Frustrated cult members know they can’t explain their faith to the rational. [See Grist]
They bombarded us with glossy brochures, with full feature documentaries, and awarded people on their team with Nobels for nothing. They spend billions of dollars of our government funds and investment monies, and, once upon a time, the full support of the EU, UK, US, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand governments, all the major financial houses of the world, and of course the supertanker of governments – the UN. They had 70% of the Western population convinced and a $144 billion dollar global trading scheme with all the patrons that engenders.
So now that it’s all going to rot and ruin, they have no ammo left. Their arsenal is reduced to namecalling and jokes that reveal the Christmas wish-list of the inner totalitarian.
Those with billions of dollars attack the mostly unpaid volunteers who are beating them. It’s emblematic that in this meeting of the “ruling class” where the joke is funny, the only people not represented in the audience of politicians and businessmen are the taxpaying citizens:
Our biggest problem is to deal with the skepticism and denial of the cult-like lemmings who would take us over the cliff,” said Brown, a Democrat, eliciting cheers and laughter from an audience of roughly 200 policymakers, businessleaders, and activists. “The skeptics and deniers have billions of dollars at their disposal ... But I can tell you we’re going to fight them every step of the way until we get this state on a sustainable path forward.”
More laughter came when Pachauri joked that Branson could give climate deniers tickets on the aviation mogul’s planned flights into outer space. “Perhaps it could be a one-way ticket,” Pachauri said, smiling, “though I’m not sure space deserves them.” [Source: Grist]
The alarmist cult needs to keep that myth alive about the money. Could it be that the only way they can “reason” about the planetary atmosphere is to “follow the money”, even if that money doesn’t exist? (Is monetary influence the only way they can think?) Or is it simply that they deny the facts about climate that are defeating them as they leak out to the public over the Internet, so they pretend they were beaten instead by big money and PR?
Anything to avoid the dreaded “we were wrong”, that all us little people — whom they’ve been calling idiots in every possible way for years — might be right. After all, wasn’t this issue supposed to prove their intellectual superiority once and for all and therefore give them (in their minds) a mandate to govern over us?
Lack of evidence never slowed them down in science, and so it is with their sociopolitical analysis too.
Lets not ponder the logistics of ejecting half the population.
For those that do everything to silence discussion on “climate change”, the projection of their own Tactic Number One is rampant:
“It’s sad that in America you don’t talk about climate change because of Republicans,” said the British Branson…
Schwarzenegger sets them straight on the true democratic way to do this. You don’t have to debate anything. The dumb plebs don’t need to be convinced.
Fresh from a movie set where he’d spent the afternoon “banging a guy’s head into the wall,” Schwarzenegger praised Brown for pioneering California’s pursuit of solar power and energy efficiency during his first term as governor, in the 1970s. “California is 40 percent more energy-efficient than the rest of the United States,” said Schwarzenneger. “I tell people in Washington, you don’t have to have any debates, just follow California’s example and you’ll be 40 percent more efficient. That would be the equivalent of closing 75 percent of all coal-fired power plants, which is like taking 300 million cars off the road.”
Yes, let’s all copy California’s economic plan. The state is doing so “well”!
[…] Blast Deniers into space eh? Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]
10
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=38D98C0A-802A-23AD-48AC-D9F7FACB61A7
“….the Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee,was given all the latest data proving conclusively that it is the proponents of man made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics [A whopping $50 Billion to a paltry $19 Million and some change for the skeptics – Yes that is Billion to Million]….”
10
I do not understand world politics, but my most immediate concern is that frightened leaders of formerly “Free West” nations may act foolishly to preserve their false illusion of control if the public learns a pulsar actually gave birth to the Solar System and its elements and still controls our fate today.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/NASA_finally_asks.pdf
1981: “Heterogeneity of isotopic and elemental compositions in meteorites: Evidence of local synthesis of the elements “, Geokhimiya (12) 1776-1801 (1981) [In Russian]
2005: “”The Sun Is A Magnetic Plasma Diffuser That Sorts Atoms By Mass”, paper to be presented at the V INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON NON-ACCELERATOR NEW PHYSICS in Dubna, Russia, 20-25 June 2005 [In English] http://www.omatumr.com/Overheads/Overheads.htm
10
Carbon [C] in meteorites have undergone different phase transitions to form different substances. How can the combination in meteorites be explained?
10
18 Dec: Australian: Lauren Wilson: Former Labor leader Mark Latham slams clean energy plan ‘waste’
OUTSPOKEN former Labor leader Mark Latham has warned that the Gillard government’s $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation will become “the greatest waste of money in the history of the commonwealth”.
Speaking on Sky News’ Australian Agenda this morning, Mr Latham said the carbon tax the Gillard government negotiated with the Greens and the country independents was more about income redistribution than legislating a significant environmental measure.
But he said the $10 billion clean energy fund designed to boost private investment in clean energy technologies was “the forgotten element” of the debate.
“It’ll end up, I think, being the greatest waste of money in the history of the commonwealth, it’ll make the Building the Education Revolution and pink batts programs look like a Sunday picnic,” Mr Latham told the program…
But Mr Latham said the fund was premature and the industry was not ready for that level of government-backed investment.
“This is the biggest industry slush fund in the history of the nation,” he said.
“How can you spend $10 billion on industry development when most experts say that the technology, the so-called clean-energy technologies, aren’t there to absorb that money in any productive fashion.”…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/former-labor-leader-mark-latham-slams-clean-energy-plan-waste/story-fn59niix-1226225002479
10
And when they do send us into space, we can tell them that’s where the heat has been going, but alas, no one would hear us…
10
It used to be fun Jo – but it’s now just plain boring. Post after post of sceptic alarmist ranting. Baby you’ve never had it so good. Stop whining and get a serious job.
I had to laugh “Those with billions of dollars attack the mostly unpaid volunteers who are beating them” HUH and WTF ? It’s a sad old meme.
Sceptic impact on mainstream science in something GRL is zero – you’re all having your little Walter Mitty adventures aren’t you. Having little rallies and getting all revved up. Legends in your own life times. So boring.
10
Is that you luke; the avatar is apt at least.
10
Hi Govt whore,
We all have to earn a living. I have been involved with an exchange on the earlier “Sea Levels 8 times ” blogg.
My basic beef is that experts in one field, in this case oceanography, can simply “assume” an aura of scientific invincibility in the Climate Science area by saying “I have a PhD” or “I work for CSIRO”.
My comments there were not meant to be personal because the problem is endemic and patronizing of others outside the “Climate Science” circle of influence. Anyone can get caught up in the current frenzy of CO2 driven AGW, especially when you can make your job more secure by adopting the right attitude.
There is a danger to all when real science is woven with material that is received wisdom rather than derived truth, when it is woven with supportive ABC documentaries and politically correct phrases like “to combat climate change”.
One example of how we can bend to the right path is shown on the ACE website where three examples of possible inundation by sea level rise are available on three maps.
Three different depths are available.
Three choices available but they all are markedly higher than the 270 mm max rise predicted by 2100 and so will frighten the hell out of people.
My question is: is this politically driven science?
10
You mean you need to ask the question?
Three choices, all greater than the 2100 prediction? The uncertainty is proven out of their own low lying mouths.
10
Hi Sceptical Sam,
Yes.
The three choices of disaster offered by the ACE website were designed to give the impression to the visiting public that sea levels would rise by 0.8 metres or 800 mm by 2100.
The maps give inundation profiles for your choice of disaster:
0.5 metres.
0.8 metres
And
1.1 metres
Any reasonable Local Government Officer tasked with assessing inundation prospects for his area would go to this site for help.
What they should see is Reality.
Reality as determined by the best oceanographic minds available says ocean levels show up to 1 mm per year of rise, but there is even some uncertainty about this.
Reality is a potential rise of somewhere between zero mm and 90 mm with a maximum 270 mm.
There is a suggestion that there is no trending rise, just normal fluctuations that in 50 years will go nowhere.
In the Newcastle – Lake Macquarie LGA we have people whose lives are ruined because the asset they worked hard to pay for is now unsaleable.
Seventy year olds are rewarded for their thrift with ruination by careless, unthinking Government out to scrounge a few more votes on the back of the AGW theme.
Perhaps some helpful LGA Councillors will help by buying these properties at bargain basement prices. Who knows, maybe this “flooding” thing is wrong. It’s been done before with “heritage” zonings and unzonings etc.
10
Well, govt whore, it matters not a whit what the scientists think.
It matters what the voters think. Because politicians (and, eventually, the media) follow what the voters think.
Once the voters realise they’ve been conned, well, they’re not going to put up with it anymore.
And then the climate scientists can all pass each other peer-reviewed notes in the library till the end of time, but it’s not going to make a lick of difference once the money stops.
Once the billions are gone, so are the buddies of the climate scientists, who are, in the end, just useful pawns in a much larger game. People like Michael Mann and Phil Jones will dance to the pipers tune for a surprisingly small amount of money and fame.
Still, it’s quaint that you still think it was ever about the science.
