It’s tough when you can’t talk evidence, and the topic is science. What’s left is just the Stone Age mud-throwing campaign.
There’s a Matrix-moment coming for Clive Hamilton. Skeptics are now the grassroots activists against Big Money and Big Lies, fighting for the poor and the environment. He’s doing his damnedest to suppress community participation, promote intolerance, and effectively fight for banker profits, corrupt scientists, and plundering bureaucrats.
The AGW camp has on its side all the authority positions in climate science (you don’t get appointed unless you believe), all the climate and science journals, all the government and university funding, the computer models, the Nobel prizes, the Western governments, all the propaganda money can buy, the Greens, the politically correct, the UN, and all the mainstream media (at least, until recently). And the skeptics have…evidence, logic, retired scientists, and donations to blogs. Clive imagines he is speaking truth to power.
Since he can’t win on the science, he tries to bully instead (ironically while whining about…bullies). He peddles easily refutable lies, using unverifiable words from anonymous entities. Twice, Hamilton even contradicts himself, probably because he knows he’s making defamatory claims he can’t back up.
Hamilton realizes too late that the campaign to “out” the bullies is working
He effectively fights for banker profits, corrupt scientists, and plundering bureaucrats.
For the last six months, I’ve been systematically exposing bullies. I’ve spoken about real bullying in science, about scientists who are sacked, about paid attack sites set up to smear researchers (like DeSmog), and about the grassroots work done by volunteers against an industrial climate machine with 3,000 times the funds. The second Skeptics Handbook was titled “Global Bullies Want Your Money”. I didn’t let the Prime Minister get away with throwing insults instead of discussing the policy or the science, and I solved Richard Black’s BBC request for “reasons why most women don’t speak out” (women don’t want to face the global bullies, eh?). I also busted Hamilton’s previous smear. Yet, daily he exposes himself as an unwitting sock-puppet tool of Big-Money.
The best he could do would be to quietly fade into the background. Instead, he’s embarrassing himself and the ABC, and desperately polluting the discussion with innuendo, baseless implications, and the only bullying he can find: anonymous swearing that is noxious, but ultimately unverifiable. I mean, without checking these Internet addresses, for all we know some of the howlers are staged comments from pro-warming fans. They use the same trick on my site.
After I exposed Professor Pitman for throwing baseless smears, I received many comments under fake names from UNSW Internet addresses (and unlike Hamilton, I do have the evidence). There was a pattern of transparently pretending to be skeptics, but openly attacking other skeptics, sometimes inventing libelous lies about the real commenters. It was such a lame, transparent tactic, I hardly felt it was worth an ABC press release.
You know, people swear at us and call us insults a hundred times a day: “Deniers”.
Clive [lets-suspend-democracy] Hamilton is, after all, just a big-scale bully. He doesn’t want to listen to the electorate, or ask us what we think. He just wants to belittle, smear, and sideline anyone who disagrees with his opinion.
Warning: an incoherent fog approaching
The editors of the The Drum Unleashed ought to wince with embarrassment: Clive makes the headline claim he can name the organizers of a bullying campaign, but he hasn’t got any evidence about who organized this campaign, or even if there is a campaign.
Poor Clive, it must be awful to pin your identity to a fake crusade, only to discover that everyone else found out it was bogus before you.
I think the article should have been junked by the ABC editors solely because he can’t form a single coherent point of any substance, and it’s a literary smog. Clive unleashed: “I’ll name the bullies: we don’t have evidence: these are the people : but don’t think I’m suggesting they are doing this”. That’s just page 1. But wait…there’s more “[I]t would be a mistake to believe that the army of sceptical bloggers is in any sense in the pay of, or directly influenced by, the fossil fuel lobby.” Followed by: Tomorrow: The Exxon-funded think tanks that feed climate denial. Doesn’t outright self-contradiction embarrass the ABC anymore? It used to be known as “delusional”.
Poor Clive, it must be awful to pin your identity to a fake crusade, only to discover that everyone else found out it was bogus before you. Not skeptical, shucks: gullible. I just wish for his sake he wasn’t going down in neon lights with an audience. If he has to mentally self-combust, surely his friends can take him out off the public stage? Give him some dignity, I say (and perhaps some medication).
Got any evidence I support nasty emails? Didn’t think so…
It’s so easy to prove (with written references) that I don’t support aggression or violence. In fact, the more I blog, the more essential I think manners are. I ask emailers to our politicians to be carefully polite. Civility is my only requirement for commenters. And I attacked a book that incited activists to break the law. Nor will Clive find many violent nasty comments on my site, except for a few from warmists I leave up to show how petty and noxious they are.
There is no civilization without science,
but there is no science without civility
Skeptics Handbook II
What drives denial? The mystery that isn’t.
What drives us? It’s a well-known universal trait across human cultures called punishing free-loaders.
What drives us? It’s a well-known universal trait across human cultures called punishing free-loaders. All cooperative societies (even fish) have to have systems to stop parasitic greedy scum from taking advantage of altruistic kin.
Newsflash: Like all species, humans just hate to be exploited, used, and lied to. We the people are not just annoyed that the scientists we support have hidden the data we pay them to collect, and we’re not just inconvenienced when people play on our good nature and ask us to save the world in order to line their own pockets. It’s a human instinct: We’re a gregarious species, and nothing bar anything inflames us as much as a parasitic free-rider, except possibly, a free-rider who glorifies himself as part of the team, but traitorously works against us: e.g., the lowlife who cries wolf, claims to be working for all our benefit, and then makes off with his own private golf-club using 300,000 gallons of water a day, all while his neighbors starve.
These are the people we pillory, mock, and pursue–all with words. Having said that, please note readers that you can channel your justified anger better by cutting these people down with impeccable manners.
What drives denial is just plain old evolution and game theory. Social groups that put up with parasites didn’t survive. Those who shamed them or evicted them did.
