Once more the ABC is posting logical failures, confused non-evidence, and baseless thinking. This time Professorial Fellow Stephan Lewandowsky also tries to talk about economic cost benefits, without analyzing either costs or benefits, and doesn’t seem to know the difference between a free market and a fixed one. Why do they bother?
Lewandowsky says we should act — despite the supposed “lack of certainty”. Given that there are multiple studies and empirical evidence that suggests carbon has no catastrophic effect, what he is effectively saying is we should ignore the observations and be obedient to the Gods of “science” instead. It harks straight from our stone age tribal era.
Right from the outset, let’s be clear, that for all Lewandowsky’s bluster about the scientific evidence, he has never once posted any reference showing observational evidence that the touted positive feedback written into the models-of-doom has any basis in fact. As usual, he points to the Biblical “Consensus”, even though we’ve pointed out the basics of science (that consensus is an unscientific, illogical argument from authority, and is baseless in science). When the government has poured in billions to “find” a consensus, it would be flat out shocking if they couldn’t arrange one. How much does a consensus cost? Among climate scientists, about $30 billion.
Contrast the “consensus” among scientists who are not paid to search-for-a-scare. Thousands upon thousands of them have gone out of their way to declare they disagree, though all they earn for this is regurgitated insults from pretender scientists and their sycophant followers.
So why does Lewandowsky still spruik “consensus”? He arranged (and paid — who knows — it wears the UWA logo?) for John Cook to try to knock down the Skeptics Handbook, so presumably Lewandowsky has read the Handbook, so he realizes that he’s treading through the graveyard of science, yet still can’t meet the challenge to actually talk about scientific evidence instead of socio politic documentation.
Lewandowsky is an embarrassment to science, to psychology, to UWA, and now thanks to taxpayer funds, you can read him yet again on our ABC. He uses stone age reasoning to promote government funded science, government policies, on a government funded media outlet. Is this not the very definition of propaganda?
And look out for the economic analogy direct from communist kindy: The government ought to mandate and subsidize the reinvention of the energy sources that civilization was built on because… wait for it… the IT revolution of the last four decades has been good?! Goddit? Lewandowsky apparently didn’t notice that no government anywhere in the world had to legislate to get rid of punch cards and Fortran IV. Why? Because – the economic benefits were overwhelming and obvious, so the market raced to do it all by itself.
According to Lewandowsky’s back-of-the-postage-stamp calculation, totally giving up fossil fuels is not scary “…a transition can also be exciting and rewarding.” What he does though is not so much a cost-benefit analysis (where people mention “costs”) but more like a national therapy session: You too can set yourself free by admitting your carbon guilt and using creative visualization to grow wind farms that don’t need constant maintenance and an unbroken 15 knot sou-wester. Lewandowsky may have the right idea that we need to do a “cost benefit”, but somehow not the rigor to rise above the analytical level of a Greenpeace-brochure.
Let’s try that reasoning again with solar-wind-geothermal-tidal-power… somehow, if there was an energy source out there that was better than coal or oil, Lewandowsky forgets that it would succeed just fine without a jot of forcible government intervention. Tell me what nation wouldn’t rush to use geothermal if it produced electricity that was cheaper than coal fired power?
But perhaps I’m too cynical. It would be “exciting and rewarding” to transform our energy sources, especially if you are one of the lucky rulers who get to spend other people’s money and reap the heroic acclaim for saving the planet by forcing everyone else to give up their disposable income to get the exact same services they already get. For the masses, the privilege of spending more money for the same essentials but less on holidays, sport, hobbies, and social events might lack a little luster.
And don’t assume I’m thinking the real costs are just less playthings for the wealthy west. From the start I have always said the real costs are those borne by the people on the poverty line. Without cheap electricity how are medicines going to reach and be stored in the back blocks of Tanzania? How many kids will die of dysentery from unboiled water? Why would a poor mother choose to pay more for a solar heater to cook with, but not be able to afford any meat to stew?
Of course, if our carbon emissions were likely to cause us grave harm it would make sense to talk about legislation. But any cost benefit analysis has to start with the question of whether there is even a benefit that’s measurable, because when there’s no evidence carbon (through water vapor amplification) creates major warming, then there’s no evidence that reducing carbon will be worth 1 cent. But that’s just it, Lewandowsky stacks poor logic on top of baseless assumptions, then fits it to a senseless analogy, and the ABC thinks its worth repeating.
There’s an epidemic need for remedial courses in logic and reason among our government funded “servants”.
