You may not have heard of the World Federation of Scientists – it certainly isn’t run with a budget of millions or a professional PR team, instead it’s exactly the kind of organization that outstanding scientists would set up. No flash graphics, no spiffy logo, and no inundation of press releases. It’s only got two colours, but the people who meet and talk there range from world leaders in politics to people who changed the modern world with their science.
It’s the opposite of UN “science”, what it lacks in marketing skills, it more than makes up for in sheer heavyweight scientific brainpower and kudos. The Federation has 10,000 scientist members apparently, including T. D. Lee (parity violation, the Lee Model, particle physics, Nobel Prize) and Prof Antonino Zichichi (1000 papers in particle physics, first example of antimatter). Former members (until their deaths) were Laura Fermi, Eugene Wigner (Nobel in Physics fundamental symmetry principles), Paul Dirac (Nobel Prize, Dirac Equation, Fermions, theoretical physics, “genius”), and Piotr Kapitza (Soviet scientist, Nobel Prize and superfluidity, “Kapitsa resistance“).
Prof Antonino Zichichi founded the World Federation of Scientists and he’s angry at the state of Climate Science.
Christopher Monckton writes from the World Federation of Scientists in Erice Sicily.
President Vaclav Klaus’ delivered the keynote address to the Federation is (see here).
Professor Antonino Zichichi, one of the world’s top six particle physicists (he discovered a form of anti-matter 40 years before the multi-billion-dollar Large Hadron Collider did), is the most famous Italian scientist since his hero Galileo. He founded the Federation half a century ago and, at the age of 83, is its president to this day.
Nino looks like a proper scientist. Imagine giving his friend Albert Einstein an electric shock, and that is what his hair looks like. He is fitter than me and attributes his good health to walking an hour every day, not drinking alcohol and not eating lunch (that’s for wimps). He lives in a medieval stone house in the unspoiled, monastic village of Erice, Sicily, perched high on a 2,500-foot crag overlooking the blue Mediterranean.
He is an angry man. Angry because he, like me, was brought up in the Classical tradition, which insists that the duty of every “seeker after truth” (Al-Haytham’s beautiful phrase for the scientist) is to be logical and rational. He founded the Federation at the height of the Cold War to remind scientists of their moral responsibility to use their craft for good, not for ill, and of their intellectual obligation to adhere rigorously to the scientific method.
Nino is furious at the politicization of climate science. Science these days is a monopsony. There is only one paying customer: the State. Scientists increasingly produce the results their political paymasters want rather than seeking after truth.
Nowhere is the buying of desired results by governments clearer than in Nick Stern’s now-discredited report of 2006 on climate economics. The U.N.’s absurd climate panel had already at least tripled the true (and harmless) rate of warming to be expected from our adding CO2 to the air. Stern, to please his socialist paymasters, tripled it again without the slightest justification. Then he divided by 10 the true cost of making global warming go away and multiplied by 10 the true cost of not acting to Save The Planet (memo to Old Nick: The planet was triumphantly saved 2,000 years ago and doesn’t need saving again).
Tony Blair, the shifty socialist prime minister of the day, was so delighted with this nonsense that he gave Stern a peerage and installed him as head of the Grantham Institute, a lavishly funded propaganda institution promoting fear of climatic Armageddon and hatred of the West.
Extracted from the longer article by Christopher Monckton on WND
Christopher Monckton also calculates that it will cost $6 quadrillion dollars to prevent the 6 F degree rise that “will not happen anyway”. His paper is here.
h/t To Marc Morano
It would be of interest to know who were the scientists present at the conference and what they thought of Klaus’ keynote address
10
i would imagine that scientists will, as usual, find That Professor Klaus said many interesti g things.. Climate activists and CAGW aagitators, not so much.
10
Thank you, Professor Antonino Zichichi!
Modern-day climate science is absolute nonsense! Our whole society is collapsing, worldwide! It is time to wake up and “Reclaim your birthright!” http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-818
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://www.omatumr.com
00
Our Prime Minister was talking about you today. I hope you’re suitably proud?
20
Prof Antonino Zichichi can relax. California’s Governor Brown just assured us NASA is still a leader in space science! http://tinyurl.com/dxu6hof
Although:
a.) The USSR’s launch of Sputnik on 4 Oct 1957 threatened world domination, . . . .
j.) Kissinger secretly visited China 9-11 Jul 1971; Agreed to dismantle US space program.
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-818
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://www.omatumr.com
00
The technique you are using is called thread-jacking.
And really? Kissinger agreed to dismantle the USA space program at the same time they were still building the Space Shuttle – which went on to fly over 100 missions? At the same time they still had two Apollo missions to the moon – which also went ahead as planned?
I should get Kissinger to “cancel” me a billion dollars.
Is there no chance his secret meeting was about ending the Vietnam war?
Dr Manuel, if we want to know whether the sun has a neutron star in its core, we can look up your published papers and videos. At least that theory has evidence for it, which is more than can be said for your other colourful interjections over the last 2 years.
00
Sorry, Andrew, you have not yet recognized the invisible connections that society is only now awakening to:
1. Sun and Earth are magnetically, electrically, gravitationally connected parts of the Solar System, so named becausethese invisible fields and a constantly changing stream of particles (mostly electrons, H+ ions, neutrinos) keeps them connected !
2. Even more invisible since 1945 have been connections between Liberals and Conservatives, Capitalists and Communists, Atheists and Religionists – united through their common instinct of survival and deep-seated fear of the “nuclear fires” that consumed Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 Aug 1945 and 9 Aug 1945.
3. Officially united in establishing the United Nations on 24 Oct 1945, partially disconnected by the election of John F. Kennedy in Nov 1960, and then reconnected after his murder in 1963 and Henry Kissinger’s secret trip to China to end the space race and the arms race in 1971:
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-818
I do not understand – but I am now absolutely certain that – international intrigue is the root of the Climategate scandal. If Obama is serious in his threat to invade Syria, despite warnings of retaliation from Russia and China, then we are in much deeper trouble than anyone grasped
Society is deeply troubled worldwide, as evidenced by these recently awakened high school students in San Diego: “Voices Without A Vote”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuCaWYvpVZg
Regretfully,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://www.omatumr.com
PS – If you do not know the Sun has a neutron star in its core, there is probably zero chance that you will recognize less obvious evidence of invisible connections.
00
What I saw in the nuclear power “debate” was this:
The opposition to nuclear energy was never founded in science. Nor was Hiroshima the foundation of it.
The opposition to nuclear power was built up and maintained by the friends of communism for the purpose of hindering the US and such other western nations as could be influenced in the cold war nuclear arms race.
There was no criticism of Soviet use of nuclear power and nuclear powered warships until Chernobyl blew up. By that time communism had nearly run its course in the USSR.
Hiroshima was just a tool which the promoters successfully employed in this campaign, not just to oppose (western) nuclear power and weapons, but also to vilify the US. Now it has become part of the AGW scam.
00
Experiment shows that above ~10% RH, there is no change of emissivity as CO2 increases from zero: http://notrickszone.com/2012/08/07/epic-warmist-fail-modtran-doubling-co2-will-do-nothing-to-increase-long-wave-radiation-from-sky/
These data, originally from Hoyt C. Hottell at MIT, have been available since the late 1940s. I have used them to design heat treatment processes; measured heat transfer kinetics accurately follow predictions. The IPCC has completely ignored this information. claiming you can calculate IR energy absorption as the sum of all the individual contributions thus ignoring intermolecular interactions.
Conclusion: there can be no CO2-AGW except possibly for the driest of deserts. The IPCC ‘consensus’ is nonsensical.
00
Thanks for the information, I’ve just posted your post on:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/24/a-modest-proposal-for-sequestration-of-co2-in-the-antarctic/#comment-231993
00
And.. apart from the heading that he is angry, could we get some quotes? In other words, what did Zichini exactly say? Was it during a q&a or in an interview?
00
So one more time: How, to whom, when, where did Prof Antonino Zichichi show his anger with the state of Climate Science. The heading doesn’t match the content of the thread. We know very well what Klaus and Monckton think of the state of climate science. And even though I agree with every word Klaus and Monckton say, it is not what I am after right now.
00
Hi Chris
It’s just part of he beauty of this blog.
Just work with it.
KK 🙂
00
Yoo-hoo!! Joanne, are you there?
00
10:20 pm and only one “thumbs up”. Does nobody really care, is nobody curious after reading the heading? Is my question OT?” After this I will stop whining about the lack of attention I am getting.
00
Perhaps the curious ones already googled this: US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works.
00
Chris
In many ways this blog is a “serve yourself” setup and is highly interactive, which is part of it’s genius.
From small beginnings, ie a small prompt about an 83 year old scientist, look at all of the ideas that have been expressed here that are mainly to do with some aspect of global warming.
As human beings we are fallible and do smetimes go off on tangents but by and large we interact here, exchange ideas and learn and grow.
Welcome.
KK 🙂
00
FFS use google can’t you?
