When Robyn Williams recently equated skeptics to paedophiles on the ABC “Science” Show the skeptic-most-targeted was Maurice Newman, former chairman of the ABC itself. Newman responds to these deplorable and unscientific insults in today’s Australian and throws down the challenge to the current board.
ABC clique in control of climate
- by: MAURICE NEWMAN
- From: The Australian
- December 18, 2012 12:00AM
On November 24, Robyn Williams intoned to his audience on ABC’s The Science Show, “if I told you that pedophilia is good for children, or asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthma, or, that smoking crack is a normal part and a healthy one of teenage life, you’d rightly find it outrageous. Similar statements are coming out of inexpert mouths again and again, distorting the science”. My article was given as an example of an anti-scientific position.Really? Questioning climate science is like advocating pedophilia, abetting mesothelioma and pushing drugs to teenagers? Well yes, according to the ABC’s science man. Stephan Lewandowsky, a guest on the program, asserted that those with a free market background were, according to his research, more likely to be sceptical of science. As well as climate science, “they are also rejecting the link between smoking and lung cancer; they are rejecting the link between HIV and AIDS”, the professor said. Happily, it was extremely difficult to detect people on the “Left side of politics who are rejecting scientific evidence”.
Williams confirmed that after “a learned lecture” by one of the world’s most famous scientists, bankers remained unconvinced.
So there you have it. No more proof needed. Free marketers, bankers and science contrarians are simply despicable flat earthers. Best to keep away from them.
Ordinarily it should be unnecessary to object to such appalling commentary. It should have been automatically withdrawn. But no. An ABC response used sophistry to satisfy itself “that the presenter Robyn Williams did not equate climate change sceptics to pedophiles”. Tell that to his listeners.
Lubos Motl, a climate commentator and string theory physicist, said about the ABC’s Science Show: “We used to hear some remotely similar (Czech) propaganda programs until 1989 … but the public radio and TV simply can’t produce programs that would be this dishonest, manipulative, hateful and insulting any more”.
ABC editorial policies require a diversity of perspectives to be presented so that “over time no significant strand or belief is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented”. They also speak of “a balance that follows the weight of evidence”. But who does the weighing? Who re-weights and when? Or is it set and forget?
We have seen the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change discredited. We know the science is less robust. And, for the past 16 years, mother nature has been kind to the sceptics. Because Williams says the entire globe is threatened in a way that is pretty dire doesn’t make it so. Yet the “weight of evidence” argument is often used as a licence to vilify holders of alternative views. As a taxpayer-funded organisation, the ABC shouldn’t even have a view on global warming. What it does have is a duty to all Australians to broadcast honestly the best available evidence on both sides of the argument so that we can make up our own minds. This is not happening.
I retain a deep affection for the ABC. But, like the BBC, there are signs that a small but powerful group has captured the corporation, at least on climate change.
It is up to the board and management to rectify this.
Rick Morton at ‘The Australian’ took up the story here:
This is what the ex-chairman of the ABC has to say about the publicly funded Broadcaster:
“…. had been “captured” by a “small but powerful” group of people when it came to climate change groupthink”
“The ABC is not being frank and open about the way global warming is portrayed on its various platforms, although the sense of imbalance is becoming more overt, I feel.”
In a segment where ABC science editor Robyn Williams and Psychologist cum Climate alarmist Stephan Lewandowsky used analogies likening climate sceptics to recommending paedophilia or drugs or to believing in the earth being flat, the ABC considered it was all fair enough and within their editorial guidlines. WTF!
Robyn Williams is the same science editor who ran an ABC Science Show radio program in August 1975 partly discussing the issues of fossil fuel pollution, industrial pollution causing cooling which could bring on an ice age and the need to replace the rapidly diminishing fossil fuel supplies.
More recently the scaremongerer Robyn Williams told Andrew Bolt that sea levels could rise as much as 100 metres when even the IPCC’s own forecast for the end of this century is 59 centimetres.
Stephan Lewandowsky is the psychologist who praised those who were sceptical of Governments wanting to invade Iraq when he was anti the Iraq invasion. Now he’s pro human caused climate change, he is ‘for’ calling those who disagree whim him ‘climate deniers’. Climate deniers he says in his latests still ‘in press’ publication have cognitive dysfunctions which make it impossible for them to differentiate between conspiracy theories and science evidence. Though Stephan’s own statistical analysisy techniques would leave a first year undergraduate repeating statistics 101. See: Lewandowsky does “science” by taunts and attempted parody instead of answering questions
Thankfully neither of these two or the ABC in particular, has been able to convince the rest of the world of their 100% certainty. Recently we have seen many governments bale out of Kyoto and refuse to consider any binding committments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is only the fools running the EU, Australia and a handful of countries representing a diminishing part of the globe’s industrialisation who have been silly enough to swallow the climate catastrophe madness without proof.
The results in Doha prove that far from being Robinson Crusoes, climate sceptics are in the majority around the world and the ABC is living in an alternative universe.
610
What you all must understand is that there can be no CO2-AGW. Yes, zero, zilch.
This is because the lower atmosphere is a near black body emitter in the main GHG bands and the earth’s surface is near a black body. As any engineer or competent physicist will know, the two radiation fields cancel each other out at radiative equilibrium, so little if any UP CO2 band IR from the surface, no absorption.
The only reason the climate people claim there is CO2-AGW is by using the two-stream approximation which is physically wrong because only net radiative flux can do thermodynamic work. The result of this is they exaggerate IR absorbed [the 23 W/m^2 net IR is mainly water vapour side bands, not in self absorption] by 5.8 times at least, hence the imaginary positive feedback.
They justify this by mistakenly imagining pyrgeometers measure a net energy flow. This is balderdash: they measure temperature. If the other body is the same temperature, there is zero net flux in the direction of that body If the other body is at absolute zero, the temperature signal flux is the level.
Yet a pyrgeometer will measure the temperature field in both cases because the shield stops IR coming the other way – a pyrgeometer reading is always an artefact. They even work differently than claimed with much of the internal heat transfer by convection because the sensor plate can never equilibrate radiatively with a clear sky, because of the atmospheric window.
This has been the worst ever scientific project I have come across with 7 errors in the physics, a desperate story of scientific incompetence dressed up by the modelling as pretend valid. The IPCC claims are entirely baseless and the organisation needs closing down at once to be replaced by a science based body.
21
I would love it if Lewandowsky would accuse me being a denier when there is absolutely nothing to deny!
20
The principal problem with government funded media is the unaccountable super-bureaucrats – in cess pits, the big lumps always float to the top.
These career super-bureaucrats create empires of employees, which they then use to justify their existence and their truly hideous salaries. Most would be unemployable in the private sector, which is why you have to have at least 3-4 super-bureaucrats to do the equivalent job of one individual in the private sector.
Media bureaucracies are magnets for those with left-leaning beliefs, who usually consider they have a moral duty to pass on these beliefs to the rest of the world. Eventually they infest these organisations, paying only lip service to the concept of impartial reporting. When left-leaning parties are in power, these super-bureaucrats normally run amok, promoting every daft trendy whim they possibly can of their political paymasters. The unquestioning blind promotion of global warming/CAGW is a classic instance of this.
One thing is for sure, these super-bureaucrats are prepared to spend as much of your tax dollars as needed to protect their pampered positions and protecting you from learning information which would expose either their incompetence or bias.
Do not ever expect an apology from the ABC or BBC, unless it is about something they have got horrifically wrong and which caused public outrage – the sexual pervesions of long time BBC star Jimmy Saville is one of these rare instances.
530
Well said.
The ABC is the propaganda arm of the Australian Government and is a mirror reflecting all the ingrained prejudices, biases, incompetence, arrogance, personal power agendas and ideological beliefs of the Senior Executive Service bureaucrats that run the Australian Government.
The disconnect between the Senior Executive Service culture and Australian culture is substantial and unresolved.
280
It is easily resolved – by a substantial downsizing of government employment, starting with the top end of the bureaucracy. The collateral benefits are lower taxes to support these leeches.
190
Easy? Here’s a bit of history for you Sean;
09
Parasites with their fangs out – looking for blood.
60
Haven’t noticed any riots in Campbell Newman’s Queensland. Maybe a bit more civilised in Aussie?
80
Sean. That’s where I’d start. I’d ask for the org chart and review and interview all positions. Then I’d flatten it to say 4 levels from the public and remove swathes of middle & senior positions whilst bolstering the front line. I would introduce a new vision, values and culture. One based on this by Jan Carlsson “Moments of Truth”. If you’re not service a customer (substitute Australian citizen/taxpayer) you’d better be serving someone who is. Employments costs need to be rapidly and sizeably reduced.
30
ALPBC
20
In many organisations, there is a balance between achievement and politicking, and so, the workforce consists of Achievers and Politickers.
In the private sector, there has to be achievement (revenue and profits), so there is a need for Achievers, who exist in a balance with the Politickers.
In the public sector, there is no need for achievement (above a very basic level), and so there is no need for Achievers; the whole thing is turned over to Politickers, who create an unholy mess as they strive to outbid one another.
190
The problem with big organisation is that it becomes more difficult to proper evaluate performance of individual performer, the bigger the organisation, the better the environment for people who have skills at navigating big organisations and not for individual best performer. These people can sell themselves good, can lie and cast doubt on others, give the impression they are great thinkers, can talk well, steal ideas and sell as their own, support boss always as long as it suits them, have no scruples and no backbone, no principles, work at improving their image when they work, instead of solving problems or doing the real work.
Who to promote, the silent worker in the corner who does his work and sometimes criticises and is unhappy, or the “clever” eloquent person who agrees and supports?
Therefore not the best for the organisation are being promoted but the more skilful in tricking the system.
The bigger the organisation the easier it is for such to be promoted, and what organisation is so big as the public sector growing and growing?
In private sector the company will no longer perform and either starts losing and ends bankrupt or needs to reorganise itself, so there are more chances to get rid of part of parasites or remove them at least partially from control.
In private sector the parasites thrive and it only goes worst for the good hard working persons between them, the work is so badly organised that it gets wasted. So the good ones tend to leave or get with the time used with the system and find a way to survive. Reorganisation is too seldom.
Only transparency, reorganisation and/or privatisation could help. This is why the parasites are so afraid of transparency and fight it. They use any means and methods to keep their warm place, like any parasite.
60
excellent posts
Rick Bradford and Lars P.
thank you!
10
Hi Guys,
You will find this also expressed very well in the book Snakes in Suits, when Psychopaths go to work
20
Robyn Williams said
So what happens when the expert mouths are wrong? Like Amazongate or GlacierGate? What happens when the consensus of experts admit like in the they were too extreme or plain wrong? Or that consensus admit that they don’t know everything?
It shows that the people making the statements are not using vicious means to protect the fundamental truths of science, or firmly established empirical relationships. They are using such methods to protect their dogmatic beliefs, or to protect their vested interests.
I cannot think of a single instance in history where monopolizing the truth has protected science, or the wider best interpretation of reality. But I can think plenty of instances in history where denial of a voice to dissent, through proclaiming that dissenters are vicious liars, or blind to the truth, has been to suppress the best ideas. In every instance I can think of this has led to quite murderous regimes.
440
So Williams thinks that Lewandowski is some kind of an expert ? I flush that level of expertise at least once per day, sometimes more often.
220
Poor ol’ Maurice. An opinion piece that promotes his ignorance rather than any semblance of scientific balance. Let’s have some proper scepticism rather than the continued blather, bluster and distortion of the usual band of ignoramii.
179
“continued blather, bluster and distortion of the usual band of ignoramii.”