…
See all my posts tagged Stephan Lewandowsky.
See all posts tagged “ABC Unleashed (Blog)“ (aka Ad hominem Unleashed.)
The ABC Unleashed Lewandowsky post.
Anthony Cox, David Stockwell and I reply to the Tranter ABC post “Suing the Sceptics”
There is something really creepy about this current swarm of academic group-thinkers, like a mindless mass of soldier ants remorselessly butchering all living beings in their path. But I suppose that is the very nature of all individual-suppressing collective movements, which now seem to be on the rise again, as they were in the late 1930s. Of what value is “truth” when the party line is at stake?
It is truly disgusting to me (as an ex-academic) to see our universities overrun by this global swarming mass of creepy-crawlies. They destroyed the Humanities with their collective propaganda, and now they are destroying the Science faculties.
Shudder!!
20
The man is an embarrassment, period.
20
Binny had the right idea in the previous thread. Invite this guy to go out the back of WA and set up his own Armish style community so he can show all the “followers” how it is done.
10
In years to come, the ABC and other CAGWists will be far too embarrassed to admit their failings, and simply claim they were a bystander to the AGW fraud rather than a fierce, clenched-fisted proponent.
.pɐǝɥ s,ʇı uo pǝuɹnʇ ǝnssı sıɥʇ ǝǝs oʇ ʇıɐʍ ʇ,uɐɔ I
Note: Labour says no to carbon taxes for the next term!! Have we already won?? At least it’ll give us all more time to pee on the now luke-warm ashes.. 😉
10
Sounds a lot like religious evangelism. It has no basis in logic or reason.
10
Jo:
Why not tell us what you really think?
10
John Brookes @ 6:
Do you think somehow that Jo left you short-changed? Lewandowski IS an embarrassment to science et al by skimming stones over the pond of the science and facts of the matter rather than immersing himself. Never has Lewandowski proven CO2 is the cause of climate change (rather, it’s an effect as temperature PRECEDES CO2 level change by some 800 years). Instead, Lewandowski would rather back the infliction of totalitarian control of humanity and near-catastrophic destruction of our economies – “just in case” the IPCC are right, without knowing or checking the facts. There is no way that fighting climate change by taking from the battlers, the rich taking much and giving little to the poor will reverse global warming. You might as well try to stop the planet turning.
John, if I’ve mistaken your comment, I apologise sincerely and hope Jo flames Lewandowski harder in future. In any case, the above applies to all CAGW proponents (CAGWists).
10
John @ 6
I reckon she’s thinking that if Prof. Lewandowsky wanted to preserve a shred of intellectual credibility, he should start by using logical arguments backed up by substantial (physical) evidence.
Unless you have any better suggestions for ways to formulate policy?
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Stephan Lewandowsky:”…that Denmark cut carbon emissions by 21% between 1990 and 2006 while at the same time increasing its GDP by a whopping 44%..”
Nicely Played dude! Bwahahaha!
Reply:
I’m a Dane – from Denmark you know, the land of Hans Christian Andersen who also wrote storyes, here’s one you should read: “The Emperor’s New Clothes”
..and while we are at it, the fable of Aesop, “The Shepherd Boy and the Wolf”
BTW, are you at level 2, 3 or 4 ? anger, Bargaining or Depression ??
10
The AGW crowd are the modern-day equivalent of the Millerites, whose tipping point was scheduled for October 22, 1844, which would see the ‘second coming’ of Jesus Christ. Many of the Millerites had simply given away all their possessions in anticipation, and when their man didn’t make it on time, were left potless.
Not surprisingly, they called it The Great Disappointment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Disappointment). I guess the modern equivalent was Copenhagen 2009…
10
ABC moderators have been censoring most of my responses on that thread. Those responses have been as tempered as they are here.
Notably nearly all the posts pointing to the fallacies and errors of Lewandowsky and his cheer squad never make it at all. Some disappeared during the day, having being posted last night or this morning and appearing online.
They can’t take the truth.
10
I just posted a comment listing the rice-yield data, McKitrick el al on models, the Nepal NASA temp record, and NOAA’s now infamous 600+ deg/F reading. Still under moderation.
10
I once wrote a piece that started:
In the upper Brazilian jungle, there lives a tribe of indians known as “Os povos da galinha da torneira” – literally, “The people of the cockerel”.
They get this name because they worship the male cockerel, for it is the cockerel who gets up before dawn, and crows loudly enough to wake the sun and cause it to rise at the start of the day, warming the people and causing the plants to grow.