Oh, and if you care to get back on topic for a reply, you might address the main point, which is that billions of dollars worth of PR, Media Coverage is failing to win the war of opinions against unpaid people who disseminate the truth for free.
The smart money has already left the building. The clueless are still trying to flog the lifeless nag back into being.
I think it was an old NASA saying : No Bucks, No Buck Rogers.
That’s what counts. You might be a government whore, and you’re about to find out who is paying for your tricks.
10
Walter Mitty would have been a grand climatologist for the IPCC.
10
The thing I like the most about these trolls is their marvelous sense of shame and their great self-respect.
Govt whore indeed! Come back after you’ve earned the right to stand up and speak in the company of honest men and women!
10
I’d say by comparison even whores earn an honest living.
“If you get into bed with me, there will be no rooting tax under the whorehouse I lead.”
Our Madam has even infected us with toxic property time bombs – the symptoms don’t show straight away but life won’t be the same again!
10
your name is so apt….
If you do not like the blog then go elsewhere chum
10
Oooooh – you acid-tongued little Govt whore you.
Probably a car park attendant!
10
You know what really gets to me about these guys?
Over and above their continued exploitation of the Holocaust experienced by millions of Jews, Russian POWs, Gypsies, homosexuals and political prisoners (many of whom disputed the NAZI consensus) for their own pathetic agenda – is that hey imply that somehow, being a sceptic that I somehow don’t care about the state of the planet my children inherit.
All because they find it impossible to be professional, stick to their jobs and prove their point.
Their childish ridicule, usually from their ivory towers speaks of their arrogance as well as their stupidity. They should be praising sceptics for challenging them to do a better job!
All they need to do is actually prove their point. As of today, they still haven’t.
10
Their point is proven well enough Madjak. Its not “proof” any more than you can absolutely “prove” that smoking causes cancer. Any sane person accepts that smoking greatly increases your risk of cancer and various other diseases, and they do so without proof. It is the weight of evidence that convinces.
Its the same with global warming. The weight of evidence suggests that at the very least we act now. It may turn out to be unnecessary, and that would be nice. But just like a person standing on a beach after an earthquake, even if its a lovely day, and the surf is great, prudence demands you head to higher ground until the possibility of a tsunami has passed.
Of course what bugs the climate scientists is the deliberate campaign of misinformation by various conservative groups to cast doubt on global warming (oops, out come the pedants and say, “we know it is warming” – to which I say, “you know what I mean”). Some people don’t like the consequences of combatting global warming, and that is most of the people here. Yet somehow, rather than just stick to the, “I’m scared of big government intruding on every aspect of my life”, mantra, most feel that they must also fight the facts of global warming. Its not surprising of course. If it is just their political preference, they will be ignored.
The beauty of doubt is that it comes pretty cheap. Its far easier to do a Plimer and create mythical undersea volcanoes, than to actually correctly account for actual volcanoes. How easy is it for a Monckton to cherry pick two data points in 20 years worth of arctic sea ice data and use them to argue that arctic sea ice is recovering? How much harder to put the satellites up there and to a real analysis?
Anyway, as I see it, you will get your lack of action, because in the US, Canada, Russia & China, there is no stomach to tackle the problem.
BTW, in a weird twist, 2011 will be Perth’s hottest year since records began. Its weird because I thought we’d enjoyed a pretty cool November and December. But of course the Bureau of Meteorology is fudging our temperatures, aren’t they?
10
John says
Yes John it does seem to have been a not exceptional year but maybe it is because we had what seemed like a mild winter.But what ever it was I am sure it is because of CAGW. 😉 🙂
10
JB says – “Their point is proven well enough Madjak. Its not “proof” any more than you can absolutely “prove” that smoking causes cancer.”
And therin lies the lesson.
JB – can you point us all here to the peer reviewed PROOF that manmade CO2 is going to lead to “catastrophic global warming”.
We have asked you this MANY times before and still have nothing from you.
Please understand, WE all know that CO2 is nothing but a minor, life essential trace gas that will do nothing but make grass/trees/crops grow more efficiently and with less water. It’s just difficult for us to grasp how anybody with half a brain could think anything else unless there was an ulterior motive – what’s your motive JB – either you’re afflicted with severe lack of common sense or you’re on the gravy trian – WHICH IS IT JB – tell us all.
Cheers,
10
Well Popeye, I just said that there was no “proof”, so I have no idea why you’d ask for any. There is lots of evidence, but you will just ignore that, because you want “proof”.
Do I have an ulterior motive? Yes, I admit that I do. You see I’m worried that we may be buggering up the planet, and that the battle over global warming (important as it is) is also a proxy for the battle to allow corporations to ignore any environmental concerns.
10
John,
I want to postulate an argument here, using three examples.
1. They knew Thalidomide was a bad drug after the evidence showed it to be bad. Because of that the drug was banned outright.
Along the same lines, they did the same with Vioxx for Arthritis. I have sports related Arthritis from 30 years of Grade Cricket. 2 GP’s and a specialist in Sports related injuries told me that Vioxx was far and away the single best medication produced for Arthritis. I was taking Vioxx for 4 years without a problem, except my Arthritis was non existent. Because it produced (heart related) side effects in an absolutely minute proportion of people, (who then sued) Vioxx was removed completely.
2. Also from the evidence, they er, know, that smoking causes numerous health problems. Rather than removing it completely, all Governments have done is raise the taxes on it, and raise them, and raise them, thinking this is the ‘driver’ that will stop people smoking. They didn’t remove tobacco absolutely. They used it as a revenue raiser.
3. They (think they) know, from, er, their own weight of evidence that CO2 emissions will lead to the end of the World, so they tell us. By far the largest proportion of those CO2 emissions come from the generation of electrical power. (40% of man made emissions) Again they haven’t immediately closed down those power plants, in a similar vein to removing Thalidomide. No, all they have done is raise the tax on those emissions thinking that this will drive to lower those emissions. They are not closing them down, and are just using them as a revenue generator.
This imposition of a Tax has not worked with Tobacco. Why is now going to work with CO2 emissions.
When they start treating this CO2 ‘problem’ in the same manner as Thalidomide and Vioxx, eg, remove it completely and suddenly, then WE, (all of us) will KNOW that there is a problem that needs to be rectified.
If the problem is so dire, as we are told ad infinitum, then hang the problems with removal of electrical power. Just shut them down immediately, and work on the next phase.
No John, these people are not serious. They are using a conveniently perceived invented problem to pursue their own agendas.
Baffle the people by quoting Science to them, get Government’s on side to introduce legislation and then tell people that because they have done this, it will solve that problem.
Well, that worked with tobacco didn’t it? They’re still introducing legislation.
When those power plants are being shut down hand over fist, then that of itself will send an indicator to the public at large, much faster than anything else.
Will that happen?
Not on your life!
Tony.
10
If corporate destruction of the environment is the problem, then worry about that. These problems are dead simple to solve. In fact most of them are solved. In fact the (mostly) solved problems of local pollution in the developed world are the reason for the global warming scare.
Trying to do a proxy battle via co2 to control corporations is miles behind the ball.
Co2 rhetoric was never, and never will be, about the environment.
Ask yourself why Bob Brown doesn’t tie himself to trees anymore? The plain and simple answer is that, if he stops enough dams and logging companies, eventually he’s out of a job and a cause. Now that there is a lot of environment legislation is in place (which were worthwhile reforms), and you can’t just rape and pillage the environment at will, what, exactly, is left for the Greens party to do?
No, Bob Brown (and his fellow travellers) would rather fight an unbeatable foe, a problem that cannot be solved.
Did you read ‘1984’? Do you know why they were always at way with Eastasia (or Eurasia?). It was to divert resources to the war. It was to provide the people with someone to hate, lest they look at their government. The war was never meant to be won. It didn’t actually exist. It was just there to divert attention and resources.
As Tony has already posted – the war against co2 emissions can be won tomorrow. Just turn off the power plants. Crush the private cars. Close all the cement plants. Done, done and done. Co2 emissions solved forever.
If it’s the future of the human race we’re talking about, these actions are well below the cost of inaction. This is your precautionary principle, no?
But maybe – just maybe – it’s not about saving the planet. Maybe it’s about identifying all the demand-inelastic products out there, demonising them, and attaching themselves like a tick to the revenue on inelastic demand products under the guise of saving people from themselves.
It’s about time you woke up John. You can’t seriously be blind to what is going on by now. When the people telling you there is a problem start acting like there is a problem, that’s when you should start believing there is a problem. The ‘conference of parties’ at Durban resulted in a bunch of people deciding to meet each year for the next 4 years, with the view of making something happen in 2020.
Does this sound like the actions of people who seriously think there is a problem? The entry of the USA to, and the winning of World War 2 took less time than that.
If you believe that the (local) environment should be protected from abuse, that wilderness should be protected from unnecessary development, then we’re roughly on the same page, unless you’re proposing that all mining, dams and farming should be stopped, which is fantasy-land unless you also want to cull population, which I don’t agree with.
Fixing local pollution and environmental destruction doesn’t need worldwide treaties, grand pronouncements, or anything else. It just requires some strong laws and a government strong enough to enforce them. By people like you off with the pixies thinking they are going to save the planet by taxing your power sources, you’re effectively ignoring the here and now in order to concentrate on fantasy land, and you’re going to lose both.