The real grassroots team that fights institutional crime
Welcome to reality. In modern times, there has never been a grassroots movement as global and powerful as this one
Hamilton gives away his aims in sentence number one. A spontaneous uprising of the masses against him is something he just can’t have (I’ve got bad news for you Clive). He admits that an apparently spontaneous expression of citizen concern carries more weight than an organized operation by a zealous group. Welcome to reality. In modern times, there has never been a grassroots movement as global and powerful as this one; never before have thousands of scientists risen up in anger; never have professors of atmospheric physics, chemistry, meteorology, and maths gathered names on one petition, or written to congress with the words “You are being deceived”. And since ClimateGate, they’re joined by surgeons from Sydney, lawyers from London, and engineers from everywhere. Smart honest sharp people are moving in as word of the free-loaders spreads.
You want spontaneous? The main Australian conservative party (the Liberals) have noted many times since the ETS debate in November that they were shocked at how many e-mails they got, and floored that they were passionate and individually written. In late January, the staffers I spoke to were exclaiming they still hadn’t logged all the names. They were thunderstruck that unlike the organized greenie campaigns, they were not swamped with tick-a-box postcards or formulaic messages. It was an historic week in politics. Democracy in action.
Mainstream or fringe?
Nowadays, the extremist position is the idea that we can control the weather by issuing unverifiable permits for emissions that might have happened in air over China.
Behind the times, Hamilton clings to the delusion that he’s part of the mainstream. Recent polls in the UK show only a quarter of the population still believes in man-made climate change. Down from over 70% two years ago. The mainstream is not convinced, and the “Strongly Disagree” position is sweeping into popularity. Nowadays, the extremist position is the idea that we can control the weather by issuing unverifiable permits for emissions that might have happened in air over China.
Attempting to intimidate?
Oh, and look! Was Clive-Bully-Hamilton trying to intimidate me again by using my maiden name, as if it meant something? It’s got zero recognition in politics and the media, and no Web presence at all, so Clive’s only intent presumably was to scare me by trying to attack my private life, or alert his flock to do more “research” digging for dirt they can’t find.
Real researchers study thermometers; fake ones study biographies
While we skeptics are researching ice cores, Hamilton and his confused followers are out hunting for ad hominem attacks, as if this might tell them whether the planet is warming.
The chain of logic runs straight from the neolithic: Big Gun Exxon pays for Freddy’s drinks; Freddy says the planet is not warming: Therefore, the climate on the third rock from the Sun will get 3.5 degrees hotter in one hundred years of CO2 emissions. (Gosh, if only Big Oil would pay global warming researchers instead, the planet would cool down. Oh, that’s right: They do (and here), and it did.)
Dear Clive, do read some stuff about ClimateGate. It will be an epiphany. Once you realize the scientists cheated, the bureaucrats helped, the bankers cheered, and the suckers paid, you’ll finally understand why the freedom fighters are trying to save you too from global gullibility.
Dear Clive, do read some stuff about ClimateGate. It will be an epiphany. Once you realize the scientists cheated, the bureaucrats helped, the bankers cheered, and the suckers paid, you’ll finally understand why the freedom fighters are trying to save you too from global gullibility.
Bolt similarly objected to being defamed.
My posts tagged: Hamilton (Clive)
Photo originally from Wikimedia – Thanks Djackmanson
A standard text since the 1950’s was “When Prophecy Fails” this is the summary from Wikipedia which I thnks speaks for itself
[edit] Cognitive dissonance
Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance can account for the psychological consequences of disconfirmed expectations. One of the first published cases of dissonance was reported in the book, When Prophecy Fails (Festinger et al. 1956). Festinger and his associates read an interesting item in their local newspaper headlined “Prophecy from planet Clarion call to city: flee that flood.” A housewife from Michigan, given the name “Marian Keech” in the book, had mysteriously been given messages in her house in the form of “automatic writing” from alien beings on the planet Clarion. These messages revealed that the world would end in a great flood before dawn on December 21, 1954. Mrs Keech had previously been involved with L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics movement, and her cult incorporated ideas from what was to become Scientology.[1] The group of believers, headed by Keech, had taken strong behavioral steps to indicate their degree of commitment to the belief. They had left jobs, college, and spouses, and had given away money and possessions to prepare for their departure on the flying saucer, which was to rescue the group of true believers.
[edit] Premise of study
Festinger and his colleagues saw this as a case that would lead to the arousal of dissonance when the prophecy failed. Altering the belief would be difficult, as Keech and her group were committed at considerable expense to maintain it. Another option would be to enlist social support for their belief. As Festinger wrote, “If more and more people can be persuaded that the system of belief is correct, then clearly it must after all be correct.” In this case, if Keech could add consonant elements by converting others to the basic premise, then the magnitude of her dissonance following disconfirmation would be reduced. Festinger and his colleagues predicted that the inevitable disconfirmation would be followed by an enthusiastic effort at proselytizing to seek social support and lessen the pain of disconfirmation.
10
Great topic. To some extent, the climate cultists do not like people. They act like they do and want to help the poor. But we don’t see behavior building the poor. The way to control people is to build up a reason to be fearfull. Then the fear monger says, for so much money, I can save you from this peril and we will all survive.
Us rational people don’t act with the desired fear response. We also can’t find examp[les of helping the poor and need charity in the anti social crowd.
Lack of responding to manipulation makes the manipulator impatient and angry. The result is I get accused of not caring about my planet or children.
10
Great Work there Jo,
I really think that Clive cannot get his head around the fact that a large number of people have largely performed a 180 degree turn on this topic over the past few months.
And this was without any help of the mainstream media.
The fact that our Taxes are paying for Clive Hamilton is an absolute insult to every Australians intelligence.
I guess the Dear Leader was partcularly suprised to find an uprise against his ETS rort.
10
[…] affluent climate communists shift to a higher […]
10
The new editor at The Drum is Jonathan Green.