Now, if civilised and educated people of the west have read thus far, you will probably be thinking that these are uncivilised savages with little or no understanding of how the world really works – no understanding of science.
But let us pause to apply the scientific method to their belief system. They have amassed observations over time, and have established a correlation between the cockerel crowing and the sun coming up. They have also identified causation, because the cockerel always crows before the sun rises. Furthermore, they can demonstrate the mechanism, in that the cockerel has to crow loudly enough, and long enough to wake the sun. What they have not done, is to consider the null hypothesis, that the sun would rise anyway, even if the cockerel did not crow.
So our unsophisticated indians demonstrate four of the five requirements for the scientific method. Eighty percent – not a bad score for uncivilised savages.
So let us compare their performance against, say, climate scientists. Climate scientists have amassed observations over time, and have established a correlation between an increase in global temperature and the level of atmospheric carbon. But they have difficulties in identifying causation, because the global temperature always varies ahead of the levels of atmospheric carbon, but they want to believe that the causation affect is the other way around – that atmospheric carbon variations precede global temperature variations. They also cannot demonstrate the mechanism whereby the causation occurs (presumably because they have the causation wrong). And finally, what they also have not done, is to consider the null hypothesis, that the changes in atmospheric carbon, and the changes in global temperature, are simply natural variations.
So climate scientists correctly demonstrate two of the five requirements for the scientific method. They score forty percent – not as good as the uncivilised savages, and hardly a pass mark.
Now, what were we saying about people having little or no understanding of how the world really works – no understanding of science?
10
@Rereke Whaakaro
Nice example – here’s another interesting one you surely know about:
Cargo Cult Climate Science
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/cargo-cult-climate-science
10
Actually, Lewandowsky is even wrong there. The IT revolution started in the 1930’s with the introduction of the punched card, and the mechanical means for sorting, collating, and enumerating the data. It was originally developed for the US Census Bureau.
Also, IT hasn’t always been used for good purposes. It was the application of punched card technology, and a variation of the census processing, that allowed the Nazi regime to a) identify the Jews and the Gypsies, b) to “arrange for their collection”, and c) to “process” them through the death camps.
But the government incentives for bigger, faster, easier data processing methods were there. Until the late 1950’s or early 1960’s the vast majority of computer systems were in use by Governments or large government contractors.
The huge difference between the two approaches, which everybody seems to miss, is that then, governments provided incentives to business and demonstrated how the businesses could grow and increase profits by providing what the Government required.
Now, the initial government response to problems is to apply punitive measures and regulatory controls, wrapped up in propaganda, fear, and vilification.
Both approaches create unintended consequences. But in the former case, business has to deal with them; in the latter case, it is the general population that suffers.
10
@Bernd Felsche #11, everything below is my attempt to give the moderators a bit of a nudge.
@Bernd Felsche here – http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/lewandowsky-the-abc-parades-a-witchdoctor-again/
“ABC moderators have been censoring most of my responses on that thread. Those responses have been as tempered as they are here.
Notably nearly all the posts pointing to the fallacies and errors of Lewandowsky and his cheer squad never make it at all. Some disappeared during the day, having being posted last night or this morning and appearing online.
They can’t take the truth.”
Censorship anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Posted on 13 August, 2010, at 21:33:06. Cross-posted on the above blog not long after.
10
I’m sure I said this in an earlier thread, but Stephan Lewandowsky is a psychologist, and therefore hardly qualified to make expert pronouncements on hard science, climate or economics. it would make him an expert on how to manipulate people and opinions, however.
10
Jo – I think that you have missed what the latest thinking is by our illustrious scientists/economists in relation to so-called rational global-warming economic theory and, that maybe what the esteemed UWA guru was alluding to. The new economic theory to curb global warming through carbon demand is based on “Zero Growth” prosperity, or standard of living, achieved by dampening consumer demand of everyday consumables through taxation and other Government regulatory interventionist measures. The argument is that “a standard of living” can be maintained and indeed increased through a heavily regulated “Use” of energy as calculated as being “held in the end product” at the consumer end.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/stories/2010/2949473.htm
The scary thing is that this is not new economic theory as such, it has been tried before in history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_goods_in_the_Soviet_Union
10
I seem to recollect having read somewhere than Denmark covers the power shortages during wind droughts by buying excess Nuclear power from the French. ( the next best thing to exporting CO2)
If this were in fact the case, would this mean Lewandowsky would tacitly approve of a few nice big nuclear power stations? It sure would make sense with all the uranium resources we have in this country
10
Yesterday I got the “isn’t it better that we stop polluting the planet” argument which I get often. They don’t want to accept that the theory of global warming is wrong so they sidetrack and turn the debate into an argument about pollution and how dreadful mankind is by constantly polluting the planet with coal and oil and the “do you really believe we can keep on doing this indefinitely?” argument. When you point out that coal burning power stations have been getting cleaner and cleaner and the modern ones remove 98% of particulate matter and all the SO2 etc they still carry on about the 2% – it’s engrained in them. They basically believe man is a bad curse and ultimately should be removed from the planet so mother nature can return to her normal pristine balance – we are nature’s bastard child, shame on us.