That could describe a number of posters on this blog…
…or is it self description?
290
Heywood,
SillyFilly makes the mistake of assuming that ignoramii is the plural of ignoramus. It is not.
Ignoramus is itself, the first person plural present indicative form of ignorare — to be ignorant of — and is therefore a verb.
The Common English plural form of “ignoramus” is “ignoramuses”, which although lexicographically incorrect, is acceptable under common usage.
Hence my question, directed to SillyFilly, who has a tendency to make an ass of herself or himself by just being too clever.
441
I think filly is too much the ass (not a filly then either) but she should spell ignoramus with another “n” to replace the “m” the then it describes her very well.
200
isn’t it more a play on illuminatii? rather than being concerned about grammar?
023
Well Matt, “illuminatii” is not a word either, except as a theatrical construct. The original word in Latin is Illuminato, meaning somebody having superior knowledge. The plural of “illuminato” is “illuminati” (with one “i” at the end).
And it is important, because if somebody wants to sprinkle Latin words and phrases through their writing to make themselves look superior (which I suspect was SillyFilly’s intent) then they had better be damn sure of their Latin grammar.
Otherwise they just make themselves look totally foolish and pretentious to anybody who has ever had to hack their way through this stuff at school, or at University.
250
So RW, an English translation from the Latin would be “Enlightened”.
40
When has the filly ever demonstrated cleverness?
20
Screaming into the mirror again, filly?
170
Do you have something substantive to impart, or are you merely demonstrating input from an ignoramus?
280
glue factory time !!!
240
Off to the knackery for the STUPID HORSE !!
141
No point, glueless.
70
Leave SillyFilly alone. Obviously it has a brain parasite that is affecting it’s ability to think rationally and communicate effectively.
250
Too many personal attacks.
Personal attacks only show you’ve lost the argument, whatever it was.
Why not leave the personal stuff to the warmists and make your argument one of substance?
In other words, STOP BEING BAITED
140
I agree with Dylan, sillyfilly is trolling for responses.
60
I agree! Although you sound like me. This site could do with more than one.
09
Warmers are currently suffering from “ignominimi”.
The meaning of the term “ignominimi” is a result of two factors related to the Global Warming Scam.
First we have the Warmer Scheme to rule the Earth’s moral structure coming to an ignominious ending.
Then we have all of the AGW – “Hell on Earth by CO2” warmer supporters running around like mini warmer clones.
Hence the new word “ignominimi” .
If it doesn’t make much sense, don’t worry, nothing about Global Warming ever made much sense.
KK 🙂
160
An apt description
30
KK Says…
Try this framework of seven exploitable psychological touch points on the human personality – each one a persistent need.
[1] Need for Purpose. – “Saving the Planet, Ending extreme Poverty, etc”
[2] Meaningfulness derived from and referenced to Purpose. – “These actions (install solar panels, install water saving device, buy a prius, vote socialist/green, praise UN) will save the planet, etc”, and being aligned with purpose will give my life meaning.
[3] Need for a Values System. – Eco-centered ideology re-values everything in accordance with perceived impact on the natural world. Environmentalism as a value system.
[4] Moral system derived from and referenced to the Values System. – Lock up the nature park, don’t disturb anything natural – it’s the right thing to do. Choose nature over humanity, etc…
[5] Need for Belonging. – Belong with the Greens, Socialists, Environmentalists, identify with a specific in-group. Clearly defined markers of belonging through ability to recite common belief (CO2 is Bad, Big Oil is Bad, Nature is Good), clearly defined “Others” who do not belong, who are outsiders, skeptics, conservatives, etc.
[6] Personal Identify derived from and referenced to Belonging. – “I am who I am, by the company that I keep, and through dissociation with those who are marked as outsiders.”
[7] An answer for Mortality. – Probably best exemplified in the movie Avatar, where energy is “just borrowed” and returned at death, and yet memories are preserved in nature… You will find this sort of thinking prevalent about death amongst the dark greens.
From this reading, Environmentalism is simply a substitute religion, in conflict with preceding religions. The list of 7 points above are by no means the exhaustive list of what can be exploited within the human personality, but as a group they define the primary touch points of religion, and are the hooks used to bind belief within a framework of control that transfers power from the mass base of the believing community to the inner circle of elite practitioners of the faith at the top of the power structure.
CAGW is a tenet, along with Ozone Depletion, Acid Rain, DDT, Nuclear Power, etc, that exists within a broader framework of control that binds all these separate beliefs into a structure that supports the control of the many by the few.
People like sillfilly – are amongst the many, who are trapped like flies in a web of control that exploits their needs for Purpose, Meaning, Values, Morals, Belonging, Identity, and an answer for the dilemma of Mortality.
If you can see the broader framework, then “nothing about Global Warming ever made much sense” – can make sense – just not very pleasant sense.
150
Sillyfilly,
In making unsupported comments that blatantly contradict the evidence only saves yourself and fellow believers from having to confront the gaping chasm between reality and the apocalyptic visions that justify policy.
An analogy will show why I hold you in contempt.
Suppose there is a vicious tyrant that is overthrown, but is still revered by many of his former followers. If there is overwhelming evidence against that person do you
1. Stage a show-trail, fabricating the evidence; use opinion of investigators and biased reviews of the evidence instead of the presenting the actual documentary evidence and witness statement; call the accused person all the names under the sun; give them a defense lawyer who is paid to misrepresent them; grant no ability to cross-examine the evidence and make sure the judges decide the rules of evidence to suit the guilty conclusion.
2. Gather the best evidence; grant them the best defense lawyers to challenge the evidence; use the best trial system possible and have judges that ensure objectivity and follow the best procedures are followed.
If the first was followed, you would turn the accused into a martyr. But the second method would require the actual evidence to be there and to withstand a cursory cross-examination. It would also require that the accusers have higher standards than the accused. I have found in climatology that no strong evidence exists, and the so-called scientists have very low standards. Their claims to be experts are contradicted by flawed science and a complete inability to assess evidence. You show yourself to be a true supporter by failing to assess the evidence presented above.
290
Haven’t seen you falsify the science at any point, so what “science” am I contradicting?
144
You simply don’t understand the point made by those demanding a basis for falsification do you.
If a field of intellectual activity can soak up any contrary evidence it can’t be falsified so it isn’t science, it’s religion.
No-one will ever be able to falsify the modelling on which all catastrophism is based, because the catastrophists will simply claim longer timelines or introduce new variables to “refine the models”, and just keep on believing. One day the world must conform to the models, the IPCC wills it so. The untestable hypothesis-unfalsifiable- that’s religion.
But in the real world, where all catastrophism depends on the claim that it is hotter than ever before and worse than we thought, the total demolition of the hockey stick by numerous worldwide peer reviewed studies demonstrates how science is done. A hypothesis is put forward, it is tested, it either succeeds or fails and a new hypothesis may arise. That’s science.
You can ignore the science if you don’t like it, but then you aren’t supporting science, you are pushing your religion.
290
Hi Gnome
Good points but I think you are being way too generous to refer to call Climate Thingamijigs as
“Models”.
They are actually “Simulations” because they have no tied input and output data.
Reason is all of the other factors are assumed to be neutral, but as we know their signals are larger , much larger than the CO2 signal being studied.
KK 🙂
70
Gnome – well said.
The falsification criteria emanates from the philosopher Karl Popper. He noticed that was easy to find instances that supported (verified) a theory. Any sloppy theory could be adapted after the event to explain any anomalies. What shows a good theory is to have instances were it can be falsified. The best theories are those that despite being highly vulnerable to being falsified, repeated attempts to falsify them fail.
Popper also recognized that theories can be enormously complex. It is therefore useless to try falsify the theories after the event. Instead, Popper said scientists should make novel predictions about future states that can only be explained by the theory.
For instance Climate models attempted to forecast temperature rises in 1990, based on different levels of Greenhouse gas (mostly CO2) increases. CO2 levels have increased at a faster rate than the most alarmist models, but temperature increase is below that of the lowest GHG projection. The catastrophist theory has failed. Other predictions – like my children never seeing snow here in England or never-ending drought in Australia, or the Arctic being ice free in Summer 2012, or hurricanes getting more extreme – have all failed, along with others.
40
So what would falsify the “science”.
Give us some falsification criteria.
Unfortunately to the true believer, it doesn’t matter what evidence is presented to you, you just close your eyes, block your ears and scream la la la la la la.
How can anyone falsify your science when;
Hot = Climate Change
Cold = Climate Change
Wet = Climate Change
Dry = Climate Change
More storms = Climate Change
Less storms = Climate Change
More Sea Ice = Climate Change
Less Sea Ice = Climate Change
etc etc etc.
There has already been 16 years with no statistically significant warming but skyrocketing atmospheric CO2. Exactly how many years of no warming before you consider the theory wrong?
380
1. Somewhere in the dim distant past (i.e. the last 10 days) we have seen on this site the comparison of the 1990 IPCC models with reality. This comparison did not look very favourable for those models. Actual temperatures, measured by whatever means you choose have been lower than the lowest forecast of the modellers. You would have to be very uncharitable to say that evidence does not falsify the models.
2. Now we also have the leaking of AR5 wherein the IPCC concedes that factors other than CO2 are playing a greater role in Earth’s climate than the demon gas. Again, you would have to be quite strongly biased to not concede that the evidence supports that conclusion.
230
Latest & Greatest IPCC Climate Models Still Unable To Simulate Major Components Of Earth’s Climate……
http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-models/
Global Warming Science vs. Computer Model Speculation…..
http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/08/global-warming-science-vs-computer-model-speculation-just-ask-the-experts/
No abuse hides the fact: warmist models cannot even predict our past…..
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_abuse_hides_the_fact_the_warmist_models_cannot_even_predict_our_past/
61
Corals are stronger than the warmists’ credibility….
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/corals_are_stronger_than_the_warmists_credibility/
It’s only “CLIMATE CHANGE” when it’s hot………………………
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/its_only_climate_when_its_hot/
81
SillFilly says …
Could you please specify the falsification criteria in terms of the specific, measurable, quantified events that if they were to occur would “falsify the science”.
Please note – this is about refutation, not proving, or explaining the hypothesis.
Once you have provided the criteria – we can have a discussion like two adults.
160
If you’re going to troll filly be witty or informative; that is a junk statement; for a rebuttal of AGW science see Jo’s post.
For an additional analysis of some of these papers see:
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/has-man-made-global-warming-been.html
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/has-global-warming-been-disproved-part-2.html“>here
These papers establish major defects in AGW theory but the arrogance of people like Williams means they are not discussed.
70
Hi twit … still trying to ‘pwn’ this site ?
00
“STUPID HORSE”,
Some more REAL SCIENCE for you !
Astrophysicist: Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Myth……
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/04/astrophysicist-anthropogenic-global.html
NOAA 2012 report finds sea levels rising at less than half the rate claimed by the IPCC ……
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/noaa-2012-report-finds-sea-levels.html
20
People, Mrs Filly (or equivalent) comes here saying black is white to make you angry. Nothing anyone says will make the slightest difference — except if you get mad, Filly and co get happy. His/her/their point is not about science or evidence, and never has been.
On every page here there is a link (right column – top) to The Evidence. Filly denies 28 million radiosondes, 3000 ocean-buoys, 30 years of satellite data, etc etc.
Mrs Filly gives us an excellent opportunity to let silent readers get their questions answered. Thanks to commenters who reply to Filly et al with calm factual rebuttals.
Trolls help us (Thanks Filly) when we use their comments to entertain and inform. Trolls win when the thread gets diverted to discussions of moderation/admin/and “other stuff”.