00
The state as the sole customer of “science” has been a concern for me but from a different perspective. I’ve watched over my entire career as scientists do extraordinary contortions to make their field or specialty conform to the latest fads of the day. It’s often not pretty. I’ve also seen enormous boom bust cycles in companies where a particularly hot field gets gobs of money (think superconductivity or ceramics in the 1980’s) then suddenly the money is pulled or severely curtained and legions of people get laid off. It’s also disconcerting to think that government sponsers often rate the quality of their solicitation by how many people respond with proposals. Sometimes its a hundred proposals for each grant that’s available. Considering the amount of time an effort it takes to do a proposal properly, how much talent is being wasted grubbing for money vs. discovering things in the lab. It would not surprise me to find that at least a third of a researcher’s time is occupied with fund raising and success or failure in a position has more to do with the quality or proposals than with the quality of the science done.
00
First example of antimatter?
Not quite, try Davidson ca 1932 when Zichichi was still in his nappies.
00
Careful. There is a difference between postulating the existence of something, theoretically determining its characteristics, and demonstrating that it exists.
00
No Rereke,
Dirac in 1928 incorporated special relativity into Schrödinger’s wave equation which lead (amongst many other important discoveries) to the notion of a Dirac sea, where the vacuum is fully described by negative energy electron eigenstates. However Dirac and later Weyl postulated that if not all of these eigenstates are filled then those unfilled states could act as positively charged particles of same mass as the electron. Anderson formally discovered the positron in 1932. This theory is generally taught in third year Uni quantum Mechanics. At least that’s when I did it.
I have an original hard back of Dirac’s 1930 book “Principles of Quantum Mechanics” written before the positon was discovered. It is still one of the best references to the early days of quantum mechanics
00
We need to see what HE says, and what HIS Organisation says. Then it will be useful, thanks Jo! 🙂
00
Well, is it not useful, for lay people like myself, to know that there is an organisation that is prepared to challenge that “the science is settled”?
I think it is very useful to know that this is an organisation of thousands of scientists from the majority of countries. And particularly that these scientists strive towards the free exchange of information – something that has been demonstrably lacking in so called “climate science”.
00
The above comment was in response to TimiBoy @ #5
00
A bit late, but yes its nice to see the science challanged.
00
Challenged by a retired 82-year-old who has never published even a single research paper in the field?
Call me under-whelmed….
30
And what, Vince Whirlwind, is your speciality?
00
Is Vince challenging the experts in a field in which he is inexpert and calling them wrong?
No, he isn’t.
He’s pointing out that Prof. Zichichi is not an authority on climate science as he has never published any research in the area. Therefore, Prof. Zichichi’s criticisms of people who *have* worked in the field are entirely lacking in credibility.
Why not find a respected scientist who has spent many years studying climate science, and see what he says?
In fact, why not just read the published science on this issue instead of constantly finding people on the fringes who want to snipe at it?
20
OK done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy
Some of his criticisms here: http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/ChristyJR_written_110331_all.pdf
And some recent information you might find helpful in your quest for truth: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Christy_EPW_08-01-12-1.pdf
Now that I’ve done your bidding (and legwork) will you go away?
00
“call me underwhelmed”
Why? What parts of the science in Climate Science are not common to broadly accepted physics and chemistry generally and thus should be readily understood by highly credentialed physicists such as Dyson Freeman or Zichichi?
00
Prof Zichichi IS an expert in the field.
He knows what science is.
00
So do most other scientists.
Some of them are even familiar with climate science, which Prof. Zicchichi is not very much.
20
Oh I agree on that score, but it’s all about evidence, and I’d like to be able to quote the Organisation, rather than just say “She said he said…”
00
REPLY: Thanks for the proof reading. Merci! – Jo
00
So, it appears that there is a consensus that the climate science is garbage.
I guess then that this means the junk science is settled. Where are all the AGW cult members, by their post normal science beliefs this means we should drop the whole climate change meme and the associated fear mongering. Can we expect that conversions soon, or are they hypocrites?
00
I am reminded of a comment relating to the infamous OJ trial … “the best justice money can buy.” Perhaps we should paraphrase this for UN climate science as “the best climate science money can buy.”
I assume the reader can apply /sarc quotes as appropriate.
00
You reminded me of the story not long ago about the climate change alarmists meeting in the US who were angry that their bulldust was not being taken seriously and that they want to control people and force them to accept.
00
Well listening to Lewandowsky and his psych mates at UQ we sceptics have a mental condition which prevents us from seeing the CAGW evidence clearly. No doubt we need severe treatment to overcome this disability … I am thinking Cuckoo’s Nest or Clockwork Orange, for example:
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1yqhuL3IA1qdb9v0.jpg
00
Can you point to Lewandowsky even hinting at any such a suggestion of “severe treatment”, or shall we add “paranoia” to his diagnosis?
20
Can you show any example of where I stated this? Your reading comprehension is fail. The statement starting “No doubt…” is a clearly hypothetical sarcastic muse to ridicule the Lewandowskyesque diagnosis of climate change denial. The fact that Lewandowsky and his mates in high-paying, tenured university positions even think this is a mental condition is what is appalling. A sad indictment of the paucity of logic in the pyschology profession.
00
I don’t think they say it’s a “mental condition”, but I think “denial” has for a very long time been described in the medical literature as a symptom of psychiatric illness.
You said, “No doubt we need severe treatment to overcome this disability”.
I asked you where Lewandowsky had sad anything to suggest this.
You admit he hasn’t.
I am interested in why you think there is “no doubt” about a non-fact. This seems to be the opposite of “denial” – “delusion”, which in this case seems to indicate paranoia.
I *really* don’t think anybody’s suggesting that everybody who is in denial of reality be rounded up and put in a concentration camp, so you guys can rest easy.
20
i had already read Vaclav Havel’s address at the following link and would like to stress the following excerpts:
20 Aug: VaclavHavel: The Manmade Contribution to Ongoing Global Warming Is Not a Planetary Emergency
How to make a change? I dare say that science itself will not make the change, regardless of its achievements. The Global Warming Doctrine is not based on science. Accordingly, scientific debate itself cannot bring it into disrepute…
Serious scientific research continues to bring us new pieces of knowledge almost on a daily basis, but it has not brought and will not bring us any decisive breakthrough in the public debate on this topic…
Can a decisive change come as a result of new empirical data? I doubt it. It is evident that the current temperature data confirm neither the alarmist and apocalyptic views of the believers in the GWD, nor their quasi-scientific hypotheses about the exclusivity of the relationship between CO2 and temperature. The world has not warmed for the last 15 years, but that is too short to shatter the whole carefully built edifice of the global warming doctrine. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that some of us have been arguing that a century in climatology is too short to prove the ongoing global warming as a new long-term trend. That is why, for the sake of symmetry, we must accept that a decade is not sufficient to do the opposite.
Discussing technicalities in more and more depth will not help us, because the supporters of the global warming doctrine are not interested in them. We are not dealing with people who are authentically interested in science, in objective truth, in identifying the causes of incremental changes in temperature. For them, the temperature data are just an instrument in their plans to change the world, to suppress human freedom, to bring people back to underdevelopment. Their ideas are the ideas of ideologues, not of scientists or climatologists. Data and theories, however sophisticated, will not change their views…
http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/3165
as always, i do not see CAGW as a Socialist scam, and feel so long as it is argued on party political lines we will get nowhere. all my former Labor or Green-voting family, friends and acquaintances have recognised CAGW is a scam, at least since Climategate broke, if not before.
00
“a decade is not sufficient to do the opposite”.
But it is sufficient to wipe out the apparent support that was claimed in the previous decade.
00
Jo, These quotes from President Klaus’s paper suggest that arguing the science is to no avail.
“How to make a change? I dare say that science itself will not make the change,
regardless of its achievements. The Global Warming Doctrine is not based on science.
Accordingly, scientific debate itself cannot bring it into disrepute.”
“Discussing technicalities in more and more depth will not help us, because the
supporters of the global warming doctrine are not interested in them. We are not
dealing with people who are authentically interested in science, in objective truth, in
identifying the causes of incremental changes in temperature. For them, the
temperature data are just an instrument in their plans to change the world, to
suppress human freedom, to bring people back to underdevelopment. Their ideas are
the ideas of ideologues, not of scientists or climatologists. Data and theories, however
sophisticated, will not change their views.”
We desperately need more leaders, like President Klaus, who are prepared to stare down the extreme environmentalists.
00
Exactly; AGW is a religious belief at best, at worst, a means to demonstrate the need for a misanthropic view of humanity.
00
“the temperature data are just an instrument in their plans to change the world, to
suppress human freedom, to bring people back to underdevelopment. Their ideas are
the ideas of ideologues, not of scientists or climatologists. Data and theories, however
sophisticated, will not change their views.”
Projecting much?
00
Oh yeah, matty; Agenda 21; I mean, make a germane comment about this matty; do you deny it? Do you agree with it?
00
It may not surprise you, Cohers, but as a young man I was quite inspired by the Brundtland Report Our Common Future, and feel that Agenda 21 is a great document also.
I had a read of that crackpot link you provided. “Under Agenda 21 all central government and local authority signatories are required to conform strictly to a common prescribed standard and hence this is just communism resurrected in a new guise.” is 100% certifiable bunkum written by a nut – job. Sorry if that is you btw.
00
I haven’t read the Brundtland report for some time; the utter and complete absence of science in AGW science has preoccupied me; that science has been revealed for what it is: sophistry and ideological mantras.
