Dear Paul,
Thank you most sincerely for writing to reply to my email. Thank you for taking the time to contact Nature, and thank you for the recognition that the term “denier” causes offense.
Do we also agree that the term denier fails basic English, and cannot be defined as a scientific label because you still are unable to say what deniers deny?
“I think if you understood where skeptics were coming from it would help you design surveys that produced useful results. Basic research, like reading what leading skeptics were saying, would seem a bare minimum requirement before designing a study.”
As far as I can tell, I suspect what you feel deniers deny (though you appear reluctant to actually state it) is not any scientific observation, but the pronouncements of the highest authority of climate science (which you deem to be the IPCC).
“I do believe that the technical aspects of this debate should be between climate scientists, as with complex multi-disciplinary issues it is very easy for findings to be misconstrued by non-experts. Whether you like it or not, the majority of climate scientists agree that there is a high likelihood that anthropogenic climate change exists and is likely to be a problem”
Since the IPCC, and all climate scientists are government funded, “deniers” then are the people who doubt the propaganda, the dictat, and in other times you would call people like these “dissidents”, or “heretics”, or indeed, the true scientists — since they keep asking for evidence. You are essentially asking us to believe in authority, a fallacy known since Aristotelian times, and a concept deeply anti-scientific.
You say it’s definitely valid to debate climate science, but then say that only “climate scientists”TM can do it. Which means, you do think it’s invalid for us to debate climate science, or to ask questions of the registered approved government appointed hierarchy. We should all be obedient citizens right? — even if those experts broke the law by hiding their data, lost entire global record sets and make “skill free” predictions too?
Is Jo Nova inconsistent? She “talks about politics and funding too”.
Should I chastise myself for delving into social issues? Dearest Paul, here’s the brutal truth. I’ve been utterly consistent in my 850 articles — when I make conclusion about the climate, I use observations from the planet. When I make conclusions about socio-political matters, I talk money, politics, and people.
There are dual separate strain of topics of which evidence from one stream never crosses into the other:
Planetary Temperature (measured in C) –– > depends on Sun, moon, types of gases, orbits, dust, cosmic rays from the centre of the universe etc etc —> Uses observations from thermometers, proxies, coral slices, ice cores, stalagmites, tree rings, mud layers –> predicts (not much yet) … more cycles like the last ones.
Consensus (a “Yes-No” thing) –> depends on opinions, research, fashion, money, best estimates, personal motivations, political parties, demographics of peer group surveyed, and decade —> measured in dollars usually, and occasionally votes. (Subject to change rapidly)
I have never said: The IPCC are wrong because the government funds them (which would be an ad hom). The IPCC are wrong because 28 million weather balloons, 6,000 boreholes, 3,000 ocean buoys, and hundreds of thousands of original raw surface stations suggest the IPCC are exaggerating the future temperature increases by around 6 – 7 fold.
The reason why a science institution could be so wrong, when so much evidence points against them, is a socio-political discussion, and I go there, but I don’t mix up the reasoning. (Will it stretch the friendship if I say that you do?). You ask me to believe the world will warm by 3.3 degrees because a government appointed agency (the IPCC) says so, and to corroborate that, you mentioned that the IPCC has “even” convinced governments to act on its’ policies? Is there a more circular form of argument-from-authority that this?
I always know which point I’m making. But when you say the future temperature of the planet is measured in consensuses, I wonder what the standard deviation is, and I suspect it’s not normal.
Here’s Denial: The real socio-political evidence that many won’t “see”
Since we are talking socio-political evidence (and I note you don’t want to talk about the empirical climate kind) dig deep and ask yourself if you really believe that 1/ all fields of science are incorruptible, 2/ that peer review works when scientists are paid to ask one type of question, and none are paid to ask the opposite, 3/ if skeptics are influenced by big-oil, can’t believers be influenced by big-government, or big banking? Then once you admit that, like any human endeavor, it’s possible that even science can theoretically be corrupted, you might argue that it’s only in the face of massive monetary forces. To which I would say, “Yes, Exactly”.
Big oil (Exxon) at most, paid $23 million over ten years towards skeptics. Between 1989 and 2009 the US government paid $79 billion dollars towards climate change science and technology. Climate science is a monopsony — virtually entirely funded by one source: western governments. There are no jobs advertised for skeptics of climate change. There are no grants a skeptic can apply for. Skeptics like Will Happer, Hank Tennekes, Pat Michaels, and recently Nic Drapela have also been sacked.
(In some ways governments paid to find a crisis, and … got what they paid for.)
And you are no doubt unconvinced at this point, to which I ask, again — so where is the evidence that CO2 causes major, rather than minor warming? (Still can’t name any?)
In any case, the government grants are the small dollars. It is apparently new information to you that the large monetary forces come not from an oil rig, but from the Carbon Markets ($176 bn turnover in 2011), the renewables investment market ($243 bn in 2010) and the potential financial rewards of brokering the once promising future Global Carbon Market valued at $2 Trillion per annum. Deutsche Bank doesn’t want a “tax” to save the planet, they want a “market” (which they can broker). I don’t need to spell out why, right?
Does any of this financial information tell us anything about the climate? Of course not. (Where is the climatic evidence? That question just won’t go away.)
You claim the IPCC evidence was strong enough to convince governments to act, but we find that unconvincing (and unscientific). Think “Adam Smith” and the incentives.
- What Minister of Climate Change wants to find a reason to make his or her department smaller and of lower status?
- What UN official thinks the UN should shrink, and be less well funded?
- Which politician would knock back a chance to regulate nearly every aspect of energy and say “No thanks” to extra trips to Bali, Copenhagen and Rio?
- Who doesn’t want to “save the Earth?”
The incentives are so skewed in favour of finding crises, that the IPCC could produce predictions that were outrageously wrong (where the actual temperatures for two decades fell below their lowest baseline) and western governments would still say “we’re convinced in the IPCC’s ability to predict global Armageddon”. (How do I know? It happened already.)
What can skeptics do?
You suggested skeptics ought produce an alternate expert report — some thing like an“ ISPCCE – Inter-Scientist Panel on Climate Change Errors”. But it is such a good idea, that it’s already been done. See NIPCC (Nongovernmental-International-Panel-on-Climate-Change): literally more than a thousand dense pages of peer reviewed references, purely scientific, non-politicized discussion of all the evidence. Unlike the IPCC, it doesn’t quote activists, magazines, or ignore important papers. As I said, I think if you understood where skeptics were coming from it would help you design surveys that produced useful results. Basic research, like reading what leading skeptics were saying, would seem a bare minimum requirement before designing a study.
Climate Change Reconsidered 2011 NIPCC Interim report: More than 1,000 source citations.
Climate Change Reconsidered 2009 NIPCC report: 4,235 source citations.
Naturally the sheer number of citations does not mean anything scientifically. But it does tell you it was a comprehensive effort.
You said: ” I expect you could find a source of funding for it (ISPCCE)” — to which we say? Where? Do tell? Heartland have produced extraordinary results with far less than the IPCC, but most of us work for nothing, unlike you. Do you think the ARC will help us?
The bias in the IPCC proves nothing about planetary atmospherics. I have never made that mistake. I did not say you should not research social and policy perspectives, I said your results are meaningless if you ignore the underlying driver. The underlying driver is the evidence, not the hopes of policymakers. If skeptics are right about the science, instead of being “deniers”, they are the scientists, and you are researching why the propaganda machine is failing to convince people of a false message. In a moral debate, there is no winning exit with this approach.
As for manipulative deception?
There is no need to defend the survey — it was not the problem, it was your conclusions. The aim of the results was to find ways to change behaviour without changing people’s minds. That is manipulative. It was to achieve one end while packaging it as something else. That’s deception.
Whose views are illegitimate?
I’m not the one making out that some views are illegitimate (I’m saying some are illogical). In your world, my science views are illegitimate (I’m not a climate scientist — remember — I’m not allowed to question the experts). In your opinion, my views are so worthless they are not worth 10 minutes of research before silencing them with the label “denier”. And even if you never use the term again, how much respect does it show not to understand the main arguments of the group you study?
The name-caller is hurt by the names they throw
In this case, when you call us deniers, you put up mental barriers in your own mind that appear to have stopped you asking the most basic obvious research questions, like:
- Who are the “deniers” (If they are so stupid, why do some have PhD’s in atmospheric physics, or Nobel Prizes in tunneling electrons?)
- What do the leading deniers say?
- What do deniers, deny?
- Can I talk to one, do they bite, and are they infectious? 😉
Using incorrect and insulting names runs the risk of producing meaningless results, based on untested base assumptions, and a paper (with luck) that could disappear into the vacuum of time. Without luck, it might be mocked in the history of science for years to come in PhD theses with titles like: The detrimental multivaried effects of monopolistic funding on science: How would-be scientists broke laws of reason and derided real scientists as “Deniers”.
How Dr Paul Bain can deliver a knock out blow:
There is a way you can break new ground, prove all your research is valid, and not only that, but you can save the planet too. All you have to do, is send that email I talked about in the last letter, send it out to friends and colleagues, who very much want you to be right, and ask them what the empirical evidence is. (See this page again for the details).
Then forward the evidence to the “Deniers”. Find the long term observations that show the models assumptions of net positive feedback are right, and you become the hero of the day.
Remember, the evidence is overwhelming. The science is settled. The experts and science associations of the world agree. Someone, somewhere among all of those people must be able to find some evidence.
Sincerely,
Jo
great letter Jo; restrained, courteous and to the point
and here’s another great letter
10
Good luck with that val.
I see Ray Hadley is being taken to the Media complaints whatever by Swan because Hadley called Swan a liar and a boofhead.
You can sympathise with Swan; If I was a liar and a boofhead I wouldn’t like anyone reminding me of the fact either.
10
Cohenite, Hadley’s response
Not as cut and dried as Swan makes it sound
00
Excellent work Val. We definitely need more lawyers.
Well done. Locwe it.
00
Be careful what you wish for Peter.
00
Which is a polite way of saying Swan is, as Hadley notes, a liar and a bully.
This government’s intentions for the MSM, or at least that part of the MSM which dares question the orthodoxy needs to be understood in the context of both the Finkelstein Report and the Bolt case.
Finkelstein is 474 pages of rodomontade and jejune tripe pretending to be an elegant justification for considered guidance of the excesses of the MSM; it can be distilled to one word: censorship; because Finkelstein thinks he and his cohorts are more intelligent than the masses who can’t be trusted with unfettered access to the ‘news’ and are likely to be corrupted by Svengali like media barons.
The Bolt case is insidious. There was much scuttlebutt at the time that the litigants did not pursue defamation against Bolt because they were pure of heart and noble of spirit and were not in it for the money. In fact they would not have succeeded in defamation because the criteria for defamation is a community objective standard of the reasonable man. Under the The Racial Discrimination Act, as interpreted by Bromberg J., the standard for succeeding was a subjective, personal one; the litgants had had their feelings hurt and were therefore justified in bringing the complaint on the basis of that subjective standard.
This government may combine the censor’s justification of Finkelstein with the subjective standard of Bolt so that the personal feelings of complainants will be sufficient to sustain a complaint against a media outlet.
If this occurs it will be a deplorable and crippling result for this nation.
00
Very well and clearly put Cohenite. Some interesting times ahead.
It has been the Socialists methodology to implement legislation that curbs freedoms and empowers the state, no matter the political cost to them in the short term… They are playing the long game….and until recently this strategy was very successful, both here and for Global Socialism… However the internet and an increasingly aware population is starting to interfere with their methods. Lies and deceit cannot go unremarked in a society that demands transparency and dialog in an era of instant communications.
Of interest now, is how well Tony Abbott understands the ideology of freedom himself, and will he listen to that growing concern when and if he wins Government? Because only a reduction in Government’s power and its ability to interfere with enterprise of all kinds, will affect change and set back the Socialist statist goals.
… otherwise, within a few election cycles the Socialists will continue to undermine the ideology of a free people, in favor of a “benevolent” state. A fantasy that always ends in tears.
It’s scary really when one looks at it….. The Finklestein report and the media enquiry, naked tyranny in plain view. AGW politics, bold as brass in controlling energy and land use. Carbon pricing, stripping the economy and shackling the populace forever as tax slaves.
