Loonies on both sides. Leaving those of only mildly questionable sanity to slowly make up their minds as evidence mounts. Beneficial? Neutral? A little harmful? A lot harmful?
11
No John — the scientists are interested in getting paid.
They are very much tuned into reality — if they get certain results, they get more funding.
A number of them have done that — now they are unfunded and called “deniers”.
Your naievity is breathtaking.
11
John Brookes:
“If AGW is substantially incorrect, then I’d expect the climate scientists to gradually discover flaws and move away from AGW”.
Conceptually the theory of AGW is not scientifically sound and I don’t think AGW-skeptics deny the reality of AGW. From my consideration of the laws of physics it is a fundamental tenet of modern physics that all bodies above absolute zero radiate energy into their surrounding environment and the greenhouse gases in earth’s atmosphere are understood to obey this rule therefore increasing atmospheric CO2 will almost undoubtedly increase the rate at which the radiation is directed back to the earth’s surface leading to real surface warming, however small that might be. No AGW-skeptic to my knowledge denies this. What they deny is that AGW is significant enough that we should be taking drastic, world-disrupting measures to counteract and pre-empt. The IPCC’s estimated 3C temperature increase on a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is something that a lot of scientists in fact disagree with. As it stands, the best the AGW-camp has come up with thus far are computer simulations of the climate. Simulations that are so flawed and simplistic that they can only be best described as outright misrepresentations of the earth’s climate-system.
11
Sorry, that should read “IS” scientifically sound.
11
Philip Shehan: #113
July 31st, 2011 at 12:15 am
Phil, send an email to Jo Support and ask them to forward on to me. I’ll then be able to email my copy of the paper to you. (pdf 8 pages)
If objective, what you will find is that the paper is a lightweight effort at about the undergraduate level.
It is so obviously cobbled together to confirm a bias that no self respecting scientist would have given it more that a 5 minute glance then forgetting it.
What else would one expect. The expedition was one about whales, suddenly they see a few dead bears floating in water and decide this would make a good subject for a paper.
There is no reason to doubt the research numbers, but the many leaps of faith and forced direction of the conclusion should have consigned this paper to the junk bin.
Instead, it was used to make a point about AGW, and polley berras being what they are, was used to tug at the heart strings of caring people the world over. (especially the pimply faced get up types)
No, it’s not malpractice to reach far fetched conclusions from scant data. But these people are not idiots, they know what polar bears represent, they know how controversial AGW is and they are well aware that their conclusions will be used by interested parties.
The paper was also published BEFORE THE IPCC AR4, meaning that at the time AGW was far from being at the 90% confidence level.
Unless Monnett was an activist scientist, unless Monnett had confirmation bias, unless Monnet knew which direction he wanted the paper to take the minute he saw those floating bears, unless Monnett knew how activist groups would use his results, this paper would have ended with a completely different conclusion.
In short Phil, this paper is dishonest in the worst way. This paper was not written to further knowledge, but to convince people of a particular biassed view.
Send the email, I’ll send the paper.
11
Kevin Moore @25,
I didn’t get a chance to read that link about snakes in suits until today. I wasn’t as surprised as you might think since I’ve been trying to be a careful observer of life for quite a while. But still it’s very disturbing.
One thing is conspicuously absent. The psychopath in religion isn’t even mentioned, yet they are there as well. Who knocked down the world trade center if not psychopaths?
Thanks for the link. I ordered the book.
11
Polar Bear Redux:
After reading all this I know exactly what I’ve known for a long time — four Polar Bears died, probably from drowning as the result of being caught in a storm.
Thank you all. And will this ever go away? 😉
——————
Baa,
Jo knows my email. Send me the report. I’d love to read it.
Thanks
Roy
11
I’ve been a bit grump today on account of work so, I’ll try to peg it back a few notches:
John Brookes @ 117:
I really don’t know of whether you are aware of Steve McIntyre or not. If you do, I don’t know how you could possibly say this with a straight face. Do I really need to iterate through the Hockey Stick Team’s litany of lies, propaganda and stonewalling on the tax payer’s dime? I know you didn’t read the Climategate files because you don’t read anything put to you by the scpetics. But really, you’ve been hanging around here long enough to pick up the gist of what we’re complaining about. The lies ARE criminal in nature. It IS fraud. There is no could, would, should, probably, likely,
predictedprojected robust argument(maybe need some extra funding to do more research) about it. It is a fact. You can dress these so-called ‘scientists’ up in a suit(or a lab coat) and they will still be nothing more than common thieves. Pathological scam artists, exploiting the government grant system.The fact that you and other academics stand on the sidelines, observing the way they are flushing your industry’s credibility down the pipe, is simply astonishing. How can you defend this fraud?
I believe I’ve said this to you before, it’s time to sallow the red pill mate.
11
Roy Hogue @ 122
I agree. Psycopaths don’t like manual labor and you will find them in churches twisting and distorting words to gain control of the audience and its money i.e. giving the false impression that the levitical priesthood still exists and that people should pledge 10% of their income.
I agree with you too that psycopaths knocked down the World Trade Centres and Building No7 but those responsible for the destruction have religious beliefs which are akin with those who live by the shore of the Mediteranian Sea and the Members of Bohemian Grove – not, I believe, the Saudi Arabians so accused of whom some are found to be still alive.
11
How many years have you been hanging around this blog John? You don’t seem to have picked up a thing.
This is not some academic contest (with nothing at stake except reputations) to see who can come up with the better theory about the climate.
This is a deadly serious struggle to prevent the world’s “Progressives” (Communists in all but name) from taking total control of the world’s economy and resources by using junk science to scare you into handing it over without a fight. (They’re not beyond coercing you either, if they can get the power to do so.) The stakes are loss of personal freedom, destruction of economies, untold unnecessary deaths in the Third World (which the Progressives don’t care about) due to stifled development and lack of access to energy. In other words, just about the same stakes as were at risk in the Cold War.
If you look at the major players on the Progressive side, many of those who are old enough were also on the Communist side during the Cold War. They didn’t care about the misery and poverty created by Communist states then, and they don’t care about creating misery and poverty now. They care about power.
The “contest” is the very old one between Statism and Freedom. Which side are you on?
You are implicitly assuming the logical fallacy that you can’t say something is wrong (CAGW) without first knowing what is right. This is not so: For example, I can say with some confidence that you are smarter than the average lizard, without knowing how smart you actually are.
Someday, we may know enough about climate to predict (and control) it. Today, we don’t know enough. The CAGW scam is based on claiming that we do know how to predict and control the climate. There are many many ways to show that this is wrong, that do not require knowing how the climate actually works. One way is to show the CAGW theory’s predictions are nearly universally wrong.
Do some skeptics come up with ideas I think are wrong? Sure. Am I going to kick them out of the “brotherhood” because of that? Hell no. This is a political contest, we (still) live in democracies, and those people vote. I may argue with them sometimes, but I’m glad to have them at my side.
11
John Brookes attempts Jooooolya’s failed they-are-all-extremists-I-am_the-only-sane-one argument.
Nice try JB… didn’t work for Joooooooooolya, certainly didn’t work for you.
Besides you didn’t mount any argument there, just a series of your beliefs. It seems faith is more important to you than facts. You have certainly been unswayed by all the facts presented at this web site over the years.
11
Waffle,
Brookes has far too many silk purses made from sow’s ears to be persuaded. I’m just glad he’s using a presentable picture of himself instead of that color negative image he had previously. On the other hand, the negative image did fit well…
11
In your last post, you state:
Wow! So Monnett was searching for floaters for 3 decades? Amazing!
You still have some unanswered questions, so I’ll add a couple more:
1) What evidence was there that the 3 floaters were apart if the original group? Empirical evidence please.
2) How are the polar bear population faring these days compared to say 5 years ago?
5) When did you complain that the attacks on sceptics were doing nothing for the debate?
NB: This is as relevant as your comments about attacks on scientists needing to stop.
6) Has Monnett objected in anyway to Al Gores Inconvenient truth being a part of school curriculums around the world considering his work is referenced considering it was based on an observation?
7) Exactly how much did Monnetts reserch on this topic cost who funded it?
Answered questions:
Q What did the autopsies of the polar bears prove they died of?
A. They never recovered the bodies of the bears because doing that and performing an autopsy would have run the risk of discovering that they didn’t die of exhaustion.
Q. What evidence exists which shows that more than two polar bears have never died in a storm before 2004?
A. There is none which shows they did or didn’t, more research funding is required to establish this.
You’re almost a third of the way there Phil….
11
Stephen Harper @ 115
My mistake for referring to Jo as a “Heroin”.
I apologise and I will be more careful with my slightly dodgy keyboard and spelling !!
Say YES to an election now !!
11
Another good article in the Australian:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/pms-ghost-has-come-back-to-haunt/story-e6frgd0x-1226103638682
Apart from the statement “There are good reasons for reducing global emissions”, which I am not aware of any, there is some very interesting information there.
11
Cohenite,
Thanks for the good links in #105.
11
Baa Humbug I will do as you suggest. As for the rest, from what I have read the paper seems to lack rigour but it was an observation well worth publishing. It does not warrant outrageous claims of scientific misconduct.
I would also like to commend this blog for unfettered discusson. The matters I raised here were submitted several times yesterday on Andrew Bolt’s blog and did not appear. Ditto with a posting this morning. I know that people there complain about missing posts but based on my experience I put the probability of this happening on 4 occassions on one item at less than 1%.
And to think that although of partial aboriginal decent and being critical of many of his opinions I offered to testify him in his recent trial in defence of free speech, which caused some angst with some family members, was twice interviewed by his lawyers, who decided not to call me, but was thanked by Mr Bolt.
I hope I am wrong in my conclusions but this stinks like a dead whale, or polar bear.
11
John Brookes @ 117, you said, “Leaving those of only mildly questionable sanity to slowly make up their minds as evidence mounts. Beneficial? Neutral? A little harmful? A lot harmful?”
