Here is an e-mail my father (a retired project engineer) sent to Julia Gillard [in reference to her email about why we need a carbon tax.]
“Dear Julia,
Thank you for your message. As a self funded retiree I will happily receive whatever allowances your plan provides for me. However, I despair over the way your carbon tax issue has arisen. I think your conclusions are premature.
Despite what your advisors say, the SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED. In the case of climate science there is a lot of evidence that global temperatures have stopped rising (despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels) and that the impact of CO2 may not be as severe as the IPCC would have you believe.
Before using the state of knowledge as it is currently known in order to make far reaching policy decisions, you need to carry out Due Diligence studies in order to verify that what you are being told is correct. The level of detail required to execute proper Due Diligence for something as complex as the dynamics of climate change is truly enormous. Peer review is not due diligence. Neither are the IPCC reports. Certainly not the Garnaut reports.
Peer reviewers are unpaid experts… They seldom see all the basic data, the computer codes, the corrections, deletions and adjustments, the instrument calibration details, full details of all assumptions, etc, and their judgments are often coloured by their personal prejudices.
Peer review of published papers is in general a coarse filter to ensure that if the evidence which the paper examines is valid and if the writers have done their sums correctly and if the results appear to make sense and add to the body of human knowledge then it’s OK to publish. Peer reviewers are unpaid experts in the same field as the writers of the paper. They seldom see all the basic data, the computer codes, the corrections, deletions and adjustments, the instrument calibration details, full details of all assumptions, etc, and their judgments are often coloured by their personal prejudices. Also they don’t get to see the experimental equipment and test environments or the actual samples that form the basis for the paper being reviewed. Usually none of this matters because scientific progress is self correcting. If a rocket scientist gets it wrong the rocket may crash or wander off course or fail in some other way. Oh dear, what a shame. Well, we’ll get it right next time round.
Predicting climate change is not rocket science. It’s much, much more difficult. And the consequences of getting it wrong may be much, much more costly. So what do you do, given that there may be something happening that could cause humanity immense harm unless we change something? You conduct proper Due Diligence studies – engineering quality, not academician quality.
You need to get the protagonists – those who claim we have a severe, looming problem – to assemble their best arguments and evidence to support their case. They should only offer papers which have been published with full public disclosure of all the data and computer codes so that the claims made within the paper can be reproduced by others. Then you appoint a Due Diligence Team (DDT) and give it a proper briefing (a Scope of Work). In the commercial world DDTs are usually independent disinterested contractors. They will need to see all of the things that peer reviewers usually don’t see as described above. In fact for proposals which will cost the community billions, the DDT will want to see a lot more. For example, many academic papers cite other previously published papers. These citations may have to be examined too. They will want to see the ‘bad’ data as well as the ‘good’. Also, published papers and other evidence may be invited for positions purporting to be contrary to the protagonists case. There is plenty of evidence which appears to throw doubt on many aspects of the IPCC case for climate change (the politically acceptable expression for AGW) and this will need to be subjected to DDT examination too.
In the business world, if a financier were asked to commit billions for some project on the basis of a report of the quality of any of the IPCC Assessment Reports he would tell you to “Go away – don’t waste my time”.
Unlike the authors of the IPCC reports who are nearly all climate scientists, the DDT should comprise physicists, economists, engineers, mathematicians (especially statisticians), geologists, biologists and climate scientists. But no more than 25% of the team should be climate scientists. It’s doubtful if the DDT will ever be able to achieve certainty on any matter but they should be able to come much closer to the truth than has the IPCC.
Contrary to what you may have been told, the IPCC reports comprise the assessment by no more than 40 or 50 climate scientists, of all the published papers that in their opinion support in some way, climate change outside the realm of natural variation. Reviewers of each chapter in the reports were not permitted to see data which was not expressly provided in the relevant papers. In fact one reviewer was threatened with dismissal because he kept asking to see data. There is no audit trail for positions taken by authors of each chapter. None. In the business world, if a financier were asked to commit billions for some project on the basis of a report of the quality of any of the IPCC Assessment Reports he would tell you to “Go away – don’t waste my time”.
I’m a retired engineer with a background in project management. Many of my peers agree with me about this.
Colin
One doubts she’ll have a clue, what Colin is talking about, as she carries on talking down to the rest of the Nation.
Doesn’t Aus have any kind of Audit Commission, to put it in terms she won’t be able to ignore ? (like eg. jail time for won’t of fiscal probity) ?
20
Beautifully put! I’d like to send the email to our (UK) Climate Secretary, Chris Huhne, as he appears to have the same level of ignorance & blind acceptance as your appalling leader. May I forward it?
20
In case anyone missed it, coming as it did near the end of the comments on the last topic –
“There’s an interesting proposal being made at Anthony Watt’s site WUWT to fight the upcoming Al Gore Climate Reality Event scheduled for Sept. 14th 2011.”
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/the-al-gore-climate-reality-event-a-call-to-arms/
Pointman
10
Sorry Colin – too logical.
Julia doesn’t do logic!
10
Very well written Sir! However polictians do not like pragmatism unless it can further their political agender and your eminently sensible approach can never be accepted by the morally vacuous, easily ( and willingly ) corrupted politcos of these times; sadly the days of the so called elites doing the best for their countries has long passed and now they are merely grubby spivs slavering about what and how the next band wagon ride will reward them. I visited your great country in 1984 and despite a cooling of the economic climate of the time was impressed by the attitude of the country and its citizens; now however I am rather dissapointed that the refreshingly blunt honesty that characterised Austrailia has been replaced by the sickly smell of spin and deceit.
10
Unfortunately, conducting a DDT at this stage will be political suicide for Gillard, no matter how neccessary it is.
10
Most of our political masters have never worked outside the public service / union / government circles. This is logical, and therefore greek to them.
10
18 July: SMH: Tony Moore: Political climate heats up as Newman wages war on DERM
Queensland’s environment minister has accused LNP leader Campbell Newman of trying to score cheap political points rather than accepting scientific advice on climate change.
Labor’s Vicki Darling defended the work of the Department of Environment and Resource Management after Mr Newman yesterday said Queenslanders had “lost faith” in it during a speech at the LNP state conference.
“If Campbell Newman was backing science, he would back climate change instead of falling into line with Tony Abbott and the other deniers,” Ms Darling said…
On Friday, LNP president Bruce McIver questioned mainstream climate science and argued school students in Queensland were being “brainwashed” over the issue…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/political-climate-heats-up-as-newman-wages-war-on-derm-20110718-1hkk2.html
15 July: Age: Tony Moore: Students ‘brainwashed’ over climate change: LNP
Mr McIver (Liberal National Party president Bruce McIver) said he was shaken by the way issues were being taught when he and his wife visited their grandson’s school.
“We were shocked at the way the climate change debate on one side is being pushed in the classroom,” he said.
“And not balanced perspectively. Our kids are being brainwashed under this Labor education system.”
Mr McIver’s comments received loud applause from more than 700 delegates from throughout the state.
“Why aren’t they being told that if you go to Quilpie and you drive to Windorah – [Liberal National Party MPs] Vaughan Johnson’s country, Howard Hobbs’ country – you will see these sand hills that have been blown up years ago,” he said.
“When the droughts were much bigger than the ones we have just had.
“And why aren’t we being told that Brisbane has had floods in the 1890s of over eight metres.
“[LNP leader] Campbell [Newman] tells me that back in the 1820s – even before white man even came here – there were floods that could have been over 12 metres at the post office at the bottom of Elizabeth Street.
“So, things change. Climate is constantly changing. Is man having an effect? Well I will leave it for you to judge.”
Queensland Education Minister Cameron Dick said Mr McIver’s comments were an “outrageous slur” on the professionalism of the state’s 38,000 teachers…
”Quite simply, students studying science in Queensland state schools are taught scientific facts.
”We all know that Mr McIver and the LNP are climate-change deniers, and his comments are not only wrong and insulting, but an attempt to push the party’s ‘head-in-the-sand’ beliefs on Queenslanders.”…
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/students-brainwashed-over-climate-change-lnp-20110715-1hh8d.html
10
I hope Colin CC’d Tony Abbott.
As Joe @ 1 points out, it was probably useless to send it to Julia since she apparently has no clue about due diligence; it would definitely be useless to CC Bob Brown.
10
As John M Keynes said:
“There is nothing so dangerous as a rational policy in an irrational world.”
Maybe Jooolya has got it right, because the world has clearly become irrational, and so is her policy. Maybe we _are_ all Keynesians now…
10
Off Topic:
Presently watching sky news, when I turned on only a few minutes ago they had Julia spinning her usual lies to buisness leaders. Half way through a gillard sentence they dropped her to go live to Abbott in Southport, does this say something about even the media are no longer listening to Juliar?
10
I wouldn’t have sent it to Julia as she has her blinkers well and truly fixed in place.
However marginal labour MP’s would be a prime target audience. Right now they would be looking for anything to use as an excuse to get out of this hole they have dug themselves into. Jo has posted a list of marginal Labour MPS in a prior post and you can’t lose anything from doing that.
Me I will CC it to the liberal party members because if they ever “grow a set” and take a realistic view of this rubbish and go to the electorate with a sceptical view point, then they will have the mandate to close every Green drain on the economy as soon as they get in power. that should provide them with enough funds to cover the tax issues.
Then Australia may only catch a cold instead of the cancer this Looney government is imposing on the country.
10
OT, but some good news (although Matt and John might disagree with me). The CERN CLOUD experiment sounds like they maybe near to an announcement, and from what Nigel Calder and The Bishop are saying there are hints the results look positive for the solar magnetism hypothesis. The CERN Director certainly seems frightened, which is logical given warmist EU governments mostly provide his budget.
10
I keep wondering if there is some legal redress around this – something like examining fiscal responsibility to ensure public funds are spent in a way that will deliver the envisaged results. In effect demonstrate fraudulent activity wrt how public funds are being spent.
There must be some form of legal redress that can be employed.
10
Pat @ 6
I had a look at the article thankyou.
I heartily agree with McIver about this but the comments on the blogs are a concern. There are so many people who believe that CAGW is happening and that our schools are teaching the science or rather the IPCC version.
I think this is still in it’s infancy and we have a long haul ahead.
Say YES to an election now
10
A due dilkigence is all and well but Gillard’s agenda is not about mitigating climate change, but using the idea of climate change as the covert means to implement her socialist alliance policies – generically as the abolition of capitalism.
10
Hide the decline..
http://iceagenow.com/Recent_%20Ireland_and_UK_winters_markedly_colder_than_average.htm
Theyre admitting it now, even saying its due to low solar activity. Surprise surprise.
10
Colin is simply echoing the the task in front of all engineers. It has to work in the real world..both physically and financially….otherwise you won’t be around to do the next one. These are constraints that many of our politicians try to spin their way around.
Bruce @ 11
Nobel for Svensmark and Shaviv somewhere in the next decade or so? It would have been good for KRudd to spend some time with Svensmark during the Copenhagen debacle. He might have been able to salvage something useful from that trainwreck.
10
Experience of emailng a politian.
Reply…
Office of the Priminister
..
Dear …….
Thank you for emailing( snailmailing etc) the Priminister. (minister) He/she is considering
trashingyour letter and willneverreply to your concernes in due course. The priminister has a very busy sceduleout of the country untill further noticeYours..
Secretary for the PM..
10
Bruce of Newcastle… if you seached and then sifted through all the posts I’ve made on here you’d find one that said the CERN work looked interesting and I looked forward to the results. I have no problems, and will suffer no embarrasment, if genuine scientific endeavour moves us to a position of greater understanding of the climate even if that new posistion is one where we no longer consider greenhouse gases to be a problem.
10
The problem with MattB is this:
“…even if that new posistion is one where we no longer consider greenhouse gases to be a problem.”
He has already rejected the null hypothesis in his mind and therefore expects sceptics to prove that GHG’s will NOT cause CAGW. Unfortunately for MattB this is not how real science works.
10
Michael O’Brien, Victorian Minister for Energy and Resources is asking Joooooolya (woot new record number of o’s) about the real impact of closing Hazelwood on the Victorian economy and households:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/tell-us-the-real-cost-of-shutting-down-latrobe-valley/story-e6frgd0x-1226096372065
Unfortunately this information is in the same benefit-cost study that was never done on the carbon (dioxide) tax in the first place.
10
Trouble is, the logic of people like Comrade Gillard goes no deeper than:
“We must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do it.”
10
It looks like Australia is mobilising,
with the
“Convoy of no confidence”.
What an idea…!
10
Matt must have found a bottle in his desk.
10
Unfortunately, even the Opposition, who wouldn’t be much of an Opposition if they didn’t oppose everything, believe in climate change due to carbon dioxide. The difference is the method of attempting to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, not the real debate about whether or not carbon dioxide is the real driver of climate change.