… and we think we have a system that represents us? It would appear that for decades we have had a single system that has increased the power of government at the cost of the individual’s freedom. If it were an American context….We have exchanged responsibility for security. Liberty for safety. I think it was Benjamin Franklin who observed that those who do so, deserve neither.
In an Australian context… we may have started this country as slavery passed off as criminal servitude…. But a modern people will not be indentured, voiceless tax slaves for a bureaucratic elite. Not any longer. Not any more.
00
Cohenite, I would name that rather “legacy media” and not “MSM”.
00
Cohenite,
I thnk the incoming Coalition government should keep all aspects of Labors anti free speech laws and just change the judges who hear the cases. Then we could haul the likes of Catherine Deveney before the courts because she has offended my sensibilities on several occasions on the Drum. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to see the protected left squirm and the currently silent Julian Burnside start defending free speech. Poetic justice eh what?
00
Well done Val.
You will copy us on the reply, won’t you?
00
sorry, Rereke – not my letter, wish it was, the link is on the ‘Dear Minister’
I don’t have that talent for dry humorous prose – sadly
00
just a bit of history – a comment of mine on Climate Conversation Group post
before the carbon tax – a comment which I enjoyed compiling
I was attempting to respond appropriately to Richard Treadgold’s post http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/06/taxus-taxus-hurryup-and-taxus/
which featured a pro carbon tax rally and Richard in his inimitable style said
and the date – June 7, 2011
00
That is priceless, Val.
00
Always a good idea to CC an opposition MP or Tony Abbott. Amazing how quickly one gets a reply.
Used that tactic last year when I battled his office over the Australians are the highest emitters of CO2 line he was pushing. It worked although I heard Combet say it the other week but he did add in the developed world which is dodgy at best.
00
Val,
Excellent. I laughed my head off. And circulated widely.
00
“the greatest moral challenge of our generation what a travesty it should be addressed by a mob as immoral as you lot.”
Sorry val majkus but you got one thing wrong in you post. They are “amoral” as in they don’t have morals rather than having any morals at all!!!!
00
Well written Jo…..keep up the excellent work and eventually some of the logic will filter through,
Robert
00
+1 Val
00
Jo, welcome back (there was a 403 error for a while there) …
Great letter. The real question is of course, does Dr Bain have enough intellectual integrity to actually read the letter and think about the content?
I suspect not, but maybe I will be pleasantly surprised …
00
I think that the conversation here has shown a problem to do with grounding or being in touch with reality.
Humans are very capable of self delusion and losing touch with reality and are also capable of deluding others.
The use of science by politicians and pressure groups in their public relations campaign for more taxes has resulted in a the term “science” being used to imply a certain rigour of method , observation and measurement that was understood to be science.
They used the good standing of “science” to cover their subterfuge and got away with it for a while, because people “trusted” science.
All things come to an end however and they have now been exposed by intense application of The Scientific Method by many scientist worldwide, and not least here on Jonova.
Two of the best comments on how they got away with the CAGW Scam have come from Robin and Andrew McRae on the previous Queensland Education thread.
Both, in different ways, made the point that scientific education teaches us “how” to think and assess and it is the people who are trained to do that who have exposed the Climate Change Fraud.
The other relevant comparison with correct science was the modern type of science where students are taught subject matter or “content’.
These students know their science alright, they know exactly what they have been taught but have no way of checking whether they have been given content that is grounded in reality or is just a construct of someones imagination.
Unfortunately they have no capacity at all to question whether the “content” they have been taught was defective or perhaps even fraudulent and this group have been the main victims of CAGW.
The capacity to test and observe and evaluate are crucial to science and these skills must not be lost or forgotten in Australia’s education system otherwise we will continue to have material thrown at us that is politically correct science and totally ungrounded.
🙂
00
When you talk about “grounding and being in touch” it sounds like analysis of a rugby match (sorry for those of you not acquainted with Rugby Union). The “deniers” are the referee summoning the video ref to check the tape to confirm whether a try has been scored.
As Jo pointed out just looking back over the last 20years at predictions that were made and how wrong they are pretty much says “No try”. And the “off the ball” play and blatant infringing should have resulted in a red card and a trip to the judiciary for the CAGW side.
00
Good analogy Grant
🙂
00
Actually, I disagree with the first part of that sentence.
I think they wrapped their subterfuge in pseudo science precisely because people “trusted” real science, and they needed a way bring the idea of science into disrepute to remove it as an anchor point.
The views of our newly-acquired, self-appointed, master of ceremonies is an adequate demonstration of how successful they have been.
00
One of the nice things about playing blind-side flanker is you can often get away with murder.
00
Hi RW
You’re giving them too much credit’
Are they really smart enough to see that many steps a head with the final aim of “stuffing the reputation of science”?
Whether they have stuffed science or not they have sure stirred up a hornets nest.
KK
00
I’m confused by your assertion that taxes are being increased. In actual fact, for the last 3 consecutive years, tax to GDP has been below 24% which is something that was never achieved by the previous government. The previous government consistently had taxation receipts at over 25% of GDP. In fact, the budget projections are that taxes for the forward estimates will also be around 24% which is something that hasn’t been achieved in Australia since the early 1970s.
Your assertion that taxes have been increasing in Australia is at odds with reality:
http://budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/overview/html/overview_44.htm
I’m also confused by your concern for increased taxation when it was the previous government that introduced the GST which will raise over $50 billion this year alone.
Shouldn’t we also test claims such as “taxation in Australia is increasing” against evidence as well?
If we do, it will show that you are completely wrong.
00
Caution
Spacer at work’
Please Use the Detour.
00
Just quoting this quote from Team Smith when responding to an earlier quote from the thread: “I’m confused”‘
Well at least we can agree on that TS.
00
Adam, is GDP calculated in exactly the same fashion as it was in the 1970’s, and consistently all the way through to the present, and does GDP include or exclude government expenditure? I’m interested to hear it from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.
00
.
CALCULATING TAX TO GDP
Year 1
BHPB (as a representative major company) earn $5 billion and pay $100 million in tax.
I (as a representative taxpayer) earn a hundred grand and paid $30,000 in tax.
Year 2
BHPB (as a representative major company) earn $15 billion and and pay $150 million in tax.
I (as a representative taxpayer) earn a hundred grand and paid $35,000 in tax.
Presto! Tax as a proportion of GDP drops.
One can instantly see how much better off we all are.
.
Marvelous what one can do with statistics.
00
Thanks MV,
I’m just a member of the economic “illiterati” (as are most of the population), nice to see my cynicism was well founded. Lies, damn lies…….
00
Why would you have to pay another $5000 in income tax when your income didn’t increase?
Your example doesn’t make any sense and even if it did make sense it doesn’t relate to the fact that the current government has reduced taxes compared with the previous government.
00
Yes GDP is a consistent measure and government spending does count as part of GDP. But as you can see, government spending is actually going DOWN.
Last financial year it was $371 billion but this year the budget forecast is $364 billion. Of course in real terms it is even a bigger drop.
If you compare it to the Howard years, spending never dropped in actual terms.
00
So how does $371 billion last financial year, in real terms compare with average expenditure during Howard’s tenure, since you opened the door with comparisons? Also, don’t “forecasts” depend on the accuracy of the assumptions underpinning those forecasts, so not really the most relevant comparator I would have thought.
00
It’s awfully quiet out there…………………..
00
Adam Smith might have been a bit economical with the truth there, with “chain-weighted GDP” versus “fixed-weighted GDP” giving adjustments of past GDP pre-1996 upwards relevant to present.
http://sterling.holycross.edu/departments/economics/mcahill/wea01.htm. l
Note how he deflects by using this year’s budget forecast initially as comparator, then “the Howard years” comparator only indirectly by not specifically comparing total government spending (either in real or actual terms) on a year by year basis under Howard versus last year or any of the other Rudd-Gillard years, but then does a double twist with pike by juxtaposing a comment about Howard spending trends not amounts, then for the bubble free entry using the phrase “actual terms” to signify spending not dropping when discounting inflation, rather than in real terms. Irregardless of the reality of the economics involved- it is amazing to highlight Adam’s aerial acrobatics in avoiding directly answering a straight question. A 9.9 from the East German judge!
00
Firstly; you can’t say expenditure has gone down based on what is forcast to happen. At the end of the year THEN you can say it went down. Untill then it didn’t happen. what they forcast and what they actualy do are usualy two very different things.
Secondly; if the government IS spending what they gain in taxes and the taxes they collect this year is less than last year (because, oh I don’t know, buisiness are going broke) then their expenditure as a % of GDP remains the same even though the actual is less.
Thirdly; memoryvault was responding to the questioin of how taxes can go down in relation to GDP but go up in relation to ones wage.
00
Well Dr. Smith,
If I quote you correctly you say: “I’m confused by your assertion that taxes are being increased”.
When the present Federal Government reduces taxes by increasing the taxpayer threshold for contributions (ie. $6,000 to 18,000) there are two options.
The first is that the Gummint pulls in its horns and stops throwing taxpayer cash around like confetti.
Chances of that happening are about zero with 95% confidence level.
Possibility two is that the Gummint keeps spending money and increases taxes on the poor sods still paying taxes to make up the difference. (p > 0.995).
The Tax rise will occur of course, after the next election.
So I admit you are right: Taxes are not being increased.
But we all know that the NEED for extra tax is implicit in the vote buying exercise of freeing more people from paying a little tax.
Basically all I am saying is that money doesn’t grow on Carbon Sinks.
🙂 KK
00
[When the present Federal Government reduces taxes by increasing the taxpayer threshold for contributions (ie. $6,000 to 18,000) there are two options.
The first is that the Gummint pulls in its horns and stops throwing taxpayer cash around like confetti.]
Actually expenditure as a proportion of GDP is at 23.5%. It hasn’t been that low since 2007, i.e. before the GFC.
So your assertion that the government is spending a lot of money just doesn’t fit with the evidence.
Well, this statement is also wrong. As the budget papers clearly demonstrate, tax to GDP is projected to be below 24% for the 5th straight year. This is something that was never achieved by the Howard government which tended to have taxation at around 25% Now you may not think a 1% difference is much, but this year that will come to about $4 billion of less tax.
I agree that taxes will increase if Tony Abbott is elected, because he has said he is going to increase company taxes for big businesses by 1.5% in order to pay for his parental leave scheme. Of course this will apply to Coles and Woolworths, so it will result in higher prices for groceries. I am yet to hear what compensation people will get to cover these price increases.
He will also need a new source of revenue to fund his Direct Action climate change policy. I guess he will call it a Direct Action Tax.
00
It is worth noting that there is a bit of smoke and mirrors with the lifting of the tax free threshold from $6000 to $21000. There used to be some sort of low income offset that effectively set the tax free threshold at $18000.
So the increase in income to low income earners is not that pronounced, and neither is the loss of government revenue.
00
Thanks JB
Haven’t know about this but sounds plausible.
Thanks, takes some of the pain away.
KK
00
And you’ll be even more confused by the fact that debt has gone from $20 billion in the black to just under $237 billion in the red.
And pulease, “forward estimates”; this government would not know what the forward estimates are given that the NBN expenses are NOT included in the budget figures.
Anyone defending this government’s economic credentials is either an AGW believer or independently delusional.
00
Well this statement is wrong because you’ve started with grose debt and then shifted to net debt, which suggests to me you are more interested in political point scoring rather than rationally discussing this issue. [And you are not? Fly]
Actually when the government was elected we had $60 billion of government debt in the form of government backed securities to ensure liquidity of the bond market, but I can see that actually accepting that the government had quite a lot of bonds on issue doesn’t fit with your simplistic argument.
00
Well, I have to be when talking to you. Net bond debt is issued bonds less maturing bonds; juggle it anyway you want; the debt was in the black when Howard left office and is now heading towards 1/4 trillion in the red under this bunch of liars and cronies.
Now for the real test Adam; tell us something worthwhile which was purchased with all that debt?
On another tact, I find your choice of name, Adam Smith, grotesque; Smith and Hume were brilliant philosophers who developed the positive view of humanity through empathy and sympathy. AGW supporters, on the other hand, are misanthropes.