Brundtland was an attempt to notionally define sustainability; it failed; or at least its definition has no meaning; that definition is:
It is meaningless because the definition of what are the needs of the present is itself meaningless and subject to ideological filter; for instance a leading advocate of Brundtland principles, Clive Hamilton, in his code as described in “Growth Fetish” regards those needs as being very primitive indeed.
Hamilton regales the “obsessive materialism” of Western capitalism but does not have the wit to realise that for every trinket which evokes his scorn there are a multitude of elements which materially raise the lives of the hoi poloi above the rigours offered by the more natural, spartan lifestyle which Hamilton approves of. The advances in medical technology is the classic example.
Another example is the growth in communication technology which has allowed every citizen to become aware of how their society is being run and to more fully participate in social decision making. This spreading of the fruits of technology is the reason why Hamilton’s fellow traveller, Finkelstein, has advocated a disenfranchisement of the communication rights of the average citizen.
And this is the point of the notion of sustainability; it is a limit which is decided by ideology, nothing else.
The history of humankind is a progess away from natural tyranny which is the reference point for sustainability. The advocates of sustainability, the UN, IPCC and the believers of AGW seek to control the technological expression of humanity ostensibly for the good of humanity.
This is a lie. Increasingly we have seen, in the AGW and more appropriately, the discussion about sustainability, the shifting of the criteria of what is sutainable away from what benefits humanity to what disturbs the concept of pristine nature. We have seen the emergence of crimes against nature such as ecocide; we have seen the development of the concept of the Global entity, Gaia; and we have seen the burgeoning of a misanthropy which advocates that humanity is bad for nature, for gaia and the Earth.
Given this, the idea that sustainability is an idea which is for the benefit for humanity, is suffocatingly hypocritical. Brundtland is hypocritical; Agenda 21 is hypocritical and so is the idea of sustainability. They are hypocritical because they not only do not care for the humanity of the present but they espouse no humanity for the future.
10
“They are hypocritical because they not only do not care for the humanity of the present but they espouse no humanity for the future.”
Hmm I guess you could see it that way.
/sarc off
00
I guess you should get some credit for not hiding that the basis of your AGW stance is ideological.
00
And what do you think my ideology is?
00
So Matt,
You see no potential problem at all with such broad and wide ranging powers in the hands of the UN- an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable conglomeration of career bureaucrats (who by definition have failed at any useful, gainful employment or they wouldn’t be bureaucrats in the first place), African despots (and their affiliates) and failed ex-politicians, who are so far removed from the locoregional areas that would be under their auspices that they could have little or no practical understanding of (let alone actual involvement in) the issues confronting that specific population, nor actually care whether such people actually prospered, lived fruitfully, starved or died for that matter? And what safeguards are their in such a system, who can you appeal to if the edict “from above” is unworkable, or the consequences of such an edict are dire or catastrophic? Canberra can’t even make rational decisions about Wollongong, let alone Brussels about Kalgoorlie or Timbuktu or Caracas. And if such an experiment with humanity is a failure- is anyone likely to admit it, or disband it as unworkable- and who is answerable and to whom in such a case?
To actually advocate and applaud such an approach, Matt, is both counter-intuitive and irresponsible- the UN having failed to demonstrate it has the capacity, the wherewithall or the expertise to promote any specific “agenda” or regulatory framework any more effectively than sovereign or even regional governments already do. They have demonstrated however their capacity to soak up enormous amounts of cash in “administration costs” with little tangible benefit, unless you count eroding national sovereignty and increasing Third World indebtedness as benefits.
00
LMAO. Game over!
From Cohenite’s link above:
So, MattB supports an unelected global authoritarian technocracy based in Geneva or New York to dictate to Australians how we shall live.
OK.
Does that makes MattB a wannabe fascist or just a typical Green climate millenarian? Maybe there isn’t much difference…
The hilarious part is that I’ll punt MattB is not a big supporter of the Australian Defence Forces.
But the ADF will have to be dramatically re-educated and expanded — probably reinforced with foreign UN conscripts — in order to enforce Agenda 21 over my, and about 18 million other, dead Aussie bodies.
Hey, that would make a good Road Warrior sci-fi movie plot!
*
I can see the first scene now…flash forward to 2022:
MattB – as a toady in the local Gaiatic Youth Brigade – is dressed in his starched Greenshirt uniform and shiny jack-boots frantically waving his little pink UN One World flag as the UN occupying forces are goose stepping on parade down Perth’s main drag. “All Hail Gaia!” The crowd of righteous believers chants.
But then two UN Gaia Stasi step out of the cheering crowd and arrest MattB, dragging him away as he shouts, “But, I believe, I believe in the Great Womb Mother! Check my orthodoxy papers!”
During MattB’s subsequent interrogation in prison he learns he was denounced by someone (Johnnie Brookes?) who remembered him from the pre-revolution days as a regular on Jo Nova’s blog. (Nova is now a wanted dead-or-alive guerrilla leader directing the rebels via handheld broadband from parts unknown, but rumoured to be near San Angelo, Texas, which is, naturally, the last rebel stronghold after the Republic of Western Australia fell to Gaiatic stormtroopers in 2020.)
Tied to a chair with a single bright light in his face, MattB tries to convince the Gaia Stasi officer that he only visited Jo Nova’s blog once or twice in a glorious revolutionary attempt to “Save The Planet.” But the stasi will have none of it.
MattB is convicted of consorting with Denialistista rebels and failing to denounce himself as required by UN law.
He’s waterboarded for about 10 seconds, (what a whimp!) until he confesses he’s a Denialist double agent. He’s nothing of the sort, of course, but confession is the only way to stop the interrogation. All accused are convicted, because “the science is settled”…. Fortunately, by denouncing everyone he knows, including his own mother, MattB’s death sentence is commuted to 25-years hard labour in the local coal pits, which are now excavated by hand, since machines are outlawed.
Yes, even in a future Agenda 21 socialist paradise there will be coal mines…
10
Its obvious that some form of world government is needed. Its equally obvious that anything short of an absolute emergency is unlikely to make it happen. When the war for control of Syria can’t be sorted out because the Chinese & Russians back one side, and just about everyone else backs the other, what chance do we have of a world government with any teeth?
The tendency to centralise government is interesting. In feudal times, were the serfs worried about how they would fare as their lord lost his power to the king? Did the Italians worry what sort of trouble they were creating when they unified to form a nation? Has Australia gone backwards by having a central government as well as the state governments?
00
But JB,
Other countries were external to Italy so unification makes sense for purposes of interacting on an inter- nation level. Just who are our fellow Earthians interacting or engaging with? Do you know something about Roswell I don’t, John?
Are you seriously equating us to serfs deferring to kings instead of lords?
The myth that all being under one government removes conflict is somewhat debunked by a little skirmish called the American Civil War, you may have heard of it. Or Chechnya, or the former Yugoslavia. People will always seek to divide themselves on the basis of differences in ideology, outlook, ethnicity, religion, physical prowess and appearance etc, etc. Homogenizing humanity because you are too gutless to stand up for yourself is an absolutely reprehensible misanthropic ideology and a poor
excuse for subverting the human spirit, individuality, freedom and self determination, especially when the end result would be a long slow slide into apathy, boredom, depression, stultification, mass delusion and eventually extinction.
00
Australia’s greatest mistake was Canberra.
Perhaps a non state capital Federal Government centre was a needed device during the Australian Commonwealth’s formative years but Canberra has now long outlived that role and has become a serious impediment to Australia’s further development.
A rotating national capital with say a 25 year, a generational long residence in each state capital would have vastly increased both the various states economies and the national economy as well as our infrastructure and our social cohesion.
There would have been a regular generational change over in bureaucrats and their departments.
New, different and arguably more innovative and vigorous thinking would have resulted to that now coming out of the languid, comfortable, well established, unchallenged and now un-challengeable Canberra bureaucracy.
–
There would have had to be an Australian wide consideration of any major policies because in a few years time somebody else would be deciding much of your future so don’t upset anybody in other state capitals, hence there would have been a national way of thinking and acting and a much more cohesive binding together of the multi strands of society that make up Australia today.
–
Infrastructure in each capital and state as it’s turn came around would have received a massive boost merely because a national government was there for another generation.
–
Canberra and the concept that drove it, a non state national capital independent of the states was in retrospect, a mistake, possibly Australia’s worst mistake.
00
Missed that one JB; it must be that superior Gaia cognisance you guys have.
00
Game Over! Thanks for playing.
That’s all we need to know.
In the past Johnny has snarked at us for being paranoia wingnuts for imagining the ultimate Green wet dream is global totalitarian government. And now Johnny says it’s obvious world government is needed? Hellooooo…anybody home?
Every day Johnny wakes up in a new world where yesterday is forgotten and he blossoms new fruit oblivious of his past comments. La, la, la, la. Oh, look there’s a diaphanously sparkling fantasy! The debate is over.
Johnny’s deceit is shamelessly epic. But not surprising. Lenin, Godless and amoral, preached that deceit is but another tool in the socialists’ kit to achieve victory over the bourgeoisie grubs. The poor sods think working for a living will get them ahead. HA! You didn’t build that all by yourself! Julia Gillard helped by setting up a union slush fund for her boyfriend to party with.