As a matter of interest John where do you (currently) stand on this scale? Furthermore, where do you think most (climate) scientists stand on this scale? If somewhere around a “little harmful” (or better) do you think that these scientists should speak out about those scientists who reason it to be a “lot harmful”, perhaps by expressing their doubts? Given the number of unverified assumptions upon which catastrophic global warming is based could you see this as perhaps moving the (scientific) debate forward? Just asking.
11
Phil Shehan,
I think you are missing the key issues.
Yes, scientists are serious professionals and take their vocation very seriously. But the processes used to assimilate the IPCC reports is not science. It is politics, pure and simple. IPCC is strongly influenced by environmental NGOs and government delegates who are strongly supportive and totally believe in the orthodoxy. They are not scientists. They are more like religious fanatics. The standing ovation and enthusiastic applause by these delegates for the scaremongering short film shown at the start of the Copenhagen conference shows how engulfed these people are in group think and heard mentality. Humans take on the beliefs of the group they join. Scientist are not immune from human behaviour.
The ‘group-think’ and ‘heard-mentality’ [1] has been promoted and supported by massive government funding for at least two decades. USA alone has spent some $80 billion. I expect the world has spent double this. It is no wonder we see lists like this:
This shows the bias in the AR4.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/McLean_IPCC_bias.pdf
This shows the statistics of AR4 citations and references (click on the red text under “Index to Working Groups” to drill down into the text and see the stats at each level; I’d urge you to drill down to the key Figure 6.1 in WG1, Ch6, section 6.3.1):
http://accessipcc.com/
I agree – not directly paid (i.e. bribed) to falsify data. But ‘group-think’ and ‘heard-mentality’ [1] has led to some intentional and some inadvertent falsification of data. If data is “adjusted” to increase warming it is less likely to be picked up, disputed, looked at so critically by other scientists than would be the case if adjustments reduce the warming trend.
[1] Group-think and heard-mentality are not the same thing. See this excellent comment:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/05/21/co2-avoidance-cost-wind/#comment-130230
Note in particular the section titled “Banking Crises analogy with Wind”.
Other readers may be interested in the linked comment too. It is strong support for Jo’s article.
That was not a scientific assessment or the probability. It was the “expert judgement” of a group of experts who were selected by selection bias, shared a common belief about CAGW, are ideologically aligned, and practice group-think and heard mentality.
I agree there is bias towards like and dislike. There is group-think and heard-mentality on the web sites of both sides of the argument. However, you are not banned from commenting here. On many of the CAGW alarmist sites people are banned from posting if they question that AGW is a dangerous and catastrophic. So called “Deniers”, (the CAGW Alarmist’s term) are hounded ridiculed and banned from posting.
11
(AustraliaMatters) CSIRO’s Chief Executive Dr. Megan Clark is the former Director of NM Rothschild and Sons (Australia) 2001-2003. Rothschilds coexist with the ‘Club of Rome ’whom penned the global warming scam plan back in 1991. Today the CSIRO is the Gillard governments scientific strong arm pushing the man made global warming mantra in Australia. Coincidentally in 2011 Rothschilds Australia want to be our carbon tax banksters. How do you spell ‘coincidence’and ‘conflict of interest’?
Those that think Tony Abbort will save us from puppet Gillard are in for a rude shock. His wife is former Rothschilds. Abbort is a Rhodes scholar. Fabian society member Cecil J Rhodes was a man made with Rothschilds funding. Then there’s Malcolm Turnbull,former Goldman Sachs banker as well. The banksters and their bird cage liners have us surrounded.
11
I forgot to provide the 2011 evidence Rothschilds want to control carbon banksters in Australia and world wide. Here is their own press release.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!
11
Before I get jokes about rendering my partial aboriginal descent as “decent”, among other typos, readers of Mr Bolt’s blog will be familiar with my frequent apologies for sloppy typing and lack of adequate proof reading before hitting the submit button
Please accept my apologies here.
11
Phil Shehan,
refer ancient greek myths about pushing something uphill, if it rolls back every time.
The whole debate on Monnett seems to have jumped to conclusions. His Department has stated that he has been under investigation since Feb. and his suspension has nothing to do with his polar bear papers. Nor has his co-author been suspended.
Whether the paper was junk science or not surely can be debated without fury. What I find interesting is that there haven’t been any sightings before or since of polar bears drowned because of natural forces. He must have been in the right place at the right time, and so conveniently for the advocates of coming disaster.
But to return to the topic, it was a very good paper by Joanne. Tobacco Companies etc. had (and have) plenty of money to defend themselves. When it comes to disputing the need for Governments to take more money, and spend it unwisely, then it seems that those paid by the Government don’t see the need for any debate at all.
11
I forgot to include the link following this sentence in #135:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
11
Jo great article, congratulations
I’m still ploughing through the Clean energy act and have made a couple of comments on that post
Haven’t had time to read all the comments yet but I see you’ve all been working hard
and just got our census; has anyone worked out if we can write ‘no carbon tax’ without ramifications? As the forms are numbered they can easily be tracked back
11
Peter Lang Thank you for your comments. I agree with much of what you write.
Madjak. As I remarked to Baa Humbug above and at least twice to you , there are legitmimate questions as to the rgour of this paper, which even Monnett described as being in a “crummy littel journal” if my meory of the transcript serve me correctly.
I relly see no further point in going over why I feel that furthercomment on the details is warranted.
I will make one exception. Point 7.
Monnett’s group were conducting surveys for the US Minerals Management Survey. In the transcript, he relates how he and his collegues have concerns about toeing the expected line of their employer with regard to what they publish. He referred to the process of “politically correct” approval, which is why he says the paper makes no direct reference to global warming.
Since this transcript was made public, Monnett has been suspended in highly controversial circumstances.
11
You see above what I mean about apologising for my sloppiness. Will try to do better.
11
Philip Shehan @ 142
I am surprised the guys at PEER didn’t blame the Murdoch press…everyone else does.
As to the real reason why he was suspended. It is really up to his employer but to me it sounds like he might not have measured up to expectation that $50 million deserves.
Anyway time will tell.
Say YES to an election now !!
11
Have thanked Baa Humbug in an email for sending me the pdf but this is the public one. Will read it later. Have an important football match to watch this afternoon.
11
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome 1991 –
11
Quite so. Carn the PIES
11
Rod Freeman at #136
Rod – As it happens I worked for Dr Clark for some years. I can say that her raison d’etre is to make a judgement on her subordinates’ science (or etc) then back them if she is convinced. She doesn’t have time to read the blogs so in the CSIRO she won’t be in position to make a personal judgement on the merits of their climate science. She always backs her people and fights for them – this is her management style, which is not a bad thing.
Instead blame the fact that she inherited a CSIRO which resulted from a big slug of climate money squirted into a culture of old bean cans and string (they’ve been skint forever, until this windfall). They also have a fairly academic, almost university-like culture about them that others like ANSTO don’t have. So when they recruited to fill all the new project teams, who did they choose but people who applied for those positions, were qualified (ie already in the AGW meme) and who were enthusiastic enough for those projects to get the positions…self selection in other words.
Dr Clark was a rock kicker at WMC and has been in the mining industry most of her career. I don’t think a couple years at Rothschild will have dented that much.
Interestingly she’s been out of the public gaze recently in the carbon tax debate. She popped up on Landline this week talking about coal seam gas – not a Green favourite, but in character for her. So she may be being careful.
Having said this I disagree with her public climate position and I can cite dozens of peer reviewed papers showing CAGW is not going to happen. I will not however accept unchallenged statements which are ad hominem from any side in this debate. I suggest you stick to the science and don’t play the man. Or woman.
11
Bruce of Newcastle, I don’t care about the person being male of female. I care that the person is a groomed trained banker — not just any groomed trained banker, but a groomed trained banker that came from the diabolical stables of Rothschilds who ARE coincidently wanting to CONTROL carbon tax in Australia, and world wide.
The concept of rothschilds trojan horses, fabian wolves in sheep’s clothing, and revolving door monsanto like government jobs, too hard for people to grasp in the year 2011?
LOL, we’re screwed.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!
11
Bruce of Newcastle @148,
Are you still able to make contact with Dr Clark?
Could you persuade her to set up a truly independent group to conduct a proper audit of the climate science as it applies to government policies on mitigation approaches. I would assume this would have to take an intentionally adversarial approach.
Oh silly me. This government would sack her, cut the CSIRO funding, direct where the climate funds are to be applied and the results they shall produce.
Remember what happened to Dr Splash:
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/clive-spash-resigns-from-csiro-after-climate-report-censorship/story-e6frfku0-1225806539742
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/02/csiro-climate-researcher-resigns-rather-than-be-censored/
Does anyone recall the incident where the Canadian scientist specialist on polar bears was approved to travel to the Copenhagen conference, but at the last minute his travel was disallowed because he does not support the orthodox view?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html
11
Sorry, spelling error. That was supposed to be Dr Spash (of CSIRO)
11
rjm385:
Or possibly his employers did not like what he had to say about political pressure on he and his collegues during the interview.
“But Michael Bromwich, who heads the government agency where Monnett works, told staff in an email that the suspension was due to entirely different issues of integrity that came to light during the course of the investigation.
Earlier, an official from Bromwich’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Enforcement and Regulation told The Guardian in an email: “The agency placed Mr Monnett on administrative leave for reasons having nothing to do with scientific integrity.”
But yes, time will tell.
11
Quite so Baa Humbug. Took a break to post during the 1/2 time break
11
2007: David de Rothschilds “adventurer” was scaring children with his global warming book and DENYING any planned GLOBAL carbon tax.
Whoops, someone that that’s the heir to the family fortune never listed in Forbes, and wants to control the world through taxation, got caught telling LIES…
2011: Rothschilds Australia and E3 International want to control carbon tax locally and globally.
Never trust a bankster — no matter what their current role.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!!
11
Peter Lang at #150
Exactly!