10
Hi Cohenite
That phrase is so full of meaning: “independently delusional”.
🙂
00
Hey cohenite, what’s not to like about a bloke who could pen this.
“On the road from the City of Scepticism, I had to pass through the Valley of Ambiguity.”
00
And thence through the forbidding Gates Of Carbon Sequestration Hell.
To the unstoppable flow of the river of Scientific Truth and Renewal.
To the New Land, The Old Land.
Cycle Fulfilled. — will we get there?
00
Devastatingly good, I am so glad I am not in Dr Bain’s shoes…or on his ‘side’.
00
[…] My reply to Paul Bain: The name-caller is hurt by the names they throw […]
00
Precisely, Jo. Though I doubt reason and logic will make any difference to someone who calls me, not a “denier”, but a “fellow traveller”. But every illogical argument and ugly name must be fought, lest the bullies think they can get away with it. “Once more unto the breach!”
Ken
00
Bain just switched from one Nazi ad hominem to another. I wasn’t impressed, he’s not as smart as his smugness would suggest.
00
Karoly’s latest insult to scientists (like McIntyre) is to call them “confusionists”.
00
He won’t reply again IMO.
He won’t reply for the same reason Mann, Jones etc won’t debate… For to debate or reply would, in their eyes, give the sceptical side ‘legitimacy’.
00
The problem as I see it is that it is now ingrained into the pschye of the population.
From the Prime Minister down, they are all liars.
And they all propogate the lie that CO2 is a pollutant.
I have heard the PM and Mr. Combet use the term Denier in Parliament.
What hope do we have of Academia Doctors and Professors not calling us names when the highest office in the land does it on purpose.
Shame on them all, Election Now please Mr Windsor and Oakeshott.
00
What, and you’ve never heard someone who believes in climate change called a “warmist”???
This is not how our system of government works. Only the Prime Minister can ask the Governor General to dissolve parliament.
00
Caution
Team Smith is at work copying and pasting.
Please put more paper in the copier.
00
Hey, you guys, be a little kinder to Doctor Smith. I know it’s in the earlier Post, which having run its distance, no one will revisit it.
However, he has actually come out in favour of coal fired power now, and that must have been a big thing for him to say that, so let’s give him some leeway now he’s finally coming on side with us.
Doctor Smith’s support for coal fired power.
Let’s just leave it at that for here, as I don’t want to distract from the thrust of THIS thread.
Tony.
00
Tony, I’m always inspired by your thoughts on modernised coal power generation in Oz. If there’s something that makes me feel like a conservationist and humanitarian at the same time, it’s those lighter, smaller, better turbines and furnaces. I leave smugness to Our Green Betters, but I’d have to feel smug knowing that we have so much coal to burn and won’t be wasting a single lump by burning it in decrepit clunkers.
To balance off this enthusiasm, I know such wonders won’t take shape osmotically by mysterious market forces in some green Twilight Zone of the future. We just need to build the bloody things, and stop foostering with insulting “alternative” toys and medieval junk. And we need to build yesterday. And we need to build again, as tech improves.
Tony, I hope you stay on the theme of modernising – and re-modernising – coal power in Australia. There’s no finer subject than cheap, abundant electricity, at the press of a button. It’s the Great Liberator. Humanity deserves it and is ready for it.
00
Tony, it is pretty weak to revert to telling others what they believe.
You know full well that I think Australia should use nuclear power.
You are clearly a thoughtful person, but you are just doing yourself a diservice when you tell me what I believe and in the process purposely misrepresent my views.
00
Mosomo
Nice piece there.
Tony , Hi
Wanted to draw attention to the relentless efforts by the one who cannot be named. Well at least he accepts that nuclear has a place in the worlds power generation hierarchy but wants us to pay top dollar for our power rather than do as you and mosomo have advocated: updating our antique power generation system to match Chyna’s newer coal powered system.
🙂
KK
00
KK @ 10.1.1.1.3
What better place to start than the recently decommissioned Munmorah Power Station. They already have the property, its connected to the grid and if they had the sense to upgrade Munmorah, they could then progressively upgrade further plants once it was back on line.
00
Exactly Bob.
Could be that we may have a few options resulting from new age generation.
Could amalgamate several small units and build a large very, clean (lots of scrubbers and good combustion efficiency) units
or
build smaller boutique generators nearer to the user than at present.
This latter may increase efficiency by reducing losses in transmission but might otherwise be practicable.
Don’t know whether transmission losses over 10 or 20 miles are that significant but Tony would be able to offer comment there.
KK 🙂
00
Keith and others.
This actually is in answer to your question, so bear with me for a few minutes here.
Ever wondered why coal fired power is cheap, well relatively so anyway.
Look at where those large scale coal fired plants are here in Australia, and you’ll realise why small coal fired plants close to where the power is used are not particularly feasible.
Large scale coal fired plants burn in the vicinity of 6.5 million tons of coal, and now work that back to a daily scale, and while some times are more intensive than others with all generators running flat strap, like mid Summer and mid Winter, convert that 6.5 million tons to an average daily consumption, and you get almost 18,000 tons of coal needing to be burned each day, and here’s where people fail miserably to understand the scale of large scale power.
The problem now becomes one of having enough coal to actually crush and feed into those 4 (on average) furnaces at the rate of one ton every four and a half seconds.
That is why those coal fired plants are large scale, and in nearly every case, situated actually at or very close to the coal mine itself.
Building smaller plants close to where the power is consumed, means getting huge amounts of coal to the plant, most usually done with rail, and again, here I want you to realise the scale of getting the coal to the plant, that is after you construct the rail line to the new proposed plant.
Using coal on that huge scale, and let’s even consider a small scale plant, meaning many trains on a quite regular basis, so here we are looking at one perhaps two deliveries of coal each day.
Considering that 18,000 tons average a day, there is two whole coal deliveries, and each delivery by rail entails this.
5 large diesel electric locomotives pulling 100 coal hoppers. Each hopper hold 100 tons hence that’s 10,000 tons for one delivery, hence two loads a day. That one load of 100 hoppers is close on one kilometre long. Now you need an unloading facility at the plant and here you are restricted to the rate of unloading each hopper, and then rolling on to the next hopper, so this would virtually be an around the clock task of constant train movement into and out of (slowly) the plant.
That’s why we have large scale coal fired plants, built at or very close to the coal mine, and mostly, deals would be done at the outset, eg we are a huge regular user, for your coal, hence cheaper cost for that steaming coal, and no, this is not a subsidy at all. Building plants close to where the power is consumed means buying that coal at higher costs and then adding on the rail costs as well.
See the point now.
It’s got very little at all to do with perceived transmission losses and everything to do with the actual coal itself.
See now how boring old coal fired power is a never ending series of real interest, especially when all people really understand about electrical power is that it comes out of the ‘hole in the wall’, figuratively speaking.
Tony.
00
Now, as to upgrading say, the now closed plant at Munmorah, which in fact is the single most absolute golden opportunity to do just that, construct a new technology large scale coal fired plant. It would be cheaper than at a ‘green field site’ because quite a healthy part of the infrastructure is already in place.
Imagine you are a bean counter for this new plant proposal at Munmorah.
You are restricted right from the outset in that the only way you will get Government approval is if you have thew capacity for Carbon Capture and Sequestration, (CCS) a patently failed idea that will NEVER work on the scale required, but still included as a necessity.
As well as adding almost 50% at the construction end, this CCS consumes almost 40% of the power the plant actually generates. So now you have an ever higher construction cost, and then less power to sell hence recovering that cost over time means a considerably higher cost for the electricity you can sell.
Then there’s the ETS, which further restricts the power you can actually generate by lowering that cap each year. On top of that, if it structured like the now failed U.S. legislation, and what is most surprising is just how close this Australian legislation is to that US legislation, and while that may seem obvious, those similarities are eye opening indeed. The US legislation, while calling for CCS to be mandatory, still included CO2 emissions as subject to the ETS. In other words, even though they were in fact no emitting any CO2 into the Atmosphere, they were still going to be charged for it, even if they assumed beyond their wildest dreams they could actually get CCS to work on that scale.
So, now we have a number of huge added extra costs to coal fired power and restrictions meaning they would generate considerably less power, decreasing each year.
OK, now as bean counter, you tell me what the decision is going to be.
4 Words.
“Not worth it mate!”
The only way they can make renewable power price competitive is to subsidise renewable power at the construction and power delivery stage, and to impose restrictions on coal fired power that will never be achieved (CCS) and reducing the power they generate.
It’s all a paper exercise anyway, as no one in their right mind would go ahead with any form of new technology coal fired power, but those restrictions are still used as part of that paper exercise by renewable ‘urgers’.
That’s why no one is even attempting to do it.
Bayswater and Mount Piper are trying but hey look, isn’t that Britney Spears.
Tony.
00
Hi Tony
Carbon Capture and Sequestration, (CCS) is without doubt the most moronic idea I have ever heard of.
It is so stupid it defies the imagination that any Nation could allow itself to be tricked into allowing it to have been introduced
let alone putting up with it continuing.
KK
00
Hi Tony
The amount of coal you describe going into the plant each day is stupendous. It sounds like a greenies worst nightmare.
00
What a majestic thing it is, this coal power. I think I’m in love with it. We should be like the Victorians and decorate our great utilities, paint them in rich greens and reds. End this poxy drabness, this bogan measliness, this weasel timidity called “sustainability”.
Let’s make our next coal power station a gigantic tribute to human progress and well-being. Prince Albert, where are you?
00
I say,
“What better place to start than the recently decommissioned Munmorah Power Station. They already have the property, its connected to the grid and if they had the sense to upgrade Munmorah, they could then progressively upgrade further plants once it was back on line.”
Tony says,
“So, now we have a number of huge added extra costs to coal fired power and restrictions meaning they would generate considerably less power, decreasing each year.
OK, now as bean counter, you tell me what the decision is going to be.
4 Words.”
“Not worth it mate!”
To quote from a memorable song:
But the Baron shot him down–“Curses, foiled again!”
Thanks for taking the time Tony.
00
This Thread has all but time expired now, but for those of you who are interested and do come back here for a look, here’s a boring page of data for you.
Bayswater Power Station
What I will direct you to here is that section titled Turbo Generators. Note the weight on the generator here, and this is just ONE generator. 1342 Tonnes. The part that does the work is the rotor and that would weigh in the vicinity of 500 tonnes+. That is what is rotating at the stated 3000RPM. That’s 500 tonnes+ rotating at 50 times a second, and snap you fingers and then immediately snap them again. 500+ tonnes rotated 50 times for those two snaps.
This is just one generator.
When it comes to Wind Power, you can’t just place a generator of this size on top of a tower, and the average size generator on a pole is around 2.5MW. So, for an equivalent Wind plant of the same Nameplate Capacity, you will need 264 Wind Towers. However, to generate the same power for consumption over a full year, you will need around 500 Towers.
You cannot just hook up a generator of this size to a Solar Plant, because it will NEVER (and how can I accentuate that even more strongly, NEVER) even begin to turn. The best they have now with heat diversion to enable (potential) 24 hour operation is 17MW, and it is hoped they may be able to manage 50MW with heat diversion for a hoped for 24 hour operation. So, remember that Concentrating Solar Plant in Spain that actually produced its full rated power for one full 24 hour period on a hot cloud free mid Summer day. Well, for the same Nameplate Power of this ONE generator, you will need 39 of those Solar Plants and to generate the same power over a full year, you will need around 50 of them.
What is also worth noting here is this ONE generator has been humming along, generating its power for 35 years now. Wind and Solar will have a theoretical life span of barely 25 years at best. There is every probability this ONE generator will keep on doing what it has been doing for another 15 years yet.
So then, let’s think of replacing this rack of 4 generators with new technology coal. (Huh, not bloody likely)
The generators can be upgraded to the smaller units that generate more power, and etc etc right back to the coal crushers, every step improved. Those generators could generate depending on their size, 800 to 1000MW of power, and they are designed to run at a Capacity Factor up around 87.5%.
This following excerpt is from the current Labor Government’s own commissioned report in 2010, the Australian Electricity Generation Technology Costs – Reference Case 2010.