*
I’m bookmarking this thread and shall never let Johnny or MattB forget the day they outed themselves as wannabe global green fascists. It explains their pass comments as well as those they’ll make tomorrow while pretending they have no past form.
I suggest everyone here bookmark this thread as well so that they next time Johnny innocently suggests that perhaps we are all obsessed with Green delusions of grandeur with we can link to…
00
So you are against the concept of seeking a second opinion when you are told you are ill, or that your motor vehicle has a fault, or that a political party is tainted. Come off it, Brookes, it is competition that drives people to excellence. That’s why they have a finishing line at the Olympics, so they can tell that not all parties were equal.
The importance of government policy could be seen from satellite images of adjacent countries. You could easily pick the border between Mexico & USA by the luxuriance of the crop colours. You could tell between Hong Kong and China before China moved away from one-world concepts, and you could see the border between Israel and surrounding, less organised countries.
In one translation, you would hold onto Lotto, but everyone would be given a prize, same to all, but less than the price of the ticket. I don’t follow that logic.
Do read some texts on world communism before you come back tritely.
00
John, please read from some of the greatest minds present when the US constitution was written.
00
John, just out of curiosity, what is this need that you see, that can be fulfilled by a world government?
00
@cohenite,
From where I could see the scene when Gro Brundtland started making global public figure statements, there was not a great deal of disharmony among scientists. Many has followed the Manhatten project blow by blow and were astounded by the predictive skill of the scientists and their ability to turn a concept into a reality in a decade or so. Then came the Moon Race, but we all knew that the mathematicas of payloads and navigation were not really up for argument. Next there started to be some fringe elements who talked about nuclear armageddon, and a few who started talking about a (fictional) global rise in cancer rates from man-made chemicals; and differences between scientists started to appear. I suspect that the differences started to widen when health scientists started using proxies (like mice for humans to study desease) and statistics (to analyse experiments that later were almost always found inadequate, be they on one side or another). Once there was room for differing interpretations of the same data attached to favoured social theories, the solidity of science started to crack.
I’m not at all surprised that Zichichi feels the way he does, because in his optimum years he would have seen little dissent among scientists. The conclusion now to be drawn is that one side or another is wrong, often both. He rose to fame because he was not often classed in the ‘often both’ group.
OTOH, I’m making more mistakes than ever. Instead of typing “navigation” I typed “vagination”, but I think I got away with it.
00
There’s life in the old fellow yet!
00
Hi GHraham
What this means is that the science is irrefutable:
CO2 cannot produce Global Warming and Human Origin CO2 is even less likely to produce Global Warming.
That is the basic physics of the thing. It is quite simple really. Water is the only active ingredient here.
NO amount of scientific to-ing and fro-ing can change that.
It is like saying that we can drown in someones tears.
Technically tears are liquid: tick
Technically you can drown in liquid, if you have enough of it: tick.
And a Warmer would say: therefore you can drown in tears.
The same stupid logic has been used to create the theory that man made CO2 can cause Catastrophic Global Warming.
It is a scientific NONSENSE and only gained traction because it had the support of the UN and various supposed PhDs.
We now know there was collusion to hide exactly what was being claimed so people could never actually examine the truth of CAGW.
Old saying: Once bitten twice shy.
Nobody will trust anybody in the future who is tainted by the CAGW scam.
KK
00
Havel says CAGW ideology is being used to bring back “underdevelopment”. agreed. question – how on earth could the CFMEU, representing construction workers and miners, which takes $600-plus from their members every year, have backed the carbon dioxide tax instead of organising protests, and handed the tax-promoting GetUp more than a million dollars for their propaganda purposes, which were lapped up by all the MSM?
i’ve said previously that construction workers in my region, Gold Coast and surrounding areas, have been out of work by the thousands, and because most have spouses who work, precisely because construction work can be unreliable, are unnable to register for the dole, so don’t show up as UNEMPLOYED. will post some examples in next comment.
00
Hi Pat
The individuals in the union are irrelevant; the main thing is that they pay their fees every year.
Here in Newcastle way back about twenty years ago we had a big fight between two union thugs who both wanted to win the “election’
for general secretary of one of the large unions.
There were midnight shotgun attacks on homes of the opposition and other violent bits of intimidation.
Needless to say it was all about control of the union income and coffers and NOT about the workers.
KK
Gotta get your priorities right.
00
23 Aug: Gold Coast Bulleltin: Developer Rix may build on Coast again
DEVELOPER Norm Rix says he will consider building on the Gold Coast again after finally settling a lengthy battle with council over his $85 million Upper Coomera development.
Mr Rix yesterday confirmed he and the Gold Coast City Council had settled four disputes surrounding the residential and commercial hub which have gone on for about five years and cost him more than $2 million in legal fees…
Part of the claim centred on a possum and two dying trees…
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2012/08/20/436981_gold-coast-business.html
Jan 2012: Coomera Investor: Upper Coomera Development Proceeds after Possum Captured
The brushtail possum bagged and ready for release after being inspected for injuries.
Mr Rix, a Gold Coast developer, contacted the Bulletin yesterday to say the possum which was at the centre of a dispute between his company and the Gold Coast City Council, had been safely relocated.
Because of the possum, council officers were demanding that the developer leave more trees standing on the site at Days Rd, Upper Coomera where Mr Rix planned to build a 109-lot housing project…
It is not known how much of ratepayers’ funds were used to fight the legal case but it is believed to have been a significant sum.
Now the possum has been moved to Ruffles Rd Reserve, with the developer even going to the extent of having a house built for the marsupial in its new tree….
http://www.coomerainvestor.com.au/commercial/upper-coomera-development-proceeds-after-possum-captured/
00
20 Aug: Gold Coast Bulletin: $70m Kirra project spells hope for industry
CRANES will once again be seen on the Gold Coast skyline as part of a $70 million development, signalling the start of a resurgence in the construction industry…
Mayor Tom Tate said it would be the only crane between Southport and Coolangatta but more would soon join it.
“It’s the first time in 29 years there hasn’t been a crane up,” he said…
The Eclipse Tower at Broadbeach, which was completed in June, was the last major development to have cranes on the skyline between Southport and Coolangatta…
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2012/08/20/436981_gold-coast-business.html
22 Aug: Gold Coast Bulletin: Hopes for big project at The Spit revived
TALKS have resumed between the State Government and Brookfield Multiplex about a massive development the company wants to built on The Spit next to Sea World.
The company’s Queensland managing director, Rod McDonald, said yesterday Brookfield Multiplex had been looking for new projects on the Gold Coast since work wrapped up on the $700 million Hilton Surfers Paradise a year ago…
The Newman Government has been approached by companies interested in developing the land, for which several consortiums have put forward proposals since 2006.
Mr McDonald said he hoped to bring the company’s Gold Coast workforce back to the city soon to work on a local project…
“We want to be able to bring this workforce back when we find a job on the Gold Coast,” Mr McDonald said.
“We have retained these guys because they are the best of the best.”…
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2012/08/22/437126_gold-coast-business.html
00
By pure chance I have oosted this below in another forum this morning;
–
Isn’t strange?
I always thought that those who are privileged to go to a higher education facility and to a university were trained to question, to think and to analyse a situation for themselves and come up with a carefully thought out but nevertheless still questioning and skeptical attitude to the problems and supposed solutions presented to them.
Instead we see here amongst the academically trained climate alarmists, an almost dog like, totally unquestioning devotion to pronouncements of supposed future catastrophes and it’s associated alarmist dogma handed down by some supposedly superior authority.
And they are prepared to defend their dog like devotion to that supposed dogma without any apparent qualms or questioning or skeptiscm, all as if the future of the world depended on their upholding of the dogma and their beliefs.
–
Now this of course was par for many of the world’s more unfortunates in the past.
It was called “slavery”
As a slave you never questioned your owner,
You never expressed doubt about your owner’s beliefs or his / her actions.
You only ever repeated the beliefs of your owner.
You always did exactly what you were told to do and say.
For you were no longer a free person, a free will allowed to follow your own instincts and your own will
You were owned.
You were merely an extension of your owner’s personal domain.
–
Is this what the warmists alarmists want us to all become?
–
For that is our fate unless we always question, doubt, ask, demand answers and be completely skeptical of all the solutions and nostrums served up to us as supposed solutions, by those who have achieved often by devious methods, a superior authority, to the problems that have bedevilled mankind throughout his existence on this planet.
–
All of which doubting and skepticsm appears to be a complete anathema to the climate alarmists of this world.
–
For to them, saving the planet takes precedence over the freedom to question and to doubt and to be skeptical.
Unquestioning, unskeptical, dog like devotion to a cause is to be our lot if we are to totally believe in the tablets of catastrophic climate alarmism handed down from on high by those who cannot and will not be questioned.
–
In another time and another place it was called “Slavery”
00
It still is slavery, of the mind.
As Sigmund Freud said to his “most promising disciple” Carl Jung, as they sailed to America to spread the good news about “the new science of psychoanalysis”, “we must protect the dogma at all costs”.
00
In the 1970s the Whitlam government decreed that every Australian was entitled to a university education.
To develop that policy they had to lower the standards.
It shows.
00
Climate science is an oxymoron, a more appropriate term would be climate scientology.
00
….what does that even mean?
Perhaps you could provide some evidence to back up your contention?