Today Stephen Conroy defined a campaign as providing on side of the information while a debate is providing equal time for opposing information. Labor and The Greens have never debated the issues but have campaigned incessantly. Even Julia Gillard’s advertising and invitation to debate the carbon tax is nothing more than campaigning.
I’m inclined to think democracy, as we believe it, is approaching the end of its usefulness.
http://www.wrisley.com/cycle.htm
10
“He has already rejected the null hypothesis in his mind and therefore expects sceptics to prove that GHG’s will NOT cause CAGW. Unfortunately for MattB this is not how real science works.”
What a load of Bulldust. GHGs DO cause AGW… and I’m open to new developments wrt the C.
10
Realistically though Dave, if the understanding of the science ever changes and everyone knows that the science that suggested CAGW was an issue was “wrong”, the Libs will have a lot less egg on their face.
10
What I just fail to even see is how the spending of what will amount to billions has no questions asked of it whatsoever.
I know I sometimes harp on the electrical power generation sector, but just think about it for a minute or so.
Without blinking a project is announced, and both Federal and State Governments chuck in half the up front cost, as has happened with the Solar Dawn Project at Chinchilla. No ones asks questions about it, at any level, the cost, the actual power it will deliver, and how long it will deliver that power for.
I have no qualms with an entrepreneur sinking his own hard earned into a project like this, and trust me, if it was a coal fired power plant, that entrepreneur would be on his own, and would probably not even think about a project like that beyond a fleeting thought bubble.
This Concentrating Solar plant at Chinchilla will cost $1.2 Billion, half subsidised by those two Governments.
It is tiny in nature.
It will deliver barely 550GWH a year, and that’s at the theoretical best case scenario.
It will only deliver that power for an average of 6 hours a day, again the theoretical best case scenario.
And no one even blinks with a question.
That is most definitely NOT due diligence!
In the same breath, a project like the proposed expansion at Mt Piper will cost less, in fact a lot less, and actually deliver 30 times the power and do that on a 24/7/365 basis.
Somewhere in that first mentioned project is a logic that totally eludes me, because you can bet London to a brick that the Mt Piper project will have many more obstacles placed in its way than Chinchilla will have, and it’s problematic the Mt Piper Plant will even go ahead at all.
Tony.
10
MattB at what point of “no correlation between levels of CO2 vs temp” do you not understand?
10
Mattb, “the Libs will have a lot less egg on their face.”
What egg? You can see some can you?
10
MattB at #27
Matt – I agree with you that rising greenhouse gases do cause warming, though from the various recent measurements of 2XCO2 (eg this) the C is clearly precluded. As I’ve said before I didn’t leave it to the papers, using a different method I worked out a value myself of ~0.7 C, which is well below Arrhenius-neutral and ‘way below IPCC’s numbers. Add in the Uni of Aarhus findings, the previous solar cycle vs temperature correlation, and even GISS’s own graph of cloudiness, which anticorrelates to Ap, and Ms Gillard is on a swiftly sinking political iceberg poor lady. Note that the peaks in cloudiness correlate to the troughs in Ap and sunspot numbers and vice versa across the solar cycles, thereby further supporting the solar magnetism hypothesis. CAGW ain’t going to happen.
John Watt at #18
Mate I don’t think they’ll win the Nobel. Unfortunately they can’t wait for all the consensus grudgeholders to die off since they have to still be breathing to qualify for the medal.
10
We need more than a due diligence study to get some satisfactory resolution to the climate debate. Maybe a royal commission or other form of inquiry that can compel witnesses to appear and allow them to be cross-examined. The warmaholic ‘scientists’ who have the government’s ear and are the recipients of the its largesse in the form of research grants rarely if ever engage in debate with those who have opposing views. So some form of ‘enforced’ debate may be the answer.
10
Not sure what you mean Jo?
10
The problem with the Gillard government is that it has no concept of ‘due diligence’.
As for the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report (AR4), because it is heavily biased in favour of studies that support anthropogenic global warming, and has ignored the studies that promote other points of view, the report lacks balance and objectivity. Added to this, the many errors, flaws and shortcomings revealed about AR4 and the IPCC since 2007 have seriously tainted the IPCC and AR4.
An external independent audit on the AR4 would necessarily result in a “disclaimer opinion”, if not a “disagreement opinion”.
If the IPCC had to abide by the same standards of governance and accountability as the corporate world, the IPCC members would certainly be charged with engaging in gross misleading and deceptive conduct. And the IPCC’s chairman, Dr Pachauri, would be the first person charged for frequently claiming in public that AR4 was solely based on peer reviewed scientific literature when in fact, it has since been revealed that 30% of the 18,500+ citations in AR4 relate not to peer reviewed studies but to “grey literature” … often articles by campaigning organizations like WWF, Greenpeace, etc… nothing even resembling peer reviewed literature. That makes AR4 a fraud… to promote anthropogenic global warming despite the IPCC having failed to produce any empirical evidence supporting its claim that there is a 90% probability humans are causing climate change.
10
A great letter, but in the end she wont care… She is a Fabian, and they believe:
“For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently, when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain, and fruitless.”
She is implementing socialism in exactly the way the Fabians planned – “by evolution rather than revolution.”
It’s as simple as that – and we haven’t noticed yet.
10
MattB:
Without the C the AGW is a sidenote in a textbook somewhere. Show me anyone who seriously thinks 1C warming is a major threat to the globe, mankind, or a significant portion of the bioshpere. Without large positive feedbacks that’s all you’d expect to get from a doubling of CO2 concs in the atmosphere. More to the point, prove to me that negative feedbacks do not dominate… it is quite clear that they must because the earth’s climate has never spiralled out of whack. You only achieve a stable system with negative feedbacks. Ask any other engineer if you have a problem believing this one (yes, I have two degrees … the BSc one in Minerals Engineering, and the MSc in Mineral Economics).
As for the Coalition direct action plan… we all know that is a non-core promise. It is a policy position designed to not cheese off swing voters who believe the CAGW crap (as Tony concisely put it some time ago), while knowing full well that sceptics have no one else to vote for anyway. Sceptics with a bit of insight will realise that the direct action plan immediately goes on the backburner when the Coalition gains power.
What is funny is watching Labor’s spin to sell their policy… one main line being to attack the Opposition’s policy. Anyone who has ever worked a sales job (yes, I did that once as well… been around) knows that you do not buy long-term customer support simply by slagging off the opposition. It betrays your lack of confidence in your own product.
ATM it is difficult to ascertain what is the bigger disaster for Labor, Jooooooolya (yeah, I know… getting carried away now) as PM or their directionless policies. It is almost sad, like watching a 100 point blowout at the footy. The only question which remains is how low can Labor’s ratings go? I thought they were down to the rusted-on union types at 30%, but they crashed through that support level… even 20% primary looks possible at this stage. Go Joolya go! I have the Guinness people on hold in case she sets a new political record.
10
Meanwhile this email came to me at work, so I thought I’d share:
10
“Sceptics with a bit of insight will realise that the direct action plan immediately goes on the backburner when the Coalition gains power.”
How would that be any different to Julia’s “lie”?
“even 20% primary looks possible at this stage” Honestly I shudder to think of the weasels that would get elected from the Libs were that to happen. (or the union thugs who would get elected if it was the other way).
“is quite clear that they must because the earth’s climate has never spiralled out of whack.” Given that the largest cycles are driven by orbital issues I’m not sure there is any evidence to back this up in terms of feedbacks. Even if they were it is pretty clear that the feedbacks you put faith in see the planet move to many conditions that would pretty much be catastrophic for humans and many if not most other species.
10
18 July: Age: Eli Greenblatt: Carbon credit firm collapses amid tax debate
A company that specialises in forestry carbon credit projects in Asia, the Pacific Islands and Australia has collapsed.
First Growth Funds which describes itself as an Australian investment company and listed on the Australian Stock Exchange since December 1986, was placed in administration by its secured lender Noble Investments Superannuation Fund last night.
The company’s board includes Peter Mullins, a former chief executive of Greenpeace Australia Pacific. First Growth Funds’ website also says that Mr Mullins is a former Australian diplomat, with a “strong personal commitment to saving the tropical forests of Asia and the Pacific while, at the same time, securing effective development opportunities for local communities living in these forests.”…
http://www.theage.com.au/business/carbon-credit-firm-collapses-amid-tax-debate-20110718-1hktw.html
10
JO, O/T I read on Andrew Bolts blog that Lord M has said half the seats at the press conference have been bought by
GETUP. Hope they don’t disrupt this? Have you heard anything.
10
MattB at #37
Matt, we’ve been talking about CAGW. “CNGW”, N for natural or non-anthromophic, is a different beast entirely. If the Sun turns into a red giant next week I’ll grant you the C but certainly not caused by humans, not even by Mr Abbott.
I’ve always backed NEAR and I’ve been a member of the Planetary Society for decades. I do not want an asteroid to fall on me. So I’m happy to help pay for asteroid defense. But in this case the data just doesn’t support the high climate sensitivity hypothesis, so I don’t support anti-CAGW activities.
10
Too bad “DDT” was banned, it might actually get rid of what’s “bugging” Australia.
10
I certainly agree with most of the sentiments of Colin. As an engineer, I would go further. As Colin says, predicting climate is much more difficult than rocket science because no one in the world, for that matter no group of researchers into climate, has a complete knowledge of all the things which affect climate nor knowledge on the extent of affects which are known to affect climate, such clouds. However, some things which Gillard is spruking about the “Carbon Tax” are known to be not true.
1. The tax is on the emitted gas carbon dioxide (CO2) and not on the element carbon (C) which is a solid (diamond, graphite and artifical amorphorous carbon deposits) at normal temperatures and pressures. The taxed quantity is 3.7 times higher than it would be if carbon was taxed at inputs to processes.
2. The gas carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It can be breathed in mixed with air at 20 times the present level without harmful effects to health. Every person breathes out CO2. The affect on the atmospheric temperatures of double the present level is insignificant and possibly not measureable.
3. Carbon Dioxide is not the main “greenhouse” gas which is water vapor at about ten times that of CO2.
4. The burning of methane (CH4) which is the main component of natural gas (eg for power production) is not better (environmently friendlier) than coal if one is concerned about “greenhouse” gases. Because of the water vapor formed it is about 20 times worse.
5. The release of methane (CH4) into the atmosphere from animals, swamps and coal mining is not worse than CO2 generation (in burning) because it does not burn (to CO2 & H2O) at the low concentrations and temperatures of the atmosphere (need about 1000C ignition temeperature)
The whole tax proposal has been put together for political purposes by people who have no technical understanding or are deliberately spreading misinformation.
10
I agree with cementafriend at comment 42 on this one, especially with respect to Methane emissions.
Keep also in mind that the end product of this current
CO2 Taxclean energy future is an ETS, and in this ETS the cost placed on all GHG is with respect to their (supposed) volatility when compared with CO2.There is possibly a list of these GHG’s that is around 16 other gases.
Methane will be costed at 25 times that of CO2, Nitrous Oxide at 298 times that of CO2, and one gas will be costed at 22,800 times that of CO2. Admitted these gases are emitted in less quantities than CO2, but you can see the intent here, not for the sake of the environment, but as a considerable) money making thing only.
This is not the burning of Methane (Natural Gas) but the emissions of it, which brings farming, and grazing of all ruminants under the umbrella of pricing GHG’s.
So, if you thought that just costing CO2 was a money spinner, wait till you hear (if ever) what this ETS has in store.
Tony.
10
I continue to be astounded at the sheer arrogance of the entire leadership of this Green/Labor/Independent(?) government and their absolute refusal to listen to the people.
They just will not accept that the majority of the electorate has a brain and can think for themselves. First they tried to browbeat us with the “findings” of a group of scientists entirely appointed by world governments to specifically find a man-made “cause” of perceived unprecedented global warming.
The public was hammered with the mantras of “settled science” and “overwhelming consensus” deduced from the virtual reality world of dodgy unvalidated, grossly inadequate computer modelling based on many scenarios on a series of “what ifs”.
Ironically, it was those very mantras which initially sparked the interest of many genuine scientists and leaders in other associated fields of endeavour, who knew there was no science based on such limited research that could possibly be “settled”.
The sceptic cause was born!
Gillard patronises the public by lecturing us as though we were wide-eyed gullible primary school children and just can’t understand how we could not possibly believe her and whole-heartedly, blindly swallow every thing she says.
They blame everyone and everything but themselves. The latest is a biased press (coming from Labor & Greens that’s a real LOL) and of course those ever present so-called “shock jocks” who dare to repeat and/or print the message they are overwhelmingly getting from the public.
I’ve said before, there is an undercurrent (which is sometimes unexpressed) of very genuine anger and hostility which is rising rapidly and being heard more out of sheer frustration because the unmandated Gillard, Combet, Swan, Brown, Milne, Wilkie, Oakeshott, Windsor and the rest of the carbon dioxide tax pushers just refuse to listen to the people of Australia.
If ever there was a case for a Governor-General to step in and demand the government put this toxic tax to the people, it is now! No hope of course that Bill Shorten’s mother-in-law would ever consider such an action. The anger and frustration grows!