Here a recent biography blurb: Jonathan Green is a longtime journalist, author and editor of Crikey. Needless to say his antennae for bulls@#t is finely tuned. You can follow his blog at http://blogs.crikey.com.au/jonathan/ or watch him tweet absolute rubbish as @greenj on Twitter.
https://mwf.bluecentral.com/2009/content/mwf_2009_standard.asp?name=GreenJ
Green gives Hamilton not just one page to spruik weird conspiracy theories, he give him five. We wait to see how The Drum will redress this imbalance in the next week or so.
But why the ABC made someone with a defective bulls@#t detector editor of The drum is beyond me. A quick look at the Green Twitter account that is sponsored by the ABC reaks of political bias and crudity: such as:
tony’s a bit hoarse. big mackillop piss up at the weekend? #qt
8:01 PM Feb 21st via TweetDeck
eek. i’m being followed by Tony Abbott’s penis @mrabbottspenis. whatever should i do?
about 22 hours ago via TweetDeck
most significant public policy failure of the past 20 years! give us a break. #qt
8:34 PM Feb 21st via TweetDeck
for more pearls of wisdom at the tax payers expense see…http://twitter.com/GreenJ
10
Great piece Jo. One of the best retorts in some time (I have read), edgy yet right on the money.
cheers from the canada
Keep up the great work
10
Wow Jo! You are in great form here. What an elegant demolition.
10
Excellent graphic of Father Clive(Archbishop Clive? Pope Clive?). He looks so concerned, there at the lectern.
Sermons from Clive can be heard anytime. Just visit churchofthewarmingmoneymountain.com.
Good article too.
And thanks in volume to the voters of Higgins, who denied this megalomaniac a seat in Parliament.
10
INVESTORS Representing $13 Trillion Call on U.S. and Other Countries to Move Quickly to Adopt Strong Climate Change Policies
Have a look at the INSIDIOUS AGENDA promoting this global warming HOAX.
It’s ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!
Nothing to do with SCIENCE!!
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=608&ArticleID=6446&l=en&t=long
10
Good job, Jo! It is amazing how fast you can post new articles. You must get very little sleep. What amazes me is the fact that these loons are so far behind the times. It is analogous to a school student doing a report on Russia and using a thirty year old encyclopedia for research material. They don’t seem to be cognizant of the paradigm shift since the explosion of the blogosphere. Instead of the blogosphere taking it’s lead from the MSM it is the other way around. They are desperate and I am going to enjoy watching these rats continue to desert the sinking ship S.S Climate Scam.
Don’t worry, they will have another junk science scam ready before this one is dead and buried.
10
Yes, AGW alarmists and now so desperate they are falling over each other to make more blunders. Good on them – the more they do it the bigger the hole they are digging for themselves. I’m loving it. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the thought of introducing Internet filtering to block sites such as this one has passed through Rudd’s and Obama’s minds. If they ever succeed in doing this, the next step may be to introduce memory holes as described by George Orwell. Let’s hope it never gets to the filtering stage let alone to the next one.
10
“doing a report on Russia and using a thirty year old encyclopedia for research material”
Quiet chuckle to myself. I was helping my son do some homework and he had to locate some countries on a map. My atlas from University days did not have those countries – they were provinces of the USSR back then.
Things change. We have to face reality.
Who is currently “in denial”? It will take a lot of courage for some of these people to admit they’ve been hoodwinked. Firstly, they have been fooled. Secondly, they have to admit they don’t understand science or the scientific method. Then they have to admit that their political heroes are complicit.
10
Keep up the good work Jo. This UK female realist/sceptic is right behind you.
10
Reading Andrew’s succinct summary of lousy leadership and garrulous governance, one could be forgiven for thinking that Hamilton and Garrett have more than follicular challenge in common. Rudd hides behind Hamilton as just as capably as he hides behind Garrett. Shield me is the catchcry of a leader without substance.
10
Well written Jo,
any thought of sending this to the ABC’s Unleashed? surly they will be searching for some balance after Clive “ramping up the fear” Hamilton’s free run
10
Poor old Clive. He cops a metaphorical punch on the nose and then does what all bullies do when confronted. He squeals!
10
The trouble with people like Hamilton is that unlike Germany in the 1930s, the Government or Government paid media no longer control the information highway. Propaganda, as in tell the same lie often enough while preventing an opposing view will no longer work, unless governments take up Chinas lead and censor the internet.
10
Well said (actually, well typed!) Jo.
I consider it an honour to read your words of wit and wisdom each morning.
10
As a sceptic with an appreciation that we might be wrong about climate change, I have to despair at the attitude of the AGW lobby. Are they determined to lose all credibility? There has been a noticeably strong up tick of insulting articles of late. Instead of concentrating on the science and policy, it’s all about trying to defame the sceptic community by association.
There had been talk from the warmers about adopting better PR techniques and I’m wondering if this stream of antagonistic bile is a deliberate act or just mass stupidity on their part. If it’s coincidental I hope they calm down and if it is deliberate I hope they realise that it’s a bad, bad idea.
Changing the world to cut CO2 is not a five minute wonder. It’s not like pushing a political party past the post during an election period. It’s not equivalent to selling a dodgy product to a gullible public. If CO2 is a real problem then it requires a lifetime change in attitude, and to do that you have to believe it heart and soul. It shouldn’t have taken Climategate to spawn a major reworking of the temperature records. Everyone involved should have been working towards the day the public demanded complete transparency.
If green reporters had been doing their jobs they’d have been the ones ‘harassing’ Phil Jones etc. ‘Come on Phil, we’re being asked questions about proxies we can’t answer, give us the ammo to shoot them down… What do you mean you haven’t got it?’
If CAGW is real then the useless herd of warmers who fail to marshal the science properly will hold a major part of the blame for global inactivity.
Keep giving them grief 🙂 The worst you can do is make them prove their cause.
My thanks for your hard work.