From now on — assume that they will keep saying black is white, up is down, and day is night. Just point that out.
310
This Internet Bridge Troll video is quite entertaining, and this post here on disruption techniques is good to be aware of.
10
Someone who has an opinion differing from yours is NOT trolling. This is a weasel word I’ve come to expect from warmists.
17
Hi Dylan,
The distinction is between (1) those who hold a different opinion and are willing to back it up with reasoned argument based on empirical evidence, and (2) those who simply hold a different opinion.
In the instance of this blog posting, sillyfilly is behaving in the second mode, and is therefore trolling.
100
And they might help a few people learn a little about Latin grammar 🙂
Sorry – couldn’t resist.
70
Hard to resist, RW. Just as it is hard for me not to be pedantic about the use of the English language. I have list of about 100 misused words commonly seen on blogs and in the MSM, even by some who have PhD after their name.
Latin is far, far away from my comfort zone, but I did find that it was useful on one occasion when I put my limited knowledge of the language to use in calming four very cross Doberman Pinschers that were leaping up the 10-foot high chain link fence in their endeavours to get out and maim or dismember those of us who stood outside.
One can readily imagine the slavering foam-flecked, bared teeth of enraged dogs, and also imagine my surprise when I said quietly, “Pax, canus.” and they immediately transformed into tail-wagging obsequious, whining puss’s!
I would say that finding Latin-speaking dogs in Fiji would be rather rare, and to find them better at it than some of the commenters here, quite amazing.
Mods, if the idiotic nag can get away with the nonsense it has, I hope that I can get away with this – it is the Festive Season, after all!
50
re:
Filly denies 28 million radiosondes, 3000 ocean-buoys, 30 years of satellite data, etc etc.
Sorry, dear Jo that is entirely incorrect. I dispute the immature and irrelevant use of the data. For example Carter, Monckton, Lindzen (recently at least), Cox, and the rest of the Heartland/Galileo camaraderie.
Argo has been used even when the early data was found to contain errors. 30 years of satellite data clearly shows a non-natural long term warming trend. Carter tried to use data derivatives to make his false claims about ENSO being responsible for all warming, but which actually provided proof that ENSO contributed nothing to the long-term trend. Now he running around like Nils-Axel Mörner with his head cut off claiming sea levels aren’t rising. Lindzen et al tried to estimate global temperatures by using tropical data, statistical fallacy at least. Monckton predictions have proved emphatically false as did those of John McLean. And spare me any more links to absurdity like that from Miskolczi. Yet, you rely on these and more to make your supposed arguments.
Proper sceptics have a right and a function to bring you to account for your trivial and puerile scientific arguments. If that’s trolling then so be it!
137
Wow, that changes my mind.
All the listed sceptical scientists are wrong because Sillyfilly says so.
Even though no evidence of why they are wrong is forthcoming, I am convinced.
Black is now white and up is down. Sillyfilly says so, so it must be true.
Also of interest is the fact that she/he/it accuses Jo of “trivial and puerile scientific arguments”, yet in all the posts on this thread, has not made any scientific arguments at all. Just a few ad homs and a poor attempt at latin.
200
Hi sillyfilly,
Would you like to provide the specific refutations that support your points.
Please – lets be specific.
90
Sillier and sillier
30
This reply, in a very rare instance for this troll (quite possibly trolls), is illuminating in that it is suggestive of astroturfing, a deliberate attempt to obfuscate with access to ‘resources’. I would not be at all surprised if he/she/they have a day job in the pay of Big Green.
60
Either a payed job or a deep religious conviction.
Climate change has been recognised as religion since 2009:
http://www.dailytech.com/Global+Warming+Afforded+Same+Legal+Status+as+Religion+in+UK/article16721.htm
it gives the bigots the feeling they are “superior” their motives are “clean” they fight for a “good cause”.
This is why the disconnect to reality, to science as we understand it. They want to control information, control science, control our resources for their higher good.
Only when the data is adjusted and approved by their high priests is it valid, the rest is not science.So science has a different meaning to them as many other word like denial, transparency, data…
The sea level rise is such a typical case, where you see adjustement over adjustment appearing to add to it.
2011 when the cumulated sea level rise was to be under 3 mm/year the UC added an 0.3 mm/year GIA adjustment to the whole period to raise it back at 3.2 mm/year
Now it is again down towards the 3.0 mm/year (incuding the adjustments) and this is logical as the real rise is not there:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/12/noaa-2012-report-finds-sea-levels.html
See here again 0.9 mm/year GIA adjustment and still only 1.2 mm/year sea level rise?
It is clear why Nils-Axel Mörner was so angry when they started to adjust the satellite data, not to show the real measurement, but the measurement adjusted to some tide-gauges of their choice, but this does not trouble bigots like above example.
Even so it was not enough to raise alarm, this is why it was again adjusted.
Even if the seas would in reality retreat they will still post an increase with their adjustments. Possibly next year the UC will change the 0.3 GIA adjustment to a new value lets say 0.5, lets see what the models will say by then 🙂
10
What you will find is that neither warmist climate scientist’s nor CAGW skeptical climate scientist’s specific temperature predictions are very accurate. I’m inclined also to take the prediction that the next global temperature movement will be downward with a grain of salt.
The reality should be obvious. The science is in the process of being understood and only a dill or Greenie cum religious fanatic would take seriously the claim that global temperatures will increase by up to 6C this century.
If the very best climate scientists were being honest they would have to say we don’t know enough about the complexities of Earth’s climate system to know what quantitative effect rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations will have on global temperature.
Had the alarmist scientists been able to get anywhere near their predictions about temperature increases they may have been taken more seriously by many of us who happen to live in the laboratory called climate.
Maurice Newman on that issue is an agnostic:
“In a speech to senior ABC staff on 10 March 2010 he said climate change was an example of “group-think”.
According to an ABC PM account of the speech: “Contrary views had not been tolerated, and those who expressed them had been labelled and mocked. Mr Newman has doubts about climate change himself and says he’s waiting for proof either way.” Interviewed by Brendan Trembath he said: “But climate change is at the moment an emotional issue but it really is the fundamental issue about the need to bring voices that have authority and are relevant to the particular issue to the attention of our audiences so that they themselves can make decisions. So that we are seen to trust and respect them sufficiently that they can make up their own minds about the various points of view that are being expressed through the medium of the ABC.”[7]
In answer to the question of whether he was a climate change denier he replied: “I am an agnostic and I have always been an agnostic and I will remain an agnostic until I’ve found compelling evidence on one side or the other that will move me. I think that what seems fairly clear to me is that the climate science is still being developed. There are a lot question marks about some of the fundamental data which has been used to build models that requires caution.”[8]”
wiki
20
Writing as a professional scientist, one who actually uses the scientific method in daily work, may I point out that the basic hypothesis, that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 content will result in an increase in atmospheric mean temperature by 2-6 Kelvin, has been falsified by observation and measurement.
Now, what point are you now attempting make?
80
Hi sillyfilly,
And what was specifically wrong with what Maurice Newman said, or are you willing to just post unsubstantial blah, blah, blah noises.
140
Poor old Silly, she has trolled for eons over at Andrew Bolt’s without success, so now it’s time to chance her hoof here.
One problem, Silly, you were known as a complete scientific illiterate before, and surprise, nothing has changed.
Please, stick to parroting Labor treatises and try to get the spelling right.
70
Gosford deserves better.
10
And here’s my letter to The Australian in response, almost certain not to get published, because they’re on your side:
“Maurice Newman (‘ABC clique in control of climate’, 18/12), falls prey to the fallacy of the middle by assuming that simply because a contrary position regarding climate science exists in any form, it warrants equal consideration by the ABC or any other media.
“His assertion that ‘[g]lobal warming is today more about politics than it is about science’ is only true in the political realm. There is a minor scientific controversy about the extent of AGW, which the ABC accurately reports. Also duly noted by the ABC is the attendant political controversy, a nonsensical sideshow which is inimical to science, fomented largely through astroturfing by non-scientific groups. Conservatives like Newman mistakenly perceive AGW as a left-wing phenomenon, the idea of which ipso facto must be opposed, and duly join the meaningless fray. Some on the Left make the converse error, with equal irrelevancy to AGW and how it should be reported.
“Newman undermines his own argument by quoting the requirements of the ABC’s editorial policies that ‘no significant strand or belief is … disproportionately represented’ and for ‘a balance that follows the weight of evidence’. Neither the ABC nor any other responsible media is obliged to grant the anti-AGW publicity machine the exposure it demands, rather than that which it deserves. “
556
That being your opinion, I really hope Jo does the RIGHT THING and bans you from this site. !
YOU DO NOT DESERVE TO BE HEARD HERE.
[People get banned for continually disregarding the rules of this site. Having a strong contrary opinion is not against the rules, as long as the debate is polite and avoids ad hom attacks] Fly
140
re:
Ho hum! Typical panic stricken comment by an archetypal ignoramus stupendus who personifies the Newman “balance” syndrome:
I have no idea why, but all the science is wrong!
046
not panic.. DISGUST !!
And I am quite aware that YOU have no idea why, about ANYTHING !!
It is patently obvious every time you post.
180
And YEs, the majority of CAGW science has been shown to be WRONG !!
160
I see. Ignoramus is the word du jour. How tedious.
140
STUPID HORSE,
Go and whinny & neigh with your other communist traitor friends at the abc (Australian BULLSHIT Commission).
You are wasting your time here as nobody is listening to your LIES.
102
Show me the “lies” and I will accede to you request!
028
Read these “STUPID HORSE !!
AL GORE’s 35 INCONVENIENT TRUTHS…………
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
Video analysis and scene replication suggests that Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project fabricated their Climate 101 video “Simple Experiment”………
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/28/video-analysis-and-scene-replication-suggests-that-al-gores-climate-reality-project-fabricated-their-climate-101-video-simple-experiment/
Australian TV Exposes ‘Stranded Polar Bear’ Global Warming Hoax…..
http://newsbusters.org/node/11879
90
Sillyfilly says…
[1] Hiding the real results in the unpublished SI… Ammann and Wahl
[2] again… Ammann and Wahl additional explanation of the shenanigans
[3] Reversing the science in the official summary… Trenberth and Landsea
[4] General issues… Shrinking Integrity in Science
and
[5] Climategate, so many fudges – then call it robust… climategate emails
Oh btw – your welcome to this information… none of it is hidden away by FOI…
120
There’s one for starters.
160
It’s the hockey stick SF- proven wrong, yet some warmists persist with it, so it has become a lie.
Without it there is no basis for alarmism, so all alarmism is a lie.
Now go away, or contribute something with worthwhile content.
120
Why is it that the AGW bletheren are constantly trying to suppress the truth, or even any discussion.
They KNOW that they cannot argue against reality, so must do everything they can to suppress such discussion.
And ANYONE who openly advocates suppression of discussion should be given a swift kick out the door !!!
140
If they don’t agree with you then they should not be heard, I presume? But then you offer NOTHING that constitutes truth in science!
033
Who are you to decide what “constitutes truth in science”? Why don’t you start by defining what you mean by “truth in science” in conceptual terms? When does “science” become “true”?
250
“When does “science” become “true”?”
Well to Sillyfilly et al, it is only true when it conforms to their ideology.
230
Sorry AndyG55,
I must disagree, it is far better to have John O’Hagans views out there where they can be seen, then to have them silenced.
Particularly given the need for the defense of freedom of speech that CAGW skeptics require to defend our own position.
We need “freedom of speech” in full, if we are to ultimately defeat the superstition & dogma of CAGW – note that the chief opponents of “our” speech, would be happy to get your assistance to shut free speech down.