Note the operating temperature of the steam, 700 to 760C and compare it with the current 540C. Note the pressure of that steam, almost double the current pressure, hence better drive for the smaller turbines driving that huge new generator.
However, the thing that screams out of that statement is the CO2 emissions reduction of between 18 and 22%.
This blasts the Government’s proposed 5% reduction to hell in a handbasket.
So, will you ever see information like this being disseminated. Not on your life. Hey look over there, isn’t that Britney Spears?
We’ve been conned into believing that coal fired power is a thing of the past.
Huh!
We can’t have that you know!
Bayswater is trying to actually do this, and (former) State Governments and the current Labor Feds have placed every impediment in their way, every new thing they come out with specifically oriented to making something like this not viable.
This would actually secure Australia’s electrical power future, but no, Wind and Solar are the preferred options now.
Let’s see what happens as plants like Bayswater quite literally run out of time.
Tony.
00
Hi Tony
Thanks for that outline – got a lot out of it.
As an earlier comment today said: politicians need to be made accountable for their actions.
They have access to the best science, engineering and other advice.
If they deliberately choose to “not see” that advice they should still be made to pay for the damage they cause our country.
KK 🙂
00
Jo,
I maybe out of line here and taking into account you are in WA, but I would like to make a suggestion. Using Tony’s expertise on power generation would it be possible to put together a petition that could be circulated through your site, plus the Institute of Public Affairs, possibly Menzies House outlining the advantages of upgradeing coal fired generation over wind & solar.
This petition should then be presented to all state governments that currently rely heavily on coal fired generation, highlighting the 18 to 22% reduction in co2 that comes directly from the current Labor Government’s own commissioned report in 2010
Exposure of these figures could also do well through the likes of Andrew Bolt.
00
Bob,
thanks for that.
I’m not sure how long you have been visiting here at Joanne’s site, but in August of last year (2011) Joanne and Anthony Cox contributed a Post here based around information I had regarding New Technology coal fired power.
Perhaps you might like to read that, and I know it’s a lot of time probably, but, as is the case with every one of Joanne’s Posts, the Comments are worth reading as well.
The link to that Post is as follows.
We can lower Australian CO2 emissions by… (wait for it) building new coal plants!
Some of the information has changed, but the main thrust of the Post is still the same.
Tony.
00
Tony, thanks for the reply.
I did read that post at the time, now that you have highlighted it I will go back and have a second look, thanks again.
Bob
00
Hi Bob
Great idea to actually DO something like that.
A petition or Advice sheet with facts that seem to make so much sense would be hard to contradict.
Voting in affected electorates on Western Lake Macquarie would show serious interest and perhaps never be the same.
KK
00
Hey Bob, you already knew that though, as I see you in the Comments section as well, so sorry about that.
Tony.
00
No moron, the GG could recind the parliament..
She is NOT doing her job.. or is an exceedingly bad judge of incompetence.
oh wait.. isn’t she related to someone ????
00
Um, no she couldn’t.
Keep dreaming mate, because whatever constitution you are going by isn’t the Australian one.
00
.
THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION – CHAPTER 1, PART 1, SECTION 5
Not that it’s actually relevant to the matter raised by Blackadder at #10.
Oakeshot or Windsor could force an election on the very next day of parliament sitting, simple by indicating to the Coalition that they would support a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister.
Which is what Blackadder was alluding to, and what Team Smith carefully avoided addressing, by making unsubstantiated claims about the lack of powers for the GG under the Constitution.
But then, we’ve been on this constitutional merry-go-round with team Smith before.
00
Kerr.
00
It ain’t gunna happen, no matter what is written in the constitution, and no matter how badly the sore losers from last election want it…
00
Thankyou Andy for some directness.
Sadly lacking in Team Smith!
We need a GG with Balls not Fashion Sense….hmmmmm….
00
Hi TBA
Fashion sense is not all she has.
She has a “history” as being involved in one of Queensland’s less savory public episodes that also involved Kev the Sequestrator and the Qld Premier of that time, was it Mr. Goss?
Australian voters need to become more aware of the ethical standards of politicians and public officials and make the effort to hold them to account.
Are we just lazy or brainwashed or too drunk to care?
00
ps. Forgot to add that a GG doesn’t necessarily need balls just as long as they act like they have them.
00
Beautifully written.
It could have been shorter, though: “We don’t trust you at all.”
00
“…and we’d prefer to use a system where (in theory) we don’t need to trust you, it’s called empirical Science.”
00
Brilliant letter Jo, I truly hope Dr Bain takes the time to read it and realise he was starting his research from a fundamentally biased position. I would also like to make my own contribution, though I know it is unlikely believers like Dr Bain will read it.
The Role of the IPCC is Officially Biased
Dr Bain does not realise the IPCC was doomed to provide misleading bias reports from the outset. It was set up such that the only conclusion it could possibly arrive at is that humans are causing problematic climate change. Dr Bain thinks the IPCC was established to impartially investigate climate science and come up with whatever conclusions it may find without fear or favour. If only that were true – we might then have an unbiased scientific approach to climate change.
According to their own documents, the role of the IPCC as stated in paragraph 2 of the ‘Principles Governing IPCC Work’, is to “assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”
So we have an organisation established specifically to assess ‘human-induced climate change’. That is, there is already an underlying assumption that climate change is human induced. But worse than that, there is no purview for the IPCC to look at any other cause of climate change. So of course the IPCC approach will be biased and skewed to assume human activity is to blame for any climate change and will not consider all the other possible drivers of climate.
Thousands of Well Credentialed Scientists Critical of the IPCC
Dr Bain appears unaware that there are a great deal of well credentialed scientists who are expert in the areas of climate science who are critical of the IPCC and the IPCC’s report conclusions. Many have been contributors to the IPCC reports and many complain that the summary for policy makers is not a true reflection of the science and has been manipulated by activists and those with policy agendas.
Dr Vincent Gray is one of those scientists who participated in putting together the IPCC reports. He commented when the IPCC release the Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policy Makers well before the final draft of the complete IPCC 4th Assessment was completed: “Isn’t it just a bit odd to see the Readers Digest version of a book before the book itself is even finished?” If the IPCC was not policy driven, why would it release the summary for policy makers first? Dr Vincent Gray’s comments here http://pc.blogspot.com.au/2007/02/new-report-says-global-warming-is.html. It shows the IPCC is being run by activists and bureaucrats, not scientists, and the summary for policy makers which claim the settled science consensus is contrived!
Dr Gray is by no means alone in the climate science world statistician Dr John McLean who has many years experience investigating and analysing climate data and other climate-related issues. Says the claim there are thousands of scientists who support the IPCC conclusion that humans are causing dangerous climate change is “utterly wrong”.
In fact Dr McLean did a detailed analysis of the IPCC report and showed that there were only 60 authors and reviewers that can be said to explicitly support the claim of a significant human influence on climate. The figure of 4000 is a myth”. Dr McLean’s paper is here: http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf
One of Dr McLean’s most dramatic examples of how the science is politicised was how the IPCC’s draft 1995 Scientific Report included the following three statements that express doubt about man-made effects:
– “None of the [scientific] studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases”.
– “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of observed climate change] to anthropogenic causes”.
– “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced”.
But in the IPCC’s later Summary Report for Policymakers, widely distributed through the media and governments, the above three statements had been replaced with this contrary statement: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”. Such a U-turn was not justified by the scientific evidence, yet non IPCC scientists, politicians and the media seemed oblivious to the discrepancy.
Dr Paul Bain is surely ignorant of the known deficiencies with the IPCC reports and processes otherwise he would not have termed the ‘non-believers’ as deniers in the first instance and would not be so confident that sceptics have not put forward their case.
Dr Bain may be interested in reading a very detailed review funded by The Global Warming Policy Foundation and authored by Professor Ross McKitrick with input from a wide range of climate related scientific experts. The paper titled ‘WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE IPCC? Proposals for a Radical Reform’, can be read here: http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mckitrick-ipcc_reforms.pdf.
The author Ross R. McKitrick is Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada. He is a Senior Fellow of the Fraser Institute and a member of the Academic Advisory Council of The Global Warming Policy Foundation. His academic research is in the areas of environmental economics and climate change. He was an Expert Reviewer for Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the Fourth Assessment Report.
A summary of the main findings regarding the IPCC’s scientific assessment process was thus characterized by the following deficiencies:
– An opaque process for selecting Lead Authors
– The absence of any binding requirement for incorporating the full range of views
– Intellectual conflicts of interest
– Loopholes and gaps in the peer review sequence
Independent Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
In his reply to Jo Nova’s response to his paper, Dr Paul Bain made the suggestion: “…if you and others truly believe the science is wrong, then in my view the most productive approach would be to produce an alternative expert report (say the ISPCCE – Inter-Scientist Panel on Climate Change Errors) – I expect you could find a source of funding for it.”
I have already addressed in the current environment not only would it be impossible to receive funding approaching just a fraction of what the IPCC receives, but as illustrated with comments from actual scientists expert in the climate area, it is a brave scientists who steps out of synch with the IPCC climate science dogma. And when you do it is difficult to get reviewed and published because of pressures brought to bear. Then there is the matter of little main stream media support for any science which does not predict major catastrophe and blame humans for that catastrophe!
However Dr Bain may be interested to know a group of well regarded, appropriately qualified scientists have come together to overcome the problems between the science reported in the IPCC chapters, and the doctored interpretation and spin given in the ‘IPCC Summary for Policymakers’. The Independent Summary for Policymakers (ISPM) of the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report, (AR4), was published by the Fraser Institute. They say the ISPM is:
“Not a critique of or a response to the IPCC Report. It is a detailed summary, written on the premise that a great deal of good, balanced science is presented in the IPCC report and it should be widely disseminated and carefully read. The ISPM includes some 300 direct citations to the IPCC report and provides detailed chapter locations so that readers can look up the IPCC sections for themselves. In producing this Summary we have worked independently of the IPCC, using the Second Order Draft of the IPCC report, as circulated after revisions were made in response to the first expert review period and checked against the final draft of the IPCC report.”
The full ISPM can be read here: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ispm.html, the summary, using the science included in the IPCC AR4 but without the activist and political spin is below.
Summary of ISPM
The climate in most places has undergone minor changes over the past 200 years, and the land-based surface temperature record of the past 100 years exhibits warming trends in many places. Measurement problems, including uneven sampling, missing data and local land-use changes, make interpretation of these trends difficult. Other, more stable data sets, such as satellite, radiosonde and ocean temperatures yield smaller warming trends. The actual climate change in many locations has been relatively small and within the range of known natural variability. There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway.
The available data over the past century can be interpreted within the framework of a variety of hypotheses as to cause and mechanisms for the measured changes. The hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions have produced or are capable of producing a significant warming of the Earth’s climate since the start of the industrial era is credible, and merits continued attention. However, the hypothesis cannot be proven by formal theoretical arguments, and the available data allow the hypothesis to be credibly disputed.
Arguments for the hypothesis rely on computer simulations, which can never be decisive as supporting evidence. The computer models in use are not, by necessity, direct calculations of all basic physics but rely upon empirical approximations for many of the smaller scale processes of the oceans and atmosphere. They are tuned to produce a credible simulation of current global climate statistics, but this does not guarantee reliability in future climate regimes. And there are enough degrees of freedom in tuneable models that simulations cannot serve as supporting evidence for any one tuning scheme, such as that associated with a strong effect from greenhouse gases.
There is no evidence provided by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report that the uncertainty can be formally resolved from first principles, statistical hypothesis testing or modeling exercises. Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of uncertainty as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate change, and indeed whether or not such change is a good or bad thing.
This Dr Bain is What Most Informed Sceptics Believe!
What we are waiting for Dr Bain, is actual evidence which proves humans are causing dangerous climate change. Given all of the uncertainties in what we currently know, and the unreliability and lack of credibility of the IPCC, it would be imprudent to introduce measures designed to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions which we know will be harmful to our economy and reduce our standard of living, when climate science cannot yet tell us what, if any, impact humans have on the climate, and whether any impact is a good or bad thing.
00
Don’t sugar it up Jaymez … give it to him straight!
Great post!
00
Good work Jaymez
00
Hi Jaymez.