Seriously, I doubt the CEO of CSIRO will have time to spit let alone read Spencer & Braswell 2011 (which no doubt hordes of CSIRO-ers will NOT volunteer to send to her). CEO’s spend most of their time on the 4F’s: fighting fires and finding funding.
I have here previously suggested pretty much exactly what you suggest, which was that she should find money in the budget to support some sceptic climate science. At least because at the next election she’ll probably have a different minister to explain to. It is helpful during such games to trot out the poor sceptics as Exhibit A (“balance”).
11
Rod Freeman at #150
Someone who has been in mining industry operations for 30 years and a banker for 2 years nearly a decade ago. Sure. Yes, in that respect I’m not a scientist I’m a cleaner since that is what I did for a buck at uni.
11
Treasury says:
http://www.treasury.gov.au/carbonpricemodelling/content/overview/page16.asp
Where is the substantiation for this statement: “there is no doubt that these costs far outweigh the modest cost of transforming our economy.”?
I suspect the whole Treasury modelling exercise is built on assumptions that have not been validated.
11
Rod Freeman @ 149:
History has shown that when the general populace believes they are living in enlightened times where corruption and oppression are impossible, are precisely the moments when the great social disasters unfold. I’m always amused when the idea of a malicious technocracy is scoffed at.
Those that understand history and can see what is happening in our society today need to remain vigilant and vocal. As a non-conspiracy theorist I ask, how hard is it to see that many different groups of people are working this thing for their own ends?
People taking advantage of a given set of circumstances to better their outcomes is the natural state of the individual. Lack of accountability for these actions is unnatural to any individual state. It will only lead to fascism and eventual ruin.
11
Peter Lang said on July 31st, 2011 at 4:37 pm
When he quoted the Australian government Treasury as follows:
“While the modelling cannot accurately measure all the costs to the economy and environment of unmitigated climate change, there is no doubt that these costs far outweigh the modest cost of transforming our economy.
The science is compelling, the threat is real, the economic and environmental benefits are tangible, the need for action is clear.”
UNQUOTE
Peter, I agree with your critisms and I add more:
The Treasury should first state what are the means to satisfactorily transform the Australian economy and in particular what can be used to replace the various industries that currently provide the export income that we rely upon to fund our imports and to maintain our standard of living?
I include coal and gas export, live animal exports – wool, wheat, sugar and other cerials, aluminium and so forth.
Not to mention our domestic requirements for cheap,continuous base load electricity, steel, cement and brick manufacture etc.
With a wave of the hand the greenies talk about new, green, renewable industries.
If these were a reality then they would be growing now and driving the old reliable industries into the sidelines.
It’s all about dreamtime fairy floss thinking.
This must be stopped before too much damage is done to our way of life.
The Treasury used to provide independent, fearess advice.
Not just feed back to our dreamy green – labor coalition, their own fantacies from somewhere over the rainbow.
It sure is past time to get realistic.
11
Phil,
I wasn’t watching the footy, instead I was having a “gore ball” fight with my family using that white global warming stuff that falls out of the sky…
Thank you for your post earlier. Even though I wasn’t asking, you have confirmed your doubts as to the validity of Monnetts research in this case. That’s interesting, but it doesn’t answer the questions I have asked you on this matter.
Unfortunately you tried to deflect again with question number 7 by going on about some conspiracy theory to do with his employer, so I don’t think I can add #7 into the answered questions section yet. I thought it was us skeptics who were meant to be the conspiracy theorists?
I notice you still haven’t answered the questions posed, so I’ll add a couple more:
1) What evidence was there that the 3 floaters were apart if the original group? Empirical evidence please.
2) How are the polar bear population faring these days compared to say 5 years ago?
NB: The inquiry may find this irrelevant, but we the people find it entirely relevant
5) When did you complain that the attacks on sceptics were doing nothing for the debate?
NB: This is as relevant as your comments about attacks on scientists needing to stop.
6) Has Monnett objected in anyway to Al Gores Inconvenient truth being a part of school curriculums around the world considering his work is referenced within it?
7) Exactly how much did Monnetts research on this topic cost who funded it?
NB: This is entirely relevant. The polar bears’ plight became front and centre – at least in part due to Monnets’ paper
8) What is your reaction to these little pieces of “education”:
Copenhagen polar bears
Splattergate
Greenpeace angry kid
And so some skeptics get a little edgy over the politicisation of science, and start asking questions? Why is it that you appear to be against this?
9) Has anyone considered that maybe these bears were in close proximity to each other when struck by lightning? Of course an autopsy may have shown this. Shame one never happenned?
Your Answered questions:
Q What did the autopsies of the polar bears prove they died of?
A. They never recovered the bodies of the bears because doing that and performing an autopsy would have run the risk of discovering that they didn’t die of exhaustion.
Q. What evidence exists which shows that more than two polar bears have never died in a storm before 2004?
A. There is none which shows they did or didn’t, more research funding is required to establish this.
11
Wait a minute! I know how the four poley bears carked it:
They were thrown out of a plane by Greenpeace
11
Well it is true that polar bears can fly in Churchill, Canada, anyway. Eyewitness account.
11
Your Skeptics Handbook states on the 2nd page “Non-believers don’t have to prove anything. Skeptics are not asking the world for money or power.”
Time for some editing.
[Nope. We are not asking you to pay $$$ for our theory, we are asking the government to test your theory properly before it takes our and your $$$ away. We want science done properly, or all the climate science money used on something else. Say medical research? — JN]
11
Rod Freeman: @ 136 Exactly, trying to get this through to the populace its the banksters is the problem.
11
@ Waffle and theRealUniverse, notice how they chatter post after post worrying about spelling and football?
Glad you guys can see. Here’s another ‘join the dot’ observation beauty they’ll probably drive by while on the way to the beer fridge…
“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.
Today that “money” would represent something like…
‘Let me issue and control a nation’s carbon taxes and I care not who writes the laws.’ Adventure, David de Rothschilds, heir of the House of Rothschild’s stolen fortune never listed on Forbes magazine.
My work here is done so I’ll turn email updates off — Waffle and theRealUniverse you’re welcome at AustraliaMatters.com anything. We drink beer and don’t care if we spell badly — it’s about the message.
🙂
11
Well its going to be interesting to watch the US up to the ‘vote’ on Aug 2 when the ‘default’ or what ever happens if they allow it in the end.
11
Curse you Madjak, I’ve just spent the last hour cruising Youtube climate change videos. I came across this great interview with Patrick Moore. He’s definately a man on a mission to get the message out. I would say my views are on the environment are almost identical to his. I’m sure most sceptics agree with his sensible, pragmatic approach to the environment.
There are so many Greanpeace and WWF commercials from around the world on Youtube that it really does put the scale of the propaganda war into perspective. This has been a relentless assault on the sensibilities of our citizenry for two generations. What is heartening are the comments in each video. Independant minds, doing the research, forming an opninion and rejecting the psuedo-sceince.
11
Rod Freeman @165
I reckon that with Julia about to pass legislation which will make Goldman Sachs the real owner of this nation,that it is too late right now to be arguing about the weather.
11
Democracy -one man one vote- is just another form of socialism/collectivism wherein the wise are outnumbered exceedingly by the unwise thus negating their influence in society. The enemy controls the media and the media is the message thus the misinformed are led along like sheep. But hopefully the populace can be alerted and get angry enough to put a stop to this treachery.
11
Well at least the WA Government has the political will that the NSW wimps seem to be lacking. At least WA is unwinding the absolutely and financially irresponable household renewable scheme:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/9947094/household-solar-scheme-axed/
Unfortunate that it didn’t cap payments to the old systems. Would have been better to cap the payments at a set number of kWh fed in – enough to recoup the cost of the system but no more IMO.
11
read all:
30 July: Lubos Motl: HadCRUT3: 30% of stations recorded a cooling trend in their whole history
The temperature changes either fail to be global or they fail to be warming. There is no global warming – this term is just another name for a pile of feces.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/07/hadcrut3-30-of-stations-recorded.html
11
Waffle,
Yep, The propoganda is completely coming from the other side. I find it interesting how team catastrafaria are so ready to draw extremely long bows on how rupert murdoch, the koch bros or big oil are behind anyone who asks questions about agw, but refuse to see how the wunch of bankers who need the next big bubble to replace CDOs are working with opportunistic politicians and radical fringe militants to collectively transform us to some beaurocratic command economy.
The hypocrosy, stupifity and beligerance astounds me.
11
had to wade through 3 pages of results – back to about 26 july – to get this from the 1st august. one comment rubbishes plimer and links to monbiot. maybe someone would like to respond:
1 Aug: NZ Herald: Peter Bromhead: Anthropogenic global warming issues
Unlike New Zealanders – who appear more malleable when it comes to accepting vaporous concepts – Australians appear sceptical about their Government’s proposals to hijack what many believe is an expensive fiction.
Possibly the reason Aussies don’t buy into carbon tax is because they have all read their fellow countryman’s admirably comprehensive book, Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science, by Professor Ian Plimer…
Yes, the climate will change and affect the environment. But don’t be fooled by irrational guilt-fed ideology that appears to be closer to wacky religious beliefs than scientific reality.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10741396
11
my previous out-of-order links were from Bing searches. the following, posted 90 minutes ago, is on Page 22 of a Google News search!
1 Aug: Australian: Damon Kitney: Leading company boards lash weak Canberra leadership, in survey
DIRECTORS on boards overseeing companies that generate more than $80 billion in revenues believe the poor state of the current public policy debate and a perceived lack of political leadership are directly affecting consumer confidence and damaging the nation…
In terms of management, they ranked the government’s handling of the carbon tax issue the worst, followed by its management of the two-speed economy…
Another added: “The whole carbon and renewable energy debate and the resource tax debate have been woeful in terms of the way public policy has been conceived and developed, and I think it does Australia a great disservice. It is starting to result in a different perception of Australia from both equity and a debt investor perception.”…
One director surveyed said: “You get what you deserve in terms of politicians, and the lack of leadership has come about for any number of reasons — the short political cycle or the lack of communication between business and politicians on how life works. There are less people in parliament who have been in business and therefore have an understanding of how business works. And there are a lot of business people who don’t have the faintest idea of how politics works.”