10
pattoh: @19
No nuclear – they are going to burn biomass gathered from wheat stubble to make up for the drop in wind. Somehow burning wheat stubble is ok but burning another biomass, coal is not.
10
janama: # 21
Yes I saw that, and thought, “What the f…”.
But then I remembered that the Greens are against ploughing the stubble back in, because of the diesel expended in the tractors, and the subsoil gasses released in the process (whatever they might be). Oh, yes, and you can’t use horses, because of all of that methane …
Actually guys, this is good news. The choir has stopped singing in tune, and is in fact now all singing different songs. That is because the conductor has gone AWOL.
I don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories, but if all this was being orchestrated, then whoever was doing it has moved on to something else and left the residue to disperse as it can.
10
A bit O/T, but I think this is relevant nonetheless.
What I don’t understand is why so many people can’t see these overtures as being advocation of a command economy.
Really, basic economics should be taught to people before they can be considered informed enough to make an adequate decision on this sort of thing.
Maybe we should be informing people of the economics of what the watermelons are proposing rather than sticking to the science and the politics? Maybe the angle we’re taking is wrong?
Let’s face it the watermelons currently are going to stick to their guns because their egos won’t allow them to admit they were taken for a ride. Their ABC is a great example with the same watermelon trolls there all the time.
Peoples views of our capitalist model are really skewed because in my mind we don’t really have a capitalist model – including the US I’m afraid to say – we have a weird bastard between the two which can probably be surmised as being a bit like “It’s politically inconvenient to have the downs but we’ll take the ups of capitalism” Capitalism.
I am sure that if we had real capitalism (the good and the bad), there would be no where near the amount of waste we see today. Ironically it is the command economy which results in waste and inefficiencies – regardless of how many bureaucrats and threats are thrown into managing it.
I’m thinking that this issue is no longer really about science, it is about politics and economics. Unfortunately many politicians really have no idea about the latter. Quacks know even less apparently.
Sorry, a bit early in the morning for a rant.
10
[snip]
10
I’m from NZ so I’m not really “up with the play” on the ABC, but how big is the following of their sites ? or how much influence do they really have ? Is there an organization that measures the site visit numbers ? I ask this because I think it is sometimes easy to think that particular sites are hugely influencial because you have an interest in the subject matter but in reality there are not a great number of people viewing the site. Recently on WUWT there was figures giving ratings of various sites ( Real Climate ranked 80,000th in the US and had not changed much over the past few years. WUWT was 40,000th –increasing in popularity over the last year).
On another topic I wonder what Lewandosky would this of this
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100812151634.htm
10
Stephan Lewandowsky would carry much more credibility if he were to offer a believable refutation of the German and other physicists who dispute the thermodynamic assumptions in the so-called greenhouse effect. Until this question is comprehensively dealt with, i.e., that the IPCC’s slant on the GHE leading to catastrophic climate change is thermodynamically impossible, the rest is irrelevant conjecture.
Rant on, Stephan!
10
Well I spent the last half hour or so firing a few volleys of facts at that thread, but I doubt it will spark any of the lightbulbs in people’s heads. I see Brendon is peeved at Jo for canning his posts after the bile he poured on these forums. A slight difference between that and being censored on warmist sites for asking polite but inconvenient science questions.
Hey one week to go you lot… we are on the precipice of seeing Labor win this election with the Greens in the balance of power in the senate… now that IS something to be scared about. It is worse than we thought…
10
Love your wordsmithing Jo – a very enjoyable rant!
10
Lewandowski, as misguided as he is, is probably not a grant seeker such as Richard Alley from PSU who also doesn’t seem to realise what is wrong with his claims.