Too much to digest late at night on screen so I printed it off.
Well worth the time spent reading it.
A brilliant piece!
KK 🙂
00
For an explanation of why JoAnne is having so much difficulty in getting her message through to Mr Bain, may I suggest “The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic” by George Lakoff and Elisabeth Wehling. Their first piece of advice is: “Don’t repeat conservative language or ideas, even when arguing against them.”
Mr Bain has been a bit more open than this but can’t quite manage to admit that “deniers” have any valid (not winning but valid) arguments at all.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303740704577520890454878330.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
00
Yeah, the trouble with “skeptics” is that 99% of them give the other 1% a bad name. When someone shovels manure at you, why would you bother looking for the gold they promise is in there somewhere?
Anyway, you guys all know the drill:
1) Temperatures aren’t rising (bad thermometers)
If you are forced to concede on 1), then:
2) Its not caused by CO2 (you know, LIA, UHI, etc etc)
and if you find yourself forced to concede on 2), then:
3) It is CO2, but its not ours (Plimer, Selby)
and on to
4) It is warming, and it is CO2, and it is ours, but negative feedbacks mean warming will be quite manageable (Lindzen, Spencer)
and then
5) It may be a problem, but fixing it now is too costly and will hurt the world’s poor (crocodile tears please)
and finally
6) Its too late, so we may as well sit back and enjoy our time in the sun.
And any chance you get, move higher up the list again.
If you don’t want to call that denial, fine, but that is the strategy employed by most “skeptics”. Watts himself is a master.
00
.
JB
This suits you!
I’m a Warmist you Know What I mean!
00
While it drew a chuckle from me, remember that the loud skeptics are not necessarily the same as the quiet ones. It’s a bit like the situation with Muslims in western media.
00
Hi Tristan
You’re saying “It’s a bit like the situation with Muslims”.
Does that mean you think that the only good Muslim is a Practicing Muslim?
It is unlikely that the Jihadists or Islamic hardliners are practicing Islam in a way that would be acceptable to the true keepers of the Muslim faith.
There are good people in every society and I would suspect that in more recent times moderates of the Islamic faith are keeping low and out of harms way until the worm turns.
They could be seen as the equivalent of modern day scientists working in a semi government organisation in the west where ‘belief” in Climate change was essential to survival.
Climate Jihadists and Islamic Jihadists have a lot in common; but the worm is turning and a better reality will return.
long live the COLON party.
00
Hi Keith
I mean that the views expressed by the most visible muslims/skeptics are not in line with that of the typical mum and dad muslim/skeptic. There is a lot of alienating language and behaviour to and from the loud ones which is unhelpful to the quiet ones.
00
Did you have a few too many shots of liqueur in your morning coffee JB? A bit of liquid confidence bolstering this new Brooksie broadside I reckon! Very well then, I’ll parry and you can dodge!
[To avoid being accused of Smithisms by KK I shall use italics instead of the usual blockquotes]
>> 1) Temperatures aren’t rising (bad thermometers)
Too vague to be useful. Rising since when? Since 12000BC, Yes. Since 1100AD, No. Since 1670AD, Yes. Since 1975, Yes. Since 1998, No. Since this morning, Yes. You love being in airy-fairy land, don’t you JB! Because there is no expectation of being useful there!
>> 2) Its not caused by CO2 (you know, LIA, UHI, etc etc)
What is hilarious is that your “et cetera” alludes to even more evidence that it’s not CO2!
But what exactly is “it”?? The mainstream view, of most ordinary people not just rabid skeptics, is that CO2 is a GHG which produces a mild heat impedence effect. There is talk of experiment evidence overturning the entire radiative GHG theory, but we’re not there yet.
So again, if one wishes to be more than useless, one must ask HOW MUCH warming is due to CO2. Not this binary IT is or IT isn’t sogginess. Your “denier talking point” is again so vague as to be a straw man.
>> 3) It is CO2, but its not ours (Plimer, Selby)
“IT” came from the black lagoon! Oh no, “IT” is back!
Sure, Plimer and Salby have been caught out talking porkies about the relative amount of CO2 coming from nature versus industry. So on this point you have it backwards, it’s been a 1% that have given the rest a bad name. The rest of us can add up our oil sales receipts just fine. Luminaries such as Lindzen and Carter do not deny the carbon accounting argument for the main origin of modern CO2 rise.
What a fearsome army of strawmen you have assembled!
>> 4) It is warming, and it is CO2, and it is ours, but negative feedbacks mean warming will be quite manageable (Lindzen, Spencer)
Wait, so when the existence of Lindzen’s tropical Iris Effect was supported by observational evidence, and when CERES showed the OLR response at TOA was the opposite to what every CAGW climate model predicted, we are just deniers for highlighting THE FACTS?? No, that’s warmist denial, not skeptic’s denial.
The remarkable stability of Earth’s climate over millennia demands that we assume it has a thermostat operating on negative feedbacks, and if that were not true you would have to find contraindicating evidence! Science, you fail it!
>> 5) It may be a problem, but fixing it now is too costly and will hurt the world’s poor (crocodile tears please)
Well now you’re switching definitions. We were talking about skeptics of CAGW, not obstructionists of global air conditioning programmes. And what exactly is the problem with refusing to throw good money after bad?? You want us to spend big bucks blocking warmer weather in what amounts to State-Sponsored Errorism instead of incrementally adapting to the oncoming colder climate predictable from the solar cycle. Economics, you fail it!
>> 6) Its too late, so we may as well sit back and enjoy our time in the sun.
Are you admitting that the sun has been the main driver of the recent warming period? 🙂
Maybe after all our schoolin’ you are finally learning something JB!
>> And any chance you get, move higher up the list again.
That is not “being in denial”, that is applying logic to the argument and the measurements.
When we are told that the cost of abatement is less than the cost of inaction, we point out the the cost of inaction is uncomputable for a problem which does not even exist. To say nothing of the human cost of abatement in a world still driven by fossil fuels.
When we are told “IT” is all because of CO2 we point out “IT” never has been, even when CO2 was 15 times higher than present.
When we are told the Arctic is melting, we point out there’s no global warming because ice extent in Antarctica is growing. Similarly, when we are told glaciers are retreating, we point out an equal number are advancing.
All this to-ing and fro-ing and going up and down the list like a yo-yo is because the alarmists continually deny multiple facts! Why would skeptics make camp on a single point when even the very historic record itself is under constant attack from warmist revisionists!
Better go easy on those coffee liqueurs JB or you might say a thing or six you’ll regret!
00
Hey Andrew, thanks for answering in detail to JBs rant, but fear it is useless.
From what I have seen so far I understand JB is a throughout denier of natural climate change.
Furthermore, for him there is only one truth: we humans have used fossil fuels and thus added some CO2 to the air. Thus we changed the natural balance of the atmosphere and that is for him bad. Period. Simple reasoning, simple mind, simple truth.
Doesn’t matter how much, if it is plant food or not, if the biosphere is increasing due to it or not, if it is really warming much or little or not, anything else is just noise, he sees, he reads, but the noise enters and gets out without touching any grey cells. Any other discussion any other point does not make sense for him, he will come back again and again to his simple truth.
00
Oh Lars. What? So I think that humans caused the ice ages? Well I must, if I deny natural climate change. Silly me, I thought that was Milankovich cycles and feedback, but now I know it was our ancestors. Thanks for setting me straight.
00
Oh yes, and besides Milankovitch there is nothing. Bond events? MWP? LIA, roman warm period?
00
Hi Andrew
When you are making a lot of good new points clearly, as you do, you can format it any way you like, great post.
[To avoid being accused of Smithisms by KK I shall use italics instead of the usual blockquotes]
ps. I like the new format, it’s great for dyslexically challenged like me.
KK 🙂
00
And here I was thinking it was all about science. You know, the silly things like disproving the null hypothesis before declaring an alternate as fact.
Silly me! I guess I do not know science very well.
00
While Jo’s site was down I had way too much time on my hands so I decided to get in before ‘our’ Adam Smith managed to swamp this posting with his comments:
What Adam Smith Hasn’t Addressed
Adam Smith has been very active in this blog. He’s been busy critiquing some minutia in other’s comments relating to the workings of the Government’s pricing of CO2 or CO2 equivalent emissions and generally being a cheerleader for Government policy whether it be on carbon tax or curriculum. To his credit he has always been civil which can’t be said of all his respondents, some of whom have become frustrated.
Interestingly in his many, many comments, Adam Smith hasn’t:
– Given us any proof of a link between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and global average temperatures.
– provided any calculations determining how much warming since the end of the Little Ice Age was due to anthropogenic causes and how much was natural climate variability.
– shown us how any scientist can project global average temperatures could increase by more than 1.2C from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels (since industrialisation), without assuming there are no negative feedback mechanisms which are known to exist and without making assumptions about positive feedback mechanisms which are not proven and are little understood.
– Directed us to any studies which have calculated the positive impact for flora, fauna and humans on a slight warming of the earth compared to any negative impacts, and also any negative impacts from a cooling of the earth back to pre-industrial levels.
– explained what benefit in global temperature and climate change will be achieved by the Australian Government’s Carbon Pricing policy which he supports, without any global commitment from all countries to make similar reductions. Of course he would know that the need the ‘show leadership’ could just as easily be achieved by passing legislation agreeing to any carbon pricing or other strategies to reduce CO2 emissions when it is agreed to by the rest of the world and is audited and enforceable.
Any amount of pedantic or semantic arguments by Adam Smith about other’s comments is irrelevant without him addressing these issues. Our Government refuses to address these issues as do our Climate Commissioners and as have so called alarmist climate experts in any debate. So we look forward to Adam Smith being the trail blazer.
00
“global average temperatures. ”
..calculated by who??
.5 degC “adjustments” by GUSS and CRUD?? always increasing the trend to try desparately to keep up with model predictions.. (but still nowhere near)
BEST ways of saying there is minimal urban heat effect when its patently obvious to a blind gnat that MANY weather stations have been overrun by urbanisation.. and where DID all those lost remote stations go to .. one wonders where they disappeared to.
Gees, lets see if anyone has there lights on.. DOH !!
00
Well put Jaymez – have a smiley – 🙂
00
Thumbs Up Jaymez…
…even though your name makes me think ur a Yanky rapper!! 🙂
00
WTF, Jaymez! Thanks for illustrating my post about “skeptic” tactics above…
00
Congratulations, John. You have demonstrated to everyone what a mindless zombie you really are, a zealot who has no interest whatsoever in the truth or engaging anyone with valid inquiry. If you notice the framing of Jaymez’s post, it was in suggesting that Dr Smith had failed to address certain unresolved questions regarding the role and influence of CO2 in climate and the precise benefit of governmental policy in addressing it. Rather than providing quick and telling ripostes to each of Jaymez’s points, you elect to cast aspersions upon all of us as a group because we have the temerity to ask too many questions which alarmists fail to address adequately.
Just because the boat has a lot of holes, doesn’t mean it isn’t appropriate for all of them to be plugged to stop it sinking, JB. As a man of Science, John, you really need to have an inquiring mind, rather than lazily deferring to the authority of others. I would suggest that Jaymez’s questions are fundamental to the alarmist case ( though they are far from the only unresolved questions), that they have failed to be adequately and precisely addressed by the establishment, and that it is entirely justified that skeptics hold alarmists to account before we submit to a global casino of carbon trading that will likely contribute to mass suffering and dramatic reductions in freedom and standards of living for all but the most elite members of society.
00
Well put Jaymez – have my upvote – 🙂
00
Ah it all makes sense now
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-12/climate-change-scepticism-could-wipe-out-rural-towns/4126718
Only the dumb ones are deniers.
00
surely this is clear evidence that, today, education === propoganda aka brainwashing?
00
Propaganda is not the same as brainwashing. They need to be treated differently.
Propaganda modifies what is seen as being normal in the use of language. Brainwashing is much more invasive and actually impacts the way that people think.
00
That may be one implication. On the other hand, people who live in the country or smaller settlements still have some connection with the weather, other than from TV weather reports, and they may not be noticing anything that is outside the range of normal climate variations.