10
TinyCo2,
Welcome, I agree with the following too, well said:
10
Clive rants on the ABC whilst the BBC is (by inference) engaging in censorship through omission. TERI etc not to be spoken of?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100027173/global-warming-time-to-get-angry/
10
incredible!
Nick Xenophon backs alternative ETS model
INDEPENDENT senator Nick Xenophon says he will continue to push an alternative emissions trading scheme (ETS) model which could achieve 15 per cent for the same price as the Government’s five per cent cuts..
The Frontier ETS model emerged from research commissioned by Senator Xenophon and the opposition when it was led by Malcolm Turnbull..
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/nick-xenophon-backs-alternative-ets-model/story-e6frfku0-1225833245322
even if the AGW theory was rock-solid, why would carbon trading/carbon tax/capntax be the only game in town? follow the money:
23 Feb: Australian: Giles Parkinson: Chasing the green
Last year London’s The Sunday Times published a list of the world’s richest 100 “eco-pioneers”. The table was dominated by billionaires who made their money elsewhere…
Warren Buffett and Bill Gates headed the list, with both investing in wind and other renewables, along with Michael Bloomberg, Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, oil man T. Boone Pickens, the Rockefeller family, Nicky Oppenheimer and Richard Branson…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/chasing-the-green/story-e6frgabx-1225833478148
next two links suggest this is the new meme for the fightback:
24 Feb: Australian: Luke Slattery: Climate wars give science bad name
UNIVERSITY leaders are pressing for a public campaign to restore the intellectual and moral authority of Australian science in the wake of the climate wars.
Peter Coaldrake, chairman of Universities Australia and vice-chancellor of Queensland University of Technology, told the HES yesterday he was “concerned about the way the climate change debate has flowed”, and would address the role of science in the formation of public policy at his National Press Club address next week…
Margaret Sheil, chief executive of the Australian Research Council, said she was deeply concerned about the backlash generated by emails from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, the criticisms of Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, head of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, and poor research on the rate of glacial melting in a 2007 UN report on climate change..
“Anecdotally, we now see tabloids and talkback radio, and even some broadsheet newspapers, perpetuating these criticisms and the notion that `scientists just made stuff up’,” she told the HES…
Ms Arabia said scientists welcomed public debate and embraced scepticism.
“In fact scientists would welcome a debate on current climate change that challenges the science with science. A scientist never regards peer-reviewed research as being beyond criticism.
“But unbalanced debates pitching peer-reviewed science against opinion, anecdotal evidence or the loud voice of cashed-up lobby groups is not healthy.
“There needs to be a circuit-breaker. And the circuit-breaker is a deeper awareness of the importance of science as a discipline that is based on a time-honoured process called peer review.
“Peer review allows ideas, scientific views to change, to be corrected. It allows experts to spot mistakes and omissions. Peer review allows scientists to rigorously test their ideas. It is the robust nature of this process that has given people confidence to fly in planes and feed their children nutritious food.”
Ian Chubb, vice-chancellor of the Australian National University, said some populists had found it easy to denigrate science because many scientific conclusions in the field of climate change rested on a balance of probability rather than incontestable proof.
“What concerns me is when you get people who are purporting to comment on the science and all they’re doing is seeking to turn themselves into celebrities.” he said.
He also scorned critics of the science who were from other disciplines. “The world can’t do without science and if we denigrate it and belittle it and besmirch it by inappropriate behaviour we’re in trouble,” he said…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/climate-wars-give-science-bad-name/story-e6frgcjx-1225833598122
23 Feb: Guardian: David Adam: Climate wars damage the scientists but we all stand to lose in the battle
It is open season on climate scientists, but such hand-wringing has allowed the creeping rehabilitation of climate scepticism
Take the influence on public opinion. A recent BBC poll revealed the number of Britons who believe in climate change has dropped from 44% to 31% since November. A Guardian editorial blamed this on events at East Anglia, a link that was reinforced in a news story. But the poll results do not show this. In fact, they show the opposite…
The evidence shows that the battle for hearts and minds in the fight against climate change has been strengthened, not weakened, by the East Anglia affair. It is a bizarre finding and I make no attempt to explain it, only to point out the dangers of rushing to see desired results in a series of data, or a simple narrative in a complicated picture. ..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/23/climate-scepticism-hacked-emails
yes, david, your finding is indeed ‘bizarre’, much like the bizarre IPCC fantasies that have been debunked in recent months.
10
Most people would even giver Clive Hamilton the time of day. We all know if given half a chance he would destroy this country’s economy virtually overnight. He’s an extremist non-thinker and irrelevant.
10
Xenophon now proposing an ETS-like policy with a 15% reduction target? What nonsense. If he and any other AGW believer really wants to reduce our emissions significantly then the only solution is the modern, safer and cheaper nuclear power generators. All other solutions are far too expensive and would send this country broke. We could achieve possibly over 50% reduction with nuclear. By refusing to adopt nuclear, AGW alarmists are admitting they don’t really believe their own propaganda.
10
“Corrupt scientists”? Proof please….no,real proof,not amateur innuendo.And the utter hypocrisy revealed in this intemperate piece of counter smear damns your credibility.
10
Warren,
What is it that you would you accept as “real proof”?
10
MarcH – thanks for the crikey/jonathan green info…explains a lot.
this is funny…if only the MSM would report on the issues, imagine how much skepticism there would be by now!
23 Feb: Science Daily: Role of Mass Media in Climate Change Skepticism
(from bottom of article: Story Source:
Adapted from materials provided by University of Colorado at Boulder.)
Mass media have been a key vehicle by which climate change contrarianism has traveled, according to Maxwell Boykoff, a University of Colorado at Boulder professor and fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, or CIRES..
Another issue in mass media is the tendency to flatly report on both the claims of contrarians, as well as the accusations made about their claims and motives, he said. The ensuing finger-pointing plays into the conflict, drama and personalized stories that drive news. It also distracts attention from critical institutional and societal challenges regarding carbon consumption that calls citizen behaviors, actions and decisions to account.