Another added: “In federal parliament you would be hard pressed to find anyone who has had a job in business. You can literally count them on the fingers of one hand. It’s not one-sided. There are a lot of business people who don’t understand politics either. The consequence of this is that the national interest is not being well served by the way we are erratically changing policy or coming out with half-baked ideas and then having to retract them or change them.”…
The survey also found there was still a culture of retribution towards critics of the government, after respected chairmen such as National Australia Bank’s Michael Chaney, ANZ’s John Morschel and Telstra’s Catherine Livingstone claimed last year that business leaders were being privately attacked and punished by politicians when they spoke out on key issues.
Mr Chaney, who also chairs Woodside Petroleum, said some corporate leaders had been “threatened” by politicians, while Mr Morschel and Ms Livingstone said a culture of “retribution” had become “prevalent”.
“I was at a dinner last night with very prominent business people and two or three said the same things I’ve been saying,” said one director surveyed. “Two people said last night ‘I’ve been invited on a post-budget panel and I’m not going to do it because you get phone calls and get beaten up if you happen to have a view’.”
Another added: “You don’t see business leaders saying as much as they used to say, and it may be because of potential recriminations against the companies they represent.”…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/leading-company-boards-lash-weak-canberra-leadership-in-survey/story-e6frg906-1226105581354
11
the RealUniverse@166
Despite what you read in major national newspapers like the Australian and SMH there is no chance that the US government will default on its interests and rollovers on Treasury bonds. There is enough tax collection coming in each month to easily pay that plus Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid plus veterans and current military pay. There’s a little left over, that’s where the decisions have to be made. Search for Karl Denninger Market Ticker.
Bulldust: My home solar cells will at current prices generate around $500 worth of electricity a year. They cost around $11000 with inverter so over the 20-25 year lifetime ony just pay for themselves – maybe. Nuts for the country as a whole, good deal for me as Julia (read the taxpayers)coughed up a $9000 subsidy on the installation. So it can safely be said that the solar panels will NOT contribute to any CO2 reduction but instead generate CO2 up front which then gets amortised over the panel lifetime.
11
Trenberth kinda spills the beans:
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N30/EDIT.php
11
Bulldust @170,
Thank you for your comment. I’ll use it to make a point for others.
How did you calculate the figure of “$500 worth of electricity a year.”
Did you use the FiT rate (which is a massive – about 10 times – subsidy by those who do not have solar panels)?
Or did you use the average wholesale spot price for electricity (say about 4.5c/kWh)
or did you use the real value of solar energy? (the real “worth” of solar energy is near zero when you consider the other costs to the electricity system that intermittent renewables cause; if it was not mandated and subsidised, I doubt any electricity distributor would buy it at any price and no commercial organisation would build solar power stations – that tells us what the real “worth” of solar power is.
11
My comment at 177 was a reply to Mike Borgelt @175, not to Bulldust. Apologies to Mike and Bulldust.
11
no carbon tax rally Sydney yesterday
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK70f2r93IQ&feature=youtu.be
11
Joanna Nova, Monckton tour.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RgM7oYieWE&NR=1
11
BTW Jo – please correct your spelling of consensus on your slide.
11
Mike Borgelt at comment 175,
and for other readers as well.
This provides some insight into rooftop solar panels.
As Mike says, they are barely ‘revenue neutral’ thanks to both subsidies, the first being the initial subsidy the government pay you to install them, and the second subsidy, that of the feed in cost of the power the panels generate not being used by the household, and fed back to the grid.
while, on the surface, they may actually generate approximately the same power used by the residence during a full 24 hours, that power is only generated during daylight.
After that, and before that as well, are the two main Peaking Power periods of the day, so to cover those power requirements, the residence (with solar panels) is still a net consumer of power FROM the grid, as power is consumed one thirds during daylight and two thirds all other times.
The thinking might be that the panels generate total household consumption, but keep in mind the panel owner is being paid for the power he does not consume during those daylight hours, so you in fact are not generating your total consumption because you are still consuming from the grid, and the grid is not a household battery that stores your power for you and then returns it when you consume it, because you’re being paid for that anyway.
Also, the grid purchases its power wholesale from generators and if the cost of your power is revenue neutral, they’re not going to purchase that price at 3 times (feed in tariff) retail, and of major importance, pity help the grid controlling authority that relies on rooftop solar to make up the total power requirement for the grid total power requirement.
Rooftop Solar Power is con and relies specifically upon other non panel owners to subsidise panel owners via an increase of the price of electricity we all pay.
Hey! No offence to you personally Mike.
Tony.
11
would anyone be interested in doing a multi person submission re the Clean Energy Bill and its other draft legislation
Some good reasons for combining our resources would be that there are people here who have a wide variety of backgrounds and expertises. For example in respect to that 80% reduction in emissions by 2050 Peter Lang and Tony from Oz would have lots to say; there are scientists here who could address the question as to what this package is to achieve (other than a money grab); there might be economists here who have read the modelling by Treasury and could address its weaknesses; there would be I anticipate people here whose jobs might be affected and there’s lots of things I haven’t thought of yet
I’ve got a legal background but I’m no Constitutional lawyer so other legal input would be welcome
I’m just one person so a submission by me alone would be futile I believe but with a combination of views we could do a wonderful submission
We’d also need an editor to edit the different writing styles – I think MV said he had journo experience
11
the closing date for submissions is 22 August
11
“How did you calculate the figure of “$500 worth of electricity a year.””
Peter – not trying to put words in Bulldust’s mouth, but he will most likely have multiplied the kWh produced in a year by the c/kWh that Western Power charge people to use their electricity.
11
I didn’t suggest what panels do or don’t generate, Mike Borgelt did. I don’t know the payback on panels as I am unable to invest in them because I live in an apartment. Therefore I never bothered looking at solar panel economics. As long as the householders are not out of pocket then there is no reason for them to get upset, but I see no reason why someone should expect to make a big profit of these systems. It was a rort from the start and everyone knows it. I know people at work that invested in them strictly because it was a good investment. These are peopel making above-average salaries. The whole thing was middle- to upper-class welfare.
11
Malcolm Turnbull – Goldman Sachs
http://www.swissamerica.com/reports/20090702085037.pdf
http://www.socialvoice.com.au/about-social-voice/165-goldman-sachs-turnbull-dances-to-british-carbon-trading-tune
11
PS> I am on our strata council and we changed some of the garage lights to LED systems. We paid less for electricity last year than the year before, due to the electricity savings. Needless to say we are now replacing a lot more of the strata common area lighting in the hope of further savings. Unlike Government we are in a position to evaluate what works and implement it. This is unlike picking politically-correct “winners” like small scale solarPV and subsidising it to the hilt.
Score … Adam Smith’s invisible hand 1 : Big Government 0
11
val majkus @183,
Yes. I’d be interested in participating/contributing, but not leading. We need a project manager to lead, define the misssion, objectives, outputs, time line, and task the volunteers with who’ll do what by when.
How can we get started? How will we work together?
Is anyone out there prepared to take the lead and get this started?
11
MattB @185,
Sorry Matt. I should have spelled out my point, in comment @177, more clearly. The point is that multiplying kWh by the FiT (feed in tariff) does not give you the value of what the electricity is worth. It is a gross over estimate. I thought the three options were self explanatroy without spelling it out in a final sentence. My mistake.
11
Bulldust in particular it was this overlap of there being both a govt subsidy and also an inflated feed in tarrif. Even if Solar worked there was no need to give it a 3 year payback for households! Up front subsidy or a feed in tarrif… not both!
I’d also like to add that the big feed in tarrifs were a new thing in WA by this government (liberal, although both parties were committed last election), and in the past it was still about an 8-10 year payback and most who installed them didn’t see much financial gain and genuinely did it as it was a good thing to do for the planet (possibly misguided) and the government encouraged it. It was not middle class welfare in the traditional sense until maybe the past 18 months when if you had the cash spare you were laughing all the way to the bank, and yes only the middle class had the cash to spare.
11
Sorry Peter I clearly didn’t click that FiT = Feed In Tarrif sorry. I assumed it was something far more complicated:)
11
1 Aug: ABC: Flood inquiry calls for lowering of dam level
The 250-page report makes more than 150 recommendations to improve the management of future disasters, including the use of warning sirens in small towns.
The inquiry, led by Justice Catherine Holmes, also says Wivenhoe Dam should be temporarily reduced to 75 per cent capacity if another bad wet season is predicted…
More than 30 people died and thousands of homes were destroyed when flooding affected huge swathes of central and south-east Queensland in early January…
During the hearings, Justice Holmes described the dam’s manual as “a bit of a mess” and today’s report says it should be immediately reviewed…
The report found there was a failure to comply with the Wivenhoe manual by the engineers in control of the dam.
The inquiry heard the engineers used forecast rain models to guide their decisions.
The commission found there had been a technical breach of the manual, but qualified this by pointing out that the engineers operated the dam with the honest belief that the manual did not compel their choice of strategy.
“The finding does not therefore necessarily reflect upon the flood engineers operating the dams, nor can any particular consequence flowing from the breach be identified,” the report said.