Besides which, a society with the courage and wisdom to live with full freedom of speech would be far more interesting to live in then one in which anyone was being silenced by a anointed few.
Please don’t play into their hands.
80
I couldn’t agree more Ex.
John O’Hagan’s post was full of-
a) half baked assertions -eg. existence/extent/importance of scientific consensus on CAGW, presence of a conservative “publicity machine” against CAGW, impartiality and accuracy of the ABC or media in general (!), science not being politicised outside political forum (!!!), level of controversy about CAGW being minor,astroturfing by “non-scientific groups” being a right wing phenomenon (Get Up, anyone?), conservatives opposing on a purely ideological basis, etc
b) wilful omissions – Williams’ disgraceful paedophilia,drug and asbestos comment to “smear by association” of skeptics is somehow acceptable and not inimical to science, impartiality, the ABC’s charter or human decency?
c) a truck load of fallacies -what is and isn’t inimical to science, science reliance on consensus versus rigourous and open debate to defend a theory and its validity, the acceptability of shutting off any opposing debate through smear, ad hom attacks, debasing, dehumanising and ridiculing, etc.
BUT it was polite and he is entirely entitled to his opinion and to express it with vigour.
Nobody should be silenced ever from expressing their opinion, period. By all means address his argument, but don’t be drawn into tit for tat closing down of the debate, no matter how annoying, or how much beating your head against a brick wall that might entail when dealing with the alarmist brethren.
I’m sure John won’t acknowledge my defense of him or his right to hold an alternate opinion, but so be it. No doubt my own skeptical opinion means little to him, and given the opportunity to shut me (and others like me) out of the debate (principally by declaring that the debate is over and his side won, so there!), IMHO he would likely apply a totally different set of principals to my freedom of speech, justified by the “urgency” or the “nobility” or the “authority” of his belief system.
And when John’s belief is shown to be incorrect, and the CO2 lynch mob have skulked off into their corner again, I won’t hold my breath for an apology or a mea culpa.
80
ExWarmist — Absolutely. John Hagen is in a very different category. He used his name (his letter was published in the Australian BTW) and as far as I can tell, gave us his genuine opinion. Good on him.
I wish there were more commenters like that on my site. Hagen, if you are reading… you are most welcome to post here, and even ask us questions about the workings of the anti-agw “machine” — you might be surprised.
Like you we want to defeat the dogma and suspicion of climate science. Give us your best evidence… please.
60
Thanks.
Cheers ExWarmist
10
“Conservatives like Newman mistakenly perceive AGW as a left-wing phenomenon, the idea of which ipso facto must be opposed, and duly join the meaningless fray. Some on the Left make the converse error, with equal irrelevancy to AGW and how it should be reported.”
I’m not sure how mistaken this view is. It certainly seems to me that left wingers are more likely than right wingers to accept the AGW story, and right wingers are more likely to reject it. I don’t know why this is.
But I do find it depressing that so many commenters on sceptical sites combine valid criticisms of AGW with insane rants about Marxist plots to control the world, and so many commenters on AGW sites fail to see that the Big Money boys who brought us the GFC are supporters of AGW.
“There is a minor scientific controversy about the extent of AGW, which the ABC accurately reports.”
I can’t say I have seen any sign of that. All the science reporting I have seen unquestioningly toes the AGW party line.
181
RoHa
I agree with most of what you’ve said and there are some
“insane rants about Marxist plots to control the world ” but equally there is some validity to the point that there many powerful people using the issue gain some “global” control as evidenced the comment of Christiana Figueres ( UN Climate Chief ) prior to Doha
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/un_climate_chief_christiana_figueres_talks_making_progress_on_eve_of_doha/2593/#.UK05kQ6CU1g.twitter
30
Hi Guys,
We need a clearer definition of conspiracy and a distinction between conspiracy and agenda.
I would contend that by definition, a conspiracy is secret, therefore, we can only know about conspiracies once their operational secrecy is broken. The breakdown of operational secrecy occurs,
[1] Before the conspiracy completes – typically the conspiracy fails at this point.
[2] As the conspiracy completes – where the conspiracy has a widely visible outcome, 9/11 for example.
[3] OR – is never broken, even after completion, or abandonment. The conspiracy completes, the goal is attained and no one outside the conspiracy is ever the wiser.
Distinction with Agendas.
Agendas are typically public, or at least clearly implied by public actions, statements or can be derived from operational business models. For example, the movement to create a global governance framework centered on the UN is clearly an Agenda, and not a conspiracy, it’s not secret, it’s defined within the policies, statements and documentation of the UN for all to see.
The only people who can truly claim that there is an active conspiracy on some topic – are the conspirators. Anyone else is simply speculating.
Where as agendas are many, and can be discussed based on publically available first hand documentation.
50
Okay, so…
Rants about a Marxist plot to control the world ==> insane.
Rants about a banking plot to control the world ==> sane.
You wouldn’t happen to define “insane” as “anything I don’t agree with” would you?
Though I happen to agree you are on the right track with the banks.
Now if the banks were using the Marxists in a manner that even Lenin would have recognised as “useful idiots”, well it wouldn’t seem too insane now would it…?
00
“You wouldn’t happen to define “insane” as “anything I don’t agree with” would you?”
Of course I do.
But there is a difference between the banks and the Marxists. I see very few Marxists in positions of power. (Actually, i see very few Marxists anywhere.) But I see plenty of powerful banks. And they don’t have to plot.
00
Liborgate is an excellent example of collusion by banks to rig interest rates in their favour, and at the expense of everyone else.
It has now “come out” and prosecutions are being line up.
00
A MINOR SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY?
“There is a minor scientific controversy about the extent of AGW, which the ABC accurately reports.”
Can’t wait for the ABC, RW, The Conversation, etc, to report accurately on this 29 November 2012 paper – “The mystery of recent stratospheric temperature trends” – and the big questions it raises about climate attribution.
Authors stress: “although less widely discussed in either scientific or policy circles, stratospheric cooling is as fundamental as surface warming as evidence of the influence of anthropogenic emissions on the climate system”, but they now have no confidence in the data sets , etc. Extracts below.
Nature 491, 692–697 (29 November 2012) doi:10.1038/nature11579.
“Continuous time series of temperatures in the middle and upper stratosphere back to 1979 are based exclusively on SSU data (the AMSUdata also sample the middle and upper stratosphere but are available only since 1998). The SSU data require correction for several unique issues before they can be used for climate studies.”
“But the new data raise more questions than they answer, because they provide a strikingly different view of recent stratospheric temperature trends.”
“The differences between the NOAA and Met Office global-mean time series are so large they call into question our fundamental understanding of observed temperature trends in the middle and upper stratosphere.”
“The story is further muddled when the observations are compared with attempts to simulate the past few decades of stratospheric climate change using climate models.”
“Are the models missing a key aspect of stratospheric climate change? Or is there an error in the newly processed NOAA data? Which SSU data set is correct? Or are both in error? If the NOAA SSU data are correct, then both the CCMVal2 and CMIP5 models are presumably missing key changes in stratospheric composition.”
170
John,
In terms of who accepts which results and outcomes, you have to distinguish betwen the correct groups.
Those who are named skeptics by those mocking them often have a large amount of overlap of similar thought with the establishment view, as captured by the IPCC structure. It’s not so visible because we tend to discuss differences more than similarities.
The typical skeptic view is not an extremist view in the sense that it is often no more than a different way to interpret similar sets of data.
It you wanted to do a savage slap down of skeptical comments on sites like this, you would need to select actual examples where scientific results are contested and show why one is more likely to be correct than another. The classic, but trivial, example is the IPCC stating that Himalayan glaciers will be mostly melted ny year 2035, which started like as a misprint from some minor grey literature. One all parties agree that this was a misprint and that it should not have been accepted for inclusion, the matter can be forgotten and the skepticism gap closed a little.
The point is that there are very many scientists in the skeptic category who are quite good at their specialty and well able to make real contributions to progress. Just about every day I see another example whee the skeptic reasoning on a small point is more credible than the alternative. This, however, should increase your respect of skepticism as a valid method. Instead, you seem to tag skeptics as a group with undesirable properties and slag them. Your mistake is that the devil is often in the the detail. Many skeptical comments concern the detail. You cannot make a generalisation about intellect or intent until you realise that you need to examine each small increment that sums to the totality of skepticism.
At all times, keep in mind that most skeptics are ordinary people, some quite gifted, with the usual hopes and ambitions for the progress of the world and the enduring betterment of life for descendents and friends. Skeptics seek to achieve that better world, not through acts of the Devil, but through acts of corection of scientific error and interpretation.
I think that Maurice Newman knows this. So should you.
160
Geoff,
Having only undergraduate scientific training, while I’m well aware that true scepticism is the only way to do science, I’m not equipped to interpret complex climatological data. Nor are Lubos Motl, Jo Nova, or most of the posters on this blog as far as they have revealed. I am confident to leave the ongoing discussion of fine details of data interpretation to real climatologists elsewhere, just as I rightly keep my nose out of theoretical physicists’ debates over string theory, which is also not without its major disagreements. That is what I meant by the “minor scientific controversy”.
But that doesn’t mean I can’t look at the big picture logically, particularly the political sideshow. Unlike AGW, string theory doesn’t attract “skeptics” because it doesn’t threaten a group of very lucrative, powerful global industries which have a history of flexing political muscle and engaging in spin to conceal the harmful effects of their activities.
As a comparison, we have already seen the way the tobacco industry has tried to cast public doubt on the connection between lung cancer and smoking. One of the organisations they have hired to do this is the Heartland Institute, which as chance would have it has also engaged in AGW denial and astroturfing using oil money, and has supported Jo Nova, whose background seems to be more in publicity than science. All that makes it highly probable that this blog is just more astroturf.
On the even bigger picture, there are two competing meta-hypotheses as to why the vast bulk of the world’s climatologists in every country agree on AGW. One says that they are all willing to sell out their principles for the government funding they will get if their research supports AGW; and that all the world’s governments are doing this, and making the resulting unpopular economic changes etc, because…well, here it gets a little hazy, but it usually involves something to do with the UN, who already control all governments and want to control all life through carbon, because life is made of carbon, mainly.
Maybe that’s a slightly unfair parody, but I have yet to hear a coherent explanation of why everyone all over the world would lie and make politically unpopular changes, when there would be more cash in just continuing to dig stuff up and burn it until the atmosphere returned to the composition it had before plants evolved.
The other hypothesis is much simpler – the climatologists are right. For me, Occam’s Razor wins every time.
I know that people generally feel that they are trying to make the world better. I’m sure Creationists feel the same way; but that doesn’t mean I should accept antiscience because of good intentions. Also, some people – not all – will lie for money.
115
John O’Hagan says…
[1] You are arguing from authority, which is a logical fallacy. My arguments are mostly based around issues of methodology, precisely because that is part of my core knowledge. The problem that I have is that climate science proceeds on the basis of a flawed version of the scientific method, and some of the practices are tantamount to fraud. You don’t have to be a climatologist to work it out – just honest and hard working.
[2] You might as well as said that “Deniars are funded by Big Oil”… which is a tired ad-hominen attack which simply leaves you free to not engage with any portion of the substantial CAGW Skeptic argument.
[3.a] Now you roll out “Big Tobacco”, is there any part of the warmist playbook to which you do not subscribe – Professor Lewandowsky would be proud. Do you know that the annual budget of the Heartland Institute is approximately 20 million dollars – would you like to compare that budget with Greenpeace, WWF, EDF, etc – you might be surprised.
[3.b] You have evidence that Jo Nova is (a) on the Heartland payroll, and (2) that Heartland shapes the content of this blog?