Like, perhaps, how many of our leading climate scientists believe in Xenu, for starters?
None, perhaps?
Where does that leave you and your comment?
20
Zichichi will be well rewarded in heaven it appears.
00
“Nino looks like a proper scientist.”
brilliant argument.
00
brilliant contribution….. Not…
00
From Wikipedia:
And I might add, seems to have a dose of emeritus syndrome to boot.
00
Hans Bethe must be correct, he has a Nobel Prize.
00
Was that Bethe or Bete?
00
Johny, I thought we already worked you over for this blatant bigotry. Why do you tolerate Ross James? So which are you a hypocrite or a bigot?
00
[…] Keep reading → Share this:ShareDiggEmailRedditPrintStumbleUponTwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. […]
00
Prof Antonino Zichichi adheres to the scientific method.
Good – now let us all ADHERE to scientific methodology shall we?
Arctic Sea [ice] Loss and the direct consequential effects on extreme weather patterns on the lower latitudes over the USA continent.
http://youtu.be/RtRvcXUIyZg
_______
Ross J.
[I added the word ice into your post Ross, lest the jokes about losing seas detract from your post. mod oggi]
00
And what precisely is your point Ross?
Professor Francis is exploring the difficulties in quantifying changes in Arctic Sea Ice, and therefore the problems in establishing and quantifying the multiple and interacting cause and effect relationships between dozens of multivariate sources.
If you want us to adhere to scientific methodology, all we can say, and all that Professor Francis can say, is that we do not know yet enough to be able to explain how multiple periodic cycles of contributing factors combine and interact in nature, let alone isolating any variations to those interactions that may be due to anthropogenic causes. We are still forming our postulate.
Anything else is merely opinion and/or wishful thinking, and is therefore not part of the scientific methodology.
Or would you prefer us to jump to an unsubstantiated conclusion, and then look for supporting evidence, and reject all non-supporting evidence, in order to make a political point? That would still be scientific; just Political Science, rather than Natural Science.
00
Not sure, Rereke, maybe we should ask – who is holding up Prof. Zucchini as an authority in this, a subject on which he has no expertise?
20
The use of multivariate sources as you say does not in any necessity remove or diminish the causative link of CO2 warming. Anyone who who does not hold to an overtone of prejudiced opinion will see my point in this context.
Warmests are often conveyed as only having a political agenda rather then having an interest in the science. I therefore maintain that the depth of analytical forensic climate science is in actuality a very important part of this whole debate. Ones political opinion should never cloud the mind of a true skeptic.
Forming our postulate is well under way. This was posted for any interested parties to this debate.
Wishful thinking as far as I aware is where one wants something to be true regardless of where the evidence leads. Wishful thinking clearly was not evident at all in that video. Therefore it is real science. The kind of stuff I’d like to see more of coming from your side. Political Science is much deeper then the rhetorical argument on politics which I see in your post and under this thread. This is an exercise in futility, blame games, demons, gross exaggeration and good old fashioned witch hunts.
Look cycles come and go my friend as to voter rages. [Cite QLD and plunged popularity of present administration] Flavours come and go. It does not bode well for clear thinking.
A video that changed my perspective on right , left, socialist, green or whatever is found here:
Zeitgeist_ Moving Forward (2011)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1781069/
See the Video here: http://youtu.be/4Z9WVZddH9w
I don’t care for politics.
_______
Ross J.
00
Absolutely correct. And by the same token, ones political opinion should never cloud the mind of a true acceptor. There is no room for belief in science, as I am sure you will agree, and that is why I am professionally agnostic.
But you will note that I said that, “we did not know enough to be able to explain how multiple periodic cycles of contributing factors combine and interact in nature, let alone isolating any variations to those interactions that may be due to anthropogenic causes.”
I notice you did not comment on that particular point, and therefore presume that you agree that we actually have no substantive evidence of any anthropogenic cause for the observed degree of warming, or for that matter, no demonstrable link between variations in the level of CO2 and variations in temperature, in the physical world. All we have are models, and they reflect the beliefs and opinions of their creators. It is the real-world mechanisms we need to understand, and at the moment we do not appear to be having much success in that area.
00
“Anyone who who does not hold to an overtone of prejudiced opinion will see my point in this context”
If you do not agree with me you are wrong. Students of logic are taught to watch for the phrase.
00
@Ross
What single, strongest observation leads to your conclusions of the quantitative contribution of GHG? Have you at last found a generally acceptable paper that lays it out in a series of equations, calculations and error estimates? I have not, much as I’d like to.
It is usual in multivariate analysis to include all known variables on an equal footing. It is not usual to set one variable aside and then analyse the contributions of the rest. Observationally, one of the biggest failures of multivariate analysis is the omission of a variable, whether by design or by innocent lack of knowledge. Onother big one is underestimation of the errors attached to weightings of included variables.
00
Geoff,
Have a look at this paper:
The Detection and Attribution of Climate Change Using an Ensemble of Opportunity
DÁITHÍ A. STONE
Department of Physics, and Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
MYLES R. ALLEN
Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
FRANK SELTEN AND MICHAEL KLIPHUIS
Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), De Bilt, Netherlands
PETER A. STOTT
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Reading, United Kingdom
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3966.1
______
Ross J.
00
Green gobbledy goop
00
Hi Mark
Does that mean nobody will have to work anymore?
KK
00
Sorry KK you lost me here?
00
Mark,
You should attempt at least to see the video. It is long however: 2 hours and 40 minutes.
KK,
Yes we still work but WE ALL OWN the world. No big fat corporation does.
Instead we build cities that are planned, sustainable, last and house. We plan the resources for ALL as the world belongs to you and me. No stratification of society any more whereby 1% own 40% of world’s resources. What a waste!
Nice thought: No one owns the oil, the coal or the minerals. You do as much as I do. No nation owns it. We as humans develop it and participate in it. No more money. No more interest. No more credit. No more powerful faceless men. No more oil cartels. No more bossy mining magnate buying government. No large corporations. No worry about jobs and income. No more starvation or 1 billion in poverty. Equality removes violence, poverty and addictions.
Would not mind working on the global irrigation plans for Africa and to freeing up of treatment drugs that are ELITIST Western controlled drugs [for profit only] where AIDS is still killing millions in the Africa. That’s where I’d like to work. Or perhaps on the tidal power initiative in the Atlantic North for Russia and Northern Canada. Lots and lots of PEACE work to do.
The presentation also provides one with great insight on environment verses genetics [effects on humans] as well as families, infants and children.
_______
Ross J.
00
sorry Twisted sarcasm
The greenies and lefties are going to make a perfect world where nobody suffers and the planet is saved and we all eat celery and lettuce..
In such an ideal world , probably, no one will have to work.
KK
00
Mark D that sounds like RJ’s version of what JB&MattB were advocating; Earth-Mother-as-dominatrix.
Hold them accountable Wes
00
Arctic sea ice; all the indices indicate 2012 is a bad year if you like Arctic ice; but from an historical perspective it was MUCH LESS in the past.
01
Gosh, that’s a very bad faith contribution on your part.
Let me share one sentence of the conclusion:
“The data show a long-term warming that is
opposite to what is reconstructed for the eastern Arctic and
point to a bipolar behavior of the Arctic Ocean”
20
You talking to me? The link says this:
The long-term warming proves the point I would think and the bi-polar cooling and heating of the Arctic with parts of Northern Europe is well known.
So why is that “bad faith”?
00
Because “Craig” is a posting bot and the software running “him” isn’t well designed.
He has to pick from a certain number of snarky comments and assemble them into paragraphs. In this case he probably should have picked “bad blood” or something like it.
I just know he’ll be a source of all kinds of fun in the upcoming days………..
00
The point you seem to have missed is that the “long-term warming” you refer to is a trend deducible by selecting a subset of the temperature record for the Arctic. The excluded data then show a “long-term cooling” as per the sentence in the conclusion which I excerpted.
20
This is code for “the models imply”, or “the models assume”. It is a propaganda trick to trap the unwary.
Data, in and of itself, can tell you nothing, without interpretation. So the phrase, “the data show …”, actually means, “our (private and confidential) interpretation of the data shows …”
00
Six over the covers.
00
OMG, you STILL don’t get it do you. IGNORTANT TWIT !!!!!
There are farms under the ice in Greenland.. the northern passage has been open in the recorded past.
NONE OF THE CURRENT MELTING IS UNPRECEDENTED !!!!!
We are actually STILL climbing out of a cold period and the high of this slight warming period will likely be LOWER than the previous warm period and almost certainly less than the Roman period.
Holocene temperatures are gradually declining, we are just VERY, VERY LUCKY to be in one of those warmer periods at the moment. I assume you prefer warm to freezing ?
I pity those people who are around in 40-50 years time, because its going to be much colder than it is now !!
Good luck feeding the population, and with the current destruction of reliable energy, good luck keeping them warm !
But population reduction is required, isn’t it !
Just what the UN ordered !!!
00
Does the good Lord have a cite for:
“Nowhere is the buying of desired results by governments clearer than in Nick Stern’s now-discredited report of 2006 on climate economics.”
00
??? What do you mean ? Like a web cite ?
00
No, I think he means “sight”, as in: The good Lord is watching governments buying indulgences. It is worded as a statement, rather than a question, after all.