Also, since there has not been any statistically significant warming for about 15 years, and counting, it would not be surprising if anyone who actually observes the weather and is not dependent entirely on what is reported about the weather on TV for their appreciation of what is happening to it, for them to have a deal of skepticism about dire warnings of escalating warming in the near future.
Those whose livelihood depends on their ability to forecast the weather will not be much impressed by the continued forecasts of warmer-than-ever climate when the actual results have been static or cooling for well over a decade. Maybe this is why these country-bumpkins remain so skeptical and maybe their ability to adapt to the actual climate will place them well ahead of their critics. What will their critics do when the climate cools even further? Where will they hide?
Paul
00
Yeah. No statistically significant warming for 15 years and counting. That must be why climate is the average over 30 years. These warmists will stop at nothing to ruin your arguments on technicalities.
00
Now now John, let’s be precise. No statistically significant warming if for some reason if you choose not to control for internal climate variability.
If anyone has removed the ENSO signal from the temperature record I remain blissfully ignorant.
Anyone got any tips for keeping the sand out of my ears?
00
You two are unbelievable.
JB, you seriously think the 30-year definition helps you? The IPCC was prepared to say in 2007, when satellite records had been available for LESS THAN 30 YEARS, that warming was happening and it was due to human influence! And they said it in 1995 and 1990 too, when they had even less data from the only reliable source! And forget about land temperatures as they are UHI Central! It’s a crock! And they prop up their case for GISS/CRUTEM with dog-ate-my-homework excuses from CRU and sustained historical revisionism from GISS! What do 30-year definitions matter when Hansen can decide history to be whatever is politically convenient??! What was the USA’s warmest year of the 20th century? It was 1934… until Hansen decided to change it!
And dear Tristan, if you control for internal climate variability you have to fit a cyclic component to the temperature history to do so. But when you project that cyclic component into the future it predicts 2 decades of cooling [PDF, page 26], not warming! So now the 200 billion dollar question, will you or won’t you “control for internal climate variability”? You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t!
Talk about Tweedledum and Tweedledumber!
00
And here I was, Tristan, a true believer who thought the GC models contained every climate variable to accurately simulate the world’s climate. Oh yeah, except when they don’t! So you admit therefore that ENSO influences aren’t included in the models, I wonder what else they left out? Isn’t ENSO fluctuations highly correlated with solar influences, funny that.
00
And here I was thinking that the lack of warming over 15 years was in direct conflict to the warmists models. It never occurred to me they were claiming that 15 years was climate. Learn something new every day.
00
I heard this on ABC Local Radio yesterday and immediately rang the station!
I never got on….hmmm…
It is a disgrace.
They (being the green establishment) continually kick the aussie farmer in the guts!!
And this was no exception… fancy using the line `Climate Change will destroy rural towns!`
Have you ever heard anything worse?
Propaganda my arse, this is downright fraud and treachery!!
Farmers have provided for us for 200 odd years, Flannery and Co. have bled the system for 4 years.
Which is more beneficial for the country?
I wonder what Lord Monckton would think of this all??
00
.
.
In 1901, Allen Upward coined Scientology “as a disparaging term, to indicate a blind, unthinking acceptance of scientific doctrine”
In 2012 Transport by Zeppelin coined Climatescientology “as a disparaging term, to indicate a blind, unthinking acceptance of scientific doctrine”
00
Another overwhelming analysis and destruction of the D-word, applicable elsewhere, too. Many thanks, JN, for your tenacity on this. Speaking for myself, I don’t even like the word sceptic but prefer “realist”.
It’s no good encouraging Dr Bain, or others, to find the knockout blow – there isn’t one because all arguments and related hypothetical results on the pro-AGW side have now been discredited, some many times over.
00
Great reply Jo,and as you point out the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted.The financial problems of Americia and Europe have been compounded by this hoax.Australia has just come on board,as the world leader.Its realy so simple,go by the data,not what a computer says should happen.Its because of you,and similar minded people that the world will be spared.You should get a Nobel Prize with a few million attached.The people supporting the hoax and making money from it,should be fined and have there assert,s seized.
00
Great letter Jo.
I like your focus on “empirical evidence” and “deception”.
If we are the “deniers” then I can name a group as the “deceivers”.
My reading of the history science of makes me think that there is little difference between the government mandating which science is “correct” and the church mandating which “science” is correct. Both are evil acts. Both impact our freedom. Both are detrimental to humanity.
Let us resist the slide into another dark ages.
00
I doubt reverting to name calling will be an effective way to stop being called names that you don’t like.
00
I have no problem with calling devious manipulation of data and corrupting raw data “deceipt”.
00
Quite frankly, Adam, I don’t a rat’s arse what moronic idiots like you call me.
I am very used to 14 year old low IQ name calling.
Its the real truth that matters.. and you ain’t got none.
If you have ..
SHOW US THE EVIDENCE !! [Snip. C’mon Andy, not helpful]
00
Sorry.
And I held back, too 😉
00
Yes, we Newcastle folk are known for our self control.
Well done Andy.
00
Unlike you, I haven’t written an abusive post aimed at you at all, let alone one that had to be moderated.
Since “ain’t got none” is a double negative, this means you actually DO think I have the truth on my side.
So I agree with you.
00
Oh look , the Adam crew got to 8th grade English..
Well done !!
Yet still doesn’t understand !! DOH !!
EVIDENCE !!!!!!!!!!
00
Ha ha! You’re a moronic idiot Andy.
No. I tried it and it didn’t work. Gratuitous name calling is out.
00
.
I see the error you have made, not reading the original article! I think you should consider doing this!
The name calling will be ineffective on your part if had bothered reading the full article!
00
some more humour
The Chaser’s noddy youtube
00
val
Best laugh i’ve had in a while, thanks.
00
Joe
well written response
00
I have only one question:
Was there onion, pineapple and peppers on this shish kebab. Not only a reasoned person but a barbecue expert also.
All Dr Bain has to do, is point out the empirical evidence. We can get scientists to translate it to layman’s terms, it’s called science journalism.
I’d like to see Jo get a 30 minute program at Auntie.
00
NO… I’d like to see Auntie broken up and sold off. A Government funded broadcaster is an obscenity in a modern democracy.
00
Oh fantastic. We’d have to put up with wall to wall commercial television, and newspapers dominated by Rupert and Gina. Please take your idealogical blinkers off J.H.
00
Jo, brilliant letter. Best summary of the entire climate change/AGW debate I’ve read.
As I said, brillant, and thanks.
Cheers
Roger
00
Wow! Jo, simply wow! You might just have him go look for that evidence. Brilliant! 🙂
00
This piece was so lucid and temperate that I imagine that Mr Bain would only have three alternatives:
retract his views, his practices, and in fact do some real science
OR
ignore your piece as if it had never been written
OR
entrench, and, well, do some more name calling.
Has he in fact responded?
I don’t like flinging honourifics around so i call this man “mister” and not “doctor”. Let mediocrities insist on their titles. I see no need for them, even when earned
00
Sorry Jo he’s on the CAGW gravy train and once your on your a fully paid up member and nothing will change your wallet.
He may have taken one finger out his ear for a few seconds but a rule on the CAGW gravy train is both fingers in ears shouting ‘la-la-la I can’t hear you’, I promise normal service will resume once someone has ahd a whisper in his ear.
Now come on Paul Bain, finger in ear ‘LA-LA-LA, i CAN’T HEAR YOU’, here’s an extra grant for next year.
00
Glad to see you back, Jo. we were all worried that the 403 error msg was more than it appeared to be. You glossed over the, “fellow-traveller”, insult in Dr. Bain’s reply, presumably in the interests of promoting a meaningful dialogue. After being required to apologise for use of the,”D” word, the use by a psychologist of another inflammatory word does bring into question the good doctor’s honesty of purpose. A cynic such as myself could be forgiven for suggesting that Dr. Bain’s mind is closed to the question, he already has written the conclusions, and is now actively working for,”evidence”, to substantiate those conclusions. On that line, any questioning of the use of ,”fellow traveller”, could have resulted in a finding of a ,”tinfoil hat”, attitude amongst climate realists. On present evidence, I believe that Dr Bain is a slippery fellow with a fixed agenda and a patronising attitude bordering upon contempt for those who hold opinions that differ with his His conversation with you is a matter of lining up his ducks for the inevitable pal-reviewed paper.
00
But that is the heart of post-normal science. Didn’t you get the memo?
00
I suggested three possibilities, but having argued with religious cranks for years I see the same dynamic here. I will not hold my breath while hoping that Bain takes the first alternative that I posited.
He is doing the “civil” thing to hold up the appearance that he is wise and merciful and open to the views of all, even cranks as he thinks us.
But listen to climate realists? I wish I were proven wrong in hoping that he would be persuaded by logic, but I am too old for such naivete
00
Little off topic….
I am, for want of a better word, a professional. I had a “discussion” with some co-workers the other day in regards to the carbon tax. It is safe to say we were dead opposites in opinions.
This went on until I blew out air and said “see carbon dioxide is colourless, tastless, it is not a pollutant…
Thats when they replied. “The tax is on all carbon not just carbon dioxide”
– jaw drop-
We all know that is why they say carbon, we need to really get the message out that it is carbon dioxide and only carbon dioxide.
thanks
00
Reply.. “and what percentage carbon ARE YOU ?” and your food, and your fuel.. and LIFE !!!!!
If its a tax on all carbon… its a tax on LIFE !!!
00
Jo, brilliant. I think I’m in love. Blush.
00
I wrote a missive on WUWT. It was in reply to a UK version of Bain, a psych who imagines that Deniers must be ill. He offered a challenge and I ate the bait, line and rod:
‘Further to my reply to docrichard the psychiatrist above, I offer a bit of new physics I deduced yesterday. What people must remember is that the engineering data derived by the great Chemical Engineer Hoyt C. Hottell in the late 1940s at MIT are also The Key Science of the IR physics of GHG mixtures in air. These data were replicated in the 1970s by Leckner.
First a bit of background: they used a heated chamber holding the gas mixture and measured the IR emitted using a detector. Because the IR spreads from the apparatus window, the detector and the rest of the field of view of the emitter is also an IR radiator and the measured fluence is the result of equilibrium of the interior of the apparatus with part of its surroundings. This isn’t news to competent engineers but will be to climate science which clearly has very limited understanding of physics.
The observation is that above ~200 ppmV, CO2 in dry air,at ambient temperature, the emissivity asymptotes because of the well-known IR phenomenon of self-absorption. Climate science knows of this but has kept quiet about it. However, you can’t buck experimental data.
The new bit is the deduction that part or all that self-absorption is turned off when you emit IR to the gas mixture. This is an absolute certainty because self absorption is due to the shielding from the detector of IR from behind the dense unexcited molecules near the detector. If you excite these molecules from the detector direction, there must be less absorption of thermally-generated IR from the other direction.
But something else happens. The increased fluence of IR towards the Earth;’s surface as self absorption reduces fills the sites at the surface which emit the IR thus reducing surface emissivity in those bands. This is how IR is regulated by Prevost Exchange, a bit of understanding totally missed by Aarhenius and the IPCC hence the ludicrous heat transfer physics in the models.
This is how the self–absorption phenomenon regulates this bit of GHG warming, making it highly non-linear. I’m doing the maths but what I expect at the end is that Hottell’s experiments already show the result in that the whole IR detector – emitter path has the maths built in because the detector was also an emitter.
The conclusion is that above ~200 ppmV CO2 in dry air at ambient temperature there can be no increased GHG absorption warming no matter what the CO2 concentration. So, in answer to diocruichard’s question, yes I do deny there will be extra warming from increased [CO2]. This is because the physics is clear, the process is self regulating at a low level because of the simplicity of the band structure. As you decrease temperature and reduce 14 micron absorption, this concentration will fall, minimising at ~270K.
Deniers Rule OK because we have physics on our side!’
00
Hi Nice; is this process which Hottel discovered different or complementary to Beers Law?
00
Karl Popper once said that good ideas come from other good ideas. There is a whole philosophy behind this simple sentence. By contesting bad ideas you do not harvest very much, Jo. Let them quietly sink into the bottom where they become compost, peat, and coal.
00
But reaction to bad ideas can also in time provide good ideas.
The practical effect of this will be to accelerate the composting process…..:o)
00
.