[4] You left out the 2nd “competing meta-hypotheses” in your above strawman definition. However, you may benefit from considering the impacts of (a) Monopsony funding for the CAGW hypothesis, (2) the operation of institutional groupthink, and (3) the institutionalized debasement of the scientific method and the impact of that debasement on what is accepted as “normal” scientific practices within climate science as a discipline, (4) the impact of unfettered confirmation bias, (5) unfettered conflict of interests and (6) the impact of noble cause corruption.
[5] Who says that they are all lying, I would say that some are lying, but many climate scientists believe both in their methods and their results. But belief is not an argument as to what is factual – is it, and if the methods are problematic, then so will be the results.
[6] I too am a fan of Occams razor (aka the principle of parsimony), however – are you sure that you have identified what the simplest explanation is? (a) That humans are in control of the weather, or that the science has been politicized and debased. (b) That the Climate system is inherently fragile and governed by net positive feedbacks to a trace gas that is at the foundation of life, or that the Climate system is inherently robust and governed by a series of net negative feedbacks that maintain a dynamic homeostasis that has supported large complex life for the last 600 million years in the face of massive external perturbations such as meteor strikes and super-volcanoes.
[7] This is a back-handed ad-hominen attack where you compare CAGW skeptics with Creationists. As an athiest who has spent sometime arguing the case for Evolution against Creationists – I can tell you from first hand experience that the superstitious CAGW dogma has far more in common with creationism than it does with science.
251
Sorry John, but I think that are way off-line with your rant … it reads like a paraphrased warmista template. Who exactly are these “climatologists” that you defer to ? I think that you’ll find them ‘underwhelmingly’ knowledgeable in the big picture of climate physics, and right there at the top of the list you’ll find the likes of Michael Mann … Lewandowski and the trumped up apologists for CAGW here in Australia are not credible by any stretch of the imagination. You need to take the time to read what the true skeptical scientists have to say on these matters … maybe you will see the light.
90
Occams Razor; try MEP John, which knocks the stuffing out of AGW; with your undergraduate training and capacity for condescending snark it should be a doddle for you.
60
This a very clear example of projection. O’Hagan is attributing motives, tactics and modus operandi characteristic of alarmists to sceptics, with a very marked degree of intellectual dishonesty imho. One thing for certain is that Lubos Motl, with his PhD in physics, is a lot smarter than O’Hagan and the alarmist ‘climatologists’ he worships.
60
A prediction then…
2017-NOV-28 9:00am– A Physicist in CERN says : “Hey I’ve just thought of the world’s first practical application of String Theory!”2017-NOV-28 9:05am– Warmists around the world say : “Climate Deniers are funded by Big String!”30
John,
Not much can be added to ExWarmist’s careful dissection, but there’s more traps in invoking William of Ockham.
Two parallel mistakes here.
Firstly you misrepresent Occam’s Razor, which first requires that the competing hypotheses be equal in all other factors besides simplicity. If either side of this debate is saying the evidence is on their side and it disproves the other side, Occam’s Razor is instantly disqualified.
Secondly, you should be careful you have not accepted a dumbed down simplistic argument as one of the hypotheses, because then it would be no surprise it turns out (in your words) that “the other hypothesis is much simpler”.
“We emit CO2 and CO2 causes warming” is a simplistic explanation and “We did it!” is even simpler.
In that case the simpletons win every time courtesy of Occam’s Half-Scissors.
All your issues with global warming have all poured out in higgledy-piggledy order in your comment and this is a sign you have a lot of pent-up issues about it that have not been rationally analysed and debugged in your prior dealings. (It would be interesting to know where you get information about global warming.)
Welcome to our Warmist Rehab Clinic, we can help you.
50
John O. says:
John, hot debates over string theory are only coffee table fare because the perpetrators aren’t busy trying to shut down economies world wide. You’d do well mustering all the undergrad smarts you possess and recognize what is really going on with AGW propaganda. You are nothing better than a fool if you don’t.
Your comment about string theory is appealing to the class most willing to accept authority based argument. Here not so much.
20
This is where the rubber hits the road. I’m sure most of us here wouldn’t care less about the idea of CAGW if it’s UN inspired solution was not to harm or hobble the industries that provide the tremendous lifestyle we who live in modern industrialised societies enjoy.
30
Hi John,
Do you have a reference to a published scientific paper that provides a measured, empirically based demonstration, that the climate system is governed by net positive feedback to increasing concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere?
100
John O’Hagen says…
Are you aware of the more than 1100 peer reviewed scientific papers at this site supporting skeptic arguments against AGW alarm.
Hardly a “minor scientific controversy about the extent of AGW”.
130
Check the link under Resources.
40
only the Australian reporting so far. nothing on ABC website. highly disputable excerpt from Rick Morton’s article, tho it would have been better if the spokeswoman was not anonymous:
The ABC spokeswoman said the network did broadcast and publish views from dissenting scientists.
“Unlike the BBC, the ABC acknowledges there are climate scientists who question the core thinking about climate science,” she said.
“The ABC gives them and their views air time.”…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/broadcast/its-ok-to-link-climate-denial-to-pedophilia-abc-tells-ex-chairman-maurice-newman/story-fna045gd-1226538690358
btw there’s a backlash coming on solar, even in California, where they’re only paying the same price they are charging non-solar customers. once the non-solar australian public realise what it’s costing them (should the MSM ever properly inform them), we will see a backlash here:
18 Dec: Bloomberg: California Utilities Say Solar Raises Costs for Non-Users
Booming rooftop solar installations in California are bringing an unwelcome surprise to the homes and businesses that don’t have the devices: an extra $1.3 billion added to their annual bills.
Power companies in the biggest U.S. solar state are required to buy electricity from home solar generators ***at the same price*** they resell it to other customers, meaning utilities earn nothing to cover their fixed costs. The rules are short- sighted because eventually rates must be raised to make up the difference, according to Southern California Edison, which has joined with competitors to estimate potential losses.
As more homes and warehouses get covered in solar panels, higher rates imposed on traditional consumers risk a growing conflict between renewable-energy advocates and power companies that foresee a backlash in California and 42 other states with similar policies. The tension has also emerged in countries including Spain and Germany, where solar investments are curbing investment in the power grid…
In Germany, the world’s largest market, Chancellor Angela Merkel is facing a backlash against higher power bills related to renewable energy. Grid fees will boost household bills an average of 10 percent next year, according to industry analyst Verivox…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-17/california-utilities-say-solar-raises-costs-for-non-users.html
110
Robyn “100 metres” Williams…………
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/robyn_100_metres_williams_demands_more_truth/
101
You could access the original interview with John Overpeck rather than relying on the distortions of Andrew Bolt.
“How are ancient sea levels determined? It’s with corals. They act as bathtub rings. Ancient reefs now exposed can be dated and placed in time. Sea level has been 100m higher than present, when there were no ice sheets, and about 120m lower than present during glacial periods.”
But keep up the distortion!
136
Distortions of Andrew Bolt?
I’ll skip Bolt, and go straight to the source http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/reporting-co2/3396878#transcript
Just in case you missed it.
Andrew Bolt: I ask you, Robyn, 100 metres in the next century…do you really think that?
Robyn Williams: It is possible, yes.
I’m glad you agree that there is distortion of the truth from Robyn Williams of the ABC.
391
Hi sillyfilly,
Do you have an answer for Heywood.
Where does the distortion lie – please be specific?
100
These FRAUDSTERS have been at it for some time.
Look at what they were telling US president nixon !!
Nixon was told: sea level would rise by 10 feet in 31 years….
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/07/nixon-was-told-sea-level-would-rise-by.html?
111
sillyfilly is a child pretending to be all grownup — she doesn’t even know her ‘Petrarchs’ from her ‘Plutarchs’.
silly filly:
A dance done by stupid girls which involves one finger poking the left side of face and another finger poking right side of face while simultaneously screaming “Silly! Filly!” in a high-pitched shrill voice. Usually done by people with the need to advertise their stupidity.
61
Whoa!! Easy on there. Sillifilli is correct.
This is Adjunct Professor Robyn Williams AM BSc (Hons) Hon. DSc (Deakin) Hon. DSc (Sydney) Hon. DSc (Macquarie) Hon. LLD (ANU) FAAS we’re referring to here and he is an academic not to be trifled with.
Exceptionally impressive Climate Science qualifications of course, but I’ve often wondered what level his honours degree was. Can’t find anything on it. Jo Nova’s Wiki cites a 1st class honours BSc, Robyn’s just an (hons). I realise he is a very modest man but I think we should be told, Surely it would be a 1st. Definitely not a 3rd, the ability to fog up a mirror is generally enough for a 3rd.
70
.
Prof Williams???
Adjunct Professor Robyn Williams at the University of Queensland.
Visiting Professor at the University of NSW
1. He has an honours degree in biology. He does not have qualifications in physics, climatology or earth-sciences
2. He has some honorary PhDs, but he does not have an actual PhD
3. He is a visiting professor at UNSW, but is not actually on staff
4. He is an adjunct professor at UQ, but is not actually on staff
5. He has in the past, and perhaps to the present, been a supporter of communist politics
Who is Prof Williams? Possibly a dag, fruit loop, dren (Nerd backwards) etc.
The University of Western Australia have recently changed the terminology, with “lecturers” now being called “assistant professors”, “senior lecturers” now being called “associate professors”, “associate professors” now being called “professors”, and “professors” now being called “Winthrop Professors”.
So the UWA has relabeled Prof Williams – but I prefer to call him The Hon. Dren Williams.
70
I suspect that the more a person needs to rely upon strings of post nominals (earn and unearnt) and equally silly titles, the less is the real substance.
Only academics need to engage in this pretentious wankery.
Perhaps its to hide something.
00
Robyn Williams used to be an interesting science editor on the ABC Science Show radio program back in the 1970’s. Now he is just a political hack who toes the Warmist Party line and blathers whatever meme he thinks will serve The Cause. Sic transit Gloria.
170
Bankers and extreme free marketeers usually are despicable, but that doesn’t mean they are always wrong about everything. To assume that they are is yet another form of argumentum ad hominem.
30
I’ve no time for crony capitalism banksters but bankers and extreme free marketeers operating in a free market environment should not be a problem. The problem is that we don’t have any sort of free market. When you have centralised control of the price of money(interest rates) by central bankers you can’t have a free market in anything as the centrally determined price of money distorts all economic activity and decision making.
40
Mike is correct.
The Banksters are firmly in the camp of the AGW Crowd, and are fixated on ETS to pump up their income/profits.
The expected market value mid last decade for a global ETS was $10T per year, with approx $500B of direct commissions for the big banks per year.
There is no free market.
There are plenty of centrally controlled and rigged markets – price discovery for some products/services is an illusion.
50
Just one example of market rigging.
LIBoR Scandal
That’s the London InterBank Offer Rate affecting interest rates for everything…
Further…
Read about it here.
Of course, it’s the same old, same old, with Deutsche Bank AG hiding $12B in losses
While also avoiding tax on trading carbon certificates…
Perhaps sillyfilly can explain why carbon trading is filled with so much fraud, and why Australia will be adopting and ETS in 2015?
Looking forward to sillyfilly’s answer.
60
Of course, Banks like HSBC who happily deal with drug cartels and terrorists can be trusted to trade in carbon credits.
So what’s the deal sillyfilly, you like cuddling up to the likes of HSBC, and Deutsche Bank AG, – do you expect our Governments policy of a Carbon tax that migrates to an ETS (working with these Banksters) will “Save the Planet”?