That graph of his seems to be saying the opposite:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate
10
Whose the most stupid out of Hairshirt-Hamilton and Lewandowsky? I would say that Lewandowsky is even more hard-core stupid than Clive Hamilton. But Clive makes up for it by a predilection towards fantasy, and also from sheer dishonesty. Also Clive is ethically perverted. Lewandowsky could be all these things too. But on the surface its at least possible that the whole problem could be put down to logic deficit.
I have a question. Or at least some thoughts to run by some of the people here. I’m trying to imagine electrical transfer between the sun, the galaxy proper, and the earth and what will determine where that implied electrical-energy will be converted to thermal-energy. So we are talking about cosmic rays, solar wind particles, and presumably electrical transfer through Birkeland currents. These may overlap for all I know. What I mean is that Birkeland currents might be mediated through cosmic rays and/or solar winds. I’d be interested in what understandings or best guesses people have on this matter.
Now the thing is, its an issue WHERE and in what proportion these electrical currents result in thermal energy. You see one would guess that on Venus more than half of this conversion would be effected prior to the electrical current hitting the ground. Whereas on earth one might expect that three quarters and more of it get converted in the magma. The magma would probably be where most of the thermal energy conversion takes place.
On the other hand SOME of the conversion might be starting straight away, and it may be meaningful at 100 millibars. And of course you would expect more and more with the extra air pressure. Since we are talking about the excitation that these charged particles effect when they react with the molecules. But for them to react in a big way with the molecules the molecules may have to be close together. If not instead of colliding the charged subatomic particles may attract or deflect molecules as they pass by without this making a serious conversion to thermal energy.
Now why do I think that most of this conversion on earth would occur in the magma? Well on the oil-is-mastery blog the fellow there introduced to me the concept of “p-holes”. These seem to be akin to the continuation of birkeland currents by other means. It appears that no matter how deep humans have been into the earth, you can tell the state of the cosmic ray bombardment above, because of the existence of these p-holes. The p-holes are mobile like you would expect twisting electric currents to be.
What is surprising is that these flows are moving through substances which are not thought to be great conductors. But this is probably a prosaic thing in that we all know that electricity is homesick for earth. So we are talking something akin to well-worn paths of electricity flow. But even being that as it may, it is the case with wires and things that when they get hot they conduct less well. And perhaps the heat and mobility of magma would block these flows to a great degree, and thus the magma would maintain its heat.
What do people think? this would help to explain the heat on Venus if this electrical energy was 50% converted to thermal energy by the time it hit the ground on Venus, whereas if it was the case on earth that 70% of the conversion was in the magma itself, that would seem to explain things rather well as well.
I suspect that now that someone has tried to put these suspicions into words in this way, what I’m saying here will seem to be rather old hat.
10
tMadJak: #23
Not at all, I think you are spot on.
Yes, we took a lurch towards something other than Capitalism when Governments decided to bail out banks that got into trouble. Look at the message it sends – take risks guys, we won’t let you fail – prudence is such an old-fashioned word. I am waiting to see derivative trading in carbon credits. It will happen, trust me.
The most fundamental categories in economics are between the “productive” sector, and the “non-productive” sector.
In a simplistic view, private enterprise (capitalist) must be productive by default and definition (although when there are business failures they are always counterproductive), whereas the bureaucracy and public services are unproductive by default, being initially established to set the rules of trade and then monitor how well the productive sector meets those rules.
Admittedly there are government departments who provide “productive services”, but they are invariably services (such as the “public good” component of the broadcasting services) that are necessary, but will always be insufficiently profitable to attract private investors. Where this is not the case, we find government departments competing with the private sector with inferior products with higher (and inefficient) cost structures, but subsidised pricing to make them competitive.
10
“Yes, we took a lurch towards something other than Capitalism when Governments decided to bail out banks that got into trouble.”
I heard someone saying that the amount of money given to the banks was more than enough to pay out every existing mortgage in the United States. Its just disgusting. People must recognise the American bankers for the criminal syndicates that they are. Its possible that the speaker meant the total amounts lent, spent and guaranteed. But they wouldn’t be including the money that Bernanke is paying them to simply lodge reserves with the Fed. Not even tricky stealing. And they wouldn’t even be counting the low interest rate subsidy, and the new money creation subsidy. This is truly a banking tyrrany we are talking about and we cannot afford it. The Americans can afford this parasitism even less.
10
St. Albert of Gore recently said that just a few kilometers below the surface of the earth the temperature was millions of degrees. We can get away from polluting petroleum simply by tapping this geothermal source. Heck, at millions of degrees, we might even get geothermal fusion reactors going. Perhaps this, yet untapped, source of energy is the one good professor is talking about. Who can deny the gospel of St. Al?