Here’s another example of the closed mind set similar to Paul Bain:
This from the Brisbane Times article here.
Whether growing lawn or spring alpine flowers on the roof of Parliament house will do nothing to change the building’s energy use. The energy savings comes from the layer of earth and building materials only.
This is a definite push by GREENS to rid Canberra of anything English – including lawns???
The wording of the article states:
New research has shown a living green roof using a mix of Australian plants can cut a building’s summer heat gain by up to 24 degrees AUSTRALIAN PLANTS INCLUDE GRASS MR. EXPERT!
They are using a comparision between a green roof and a normal roof – so extend the article on – suddenly an ENGLISH LAWN is toxic and Alpine wildflowers are GREEN!
“THERE WILL BE NO ENGLISH LAWN UNDER A GOVERNMENT I LEAD”
00
Wonderful letter Jo. You are a fantastic communicator. In the years to come, there can be no denying that we didn’t warn them.
When the politics of this start to change. And it will…. It will be those “Scientists” who championed the “cause”, that will be left holding the dirty nappy.
Tony Abbott is not far now from attaining a position from which he can start to say that he was ‘deceived’ that the language is “exaggerated”… What remains of the Labor party will be screaming for blood and grasping at any political straw to stay afloat as a valid opposition….. and all these “Scientists” will have as allies…. are the Greens.
May as well shoot yerselves now.
00
Done it already mate. Top left of this box is the result.
00
This is the letter from Al Gore which introduced the ‘Denier’ epithet: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/19/opinion/an-ecological-kristallnacht-listen.html
‘Humankind has suddenly entered into a brand new relationship with our planet.
Unless we quickly and profoundly change the course of our civilization, we face an immediate and grave danger of destroying the worldwide ecological system that sustains life as we know it.
It is time to confront this danger.
In 1939, as clouds of war gathered over Europe, many refused to recognize what was about to happen. No one could imagine a Holocaust, even after shattered glass had filled the streets on Kristallnacht. World leaders waffled and waited, hoping that Hitler was not what he seemed, that world war could be avoided. Later, when aerial photographs revealed death camps, many pretended not to see. Even now, many fail to acknowledge that our victory was not only over Nazism but also over dark forces deep within us.
In 1989, clouds of a different sort signal an environmental holocaust without precedent. Once again, world leaders waffle, hoping the danger will dissipate. Yet today the evidence is as clear as the sounds of glass shattering in Berlin.’
It’s taken 23 years for the likes of Bain to evolve. Not intrinsically bad, they are the academic children of the IPCC fraud, people who have been indoctrinated at school and for all their adult life. They are our version of the Pol Pot activists.
The problem is, they have no actual understanding of the fraud they follow and it’s because academic enquiry has now been replaced by dogmatism and activism. This is the case even in science where only engineering is safe because that is rooted in the real World not IPCC Fraudland.
This is why I have concentrated on finding the key bit of absolute science which will shut down the fraud forever. See above for the analysis, which is 24 hours old. We can now test it out in the real World by recreating Hottell’s experiment and shining IR onto the apparatus whilst doing some clever physical examination of the IR emitter surface.
However, I can tell for free now, the experiment will prove the hypothesis because I believe you see exactly the same effects in the switch over from emissive to absorptive spectra in atomic absorption spectroscopy. IR is just a different wavelength.
00
Al Gore ought to be dumped somewhere in the Arctic.. see if them pollie bears really are diminishing in number.
00
Andy, you really have a nasty streak, 🙂 🙂 🙂
00
the Arctic Andy??
…Nah! He will have a mansion there too…
🙂
00
TBA, You have just given me an image of Al Gore looking like Number One from SPECTRE, with a secret underground base in the Arctic, complete with concealed runway entrance and a purring white cat.
Hmmm, actually maybe that’s giving him too much cred.
I’m thinking he’s more like the Space Balls baddies….
Did it work?
Yes sir!
Great! Now we can tax every last breath of fresh air from planet Matilda.
What’s the secret combination?
ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE.
One two three four five?
YES SIR.
That’s amazing, I’ve got the same combination on my luggage.
Have it changed immediately.
YES SIR.
Where’s my cat?
Went out into the snow storm and hasn’t been seen since, sir.
Dammit. Okay, never mind, let’s watch my fortune grow on the Carbon Exchange.
Uh, that’s not the market monitor, that’s Mr Kool-Aid, sir.
Yeah! Yeah I knew that. I always like to drink Mr Kool Aid while I’m watching Mr Carbon Exchange!
Our carbon market is being jammed sir!
Only one man would give me the Raspberry. MONCKTONNNNNNNNN!
00
🙂 Hilarious.
00
Gore used highly emotive imagery in a manipulative fashion to great effect in this letter, by linking AGW to the rise of Hitler, with which there is no clear correlation but for the juxtaposition of the two ideas for the convenience of his argument and the vilification of any who disagree with his premise. If the AGW scare has any even passing resemblance to Hitler’s rise, it would be with the Reichstag fire, and the apportionment of blame upon convenient scapegoats to hide a secret, totalitarian agenda. “The dark forces deep within us” are actually embodied by Mr Gore and his banker buddies, who will use any pretext to line their pockets at the expense of the balance of humanity. I personally look forward to Nuremberg MkII.
00
Um, hello! Al Gore isn’t the only person who talks about climate change and links to Nazism, what about this guy:
http://www.news.com.au/features/environment/garnaut-an-eco-fascist-says-monckton/story-e6frflp0-1226080176953
And to Ross Garnaut of all people? The guy who designed Medicare, one of the best health care systems in the world.
00
That doesn’t address the fact that the link between AGW and Nazism was a tenuous one at best used for emotional manipulation. I mean what has Global Warming got to do with an extremist totalitarian regime that dreamed of unifying the world under one rigidly informed doctrine, while willfully encouraging the deaths of millions of people to attain a Utopian ideal? Ohh wait………..
00
What on earth does Ross Garnaut have to do with Nazism?
00
I don’t recall even mentioning Ross Garnaut, your deflection is duly noted.
Since you brought it up- About as much as John Howard, as per your hero, Paul Keating- “Mr 17%”, “The Prisoner of Zegna”, “The Lizard of Oz”
http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/keating-makes-howard-hitler-gibe/story-e6frfkp9-1111113938376
or this- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLlL207r69Y
I wouldn’t think you have the moral high ground there Schmidtty, old boy, in the invoking Hitler comparison stakes.
Don’t forget, the left have far greater stake in the genesis of Hitler than the right, “National Socialism” born out of the German Worker’s Party hardly sounds like the party of Andrew Peacock and Alexander Downer, now does it?
00
the whole “denier”, “fellow traveller” thing at Bain and his ilk use…. is Nazism.
Gee Adam crew.. go and get an education !!!!
00
Winston, you’ve gone too far! Criticising Paul Keating is beyond the pale (whatever that means). Wash your mouth out and write 100 times, “Paul Keating is a great man. I am not worthy to tie his (Italian) shoelaces.”
00
I give you a thumbs up Brookesy, Keating is a great man and none of us worthy enough to wind his french clocks. 🙂
00
Paul Keating is the closest thing we have to royalty in Australia- A right royal pain in the arse.
00
.
Adam!
If you can’t see the link – go here – LIHIR KILLING!
Environmental systematic killer! No, the deep water mine tailing pipe is doing a great job Ross & Adam! No problems – nice brown tropical waters!
Environmental Vandals both you and your hero – the medicare man!!!!
00
There is no link. You are name calling because you don’t have an argument.
00
.
Yup!
Why do you love Mr. Ross Garnaut as exhibited by your comment Adam?
The link is a photo of the seas surrounding Lihir – polluted by Ross Garnaut and he is idolised by you. Unbelievable! Huge environmental damage for monetry gain – pure and simple – the Lihir people were never told of future death of surrounding water by the DSTP (Deep sea tailings placement) Have a look at the photo!
Pity he didn’t tell the local LIHIR people (whom he consulted so carefully) about the future deep sea ramifications – cyanide, mercury all heavy metal poisons into the food system.
DSTP was banned even then by China, Australia, Canada & USA!
YUP! ROSS GARNAUT is an environmental nightmare!
00
The Templet:
“Um, hello! Al Gore isn’t the only person who talks about climate change and links to Nazism, what about this guy:” by Dr Smith.
The extension.
Idi Amin was OK because Hitler did it too.
Sorry, there’s no safety in numbers.
TS Logic , wow.
00
.
In a kind of way it’s sad, really.
Here we have the Special Needs Student separated from the rest of “Team Smith” and having to stand alone.
Reminds me a bit of the episode of “Star Trek – The Next Generation” where they rescue a young Borg from a crash.
The Borg ends up torn between his personal loss of being separated from the Horde, and his growing awareness of his own latent individuality.
I honestly think it must be a challenge for all the Borg disciples of the Al Goracle Church of Climatastrophy.
Maintaining unquestioned belief in the Horde herd mentality while fighting off the the assaults of observational data must be emotionally demoralising.
00
Resistance is useless, you will be assimilated!
00
Not funny JB !!
You lot want us to assimilate, but hey…
THE HUMAN SPIRIT IS A WONDERFUL THING !!
00
.
Yup! Lies again!
Ross Garnaut has a great environmental record in PNG – lets hear from some of the landowners on how he treated them – and the surrounding seas and river systems!
While the good professor has making us all feel guilty every time we
turn on our leaf-blower or toaster, up in Papua New Guinea, his mine was
destroying about 60 square kilometres of ocean floor, and it is just
getting started. The mine has a life expectancy of 20 years so by the
time it stops, toxic-waste will have destroyed coral reef and ocean life
over a vast area of the Pacific. It is creating a dead-zone”.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/09/mining-garnaut
Yup!
And don’t forget – Ok Tedi affected 50,000 people and 120 villages and will take an estimated half a century to clean up.
Environmental concern by Ross Garnaut: NIL
Economic …..concern by Ross Garnaut: 100 %
You certainly know how to pick your heros:
Ross Garnaut: ENVIRONMENTAL MONSTER
Juliar Gillard: LIAR
Wayne Swam: ECONOMIC NIGHTMARE
Greg Combet: CO2 Tax greedy man – with no result!
00
“Remember, the evidence is overwhelming. The science is settled. The experts and science associations of the world agree. Someone, somewhere among all of those people must be able to find some evidence.”
Excellent post Jo.
00
.
“You don’t need to see the evidence. This is not the science you are looking for”.
.
Old Jedi mind-trick.
00
Ah yes, but can we simply “go about our business” and “move along”?
The cost of living pressures! They’re closing in!
Brace it with something!
One thing’s for sure, we’re all gonna be a lot thinner.
00
.
UPDATE: Ross Garnaut the Environmental IDOL to idiots – still polluting in PNG
This is on June 13th 2012 (Papua New Guinea Mine Watch)
Professor – you were in control of that mine on Lihir – and did nothing – now it is spreading mine tailings over 100 square kilometers of deep ocean in PNG! It still rests on your shoulders! Now you tell me that CO2 is pollution!!!
LIARS – Gillard, Garnaut, Swan & Combet!
00
2 Comments on your letter.
#1 – I am always happy to see the correct usage of the word Monopsony. Since this is not an article about Economics, I will refrain from going into the irony of a word that cannot exist in reality.
#2 – While I do respect many who have worked to attain a doctorate, I cannot support a blanket statement about stupidity being ruled out because one has a doctorate. I have seen many stupid PhDs.
00
I am prepared to wager that there are more than one or two PhDs, who comment on this blog, who have never felt the need to advertise the fact.
“A persons’ qualifications are irrelevant in the face of what they know, do, and can achieve.”
00
turnedoutnice –
amusingly, New York Times’-owned Boston Globe collumnist, Jeff Jacoby, referenced the Gore article in a 2011 column, tho he dated it to 1992 rather than 1989:
1 June: 2011: Boston Globe: Jeff Jacoby: Cooler heads prevail against climate panic
By now, of course, few things are more familiar than predictions of the environmental catastrophe to which the use of carbon-based energy has supposedly condemned us. In 1992, Al Gore claimed that “evidence of an ecological Kristallnacht is as clear as the sound of glass shattering in Berlin;’’ nearly 20 years later he is still warning of “an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.’’ Like Camping, Gore and other climate alarmists keep forecasting a Day of Doom that never arrives. And like Camping — who now says the world will end on Oct. 21 — they continue to be sure that disaster is just around the corner.