“Reducing climate science and policy considerations to a tit-for-tat between dueling personalities comes at the expense of appraising fundamental challenges regarding the necessary de-carbonization of industry and society,” said Boykoff.
Among various and ongoing research strategies, Boykoff — in partnership with Maria Mansfield from Exeter University and the University of Oxford — has tracked climate change coverage in 50 newspapers in 20 countries and six continents since 2004. Boykoff also has looked at how climate science and policy find meaning and traction in people’s everyday lives through work in the United States, United Kingdom and India.
Speakers Stephen Schneider from Stanford University; Naomi Oreskes from the University of California, San Diego; William Freudenburg from the University of California, Santa Barbara; and Riley Dunlap from Oklahoma State University joined Boykoff on the panel.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100222140619.htm
10
Peter in 24, while I concur with nuclear energy, 50% is improbable as electricity does not even account for 50% of our emissions. Full savings become realised when vehicular transport shifts from oil to nuclear generated plug in electricity.
10
I will quote from my high school teacher regarding debate(a very long time ago)
Ahh…Debate, the elegant combat of ideas and ideology. Where the blunt and clumsy instrument, of personal insult, and sarcasm flounders helplessly. Bleeding from a dozen wounds inflicted by the rapier sharp thrust and parry of fact, insight, and wit. Long may it reign.
10
Brilliant – now I know your maiden name I can see we share very similar tastes in kids TV! I could watch Koala Brothers all day!
10
Wow, I saw 2 left jabs, a right hook followed by a volley of one twos and a final uppercut straight from the depths of hell, ouch.
Hamilton thought losing the by election was a set back, but this beating makes the election loss look like a tea party.
The only thing missing is another pic of Hamilton with bruised and bloodied face at the end of the article.
This ones a keeper.
10
As one disappears another comes along. Now we have warren.
Frankly his attitude puts him pretty much in the same class with Clive Hamilton. I think there may not be any proof that would satisfy him.
10
Warren,
Take a look a tthe climategate timeline on this very blog. Then come back.
Sorry, over the last few months many of us have gotten tired of doing the mainstream medias job for them – informing people of the information.
10
@ Warren
You might want to start with some of the definitions of corruption, after that the proof flows pretty easily.
Here are some definitions from Princeton.edu
•corrupt morally or by intemperance or sensuality;
•lacking in integrity;
•bribe: make illegal payments to in exchange for favors or influence;
•crooked: not straight; dishonest or immoral or evasive
•defile: place under suspicion or cast doubt upon;
•containing errors or alterations; “a corrupt text”;
•alter from the original
•touched by rot or decay;
Let me know if you need help finger painting to fill in the dots
10
I love this, it’s made my day.
Does anyone else get the feeling you wouldn’t have wanted to be the one to ask “what’s for dinner mom?” whilst Jo was penning this? Brrrrrr sends shivers lol
10
Warren @ 25
That’s a bit rich. You and Hamilton need to come up with the proof that man-made emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are causing global warming.
Prove that and we can all get behind the move to reduce or eliminate them.
Hamilton’s rant is a rear-guard action that detracts from the very simple request that has been made over and over here and elsewhere.
10
Warren:
February 24th, 2010 at 10:24 am
You wanted proof of corrupt scientists Warren?
Below is an email exchange between Wolfgang Cramer of the Pottsdam institute and the infamous Mike Hulme of the UEA. Email no: 0939437868
Hey Warren, guess who won the bid for the new 10 million pound research centre? Why don’t you email the university in Edinburgh and ask them how they feel about losing out to a bunch of CORRRUPTTT scientists at the UEA.
10
Morning All!
I propose a vote of thanks to Clive for giving us the mainstream media attention that’s been so sadly lacking to date. As Jo notes above, by posting his ever more ridiculous and psychotic assertions he gives us clues to his own personality. I’m guessing his head would not be a nice place to be, or a very reliable tool for developing public policy! Could be wrong, of course…
Opportunity: Please go onto the ABC site, log into The Drum comments and invite people to come over to Jo’s blog and see for themselves. We might get the odd troll or seven for a while but the general public will have a chance to make an informed decision – that’s what it’s supposed to be about – eh?
The only thing Clive needs to worry about is the truth!
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Love your post, Jo – just brilliant!
Clive Hamiliton is a a typical pseudo-intellectual nonce who has his publicly-funded head so far up his own backside he can practically see out of his own throat.
The thing with AGW that really hacks me off more than anything is the degree of uncertainty and ambiguity in the science that is just swept under the climate carpet. I think if people really knew how little we understand about the way the climate works and how the global temperature records are badly homogenised together to make inputs for the models that output all these calamitous predictions, then AGW would be well and truly dead and buried.
Forget theory, we need to work on long term observations first before the inputs to the theories can even be relied upon.
I like Monckton’s basic argument against Australia doing anything about CO2 whether its a problem or not – which is that of scale. Anything Australia does in isolation without the rest of the world coming along is something akin to trying to change sea level using a bucket. We emit so little of the world’s CO2 (although have you noticed the government always uses the CO2 per capital figure which is disproportionately high due resources and low population and not the actual total emissions number, which barely registers?), that Australia could pack up totally for 100 years and net CO2 levels would barely change.
Ocean + bucket = Oz + ETS
10
@ Warren 25
Warren:
February 24th, 2010 at 10:24 am
“Corrupt scientists”? Proof please….no,real proof,not amateur innuendo.And the utter hypocrisy revealed in this intemperate piece of counter smear damns your credibility.