00
serious Q Joe? CIte something, reference something.
00
Oh, you meant, “Does the good Lord have a citation for …” Cite is a verb, you see, and what you needed was a noun. But even as a noun, citation has legal connotations, similar to a writ, which is another noun, which is the result of being written which is a derivative of the verb, to write.
Of course none of this is probably what you intended. So perhaps “reference” would be a better word: “Does the good Lord have a reference for ….”?
I have no idea, perhaps you should phone him …?
00
Rereke, Make your phone call from the Uni of East Anglia CRU. It’s only a local call from there.
00
well Mr Pedant Whakaroo:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cite?s=t
Abbreviations & Acronyms
cite
citation
The American Heritage® Abbreviations Dictionary, Third Edition
cite2 [sahyt] Show IPA
noun
citation ( defs. 7, 8 ) .
Origin:
by shortening
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2012.
So take that cite and stick it where the sun don’t shine.
Nothing worse than internet pedants. Nothing better than when they are wrong despite smug attitude:)
00
PLus I was addressing the good Lord. They like being referred to in the third person didn’t you know. Or in Latin.
00
As Winston Churchill once remarked, “America and the United Kingdom: two great nations, divided by a common language.”
From the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (which is arguably a better authority than Dictionary.com, when used in an Australian context):
cite verb transitive 1. To summon officially before a court of (usu. ecclesiastical) law. 2. gen. Summon; arouse, excite.
citation noun 1. Law. A summons; a document containing a summons 2. The action of quoting any words or a written passage 3. A passage cited, a quotation 4. A mention in an official dispatch; a descriptive announcement of an award.
So, the words “cite” and “citation” have different meanings, with the only cross-over occurring in a very narrow legal context. The words actually have different Latin roots.
You were asking for a reference – a citation – we all realised that was your overt intent.
But words have power. Words may be the tools of advertising, but they are also the weapons of propaganda. I am therefore quick to pick up on things that are “misspoken”, either by mistake or by intent.
Sometimes I can have some fun doing so. And because you like Latin so much, mea culpa, I admit to being a pedant. Especially so when I detect a sinister undertone in the way that words are used.
00
Matt, everyone knows Sterns discount rate was a joke. see (e.g. Nordhaus, 2008; Murphy, 2008). His <1.4% value is far below the 5% norm.
00
OK , now that’s cleared up. Why would he need a citation. It’s quite possibly an original thought that he thought of for himself, notwithstanding of course that it’s intuitively obvious to any thinking person, that Sterns report was exploiting a lot of creative license, if not outright partial.
00
“The planet was triumphantly saved 2,000 years ago and doesn’t need saving again”
Groan. I wish people who looked at facts and evidence wouldn’t bring this silliness up. It’s just ancient myth and superstition.
00
I thought that part was a joke. Is this to even things up after the GBR blanket thing?
00
Oh, well, maybe it was but I was under the general impression that Monckton believes that stuff. I’m sure I’ve heard him say things in the past that indicate he does.
Happy to be corrected. Maybe I just don’t have a sense of humour…
00
Monckton likes to cosy up to the Christian Right in the USA whenever possible, so when he writes something that will reach a wide audience he makes sure it has something for everyone. Hence the entirely gratuitous reference to Christian theology.
He’d say “God bless America” if he could get away with it, and often does.
00
Gee, if you haven’t noticed, there are a number of Christians who happen to also respected skeptical climate scientists. It is in fact the atheist proselytizers that seem to wish to make this subject divisive and disruptive. It’s either a joke or not but you making issue with the Christian Right is counter productive because most of them are also skeptics of AGW as well as a formidable political group. I suppose Monckton could spend his time “cozying up” to his political enemies but where would that get him? or us in the fight over AGW?
00
Nope not the way for me. I see no reason for mentioning religion. It is not part of the debate. Also what you are saying sounds like one should support skeptics because they are skeptics not because they are right or wrong.
I am skeptical about what you wrote.
00
Not Gee but gee.
Welcome to politics and safety in numbers.
PS I’ll always use your full name if I mean you.
00
sheesh what a banana I am. Sorry about that.
00
Naw, not a Banana, still a grape.
I appreciate your candor WRT religion, at first glance that should not be a part of the discussion. The fact is, however, politics is deeply part of the discussion. Religion and politics are tied at the hip and have been for a very long time. We could spend all week talking about the science and I could care less how it ends up.
Right now we have laws pending and many more poor souls worried that life pivots in the balance because of these flawed theories. The political arena is exactly where this insanity might be slowed or stopped. So yes, because religion (specifically people connected by their faith) are useful to the political process. Therefore pissing on a particular religion (as some are more than willing to do) when that group might swing a vote, is counter productive. Get it?
00
.
Mark D.
I think you’ll find GeeAye is actually a FIG of the edible variety, Brown Turkey (or possibly the Italian 258), is the closest ID I can get.
Looks like a Brown Turkey, colour of a Brown Turkey – and if it tastes like a Brown Turkey … then probably is! 🙂
But his image is from a website that uses the identical Fig Leaf!
00
Not very on topic but I’ll reply anyway. I just did a google image search and grabbed it. Interesting site to rip off in the context of some debates here.
00
Dave, you are right but a long time ago I pressed Gee to “show what is under the fig leaf”.
He/she was creeped out by that so I promised not to go there again.
You of course are not restricted by that promise.
00
Mark D,
you say I’m “making issue with the Christian Right”, but that was a rather big leap to make.
His reference to theology was entirely gratuitous, so if it was not a joke then the question (posed by Gee Aye and Mike) is why he said it.
I presented a plausible explanation based on several interviews I have heard him do for USA audiences, and perhaps on a second reading of my comment you will notice there is nothing necessarily judgemental about it. It was descriptive, not prescriptive. You are correct to suggest that appealing specifically to counter-CAGW allies is strategically useful in this case, which has the effect of refining my comment even further without contradicting it.
Perhaps your reaction was a logical fallacy of the form “If someone wishes to attack my group then they must first identify my group, therefore anyone who identifies my group must be an attacker”. Stereotypically valid perhaps, depending on your experiences.
Or maybe it was because of the angry-looking icon that defaults for my email address.
Don’t worry, if I want to “make issue with the Christian Right” there will be no ambiguity about it! This just wasn’t one of those times.
Actually these days I don’t have much of an issue to make about them. It is the supernatural component of all religions equally that I have an issue with.
Jesus doesn’t get any special treatment from me, mainly because I’ve never received any special treatment from him. With comments like this that status is not about to change eh? 😀
00
It must be a joke because clearly the World is in need of saving again, but this time from rather than by such prophets of doom & the ignorance and intellectual laziness they exploit in their unquestioning following.
Of course it could be argued that such a need has never been far away, as the power of persuasive leaders & witch doctors through the ages testifies.
The reference to a timeline coincident with Christian theology is surely a dig at these latter day ‘saviours’, as extreme forms of socialism are commonly atheistic.
.
00
It’s a play on the fact that the Greens are a brand of secular religious fundamentalists who believe the Earth needs to be saved.
The Greens really believe that we are living in The End Times.
This is a creationist point of view.
To have an End Times is profoundly anti-evolutionary. STOP CLIMATE CHANGE NOW! shouts the Greenpeace bumper sticker. That’s Climate Creationism. Because it assumes that Man (the new Green God) created today’s climate and so can simply wish a climate stasis tomorrow.
The Greens wish to deny future change. They are anti-evolution, since evolution describes the processes by which things like climate and culture change. Don’t be fool by Greens talking about “progress.” What they mean by “progressive” is to roll the clock backwards, to decivilise, to devolve rather than to move forward based upon individual liberty and rational innovation.
Of course, the Greens are atheistic too so in their End Times we all just die or are saved by a saviour imposing a global socialist paradise upon the planet…
Obama announced in 2008 who the Saviour of the World is:
Not surprisingly this is a piece of shamanic pagan millenarianism that dovetails nicely with Obama’s collectivism.
From the purported “Elders Oraibi Arizona Hopi Nation” in 2001:
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/messages/oct28/hopi.htm
The Greens – and the Left in general – have appropriated the language of science and mixed it with dialectical materialism to cloak their pagan religiosity in the hope of deceiving us by faking the kind of rational authority we most respect. It’s the big lie.
But the big lie is exposed every time the Greens open their mouths…. they can’t help reveal their faith-based scientific illiteracy when they try to explain why they believe what they do…. See Robert Manne in his “Victory of the Denialists,” his 20,000 word argument for CAGW is entirely faith-based, fact-free…It’s all they got.
What we are dealing with is a Western urban-based pseudo-religion posing as science…its real inspiration is a melange of collectivist and shamanic cliches and cartoon characters, from the Garden of Eden to Hopi Elders to Prophet Obama to the satanic Koch Brothers. It’s all Jesus meets Che Guevara. That’s what Monckton’s quip alludes too.
I call it “climate millenarianism.”
*
millenarian
adjective
relating to or believing in Christian millenarianism.
• figurative believing in the imminence or inevitability of a golden age of peace, justice, and prosperity : millenarian Marxists.
• denoting a religious or political group seeking solutions to present crises through rapid and radical transformation of politics and society.
00
Well, that’s always what “Progressivism” has stood for — like most else that they claim, it is a Big Lie.