10
Tobacco can also be used for another example.
I joined the Air Force in January of 1967. There were 72 of us on our intake, all 16 year old, (and some of us, including me, nearly 16 years old) boys.
Within a few months, nearly all of us were smoking, up around 80%. Smokes cost 34 cents a pack. Near the end of the year, there was one of the first debates as to using the ‘price driver’ in an effort to make people stop smoking as, even then, smoking related health problems were starting to cause concern, and this ‘price driver’ was one of the mechanisms that was thought to be useful in any effort to alleviate the medical ‘cost’ of smoking.
Most of us guys (keeping in mind that our wages were only $21 per fortnight before tax) swore black and blue, that if the price was put up by the mooted 3 cents a pack to 37 cents, then we would give up, and actually, even for 16 year old boys, we did talk about things like this. This in effect would have halved the smoking guys on our Course.
That price rise eventuated, and very few, if any of us actually gave up because of that, and in fact, I didn’t stop smoking until August 1987, when I started running 7Km a day, and smoking was affecting the now larger freedom of breathing I needed. The RAAF was using BMI as an indicator as to overweight guys, and I needed to get my BMI down from the 105KG and into the healthy weight BMI range, which was 79KG, something that took me 15 Months, just by running.
The point here is this.
During those 20 years of smoking, revenue raising price increases used as a ‘cost driver’ were not what caused me to stop smoking, and there was a plethora of them in that time.
The same applies here with these CO2 emissions. The Government has placed a ‘cost driver’ on those emissions, and that cost is passed directly down to the consumer. We are told that by doing this, people will lower their consumption of electricity, thus saving that price increase ‘cost driver’.
Any savings you make at the Residential level (only 38% of the total electrical power consumption) are so minute as to not even register at the personal residential account level, and people just WILL NOT alter their usage rate consumption of electricity.
That tiny minority who do lower their consumption, (and keep in mind this will be only by a minute amount, even when all added together) then overall, that lowering by those few will not even register on total overall consumption, and those same large scale power plants will just keep humming along as they always have.
In much the same manner as that ‘cost driver’ has not worked with tobacco, why do they keep running with this same meme now with electricity consumption.
It was a con with tobacco, and still is a con with CO2.
When they get serious, and actually start shutting down those plants, then the general public really will see that there may, just may, be a problem.
Tony.
10
Tony, I am not sure your tobacco analogy is a good one. Tobacco smoking leads to a chemical addiction (via nicotine) that will alter a person’s ability to make rational choices based on cost alone. The government has consistently spent money on anti-smoking advertising which shows a consistency in message if not in method. Yes, hitting alcohol and tobacco were/are ways of raising revenue with the least amount of voter backlash, but there has been a continuous attempt to discourage alcohol abuse and tobacco smoking without actually banning it (probably because Prohibition worked so well …/sarc). Other than that, I agree with you completely.
This use of CO2 to raise revenue on power usage/consumption is on another scale of magnitude and shows a level of moral and intellectual corruption that has not been seen before as far as I can remember.
10
Hi John,
The way I see it, it is the “believers” that have the blind spot. It seems that no matter how wrong the predictions are, they can manage to twist it into being “consistent” with their theory.
For example, Hansen suggested in the 1980’s that if we didn’t act right away, the road outside his office had a good chance of being under water in 20 – 25 years (on TV IIRC). You know the road, right? In fact, I’d be surprised if most (western) people didn’t recognise it because it’s the same building that the diner in “Seinfeld” is housed in. Despite the time period passing, that particular road isn’t even close to being under water.
Next example, the Antarctic getting colder was consistent with global warming until the famous nature front page paper “showed” it was warming, then the story changed. And when that “result” was shown to be an artifact of the maths used (peer reviewed, published paper, acknowledged by the author Steig to be a legitimate criticism), was the paper retracted? No. It is still cited in the literature as a reference just like MBH9X is, despite it being quietly removed as the “smoking gun” evidence used by IPCC for the same reason – dodgy maths!
Or the tropical tropospheric hot-spot… lauded as a “fingerprint” until it couldn’t be found, then that was twisted into can’t prove it’s not there if we use wind speed indicators instead of temperature sensors to “measure” the temperature and anyway it will be there for all sources of warming and so on.
I could go on and list many more issues, but I will refrain from that because the “little bits all add up” arguement cuts both ways – even if you won’t acknowledge it, that is what concerns me and I suspect many other people here and at other “skeptic” blogs and is what I find most frustrating in dealing with the “believer” crowd.
Be that as it may, the attitude of some of these prima donnas is amazing – I can’t speak for anyone else, but it seems to me that they had a fantastic oportunity in Steve McIntyre to fix the science. Yet several times they have completely ignored his complaints of (minor) errors, claiming they did not affect the conclusions. So, if they didn’t affect the conclusions, why didn’t they correct the papers? Even worse, Gavin@RC claimed credit for some of Steve’s work, then refused to even apologise despite copping an earful from plently of (skeptical leaning, admittedly) scientists about it. In short, they did everything they could to marginalise and ignore someone who could have helped them do better science. They complain that people aren’t listening to them and trusting them as experts in their field, yet they refuse to listen to someone who is an expert in a field that their own field relies on.
People such as Judith Curry are being marginalised and castigated by their “peers” for not towing the “company” line. What made Professor Curry change her mind and become skeptical? She actually listened to what people like SM had to say, checked their claims and found them to be true. Now if a professor who studies climate for living finds some of these claims to be true and becomes skeptical, and if people who have been intimately involved in climate science since before it was “fashionable” (such as Spencer for example) can have grave doubts about some of the claims made for and about the science involved, and if the changes being advocated are so expensive and radical, it makes perfect sense in my view to ask some rather pointed questions – especially when it is apparent that none of the advocates for the changes appears to be prepared to consider the massive benfits that have acrued to us from our use of fossil fuels, and even more so when they refuse to consider a cost-benefit analysis to be in any way useful. They seem to be advocating methods that don’t and likely can’t work – wind and solar are not a viable solution to our energy needs and if we go down the path our govt has now mandated we must, we will create more emissions not less, as anyone can easily discover with even a cursory persual of the related engineering.
In short John, it doesn’t add up at all – at least to me and, it appears, many others. And instead of doing as science has always done in the past and present the evidence simply, calmly and logically, with easily understood rebuttals of the “anti” arguement, all we seem to get from this mob is different ways to “communicate better”, ad-hom attacks on people and their sources of funding and other irrelevant trivia seemingly designed to cower, intimidate and bully people in accepting the expert pronouncements and total denial of any and all wrongdoing by the “white hats” regardless of the stupidity and futility of doing so based on the evidence, along with cries of “won’t someone think of the children” and other emotional blackmail style arguements.
It saddens me when I think what effect this is having on science in general and climatology in particular – as someone who has worked with research scientists, this farce will negatively affect some of my friends and acquantences, ones who are good and decent people doing their best to improve our lives for what is, in all honesty, not very much remuneration given their education level. That, I fear, will be the legacy of the “believers” – the destruction of the very science they claim to cherish. Irony is not a strong enough word…
10
John, do provide links to all those studies that counted actual undersea volcanoes. Thanks, Jo
10
Brooksie; about Perth and 2011 being the hottest year [that is very wrong]; Chris Gilham has some interesting info about that so I hope Jo can post his info.
10
Having read his WUWT post, I think Chris has a point. Since the maximums are higher and the minimums are lower at Mount Lawley compared to East Perth, perhaps we could do the daily mean temperature and see how that works.
Personally, I think Perth summers have been pretty warm lately, but without the extremes of the past.
10
If the weight of evidence decides a matter then let’s somehow provide a means for putting it on the scales.
10
John, Sorry, you have many things wrong.
Please spend a little time reading Jo’s and WUWT’s blogs.
Take special note of the emails and you will learn that the “scientists” do not have confidence in their own science.
10
Ken, that is just stupid. Why would you read WUWT? If you want to understand stuff, you’d read books. Then you might follow that up with Skeptical Science and Real Climate and Tamino. After that, you could go on WUWT to have fun annoying the locals, I suppose.
10
John, your perceptions of the real world are so distorted.
I realize that you say the same about me BUT:
1.Thousands of blogging associates are publishing, referencing, commenting on and supporting evidence that is far more scientific than that offered by any of the small number of actually active CAGW scientists.
2. The AGW proponents are able to broadcast through the media and muli-million dollar conferences, propaganda that varies from vague through to downright lies.
3. Nowhere in the agw camp are scientists offering evidence to the public or to “our” scientists to support their own views. All they do is, like yourself, spout rhetoric and jargon, hiding things, covering up things, distorting things and actively trying to avoid disclosure. Being rude and insulting. Saying the ‘science’ is valid and settled when it is actually neither. This might convince the general public, (unfortunately), but not anybody that has some technical comprehension, expertise, and intelligence.
How you can have faith in these people and their pseudo-science, is impossible to understand. It is a faith like in religion – absolutely no proof but you like to think that it is true and the right thing to do.