10
For the info..another NASA Astronaut in the skeptics camp
Walter Cunningham, geophysicist, fighter pilot and Apollo 7 astronaut
Statement here http://www.waltercunningham.com/op_ed_hc4..htm
10
MattB wrote:
” Given that the largest cycles are driven by orbital issues I’m not sure there is any evidence to back this up in terms of feedbacks. Even if they were it is pretty clear that the feedbacks you put faith in see the planet move to many conditions that would pretty much be catastrophic for humans and many if not most other species.”
I think the first phrase is very doubtful. There are some obvious step functions which peturb the planet, and may well cause ice ages/ interglacials. See “Ice” by Fred Hoyle for example.
IMO The behaviour of the planet in response to variation in solar forcing (the Seasons) suggests that feedback is negative.
10
What can you do but laugh.
‘The Drum’ is running a poll (whodathunkit) on who has performed best in the first week of the, er, carbon tax debate.
As you might expect with an ABC run poll, ‘dear leader’ is out in front with 47% to Tony Abbott’s 34%.
A real dark horse in all this is currently sitting on 7%, which of the 6202 votes cast comes in at 434 votes is, and wait for this …. Matt Preston.
That’s just a little behind the other runner, some guy called Brown, I think.
To paraphrase Curly, Nyuk nyuk nyuk.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/thedrum/polls/current/
Tony.
10
I am in complete agreement with the thesis of the headline post.
If the science is solid, then all we will have wasted is a little money and a few months.
If the science is not solid, then we will have saved ourselves an unneccessary trashing of our economy.
I would expect the latter outcome. The proponents of the CAGW cause are too shrill, and too secretive, and too reluctant to engage in objective debate – I’d bet that an audit would uncover many spiders.
And I reckon that that is what Lybah (is my spelling correct?) thinks would happen as well. So the chances of getting a due diligence are Buckley’s. Why would they want to run the risk?
10
Kieth H wrote:
“If ever there was a case for a Governor-General to step in and demand the government put this toxic tax to the people, it is now! ”
I agree. This should be a case where Royal Assent is with-held, pending a mandate.
The people voted for parties which had no Carbon Tax as a platform (except for the 10% fringe who voted otherwise). The people are clearly still of the same view (see the latest Morgan poll results).
So if the Bills are enacted it will be against the clearly expressed wishes of the people. It will be a triumph of the Parliament over the People. Not Government by the People, For the People, but Government OVER the People.
We spent centuries (if not millenia) getting to the point where those in power are SERVANTS not MASTERS. If these bills are passed it will drive a stake through our democracy. It will be OK to promise anything and do anything. And we all know that in that route, the end point is slavery.
10
Quite agree cementafriend @ 32. I remember when my son contracted juvenile diabetes at two and a half it was a terrible shock, as we had no diabetes in both our families.
The endocrinologists were then studying why this happens
and one world renown one suggested to me, ‘There are so many variables we can’t pin one particular reason’ it can be a combination of several things such as family inheritance, plus allergy to lactose and then there’s wheat allergy too. Even a virus or reaction to vaccinations in some vulnerable patients. I had gestational diabetes too that wasn’t treated that might
have started off a cranky immune system in my unborn child.
It’s the same with climate, sun, orbit, oceans, seasons, cosmic rays and clouds. And the gulf stream? volcanoes?
So all these so called scientists are going against the
validity of science when they predict ONE reason only. AGW.
Surely if I with a BA in archaeology and palaeoanthropology knows this wouldn’t you think that men and women who have more academic qualifications than me
also know what makes the sun shine and what causes rain and snow? The Green mentality has combined with the capitalist intention of carbon trading and green energy and they are trying to con us all. But they won’t con the Chinese.
10
Politics is the art of looking for trouble,
finding it,
whether it exists or not,
diagnosing it incorrectly,
and then applying the wrong remedy.
Source: Sir Ernest John Pickstone Benn
10
Tony, TonyfromOz: 43
.
Gas percentages in Air other than O2,N2,Ar.
CO2 .038% per million molecules 380
1.79 ppmv (0.000179%) per million molecules 1.8
0.3 ppmv (0.00003%) per million molecules .3
0.02 ppmv (2×10-6%) (0.000002%)per million molecules .02
Then
ratio CO2 to CH4 380/1.79 = 211 CO2 to 1 CH4
ratio CO2 to N2O 380/.3 = 1266 CO2 to 1 N20
16 other! and what ludicrous percentages of trace gases do they expect you to pay for.. Ammonia? not even listed.
The absurd assumption that these other gasses will cause 22800x as much warming!!
(even with fake models shshshsh!)
Somebody’s getting a deal here and its probably not the “durdy poluters”.
10
Joe V in 1,
What makes you think Joooooolya (is it a record) will ever see the email?
10
Thanks Colin (and Joanne)
OVERDUE DILIGENCE
When an issue has reached such an advanced stage of “crash-or-crash-through” politicisation as this one, scientific (political and personal) integrity is just another casualty of the Canberra Carbon Cargo Cult’s increasingly desperate tricks and Orwellian corruption of language and truth.
An AFR article last weekend noted, ironically, that some Labor MPs (and others) want the media to be “held accountable for dishonesty and fear-mongering over the carbon tax” (Perspective, “Gillard’s great struggle to keep carbon tax on the rails,” July 16-17).
What could be more dishonest than (i) the government’s relentless misinformation campaign depicting carbon dioxide as black “carbon pollution”; except perhaps (ii) its aversion to deeper scrutiny of the tax’s dodgy underlying assumptions; (iii) its silence on the fact we will soon being paying foreign folk “monai bilong skai” and carbon-geld, etc NOT TO DO some activity in PNG, Equatorial Guinea – which will create a licence for systemic corruption on a grand scale – all for right to continue burning coal here; etc, and (iv) a $10,000 million deal with the Greens, deliberately designed to deprive us of a vote on what is indeed an issue of “fundamental significance for Australia’s future”?
As for fear-mongering, surely no criticism of it can compete with the government’s own alarmist climate change propaganda, another $12-25 million dose of which is now being administered to an increasingly sceptical public.
As for peer review, Walter Stark’s insightful piece in the latest Quadrant magazine should be mandatory reading for all politicians, especially those keeping this government in power, and those who talk about “settled science”.
Go to: http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/7-8/fishy-science-on-the-great-barrier-reef
“Environmentalism has seriously damaged scientific research as well as the credibility of science among the public. The diversion of research effort away from seeking fundamental new understanding about the world and towards the production of evidence to support political agendas has seriously affected the development of new knowledge. It has also fostered an atmosphere wherein evidence is selected, distorted, suppressed and occasionally fabricated to accord with what is perceived to be an environmentally correct perspective. Worse yet, many scientists have come to accept such dishonesty and even view it as righteous if it is in support of what is deemed to be a higher good.”
Alice (in Warmerland)
10
I think the following report says it all … “Some Questions About Man Made Global Warming. Where is the Due Diligence?”
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/Some%20Questions%20About%20Man%20Made%20Climate%20Change.pdf
10
Mervyn Sullivan @34
It’s much worse that. 8145 citations are to ‘non-peer reviewed’ papers and only 4032 are ‘clean’. 6277 references are ‘non peer reviewed’ and only 3645 are ‘clean’.
Have you seen this?:
http://accessipcc.com/
It gives the statistics for each IPCC AR4 work group, chapter, reference, citation. It also gives the statistics for the ‘Reviewers comments’ – the number of comments and the number and percentage accepted. In WG2 only 11% of reviewers comments were accepted.
For every citation it shows whether it is non-peer reviewed, journal of concern, author of concern, a modelling or simulation study, self reference concern, author and co-author relationship concern, paper dated after the IPCC AR4 cut off date, etc.
Here is an example of how to use it:
1 click on: http://accessipcc.com/
2 Note the ‘Definition of Tags Used’. Also note the number of references and citations of concern (red) and the number ‘clean’ (green).
3 In the ‘Index to Working Groups’ note the number of references and citations ‘of concern’ by type. Under the Working Group title click on the red to drill down, for example to chapters and sections.
4 Now lets drill down to the very important Figure 6.1.
5 In the ‘Index to Working Groups’, drill down into WG1 by clicking on the red WG1 title “Physical Sciences Basis”. Not the statistics of interest for particular chapters of WG1. Being a geologist, I am most interested in Chapter 6 ‘Paleoclimate’. In this critical chapter, 801 citations are to papers of concern and only 103 are ‘clean’. 11.2% are ‘clean’ and 87.1% are ‘Tagged’ (of concern). Roughly 30% of reviewers comments were accepted.
6 Drill Down into Chapter 6.
7 Drill down into 6.3.1 “What is the Relationship Between Carbon Dioxide and Temperature in this Time Period?”
8 Scroll to Figure 6.1, look at the caption below the figure and notice the citations. There are 16 citations of which 11 are ‘Tagged’. This is one of the most critical figures on which the AGW (or at least the climate sensitivity) is justified and yet about 70% of the citations are ‘Tagged’ (of concern).
10
Louis @ 16 entirely agree
Due Diligence is required to be done by a professional to ensure his/her advice is not negligent
BUT the problem with politicians (and I have it on good advice and it complies with my own research) is that there is no hope of success in bringing an action against a politician or politicians for, for example, misleading and deceptive conduct
So…. where does that leave the populace?
Well in the current case, bad decision making by an incompetent Govt whose priority is to remain in power
and where does that leave the national interest which is meant to be paramount
On the outer; that’s where
What can be done? Some suggestions please
10
David @36
The right time is now. This is the tiem the polls are low and Labor is deeply concerned. Now is the time to drive it home so they dump this dreadful polcy.
I received an email from a Ken O’Dowd, MP today in reply to my email where I sent comment #105 ( the last comment on this thread): http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/barking-mad-australian-economic-carbon-tax-doom/
Ken O’Dowd’s email says:
That signals the type of help the Coalition MPs would like from us.
Our activism stopped the CPRS in late 2009.
It’s time to do it again.
Drive the stake in NOW!
10
Has anyone else stumbled across the drum on abc at the moment. Forget getup, these taxpayer funded wankers are going full bore to spin the poll results. usual bullshit.
One of them couldn’t even keep a straight face. He reminded me of aziz from the former iraqi dictatorship
I would block the channel, but my income taxes funds it anyway. Surely this must be against my human rights?
Please can someone with the funds and the balls intervene?
10
another scarey e mail I received today:
The Gillard government’s plan to use the ACCC to gag small businesses from informing consumers of price increases due to the carbon tax is a further attack on the struggling sector.
No Treasury modelling has been produced to back up Julia Gillard’s claim that any price rise of more than 1 per cent is a price gouge consumer rip off.
Instead of a proper and credible assessment of her carbon tax impact by sector, business type or specific product or service, Julia Gillard has issued a threat of a 1.1 million dollar fine for businesses that dare to contradict her political spin.
Small businesses will risk being fined if they are asked to explain prices rises to consumers.
The Government has failed to understand the clear and obvious complexity of calculating the carbon tax impact and has not bothered to properly assess the impact by sector, business or item.
Julia Gillard’s use of the ACCC to prosecute small businesses who talk about the carbon tax is more about the Government protecting its own self serving political claims than protecting consumers from unjustified carbon tax related price increases.
The Prime Minister has declared what is an ‘acceptable’ price rise and declared war on small businesses facing the real cost increases, without realising any justification for her declarations.
The government is under-resourcing and undermining the ACCC’s ability to properly calculate the true price impact of the carbon tax on the goods and services.
Price movements will depend on where inputs are sourced, the production process and service systems, different price adjustments from different suppliers, the channel to market and mark-up and margin practices.
The same items that may have once had the same price will be impacted quite differently by the carbon tax, depending on almost limitless variables.
Even the Treasurer has been unable to explain the different impact of the carbon tax on a can of locally produced tomatoes and a can imported from overseas.
If Julia Gillard was genuine about fairly investigating price rorts, instead of intimidating small businesses, the government would devote adequate resources to the ACCC to do this important work as the Coalition did at the time the GST commenced.
http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2011/07/gillard-government-gags-small-business-from-informing-consumers-of-carbon-tax-price-hike-liberal-party-of-australia.html
10
MattB – @ various
MattB there are tens of millions of processes going in the world of nature at any given time, both positive and negative, and of all those we have studied, we have never found a single one that is both “positive” and “self-sustaining”. In nature, as far as has been ascertained to date, all positive feedback processes “burn themselves out”. Think bush-fire, cyclone, whatever.
Why should any reasonably sane person accept, with no empirical evidence whatsoever, that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a “positive feedback” that will sustain and feed on itself eventually leading to some mythical “tipping point”?
I am told by the medical profession that, at any given time, there are about 8,000 processes that could be happening in the human body. Of these, only two are positive feedback processes: – an orgasm and a heart attack.