US President Calvin Coolidge had them nailed in 1926 (although they hadn’t adopted the label of “Progressives” yet, it is what they claimed):
00
Writ large the disdain and umbrage many lefties take at the United States is the undeniable wisdom and prescience of her founders. They were the insurance policy against the abuse of freedoms we see today. If only the current crop of PR trained prompt readers paid the slightest bit of attention to that wisdom perhaps this would all be a bad memory.
00
It is nice to have a post where we have some time off from thinking. I prefer those unthreaded ones as at least you get some funny conspiracy theories to read.
00
Gee Aye, I’m going extremely off topic here, but did you know its more important to be fit than thin? As someone who struggles with the idea of being thin, but quite enjoys exercise, this is great news. Of course it could be wrong, because I heard it on that communist mouthpice, the ABC. Listen here.
This should be of interest to the denizens here, not because they are fat, but because we may be witnessing a turning around of conventional thinking in one area of health science. And we know how much the locals hate conventional thinking.
00
There you go JB using LABELS again instead of addressing the individual FACTS.
I’m sure most of the people on this site are able to deal with concepts such as the one you are now promoting to replace CAGW, now that it has flopped.
Individuals come in all sorts of shapes and levels of fitness as befitting the genome of one of the most successful species on the planet.
After the cockroach and red bellied black.
The genetic variation that we show enables us as a species to continue after one group has been wiped out by a sudden environmental change :eg Neanderthalers who were perfectly adapted to the very cold conditions of the previous ice age that turned about 20,000 years back.
KK 🙂
00
sorry KK but the genetic evidence is not available for the last statement. Morphology and of course archaeological evidence suggests good adaptation of neanderthals to climate in the regions they lived but you’ll find no papers ever mentioning “perfect” adaptation (or for that matter anything that is perfect at anything). I know of none that suggest that they were superior to other hominids either. Do you?
00
Well GA if you want to nit pick.
No, Neanderthal man was not perfectly adapted to the cold and especially to the change in living conditions which saw them extinct as a separate group.
The whole point in our imperfections is that we also have perfections spread amongst the human species.
Neanderthals had physical advantage in cold climates that I don’t have.
They also had very large brains at about 1400 cc but to counter that their large heads probably resulted in serious
childbirth issues:nobody is perfect, only the species.
This means that somewhere there is a an individual or small group who can survive any new threat.
True the rest of us may not, but somewhere we survive as a species.
KK
00
I exercise and I am thin. I also do bad things to my body plus I am of an age that might suggest that I might not be thin. No idea why I am telling the blogosphere this though. At some point a historian of our period might find this very insightful.
00
I am fascinated – please tell more …
00
Maybe privately, I don’t want to be banned.
00
My main interest in this piece was the speech by Vaclav Klaus.
He has a way of laying things out that is an indication of a huge intellect at work.
Among the many great points he raised was the one about “the science”.
It really is now very evident that CAGW or even AGW does not have any reality and that further debate in that area is just churning.
To me this suggests that we must change the way politics responds: make it more accountable.
KK
00
Just remind me – which discipline of “the science” is this Vaclav chap an authority in?
It’s just that *I* thought he was a politician, not a scientist.
20
A few disciplines absent from climate “science”, namely; sanity, logic, commonsense and numeric literacy.
00
Hi Inedible
You missed: the ability to use models correctly.
KK
00
Vaclav is an expert at spotting communist perversions of science.
What are you an expert in Craig?
00
or an expert in finding a way to trot around the world and still appear relevant to some? Vaclav Clause just benefits from people thinking he must be that Vaclav Havel chap.
00
I’m an expert at spotting people who cherry-pick dubious sources to buttress their opinions.
Vaclav is a politician. When you hear him moaning about “the science” you are hearing an ideological stance which has no bearing on the facts of the science.
20
Really?
Then perhaps you can offer something as proof that Vaclav is wrong? Otherwise you too are not following the scientific method.
I notice you didn’t already so maybe you are an
expertprofessional. Maybe you have motives for the propaganda you type? What are they Craig? Tell us what you do for a living.00
I suspect you know nothing of Vaclav Clause.
00
Vaclav is an expert in “following the money”. Which is what half the climate science circus is about.
00
What do you mean, Justjoshin? Is somebody paying the Arctic to melt? Is somebody paying the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to go up? Is somebody paying temperatures to rise?
20
Are all those effects definitively correlated with each other? Are they always correlated, with no exceptions? Can you demonstrate the causal agents in each correlation?
Because somebody is paying people to try to demonstrate the definitive cause and effect, and they have yet been unable to do so. But what they have found is a lot of evidence that indicates that these things are not definitively correlated, and therefore there can be no causative agent.
The null hypothesis is that the observed events are subject to so many random causative variables the weather itself behaves as if it were random. So somebody is paying people to stay on a journey of non-discovery that will never end, while the planet does what it always does when it does it.
00
Well Craig, for one thing he has a brain and can use it.
Have a little think about that.
KK 🙂
00
And Craig,
I don’t expect much but at least give it a try.
You may find the experience of breaking away from those whole control your mind totally liberating.
KK 🙂
00
For those who may not realise:-
.
Vaclav Klaus masterminded the rebuilding of the Czech economy after the collapse of Communism, as Finance Minister.
.
Growing up in Prague through the post-war years he studied Economics an lived and worked under Communism. He is well versed in recognising the methods of communist tyranny..
.
Working for the Czech Academy of Sciences, he gained a Phd in Economics and has since gone on to become a well respected and accomplished practitioner of Economics.
.
It is not about the Science. Not the Physical science at least.
Economics is the Science of human behaviour.
.
Many politicians can talk Economics.
Vaclav has lived & worked Economics.
.
Being elected President of the Czech Republic at an age when most would have retired is an indication of the high esteem in which he is held by the Czech people.
00
Politics is politics. Keep politicians accountable with the ballot box and thwart every attempt to usurp & undermine that system.
00
.
And when the ballot box no longer works?
.
. . . Which is just about right where we are now.
00
Australia has its [snip] ready for the lying deceitful ignorant REGRESSIVE ALP/Green government.
I just hope we get the chance.
[no threats even if jesting] ED
01
Ahhh, the voice of moderation.
[more like the fingertips] ED
10
Absolutely, John.
I always use a [snip] with moderation. I am quite a sensitive guy like that,
[no threats even if jesting] ED
00
.
AndyG55
It’s not the lying deceitful ignorant REGRESSIVE ALP/Green government I’m worried about.
They are going to get turfed out next election – that’s a given.
It’s the lying deceitful ignorant REGRESSIVE COALITION government that’s going to replace them, armed with an overwhelming mandate to do pretty much anything they want, that scares the hell out of me.
00
I was being moderate JB ! very restrained ! 😉
01
MV, what can ya do.. we HAVE to get rid of this current mess,
All we can do is HOPE that the next lot aren’t as bad. 🙁
I sent the following to the Libs yesterday.. so far no response.
“Dear Libs.
Is an ETS still part of Liberal Party platform.?
Will the Libs scrap the carbon tax, just to bring in an ETS ?
Will the Libs scrap the Renewable Energy Target.?
I WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO THESE QUESTIONS !!!!!!
No spin (you are not the Labor party), just straight answers.”
I guess we will see. We don’t really know how the Libs will approach things, they are understandably keeping things pretty close, and none of the MSM are going to give us any idea. Maybe TA will turn out to be sensible and restrained.
We can but hope….. which is basically dead under the current mess.
01
Andy – I have a feeling that your definition of “sensible and restrained” is different to mine. Is offering massive maternity leave pay outs to the rich “sensible and restrained”.
00
Matt B,
is the merry go round from the carbon tax sensible and restrained?
00
So, you are saying that intellegent, hard-working women who are capable of earning a good wage, shouldn’t be entitled to maternity leave ??
Maternity leave should be a percentage of what a woman has proven capable of earning. End of story.
01
Sorry Andy, but it’s only the BEGINNING of the story.
First question: Who pays?
Second question: Why?
Third question: Does the same logic apply to intelligent, hard-working women (and men) who suffer a stroke? A debilitating disease? A crippling injury?
Fourth question: If not, why not?
Fifth question: If so, who pays, and why?
And that’s just the tip of an extremely large, extremely complex iceberg.
I’m sorry Andy, but in the real world (at least in any sustainable sense), what an intelligent, hard-working person is entitled to is whatever they can negotiate with whoever is paying them for their intelligent hard work.
00
Andy if their employer values them and wants to pay them maternity leave then good for them. For the rest they can have the standard govt scheme. I mean seriously this is the last place I expect to have absurd middle and upper class welfare defended.
00
So, the intelligent well paid woman, who has almost certainly made far more contribution to society through tax, shouldn’t get her fair share back ?
This is not welfare.. it recompense for taxes paid.
Obviously you want to discourage the intelligent well-paid woman from having children, thus contributing further to the dumbing down of society.
A true left agenda, because it gives them more voters, dumb like you..
01
I note you didn’t reply with such incredulity to MV who agrees with my, you coward. Andy G so a woman on $100k p.a…. how many years of taxes do you think she would need to pay to justify $100k maternity leave? Or are you advocating a mother of 3 essentially pay no tax over a lifetime?