4.The “emails” clearly show the lack of scientific confidence in the evidence that is the basis of the IPCC recommendations.
5. Your lack of comprehension suggests an inability to read and understand plain English!
6. You are presumably a paid stirrer to counter our truths, and are doing a very poor job. All you achieve is to make our claims more obviously correct, and make your claims more obviously unsupportable.
I apologise for my lowering myself to a personal attack, but if there is one thing you have achieved, it is to make me midly angry to see such inane rhetoric and know that some other people are taken in by it.
10
JB
Just a very quick couple of questions which I’m sure you’ll be able to answer – being you’re so informed about how bad CO2 is for the earth.
Can you explain how reducing man’s contribution of 3% of the earth’s CO2 by 5% by 2020 (or 50% by 2050 – or whatever number you like to choose to reduce) is going to change the climate on earth and reduce catastrophice man made global warming?
Will this make things all cuddly and cool for you then JB?
Then you can tell me all about the 97% natural portion of CO2 that is NOT man made and what we should do about that?
Can’t wait to see your answers JB – waiting, waiting, waiting!!!
Cheers,
10
Just a quick reply John – please do NOT go to WUWT. Instead, have a read through the archives at climateaudit and climate etc. Both of those are focussed on the science and both have somewhat mild moderation policies (climateaudit is actually the harsher of the two in that regard, but you WILL be able to post your rebuttals on either, providing you don’t degenerate into one-liner proofs or abusive rhetoric). The decade and more of climateaudit posts show what I was talking about in my previous post – and the vast majority of it shows sources, methods, code and pretty much everything you need to double check for yourself if you are so inclined. For a non-science break, I would suggest you search for Bender’s list of hypocracies – although it’s now somewhat dated, it makes for fascinating reading and it is all documented (I know because I have been following that particular blog for over a decade myself and watched a great deal of the sh*tfight evolve).
10
JB,
So that was a strawman, followed by the precautionary principle fallacy, followed by it’s dem evil conservative groups argument.
Face it, you guys have abysmally failed to make your case effectively. When people have exaggerated claims and conducted blatant opportunism, many on your team have hidden behind the idea that the ends justifies the means and to leave it unchallenged.
As a consequence, people simply do not trust what is said from the CAGW camp because they can see there are too many sharmans and far too many hangers on using the most ridiculous pretenses to contribute “to the cause”. It’s not the mystical conservative groups that have caused this -it’s been the 10:10ers, the climate institute and the others.
BTW, if I was to employ the precautionary principle fallacy, as you have, I would say this :- what if you’re wrong about the runaway global warming factors – how many people will starve while poverty and global warming are catastrophically intertwined in the never ending EU style negotiation fests that the annual climate conferences are? Maybe you should detach poverty from AGW as their connection is so pathetically tenuous it’s unbelieveable.
Never mind, I’m sure some from team catastrafaria can send round some coppers to raid my house just to try and shut me up eh? Who knows – it might work better than blocking FOIs – it’s the latest thing I hear.
10
The failure to make the AGW case effectively is largely due to the campaign of disinformation coming through blogs like this one. Has anyone seen Murray Salby’s graphs yet?
Exaggeration of the harmful effects of AGW is annoying. You tell people that sea levels will rise by 5m this century, and they won’t believe you (quite rightly), and then they won’t believe anything else you say. Most climate scientists are very careful to avoid dramatic claims for this reason.
10
John,
You almost get the point – until the scientists you refer actually stand up against their work being misrepresented – by either side of the debate – not just the sceptic side – they will continue to lose credibility from the public en masse.
Having said that, it was the AGW camp that were more than happy for global warming to be politicised. I didn’t hear about any warmist scientists becrying the crap Al core was pushing – instead, he got a nobel peace prize. I’m sorry, was Jones, Trenberth or Mann jumping up and down becrying Als Nobel peace prise? Of course not – anything for the cause. The ends justifies the means and all that, I’m sure.
Right throughout history when Science has been politicised or manipulated by theology, Scientific progress has stalled, stopped and even reversed in some cases. The Politicisation of the AGW debate has done and will continue to tarnish all scientific endeavours – regardless of whether the intentions for politicisation were correct or not.
And this is why the whole “the ends justifies the means” and the “precautionary principle” fallacy is so utterly stupid – stupid to say it, stupid to support it and stupid to repeat it.
And now, it seems the political polarisation now means that having the real debate which was so sorely needed has become impossible. Many average people have made up their minds, and it is on the sceptic side.
But hey, who cares – there are many many real world problems which are blatantly evident with ample empirical evidence to support it, but that’s OK, we can ignore them for the sake of the dramatic sea level rises being predicted through flawed modelling, after all, it’s the theory the anointed ones have put their reputations on the line over eh!
10
Well John,
Try this LINK to 39 sea level projections.Guess who has the 260mm and at the bottom of the list?
Reality versus Fantasy is the story.Something so many AGW believers have trouble figuring out.
It is annoying having to put up with irrational crap from a man who who should know better.A man who has been wrong so many times now.And repeatedly caught playing with the temperature data.
What will it take for people to realize.That James Hansen is a terrible climate scientist?
Shock treatments?
10
Moving up a beach after an earthquake is a zero-cost strategy.
Spending all your lifes savings on building a sand fortress around you to prevent a possible tsunami is not.
A sand fortress you say? Why yes, because as you know, all the of the Kyotos and solar subsidieis in the world aren’t going to materially reduce the amount of co2 in the atmosphere. You know this to be true, but still pretend that doing a futile action is still worthwhile as long as it has the right vibe.
You seem to still be under the cast of the precautionary principle, which is the shallow end of the thinking pool for people who can’t expand cause and effect past one degree of freedom.
Tell me, John, would you have your testes removed to prevent testicular cancer? The precautionary principle says that men of a certain age would be better off lopping them off than keeping them on and risking cancer. And there’s a lot more evidence towards old age causing testicular cancer than there is that co2 causes catastrophic global warming.
10
Hey brc, I said it was a lovely day with good surf. There clearly is a cost to leaving the beach!
I’ve got a friend who had a testicle removed recently. You’d never know the difference. You’d be aware, no doubt, that some women with a very strong family history of breast cancer actually do have their breasts removed as a precautionary measure. I guess the precautions you take depend very much on your assessment of the possible outcomes. As you believe that AGW either doesn’t exist or isn’t a problem, it would be pretty stupid of you to want to do anything about it!
10
John,
You talk big but so far you fail at every single challenge put to you. Never yet have you given an answer worthy of more than about a 10 year old.
PS:
John, the correlation between smoking and the diseases it causes is so great that even my cat can see it. You, on the other hand, can only offer a long list of failed predictions followed by revised predictions followed by diversion and all of it is mixed with countless lies. And it’s all capped off with a science scandal that beggars parallel.
You’re out on a limb a long way and sawing it off behind you as fast as you can. Happy landing, John!
10
Roy, your cat may be able to see it, but the tobacco industry delayed action on smoking for many years by deliberately confusing the science. Same with AGW. I think your cat needs to have a good hard look at AGW, and then have a chat to you about it. You may learn something.
10
So John,
Does this mean that you agree with the premise that passive smoking is somehow twice as bad for non smokers that the smokers?
Again, the basics were there, but it didn’t take that long for the tobacco industry to be armed up with the more fantastical claims coming from scientists trying to fight the tobacco industry.
Like many cancers, there is normally a genetic predisposition to a particular type of cancer – some people could, I am sure get cancer from smoking a cigarrette, while others may smoke a pack a day all their lives and then die of emphasemia instead.
10
John,
The tobacco industry did indeed delay action on smoking for a long time. And I don’t excuse them one little bit because the evidence was there for a long time. I would shut them down in a minute if I could.
The evidence for global warming simply isn’t there!
10
JB – Try telling my father that smoking will increase his risk of getting cancer. He started smoking during WW2 and is now approaching the age of 81.
“Maybe”, like in climate “science”, there are some factors that haven’t been taken into account in the smoking-cancer link. Like a genetic propensity to develop cancers due to the tissue damage that smoking always causes. We can breed mice that have a 100% probability of getting cancer, apparently by simply being alive.
An accurate statement about smoking doesn’t dissuade as much as absolutist mantra. But what happens when people cotton on to the truth? That smoking only raises the likelihood of cancers and related diseases?
Why not educate people instead of preaching to them?
I don’t like smoking; but my dislike for it is several orders of magnitude below how much I hate being told lies. Lies being told by lazy and stupid people; whose arrogance blinds them to the insult to intelligence that the lies constitute.
10
This also applies to claims about breast cancer and pregnancy. Today women can get into trouble if they drink a glass of wine when pregnant, but I can assure you that those claims about such effects on the baby in the womb are troublesome to say the least. Quite often the correlations that are claimed are simply inaccurate. This includes claims that consumption of alcohol has an impact on breast cancer… NOT TRUE!!