40
What is an Extreme Free Marketeers and why are they despicable?
01
I complained about the Radio National program on the 24th November and got an automated reply on the 26th November. In that reply was the following statement;
Given the time of year, let’s be generous and allow them six weeks. That should mean a reply on the 7th January.
Stay tuned.
120
Dear ABC, Where is the long-awaited BBC-Produced, scientific counter-opinion to Global Warming, you promised to broadcast last October? Could we view it during the Holiday season?
140
It’s not my ABC any more. They just keep marching to the left. Virtually no conservative commentators, and conservative guests are generally outnumbered by those on the left side of politics, plus a left-leaning host.
90
Update via ABC re Henbury Farm:
11/11/2012
It was launched with great fanfare a little over a year ago by Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke and RM Williams Agricultural Holdings.
A controversial plan to turn a central Australian cattle station into an arid zone carbon farm has hit a snag.
The company snapped up Henbury last July for $13 million,
usingwasting $9 million inFederal Governmenttaxpayer funding.The Department of Climate Change says that once converted to a carbon reserve, Henbury can’t ever return to being a pastoral lease.
It will have to remain destocked and locked up for conservation.
.
Mon Dec 17, 2012
A company linked to RM Williams says it wants to reintroduce cattle to one of its outback stations, even though it is a protected nature reserve.
Last month a grassfire spread from Henbury onto Ted Fogarty’s neighbouring Palmer Valley station.
“We’ve had a bushfire and all the fences have burned and no-one has even been along there to check it and I’ve got to go and fix it,” Mr Fogarty said.
“I didn’t light it. I didn’t start the fire. They drove straight past and [saw] it and never even stopped.”
Wally Klein, another Henbury neighbour who is selling up, says the conservation project was the final straw.
“I really need neighbours with common interests so we can help each other survive,” he said.
.
* Prof debunks flatulence as major cause of global warming *
In 2006, the United Nations concluded that the livestock industry was a big contributor to climate change.
Mitloehner convinced the U.N. to recant its claim in 2010.
140
Here is yet another failure from the red dog communist “government” with millions of Australian taxpayer dollars wasted…….
Labor looks green, but trees look dead :-
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/labor_looks_green_but_trees_look_dead/
23
I am not at all surprised that the ABC has been captured by the lefty activists
I gave up watching ABC current affairs programs a long time ago. Tony Jones and Kerry Obrien, Williams for example are an emabarrassment.
It is also not surprsing the way the so called learned societies have also been captured by the same lefty mind sets.
One only has to read Mountfords reports on instutional bias in both the Institute of Physics (UK) and the Royal Society to see how it was done.
Here in Australia there are similar such as the ACS
They have lost control to the activists because they make mockery out of being democratic organisations acting in the best interest of all members.
A minority of signed up members, usually less than 10% of people eligible, control such things as university accreditation, and migrant assessment, and earn large sums of money from the Guvmint by so doing.
So when the IPCC as an arm of the UN comes up with crap to support other agendas it doesnt surprise me one bit
Slowly but surely we are losing our freedoms and our democracies, and at the most common thread are second rate academics of the likes of Lewandowsky,Hamilton,Sherwood etc etc
200
This relates to O’Sullivan’s 1st Law: “Any organisation that is not actually right wing will, over time, become left wing”.
01
lol
What is he going to do when he realises he doesn’t have any insults saved up for a rainy day?
“But when he got there
The cupboard was bare…”
10
I would add that although I am highly critical of the BBC’s stance on cAGW, I am not aware of any such attempted insult being publicly expressed by BBC employees, past or present.
10
Silly Filly and other alarmists,
The basic argument of alarmists is that:
a) CO2 levels have been increasing over the last 40 years [not disputed by most skeptics].
b) the world’s temperatures increased between about 1977 and 2003 [not disputed by most skeptics].
c) back of the envelope science that indicates that an increase CO2 should produce an increase
in the world’s atmospheric temperatures [not disputed by most skeptics]
d) natural causes for variations in the world’s mean atmospheric temperature {e.g. variations in
TSI} cannot explain the increase in temperature over the latter part of the 20th century.
Having ruled out natural causes as an explanation for the world’s warming, this means that
CO2 green-house warming is the only “reasonable” explanation that is left for the observed
change.
e) more detailed models predict that there should be an increase of about 2 to 7 C in the world’s
atmospheric temperatures by 2100 A.D.
many skeptic believe that there are three problems with these basic assertions:
1) Just because CO2 levels and world mean temperatures both increased during the latter
part of the 20th century, it does not mean that increases in atmospheric CO2 are
automatically responsible for the temperature increases.
2) It is bad science to claim that just because climate scientists cannot think of any
natural explanations that could produce the warming of the late 20th century does
not mean that these natural mechanisms do not exist. There is strong observational
evidence that climate systems are indeed affected by long term variations in solar
activity, even though at this point we are not sure as to why this the case.
3) The models require that warming produced by the green-house effect of Co2 are further
amplified by higher levels of water vapor per Kg of atmosphere in the upper troposphere.
[Observation show that this is not correct. What evidence there is, indicates that
the amount of water vapor per Kg in the upper troposphere are actually decreasing.
The lack of positive feed-back means that any increase in atmospheric temperature
will likely be limited to 0.6 C by the year 2100 A.D.]
If you want to debate skeptics then you need to address these concerns.
No amount of name calling or appeal to authority will change this basic fact.
270
An excellent summary of the typical core elements of the sceptical position.
60
An outstanding summary of the scientific evidence against the CAGW scam. However, no matter what scientific evidence you put forward it won’t matter to the warmist true believers. This is NOT about the science any more (if it ever was) it’s ALL about the politics and money. We all need to realize this and function accordingly. Write to your local members. Let’s get a petition(s) going. Raise money for paid advertising. We NEED to start doing battle in the political space and with OUR OWN money until we win the public opinion battle. I’m prepared to put MY money where my mouth is. Is anyone else???????
40
The money is a factor but I’ve also noticed that many of the warmist climate scientists are committed to what can only be described as a contemporary Pagan ideology in which CAGW or human induced climate change is really a stalking horse for a philosophy of oneness with nature, sustainability, ecology generally and other things of dubious worth that flow from such a belief system.
50
Wikipedia: The AP is a cooperative owned by its contributing newspapers, radio and television stations in the United States, which both contribute stories to the AP and use material written by its staff journalists…
AND THEY CAN WRITE ANYTHING THEY LIKE NO MATTER HOW UNSCIENTIFIC, OR RIDICULOUS, GIVEN THE PUBLIC HASN’T GOT A CLUE WHAT THE DATA ACTUALLY SAYS:
14 Dec: AP: AP-GfK Poll: Science doubters say world is warming
Even most people who say they don’t trust scientists on the environment say temperatures are rising.
The poll found 4 out of every 5 Americans said climate change will be a serious problem for the United States if nothing is done about it. That’s up from 73 percent when the same question was asked in 2009.
And 57 percent of Americans say the U.S. government should do a great deal or quite a bit about the problem. That’s up from 52 percent in 2009. Only 22 percent of those surveyed think little or nothing should be done, a figure that dropped from 25 percent.
Overall, 78 percent of those surveyed said they believe temperatures are rising, up from 75 percent three years earlier…
The biggest change in the polling is among people who trust scientists only a little or not at all. About 1 in 3 of the people surveyed fell into that category.
Within that highly skeptical group, 61 percent now say temperatures have been rising over the past 100 years. That’s a substantial increase from 2009, when the AP-GfK poll found that only 47 percent of those with little or no trust in scientists believed the world was getting warmer…
Krosnick (Jon Krosnick, Stanford University social psychologist and pollster) who consulted with The Associated Press on the poll questions, said the changes the poll shows aren’t in the hard-core “anti-warming” deniers, but in the next group, who had serious doubts.
“They don’t believe what the scientists say, they believe what the thermometers say,” Krosnick said. “Events are helping these people see what scientists thought they had been seeing all along.”…
Phil Adams, a retired freelance photographer from Washington, N.C., said he was “fairly cynical” about scientists and their theories. But he believes very much in climate change because of what he’s seen with his own eyes.
“Having lived for 67 years, we consistently see more and more changes based upon the fact that the weather is warmer,” he said. “The seasons are more severe. The climate is definitely getting warmer.”
“Storms seem to be more severe,” he added…
The lowest point in the past 15 years for belief in warming was in December 2009, after some snowy winters and in the middle of an uproar about climate scientists’ emails that later independent investigations found showed no manipulation of data.
Broken down by political party, 83 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of Republicans say the world is getting warmer. And 77 percent of independents say temperatures are rising. Among scientists who write about the issue in peer-reviewed literature, the belief in global warming is about 97 percent, according to a 2010 scientific study….
“One extreme event after another after another,” Leiserowitz (Anthony Leiserowitz, director of Yale University’s Project on Climate Change Communication) said. “People have noticed. … They’re connecting the dots between climate change and this long bout of extreme weather themselves.”
Thomas Coffey, 77, of Houston, said you can’t help but notice it.
“We use to have mild temperatures in the fall going into winter months. Now, we have summer temperatures going into winter,” Coffey said. “The whole Earth is getting warmer and when it gets warmer, the ice cap is going to melt and the ocean is going to rise.”
He also said that’s what he thinks is causing recent extreme weather.
“That’s why you see New York and New Jersey,” he said, referring to Superstorm Sandy and its devastation in late October. “When you have a flood like that, flooding tunnels like that. And look at how long the tunnel has been there.”
(Associated Press Director of Polling Jennifer Agiesta, News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius and writer Stacy A. Anderson contributed to this report)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hV7j-qDfXK5dP2ztWZSOaOhYHOyA?docId=cb5b081a7dc44c3fac0b81a2b7812907
20
Almost as a reply to Newman, here’s another North Korean propaganda piece on the Drum today, from the ABC “science” reporter Sarah Clarke.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-18/clarke-2012environment/4432870
30
The ABC are like paedophiles too, because they abuse the minds of young kids.
110
Oh and, Andy Muirhead – nuth said!
40
Peter Roebuck, another …
10
When discussing the appalling behaviour of National media, remember this, Pravda covered the CRU emails accurately and weeks before the so called 4th estate of our countries.
Like our incestuous civil services, the taxpayer funded media is done.
I maintain that the bureaucratic mind is inhuman, these aliens have always been amongst us.
When they rise to dominance, empires fall.
Civilization depends on using their organizational talents while limiting the damage from their madness.
Hence limited government. Seen any sign of limits recently?
Your ABC, my CBC same groupthink, our appointed or elected royalty.
All are useless and need to hear those magic words, Get a job.
60
One in a hundred people is a functional psychopath.
They have to get a job somewhere.
30
The two major warmists on the ABC are Robyn Williams and Philip Adams and both have been associated with the ABC since the 75 and 91 respectively.
Williams has a Bachelor of Science (Honours) degree, Adams, has no academic credentials yet both, through their ABC association sport four honorary doctorates from Australian universities. Williams is a Fellow of The Australian Academy of Science, the first journalist so honoured, and is a visiting professor at UNSW. Both have been awarded the Order of Australia (AM).
One could cynically assume these awards are payment from the gravy train for their constant warmist broadcasts.
I ceased listening to both of them years ago when their constant warmist dogma drove me away.
110
According to his biography (presumably auto-) the only paying jobs Williams had prior to being hired by the ABC was as a bit-player in The Goodies and Monty Python’s Flying Circus.
He was hired as a comedian and by some foul-up within that byzantine organisation ended up as frontman for the Science Show — the title even suggests it may have been originally intended to be comedy.