From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary
intransitive verb
1 a : to become tainted or rotten b : to become morally debased
2 : to cause disintegration or ruin
When you take tree ring data that is an unreliable temperature proxy (http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/07142006_wegman_report.pdf) and remove the data from the latter years of the graph because it shows temperatures declining and splice on to it real temperature data from corrupt temperature data base files (see http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt) because they show an artificial increase in temperatures, you have corrupt scientists committing fraud. These criminals committed several felonies. In fact, despite the various attempted whitewashes the investigations are still continuing and today Sen. Inhofe announced he will probably recommend a formal criminal investigation. The Met office is considering a complete “do over” of its temperature data because what wasn’t “lost” by the scientist is corrupt! See http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/23/britains-weather-office-proposes-climategate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fscitech+%2528Text+-+SciTech%2529.
You wrote “amateur innuendo.” Joe is no amateur. See http://joannenova.com.au/Joanne/biog.html. You say innuendo but Jo’s arguments are laced with links and citations. You should either substantiate your claim or else have the decency to apologize.
Your entire statement was an Ad Hominem attack! If you wish to write of the credibility of others you should demonstrate some yourself or consider yourself exposed as an intemperate hypocrite!
10
@ Baa Humbug 37
Great post! I was busy ‘taking out the garbage” (see # 40) and didn’t notice your post until I had posted mine.
@ Scott 34 I am LMAO after reading your post! Do you think finger paint might be a little too dangerous? I wouldn’t want to see anyone get hurt!
10
roger pielke blog: Mojib Latif on ZDF: “A Fraud to the Public”
The German public television station ZDF has put together a nice segment (in German, available here) on the substantive problems in the IPCC, including the issue of catastrophe losses. In it Mojib Latif, a prominent German climate scientist, comments on the misrepresentation of the science of disasters and climate change in very strong terms:
“This is clearly a fraud to the public and to the colleague. Everybody has to reject such a behaviour. We have to take care, those things won’t happen again.”
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/mojib-latif-on-zdf-fraud-to-public.html
disband the IPCC. we don’t need the same people pretending to behave better next time.
10
Eddy Aruda:
February 24th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Hi dirty Eddy. We seem to be making a habit of taking turns beating up trolls.
We make a good team.
Now, where is JLK? He often takes a turn as well lol
10
G’day Eddy
Hows your mum? better I hope.
Yeah I forgot there is probably carbon based solvents in the finger paint or Warren might sprain a finger trying to join all the dots.
10
Hey Baa Humbug
Thanks for you help with the Earths Magnetic Field yesterday.
10
Excellent article Jo….. Poor Clive ‘Let’s Suspend Democracy’ Hamilton. I’d feel sorry for th’ guy… If I wasn’t laughing so hard:-)
10
Great article, Jo.
It seems Bill Gates is jumping on the AGW bandwagon too. At a recent TED Talk he recommended Gore’s book (among others) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I (30 mins including Q&A) and pushed the warmist agenda for zero carbon.
10
Welcome El Sledgo,
Of course, it’s really easy for Microsoft to be a Zero Carbon Business right? It’s not like they are some Entergy company or anything.
He is, like many, in it for the goody feel and the money.
10
El Sledgo!
So the next IPCC stuff up will be – Billgate(s)!
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Another unprepared troll lumbers into the fray.
As others have said, go back and do your research, then come back if you can think of anything intelligent to say.
10
Hey I found a good photo of hamilton taken immediately after he read Jo’s piece on him. Hope the image thingy works.
10
Grrrr bruddy image thingy. Try here
10
El Sledgo, just because Gates has money, it doesn’t mean he has any sense!
10
How timely. SPPI gets stuck into Senators Boxer and Merkley.
Calling Mr Warren, Mr Warren to the comments department please.
10
Troll beating is us~!
10
Scott:
February 24th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
My pleasure Scotty. Someday soon that subject will get the recognition it deserves.
Maybe Jones Mann Pachauri Karoly Flannery et al will read about it from the library in cell block D
10
I was thinking more along the lines of Bellevue Hospital Center’s psychiatric facilities.
What do you think Baa? I reakon Clive would have a permanent reservation.
10
co2 rising, no that doesn’t work anymore. Acidification of the oceans, there’s already too many papers debunking that one as-well, sea levels rising, no that one doesn’t stand up either now oxygen levels falling, what next.
10
Wow, I am amazed over and over again at the command of lanquage and the talent of your pen Ms Nova. You are simply inspiring.
10
@JLKrueger,
Glad to see you are still on this side of the grass. You and all the troops are in my prayers. i liked the logo posted over the archway of the Marine Corp barracks in Iraq, “Have a plan to kill everybody you meet today.” Not diplomatic but a good way to keep breathing for another 24 hours. I hope the ribs are healing up. Ya, another troll attempts tubthumping for the AGW crowd and has to settle for just getting thumped. Its like shooting fish in a barrel as they have no where to go, the water prevents a ricochet and also keeps the messy remains in the barrel. Troll terminating is truly an unappreciated field of endeavour.
I would really appreciate a lucid, logical and concise argument from a proponent of global warming but unfortunately there isn’t one to be made.
BTW, I linked to your blog. Thanks, I enjoyed reading it!
@ Baa Humbug #54
Enlightening post. Most people are unaware that big oil benefits from the AGW scam because the greens make it harder for them to get to the oil. Big oil can afford the lawyers, the supply is crimped just enough to keep prices high ($70 to $80 per barrel during a recession) and big oil’s reserves last longer as they take longer to prove up and produce. Not bad when you are probably dealing with a finite commodity!
10
A most sincere thanks to all those who take the time to comment here. Being paid in compliments does motivate me, and it definitely makes it feel like the effort is worthwhile. Shucks 🙂
Cheers!
PS: Did you note, Hamilton has worded his baseless allegations more carefully this time. He now knows he can’t do what Pitman did and accuse us of being directly funded by Exxon and only working for the money. He knows we will fight back, and it does change things.
In a way I feel a tiny bit sorry for many of these guys (the scientists and “reputations” who got pinned to this PR disaster). If the artificial situation where they had no competition had not been created and fostered for 20 years they would have got “busted” for smaller less embarrassing mistakes 19 years ago and it would never have come to a situation where they have to defend a preposterous claim built on such a pile of half-truths and outright lies.