We need to be sceptical of all these claims. Believe it or not I am thankful that William McBride was caught out falsifying data, not because it hurt him professionally, but because of the lesson to be learned when someone ends up going on a cause. In his case it was attempting to help someone by trying to find a link between Debendox and birth defects. As one who had Debendox during three pregnancies and whose children had no defects I could not understand those original claims. It was different with Thalidomide because the evidence was more clear cut!!!
10
living in Canberra
Hi.
You write with great certainty about pregnancy and alcohol.
It is true that you can drink and the foetus will not be harmed, but do you understand the nature of the mechanism involved here?
If you drink at the wrong part of your pregnancy you can cause serious damage to the baby.
There are serious issues with drink and pregnancy and the only safe way of dealing with it is to NOT DRINK ALCOHOL during pregnancy.
Besides the specific dangers associated with hitting the critical period, there can be greater risk of general foetal damage and attendant spontaneous abortion (miscarriage).
10
Bernd, there is no proof that smoking causes cancer. Of course the rate of cancer in the population increases if more people smoke, which suggests that smoking causes cancer – but that is very different from saying that every smoker will get cancer because of it.
Much like the harmful effects of Russian Roulette, really.
Strangely enough, the tobacco industry also fought to prove that second hand smoke wasn’t a problem. Looking back to the early 80’s, when I sat about 2m away from a chain smoking co-worker, and came home every day with sore eyes and stinking of smoke, I’m angry at the tobacco industry. A friend of mine was an early pioneer in the smoking war. In the days when you could light up anywhere, and asking if it was ok to smoke was done only from politeness (because you were going to do it anyway), he said “no”, when someone asked to smoke in his house. They lit up anyway, so he tipped water on their cigarette.
10
Very much unlike it. Sane people don’t believe that they are bullet-proof.
And yes; I don’t count adolescents as being sane. I was there. I remember it well.
I note that you didn’t address the core question:
10
I like your style JB and your ability to communicate the state of play using calm, lay language.
10
10
Tristan,
My response to JB also applies to you!!
Funny how you lot ALWAYS decline to answer the simple questions – WHERE’S THE PROOF?
Cheers,
10
Matthew 7:3 NIV
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
10
Tristan,
When honest men debate they reach understanding. When even one is dishonest they reach only confusion.
Which are you? We have asked for evidence, honest empirical evidence, not even a proof mind you but just good solid evidence. Instead we get John Brookes and you.
10
Proof? Well, we have empirical evidence for the following:
A) CO2 is rising due to human activity. (ice cores and monitoring stations)
B) CO2 ‘traps heat’. (physics and satellite obs)
C) The planet is accumulating heat. (ocean, atmosphere, land, ice obs)
D) The lower stratosphere is cooling (due to CO2 in the troposphere re-radiating some of the heat back down)
All consistent with the theory of AGW. When the observations and physics are used to predict climate outcomes based on BAU emissions, the expectations – though fairly broad in range, indicate that a catastrophic result is more likely than not.
10
A) Possible and not a problem to the life of the ecosystem.
B) FALSE!
CO2 is a molecule that absorbs IR radiation in very narrow and specific frequencies.And either emits or collide with N2/O2 molecules.The absorption and emission is almost instantaneous.
The idea that a molecule can be “trapping” heat is evidence of abject ignorance.
C) FALSE!
The Temperature data and ARGO buoy system indicate flat to a slight COOLING since 1998 and 2003.The land is not warming either.
Why continue with the lies Tristan?
D) FALSE!
There has been NO cooling for 20 years now.I refer to the link for evidence.The chart in the link is from the MET office.Note that each time we have a large volcanic eruption.It cools down to a lower level than before the eruption.Indicating a volcanic effect promoting cooling.
LINK
This is plain babble.
The last 150+ years of temperature data indicate the recent warming trend is well within the natural trend rate.There is nothing unusual going on trend wise.With no indication of accelerating.
The incidence of Tornadoes,Hurricanes and other severe weather events have been in a long term decline.America has just passed the old record for longest period of no land falling Cat. 3-5 hurricane strikes.
Meanwhile Snow totals have been on the increase in recent years and making it difficult to ignore.
But you and unfortunately many skeptics are unaware or ignore the dominant climate trend. One that has been cooling for around 4.000 years now.We are in Climate Autumn of the interglacial period.And heading right into the glacial age.
This modern warming,if following the the similar path of previous warming’s has reached the peak.And will soon decline to the next cooling trend of a few centuries.
CO2 has NEVER been shown to be a climate driver in the past and certainly is not today.The AGW hypothesis has already failed numerous times.
Why hang onto it anymore?
10
It would be nice to get proof of catastrophic warming with uncontrolled positive feedback, rather than just proof that the current 150-year long trend will probably continue, albeit with pauses like the current one.
After all, all the catastrophic events require all the tipping points and uncontrollable feedback loops.
And none of those have happened, have they?
Have the models got any predictive value? No. In the words of those that defend them, the models ‘are crap’.
It’s a great pastime, exaggeration. Taking a basic kernel of truth and blowing it out of proportion. It’s worked so well for the green scare industry, what with acid rain, nuclear winter, ozone depletion and all the rest. Take a basic kernel of truth that extra co2 will – all things being equal – add some warming. Then blow it out of all proportion and tell people the world is going to end by conjuring up some mythical feedbacks, the likes of which have never been observed.
And the ‘catastrophic’ warming. Did you ever wonder why ‘the day after tomorrow’ chose to flip around the meme and use a cold snap as the catastrophe? Could it be that frightening people with warmer nights and milder winters isn’t much of a box office draw?
10
Tristan,
No sorry, dead wrong.
10
“The weight of evidence suggests that at the very least we act now.”
What evidence? Are we supposed to take your judgement seriously?
You “we must act now to save the planet” types have had 20+ years to make your case.
You haven’t done it, precisely because you don’t have the evidence.
10
Twenty years ago, Hansen said it was already warming. He made some predictions. They proved to be pretty close to the mark. But you’ll want more than that, won’t you?
10
bwahahahahahahaha!!!
You must be joking.
He was good on the CO2 projections.And dismal on the temperature.This has been shown convincingly many times now.How can you still continue with your delusion?
Go the last page in the LINK for the ORIGINAL chart and comment explaining it.It came from Dr. Hansen himself.
A simple examination will show that his CO2 levels are similar to scenario A.While the temperature trend is BELOW scenario C.
The NASA Climate Model Developed By Hansen Continues To Wildly Overestimate Global Warming
We also have additional temperature prediction by the renowned data changing propagandist:
Hansen 1986 : “2 to 4″ Degrees Warming From 2001-2010
There is nothing unusual going on in the warming trend line since the 1850’s.
When are you going to allow reality to creep in?
10
Yeah, it’s a real problem how the streets in new york are now under water, isn’t it.
Hansen is indefensible. Even a blind fool should be able to see that.
When are you ever going to answer any of the questions, John? Instead of being a hydra-headed unicorn throwing contributor, how about you engage in actual debate?
You could start with a defence of the suitability of the precautionary principle for anything but political advocacy in place of facts and reasoning. Or you could admit that Hansen was several hundred percent wrong – with no more predictive value than a monkey with a dartboard.
But how could you defend these guys when they won’t even defned themselves?
Read the emails. They know the models are crap. They know the hockey stick was bad science. They admit this to each other but keep schtum for ‘the cause’.
10
Some of you are missing the point about John Brookes’s call to ‘act now’. He’s falling into the precautionary principle. If there is a fair chance that we might be heading into unprecedented man-made warming, surely it’s worth trying to stop it, he thinks. If we’re wrong, it won’t hurt! Trouble is, it WILL hurt. It could be that we can’t heat the atmosphere fast enough to head off the next ice age. The precautionary principle cuts both ways.
He also misses the point that, even if there is significant man-made warming, and it does some harm, it might also do some good – like increasing the growing season in the Great Plains. And he misses the problem of the cost of carbon dioxide output reduction, which must be balanced against the likelihood of harm, and the likelihood of good. The precautionary principle doesn’t help. BTW of course Hansen said it was warming. Any fool can see that.
10
John B is in love with the precautionary principle. Most of the warmists wrongly discard the notion that warming could be beneficial. That is one of the most obvious clues that the subject is a scam.
10
I’m not keen on getting “blasted into space” without a return capsule, but I think it would pay us “deniers” to take a trip into the rarefied atmosphere of The Other Side a bit more often.
We get a few warm-blooded types showing up here, but our regular “special friends” such as MattB, JB, Tristan, and Blimey, all too often don’t pull their weight. This JoNova forum has (sadly??) become mainly a skeptic echo chamber in which the professional warministas rarely show up to give us a good fight. So much so that I had no idea “warmist” was considered an offensive term, since we say it so often here. Perhaps Jo has scared the beGoreacle out of them. You really have to venture out of the calm soothing waters of JoNova Bay to get any kind of rough high-seas action in the global warming debate.
I recommend people do that more often, and perhaps report your adventures back here for a bit of education.
I guess I could easily set up my own blog to do the above but I’ve become rather attached to this place.
As for Pachauri, one need only ask the Indian government as to who the real space cadet is in this affair.
10
It’s more the case that their arguments are in the main weak or plain wrong … try going to the warmista blogs and getting some rational discussion … nyet! convincing argument struggles to get past censorship.