Ms Bligh said it would be up to the courts to test whether this opened an avenue for legal action by flood victims…
She(Bligh)says it will take several years to implement all the measures…
“Those that require implementation before this wet season will be implemented in time.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-01/dam-level-reduction-recommended-in-flood-inquiry-report/2819452
10
Peter thanks for that; your expertise would be extremely valuable; I’m working on a Project Manager; he’s not someone who contributes to this blog but I think a lot of bloggers here would know of him; but if he’s got no time there may be someone else here who could provide valuable input of that sort;
subject to that aspect and there being enough interest here I thought we could ask Jo to provide interested parties with each others e mails and then we’d just go to it with e mailing each other; we’d need to provide each other with out names and that might put some people off who have a pseudonom here;
and Jo might do a special post with the submission once its finalised and submitted
I will have to check to see if it can be provided online
11
val majkus @183,
Further to my comment @189, three points I’d like to make in the submission are:
1. Due diligence has not been done and should be before we commit to expenditures and economically damaging policies that will amount to trillions of dollars;
2. even if the average global temperature does warm by three or four degrees over a century and even if sea level rises by say 120 mm by 2050, so what? What is so bad about that?
3. If we want to reduce CO2 emissions then there are ways we could do so that would benefit rather than damage the economy. But these are banned in Australia. The winner picking that both parties are proposing are very bad policy.
4. The unconditional 2020 targets are effectively unachievable. There needs to be a caveat saying in effect: “Australia will achieve these targets as long as our trade partners ard competitors are implementing equivalent policies“. UK has such a caveat and we had a caveat on the “Toronto Targets”. The Toronto Targets were part of the Hawke government’s “Ecologically Sustainable Development” program around 1991 to 1993. The Toronto Targets said (don’t choke!): “Australia commits to reduce its CO2 emisisons to 20% below 1988 levels by 2005”. The LNP Coalition gave bipartisan support to this with a caveat that said “as long as it does not disadvantage Australia’s industries’ international competitiveness (or words to that effect).
11
All Good points Peter,
11
I have read Monnett’s paper on the dead bears and it confirms what I suspected from the transcript of the interview and reports of it I had read. Had I been a referee I would have questioned the statistical significance of the result. That does not mean I don’t think the result is statistically significant, it may or may not be but the small number of bears it discusses cause me to doubt it.
But you have to undderstand that when a scientist talks about statistical significance they are talking about a 95% confidence level. A 90% probability that the result is not by chance is considered not statistically significant. That is a high bar to set.
The record keeping has been much more rigorous than I had understood it to be.
The total number of observations of bears going back to 1987 are in the hundredsand the loations carefully logged. People did not start noticing bears recently because of the global warming debate. Most are on land some on land, some close inshore. In that time the observation of 4 bears swimming together in one area of open water is unprecedented. The total going back to 1987 is 13 bears, all swimming alone.
There are no previous observations of dead bears at all.
This occured in a year of record low ice cover. Statistically significant or not, this is a bit more than an anecdote.
In terms of the global warming debate, assertions are made by people on both sides of the debate every day (including I suggest, Ms Nova)on evidence that makes this paper look close to mathematical proof.
If you wish to argue that the record low ice cover that year was an example of natural variation which had nothing to do with global warming go ahead. But to argue that this unprecedented number of dead bears in open water had nothing to do with longer swimming distances and it’s just a coincidence – I suggest that is a bit of a stretch.
One thing is certain. The pathetic and digraceful accusation of scientific misconduct by some knucklehead or heads who could not even understand the paper and failed at grade 5 arithmetic was not scientific but political.
11
Val Markus @183 and All,
“Climate pragmatism – innovation, resilience and no regrets”
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Climate_Pragmatism_web.pdf
This is interesting. I agree with what they are proposing.
I retract my previous suggestion (@195) about the four points I’d like to see included in the submission re the Clean Energy Bill and its other draft legislation.
Instead I suggest we use “Climate Pragmatism …” as the basis for our Vision and Mission. I suggest we use is as a basis for a policy alternative to the Labor-Greens Carbon Price proposal.
Thoughts?
11
As part of our policy proposal I suggest “Direct Action” to eradicate feral polar bears from Australia. 🙂
11
Peter Lang @ 199
Wouldn’t it be better to train them to develop a taste for feral camels?
We might even be able to get a grant for methane and CO2 reduction, quite apart from the carbon credits.
11
More on “Climate Pragmatism …”. I just read this at Judith Curry’s site: http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/31/climate-pragmatism/#more-4208
She copies extracts from the Warmists, links to a discussion at Roger Pilelke Jr’s site and finallys summarises with this:
11
Philip Shehan:
August 1st, 2011 at 4:39 pm
The 95% Confidence Interval is a widely misunderstood statistical concept borrowed from the behavioural and biological sciences. It simply means that there is a 0.95 probability that the results are not due to chance alone. It gives absolutely no indication to whether the results are correct or not. The only reason the 95% figure was originally used is because it was very easy to determine (pencil, ruler and graph paper) before computers were available.
Many physical science journals have far more rigorous statistical requirements (>99.99% CI)
11
TonyfromOz and others. No offence taken, Tony. I went into this knowing full well it was a scam and bad for the country but I have a duty to protect myself and my wife, as far as possible, from the bad decisions made by the voters of this country and our politicians particularly as we are approaching retirement.
I arrive at the $500 per year by the simple reduction in my electricity bill. I generate some of the electricity we use during the day and so far about 1.7KW-Hr a day exported to the grid for which I get 44c/Kw-Hr. We may do a little better now as the next door neighbour let me remove his Chinese Elm which was partially shading the panels in the morning.
This all started for me when a junk fax arrived touting a 1.5KW peak solar installation for $4000 to me. I did some numbers and thought it wasn’t attractive enough. My lovely wife did a web search and said “how about $2000?”. I looked into it a little more and figured out how much electricity it would generate per day and year and so far it is right on those numbers. I agree that for the country it is absolutely nuts as a way to generate electricity but for me electricity is worth what I pay for it, not what it costs at the coal fired power station and I get a return of about 20% on my $2000 “investment” after amortising the installation over 20 years at $100 per year. It sure is a crazy world we live in. I’m expecting talking playing cards and talking white rabbits to drop by any time now.
11
Australians deserve freedom of expression
http://www.thenewcityjournal.net/2011_australians_deserve_freedom_of_expression.html
the first few paras:
11
SORRY TO INTRUDE… ANOTHER PETITION
SEIZING on the unpopular announcement of a proposed carbon tax by the Gillard Government, the National party has launched an online petition seeking public feedback on the controversial issue.
Nationals Federal Member for Cowper Luke Hartsuyker said the petition was established because so many people had enquired about how they could protest over the carbon tax.
http://justmeint.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/another-no-carbon-tax-petition/
11
bananabender, I understand your point about statistical significance. I was originally trained in the physical sciences, my specialty being Nuclear Magnetic Resonance as applied to organic and inorganoic molecules. I shared to some extent the prejudice of the physicist (forget who, maybe Rutherford)) who said that if you have to resort to statistics you have not done the experiment properly.
But that is because in the physical sciences we are dealing with relatively simple systems where it is possible to isolate the entites we wish to study, subatomic particles, atoms, molecules and study them more or less in isolation. This ability to look at the parts in isolation while keeping other factors constant is called reductionism.
When I moved into biomedical applications of NMR I realised that in dealing with cells or organs or live animals or human subjects, it is impossible to isolate the things you wish to study from the system it is embedded in, so statistics become necessary.
11
John Brooks @117:
Excuse me? My reading of Andrew Bolt’s columns and opinions is that he is only interested in the truth. Can you give one – just one – example that is an unequivocal indication otherwise? If not, you would be advised to withdraw your defamatory claim.
11
A man goes to a psychiatrist and says, “Doc, my brother’s crazy, he thinks he’s a climatologist who is able to use abstract computer models to predict imminent climactic apocalypse.” The doctor says, “Why don’t you turn him in?” The guy says, “We would. But we’ve gotten acclimated to his assurance of certainty”.
11
Bugger off Graham
11
I notice that in addition to getting 4 “don’t likes” for a short post where I merely confirmed my identity to cohenite, I notice that I have acccumulated 2 don’t likes in an hour and ahlaf for a post where I largely agree with bababender about stistical significance.
The rating system here is clearly largely one of where peple who ironically call themselves “skeptics” spot someone they have identified as an idealogical enemy and give them the thumbs down no matter what they write.
11
On a more serious note:
SMART METER WARNING
Here are the hard science facts on the ground:
According to Canadian Federal Health Laws Smart Meters are illegaL. They’re being deployed at top speed anyway.
In fact, who needs another Fukushima, since most of the “civilized” globe is being drift netted by this lethal grade of non ionizing EMF radiation via mesh networks called the smart grid, the ultimate embodiment of climate green wash.
Heads they win & tails we lose to this preemptive strike. This frequency creates a conflict w/ our bodies. We operate at 7.8 hertz & the meters operate at multi gigahertz. They win, we lose. Frequency incompatibility is capable of destroying entire ecosystems. THIS is the overarching reason why bees can no longer navigate back to hives, birds lose sense of direction or drop dead in large numbers, bats are in sharp decline, butterflies die en masse, & why they & we have sharply declining immune systems. The navigational creatures rely on magnetite in the brain, fast destroyed by this level of microwave & RF cybersmog, of which smart meters are far & away the most aggressively dangerous emitters.
FACT: Smart meters violate Canadian Safety Code for humans AND its equivalent in most so called civilized countries, including yours.
FACT: Smart meters induce the “heat effect” in the tissue of all biological beings. Translation: they excite tissues & “slow cook” creatures & humans.
FACT: EMF devices have just been reclassified as a 2b possible carcinogen by the WHO.
FACT: EMF & specifically microwave radiation at this level sterilizes the lifetime supply of eggs human females are born with.
FACT: Every utility corporation everywhere conceivable round the globe is ignoring all of this while rapidly deploying this diabolical device at top speed.
While we continue to chat about carbon & such, the alarmists lobbied the politicians to smart grid us all & the corporations got in on the game with the final moves. While we sleep, they have moved on.
Smart meters comprise the foundation stone of the “climate” movement, & they are here.
Smart meters are the quintessential example of just how the climate oligarchy is having the last word on this issue.