But hyperbolic climate rhetoric doesn’t scare as many people as it used to…
Newsweek’s “stable climate of the last 12,000 years’’ is a myth. So is the notion that higher carbon emissions are a prescription for disaster. Carbon dioxide is only one of several factors that influence the earth’s temperature, Happer (Princeton physicist William Happer) writes, and “seldom the dominant one.’’
The global-warming alarmists have had a good run, as the global-cooling alarmists did before them, but fewer people find the doomsday prophecies persuasive. Scaremongering wins headlines; fact-based skepticism eventually wins arguments…
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/06/01/cooler_heads_prevail_against_climate_panic/
00
If Garnaut did design Medicare there is, oddly, absolutely no mention of it in his Wikipedia entry. One thing for certain is that he didn’t cover himself in glory with his climate change reports, for which he was handpicked by Labor.
It is the “progressive” big-end-of-town presumption that ordinary people must bear the cost of Australia “meeting its international obligations” on climate change that is so obnoxious. Canada won’t have a bar of it and has pulled out of the Kyoto Accord, with absolutely no loss of international standing and significant benefit to their bottom line. Rudd’s attempt to strut the world stage with his CPRS legislation at Copenhagen failed miserably, as did the whole extravaganza.
Self-aggrandizing CAGW bandwagoning politicians and their well-paid hangers-on (oh there you are Mr Smith) need to understand (but never will) that their obligation is to the welfare of their own nation, and not to some internationalist anti-Western elitist club represented by The Club of Rome, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the IPCC. They can puff themselves up with their own self-importance all they want, but not at the expense of the rest of us!
00
Actually, Chris, I read some of his climate change stuff, and it was very good.
As for:
That is foolish, and leads to wars. I’m no Christian, but Jesus didn’t like this “us” and “them” rubbish.
00
John, it’s hard to know where to begin with your distortion of my comment, but I guess it’s par for the course for you. Briefly, it has nothing to do with any form of nationalism (much less the abhorrent jingoistic kind) and everything to do with “looking after your own patch”, exercising due diligence and trying to ensure that it runs as efficiently and fairly as possible. If our leaders keep that principle in mind the Western nations will prosper and, I emphasize this, be in a much better position to assist developing countries, thereby reducing the risk of conflict and war.
What the UNFCCC and IPCC are telling the West to do is not sacrosanct, and the politicians who agree with them are not necessarily paragons of virtue. As you may have gathered I am not fond of big-end-of-town hypocrisy. It is always people less privileged than themselves who bear the brunt of “save the world” pie-in-the-sky policy, while their own lifestyles are totally unaffected. I suggest you take another look at Gramsci’s definition of cultural hegemony, in the context of the current ruling class.
00
Good letter Jo – I don’t really expect a proper debate though – he wouldn’t have written that first piece of tripe if he wanted to engage you properly.
The few PhDs I know followed this path: school – university for bachelors degree – stay on and do PhD.
No actual real work experience in what their original degree was in – just all theory, with more theory piled on. Having mentored engineering graduates gives me an understanding of just-out-of-uni capability (SFA).
If this is a typical “career” progression, it would explain a lot (about the limited capabilities of many PhDs) – we have little use for them in most “real world” engineering.
Anyone like to comment on this ??
00
Bravo, Jo. There are many of us in America hoping you really are secretly a U.S. citizen so we can vote you in as President this coming November.
:o)
00
And yet the Greens are still in control and winning. What is it that we have missed in our collection of evidence and proof that they are wrong in every particular? It isn’t the science. It isn’t even the politics or economics. It is the fact they are allowed to hold the high ground of morality and that we have given that position to them for free.
They are allowed to hold the high moral ground because the bulk of us accept their moral principle as valid: we are our brother’s keeper. That being the case, we cannot stand against their theft of our life’s work nor their binding us with their green chains. After all, if we have ANYTHING that someone else does not have, we owe it to them. We allow ourselves to be sacrificed to a zero or less than zero.
The net result of or acceptance of this moral principle is the endlessly needy other have a right to our wealth exactly because they did not earn or deserve it. We don’t have a right to our wealth exactly because we did earn it AND deserve it. Hence, we permit ourselves to be sacrificed to a zero or less without much more than a quiet plea of “don’t take so much – please.”
We have not yet joined the real battle and have conceded victory to our mortal enemy without so much as a whimper. Unless we take a clear and unequivocal stand against the idea that need places an undeniable claim against our lives, we will continue to lose the war. All else is largely irrelevant.
00
Andrew McRae, I’ve sent you emails about fixing the thumbs up and your suggestion. Can you check your mail, and send me a reply, and since I’m having some doubts about my email, just let me know in a comment here when you’ve sent the email so I can check my email is working?
Thanks, Jo
00
Joanne, I did indeed receive your email and replied at 9:39pm my time (Brisbane), so yes there could be a problem with your email if you’ve not received it by now.
Since sending that email I looked into it more and became more confident I’ve found a possible solution and have also posted that to wealthynetizen, but am waiting to hear from the plugin author rather than using my fellow Jonovians as lab rats.
Having said that, the solution I have in mind can be attempted with only FTP access and is easy to undo if it doesn’t work. Actually it may depend on which version of WordPress you are using, which I cannot tell from the outside.
00
Thanks Andrew. I got it, and just replied. Phew. My email does seem to work.
00
FIXED ___ THUMBS UP ARE GO!
Thanks Andrew! I’m excited 🙂
00
Yes it works! Thumbs up!
00
Wow, wow, wow, what a nice, well formulated letter. An unbreakable chain of logic.
00
Well done, Jo.
00
A tour-de-force of a letter, reflecting years of careful study and thought, and also of a very civil approach to discussion. Well done Jo!
‘turnedoutnice’ has raised this point in #35 about young people such as Dr Bain:
‘Not intrinsically bad, they are the academic children of the IPCC fraud, people who have been indoctrinated at school and for all their adult life.’
This is not an unreasonable speculation to make since educational systems right up to tertiary levels seem to have been swamped by groupthink about climate change, presumably sustained in least in part in deference to authorities such as the leadership of the Royal Society and of other scientific institutions, and in part by the fabulous sums of money available on the scaremongering bandwagon.
But let us praise Dr Bain for engaging here in a decent manner, and for having taken pause for thought about the term ‘denier’ in this context. He may yet come over on to the side of the angels, and Jo has outlined one route that would take him there.
00
“What do deniers, deny?”
From what I have seen in climate debates, there are two primary types of climate ‘denial’:
1. Denial that CO2 can induce warming of the atmosphere.
2. Denial that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere from human causes are a potential problem for human beings that requires mitigation.
Some climate sceptics subscribe to both (1) and (2), but (1) is the minority position, while (2) is the majority.
The two camps differ over both the science and debating strategies, but are largely in agreement over mitigation strategies for dealing with the release of human-produced CO2 into the atmosphere, ie that there is no need for such strategies.
00
Dear Jo,
Your letter to Dr Bain is a masterpiece, incredibly sane and succinct in the face of unthinking provocation.
Every thinking antipodean should be thankful for your dedication and skills – I know this Kiwi elderly is!
00
J.H.
July 13, 2012 at 8:41 pm
The Cold War is over mate. Not only did the Soviet Union lose, but it ceased to exist.
Well this is somewhat confusing because Tony Abbott is proposing a significant expansion in the size and scope of the state in order to fund carbon abatement. In fact one independent study says that his policy could cost as much as $100 billion over ten years. Where will the money come from the fund that level of expenditure? I propose to you it would require massive tax increases or the introduction of new taxes.
But it isn’t just the money. If, as the Coalition proposes, the government should directly fund carbon abatement, how many people will be required to administer this policy? First you would need people to design the rules to distribute the funding, then you’d need a team of people to inspect the applications the businesses submit, then perhaps another body to determine which businesses get the money, but then after the money is distributed you would need another team of people to go and check to see the business has spent the money the way they said they would.
Compared with the market price for carbon permits, the Coalition’s direct action policy would require a massive expansion of the role of government both in terms of revenue but also in terms of the size of the public service.
I’m not quite sure who the socialists are considering it is the Coalition that his proposing a very socialist Direct Action climate change policy.
Actually the current federal government has reduced the size of the government. Did you know it is actually going to spend less money in real terms this year than it did last year? That hasn’t happened in Australia for about 30 years.
Taxation relative the GDP is lower now than for most of the Howard years. It seems you should be directing your anger at the Liberal Party.
00
What year did the cold war officially end? What makes you think it ended, at all.
All that happened was the Berlin wall came down, and all of the communists escaped.
Oh, and a Senior Officer in the KGB became President, renamed the country, and gave it a new (actually resurrected) flag.
Не сыграйте игры с мной мой друг
00
Winston
July 13, 2012 at 9:49 pm
I don’t recall even mentioning Ross Garnaut, your deflection is duly noted.
LOLOLOLOOLLLOLLLOLL
What a load of hilarious nonsense!!!!
Sorry for quoting it in full, but it is so funny it deserves to be read multiple times.
00
Talking about being funny.
You haven’t responded to my comment on the Queensland science thread, number 61.1, made on July 14, 2012 at 8:22 am.
I am disappointed.
00
That’s the Adumb Smith way.
00
I did read that post but it didn’t explain why you used the word “discipline” in a completely different way to the original post, therefore there was nothing in it worth replying to. While you used the word as a noun, the original poster used it as a verb, which demonstrates the incompatibility of your uses of the word. How you then go on to say that your uses of the word were not incompatible makes no sense whatsoever.
00
I quite agree Adam.
Nouns should always be used as nouns and verbs as verbs.
Great to have you on our side.
KK
00
Well that obviously has more to do with your lack of reading comprehension, than my choice, or KinkyKeith’s (KK) choice, of words.
Had you really bothered to really read my comment, I gave you the full definitions for the word “discipline”, both as a noun and as a transitive verb. I presume you actually know the difference?
When KK was taking about discipline, he said, “Discipline is a necessary part of science and when discipline was made optional in our schools we found that high standards of education not only became optional but because of indiscipline they because impossible”.
You claim that he was using this as a verb. Look again at the definitions I supplied to you, courtesy of the Shorter Oxford Dictionary: “discipline v.t. – Scourge or flog as a penance or in self-mortification, thrash, chastise; Subject to formal rebuke, loss of privileges etc., for an offence”. Now, this not being the 17th Century, I presume it is reasonable to suppose that nobody in secondary education seriously wants to Scourge or flog as a penance. They might want to impose some loss of privileges, always assuming that the subject had some privileges to lose.
But KK goes on to say that discipline is a necessary part of science, which, by your interpretation, implies that all scientists should be regularly scourged and flogged as a penance in self-mortification. That may well have happened in the 12th century, but I don’t think it is very common today.
No, when KK was referring to discipline, he was referring to the use of the word as a noun, and in particular to the second meaning of the word: “Controlled and orderly behaviour resulting from training.” This is obvious when you consider the thrust of his comment.
No Adam, you have deliberately tried to play semantic games with me, and others on this blog, in order to “win”. But when you do that you will loose, unless of course I let you win, in order for you to dig the hole a little deeper.
As I said before, I don’t give a monkeys toss about bits of paper – I have a collection somewhere – and I don’t give a rats arse about rank or titles. They mean nothing compared with what people know, and what they can do, and most importantly of all, how they can think! The vast majority of people who comment here can do that. You should try it some time. You may surprise yourself.
00
I can hardly wait for his answers.
The only solution is removal of these people from office. It starts with those the voters can remove and moves to the rest when they can no longer hide from the wrath of those who pay them.
00
I was once asked by a young woman if I wanted to save the whales.
I thought for a bit, and replied,”Yes, why not, how long would it take to collect the whole set?”
This was the first indication I had, that the dyed-in-the-wool Greens have absolutely no sense of humour.
00
maybe if you’d said something funny…
00
[…] Mcintyre did some research on Dr Paul Bain – the same who Jo Nova had a long correspondence with a few months […]
00