Our little resident troglodytes are merely here for our sport and entertainment, that’s the agreement. ROTFLMFAO
10
Also regarding India:
No legally binding pledges by India on emissions
(Tip’o’the hat to ACM.)
Isn’t it great to be “leading the way” so one of the world’s most populous and rapidy industrialising countries – whose economic carbon intensity is the same as ours – can just turn around and fob off Kyoto II whilst we get the carbon hairshirt.
(GapMinder is a great site for numbers, by the way.)
10
We do our best, Andrew, but like Tristan, Catamon, Mattb etc, I’m not a climate scientist. I don’t have the expertise to spot anything other than the most basic false arguments (2nd law of thermodynamics, egregious cherry picking, blatant abuse of statistics, recycling of previously discredited ideas, and the occasional bit of mathturbation….).
Spotting errors, even in stuff you understand reasonably well, is hard – particularly if a determined effort to hide the errors has been made. It is only when you are really an expert, someone familiar with all the details, that you get really good at spotting errors. You develop a “nose” for it, because you know instinctively when something doesn’t fit with the very complete picture you have. And when something doesn’t fit, you can track down the error.
Without this expertise, we are reduced to commenting on egregious errors, motivations, and stupid comments. I admit I’d like to do more…
10
John, well your posts and those of your like minded disciples consistently show that you certainly do not have the expertise to spot anything, not even your own basic false arguments.
Fortunately those of use who actually critically examine the evidence (new word for you I suspect) do not have any problem finding the errors that are made throughout the alarmist dogma. We can indeed see when something doesn’t fit, and often track down the errors.
At no point have you ever offered any observable evidence to support CAGW, and please note the “C” (which stands for Catastrophic) and that is the critical reason for doing any “corrective action” that the alarmists are pushing for.
Those promoting the alarmist doctrine have been shown to liars, cheats and have treated scientific method as optional and the rest of the general public with nothing but contempt by their own words and deeds and yet none of that seems to stink to your “nose”. Dogma will do that for you. It will block all your senses because it does not allow for any critical examination.
10
I agree with ‘Truthseeker’.
You certainly lack the expertise to assess the science and you cannot discern the errors etc from your own warmists.
Your credentials as a critic of sceptic arguments are lacking.
I don’t usually play the man, but your arguments incite this sort of reply.
10
I endorse Ken’s response, and not because I am a scientist…. I am not a scientist but I have an economics degree… rather it is because of statements like you made regarding undersea volcanoes. You claim that they do not exist. Obviously you are too lazy to do a little bit of research.
10
Hey, living in Canberra, you are not a scientist, you are a cat!
10
Don’t be so specist, he is too a scientist.
And that’s DOCTOR Tiddles to you.
10
If you want to learn more about the above topics, please call Professor Phil Jones at UEA’s Climate Research Unit. He’s the expert.
10
busting gut here! THAT was funny! 🙂
10
At last…Finally….an admission from John Brookes…is it Christmas?
What John has (subconsciously) described above is the process by which MBH98 and ‘Hide the Decline’ type scams were exposed by people like Steve McIntyre.
Even the latest effort by Frank Lansner at WUWT fit this bill.
Yes John, it is true to say that there has been a determined effort to hide the errors/fudges in ‘the teams’ work.
Bloggers have long suspected it, experts like McIntyre and Lansner
have detailed it and Climate Gate emails have confirmed it.
Congratulations on your finest post John, even if you didn’t realise how good your post was.
But now that you know how fine your post is, I’m sure you’ll deny it, being so humble and all.
10
I’d also like to point out to John that this finest comment of his has also poured cold water on the least finest of his comments from a few weeks back.
Many of us will remember Johns comments about “old people”. I can’t remember which thread it was on so I have no link, but I’m sure someone will provide it.
[That would be here: http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/one-lone-east-anglia-man-stands-up-against-poor-practice-where-are-the-rest/#comment-782942 ]ED
Obviously John now recognizes (subconsciously) that old people are a necessity if you are to find errors. (not just in climate data, but life in general.)
Attaining a PhD and entering working life is a bit like being the oldest and biggest kid in school when you’re in the final year of primary school, then the very next year, you’re the youngest and smallest in high school.
And so it is when you graduate as a PhD. from then on it takes many many years to be considered an expert. And many more years by the time you develop “the nose for it”.
In other words, you’re an old person by the time you become an expert with a nose for it.
I’m glad John now recognises the value of old people and has recanted his previous opinion of them.
10
‘particularly if a determined effort to hide the errors has been made.’
Are you admitting that your gods DO make an effort to hide the errors?
10
No Otter, I was thinking of high school students plotting graphs, and just how subtly they manipulate the data to get the result they think they should. It can be really hard to figure out just how they have managed to do it some times.
10
Anyone seen my hockey stick around here?
10
KR is probably the most scientifically literate fellow from our side who posts here from time to time. I agree with Andrew’s original post though and welcome anyone here, including Jo, to try their hand at exposing the giant scam for all to see at skeptical science. They even have a resident ‘skeptic’. He knows his stuff (for the most part) and actually corrects those of the ‘skeptic’ persuasion when they offer up feeble arguments.
If you’re concerned about the moderation, show how prevalent it is (it isn’t except for violations of a clearly stated policy and even then there are multiple warnings usually) by saving all your own posts and demonstrating to the world what a dastardly website it really is.
Fortunately those of use who actually critically examine the evidence (new word for you I suspect) do not have any problem finding the errors that are made throughout the alarmist dogma. We can indeed see when something doesn’t fit, and often track down the errors.
Prove it. Show us your skills in the bigger leagues. Everyone will follow your attempt with interest.
10
Nah I’d rather snub you in the political world. You are too stupid to argue the science well.
“Follow with interest”….FCS we need leaders!
10
John,
Perhaps you should keep a tighter grip on your ignorance and not post so much…but always, wisdom is justified of all her children.
10
I imagine Arnie is refering to Govenor Jerry Brown, there was a song written about him in the late 70’s, which is still very apt today.
You can have a listen here, but be warned, it is punk rock at its finest
10
All this sustainability crap takes on a whole new light with this posting.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/foia-agenda-21/
This suddenly puts a lot of what has been going on in the US into focus and so much of what made no sense now does.
That video is telling.
10
Why would people think Agenda 21 is crazy we already have the EU which is a mini version of the UN global government and Bob Brown has made no secret of a one world order.We already here in Australia are locked into UN treaties that oblige us to follow UN rules.
The thing I have not figured out is how the UN will get countries like China,India,Russia and the US to hand over their sovereignty.
With the labour government here handing over our sovereignty as fast as they can another term of the Labour government should see us as one of if not the first country signed up to the one world order.
10
Under Obama I think the U.S. will hand over its sovereignty as soon as he thinks he can get away with it. We’re saved only because he knows there’s no chance of getting the Senate to ratify any such agreement — his own party too (poor baby).
10
Ultimately, if it were to be true about AGW, not an ongoing changing climate but whatever is happening being caused by humans, they would have their books open for all to see. Any dissent would be welcomed as the dissent would not bear the scrutiny.
There would be no need to hide a decline or to create hockey sticks. All their predictions would come true.
If only, if only.
But when you are spinning lies to create a self fulfilling prophecy you have to deny any contrary thought because you know that you can not back it up with facts. So you resort to the only thing left: name calling and threats.
One thing those believing that nature is doing what it has always done is not to resort to the same shameful tactics, otherwise we are no better then the AGW faction.
But we should not forget to clean up the planet while we are here.
10
Umm …. Which meeting was this, Jo? And when was it?
I finally realised that it was in California (which isn’t anywhere in the vicinity of reality), but it would be nice to have a bit more background …
10
Rereke! The source is Grist: http://www.grist.org/climate-skeptics/2011-12-16-new-approach-to-climate-deniers-launch-them-into-space
I’ve updated the post. Thanks for asking. I didn’t realize it wasn’t there.
10
“Those with billions of dollars attack the mostly unpaid volunteers who are beating them.”
Make that trillions of dollars Jo! IIGCC released statements pre-Durban that 285 investors controlling 20 trillion dollars of investment were urging negotiators to push forward on “renewable energies” and other actions necessary to sustain the AGW CO2 scam.
Vast fortunes are riding on the success or failure of arguably the greatest scientific and financial fraud ever attempted!
Google iigcc for details.
10
Happy Christmas all…..Ding dong merrily on high…http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/211/
10
The video from Pachauri is not on Brown’s site, but the rest of the conference is there, inclduing the beginning before Pachauri intervention and afterwards.
Someone has correctly thought that this might be inconvenient…
If real video footage of him saying that comes alive, he would definitely have to step down!
Ecotretas
10
Anyone know of a link to FOIA2011.zip that works OK?
10
Try these
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/#more-12598
Here is a torrent link:
https://remote.utorrent.com/send?btih=EBD36AFC51AFEF4486028C1940739E6112964629&dn=FOIA2011.zip&message=&sid=e0c7873&cid=6592169267
10
Am obliged. The zip file here works but the torrent does not:
http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/
10
“They spend billions of dollars of our government funds”
They spend billions of dollars of our Taxes
Governments don’t have their own money.