Speaking from recent first-hand experience in both I can assure you neither is self-sustaining.
10
val,
The central planners don’t want competition. Central planning will fail faster if the government isn’t in complete control of price fixing
10
For a university psychologist, Stephan Lewandowsky does a pretty lame line in marginalising opponents by appeals to authority, personal insults (against Christopher Monckton in particular) and the bizarre transpositional allegation that sceptics refuse to engage in debate about climate science. In fact, as a propagandist, Lewandowski is dim enough to make Joseph Goebbels look good.
10
Jo’s mate Lewandowsky on the drum:
I dont know in what universe he’s living but it’s not this one.
10
Further to my above post I realise he’s making all the right arguments, problem is he’s on the wrong side of the mirror.
10
Lets not stop at due diligence on the science either, a similar approach should apply to investing in technology as well. This ‘streamlining of international financial regulations’ pig, dressed up with ‘green’ lipstick needs a top to tail review.
$23/ton to justify converting to a low carbon economy? Certainty? More like the mediocrity of consensus
I’ll go out on a limb and predict that this 20th century environmental knuckle dragging concept, will be put to shame before the next election. As was argued from the beginning of this debate, human ingenuity of the individual will rise to the challenge to find a solution.
Accordingly, I present a proposed 1 to 1.5 CENTS per MEGA watt solution currently in production that is not even on the event horizon of BIG environmentalism nor sadly BIG government.
A few samples:
Eng. Andrea A. Rossi and Professor Sergio Focardi of the University of Bologna (one of the oldest universities in the world [1]), have announced to the world that they have a cold fusion device capable of producing more than 10 kilowatts of heat power, while only consuming a fraction of that. On January 14, 2011, they gave the Worlds’ first public demonstration of a nickel-hydrogen fusion reactor capable of producing a few kilowatts of thermal energy. At its peak, it is capable of generating 15,000 watts with just 400 watts input required.
On January 31st, 2011, Rossi wrote: “The cost to produce the catalyzer is 1 cent per MWh generated; the life expectancy is 20 years; the cost impact is between 1 and 1.5 cents per MWh.”
Rossi also says that they have had one reactor that has run continually for two years, providing heat for a factory. It reduced the electric bill by 90%. Also, the reactors can self sustain by turning off the input, but they prefer to have an input. The device will be scheduled for maintenance every six months. You control it “just as you turn on and off your television set.”
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator_%28E-Cat%29#Frequently_Asked_Questions_.28FAQ.29
Thus wind farms will eventually be pulled down and sold as scrap. Geothermal will be beneficial for Alice Springs and …… no that’s it. Solar will become invaluable where an intermittent and unreliable 6-8 hrs of power is necessary…( cue crickets). Coal (as diesel) will replace oil. And by the 2nd half of the 21 century Julia and Bob will be be referred to as perfect examples of why consensus was eventually diagnosed as a debilitating mental illness.
10
Peter Lang @ 60
I’ve heard that labor pollies don’t read e mails unless they’re from someone in their electorate
don’t know if this is so but sounds realistic
I think bumper stickers are a great idea to spread the message to a wide audience
10
Old man confuses peer-review of IPCC report with peer-review of science contained in the IPCC report (and even then gets it wrong).
God bless him.
10
A CO2 Tax can be easily dismantled!
What about the ETS?
It is frightening reading TonyfromOZ’s article, that he linked in the last thread:
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/kerry-lieberman-the-great-big-april-fools-day-tax-grab/
10
Bulldust @ 37
“Sceptics with a bit of insight will realise that the direct action plan immediately goes on the backburner when the Coalition gains power”.
I’m not worried about the Coalitions Direct Action plan, or how much it will cost for this very reason.
The cost is not the key here, but timing is. If it is timed for around 2014 – 2015 or even later then chances are it will never happen. By the time Abbott wins the next election, sorts out the mess and debt left by Labor and then deals with the Greens in a double dissolution election to unwind the tax, the population will likely be more sceptical of the Co2 scare than the unquestioning believers they are currently. The number of sceptics has jumped from single digits to around 20% currently (I think that was the last analysis I saw but Jo could probably verify). I would expect this trend to continue and by the next election we could even account for around a 3rd of the population, if not more.
Secondly, a cooling climate will put paid to the Co2 warming scare. Even the warmists know this, which is why they are busy manufacturing the next big scare, ocean acidification. The dangerous global warming/catastrophic climate change belief is on its last legs. You only have to look at the posts of Blimey a few threads back to see that ocean acidification is where the new focus is to be (and Carter alluded to this in his Heartland Keynote in the context of declining belief in AGW). Blimey and all the other tools of apocalypticism are already out and about dutifully spruiking the new doomsday product!
By the time Abbott starts to look seriously at the expensive Direct Action initiatives he is proposing now, the societal landscape will be different and he will have at his disposal all the resources of an incumbent Govt (currently Gillard is growing these and they are being directed against Abbott, hence we see the likes of Chubb and CSIRO putting their spoke in to support the carbon scare). Having said that, I would imagine a few of these institutions will be looking at the latest poll results and sensing ‘the winds are a changing’. If Chubb, for example, is serious about his career, he’ll disappear into the background rather than having a go at what could be his new boss in a couple of short years (a CLM surely).
No doubt armed with advice from a broader range of scientists and with Treasury modelling etc Abbott will be able to conclude that the science most definitely isn’t in and the technology hasn’t developed far enough in 2015 that would justify implementing some of these measures in a cost effective manner and achieve what they are meant to achieve. It would be fiscally irresponsible of him to go ahead on these grounds.
Hopefully we will see all those many millions Gillard is currently putting into the carbon scare and burgeoning green bureaucracy, being put to better use.
10
Peter Lang @ 58
Thanks for that.
Until now, I have been relying on the findings of Donna Laframboise’s ‘audit’.
I shall study your links. Thanks again.
10
val majkus @69,
I’ve been getting replies from Labor politicians to my emails. Some of them are furious. One told me not to contact their office any more. Another said “Wrong” and nothing else. Here is a sample of some replies – from just the past week:
“
” Sid Sidbottom MP
Brendan O’Connor
Senator Christine Milne
these are three separate emails from Senator C. Moore
Jill Hall, MP
That is a sample of replies from the past week!
10
MattB @27
No, GHGs have not been proven to cause AGW for many reasons. One is that GHGs are not all man made, so by that fact alone they cannot be causing AGW (some of them perhaps, that has yet to be proven). Perhaps you meant AGHGs, but then in your fervor to damn man for all kinds of sin, you are blaming him for the workings of Mother nature as well.
10
My comment #74 may not be interpreted the way I meant. My purpose was to encourage others to keep going – keep on writing to politicians wheter they reply or not. It is really important that we keep letting the ALP politicians know that we do not want their carbon pricing policy. It is also important to let the Coalition know that the emails are flooding in. It was the mass of emails from theb grass roots that stopped the CPRS in 2009. We need to do the same again. And now is the time. It is crunch time for the ALP. They need to dump this policy and dump their leader.
10
lmwd@72
I agree with all that plus I’m pretty sure the PDO and the subsequent floods and freezing cold and wet weather we have been experiencing since the beginning of the year has produced quite a few more skeptics than we imagine. Perhaps not of the details of the science itself, but more because of the failure of the climate change scientists wildly inaccurate predictions of endless wall to wall droughts on which the two white elephant desal plants were constructed.
Like the carbon tax voters know they will pay dearly for these useless monuments to alarmist incompetence for many years.
It seems the contempt for Gillard is locked in in voter land. Equally the alarmist scientists/social engineers are also probably seen as misguided nerds if not liars and are likely to suffer similar contempt for any further scare tactics they may try out on voters.
My wife was talking to an 80 year old lady up the street who told her “I remember freezing cold winters just like this one when I was a girl”. If science is initially about observations the alarmists are on a hiding to nothing with real people (read voters) who have first hand knowledge of the cyclical nature of weather events that they see as having little if anything to do with human CO2 emissions.
10
Crakar24 @55
Dunno. A misplaced, naive faith in the system I guess.
But whether she ever reads the Email or not isn’t the issue.
Now that Colin has highlighted this glaring omission in the process, it will be brought to her attention and she’ll have to dissembles her way out of that one too.
10
Re #2,
I’d also like to send a copy to Dalton McGuinty, premier of the Province of Ontario in Canada. His government has been pushing ahead with a massive green energy program – the usual massive feed-in subsidies to otherwise uneconomic wind and solar rent seekers – and needs a loud wake-up call before the provincial elections in October.
10
Val Majkus, @59:
“Due Diligence is required to be done by a professional to ensure his/her advice is not negligent”
Exactly, and politicians are not a regulated profession. Most regulated professions require accreditation through a rigorous examination process, which includes areas such as due diligence, professional ethics and liability. Foreign concepts to most politicians. The ones that do have a professional background tend to be lawyers, not engineers or medical professionals. Need I say more?
10
Keith H @ 46
Colin Davidson @ 51
I write on this for a sixth time on this blog alone:
1) The Governor General CANNOT “demand” anything of the “government”.
The GG CAN dismiss the Parliament – the whole lot – a double dissolution – issue writs for a full election (all seats), and appoint a caretaker government in the interim (as happened with John Kerr and the Whitlam government in 1975).
2) Under the Australian constitution there is no such thing as a “mandate”. Representatives are elected to the House of Representatives BY their electorate for the sole and express purpose of representing the WILL of that electorate in the Parliament. The electorate is perfectly entitled to change its mind at any given time in the life of the Parliament, on any given matter, so the concept of a group of politicians being elected with a “mandate” for the next three years is a complete fallacy.
Now, the GG needs a reason to dismiss Parliament, and there are really only three reasons available:
1) The current government is unworkable and no longer has the confidence of the Parliament (a vote of no confidence in the Parliament)
2) The Opposition (controlling the Senate) refuses to pass Bills relating to the Budget
3) The people no longer believe the parliament represents Their WILL.
Now, the first two are self explanatory and exist and rely entirely on the inner workings of the Parliament with no input from us “plebians”. The third is a bit more complex, and requires a bit of an effort from us “ordinary folk”.
Ultimately our only recourse is to convince the GG that the Bill (legislation for a carbon tax) as presented for Royal Assent DOES NOT represent the WILL of the people (the electorate). If this is done successfully the the GG has no choice but to refer the Bill back to Parliament for reconsideration.
If the parliament refuses to reconsider (amend) the Bill so that it reflects the WILL of the electorate, then the GG has no other option than to dismiss Parliament and call new elections.
IS THIS AIM ATTAINABLE?
Short answer – NO. Politics in OZ has now become a “closed shop” (the GG is the mother-in-law of the man who will probably depose JuLIAR as Prime Minister. They ALL – Lib/Lab/Nats/Greens – have their snouts so far up the public trough you can’t see their faces).
However, if enough Australians are prepared to tell the GG that the carbon tax does NOT represent “their will” in a meaningful way (more of that in a moment), and if enough Australians are prepared to tell their elected members that they have advised the GG of “their WILL” on the matter, then even if the legislation is passed, it will never be enacted upon – just like the ID Card Legislation in 1986.
WHY?
Because the very people responsible for all this have signed us up to “international courts” that guarantee a response to an obvious plea from the “governed” to be recognised and heard. In 1986 the Hawke/Keating Government could not afford for the ID Card legislation to be considered in their own “human rights” courts because it would have been a disaster for them. On the other hand, for domestic political reasons, they could not back down. So the legislation was passed, and then never acted upon.
HOW?
I have written before about the futility of rallies and such unless it empowers the attendees to DO SOMETHING. Here is what is needed to be done:
1) Write a letter to the GG expressing that is YOUR WILL that that the Carbon Tax not be given Royal Assent as it does not reflect the will of the Australian people. Quote all the recent surveys that establish this to be the truth. Request that it is sent back to parliament for further consideration.
2) Send the letter Registered Post and Delivery Confirmed. This means somebody has to sign a chit for it at the other end, and the chit is sent back to you as confirmation that your letter was received.
3) Send a photocopy of your letter to the GG to your local member with a covering letter explaining that you have expressed “YOUR WILL” and you expect them to uphold it in Parliament. Also send this letter Registered Post and Delivery Confirmed.
Total cost will be $11.30 and maybe an hour of your time. If you are not prepared to spend $11.30 and an hour of your time, than you are not really serious about saving your country.
PS – emails don’t count. They cost you nothing – why should anybody – especially a politician – attach more value to them than you did.
10
has anyone heard of any person at the PM’s forum asking why shouldn’t a citizen’s militia take back the govt by firearm?
18 July: The Atlantic: Lois Farrow Parshley: How Carbon Taxes Splintered Australia’s Government
If she (Gillard) succeeds in rolling her plan out, Australia will be the first country in the world with an economy-wide tax on carbon emissions. But Australia’s economy relies heavily on carbon-intensive agriculture and mining exports and opposition to Gillard’s plan has been intense…
Senator Christine Milne, the Deputy Leader of the Greens, told me, “The tax will increase at a rate of 5 percent per year until 2015,” when the introduction of a trading system would link the Australian price to the global carbon price, which is currently controlled by the European Union…
She cited South Korea’s announcement on Tuesday — Seoul will set Korea’s first ever carbon targets for 2020 — as evidence that Australia’s move will encourage other countries to legislate carbon.