That said, any scientist with a conscience would have had to speak out (and those that did were burnt for it: Michaels, Singer, Lindzen, Spencer, Happer, Tennekes, etc etc). But even if they weren’t feeling that brave, they could have got out and shifted fields. There are plenty of genuine green issues Hamilton could use his voice to promote instead.
In a sense the artificial situation, “no questions asked”, allowed the ethically weak to dig a much deeper hole than they would usually be able to.
10
Jo,
Your comments above are the most well written summary of the situation Academia is finding itself in over this I have ever read.
10
Joanne Nova:
February 24th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Seems like you’ve calmed down. So what’s for dinner? 🙂
10
Love your work Jo
its such a shame our educational facilities have such myopic and/or tunnel vision.
Scott
10
Corruption of the peer review process is documented in email no 1249503274 where a journal asks, “Please list the names of 5 experts who are knowledgeable in your area and could give an unbiased review of your work. Please do not list colleagues who are close associates, collaborators, or family members.”
The team discuss the best names to give and Phil Jones summarises it with, “All of them know the sorts of things to say – about our comment and the awful original, without any prompting.”
So they knowingly deliberately choose favourable reviewers for their own work and the journal in question makes it dead-easy for them to do that! What a joke of a review process.
In email no 1106322460 they are even more blatent with: “If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.”
So they are in the business of actively removing reviewers who were not in agreement with them. If that isn’t evidence of corruption then what would be acceptable?
10
Typical greeny left – they want their mum as soon as they get a bit back. We are definitely inside their heads and it pisses them off that this blog and others are read by increasing numbers of people and there is nothing they can do about it. The more they talk about us the better.
10
Speaking of “green money” as opposed to “big oil money”, The following from Andrew Bolts Blog.
Paging Mr Warren…Mr Warren to the comments department please
10
Evidence of AGW scientist and Big Oil.
I uncovered a video of Big Oil visiting the labs at UEA HERE
10
Thanks Eddy. Getting better every day. Actually got to sleep on the “damaged” side last night for the first time.
The Marine thing actually has more parts:
Smile at everyone.
Be polite to everyone.
Be prepared to kill everyone.
Pert near everyone has that philosophy in this environment, but do note that whacking anyone is the last option. 😉
10
This ones for you Eddy and all the other Americans.
Inhofe has been getting stuck into the EPA and Barby Boxer about the failings of the IPCC. Guess what Jackson of the EPA and Barby did? Why, they disowned the IPCC of course.
The statements by Boxer and Jackson followed Senator Inhofe’s release in his opening statement of a minority staff report documenting many flaws in the IPCC report and the other evidence revealed in the Climategate files.
Both Boxer and Jackson appeared to be trying to distance the EPA from the IPCC report. Boxer said:
When Inhofe directly asked Jackson if she still considered the IPCC report the “gold standard,” she answered:
Jackson also noted:
Here is what Rush Limbaugh said about the silly B.Boxer retort:
LMAO: thanks to pajamasmedia.com
10
JLK
Henceforth JLK shall be known as… The Velvet Sledgehammer 🙂
Hi mate, glad the ribs are almost well done.
10
Jo, I am an old engineer almost immune from bullshit. Truth accuracy and aesthetics are the only things that stop the wheels falling off. That has been my life. The last twenty years or so have seen this amazing change to spin lies and control over the western world. This AGW nonsense is only the latest of a series of calculated steps that seem designed to turn us all into politically correct puppets. I am only recently somewhat computer literate, the web appears to be the only uncontrolled i.e. free from enforced propaganda source of information. Every effort must be to not allow any control over the internet by governments. One small piece and it will grow over time to full control.
You efforts to show the truth are worthy of a hero or to be politically correct a Ms hero, not allowed to use heroine its habit forming. Thank you Jo you are a true tough aussie shiella.
10
Congratulations indeed, Jo. Keep writing like this and you might be head-hunted for the MSM.
One point you have made me realise is that the “sceptics” and “don’t knows” by now are the majority. The Hamiltons of this world are the delusioned minority. If the MSM thought for a moment, they might realise they would have a better hearing/reading if they supported the majority. There is nothing like consensus??
10
Scott:
February 24th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Talking about psychiatric facilities, all the crazies are crawling out from under their rocks. Desperate times indeed for the alarmists. have a read of what Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders had to say..
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33371.html#ixzz0gRgEhJJP
10
Clives Latest rant has just been posted here:
Get in Quick to get the first comment up to really alarm the alarmists.
10
I would suggest a look at the following site:
“criminal charges could still be brought against Professor Phil Jones”
The truth will eventually prevail.
10
Wayne, s. Job: #72
LMAO – thank you.
10
How can we all be so cruel. The man is a public intellectual even if he says so himself
10
MadJak: @ 75
When I read “the science remains rock solid” from your link, I laughed so much, I nearly fell off my chair!
There is truth in the saying “an honest man is someone who hasn’t been offered enough” and we know where all the money trails lead!
10
The Bloom box, seems too good to be true
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10457410-54.html?tag=mncol;txt
10
Comment#1 is up on the ABC Drum Unleashed “Manufacturing a Scientific Scandal”
Awaiting the howls of derision
10
Mines been in for 1/2 an hour, but no sign of it yet
10
Well done Jo on another excellent response to a recognized bully. I wonder what the next laboured innuendo from Hamilton will contain. I feel somewhat sorry for him. His adoring fans are departing from his side, and are quite possibly, involved in the alleged abuse and threats he and his favourite “scientists” have received. Speaking for myself this type of behaviour is unacceptable and really pathetic, but I do not recall any calls for restraint or civilly from Hamilton over the last several years of dissident climate scientist abuse and threats. That he would single you out is downright disgusting; but the cognitively challenged do frequently make an individual the object of their hatred. 1 think Clive is sadly beyond delusional and is on a steady course for deranged. I noticed some comments on the Drum to effect that pro AGW people are getting sick of him. He’s become an embarrassment to the even the remnant of believers. One more contribution like today’s and maybe even his ABC mates will disown him.