Robyn Williams and Jonathan Holmes go to show that a pommie accent could get you a long way in the ABC back in the 70s and 80s.
70
Phillip Adams (along with Dick Smith) is a “prominent member” of the Australian Skeptics (“Seek the Evidence!”) — HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA etc. etc.
30
The ABC is beyond redemption. Defund it now. Let the left fund their own broadcaster but don’t expect me to support them.
50
Here’s a good read about abc (Australian BULLSHIT Commission) bias.
ABC’s bias is a sore that just keeps on running………
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/letters/abcs-bias-is-a-sore-that-just-keeps-on-running/story-fn558imw-1226532475708
30
Nice sentiments, Lawrie, but just how exactly do you intend going about it? If the former Chairman of the Board of the ABC can’t get justice of any sort, where does leave the rest of us minions?
On December 13 I made a formal complaint to the ABC with regard to their non-coverage of the raids on the HQ of Deutsche Bank, Frankfurt, Germany, in relation to a massive tax fraud revolving around the trading of carbon credits. I pointed out that was important information for Australians, as Deutsche Bank had only just formally applied to trade carbon credits here in Australia.
I also complained about the lack of reporting on the massive, freezing storms that had been sweeping across much of Europe and the UK for the previous two weeks, leaving thousands stranded on blocked roads, and thousands more without electricity.
I got a reply yesterday, as follows:
Now, quite apart from the fact that the email headers clearly show my complaint was to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, NOT to some sub-department (ABC News Online) of a sub-department (ABC News division), the reply is in any case an outright lie.
The ABC extensively use the services of both Reuters, and AFP, to report international news. BOTH these services had extensive coverage of BOTH stories.
So, what does one do now? Lodge a formal complaint to the ABC, complaining that the ABC tells outright lies when responding to complaints?
.
I sent off a copy of my complaint to both Stephen Conroy, Minister for Communications, and Malcolm Turnbull, Opposition Spokesman for Communications, inviting comments.
Both ignored the request for comment. Conroy’s office didn’t reply at all, and Turnbull’s office simply stuck me on his auto-spam generator list, so I can receive hourly updates on what a great bloke he is, and what a great job he is doing as the member for Goldman Sachs.
.
Even suggesting taking any kind of political action here gets one instantly howled down as a pinko brownshirt redneck commie, hell-bent on destroying the delicate fabric of Australian society, so I ask again, what exactly does anyone suggest we actually DO about it?
.
Earlier in the thread, and elsewhere, commenters, including Jo, have suggested that trolls come here simply to disrupt. Others have suggested their lack of valid argument proves them to be getting desperate.
.
I respectfully disagree. I believe they come here as entertainment. They come and say what they like, knowing that there’s bugger-all we can (or at least will) do about it. They gleefully see themselves as the bully on the beach, and us as the 97 pound weakling getting sand kicked in our face, and unable to do a thing about it.
.
The REALLY scary part is they are right.
120
I am in no way a “minion, 1st meaning” of the ABC, or the Australian Government.
I prefer the term “serf, 1st meaning“.
Apt – but not pleasant.
For those who disagree, please provide a meaningful, grounded distinction between “taxpayer” and “serf” in the Australian context, where serf is defined as…
Attached to Australia, and working, and paying (required) taxes which support those in a higher feudal cast (government workers), Australia – owned by the Queen of England with the right to seize the land that you think that you own.
70
.
Sorry Ex, I stand corrected.
So, what exactly are we serfs going to do about it?
70
It’s a very good question.
20
MV, how about you devoting some of your considerable energies to exposing Turnbull as an unreconstructed Labor mate, who has no business being in the Liberal party. His recent tweet about Fox News was the clincher. If you could do that (a limited achievable goal) you would have the admiration of many, including me.
40
ChrisM,
In 1985 after working in Social Security (now Centrelink), I became a whistleblower and exposed the failings of our welfare system.
When the politicians of the day claimed I was talking crap, my wife and I travelled across Australia from Perth to Sydney, with our then two year old son, defrauding the welfare system in every state, all filmed by “A Current Affair”. That at least caused some changes to the system.
I am generally credited with starting and leading the “anti ID Card Movement” in Australia in 1986.
Working as an investigative reporter producing my own widely read (globally) monthly newsletter (pre internet days), between 1986 and 1993, I wrote and published the first articles exposing what is now known as “Project Echelon”, an agreement borne out of the UKUSA Pact, for various governments, including our own, to spy on and monitor their own citizens and pool the results.
I wrote and published the articles exposing the various CIA HQ’s and monitoring stations here in Australia. I wrote and published the articles exposing John Freidrichs and the National Safety Council of Victoria, as a CIA private army here in Australia, which ultimately led to a John Freidrichs look-alike committing suicide by shooting himself five times in the back of the head.
I wrote the first article fully exposing the Franklin – Larry King child prostitution ring, and its connections to George H Bush’s Whitehouse Administration.
I went through the period 1986 to 1993 as the most named civilian (non-politician) person in Federal Parliament, and I assure you, none of it was friendly.
In January 1990, over twenty years ago, I wrote the best-selling non-fiction book “The Green Hoax Effect” which addressed and counter-acted 90% of what you people are now just coming to terms with.
There’s a lot more, but I won’t bore you with details.
.
To be honest ChrisM, I sort of thought I’d done my bit. Now I am an old man. I have had two major strokes, and two life-threatening heart attacks. I am now a cripple.
Since nothing I have done in the past has earned your admiration, it is unlikely that anything I do in the future will do so. So there os little point in me even trying.
So let’s reverse the requirements: How about YOU expose Turnbull as an unreconstructed Labor mate, who has no business being in the Liberal party.
That way YOU can earn the “admiration of many, including me”.
100
.
“Serf” was right about 10 to 20 years ago.
Now SERF is changed simply to a number or statistic – nothing more. I haven’t done a link to the word NUMBER but it’s fairly obvious and similar.
We’re now an numbered economy of voters only, not families, communities, people. Only numbers in a government.
What do we do about it?
I’ve started annoying shi! out them all, by phoning in person. Everyday, everynight, and even on weekends leaving messages. The ABC, Federal departments, ministers, ministers secretaries just using their websites for contacts. I ask for specific things (eg: grants paid to green schemes, publicity departments to put me on mailing lists etc etc.) Takes up massive ammounts of time and human resources – maybe if more do it – they can’t spend as much time stuffing up the country. Do it to all parties ALP, LIBs, NATs, Greens everyone. Ask them all for membership forms to be posted out, for policies to be posted out. Annoy, annoy, annoy. As said by MV – do it as entertainment. Say and ask what you like, knowing that there’s bugger-all THEY can (or at least will) do about it.
Start kicking the sand back. Got to go and ring the new member for Fairfax and leave a message – a long one.
KIT required:
1. Phone.
2. Drinks
3. List of as many questions as possible.
4. Be as nice a pie.
5. Always request something to be posted (don’t have email due to NBN not in area yet)
6. Only give them your name & address – no numbers, no details etc.
7. If they get nasty – tell them the conversation is being recorded (do it if possible)
8. Start on ABC first – they can’t handle it.
May not work – but great entertainment.
30
“… The ABC News 24 channel was officially launched at 7.30PM Australian Eastern Standard Time on 22 July 2010 and simulcast its first hour of transmission with ABC1. The news channel utilises the ABC’s existing resources including more than 1000 journalists in 60 newsrooms across Australia along with 12 foreign bureaux …” (Wiki).
That’s 1000 journalists out of a total full-time staff of 4600 (ABC Annual Report 2011-12) and they lack resources — go figure.
40
SillyFilly:
You can do some science yourself. Just calculate the correlation coefficient between Veizer’s paleotemperature record and Berner & Kothavala’s GEOCARB III.
Somehow, anytime I ask Brooksie, MattB, Tristan, Maxine, Ross J. etc etc etc, their keyboards go silent … … …
Mark H.
70
Mark, (good name) says:
Proof that there is a God…….
30
.
Got to ring up the ABC to get a typewritten transcript from Talking Heads on 14/11/2005 of the great interview between Peter Thompson and Radio National Science Presenter Robyn Williams. This is a great interview – lots of insight into the Hon. DREN. Williams in this one.
Talking Heads is keen to hear from you.
Telephone: (08) 8343 4044
Phone them NOW and Phone them often.
For everyone who wants to read it straight away:
Talking Head The Hon Dren Williams
10
Stupid Filly will no doubt vote Gillard because she is a strong woman. Not knowing that Gillard made a speech written for her by a man (McT), practised by her with him, delivered at the wrong moment at the same time that she was defending Slippery who had been exposed texting messages insulting women. A role model, no way, how could she be, she was annointed by men and is run by men, a faceless men puppet, a union movement creation, an insult to women.
30
JULIA GILLARD’S COMMUNIST ROOTS…..
http://www.trevorloudon.com/2010/06/julia-gillard-new-aussie-p-m-s-red-roots/
More on the Socialist Forum and Julia Gillard…..
http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2012/12/more-on-the-socialist-forum-and-julia-gillard.html
HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE COMMUNIST “RED DOG” GILLARD DOES TO AUSTRALIANS WHO DARE CRITICIZE HER……
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/gillard-threat-sees-sunshine-coast-home-raided-20121212-2b9s9.html
20
.
Angry,
Also happened in March 2011 – this guy doesn’t like the ALP and I can’t blame him . They have been after him (politically) for years. This was nearly 2 years ago. Anna Bligh and Rudd was his target then – now Julia is getting him arrested.
Can’t find anything if he’s been charged.
The numbers of opposition will slowly be reduced by this means.
20
What’s next ?
Gulags, soviet style, for political prisoners who criticize the communist gillard “government” ?????
Be very afraid !
12 federal police jumped on the bloke as though he was osama bin laden all for sending emails to politicians !!!!
10
Perhaps our blogs and newspapers have become Bush-style “free speech zones”.
You can say what you like as long as you are out of earshot of anyone with a responsibility to hear you.
00
I recently saw John McTernan referred to as McTurd.
20
And no way comparable to the former senior legal firm solicitor, now deputy leader to Tony Abbott, Julie Bishop. Now she is a role model for young women. Abbott is surrounded by successful women, he has a wife and daughters, sisters and a mother, and a gay sister he has always supported. His chief of office staff is a woman too. And SHE abuses him and insults him? No real woman could stand for that.
70
Sillyfilly and others of like mind;
I have been following this debate with some sadness. You claim those skeptical of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are refusing to look objectively at the evidence. Actually its quite the contrary, I for one am looking most carefully at the evidence plus I am using my knowledge of spectroscopy to look at the theory as well. So lets look at just a few items of evidence that maybe you are ignoring
1 In 1998 NASA GISS published a plot of global warming which showed the early 1930’s at +0.6C with 1997 at +0.2C yet in around 2003 the same plot from the same organization showed the 1930’s at +0.5C and 1997 at +0.6C. The 1930’s went from 0.4C warmer to 0.1C cooler. Its only a change of 0.5C but then the entire warming being claimed is only about 0.7C. How does an historical record of past measurements suddenly change retroactively.
2 In the late 1970’s National Science Association published a graph showing 0.7C of northern hemisphere cooling between 1940 and 1970 yet in the early 2000s The university of east Anglia published an equivalent graph which showed no northern hemisphere cooling over the same period. Is the NSA incompetent or does it have something to do with the fact that in the 1970’s the concern was global cooling while in the 2000’s it is global warming?