Although Milne is confident the tax will win over detractors, opposition leader Tony Abbott claims the legislation, applied to all companies that produce at least 25,000 tons of carbon a year, will cause electricity hikes for consumers by as much as 10 percent…
Fergus Hanson, Research Fellow and Director of Lowy Polling, has been tracking Australian opinions on global warming since 2006. He explained, “While there has been a sharp drop in the proportion favoring the most aggressive form of action, 81 percent at a minimum agree ‘the problem of global warming should be addressed.'”…
Tim Wilson, a Director at the Institute of Public Affairs, told me that the political situation is increasingly tense — with many Australians blaming Gillard. “The Prime Minister lied about not implementing a tax, and people are seriously pissed off. The hostility towards the government is incredible — in a public forum in Queensland, a man asked why a citizen’s militia shouldn’t take the government back by firearm. That might not sound extreme to you, but we don’t have a firearm culture over here.”…
How will all this play out? Tim Wilson predicted that the carbon tax will be passed by Parliament sometime this fall. “Prime Minister Gillard only has a government by one seat,” he said, and at the next elections, currently scheduled sometime before November 2013, Gillard and the Labor party will almost certainly fall. “Whoever takes over next will repeal the tax,” Wilson guessed. “And that will be the last we hear about a carbon tax for a while.”…
Perhaps, as an island nation, it’s appropriate that Australia is the first country in the world where discussions of climate change are capable of toppling a government. According to Fergus Hanson, it’s been the key issue over which every Australian Prime Minister and opposition leader has seen their demise since 2007, including former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who lost office in 2010 after a failed bid for national climate legislation.
For other Western democratic governments looking on, Australia’s turmoil suggests that even the political will for climate legislation may not be enough without strong public support for the proposed plan.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/07/how-carbon-taxes-splintered-australias-government/242010/
i recall nothing in the last Lowy report to suggest 81% minimum want “global warming” to be addressed. funny how “global warming” is used for the journalist from an American Magazine, while Lowy Institute always hides behind “climate change” for the domestic purposes! they take us for idiots.
Galaxy had a 81% figure:
13 July: Herald Sun: Phillip Hudson: Australians demand carbon tax vote
It (Galaxy Poll) finds 81 per cent believe the carbon tax will have little or no impact on the environment and 67 per cent believe it will be bad for the economy compared with 22 per cent who think it will be good…
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/tony-abbott-julia-gillard-dig-in-on-carbon-tax-package/story-e6frf7jo-1226092715231
10
From a skeptic’s point of view, Julia Gillard is the best possible person to “sell” the Carbon tax to the broader community. What I mean by that is that her manner is so patronizing, her body language so awkward and her smiling and mugging so fake, that even the most brainwashed AGW acolyte can’t help but perceive her hard sell techniques, her utter discomfort, her propagandizing, her spin doctoring and her down right black- hearted dishonesty. She is the best weapon a CAGW disbeliever could hope for, with Bob Brown performing his best Mad Hatter impersonation, they make a “dream team” double act that would put a spring in the step of every Lib in Canberra, with the possible exception of Malcolm Turnbull who must be looking for ways to go short on his green energy portfolio. Oh well, the best laid plans and all that……..! Back to the drawing board for the scammers, the “ring in” didn’t come off, they just backed a dud and done OUR cash cold.
10
Colin – A very sensible and logical request. BUT politicians are not logical and few are sensible. She has cronies sucking up to her and colleagues backing her – whatever her position. Your only hope is that she is removed before she can do too much harm. But with what will she be replaced ? Ah well, I suppose we can wish.
10
This is less about saving the World or the climate.
The World and the climate are just the means.
They dont even belive in the means them self!
Its more about radicalizing the World into environsocialism or environcommunism..
Get rid of labour and stop funding this none scientific and none democratic radical movement.
10
MattB:
Matty… you admit the planet has gone through major upheavals of climate, thereby making my argument. What part of the “climate not spiralling out of whack” did you not understand? I did try to keep the words simple to avoid confusion. I admit “spiralling” is a bit tricky, but really…
As for politicians being a bit tricky, at least Abbott came right out and said you shouldn’t trust what he says all the time. Probably the most honest thing any politician has said in a long time. As opposed to beloved Joooooooooolya (there, beat that!) who keeps pushing the lie uphill…
10
PS> I am starting to have a suspicion that the o’s in Joooooooooolya are suffering from positive feedback.
10
tony moore doesn’t feel it necessary to question the ex-CSIRO’s contradictory statements, nor bring up any facts that would counter this rubbish:
19 July: Brisbane Times: Tony Moore: Campbell cornered on carbon?
Queensland LNP leader Campbell Newman appears to be under pressure to change his stance on climate change action after Queensland’s new chief scientist said Australia needed to put a price on carbon emissions.
Dr Geoff Garrett said pricing carbon was a part of a package of steps to combat climate change…
Dr Garrett, appointed Queensland’s chief scientist in January after eight years as head of the CSIRO, said his view reflected the position of the broad scientific community.
“The science indicates that we have anthropogenic (man-made) global warming and we need to reduce carbon emissions,” he said.
“As such, I do support what my successor – as you said in your article – Dr Megan Clark said, that in order to get the market forces going, you do need to put a price on carbon.
“But we also need to recognise that as part of the play you need to be looking at ongoing sustainable technological developments and sustainable technological development and looking to change behaviour.”
Dr Clark said 25 per cent of carbon savings come from changed human behaviour, with 75 per cent coming from sustainable development and sustainable technology…
Yesterday Dr Garrett said it was the role of scientists to “inform” public policy and not “set” public policy.
He rejected Mr Newman’s assertion that science had been rejected in favour of politics in Queensland’s decision-making.
“In my nearly six months here (as chief scientist), I’ve no evidence whatsoever of seeing the perspectives of science and scientists, from my own personal information, ignored,” he said…http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/campbell-cornered-on-carbon-20110718-1hll7.html
10
Howard in the Herald Sun yesterday was acknowledging the changing landscape on CCC and introducing the idea that new science has emerged in the last couple of years and they are not so sure anymore.
This is what Abbott needs to do now, while saying their policy is better because if in the next few years it transpires that it was all a beat up, we need to be able to unravel schemes. Gillard and the Greens are locking us in, irrespective of what happens with science.
10
Well it’s official… our PM has become a joke, even at the ABC:
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/at-home-with-the-prime-minister-but-bedroom-is-offlimits-20110718-1hlos.html
Yes, the ABC is planning a sitcom (short series) based on the PM.
10
And the tired old meme about “no single weather event can be attributed, yadda, yadda, yadda” is trotted out at The Australian to guilt us into sending more money to feed starving Africans:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/starving-millions-need-our-help-now/story-e6frg6ux-1226097069167
I am not unsympathetic to this man’s cause, but why, oh why, the need to conflate the starving millions with manmade global warming? How about the more direct impact of arable land removed from food production, billions taken out of pockets and sacrificed at the altar of Al Gore that might otherwise be donated etc My response:
Genuine economists have little tolerance for feeble-minded policies…
10
Peter Lang: @ 74.
Anti democratic pratinism PRATS!
Possible reply to Brendan O’Connor..The attached link(s) [many of the likes of F Singer etc] will give you the information you require to show that The Australian Academy of Science ..is barking
up the wrong tree.
They need reminding that they are servants of the people.
10
theRealUniverse:
July 19th, 2011 at 9:01 am
Does anybody know where you can get hold of the Oath sworn to the Governor General?
Would not this be a contract to the Citzens of Australia?
10
Tuff titty for the warmists again
Greenhouse gas theory of global warming is refuted in momentous Mexican lab experiment. Results mean epic fail for doomsaying cult and climate taxes.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8073&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimaterealistsNewsBlog+%28ClimateRealists+News+Blog%29
10
The goal posts have shifted again
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/18/new-nasa-paper-contradicts-kaufmann-et-al-saying-its-volcanoes-not-china-coal/
It is very hard to hit a moving target.
10
Dear Prime Minister and Labor MPs.
I would urge you to consider that your beliefs about catastrophic consequences of global warming may be unfounded.
I struggle to accept the alarmist claims about catastrophic consequences. Why is warming so bad given:
• Life thrives when the planet is warmer and struggles when colder. [1]
• During previous periods of rapid warming life loved it (e.g. Greenland warmed by 16 degrees per decade) [2]. Life responds to local warming or cooling not average world temp change. Warm and warming are good for life; cold and cooling are bad.
• The planet is in a cold phase (not in the depths of a glacial period but still on a cold phase compared with its normal average temperature) [3]. (It is rare for the planet to have ice caps – only three periods (about 20 to 30 million years each) in the past 500 million years [4]. So what is so bad about warming?
• What is so bad about 2-5 mm per year sea level rise? We’ll adapt with little trouble to that. The scientists seem to ignore how we deal with and adapt to such issues. Sea level has been rising at about 2 mm per year for the past 150 years and that hasn’t affected us [5].
• Coral reefs thrive in warmer water and expand in areal extent. They struggle to survive when colder – like the Great Barrier Reef did during the last glacial period.
So, it would seem the claims about the catastrophic consequences of global warming are exaggerated at best and scaremongering at worst.
The world should cut GHG emissions. BUT, it must be done in a coordinated and economically rational way. We should stop wasting our wealth on irrational schemes like renewable energy. They are a massive waste of resources – human, material and financial resources.
We need a thorough due diligence before we implement policies that will commit us to multi trillion dollar expenditures. The Stern and Garnaut reports were both politically partisan and cannot be trusted.
We need independent due diligence.
10
pattoh @ 93
GG’s oath
http://www.gg.gov.au/content.php/page/id/16/title/oath-of-office
10
Peter, your list of crackpot observation/conclusions aside… can you just explain this:
If ” the claims about the catastrophic consequences of global warming are exaggerated at best and scaremongering at worst.”
Then why -“The world should cut GHG emissions.”
10
This from greeniewatch’s article http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
How the warmists use every opportunity to turn COOLING into WARMING. There fingernails are the only thing holding them from falling of the cliff.
They dont understand the true implications of the solar minimums DECADES of cooling!
It wont be over in a few months.
10
pattoh @ 93
As I keep pointing out, the GG’s boss (and therefore the oath) is to the government of Australia which is “Queen Victoria and her heirs and successors” – in the case, Queen Elizabeth II and HER “heirs and successors”.
The Queen and “her heirs and successors” in turn swear the coronation oath by which they agree to govern us in accordance with our laws and customs – that is as laid out in various documents, starting with the 1688 Bill of Rights agreed to by William and Mary of Orange, and in our case culminating with our Commonwealth Federal constitution, and the constitutions of the various states’.
In other words, the Queen is the GG’s boss,and are we the Queen’s boss. The parliament only exists to “advise” the Queen of “our will”.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/ImagesandBroadcasts/Historic%20speeches%20and%20broadcasts/CoronationOath2June1953.aspx
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMar/1/6/contents
10
a site where you can sign a petition
cutting and pasting from the site
Had Enough! of this government ? Sign the petition to remove them.
We want more than a million signatures, which I will deliver to the offices of the Governor General, the independents and Julia herself.
Please tell your friends. Spread the word.
http://hadenough.com.au/
10
that site is looking for:
TonyfromOz and Peter Lang and other experts who visit this site might have time to link some of their work there
10
Val Majkus @ 102
The petition is worthless, even if it gets 22 million verified signatures (or whatever the population happens to be at the moment).
Once and for all, the GG CANNOT SACK THE “GOVERNMENT”.
The GG can only dismiss the entire Parliament – that is, a double dissolution of both houses – and issue writs for a new election.
The GG can only dismiss the Parliament for a specific reason, such as:
A vote of no confidence in the Parliament (effectively a vote of no confidence in the House of Representatives against the Prime Minister), or
Where a GG has returned proposed legislation without Royal Assent to the House of Representatives for “further consideration”, and the House refuses to amend it. This can only be done where the GG accepts that the proposed legislation is not “in accordance with our laws and customs” – that is, is unconstitutional and/or does not represent “our will”.
A petition calling on the GG to withhold Royal Assent from any proposed legislation relating to “carbon taxes or levies”, as it does not represent “our will”, would be a step in the right direction. But even then it would have to be an actual SIGNED petition, not a bloody email, which counts for nothing in these matters.
10
I’ve just had a good laugh at something mentiond in today’s Australian. Apparrently Tony Abbot has written to Julia Gillard requestion that Treasury fix its errors in the modelling of the Carbon price package, Julia Gillard’s response was “This is just another stunt by Tony Abbott“.