10
Charles B – it took a good hour…suspect that statements of fact which are beyond any dispute are the way to go, rather than slanging matches. Tongue biting imminent.
Might read up a bit more on Mr and Mrs ARGO, could come in handy?
10
Charles Bourbaki:
February 24th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
Read your piece on Hamilton Charles, well said.
I quoted some of the emails he left out. We’ll see if they get an airing.
10
[…] Jo Nova demolishes his arguments and understanding in her blog post here […]
10
Jo,
I have to say that I just love your website and what you are doing. Please keep up the good work.
10
Good article again Joanne.
It’s worth reproducing some of Walter Russell Mead’s article, titled How AL Gore Wrecked Planet Earth, posted on American Interest On Line, about the collapse and death of the movement to stop climate change through a binding treaty negotiated under UN auspices.
The rants of Clive Hamilton and his like are covered in this quote:
10
Venus’ greenhouse effects have long been a rallying cry for warmers. Whenever a warmer uses Venus as an example of CO2 influence, I ask, “So you think Venus’ CO2 is anthropogenic?” The response is usually “No”. “Then how did it get into Venus’ atmosphere?” The usual response is “I have no idea.” There are plenty of sources for CO2 and clear examples of places in the solar system of non-anthropogenic origins.
This is why I question why science can not find an explanation except “man made”.
10
Deary me. First there were the Alarmists, then came the Deniers but now it’s all over, like a new tribe emerging from the ashes, out come the Apologists.
10
Wow, Hamilton is really getting beaten up by the commenters at the ABC site.
10
Humbug @70,
Isn’t it too bad that the EPA did no work of it’s own but instead relied on the work of the IPCC?
How will the EPA ever withstand the court challenges?
10
Roy Hogue:
February 25th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
I don’t think they will Roy. These court challenges will bring the “science” out into the open. The said science being comprised of maybes and probablies, I doubt it will stand up in the courts.
Time will tell
10
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/22/2826417.htm. Climate scientists ‘under cyber attack’ according to author Clive Hamilton. The 2009 Greens candidate says the attacks are arranged by “denialist organisations” and are aimed at driving climate scientists from the public debate.
Yeah, right…
10
Sounds like Clive is whining now that the tables have turned in the public eye.
Please post any proof you have that “DENIALIST ORGANIZATIONS” exist. Talk about wacky paranoid beliefs that Hamilton has!
10
I am at this very moment reading Ian Wishart’s book “Air Con: the seriously inconvenient truth about global warming”. He is of course a climate rationalist (I reject “denier” and am not overly keen on the term “skeptic”) and at the moment i am up to the chapter that deals with precisly this kind of bullying.
He mentions the planet Venus, and says it is not relevant as Venus has one side perpetually turned to the sun, which would grossly skew any greenhouse affect there.
I always doubted the relevance of it myself
A fine book, recommended by Lord Monckton, written for the lay reader and VERY WELL researched with every quote attested in foot notes at the BOTTOM of the page – as they should be for the careful scholar
Here’s hoping the case for AGW fails publicly soon
10
The last week here was rough and I haven’t been keeping up, but wanted to add: You are EXCELLENCE IN BROADCASTING, Jo!
(That’s a Rush Limbaugh joke)
10
It really does seem to me that those who do not believe in man made climate change are very much more passionate than those who do.
You say that Clive Hamilton is trying to help ‘banker profits, corrupt scientists, and plundering bureaucrats’ but there is also the one world government totalitarians, Al-qaida, wealth redistribution activists, ex communists and the scientists that were paid by Thatcher to hatch this plot. I think it’s also all western governments. Such a vast coalition of ne’er do wells. What is the single thing they all want out of this plot?
10
“Attempting to intimidate?
Oh and look, was Clive-Bully-Hamilton trying to intimidate me again by using my maiden name, as if it meant something? It’s got zero recognition in politics or the media, and no web presence at all, so Clive’s only intent presumably is to scare me by trying to attack my private life, or alert his flock to do more “research” digging for dirt they can’t find?”
Jo as I’m sure you know, you ain’t the first Hamilton’s tried to attack using these tactics:
If ever you needed an example of bad manners, this has got to be up there. Vile.
10
Phil:
At #98 you ask:
Why do you assume that everybody on the AGW bandwagon has the same “single reason” for travelling on it? I know of no other bandwagon of which this is true.
If you insist on a “single reason” why they have all climbed aboard the AGW bandwagon then it is because the bandwagon is heading in a direction that they all want to go. But that does not mean they all have the same desired destination.
There are five things they want:
money, power, prestige, a societal change, and job security.
Some want one of these things, others more than one, some all five.
Richard
10
Baa Humbug:
At #74 you provide a quotation and say:
This is not the first time I have heard (and been subjected to) this odious asserted comparison. Please see
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2938
As the link explains, on that occasion the assertion did not go down well with those who heard it.
Richard
10
Richard S Courtney:
March 2nd, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Thankyou Richard, that was interesting. (I was tempted to say “entertaining” but it was too sad to be that)
I say sad because tactics of people like Robinson, (highly educated, holding important posts) resorting to these types of offensive personal attacks can be nothing other than sad.
Surely at some stage there has to be some sort of personal reflection? A thought as to how one comes across to people they are responsible to for preparing them for adult life?
On a related note, I’ve been wanting to commend you on your discipline and patient self-restraint whilst debating with bloggers.
I keep reminding myself to keep calm, not to get angry and not to get too sarcastic but I fail on many occasions. My hot Meditteranean blood possibly.
p.s. An audio or video of the debate would have been gr8
10