10
An ancient (Japanese?) principal of warfare is to always leave your enemy a way to retreat. Because an enemy, backed into a corner, has no option but to fight back.
The battle lines were drawn when the alarmists chose to withhold data that supported their claims, and dismiss any request for a ‘please explain’, and closing off any chance of a dignified exit.
So after decades of spin and deceit, it is no wonder that as the walls of fact and evidence close in, the enemy becomes shrill and deperate.
Its hard to admit when your wrong!
Imagine how hard that would be if you were responsible for diverting billions of usefull dollars every year into what turns out to be a mirage?
If that were me, I would also be in denial!
10
At least not all Californian politicians are completely crazy. Dana Rohrabacher made this address in the State Congress recently which is actually very articulate and very comprehensive. Well worth a read.
Let’s see if the US MSM even notices …
10
Turthseeker, I’m sorry, I just have to ask… I recall another ‘truthseeker,’ who was anything but. Not sure it was on this blog, though. So every time I see your name I have to wonder: Are you a different person, or did you just come around………?
10
Otter, what can I say? Let me identify myself. This is me . I have been commenting on this site and WUWT for about a year now, maybe less. I am definitely in this to get real answers and real information.
Show me the evidence …
10
*lol* Ok. Definitely Not the same person, then. The other guy was not interested in real answers and real information. And I was away from all of this most of the last year, also, so let me say Hello! *g*
10
Jo,
The nature of the beast of consensus science is that if one scientist is wrong, then ALL are scientists are wrong.
Generating the interwoven like minded community. This is why they fight so hard together yet with no actual ammunition but the authority of years of being held high in positions of trust. Us trusting that the science they are exploring is absolutely correct and in our best interest.
Certainly did not happen that way with greed and power of authority to influence others with bad theories.
10
Interesting point about sceptics being blasted into space.
If that occurred, it is possible the ‘carbon foot print’ of the individual sceptic might almost catch up with those of the high priests of the CAGW cult, such as Pachauri and Gore.
Blasting 100,000 sceptics into space – number taken at random – would cost a fraction of the amount of damage the CAGW cult is planning for the world economy in the name of curing a non-existent problem.
In business, there is the concept of “conflicts of interest”, where your interest is stated and you have no further influence in the decision making process. The exact opposite applies in the corrupt world of ‘climate science’, where its purveyors are totally conflicted, peddling unfounded scare stories consisting of twisted conclusions derived from tortured data, simply to continue their comfortable lifestyles. In the case of the high priests of the CAGW cult, Gore and Pachauri, replace the word ‘comfortable’ with ‘luxurious’.
10
There’s an explanation here.
10
That’s one explanation. Another I heard on SBS tonight, from the other side, was that the Beast in the Book of Revelation had now been positively identified as those nasty entities who are causing Climate Change. The great news is that the followers of Jesus, according to the aforementioned book, aka the Greens, are now in the greatest battle in Earth’s history, namely to restore this Garden of Eden as it was created to its former pre-Industrial Revolution (one can only assume) pristine glory. Victory is assured and it’s all there in the Book of Revelation.
http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/video/2176901782/The-Bible-A-History-Ep-7-Revelation-The-Last-Judgement
The juicy bits on AGW are in the last five or so minutes.
10
Hi Lew
And I had enjoyed that series up until that moment.
We need something catastrophic to bring about change here.
We need a Royal Commission to examine the facts of CO2 – AGW – Sea Level Rise claims and recommend the punishment of all thieves associated with the scam.
Politicians who have sent millions of our tax dollars out of the country in the name of Global Warming must be held to account.
10
Yes KK I was brought up on a lot of that stuff but never came across anything quite like that twist. The one bright ray of hope came from the persistent schoolgirl in class who figured out a first century AD writer would hardly be thinking about human induced climate change. A true scientist or at least a skeptic in the making, no doubt.
Watched the Hitchin’s interview on ABC last night and he said humans are incorrigibly religious and there was little chance of a decline in religion. On the bright side I’m pretty sure the average Aussie’s religious impulses don’t lead to an embrace of the alarmists promise of a New Heaven and a New Earth brought about by getting rid of the polluters…. they might be innately religious but are not stupid and I’m sure their religiosity is, thankfully, completely fulfilled by a religious attachment to Aussie Rules footy etc.
10
Hi Llew
Interesting about the young girl who seemed wiser than her years.
In the area of religion I guess in hindsight I must have always been a scientist at heart..
The Congregational Church I went to as kid gave me two useful things.
A love of singing and the ten commandments.
Even as a 10year old I felt that it was logical that any community that lived by those rules would be doing well. The other stuff, father, son and holy ghost were a bit irrelevant at the time but at least we had none of the New Heaven and a New Earth stuff.
Now it seems that religions are like Global Warming: some useful truths hidden behind a big smoke and mirrors show.
10
Soon enough outer space may be a more pleasant place than this planet. Green has gone commercial — big time — and it doesn’t matter what the facts are. You tell the sucker what he wants to hear so he’ll buy your product. Can you blame them? So it’s now pop culture, never mind the science or the politics.
It is sickening to watch!
10
I am a native Californian and the state is truly a bowl of cereal: loaded with nuts and flakes!
What a typical John Brooks exercise in illogic. Why would anyone accept that smoking tobacco causes cancer without evidence? Of course there is evidence. That being stated, you speak of the weight of evidence but never post any. Your normal “best” is the occasional reference to a green funded website or two.
The irony is that anti tobacco groups engaged in fraudulent research to milk the tobacco companies. Now, we see the greens employing the same strategy to milk the taxpayer over the non existent CAGW scam. You want my respect, John? All you have to do is show me ANY prediction or forecast made by the
proponentsprophets of the theory of CAGW that has come to fruition. Go ahead, John, make my holiday season!Typical torrent of illogic from a dim witted troll who admits, “I don’t have the expertise to spot anything other than the most basic false arguments”. So whats the problem, John? The climate gate emails show that the “experts” don’t have confidence in their failed hypothesis. Well, I guess if I was a lying, lowlife scumbag who didn’t want to get caught defrauding the taxpayer I would do everything in my power to frustrate FOIA requests too! It is amazing that they refuse to make their work available to see if their results can be replicated. The basic tenant of science requires that any hypothesis needs to be tested. If the results are replicated then the hypothesis moves forward. If not, you go back to research and look for the truth. The truth does not interest these criminals. Rather, it is the MONEY they covet! If they were scientists they would conduct themselves as such. Instead, they demonstrate, collectively, the presence of a criminal mind!
Newsflash! There are no “facts” concerning CAGW! The only fact is that it is nonexistent. Maybe you could cite some empirical evidence, for a change?
Well, John, you may suffer from herd mentality but at least you have enough brainpower left to see that people are not going to live in the stone age to appease Gaia! If the left were at all practical they would have focused on risk management rather than employing the precautionary principle. Joe Six Pack starts paying attention when you tell him he will have to live in poverty to “save the planet.” Believe it or not, John, there are plenty of us left with a strong instinct for survival.
Wow! I never realized you were such a profound wordsmith! The beauty of doubt is that it forces you to consider all the alternatives before you do something really stupid such as destroying the world’s economies to shave off a fraction of a degree from an inevitable frying of the earth. So, we spend the money, destroy the world’s economies and still have catastrophic warming? Is that what you advocate, John? Certainly, you are not so stupid as to believe that the “green” economic approach has a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding, are you? All pain and no gain except for a false feeling of moral superiority? I think I will pass! And so will Joe Six Pack!
10
cheers Eddy!
10
Eddy wrote:
You mean, gulp, violating the Precautionary Principle? 😉
10
One of the interesting facts revealed by these emails is that Phil Jones had no constraint on releasing data, as he officially claimed. The data provider advised him that they had no issue with data release, they left the decision up to him.
10
Well it figures that it wouldnt be in his interest to do so. Hes a fraud.He should be charged.
10
Exactly! AND it proves that he lies!
10
I call for the LOT(Pachauri, Mann, Brown etc) to be arrested and detained indefinitely under their own newly passed NDAA in the US as Eco-Terroists!!!!
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/congress-declares-offensive-war-on.html
The US is now an official fascist state. Have a nice day.
10
Jo
This link supposedly shows NOAA research in which the OLR has increased slightly rather then decreased over the years, which is one of the pillars of AGW thinking.
Sadly I can’t open the .nc files but you or someone you know may do and it would be interesting to hear if the above is indeed correct.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.interp_OLR.html#detail
10
The dumb SOB is barely a US citizen. He surely has no right to bitch about our constitutional freedoms. What a dumbass…..
10
In Space, No One Can Hear Your Logic.
10
Jake 19/12/11 @ 11.33a.m.
There was NOAA research released earlier this year which supported the above; namely that a 15 year instrumental recording of Long Wave Down Dwelling radiation showed a small decrease (except in Spring).
Since this radiation is supposed to be the Greenhouse Effect and should have gone up with increasing CO2 levels it is proof that the Radiative Theory espoused by the IPCC claque is quite wrong (as it always has been).