Wow!. What mob is running this country. The Treasury modelling si seriously flawed and the PM won’t even tell Treasury to fix it. Unbelieveable. Incompetent.
10
TRU in 99,
I can never keep up with the warmbots, we have been told time and time again that the only thing the sun has that effects the climate is TSI and all agree TSI barely changes through solar min and max, but suddenly we hear our quite sun has thrown us a life line.
It all comes back to due dilligence doesnt it, we have been subjected to a multipronged attack from the warmbots for years now all saying basically the same thing but as the years have gone by the models along with the accompaning predictions have gone off the rails and now we see all these little splinter groups coming up with their very own version of reality. First it was ignored then we have Trenberth and his missing heat, next we had the old “its the Chinese” making it colder and now we have NASA claiming “its not the Chinese its the volcanos”.
We had no due dilligence before and we have none now.
If due dilligence was done before ot got cold this would not have happened but here we are with all these crazies running around in ever decreasing circles squealing “the sky is falling” and a PM that is
10
MV thanks!
I was really chasing the Oath taken by our PM & ministers.
If this is a “contract” to the citizens of Australia & if & if perhaps it can be construed that any move to submit the nation to the sovereignty of the UN ( via treaties & economic control through the settings of an ETS), would it not arguable that it may be a breach of contract?
10
One for MattB who is always “prepared to change his viewpoint” if given evidence that CAGW is a load of crock.
Peer-reviewed repeatable experiment confirming Professor Robert Wood’s 1909 experiment that CO2 (or any other gas) “radiative heating” of the atmosphere is a load of crock.
Thereby confirming the “greenhouse theory” is a load of crock.
Thereby confirming that Mann-made CO2-induced Anthropogenic Global Warming is a load of crock.
http://www.biocab.org/Wood_Experiment_Repeated.html
QED – RIP CAGW
20
multiply this a thousand times over if we end up with the carbon tax:
18 July: MSNBC: Electric Car Maker Folds, Salinas Loses $500,000
A Salinas car manufacturing company that was expected to build environmentally friendly electric cars and create new jobs folded before almost any vehicles could run off the assembly line.
The city of Salinas had invested more than half a million dollars in Green Vehicles, an electric car start-up company.
All of that money is now gone, according to Green Vehicles President and Co-Founder Mike Ryan…
The start-up company set up shop in Salinas in the summer of 2009, after the city gave Ryan a $300,000 community development grant.
When the company still ran into financial trouble last year, the city of Salinas handed Ryan an additional $240,000. Green Vehicles also received $187,000 from the California Energy Commission…
Salinas Economic Development Director Jeff Weir said Green Vehicles flopped because of a lack of investors…
The start-up company promised city leaders that it would create 70 new jobs and pay $700,000 in taxes a year to Salinas…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43799213
while the recommendations in the Foreign Affairs article referred to call for more Govt (taxpayer) money to be wasted etc., those with Super Funds need to watch carefully where their Super Funds are invested if this tax is foisted upon us:
11 July: CNET: Martin LaMonica: Report predicts doom and gloom for green tech
Renewable energy and green technology companies are poised to crash, a recently released Foreign Affairs article argues. Despite the provocative title, the authors offer relatively familiar solutions for speeding energy innovation, such as boosting government funding for research and development.
The July/August edition of Foreign Affairs features “The Crisis in Clean Energy–Stark Realities of the Renewables Craze,” which offers a grim outlook for solar, wind, and other green technologies–a crisis that will make it tougher for the U.S. to address energy security, the trade deficit, and global warming. Another piece by Devon Swezey of the Breakthrough Institute, teeing off the Foreign Affairs article, calls it “The Coming Cleantech Crash.”.
With government spending under intense scrutiny around the world, policies to subsidize renewable energy have become “politically unsustainable” in the U.S. and Europe, according to David Victor, a professor a the School of International Relations at the University of California San Diego, and Kassia Yanosek, founding principal at consulting and investment company Tana Energy Capital…
“The root cause of today’s troubles is a boom-and-bust cycle of policies that have encouraged investors to flock to clean-energy projects that are quick and easy to build rather than invest in more innovative technologies that could stand a better chance of competing with conventional energy sources over the long haul. Indeed, nearly seven-eighths of all clean-energy investment worldwide now goes to deploying existing technologies, most of which are not competitive without the help of government subsidies…
But ultimately, the essay’s biggest contribution to the ongoing energy debate is calling attention to a possible bust in a history of boom and bust cycles around renewable energy and other green technologies. Innovation in energy typically takes years of development and years more to bring to market. That means without well-thought-out long-term policies, green technologies will remain a niche for years to come.http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20078578-54/report-predicts-doom-and-gloom-for-green-tech/
10
pattoh @ 106
In that case you will want the oath or affirmation of allegiance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_%28Australia%29
Note that it is to “Queen Victoria and her heirs and successors”.
I’m beginning to feel like a broken record.
10
MV in 107… are you serious? I’m going to give you a bit of time to have another look at that article to check if it says what you think it says. Give you some time to come to your senses and ‘fess up to jumping the shark.
10
MattB,
Can you explain why you, and the government, are opposed to conducting due dilligence.
Can you provide a clear and persuasive argument for your opposition to due dilligence (see the lead article for this thread to understand what is meant by due dilligence)?
10
I’m not opposed to due-dilligence. I’m educated as, and used to be, an engineer (as in I’m not currently a member of the institute of engineers), however, I’m not convinced that the article is accurate in assuming that peer review and the scientific method is so flawed, or that the science has not been put under intense scruitiny.
Ok so this bloke thinks there should be a different outcome, and I doubt he’d change his mind even if what he thinks should be done came up with the answer he doesn’t like. Ahh well.
10
MattB @ 110
Your abilities never cease to astound me.
I posted at 11.29am. You replied at 11.46am.
In the intervening 17 minutes you managed to read my post, open and study a 34 page scientific paper describing an experiment, conclude my assumptions were wrong AND post a reply.
Tell me, do you have a cape and wear your undies outside of your pants like that other super-person?
10
“Queen Victoria and her heirs and successors”. Part of the globalist British 19th century empire of total world dominance by stealing resources from the ‘natives’ (still trying to continue). See history of the Baron de Rothschild.
10
memoryvault: #109
That is interesting. Wikipedia may have had one of its whoopsies.
In the New Zealand equivalent entry, there is a discussion regarding whether the name of the monarch (or the monarchy at all) should be mentioned, with the justification that:
“Follow the experience of Australia”? Hmm, that would appear to be at odds with your reference at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_%28Australia%29
The nice thing about facts, is that there are so many to choose from.
10
Ahh well MV I gave you a chance.
The article you link to (for which the introduction gives sufficient info) says the following: (in fact the abstract gives enough info)
“Through this controlled experiment, I demonstrate that the warming effect in a real greenhouse is not due to longwave infrared radiation trapped inside the building, but to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the surroundings, as proven by Professor Wood in his 1909 experiment.”
So the experiment points out that an actual greenhouse with glass is warm because warm air cannot convect away as it is held in place by the glass, rather than simply because of warming from IR that is prevented from radiating away. It says nothing about whether what we have come to term “the greenhouse effect” in the atmosphere occurs or not.
The claim at the end “Therefore, the greenhouse effect does not exist as it is described in many didactic books and articles.” simply means that what we call “the greenhouse effect” should not be called “the greenhouse effect” as it is not what happens in greenhouses.
10
Just to be clear MV… the problem you have is that the article you link to does not say “that CO2 (or any other gas) “radiative heating” of the atmosphere is a load of crock.” If it did it would be in the abstract or the conclusions.
10
Rereke @ 105
I think you’ll find that “debate” here in OZ was not about the oath or affirmation of allegiance, but about the oath of citizenship.
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2002-03/03rn20.htm
10
MattB the GHG theory AND Greenhouse theory, related to planetry atmospheres, HAS no Physical meaning in the realm of physics PERIOD! IT IS FALSE!
So called climate science has misused radiation theory and the laws of thermodynamics.
10
TRU – without getting in to that discussion, I can only assume that you agree with me regarding the “paper” MV links to?
Certainly though your conclusions in 119 involve misuse of radiation theory and the laws of thermodynamics.
10
theRealUniverse: #144
I can’t see what relevance the “history of the Baron de Rothschild”, has to British colonialism.
The Rothchilds were (and are) a french banking family. They are also Jewish. In the mid 19th Century, one of them received a small Baronetcy in Heartfordshire in lieu of some outstanding debts owed to the bank. They are listed in the British Peerage, but have no connections whatever to the Royal Family.
It was another Jew, Benjamin Disraeli, who had a major influence in colonialism. From memory, he was responsible for forming the British Colonial Office in London.
10
watching abc debate with lcm,
opening line of the alarmist starts with the precautionary principle.
siccem lord. I’m looking forward to seeing a pasting
10
Watching the “debate”.
Richard Denniss has just opened with a massive appeal to authority and used Paul Nurse’s ridiculous cancer analogy. He’s still banging on with the appeal to authority.
Boooring! Oh, now we are on to the insurance and precautionary principle. Zzzzzzzz…
10
MattB @ 116 & 117
Actually Mattb, if you had actually read the experiment you’d know it demonstrates there IS NO warming from IR to be “prevented” from radiating away. Not from CO2 or anything else in the atmosphere to “radiate IR”.
The very reason the experiment uses four boxes and different materials and involves six stages is to ELIMINATE ANY EFFECT FROM IR.
But you’re quite right, the paper doesn’t say “radiative heating is a load of crock”. What it actually says in the “General Conclusions” is:
10
MV
“The greenhouse effect inside greenhouses”
“The greenhouse effect inside greenhouses”
“The greenhouse effect inside greenhouses“
10
Ok enough is enough,
This is nothing more than a thinly veiled appeal to authority and should be stricken from the record
Let me ask the caped crusader a question or two,
Do you honestly believe in the magic GPS theory, the one that can measure temperature to two decimal places more accurately than a thermometer designed to actually measure the temperature at such altitudes?
Do you subscribe to the Trenberth missing heat solution where the heat has somehow passed through the ARGO bouys totally undetected and is now lurking in the Mariana trench at a depth beyond our abilities to measure?
Do you accept the IPCC practice of citing only one study in regards to the solar affects on Earth, one study that was written by the lead author of the relevant IPCC chapter?
Do you accept the mounting evidence that the IPCC reports are full of errors leading to at best a sign of their incompetence?
As an engineer you should understand the concept of due dilligence however you seem oddly ignorant of this strange new concept.
10
Totaly with Mark @ 123, Richard Denniss relies exclusivly on argument from authority.
10
re the debate LCMs free kick
rotflmao. thanks to the sydney morning herald
10
MattB @ 125
NO IR warming.
NO IR warming.
NO IR warming.
10
Debate over, Denniss at no stage opined how the concensus was right, his only two arguments were authority and precaution.
At least the audience were respectful. which is more than can be said of Alex Heart of the seven network.
10
Well it’s all over; wound up with a couple of snarky questions from a couple of snotty young journalists and I use the term advisedly. I didn’t think any question asked was in any way distinguished.
Pretty civilised with little evidence of the GetUp mob. Monckton received at least as much applause as Denniss who left no argumentum ad vericundiam unsaid.
10
Mark at #131
I particularly liked the young thing who walked bravely and blindly into the yawning jaws by asking ‘why don’t you publish in a peer reviewed climate journal?’ She obviously hadn’t done her homework poor thing. I hope she recovers.
10
Bruce:
Yup, that must have been like walking around a corner straight into a rapidly accelerating cricket bat!
10
Monckton really did not need to get out of first gear to often & All ON NATIONAL TV TOO!!
WooHOO!
10
Bruce in 132 that sounds more like a Dorothy Dixer… cue tirade against peer review.
10
I think the Press club debate was too one sided. I would like to see a debate between the warmist Lord Christopher Monckton and a coolist like Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, David Archibald or Robert Felix etc.
10
MattB @112
Ok so this bloke thinks there should be a different outcome, and I doubt he’d change his mind even if what he thinks should be done came up with the answer he doesn’t like. Ahh well.
That seems to be guessing at his motives and integrity.
Let me ask you straight up: what would it take to change your mind?
You see I believe your statement applies to you as well. I suggest your statement could be reworded as follows:
Ok, so you think the government’s CO2 tax and ETS is good policy, and I doubt you’d change your mind even if proper due diligence came up with the answer you don’t like. Ahh well.
What would it take to change your mind about catastrophic global warming?
What would it take to change your mind about the government’s proposed carbon tax and ETS policy?
10
OT @ Rereke Whakaaro: (as I understand the Rothchilds funded the Bank of England, hence the British monarcy, to defeat Napoleon.. cant find my source)
and MattB yes the greenhouse effect STAYS inside greenhouses too!
Sliggy @ 136 yes but it might give ammo to the warmists saying the skeptics are arguing.