Smart meters are your own personal x-ray machine bathing your family and workplace 24/7 in pulsing doses of radiation, high frequency EMFs from the smart grid, killing off pollinators, destroying navigational creatures. In essence these s/meters & the appliances in your home & the signal boosters they talk to on utility poles represent both a summation of & add a finality to all future climate discussions. It has moved beyond discussion now. The smart grid has arrived to cause biological chaos & relentless destruction & latency disease at unimaginable levels. Do the research. This system is not only totalitarian, it is the most horrendous pollution every to blanket the planet.
In reply to:
“In law, if there is no defence, it’s a sham.”
An exact description of the involuntary deployment of Smart Meters, the very absence of options to defend ourselves from these dangerous levels of radiation. Mass installations are misusing the legal excuse of “implied consent”. This means if you do not object, by default you accept. Except that you accept what, exactly? It’s like having an uninsurable fire hazard, an illegal surveillance device & a cell phone tower all-in-one, attached to your house wall by trespass, w/ utility corps protected by legislation that absolves them from all scrutiny, accountability or liability.
“In business, if there is no competition, it’s a monopoly.”
This, too, is an accurate description of the involuntary deployment of Smart Meters.
“In science, if there is no debate, it’s propaganda.”
And this sums up the absence of science to prove that Smart Meters are safe while meantime tons of science reveals that they are absolutely UNsafe. FIGHT BACK NOW.
11
Mia Nony: Sorry your FACTS are not FACTS.
The power level from WLAN and like technology is < NANO watts / m2.
I do not know where you got that about the Canadian saftey Code from please provide a link.
Well the several Giga hertz you mention is different by at least 10^9. Yes you will cook if you stick your head in a microwave oven and yes there is heating effect from certain power densities but in the WATT class not at farfield levels.
I put it to you that you are one of those ludites just anti technology without much understanding.
I will add I dont like the forced introduction of smart meters for other reasons, not RF reasons. The suggestion that ALL RF is cooking us is just pure BUNKUM. I would imagine you use a mobile phone, and dont drive up Mt Cootha theres about 100kW of nasty TV transmissions up there under those masts!
11
John Brookes
Can you please get another photo? Your current one just looks brainless, smug and self-satisfied.
I chose an Avatar for a very good reason – it looks prettier than I do but at least I’m smart enough to realise it!
Cheers,
Speedy.
11
Speedy; could be worse, at least we don’t see the body garbed in Lycra.
11
Rereke Whakaaro @19 – Thank you for the correction and the education. I had known of the subterfuge concerning Wilson and American Involvement in WWI, but a source is always better.
11
Allen @ 214
Mine or his? Tortured lycra…
11
Jo anne if you dig deeper I think you will find the warmistas were probably responsible for advising the Qld goverment that they would be in for eternal droughts re Tim Flannery and co well now there going to have to pay big time
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/damages-to-flow-from-wivenhoe-dam-breach/story-fn59niix-1226106273775
11
Philip Shehan:
July 30th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
This is utterly ridiculous.
Science is not a trial. CO2 is not a defendant.
Agreed. But the very clear subtext of Jo’s article, if not also the elephant in the room, is that CO2 = CAGW “Climate Science” is not real scientific method and principle science! So that her device is skillfully made to serve the her main point: Climate Science is not real science. It’s only well funded propaganda.
I glossed the initial credit, but well before I got to the end of the article I was wondering just who in the hell wrote such a great piece!
11
http://www.apec.org.au/docs/chase.pdf
Some Cautionary Remarks about the Precautionary Principle
“…..And since science is always uncertain, does the Precautionary Principle require that we should always take steps to avert every conceivable threat,no matter how unlikely it is to occur?
If not, then what is the threshold of probability at which danger is deemed to justify action? How far into the future must we assign probabilities to possible calamities?
If we must assign probabilities to distant events,then perhaps the evidentiary requirements can never be met.If so,then no rule should ever be applied at all.
The Limits of Decision Making
We live in an age in which not merely political leaders but many scholars act as though they were born yesterday. So it is that the Precautionary Principle has been thrust on an unsuspecting world as a new idea.It owes its origin, says this conventional wisdom, to the ‘Vorsorgeprinzip’ of German law,promulgated in 1976 and appearing internationally in 1987,in the North Sea convention.
Actually, it is merely old wine in a new Green bottle……
From game theory, we learn that there is no such thing as a ‘correct’ decision under conditions of uncertainty…..”
11
Philip Shehan: #197 and various
August 1st, 2011 at 4:39 pm
Before defending the Junk Monnett Gleason paper, I would suggest clicking the link and reading the transcript of the Gleason interview.
It’s getting very interesting.
p.s There also are suggestions Monnetts wife peer reviewed his paper.
SAY IT ISN’T SO JOE!!!!!!!
11
Baa Humbug
Read the link – it reminds me of a UFO story. “I saw a dead polar bear – I really did.” Even replete with fuzzy photo which seems to have been modified for publication.
Welcome to “Climate Science”.
Cheers,
Speedy
11
You clearly have no idea how scientific research is conducted.
This article is disgraceful. Its hard to know what else to say. This is baseless, inaccurate, hysterical ranting about something you obviously don’t understand (the nature of how science is conducted).
11
Baa Humbug: It would have been helpful if the linked transcript included Gleason’s answers to the questions. There is a link which does this and I will read it later.
As I have noted before, Monnett stated in his inteview that they play down direct references to global warming not only in this paper but in others because such references cause difficulties with their employer, the US Minerals Management Survey.
Excuse me if I don’t trawel throught the lenghy transcript again, but Monnett said that his paper was reviewed by others, including I think his wife, prior to submission to the journal. That is not the peer review process of the Journal.
11
jPeden. The assertion that:
“Climate Science” is not real scientific method and principle science!
is nonsense. Such statements have nothing to do with skepticism, – the entirely legitimate and necessary critical examination of the science.
Declaring it not to be science is a political, not scientific statement indicating a lack of confidence in winning the scientific argument.
Let the thumbs downs begin.
11
Phil Shehan @ 222
The term peer is stupid. In nature every one and everything is an individual,nothing has an equal. Everything in the whole of existence exists as an individual unit in a cosmos that is self regulatory. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
The term peer as used, seems to indicate a socialist collective where there are people with equal minds and equal ways of thinking. Monnetts wife is not his equal or peer. If she was she would have written exactly the same article herself.
11
Kevin. The term peer has a number of specific uses. In law it goes back to the Magna Carta right to be tried by ones “peers”. Lord Monckton is a peer of the realm (but not as he claims a member of the House of Lords as he inherited the title.)
In scientific publication it means that an article is reviewed by people who are the author’s “peers” in terms of having the requisite knowledge and expertise to assess the work.
11
Philip Shehan @ 226
I could name any number of people in history who in their various fields of knowledge had no peer and without whom the world would be a very different place. Lord Monckton has no peer in terms of his knowledge.Can you name anyone who is the equal of Lord Monckton? Do you know who your peer is?
With regards to the Magna Carta the right to be tried by ones peers meant that if you were a farm worker, then you had a right to be scrutinised by farm workers, not robber barons.
11
I agree that Lord Monckton is unique interms of th climate debate. Even Barnaby Joyce and Janet Albrechtsen think he is exceptional:
Joyce told Greenlines this week that while he would listen to Lord Monckton when he is in town, people should not read much into it.
‘‘Obviously I and my constituency have some doubts (about the science) but when you find yourself waltzing with the fringe you should take a step back,’’ Joyce said.
‘‘Lot’s of people from the fringe often take up causes and it can do more harm than good.’’
On Wednesday conservative columnist Janet Albrechtsen in The Australian wrote that Monckton was an extremist in his language and is hurting the cause of those who want to ask hard questions of the science.
11
You confuse theory with reality. In theory you are correct. In reality you are wrong. The antics and practices of the CRU folks and their supporters clearly show they are not interested in the truth, only promoting their ideas. Why else would they feel threatened by skeptics being published in scientific journals? Why else would they fear releasing their data to anyone so their results could be replicated? Why else would they censor any dissenting comments from their blog sites that point out opposing peer reviewed studies? Why else would their answer to skeptics be Nazi like methods of silencing them?
Why else indeed. Jpeden is right, and you are either myopic, or a willing dupe.
11
I am simply amazed that such an article escaped outside these biased bloggers pages and onto a major newspaper. I have written to the Australian newspaper to let them know how innappropriate it was to print this in the regular sections of the newspaper. It is simply a rant from an entertainer who has an agenda. Media watch have also been tipped off regarding it by myself and a number of others.
One can only assume that some of the millions of dollars pouring into the “Say no” campaign has found it’s way to you Joanne – I only wish you had the sense to use it more wisely. Please do not claim to be an expert on a subject you are clearly not.
[Thank-you! An excellent sample of the irrational, unsubstantiated slur fans of the carbon tax make. Classic Shut-Up-campaign response. I’m am delighted, thrilled, the article annoyed you. JN]
11
Kevin and Philjourdan.
The CRU was cleared of wrongdoing in at least four independent inquiries. Even if you are correct, that does not argue against any of the results produced and published and since papers which cast doubt on AGW (or can be claimed as doing so by “skeptics” who rush to embrace the scientists and the peer review system they normally vilify) there is no evidence that rigorous scientific papers are suppressed.
The irony is that the greatest shyster in this whole debate is none other than the aformentioned Christopher Monckton. The fantasies on his cv are not directly relevant to the science but understandable to the general public in a way his similar misrepresentations in his confident presentation of what his admirers call the facts are not.
Both these clips are well worth viewing but “skeptics” run like a vampire confronted with garlic when presented with them.
He presents basically the same stage show all over the world with super confidence to audiences who are in no position to question his alleged “facts” and assume him to be an honest man. His misrepresentations are corrected on blogs time and again but his audiences are unaware of them or refuse to even look at the evidence.
But in one case, someone he was debating came prepared. 11′ 30″ into the second clip shows a video message of a scientist disputing Monckton’s misrepresentation of her work. (Again, Monckton is a serial offender in this regard.)