You are giving absurd amounts of cash to people who don’t need it. What is the point? It is a crackpot solution.
00
But you’ve still left a clear implied threat Ed? I doubt Andy is jesting.
00
AndyG55
Normally I wouldn’t support the idea of paid maternity leave but then we have to look at things in context.
For the last 40 years we have had a massive change in society.
Whereas before this time people who made an effort were supported by relatives and family if things were tough we now have the setup where Unwed Mothers can expect that the community will look after the child , and them.
In the context of this Labor inspired reality we then had the one-up-man-ship of John Howard in his last years bringing in the crazy scheme of even more financial incentive for having children to gain access to larger amounts of Social security Cash.
The new scheme of supporting working mothers is a much better system because it encourages people to have children who in the end have a greater likelihood of being self supporting.
KK
00
In what way does “the ballot box no longer work”?
Do you have a problem with the fact that a fringe minority doesn’t get to win, in this democracy of ours?
20
.
In the last election over 90% of Australians voted for candidates who DID NOT support a carbon tax.
We got a carbon tax.
Ballot box = 0
Politicians = 1
Polls consistently show Australians no longer support an ETS.
After the next election we will have an ETS regardless of who we vote for.
Ballot box = 0
Politicians = 2
Electricity bills continue to go up by 25% a year as a result of the RET, and Australians don’t want that.
After the next election electricity bills will continue to go up by 25% a year as a result of the RET regardless of what people want.
Ballot box = 0
Politicians = 3
I’m going to bed now, but if you like I’ll continue in the morning.
We haven’t even touched on the important stuff yet.
00
Well, if what you are saying is true, then at the next election in a few months’ time people can decide in favour of whoever has given you that information.
At the ballot box.
If they don’t, then you will know the information you’ve been given was wrong.
Sure beats the alternative you seem to be suggesting – a coup and totalitarian dictatorship by anti-science “internet [snip]”, based on very poor quality information.
Geez, wouldn’t that be good…
[Specifically what very poor quality information?] ED
20
Well, it’s a little hard to be specific when almost every word of MemoryVault’s post was wrong.
The first and most obvious would be the fact that this year’s carbon-tax-related electricity price rise was LOWER than the average annual price-rise over the last 4 years, the first 3 of which were NOT carbon-tax-related. And it wasn’t 25%.
To be so completely wrong indicates a very poor source of information.
Similarly, to say 90% of people voted for anti-carbon tax candidates implies two things which are, again, completely wrong:
1/ That people voting for a candidate know what their carbon-tax-policy was
and
2/ That people voting for a candidate agree with any given policy that candidate subscribes to
20
Its very hard to argue against religious extremists. All they want to do is shut you up. Or tattoo you with numbers or .. whatever….
Good luck with that, cagw bletheren, you pusillanimous gits !!!
00
A lot more credible than the “Union of Concerned Scientists” http://www.ucsusa.org/ (a left wing activist organisation) that allows anyone with a spare $25 to join.
00
even Kenjie !! 😉
00
Well I do hope a certain Prime Minister is not involved, otherwise they can kiss good bye to their $25 dollars.
00
Not sure what you mean, Bananabender – in what way is this foreign activist group called the “Union of Concerned Scientists” relevant to the fact that Vaclav is a politician pushing an ideological point of view and being misrepresented by his disciples as being an authority on “the science”?
20
.
Give it a rest, Craig.
The “I’m just a dumb yokel looking for enlightenment” angle has already been done to death here by dozens of trolls before you.
If you want to play at least get yourself some new material.
The old stuff has become tedious.
00
Your constant argument of authority is extremely weak, Craig. Richard Lindzen is a far superior authority on climate than Tim Flannery, Al Gore, Stefan Lewandowsky, Ross Garnaut, Will Steffen, etc combined. Should we therefore defer to his authority? No one here is suggesting that, so why is that appropriate in reverse. The nature of Science is such that any person can raise legitimate questions about the validity of an hypothesis. Steve McIntyre is a far more expert statistician than Michael Mann, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt etc etc, so should they then merely defer to him on matter of statistics? Not necessarily either, but certainly they should be held to account if an objection is raised to the statistical methodology used in their work, as the Hockey Stick statistical frippery was shown to be totally lacking through invalid statistical methods and proxy selection, data grafting and cherry picking manipulation. Any objective analysis of that work by Mann would suggest it is without value, and any work relying upon it flawed at least, completely erroneous at worst. This scrutiny serves to strengthen the Science not diminish it, the fact that this nascent form of scientific endeavour so often fails this scrutiny speaks volumes for just how “settled” and how authoritative it really is. I think from your tone that you resent them being held accountable, so I would suggest that casts doubt on your objectivity and your intellectual honesty.
00
Richard, you list a bunch of people who I wouldn’t consider authorities on climate science, and then compare them with Lindzen, presumably because you like what Lindzen has had to say in the past.
Sadly, Lindzen has proven to have been repeatedly and drastically wrong, meaning it wouldn’t be sensible to accept him as a reliable authority, either.
The proper authorities on climate science are those people whose published research has stood up to the test of time – those who confirm the proven physics involved in climate change, those who have observed the current trend for warming temperatures have been proven correct, after 30 years of further observations and research. Not Lindzen, and certainly not some dodgy politician from Eastern Europe.
20
Why indeed, would such an emminent gathering of distinguished scientists invite such an, in his own words, a mere politician and economist as Vaclav Klaus, to provide their keynote address ?
Don’t accomplished people tend to share certain fundamental traits, whatever their field.
And yours would be …Craig ?
.
00
.
AndyG, in answer to your questions above to the Liberal Party:
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes we do, and no they aren’t.
The answers to all the above questions are contained in the Liberal Party’s written Environmental Policy, which is available online for all to see. The truly amazing thing is that people continue to think they intend doing anything different.
00
The Liberals’ ETS policy was developed years ago, and though not many years the policy is already very much out of date.
Tony Abbott made the call when he replaced Malcolm Turnbull. Subsequent evidence shows that Tony Abbott made the right call at the time.
However the continuing lack of empirical evidence to support the AGW hypothesis requires a new call, and that call is not for an ETS. The new call must be for prudence, not for revolution.
Repeal the carbon tax. Drop the ETS proposal. Make a completely new assessment of the Renewable Energy Target.
Do not act to in any way reduce Australia’s living standards, as is already happening as people don’t dare turn on their heaters, and industries close down.
00
Come for the science, stay for the CAGW followers.
CAGW foolowers are now just changing into trolls (He has a blue shirt on, I don’t believe people in blue shirts, now green….), a sign of the times?
00
‘Climate Science’ is at least 99% paid for by governments. Just ‘follow the money’ to see who profits from this acivity!
00
cohenite@10.2.1.1.1
Now THAT is a seriously good post. Well said. We are kindred spirits.
00
Cohenite, paging Cohenite to comment 28.1, clarification requested…
Are you saying that the word/symbol “sustainability” has had a biased meaning assigned to it which makes you disagree with “sustainability” as it has been defined by Brundtland Leftist & Co?
In particular, could you dump that meaning and restore “sustainability” to a plain English definition, eg- “able to be sustained for a very long time”.
Under this plain definition, would you then be in favour of making human civilisation “sustainable” and therefore in favour of pursuing “sustainability” as a goal?
What if there were no laws or treaties demanding it, but people could make incremental “progress” towards this “sustainability” anyway, if they wanted?
The problem is that if you have no commitment to (literal) sustainability then by definition you’ve committed to an eventual collapse. ie- to fail to plan is to plan to fail. For one enamoured with the diverse products of technological and economic progress I’d presume total economic collapse would indeed be a problem, at least conceptually even if it does not actually happen during your lifetime.
00
John Brookes says,
And MattB likes Agenda-21.
What flaw is it in the follower types that makes them feel secure when someone else is telling them not only what to do but what to think?
I don’t get it myself — never have. But I think we have just such a world government poised to take control the instant the chance arrives. It’s called the United Nations, John, Matt. But I don’t think you’ll like it if and when it happens.
And it’s almost here. Two weeks ago I watched a movie called 2016: OBAMA’S AMERICA. It’s not about the UN or even world government — it deals with Obama’s personal agenda — but the final scenes of grade school students singing, “Obama will lead us…,” are frightening.
I have no doubt that those scenes will translate nicely into the one world government era. The message is written large and plain for those who can read it.
Can you read it John? Can you read it, Matt?
00
Hi Roy
What these people don’t realise is that while it may be someone else that is the target of ridicule and subjugation at the start of
the “revolution’, later something strange and unexpected happens.
Eventually, the net tightens and enslaves more and more of those who thought they were safe because the supported “the cause”.
Wrong.
It will eventually damage you Matty Boy and JB.
Your world will be smaller, nastier and meaner and you only have to talk to people who live in Communist or “Democratic” Republics to understand the ugliness.
That’s the beauty and genius of their cunning.
KK
00
There is no honour among thieves.
00
I’m no great fan of the US, Roy, but one of their exceedingly good points is only allowing a president 2 terms. So the thought of school kids singing about a bloke who (assuming he wins this presidential election) will only be in office for another year so, seems fanciful. Maybe even a bit alarmist? Or maybe you think that Americans really are so dumb that they would change this really useful part of their constitution…
00
[…] A post from Jo Nova.. […]
00