10
MattB – yes you could be right, but it was (I was only listening on the internet, not watching) a young lady journo as far as I could tell. Not of the demographic of the session here in Newcastle, we were an old and hoary lot mostly. It sounded to me in tone like an attempted trap question, since the primacy of peer review gets pushed quite a lot by some people on the consensus side. I could well be wrong, if so I’ll apologise cheerfully.
Chris Monckton’s answer was of course he has a formal peer reviewed paper on climate sensitivity from 2008. He also cited Lindzen & Choi 2011 and Spencer & Braswell 2010 live on TV on the ABC. Richard Denniss kept on (somewhat lamely I thought) about the primacy of the science, CSIRO, NAS and Marius Kloppers but Chris Monckton was the only one giving scientific citations.
10
MattB @112
That seems to be guessing at his motives and integrity.
Let me ask you straight up: what would it take to change your mind?
You see I believe your statement applies to you as well. I suggest your statement could be reworded as follows:
“Ok, so you think the government’s CO2 tax and ETS is good policy, and I doubt you’d change your mind even if proper due diligence came up with the answer you don’t like. Ahh well.”
What would it take to change your mind about catastrophic global warming?
What would it take to change your mind about the government’s proposed carbon tax and ETS policy?
10
Well you have to wonder about the major Government-funded scientific institutions when they are told to not do science because the findings may reflect badly on the orthodox UN-sanctioned CAGW hypothesis:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/18/cern-dont-interpret-the-cloud-experiment-results/
Yes, scientists at CERN have been instructed by the head honcho not to draw conclusions from the CLOUD experiment which has the possibility to lend some weight to Svensmark’s cosmic radiation –> cloud formation hypothesis.
What I find stunning is that there are any scientists out there doing anything that might cast doubt on CAGW. There’s no money in it, and if you find a significant finding the establishment tells you to shut up.
10
richard denniss is an economist; no match for Monckton. hopefully, some journalists will have learned enough to stop them from using climate change when they mean AGW and carbon when they mean carbon dioxide . it only makes them look stupid.
as trivial as it may seem, the following needs to be documented online, so here goes:
A letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from the Clerk of the Parliaments
Dear Lord Monckton,
http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/
in other words, Monckton is a Viscount and a Lord. however,
The Derry Standard: Viscount told “you are not a Lord”
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/uk-politics-14190400
http://www.londonderrystandard.com/2011/07/viscount-told-you-are-not-a-lord/
that was BBC’s headline before they changed it:
(copied from google results)
Viscount told “you are not a Lord”
BBC News – 10 hours ago
UKIP climate change spokesman and deputy leader Viscount Monckton…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14190400
but that headline was properly corrected by BBC:
18 July: BBC: Viscount Monckton warned off Lords membership claim
Last updated at 17:08 GMT
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14190400
however, not before the incorrect headline travelled far and wide, as BBC is perfectly aware does happen, including to Malaysia!
Malaysia: BBC: Viscount told “you are not a Lord”
http://www.ukmalayalikal.com/index.php?news=232669
if u search – Viscount told “you are not a Lord” – u will find many more who posted BBC’s error.
how did this nonsense begin? only the UK Daily Mail has bothered to ask and their piece is suitably full of humour (plus a story on Monckton’s gorgeous daughter), as opposed to the PM-type hectoring of ABC’s Monckton taken to task, or SMH’s “radio stoush triggers parliamentary anger”:
19 July: UK Daily Mail: Richard Kay: Lords are a-leaping on Viscount Monckton after he passes himself off as one of them
‘We had a Google alert which let us know about this interview in Australia and the Clerk to the Parliaments, David Beamish, wrote to him afterwards asking that he cease to claim to be a Member of the House of Lords,’ says a Lords spokeswoman…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016262/RICHARD-KAY-Lords-leaping-Viscount-Monckton-passes-them.html?ITO=1490
hmmm! finally, BBC’s ugly sister, The Guardian, tells a porkie of omission if it’s so that dates have actually been added to Monckton’s tour:
Guardian: Guardian: Climate sceptic Lord Monckton told he’s not member of House of Lords
The tour has been dogged by venue cancellations …
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/18/climate-monckton-member-house-lords
10
Great summary on the latest C3headlines, bring a smile to faces of the coolists!
The graphs SHOW it no warming since 19……wait…wait again….eighty one yes 1981!
Shucks..
10
“hopefully, some journalists will have learned enough to stop them from using climate change when they mean AGW and carbon when they mean carbon dioxide . it only makes them look stupid. ”
Just like it makes Jo look stupid when she uses “carbon” in the skeptics handbook? Yeah I know I point this out from time to time but is anyone taking anything in?
10
Just to get a handle on the ‘fake greenhouse argument’
Two (2) false assumptions used in climate GH arguments:
Assumption One: Gases that absorb infrared light thereby block infrared light.
Reality: Such gases radiate, i.e., “scatter” or spread out the light they absorb, thus releasing light in all directions rather than blocking it.
Assumption Two: Blocking the exit of light while allowing free entry will increase the temperature of an irradiated object.”
Reality: The light an object emits is a function of its temperature; its temperature is not a function of the light it emits. Accordingly, if incoming light raises an object to a certain temperature, the object will remain at that temperature whether it emits light to its surroundings or not. Any temperature increase in a confined condition is only due to reduced convective cooling.”
10
Real @ 145
According to MattB that only applies in greenhouses.
Everywhere it’s different.
10
Peter The short answer is:
(1) It will take some science that demonstrates that the impact of increased CO2/GHGs is less than as presented in the latest IPCC reports. Yes I know there are some papers the challenge that but I’m not personally convinced having made an effort to consider the various scientific opinions.
(2) It would take a pretty strong economic argument as I’ve never read any economic argument that makes an ETS sound other than a good solution. I know you don’t share that opinion. You also know I agree that an ETS will result in a higher than optimum carbon price when we are excluding nuclear from the mix. But basically if there are cheap ways to abate carbon then an ETS should provide the incentive to find them. If you like it is “direct action” with an economic tool to find the cheapest “direct actions”.
given the “science” suggests fairly mammoth GHG cuts are required, I feel it is eminently sensible to work on modest 5% cuts via an ETS, in advance of the globe if only in recognition that our economy wants to be primed for this when(if) the deeper cuts are agreed.
10
“object will remain at that temperature whether it emits light to its surroundings or not” I’m not convinced. I think you’re suffering from a skewed understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. You seem to be talking some sort of perpetual energy device that emits light yet does not cool.
10
If any government proposal is ideologically correct – than that is all anyone needs to know… surely… isn’t it???
10
Peter Lang @ 60
I agree to an extent… The ALP and the Greens do not need our help to self destruct. They are doing a great job of it by themselves. I think, and I know I may be wrong, that it’s better of they bring themselves down, as they currently are, than for their opponents to do it.
As long as they keep going the way they are, their demise will be permanent.. especially the greens.
We overcame the CPRS – true, but it was short lived. This policy must be totally turned to dust… only the flaws in the policy, and the extremism of those peddling it, will give s that outcome, not the opposing view.
10
Mattb @ 144
Very Sloppy:
Read the handbook, Jo uses the word “carbon’ only after quantifying it’s use.
If you want to pick cherries, go to an orchard.. much more fun, and tastier 🙂
10
Everybody… take a look at this:
Greenhouse Gas Theory Trashed in Groundbreaking Lab Experiment
Professor Nasif Nahle of Monterrey, Mexico backed by a team of international scientists has faithfully recreated a famous experiment from 1909 to confirm that the greenhouse effect cannot cause global warming.
http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/38420.html
10
FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS
http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/23/2303/S021797920904984X.html
10
Pete #140
MattB has been doing the “soft-shoe shuffle” around your question ever since commenting here. Notice how he refers to papers that he may or may not choose to believe.
Economic evidence? Well, everyone knows that if you’ve got two economists you’ll get at least three opinions.
Personally, I like this sort of evidence. You know exactly where the climate fraudsters are coming from.
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” – Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
10
Oh, damn! I omitted the Otmar Edenhofer one. Never mind, I’m sure most of us here know it only too well.
10
David Jo uses the word carbon, and yes she does explain it but only in that she thinks it is an appropriate term for popular discussion. Note my point is not that Jo is stupid for using it, I think she uses it appropriately and it is a perfectly acceptable term. Not everything is a conspiracy… unfortunately there are dumb people out there who need things dumbing down. I spend too much of my time discussing climate with them on the internet to not know this.
10
Um, yeh right. English major? no
10
“Um, yeh right. English major? no”
lol I can’t see how your reply is any more the queens than mine.
10
Mark in 154 it is no surprise to me that you prefer to base your opinion on doctored and out-of-context quotes than science.
Just on the Houghton quote:
“In a November 2006 article in Australia’s The Daily Telegraph, journalist Piers Akerman quoted Houghton as saying “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen”, attributing the quotation to his 1994 book Global Warming, The Complete Briefing. This has since been quoted by many sceptics, including Benny Peiser and Christopher Monckton, and is listed at the top of the front page of Christopher Booker’s The Real Global Warming Disaster. However, the quotation does not appear in any edition of Houghton’s book. Houghton has never said any such thing and believes the opposite.[10] The publishers of The Real Global Warming Disaster, The Continuum International Publishing Group, have apologised for the reference to that quotation, confirmed (in addition to Booker’s confirmation) that it will not be repeated, and have agreed to place a corrigendum in any further copies of the book. In an article which appeared in The Sunday Telegraph on 20 February 2010, Christopher Booker purported to correct the misquotation contained in The Real Global Warming Disaster but this article contained yet further inaccuracies.[11] As a result, Houghton referred the matter to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC Reference 101959). Following the PCC’s involvement, The Sunday Telegraph published on 15 August 2010 a letter of correction by Houghton stating his true position.[12] An article supportive of Houghton also appears in the 21 May 2010 edition of New Scientist.[13]
It is possible Piers Akerman was misquoting the comment from the 1995 Sunday Telegraph interview above and thus gave the wrong source, too.”
But I’m sure that won’t stop you repeating it… it is an awesome quote why let the fact he never said it get in the way of a good story eh?
10
Queens Queen’s or Queens’?
No mine’s the General American.
10
Why the capital G? Or is that how you roll statesite? On one thread I am accused of nit picking. On this thread I’m getting grammar lessons from a pillock of a yank. Go figure.
10
MattB @ 159
You are quite right MattB, what Houghton ACTUALLY said was:
http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/houghton-and-god.pdf
Some debunking. Now you did did imply that ALL the quotes were “doctored and out-of-context quotes” and you did say “Just on the Houghton quote”, so presumably you can now regale us with a similar “debunking” of the other five quotes.
10
MattB @ 159
Or can we assume your post was not only your BEST shot, but also your ONLY shot?
.
Such as it was.
10
I thought you deserved it for your nitpicking comments re: Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Lacking in substance and just a bit whinging.
P.S. the caps were exactly cut from your favorite: Wiki.
Perhaps you’d prefer Standard American English?
“Pillock of a Yank”
Just the kind of words that caused the Independence. You remain the turd not yet mature enough to pass.
10
Which still leaves all the others, MattyB.
And face it Matt, nothing would really change your mind about this faith-based science, would it?
10
Sigh MV:
Schneider quote: http://climatesight.org/2009/04/12/the-schneider-quote/
Maurice Strong: The actual quote is clearly a hypothetical about how others would solve the problems: “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/13/glenn-beck-fox-news
from Strong: “A particularly dishonest statement by long-time critic, Peter Foster, to his own editor, citing a fictional account which was clearly stated to be an extreme scenario of what might happen by the year 2030 if we failed to act. This specifically stated that it was not a prediction, and certainly not a recommendation, but the kind of prospect we must seek to avoid.”
Paul Watson Quote: I’m not researching that one as I think it is true. Politically it only matter what people believe, as can be evidenced by the current debate in Australia where it seems the people side with the cranks.
So there’s 3 more MV …
10
And MV “If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.” Is completely different to the quote. It is realistic view based on human nature.
10
That’s nothing but a bunch of semantic gymnastics Matt. Those people couldn’t care less about anyone but themselves and their overpaid sinecures. They are all dedicated to bankrupting national economies to achieve their sinister objectives.
10
Hi all, I’ve watched the video of the debate and feel I can comment a bit too. I am off to Tamworth tomorrow to the public forum held there by Prof.Bob Carter, and will report if I can when I get back Friday night.
As soon as Denniss opened with his analogy comparing skin cancer with AGW and the consensus of the scientist who actually in the climate commission report had the cheek to add a disclaimer on p2 to take no responsibility for inaccuracies! I had a feeling where his argument was going. I thought LORD Monckton would have grabbed that with an answer with ‘But say you haven’t got skin cancer, would you have chemotherapy or radiation.’ And as far as saying not taking out insurance – well? A house owner with a mortgage has to take out insurance. We gamble that something might happen but the insurance company is gambling it won’t! They were weak analogies in my opinion. I think he had a good retort re the accusations that scientists were getting death threats etc. When asked
by some journalist from WA, he came back ‘Didn’t your newspaper have the headline ‘Ban the Lord’ and then mentioned journalists only a few weeks ago recommended deniers should be branded and gassed. He handled his debate well, but very understated I thought. But he kept to the script and that was the science promoted by alarmist groups was not credible. Denniss was out of his league, and also promoting the carbon tax propaganda. The message was to journalists ‘Do your research first and then see what I am promoting is logical and correct’.