Undeterred, he goes on to repeat the misrepresentation in testimony before the US congress, requiring the scientist to send an objection to the congress.
11
Dave Hall: #230
August 3rd, 2011 at 10:07 am
Mate I noticed your uniform and arm-band are a little crooked. Look in the mirror and tidy them up.
Gawd I wish you were correct
11
Philip,
Yes, when you can’t explain why Monckton has it wrong, it helps to have smear sites to go to with ready made micro-edited clips of things taken out of context doesn’t it?
Monckton eviscerated Abrahams, and Lamberts Pinker stuntwas an ambush. (Lambert won’t tell us what he send to Pinker to get that reply.)
It’s easy to get scientists to protest about misuse of their work if they are sent misquotes.
Skeptics don’t run from character assasinations, we just don’t stoop to play in the mud.
11
Philip Shehan @ 231
You’re desperate when you have to get someone else to write for you!
What is the point of addressing a rant like that to me – are you trying to convert me in the hope that I might join you in the Church of Climatology run by pastor Goldman?
11
Philip,
The case of Miskolczi (http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf) is in my opinion a perfect example of this exact suppression, where observational data showing the net greenhouse effect over the last 63 years has not altered due to offset of rising CO2 by decrease in atmospheric humidity and commensurate reduction in greenhouse effect of water vapour. While the subsequent “Saturated Greenhouse Gas Theory” proposed to explain this observation may or may not be correct, the observations themselves were certainly worthy of being submitted for peer review, but because they contradict the paradigm that rising CO2 as causing the modest increase in global temperature in that time, this paper was “withdrawn” -ie suppressed, rather than being submitted for peer review. Considering some of the quality of some IPCC sponsored papers (Kemp et al.’s North Carolina sea level paper for example), this was unwarranted censorship motivated by political reasons was thoroughly unjustified and highlights how one eyed the scientific community has become on this issue.
11
The notion that the CRU was cleared by a number of “inquiries” is absurd. How can it be an inquiry when no adversarial questions are allowed to be put to the subjects of the inquiry?
Try “whitewash”.
11
@ theRealUniverse:
Would a Luddite use a computer to blog?
Tell you what:
Google Error of Omission for Safety Code Six.
Testimony regarding Health Canada’s error of omission or “oversight” was given in October 2010 was given to the Standing Committee for the Canadian House of Commons.
Health Canada’s actually had their own error pointed out to them, that they are guilty of failure to enforce their own Safety Code Six law, specifically pages 1-9 regarding the necessity to avoid frequencies which create the thermal heat effect on human tissue. Evidence of harm was also given before the Standing Committee of the Canadian House of Commons last October.
At the time of this testimony it was pointed out that the issue of the dangers of frequency conflict and frequency incompatibility was supported by thermographic evidence of visible harm done to biological entities by EMFs.
In December 2010 recommendations were then carried forward to Health Canada regarding their failure to uphold their own laws.
Those laws render smart meters illegal.
11
Joanne. I am not a regular reader or contributor to this blog so I cannot comment on your own writings in detail other than to say I have no reason to suspect you of overt character assassination.
But the assertion that “skeptics” as a whole do not indulge in character assassination is simply unsupportable.
I put skeptic in inverted commas because as a scientist I am a professional skeptic. I was one before I considered the evidence for AGW to be sufficient to accept its reality and remain one since the accumulating evidence persuaded me (relatively recently in terms of the debate.)
I have never been nor am I now a “true believer”. Science is not about belief, it is about understanding. My current understanding of the evidence leads me to accept that AGW is real and significant.
Skepticism is not a synonym for rejection.
Many who call themselves climate skeptics show not the slightest skepticism in their own position or examination of the evidence.
Character assassination of those who accept and defend AGW is ubiquitous and often the first port of call for those who will not debate the science.
The hosts of various sites may or may not engage in overt character assassination themselves (some do) but their bloggers are often feral in this regard.
Even here, in response to my own objection to the smearing of Charles Monnett, (comment 74 and 77) the first response (78) was an assertion that I was a “totalitarian” “trying to shut down debate.”
Perhaps you do not consider nonsense accusations of being “totalitian” character assassination but I do.
As for Monckton,the claims and counterclaims as to who is misrepresenting who can go on forever.
I find the evidence for his misrepresentations, concerning his claims about himself and his presentation of the science to be indeed indicitive of a deeply flawed character.
And like I said, when “skeptics” like Barnaby Joyce and Janet Albrechtsen find him on the fringe, extreme and unlelpful to the cause, he clearly has credibility problems.
Just three of examples from the recent Press Club address which I watched myself(I could have picked more but three will do)
At one point he said that he would be prepared to change his view on climate change if the evidence presented itself. I do not recall if he specifically used the prefix “anthropogenic” but everyone knew what he meant, just as Monckton and everybody else knew precisely what a questioner meant she referred to this statement and asked just what kind of evidence would cause him to accept climate change.
Monckton shot back with a mixture of feigned indignation and condescension. He always accepted climate change. Climate had always changed…
Make the questioner out to be stupid or dishonest and avoid the question altogether.
And indeed, Andrew Bolt later claimed that the questioner had tried to falsely accuse Monckton as saying that the climate did not change.
Similarly, having been caught out over his frequent misrepresentations of having peer reviewed publications, he fell back on saying they were indeed “reviewed”, meaning he talked the editor into publishing them. That is essentialy what everyone who submits a paper for publication in any magazine including a celebrity mag does. It has nothing to do with the peer review process for scientific publications.
When questioned about the House of Lords writing to him to tell him (again)stop claiming to be a member, he whipped out his passport and blustered that it identified him as Viscount Monckton, knowing full well that his heredetary peerage gives him no right to membership of the House of Lords and that is precisely what the the House was objecting to.
Monckton is a snake oil salesman with all the tricks of the trade. Call it character assassination if you will. I call it a conclusion from the facts by a scientist who deeply resents this kind of conduct when it is used to misrepresent science.
11
Philip Shehan @ 238
http://www.climatedilemma.com/climate-change-and-game-theory/
I note that you are a scientist.
Can you explain the mathematics of game theory as used in the article below, and what in laymans terms is meant by incentive to free-ride,pay off matrices and other terms which those of us who are not in the high priesthood of science find difficult to understand
“Climate Change and Game Theory”
“Achieving international cooperation to climate change is difficult, because there are significant free-rider incentives. Game theory which analyses the mathematics of strategic behaviour, can help us obtain a better understanding of how the incentive to free-ride works,and identify the potential barriers to cooperation.Game Theory can also help us understand the behaviour of countries during international climate change negotiations.
….Relevent areas of Game Theory include…..University of Copenhagen…..slides from Australian National University by Dr Peter J. Wood….pay off matrices etc….”
11
All very well Philip but you forget that the onus is on the proponents of a hypothesis to state what would disprove it. It’s not the other way around no matter how much Kevin Trenberth would wish it.
Speaking of which, Philip; what has to happen before the scales fall from your eyes?
11
Philip Shehan @ 238
On closer examination of the site cited @ 239 I began to wonder whether you would be able to decipher the mathematics and language used – especially in the slide presentation.
Can you help out – please Christopher Monckton?
11
Kevin @ 241 Good point
“.Relevent areas of Game Theory include…..University of Copenhagen…..slides from Australian National University”. Surely not sarcasm?
This is an example of how the CAGW works.
It builds ” structure ” around the theory, whether relevant or not, the more the better because it confuses many into believing them.
11
non-sequitur. The investigations did not look into the suppression of published papers (that is not an illegality). So what the commissions did or did not so is irrelevant to the fact that the particulars of CRU and their band of brothers actively sought to suppress any papers THEY did not like. It is not open for debate as it is in black and white in their own emails. Why the red herring on your part? I am constantly amazed at why warmists try to divert the discussion to strawmen that they can then disassemble and defeat. Your answer has nothing to do with reality.
11
Winston: The paper was published so it is not suppression. And I have replied (as Brian S on page 2, Brian being my actual first name) on Andrew Bolt’s blog about a soon to be published paper where Mr Bolt says:
I’ve summarized this from just a rushed hearing of his lecture, not having access to his notes or the charts he produced on the evening. His findings, he says, have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication, so more will follow.
Kevin: I have no idea what you mean by me getting someone to write the post for me. My “rant” on the subject followed your assertion concerning his alleged expertise.
My knowledge of game theory is decidedly rusty since studying it in undergraduate mathematics decades ago. I note that the blog is called Climate dilema. I certainly recall The “prisoners dilemma” which is an almost famous example of game theory and a certain familiarity in general usage. Game throry as the name implies concerns strategies in games, policy formulation, war business etc. It has relevance in international policy formulation of states regarding responses to AGW. Potentially interseting and I may read it later.
But game theory has absolutely nothing to do with how science itself is conducted.
Mark and Philjourdan: The enquiries by competent persons looked at the questions raised by the emails. Jones was criticized for sloppy record keeping. The emails showed outburst of petulance and extreme irritation toward critics. Gosh, scientists act like other people in private correspondence. Shock Horror. I can assure you I have written and said much worse concerning other scientists. They found there was no falsification, or fraudulent manipulation data. “Skeptics” will accept no outcome other than “guilty”.
Scientists do not specify what it would take to “disprove” their theories. Scientists present empirical evidence which either supports or contradicts a theoretical framework. Theories are discarded or amended when scientific evidence obtained by standard scientific practice warrants their abandonment.
Monckton made the statement that he would accept AGW if evidence was presented. The reasonable question was asked as to what Monckton may consider such evidence to be. Instead of tackling the question on its merits, he resorted to attack, evasion and bluster. Which is standard procedure for Monckton.
When I decided that my previous position that there was insufficient evidence to support AGW changed, no scales fell from my eyes. If /when further evidence causes me to change my position again, there will be no falling of scales then either.
12
Phil Shehan @ 24
“But game theory has absolutely nothing to do with the way science is conducted.”