For those like John Brookes let me explain what you are supporting.
The theory of CAGW says that an increase in CO2 causes some warming, which causes some CO2 and water vapour to evaporate from the ocean. This in turn causes more warming which causes more evaporation which causes more warming…. The original estimate of a 1-1.1 ºC rise (modern measurements are more like 0.74-0.9ºC) with a doubling of CO2 can thus become 3 or 4ºC (or scary number you like) by positive feedback.
But what stops it? It is not lack of CO2, there is 10-11 times the amount in the atmosphere in the top 150 metres of sea water. It certainly isn’t a lack of water.
Yet never in 500 million years has the temperature shot up to 70-80ºC regardless of the CO2 level (certainly it has been 8ºC warmer at 4500ppm, but then it has been 7ºC colder). Far bigger changes in shorter times of the CO2 level have occurred in the last 500,000 years at the end of glacial times (but after the temperature has risen) without subsequent runaway temperatures.
And my I refer you to Al Gore’s film with his famous cherry picker scene. If you look at the graphs of temperature and CO2 with time you will see him claiming several occasions where the World’s temperature was 2-3ºC higher than now, even though the CO2 level was never higher than 300 ppm. This is hardly proof that CO2 controls the Earth’s temperature.
10
The way I understand the OLR theory is that CO2 stops OLR going out, or rather reduces it as it absorbs it and supposedly bounces it back to earth.
Therefore it stands to reason that if the OLR increases it debunks the CO2 sending long wave radiation back theory, a major part of the greenhouse theory, warming the planet and and and.
Hence I am interested in finding out if what I heard about that link showing an increase in OLR getting into space is correct but I can’t open those .nc files.
10
Just noticed the (Grist) reference. The author Mark Hertsgaard writes for the Nation and has an article there on Durban:
http://www.thenation.com/article/165155/durban-where-climate-deniers-chief-ran-show
Thought it was worth a laugh so after getting a few clues from Tony from OZ’s post sent this:
5. posted by: lrjones4 at 12/16/2011 @ 3:02am
Report abusive | Ignore This User
Mark Hertsgaard’s article really is an exercise in hysteria or at least climate science illiteracy.
The latest nuance from climate science, of the consensus variety, is that the science is finding great difficulty in distinguishing human induced CO2 climate effects from normal climate variability. On that basis the most rational approach surely is that which Durban has taken. Namely delay any (talk of) serious action until 2020.
In the mean time it seems the UN’s World Bank, unlike its IPCC, never took the CO2 business too seriously as it keeps investing billions of dollars in coal fired power like the Medupi coal fired plant in South Africa and spent a billion dollars looking and drilling for oil and gas in the last year or so.
Perhaps Mark you need to take a mild sedative and have a lie down.
No one takes Copenhagen, Cancun or Durban as anything more than a great holiday in great tourist destinations. If any of these 40,000 talk festers and their hangers on at Durban were serious they would not be using aircraft spewing out tonnes of GHG to get there from all around the world but rather to prove they really believed in the Climate Science” used the internet to help save our planet from “overheating”.
10
said Schwarzenneger. “I tell people in Washington, you don’t have to have any debates, just follow California’s example”
and he forgot to add, “and your State will be as bankrupt as we are and importing power from other States!
10
HAd the tables been turned the lefty news would headline it: Head of IPCC proposes global genocide!
10
I’m not a scientist, and I do not have a relevant PhD to comment on the science being played like a global game of chess between them all.
BUT – I have followed the dire predictions of some of them over the years. Paul Ehrlich, Tim Flannery et al (The al of course, being Al Gore.) Despite the fact that their predictions of a CAGW Armageddon did in no way come about, these guys won awards and were promoted to grandiose heights.
I smell a rat – in fact a lot of rats.
10
“The skeptics and deniers have billions of dollars at their disposal”
Jo, I just made a donation to your cause. Sorry it’s not the billions you supposedly have at your disposal!
Hope it helps …
10
I’m interested in this getting a “nose” idea for what might smell “wrong”. So far into the whole issue are we that we talk about it in terms of which “side” of the science seems less smelly to each of us, to an extent.
But we never seem to talk much about the one overarching and fundamental way in which the biggest stink should be spotted by anoyne with a “nose”. There is something fundamentally smelly with the whole CAGW thing.
If indeed we were facing potential catastrophe,at some point over the last 20 years or so I would have expected one or two people high up in government, NGOs, eco “charities”, or policymaking to call for a proper, open, fully funded, investigation that included ALL points of view, from ALL sides of the science, policy and economic disciplines. (Its not as if there hasnt been sufficient public expressions of doubt and disagreement for them to be apparent to those in or influencing power). If we are really saying that the future of our one and only planet is at risk in the context of supporting human life in the way that it does/has done for all of human historys, how on earth can it be that:
a) the uncertainties in the science (which central players in the world of climate science privately admit) have not been rigorously debated;
b) eminent scientists (almost always veterans of academia with exemplary credentials) who question the science with no particular axe to grind are at that point ignored and derided at the end of lifelong careers in which they have been universally respected;
c) the fact that respected scientists have publicly left the IPCC process as a result of professional concerns about the science, the process and the veracity of both, but have immediately been derided and dismissed in a most tribal fashion;
d) governments have enacted terribly expensive legislation and in almost all cases have pushed it through in the most anti-democratic of ways, often on the back of lies to their own citizens, or via supranational entities that are entirely unaccountable to the peoples of their countries;
e) for 20 years anyone who questions the orthodox position has been ostracised, unable to obtain research funding to any significant extent, and subjected to the most scurrilous and insulting derision from their peers, and many who are way “below” them in the context of their specialty or experience;
f) vast amounts of tax money have been spent by governments and supranational bodies on any study that enhances the orthodoxy, however peripheral;
g) proven misconduct by scientists central to the orthodoxy has been “managed” by the powers that be and pursued in the most perfunctory way and only sufficiently for the matters to be disposed of without any discernable impact on the orthodox position and policy – or they have obfuscated in the face of misconduct and at times spent huge sums to prevent any open discussion or investigation;
h) none of our PMs or other senior politicians in any of the “anglo saxon” or european countries have ever even acknowledged any of the above, but instead have joined in the insults by calling millions of their own citizens “flat-earthers” or “deniers” or other such obviously inappropriate labels;
i) taxation in various forms has already increased massively for hundreds of millions of citizens as a result of the unchallenged orthodox position;
j) huge numbers of people involved in the orthodoxy rely on or have significant parts of their personal wealth depending on the orthodox positiion and the policies that have stemmed from it.
I could probably go on through the whole alphabet with other points. But, the point is that this absolutely stinks to high heaven. If the people of the world face catastrophe, is this really the way that any sane person would expect it to be dealt with? And this, not the science, is why Joe Bloggs in the street increasingly instinctively “knows” that the whole thing is a crock of sh*t. People like Mann, Romm, Gordon Brown, Ed Milliband, Gillard, Gore, Branson, Prince Charles, David Attenborough, assorted movie stars and singers, etc., et al can sneer all they like, as they all have done, but the man on the street knows bullshit when he smells it.
10
An excellent point of view. Straightforward and logical.
Of course this is right and it strongly supports the hypothesis that the issue is one of politics, not science or global welfare.
Yet there is some twisted logic in the AGW hierarchy wanting to pretty much destroy civilization as it currently exists, in order to have a healthier planet for fewer people – them, not us or the downtrodden and starving masses.
Whatever the real actual motivation, CO2 levels and global temperature are not an issue, or THE issue.
10
And here is another piece of rationalism(?) from a post doctoral fellow in bioethics in The Age Dec 20.
Climate sceptics might just be captive to basic emotions
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/climate-sceptics-might-just-be-captive-to-basic-emotions-20111219-1p2hl.html#ixzz1h1gm9VfT 1p2hl.html”>
“In the climate realm, fabrication is also rife. Enthralled by their emotional biases, sceptics mouth desperate appeals to the corruptibility of scientists, or to the fallibility of climate prediction models.”
But no possible fabrication or alarmism on the warmista side?
10
The published article, or what it claims, is distinctly applicable to their own, (AGW warmist), scenario. How ironic! How hypocritical! How blatantly false!
How can we compete with propaganda so publicly displayed, so nakedly false, yet to the public, clothed in authenticity.
10
Ken,
you need to repair the link to your Website that should show up with your screen name.
Should be a full stop, and you have a comma.
Tony.
10
Hi Tony, Thanks heaps for letting me know. Now fixed, Ken.
10
Ken,
no worries.
Us electrically based guys need to stick together.
Our message is also important in all this.
Tony.
10
Get ready for a hatchet Job.
On Thursday on ABC 1 at 8:30 we have “I can Change your mind about Climate Change”.
On the Alarmist side you have Anna Rose who’s rosy resume states she is the ‘Young Environmentalist of the Year’ and co-founder of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition .
In the Sceptics corner we don’t have someone like Bob Carter (former Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences –James Cook University) or Dave Evans , who consulted for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) .
ABC chose Nick Minchim former Howard Govt minister and – wait for it – tobacco industry sceptic .
10