10
PS: Denniss kept saying the majority of Australians believe in climate change, (not AGW!) Shame he hadn’t taken notice of the polls, that dispute this. But Monckton sorry Lord Monckton did get more applause from his opener I will admit. But when the camera swung onto the general audience, I was thinking they concentrated on members of the audience that seemed to have disagreeable looks on their faces to Lord Monckton responses. Why didn’t they do that to Denniss’ responses? He is right when he said about the co-founders of Greenpeace who resigned because Greenpeace was favoring a Marxist political stance. Anyone who has not seen ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ it is available on U Tube and one of the co founders said he resigned because they were becoming politically aligned and forgotten their basic philosophy that was to protect the environment. I used to subscribe to their funds once, but stopped it years ago.
Adaptation and sustainability is one thing. Giving false data to support devious political agendas by lying to the public is another.
10
O/T SMH today. Windsor supports ailing Gillard. I have been
lobbying TW for years about this AGW farce. He still supported the carbon tax though. I found out that he is overseas investigating what Europe is doing about climate change. His comment is at least they are doing something.
Although the carbon taxes and trading have done nothing to
cut carbon emissions? And it is failing economically too. I will be interested in what he reports when he returns. Because he is quoted as saying,
“I will not support the carbon tax if it does nothing?”
10
Matt B: You show your silliness and ignorance. Carbon is the basic makeup of the Earth and human bodies. Carbon dioxide is a gas, it is not a pollutant. carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide are and can be pollution. But soot is carbon. Actually some of the best carbon fertilisers organic are fulmic and humic acid from coal and the water used washing some coal.
Warmist’s cherry pick! And now this government is trying
to make schools follow the wrong science or climate science. This is equivalent to when in America they wanted
to stop Darwin’s theory of evolution not taught in schools.
But only the creationist hypothesis. Get real MattB and John Brooks who is also quoting on WUWT site his fanciful
and scornful comments without scientific logic about AGW
skeptics.
10
I think those last 4 comments of mine were put in the wrong
blog, sorry Jo et al. Should have been in the real Monckton
debate I think?
Cheers and good night
10
Hi MattB, I can absolutely assure you my father, and myself for that matter, most certainly would change our minds. In my case, back to what I thought things were for a long time before becoming more skeptical.
If you have no objection to Due Diligence studies, would you at least agree that at the very least, in respect of the extent of proposals being suggested to mitigate CAGW, proper due diligence is warranted? Before the Carbon Tax was implemented, or even proposed seriously, proper examination of the whole subject by a wide range of professionals at the engineering level of thoroughness is just good sense, and proper cost/benefit outcomes also examined?
What has made me skeptical, and my father for that matter too, is the lack of this kind of scrutiny. There are enough errors in the science, and suggestions of confirmation bias to warrant thorough disinterested examination of science of the kind proposed by my father and other engineers such as Steve McIntyre. And not a replication of the kind that exists at the IPCC, which after all is only an assessment, NOT a rigorous examination of all the data, and the assumptions.
Come on, if it as serious a problem as is being asserted, then we should be equally serious in the rigorousness of our due diligence!
PS Jo, I am thrilled you posted this. Dad sent me a copy of his reply and I thought it was worthy of being read more widely. As an additional aside, we are also from Perth!
10
Agnostic. Nice to have you hear too 🙂
10
Agnostic @174,
Your post (letter to PM credited to your father) at the top of this page is excellent and your response to MattB is excellent too.
MattB, as an professional engineer, I hope you will provide a considered response.
10
Mark: “That’s nothing but a bunch of semantic gymnastics Matt. Those people couldn’t care less about anyone but themselves and their overpaid sinecures. They are all dedicated to bankrupting national economies to achieve their sinister objectives.”
What complete and utter crap. I’ve systematically bunked each of the quotes I looked in to, and your only response is to appeal to global conspiracy. And to think you probably call yourself a skeptic! Skeptic my ass.
10
Agnostic in 174 – I’m not convinced, as you are, that the scientific review process is fatally flawed, nor that you would see better outcomes from the proces you suggest, nor that the process would not ultimately be blasted by those who oppose whatever result it came up with.
In all seriousness Agnostic I think you and many like you have fallen for the PR exercise that is the skeptical movement, and when “due diligence” comes up with the same result they will be as ruthless and show as little respect for the science as they are now. You really think Monckton wouldn’t still be on this tour, this website wouldn’t still exist, if a bunch of whoevers appointed by the government had performed 1, 2, even 5 years of exhaustive due dilligence? You’re dreaming.
To me it is not hard to look at the science and see that the skeptical arguments are revealed to be almost entirely flawed at only a cursory glance. And they are parrotted by people who haven’t a clue.
As an example just read the exchange above between myself and “Mark”. He parrots out a bunch of quotes cut and pasted from some sceptical website (I found them similarly cut pasted and posted on blogs from as early as 2009 I think). I’ve gone through them and on each occasion showed they are indeed mis-quotes or totally out of context. His response is to rant on about global conspiracy! This is what normal rational people are up against I’m afraid.
That said I think there is nothing to fear from due dilligence. I wish it had been undertaken on the war on Iraq for example.
10
“MattB, as an professional engineer” just for the record I’ve stated previously that I’m not a member of the institute and as such am not a professional engineer.
10
More English understanding: Mattb says something like “I am an engineer” but you can’t pin a “professional” tag on me. Or was it: I flunked engineering so don’t even go there…..
10
No no no Mark D. I have an engineering degree. I could, hypothetically, have an engineering degree and run a cafe, due to a lifestyle choice, or a fishing charter business. In those cases I’d not be a “professional engineer”. I only made the distinction as I’d not want it thought I was making an unsubstantiated claim… like being a member of the house of lords for example.
10
Ah, the old “I was quoted out of context” defence.
You quote some half-arsed “rebuttal” by The Guardian. Well, they would do that, wouldn’t they. Ever wonder why Strong hides out in China Matt?
Schneider quote:
Your link is from an obviously warmist site. Schneider is clearly embarrassed at being caught out and the writer seems only to eager to assist in trying to help him out of the hole. You do know that Schneider was a “freezer” back in the ’70s, don’t you Matt? Nothing like being flaxible I suppose. Keeps the grant money coming in.
Your mealy-mouthed equivocation on the Wilson quote is beyond belief. You admit it’s valid but attempt to justify it anyway.
Did you “nod off” in the ethics modules of your course?
.
10
Mark in #182… who cares if it was in a Garfield comic strip let alone the Guardian? Do you actually have an argument based upon accuracy of the damn thing? Your quotes are CRAP and if you have the science on your side you don’t need them. YOur lack of critical thought on the quotes indicates you’ve probably never applied rational thought to the science… if you’ve even read it.
10
Well Matt, the quotes have been in the public domain for a good while now. Anyone sued? No, didn’t think so. It’s not as if they wouldn’t given half a chance,
10
Re the science bit.
I don’t need a lot of science to make a judgement on the practices and ethics of Pachauri, Santer, Jones, Mann and other leading lights of the CAGW club.
10
That’s your problem. You probably should use your head instead of your ass in these debates/discussions. Regardless of the persuasion of each.
10
Bejebus Mark can’t you read… I’ve already detailed the extend of the apology issued for one of the misquotes:
“The publishers of The Real Global Warming Disaster, The Continuum International Publishing Group, have apologised for the reference to that quotation, confirmed (in addition to Booker’s confirmation) that it will not be repeated, and have agreed to place a corrigendum in any further copies of the book. In an article which appeared in The Sunday Telegraph on 20 February 2010, Christopher Booker purported to correct the misquotation contained in The Real Global Warming Disaster but this article contained yet further inaccuracies.[11] As a result, Houghton referred the matter to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC Reference 101959). Following the PCC’s involvement, The Sunday Telegraph published on 15 August 2010 a letter of correction by Houghton stating his true position.[12] An article supportive of Houghton also appears in the 21 May 2010 edition of New Scientist.[13]”
10
Woohoo, MattB just chucked a(nother) hissy fit!
That whole extract re Houghton could be totally unrelated to the matter at hand.
Even if it is related, how are you going with the others? If you did find one raw prawn that still doesn’t invalidate the rest and there’s more where they came from. As I said before, your trumpeted “rebuttal” of the Schneider quote is mealy-mouthed dissembling and I wonder why anybody would come to the defence of a misanthrope like Maurice Strong. About the only good the UN ever did was to strip him of any honours before he fled to China.
Finally, do you really think yourself omniscient Matt?
10
Mark you clearly are not approaching this with an open mind. The quotes being doctored/misused is not evidence of AGW, but your insistence they are valid is evidence that you are not a rational person.
10
MattB
The science is interesting and can be argued till the cows come home. Ultimately, the empirically verifiable parts of it will benefit the planet. In the meantime what they (the quotes) are evidence of is a mindset and the lengths some will go to for an ulterior motive. They couldn’t care less about you, the environment or the planet.
In all sincerity Matt, how can it be that India stands to receive “carbon credits” for burning Australian coal while we would be penalised for burning the same coal. How does that lower the global temperature. That strongly suggests to me that the UN means to do what they say about destroying the industrial world by any means at their disposal.
10
” what they (the quotes) are evidence of is a mindset and the lengths some will go to for an ulterior motive.”
Mark you don;t seem to be getting the message – the QUOTES ARE DOCTORED!
10
MattB @181,
You say
This is an obvious reference to Lord Monkton. Funny thing Matt, I’ve never seen a single thing in writing in which he claims to be a member of The House of Lords. I’ll bet no one has ever heard him say he is a member of The House of Lords either.
Your inability to understand why he is what he says he is does not change what he is. Neither does your inability to understand science change what science is.
If indeed you do have an engineering degree I fear that it was wasted. I’ve a better grip on science with my computer science degrees than you do.
You really are better at politics. You’re a fish out of water here.
10
@MattB 184
I have to pull you up on each of those points Matt. Firstly, I am not convinced, as you assert, that the scientific process is “fatally flawed”. In general I think it is excellent, however I think Colin put it quite well describing it as a “coarse filter”. I have read quite a few review comments in my investigation of various recently reviewed papers that are quite illuminating. Secondly, you are prejudging what I or Colin would regard as a “better outcome”. The serious “scientific” skeptic takes no view on what the outcome should be at all, merely that the conclusions are checked, and checked again, and then thoroughly tested, and then checked again and again. Thirdly, while I am quite sure you are right if such due diligence was carried out by those with conflicted interests, and equally sure that you are right to say that there will always be those whose would oppose based solely on ideology, this is because the debate was allowed to extend this far without a proper DDS. Had it been conducted early enough, and ideally repeatedly using different contractors, we could have a great deal more confidence that the extreme measures proposed to mitigate our influence on climate would be worthwhile.
I have to say, I think your views on this are coloured by some of the debates you have had. Since there is a side “A and side “B” to put it crudely, people with a little knowledge or a pre-existing agenda are entirely capable of picking their favoured side and talking absolute gibberish. But in my case, I was persuaded from an entirely “alarmist” viewpoint, formed from information I accepted from mainstream media, and the science journals I liked to read, by the serious and considered objections from published scientists skeptical of the orthodoxy and then the behaviour of scientists promoting the CAGW meme. I came to to the debate via my father whose skeptical grumblings I felt not sufficiently informed enough to challenge. On attempting to anticipate some of his objections, research into them made me feel that my position was quite weak, and after climategate and the subsequent nonsense that ensued, I just could not justify anything other than a somewhat suspicious view of what I had been hearing. “Nullus in Verbia” as someone said.
So no, I have not been persuaded by a PR campaign, but rather a determined attempt to refute the (genuine, serious and considered) skeptical arguments that failed. I even downloaded my own data sets and played around with them in order to try and gain a better perspective.
Hmmm, I don’t think so. In any case, it doesn’t matter whether or not they existed, the government would at least have been as sure as they could be that they have case for making the huge policy decisions that they are. Without it, they are not as sure as they could be, and that is the issue that both my father and I have with the government on this matter. And btw, we accept that “sure” is not the same as “certain”.
Then I suggest you start to examine seriously and critically skeptical arguments from those who do have a clue. Until recently, I had not even so much as read a word Christopher Monckton had written or said. If his style is objectionable to you I can suggest many more less celebrated skeptical scientists who have real and genuine problems with some of the assumptions underlying the science used to advocate the case for AGW and CAGW. I haven’t found convincing refutations yet, but I remain prepared to find them. For me it was useful to seek out rebuttals, and rebuttals of rebuttals, and so on. In this way, you can weigh up the voracity of the arguments. but you do need to be open minded – of both sides of the debate.
10