Can I translate that to mean that the science of Game Theory has nothing to do with the way Game Theory science is applied. Julia’s lure of a free-ride for low income earners is obviously Game Theory science in practise.
11
Kevin. Game theory is not science. It is mathematics.
11
Kevin. Me again. Have not had time to read the link you provided but I did mention Prisoners dilema. Not sure how easy this link is but it is called game theory 101 so once you have watched the video of the Prisoners dilemma on this page, you may wish to have a look at the rest of the link.
11
Philip Shehan @ 246
Mathemeticians are skilled in the science of mathematics.
It is obvious also that the Peer-Review System is not a Guarantee for quality –
http://www.thincs.org/links.htm
11
I’m puzzled by this and wonder if you could clarify. My interest lies in how people perceive that science operates. As a reader and writer of published science, I just don’t see science operating this way. One can frame a hypothesis so that it can be disproved, but there is no onus (or indication that scientists feel such an onus)on scientists to come up with the actual evidence that would do the disproving. This would require, for instance, advanced knowledge yet to be acquired observations or experimental evidence. Do you expect a scientist to publish an exhaustive list? This would make the process of advancing hypotheses prohibitive.
Anyway, maybe I’m just missing the point.
11
Philip:
Since when has (C)AGW been elevated to the status of theory? When has it ever shown any worthwhile predictive skill beyond an almost infinite range of outcomes?
When science is being done on the public dollar the practitioners are NOT at liberty do adopt a “whatever it takes” mindset a la Graham Richardson. On the contrary, the most stringent accountability applies to them.
Your weasel-words re the CRU “inquiries” are no more convincing than any of the numerous drive-by apologists who have appeared on this site over the years. Again, you fail to show that any real adversarial questioning took place. I also see that you don’t concede the requirement to falsify the (C)AGW hypothesis. That confirms you as a believer. Enough said!
You are at liberty to stick to your brand of “science” Philip. You are not at liberty to insist that everybody accept and pay for it ad infinitum. Along with others at this site, I choose not to believe a bunch of pseudo-science fraudsters who have shown themselves time and time again to be unworthy of trust.
That a motley bunch of socialist politicians and merchant bankers are champing at the bit on the sidelines just represents the sour cream on a very stale cake.
11
Philip Shehan @ 246
The science of Game Theory is as much about mathematics as it is of psychology. Played out mind games to the best of efficiency and mathematics to work out the best odds for the desired outcome. Only psycopaths could use such a scheme.
11
Gee Aye: Spot on.
Kevin: The peer review system is the worst possible system for assessing manuscripts, except for all the others.
Remember the film “A beautiful mind”? John Nash was a mathematician who won a Nobel Prize for economics because of the practical applications of his work in game theory. But I take your point about business and finance being the domain of psycopaths.
11
Gee Aye: Before the apostles of Karl Popper and extreme falsification jump all over you, I should say that scientists will carry out experimentsa with the aim of either confirming or falsifying a hypothesis, but it is not up to them to nominate precise falsification criteria for others.
11
Philip Shehan @ 252
The ways of a psycopath are first to assess,then manipulate,then abandon when they have achieved their objective.
As I see it,’useful-idiot’ Julia’s Climate Change think tank have assessed that you should first give people a free-
ride,then get them used to the system by slyly stupefy their brains with the aid of the Australian Bullcrap Corporation and their ilk,then abandon them to the slavery of the plutocrats long awaited goal to be the masters of the universe.
That tribe which comprises the Mega-rich are using Climate Change as one tool of the process in their endeavour to enslave the world by economic means.
The Climate Change agenda is under the control of, as well as controlled by, psycopaths.
11
Yeah! Faking and fudging data is much more fun, isn’t it Phil?
11
Philip Shehan @ 244
Forgive me for saying so, but this is an extremely disingenuous comment. Miskolczi, as far as I am aware, had to quit his job at NASA as he was marginalised for his findings, and return to his native land, Hungary, to allow publication and peer review .His work was suppressed IMO as it was withdrawn from peer review by his superiors as “unsuitable” to be submitted, which is newspeak for “we don’t like what you are saying, so we will make it uncomfortable for you to work here and don’t expect us to support your research any more on our coin”!. Real open minded, wouldn’t you say.
21
Philip Shehan again at 244
What can one say about this comment. Climate science doesn’t present ANY empirical evidence, they instead produce computer simulations (GSMs) masquerading as empirical evidence. Secondly, CAGW is not a theory, it is a hypothesis, and a dodgy one at best.
The reality is that almost no possible outcome with the patterns of world climate would be deemed as disproving their hypothesis. We could be knee high in snow drifts in the Simpson desert, and a mile under ice in Wisconsin and it would be used as evidence of “Climate Change” and CO2 would be named as the culprit- hence the removal of the name global warming as it didn’t fit the observed facts, so just change nomenclature- easy, problem solved!
When proposing a hypothesis, surely you must also have some predictive skill, after all anyone can pick the Melbourne Cup winner on the first Wednesday in November!
Finally, do you seriously believe that scientists in the global warming field would falsify their theory and do themselves out of a job, grants money, prestige and a sense of noble purpose all for the sake of honesty. You must have a highly attuned belief in the morality of science, that it’s proponents would commit career suicide so readily and negate the importance of a fledgling branch of science which is desperate for recognition and a sense of importance it would otherwise lack. I believe that is extremely naive, hence the need for those of us not heavily biased and invested in the doctrine to undertake rigorous scrutiny without fear or favour when “data” and papers are presented which demonstrate a self-perpetuating bias. In short, that chain of 3 sentences, IMO, demonstrates total uncritical thinking and naivete that beggars belief from an apparently intelligent and inquiring scientist.
21
But he has faith, Winston and that’s all that matters. /sarc off
21
Winston, The idea that there is no empricial evidence for AGW is simply one of those ridiculous statments by those in (sorry, not allowed to sue the D word here am I.)
The emprical data, whether for example on global temperature or arctic ice theory many many other areas is matched against the theory.
In the face of this evidence some “skeptics” are reduced to character assasination (Yes Ms Nova) against the scientists involved, insisting that they must be falsifying evidence.
That is simply a weak and cowardly argument. Do not project your own lack of integrity onto scientists. The idea that scientists careers depend on pushing one particular theory is totally ludicrous. I have produced results that have lead to discontinuation of projects and I am no more ethical than any more of my colleagues.
You have no idea of how scince is undertaken or the motivation of those who choose undertake it.
Argue the science if you can.
12
Mark: The problem with your accusation that my understanding is based on faith is that until relatively recently in the terms of the AGW debate, I assessed the evidence as being inadequate to support the theory. (Note that true skeptics do not deny the existence of evidence, they assess it.)
Over time the accumulating evidence and the match with theory led me to conclude that AGW was is basically correct. Certainly, details of precisely where, when, and how much global warming will efffect climate is not “settled”.
My skepticism then was not a product of faith, any more than my current undertanding is but is based on the evidence available.
It is those who call themselves “skeptics” but refuse to acknowledge that evidence even exists, resort to attacks on science and scientists rather than arguing the evidence and never have nor never will accept AGW who are in the thrall of a religion and have abandondened reason.
11
Well, we will just have to agree to disagree then, Philip.
You say the evidence agrees with the theory but to use the word theory is a stretch. This is before one gets into the evidence itself where I reach diametrically opposed conclusions to you re prediction vs observations. Not to mention that the proponents from Rajendra Pachauri down have exhibited too many character flaws for me to buy their bill of goods.
It’s clearly a belief system Philip because you believe you have the right to demand that everybody submit to your way of thinking to “change the world”.
You don’t!
11
Agree Mark (in 261)that you have the right to view and interpret the data using your own methods(and sorry for the tick in the thumbs down box… I’d just left a forum where the “leave reply” button sits at the bottom of the message – I blindly hit a button), although to accuse Philip of having a belief system looks like an attempt to denigrate his approach to understanding the data.
Science is a human construct and, although there are widely held views about how it is done, there are nonetheless no rules.
I think there is often confusion between Science (the human construct that interprets the universe using gathered information), data and facts. The above discussion demonstrates this nicely.
11
Mark: I have no problem whatsoever with people disagreeing with interpretation of the evidence and where the balance of evidence lies. The existence of evidence one way or the other “proves” nothing. A particular interpretation of evidence may be wrong and other evidence may make a stronger counter argument.
I have a problem with those who deny evidence for AGW even exists. And engage in wholesale, baseless character assassination because they do not agree with those who present the evidence and interpret it in ways those who falsely call themselves “skeptics” disagree with. It is they who have abandondened rational assessment of evidence.
Also, I have next to no interest in “changing the world”. Science is only interested in understanding how the world works. What people decide to do with the information is an entirely different matter. Really serious adverse effects of AGW are at least a few decades away, and colour me misanthropist if you will but at the age of 57 and with no children or grandchildren I am not sure I care much if the world goes to hell in a handbasket after my death.
11
The following is an excerpt from the sworn testimony of David Deming to the US Senate on 12th. June 2006.
In 1769, Joseph Priestley warned that scientists overly attached to a favorite hypothesis would not hesitate to “warp the whole course of nature.” In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished.
In other words, cut the crap about all “the scientists” being paragons of virtue. They clearly aren’t and your constant appeals to this terminally flawed authority don’t change that.
Philip, we are talking about a rise in the world’s temperature (if indeed there is such a concept) of 0.7 deg. C. since 1880. Nobody has ever shown that this is outside the range of natural variation which has occured countless times in geological time.
If the best you can do is to say that things will get real crook in a few decades then pardon me if I pass on your diagnosis and economically destructive prescription.
11
@264: Well said bro Mark.
11
Global warming and climates changes are not explainde as needed ! The government and the big industries are manipulating the climate science. I have researched and have write some articles about this here is one:
Global Warming is fake
Uncovering climate changes
I say : think more and search for more answers !
thanks
11