3 You are no doubt concerned with ice loss in the Arctic but are you equally willing to acknowledge the documented increase in sea ice levels in the Antarctic. After all global warming should be global shouldn’t it? Further, are you willing to recognise that ice in the Arctic constitutes 0.01% of all ice on earth (and its floating anyway) while ice in the Antarctic constitutes 70% of all ice on Earth and almost all is on land? Do the reports that Antarctic ice extent on the high plateau is increasing give you cause to wonder? Would you put more focus on the 0.01%, on the 70% or on whichever best suits your argument?
4 As a further point on the above, do you note that the winter ice extent in the Arctic has not changed, only the summer ice extent. Does this mean the sea level rise only occurs in the northern hemisphere summer and it falls again in the winter? If it was truly global warming would one expect the sea ice extent to fully recover each winter or would one expect to see a fall each summer and progressively less recovery each winter?
5 The satellite record shows no increase in global temperature for 15 years which is the opposite of what models were predicting.
6 Skeptics and warmists agree that CO2 is a green house gas, increasing its concentration in the atmosphere will cause some warming, in the absence of feedbacks the amount of warming per doubling of CO2 concentration is about 1C. They disagree as to whether the feedback is positive or negative. Our natural world is full of feedback systems wherever one looks. Almost all of these are net negative feedback and net positive feedback in a stable natural system is virtually unheard of. Try and think of some. Yet the only way to get to 3C to 6C rise per doubling is to assume not only net positive feedback but massive net positive feedback. Do you accept that such a claim needs to be considered with the greatest caution and question? Do you maybe not accept that our climate has been stable for the last few billion years despite the sun changing its intensity substantially over this time period? How would this have been possible if the climate exhibited such massive positive feedback?
7 Warmists claim rising temperature leads to higher absolute humidity which makes the air more buoyant and leads to stronger convection which causes more thin high clouds and less dense low clouds (high clouds are claimed to be warming while low clouds are cooling). However, more absolute humidity plus faster convection means substantially more evaporation and unless the seas end up in the sky that has to be balanced by more rainfall. But rain only comes from low dense clouds – the sort of clouds that cause cooling. So how we get more rain from less dense cloud mass? Do you accept that’s a valid question to ask?
8 Do you accept the recent leaks of the IPCC rev 5 working documents are genuine? The IPCC seems to acknowledge they are. If so, do you consider the claims that the role of the sun is much larger than previously thought (even though we don’t know the mechanism) to be relevant? Have you thought about the implications for the CAGW theory?
9 Climate models claims there should be a hot spot in the middle troposphere over the equator – it’s the signature of positive feedback from water vapour yet 1000’s of balloon measurements have failed to find it. does this not make you wonder?
10 There have been hundreds of measurements of atmospheric CO2 done over the last 150 years. Warmists accept those that agree with their theory yet simply dismiss those that disagree as flawed. Does such selective acceptance and rejection of experimental data not give you pause to wonder?
11 Do you accept the inherent imbalance in science that 100 supportive facts do not prove a theory right yet one contradictory fact is enough to destroy it? If so, do you accept that it is justifiable for thinking people look at such contradictory data and ask questions? Do you accept that thinking people have the right to expect that such questions be treated seriously?
Most specifically, do you think it is appropriate respond to such questions by labeling the people asking them as guilty of sexually assaulting young children? What possible parallel is there between the two or do you simply assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a criminal and any crime will do as a label? If so, you are not the first person to use such tactics and those who did so in the past are viewed with abhorrence today.
I could give many more questions but this post is already overlong. Finally I note the name you have chosen for yourself and wonder why you would chose such a name.
160
Good post Mike, you dare to challenge the gospel, with mere facts?
Penn & Teller BS.. Water says it all.
Belief and a warm fuzzy feeling of self-goodiness trumps the blatant logic fallacies every time.
I keep wondering if a campaign of videoing the concerned ones signing the petition(Ban DHM) and ruthlessly using that footage, when ever they preach in public to ridicule them personally is the only way to make them think.
But I am sure they will attack rather than look in the mirror.
20
Michael,
Excellent post. Everytime trolls like silly filly post something, I will post a reply linking to this comment.
Thank you for the time and thought you have put into this post.
20
The ABC, this could be a union problem.
How do you summarily dismiss half the staff from the ABC?
40
Why on earth would we want to keep the other half?
70
Why sack only HALF the staff of the abc (Australian BULLSHIT Commission) ???
Here is yet another article worth reading about the voice of the leftists (abc)……
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/if_the_abc_wont_reform_we_have_only_one_option_left/
10
Most often the proponents of CAGW abuse and excoriate those who disagree with them but rarely give any scientific validation of their argument other than something like “12000 scientists say CAGW exists so it must”. I will be interested to see if sillyfilly and others of like mind will comment upon and provide evidence that repudiates the points you have made. Somehow I very much doubt it.
50
Science has been hijacked, as least with regard to the CO2 tale. There are a lot of activists on the bandwagon who clearly don’t have any background in science. Because of the complexity of the issues which arise,it becomes obvious that they haven’t done any background reading at all when they pontificate on areas within which they have limited knowledge – unfortunately in these days of the internet they can pretend to be scientific – they’re what I would call ‘Wilkipedia scientists’. It soon becomes apparent to a specialist in a given area where their limits lie.
On their websites it’s impossible to hold a pleasant discussion with them (do I need to mention one in particular that I have in mind? No, I thought not). Their beliefs are firmly fixed, and a level of paranoia present – such as (bizarrely) the belief that the ‘deniers’ are somehow involved in a conspiracy.
All this nonsense has of course nothing to do with science at all, and clearly such people have no idea at all how scientific discourse actually proceeds. How many have studied for a research based higher degree, written papers in their field, or attended scientific meetings I wonder?
What was an interesting idea regarding CO2 which might have been explored over a few years of experiment and observation has now become a political and media slanging match. The whole sorry business has done the image of science no good at all.
60
You dare to read the holy script yourself? Obviously you lack faith and must be reeducated.
If you take a close look at the co2 myth, science was never needed or desired they only used it as a cloak.
Hence the difficulty when arguing from logic and reason.
The intent seems to have been to leave you arguing with the mist, the changing names, the mobile goal posts, the concern trolls and that precautionary principle, politically correct baby talk.
Notice that the nature of the problem, keeps changing (1970s cooling 1990s warming). But the remedy never changes, your lap of the gods lifestyle, is the sin.
Your wealth(relative) and freedom are sinful to the protectors of the great collective.
Always self appointed, we are here to help you.
The ugliness and circular logic are the first markers of a cult.This one hates humanity.
30
To quote the late George Carlin:
10
I wonder if Robyn Williams happens to drive a Pajero?
40
[…] and insulting any more”. The ABC Charter is clear, it is supposed to represent all Australians:Keep reading → They could not have tried harder to jerk off most Australians than their current effort, even […]
00
The best response to a chronic thread-killer is to totally ignore them. I know it’s not easy to bite ones tongue when someone is determined to get a reaction but if you don’t they just get their thrill.
If you must respond just use something repetitive and minimal eg DNFTT – don’t feed the troll!
And on this site you have another powerful option – vote them down if you feel so inclined.
Me? I just ignore them apart from the odd inward curse as I quickly scroll down looking for the useful comment that brought me to a thread.
40
The Australian was pushing this anti-ABC line. Hence you know its a load of cobblers.
You guys just hate the ABC because they offer opinions you don’t like. But thank god they exist (and this from an atheist), because I’d hate to rely on the rest of the media for my news and opinion.
115
Obviously you don’t read The Australian. It contains a wide variety of views. Members of the current Federal Cabinet get articles, supposedly written by themselves, printed. The letters page reflects many opinions, unlike web sites run by believers in AGW. Phillip Adams has been a contributor for years, so you can’t say that the ABC supporters don’t get a say. Possibly this is why its sales are healthy, unlike the Sydney Morning Herald.
The claim that The Australian is pushing an anti-AGW or an anti-ABC line is made by those who think any criticism of their views should be suppressed. Hence the proposed legislation against free speech.
I wonder what your views on that legislation will be after the election and the Commissars changed? The outrage when the Left finds that the legislation can be used AGAINST it will be music to many ears.
70
Lewandosky should go on Brainiac -“I can do science me”
00
Mr. Newman has every concern for the report lumping irrelevant paedophiles etc into a discusion.
But hey: it is typical ABC behavior, For one of the best smackdowns of the ABC’s modus operandi when it does not want to discusss the issues/subject, just search;
‘Anthony Lawson on Jon Faine 27th October 2010 Kevin Bracken’. The U tube video is about 5 minutes.
Faine used the same method on Kevin Bracken when Kevin rang in and asked some pertinent quesions about the 911 mass murders. Many compalints to the ABC received the same ‘heeve ho’ as Newman’s complaint.
Does the ABC spend our tax dollars training the ABC in this typical methodology? if so, can we also have thrown in with the other irelevancies; Harold Holt sailing away in a yellow china submarine?
10
Organisations such as the ABC and BBC have become the very antithesis of what they should be: beacons of impartiality, of truth in journalism and absolute integrity have instead become little more than useful idiots, the publicly-paid-for political mouthpieces of the CAGW scam.
Here in the UK, the BBC continues to embarrass itself with its blatant bias on CAGW. Things are now so bad that it is becoming impossible for the BBC to attempt any longer to protest its ‘impartiality’ on the issue – time and again we see undisguised CAGW bias seeping through, whether in its once world-respected natural history programmes (all of which must now, presumably by diktat, carry a pro-CAGW message either blatantly or subtly – because they do), it’s current affairs output, its online offering, or in any number of disingenuous, clearly agenda-led documentaries on the subject. The BBC is now, without any doubt whatsoever, a shamefully partisan and politically compromised organization – a publicly-funded ‘common purpose’ project; one which sees its role as that of Chief Propagandist to the pro-CAGW cause both in the UK, across Europe and via the BBC World Service, to the world at large.
But the more they push, the more climate skeptics everywhere are pushing back, here at home and abroad. And the BBC need to understand that we will resist them at every turn; that we will never stop trying to bring them to account, we will never stop exposing their wretched bias. That a public service broadcaster anywhere should be permitted to behave in such a partisan, nakedly political way over such an issue as CAGW – nothing more than a completely uproven hypothesis – is little short of an absolute disgrace.
70
Well said Phil. On any given programme about the natural world, there’s no doubt that sooner or late the weasel words ‘climate change’ will be introduced, and the usual nonsense paraded.
I confess I hardly ever bother watching anymore. Maybe I should.
20
The Australian seems to have sided with Jo on this one.
Also
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/the-abc-lets-itself-off-the-hook/story-e6frg71x-1226540718074
30
Interestingly, it seems that whilst the ABC does not consider calling skeptics “paedophiles”, it appears that the Press Council has a different opinion.
However, before everyone starts to cheer, this decision apparently only applies to complaints laid about an article by James Delingpole (by a Mr Blair Donaldson) where a farmer made comments about ‘wind-turbine companies’ (vis)
This (linking wind-turbine companies with paedophile rings), according to the Press Council, is offensive. No word on whether the reverse (as uttered by Robyn Williams) that sceptics are akin to paedophiles is equally offensive according to the Press Council.
However, given the precedant, one could certainly argue that Mr William’s comments are equally as offensive and therefore should be followed by a public apology by both the ABC and Mr Willaims himself.
Not holding my breath waiting for that to happen though……..
10
This shows the true colour of the abc (Australian BULLSHIT Commission).
RED !!
ABC goes bananas to help Julia sell her dodgy record:-
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/abc_goes_bananas_to_help_julia_sell_her_dodgy_record/
00
So Lewandowsky gets promoted after his fraudulent study to a larger stage where he can spout more inflammatory fibs. AGW is truly a dangerous and destructive manifestation of the collapse of rational thinking in the West.
10