I’ve yet to find anyone with a satisfactory explanation of how wind power will work when two peak electricity demand periods (dawn and dusk) seem to coincide with periods of low wind speed.
10
Madjak:
At #23 you say:
From its start and up to now the issue has always been about politics and economics but not science: see
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
If it were about science then it would have been forgotten long ago because there is no empirical evidence that supports it and much that refutes it.
From the start of the AGW scare, science has been an appendage to the scare (see Figure 2 in the link: all the feedback loops are powered by the political support and if you delete all reference to science – i.e. the items linked by the green connections – then the issue still runs).
And the fact that the scare still exists despite clear empirical evidence that refutes the AGW hypothesis demonstrates that there has never been any scientific basis for the scare.
But the scare is now dead. It died at Copenhagen last year when China and India refused to accept their being part of any future ‘Kyoto-style’ economic constraints (the link also explains why this outcome would kill the scare although the original article was written decades ago and the updated version in the link is from the late 1990s).
The dead scare continues to run around like a headless chicken. Its movement emulates life but – like the movement of the dead chicken – it is merely the residual of the life it once had. And the scare will show much movement in Cancun later this year, but it is dead because its political and economic feedstock has been destroyed.
So, now we need to protect against the scare’s movement in the governments of individual countries until that movement stops.
Richard
10
Ulrike has published that it is OK for me to forward the email below to my friends……………..
Hello, Orkneygal
Do you love travelling? Then I would like to invite you to participate in my research project and to enter a prize draw of three $100 AUD VISA gift cards.
My name is Ulrike and I am a PhD candidate at Griffith University, located on the Gold Coast, Queensland. In my research, I am interested in what travellers think about climate change and how this might influence their travel experiences and choices. Your opinion as a traveller is important for my project. Whether you believe in climate change or not, I am interested in your opinions, thoughts and experiences. Everything important to you will be important for my research. Have your say!
What would your participation entail? Please answer my research questions online at http://www.researchlounge.net/ or download the questions as a word document and email your answers. Your participation is only limited by your interest and time, and each participant has the chance to win a $100 AUD VISA gift card.
I really appreciate your time and participation in my project, as your input will be a vital contribution. Your participation is voluntary and your privacy is protected all the time. You can find some more information about me, and the ethical conduct of the research on my website. If you like, you are also welcome to join the discussions in the online forum. Please have a look and let me know if you have any questions.
I am looking forward hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Ulrike
Ulrike Kachel
PhD Candidate
Department of Tourism, Leisure, Hotel and Sport Management
Griffith Business School
Gold Coast campus
Griffith University, Qld 4222 Australia
Fax: +61 7 5552 8507
Mobile: +61 4 160 95 196
Email: u.kachel@griffith.edu.au
10
These postings might be of interest on this thread
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/socialist-sin/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/unemployment-really-20/
http://blog.qtau.com/2010/03/what-is-government-job-worth.html
10
I wonder how many emotive votes the Greens would get in Adelaide & Melbourne if an election was held at the height of summer when all the aircons were causing load shedding & SA was buying coal power from Vic’s Latrobe Valley?
10
Richard S Courtney: #34
In a sense, it was about science since the AGW “scare” was the catalyst required to introduce the concept of carbon trading (which is really no more than a consumption tax) and to do so on an international scale.
The real beneficiary of such a tax structure is the international bureaucracy which, according to some commentators, has designs on forming a single world government.
Personally, I don’t subscribe to the notion that we will suffer a single world government any time soon, because I am well aware of the inefficiencies and ineptitude that are inherent in bureaucracies. They collapse under their own weight, and the larger they are, the more weight they have.
Mind you, if somebody is stupid enough to try it, it will not be pleasant to be there when the collapse happens.
10
Rereke Whaakaro: @ #38:
August 14th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
…and where Tax goes internationally ‘governance structures’ – to collect, ‘administer’ and ultimately enforce them – will surely follow.
Indeed, but nothing so overt.
You don’t live anywhere near Europe do you Rereke ?
Such structures like to impose themselves by stealth. The less you’re aware of them the more they can bleed from you, without you realising it, … until one day you wonder what’s bleeding you dry, but by then it’s too late… they’ve already leeched all your powers from you.
Enjoy your freedom while you believe you still have it.
10
Mr Whaakaro – try googling “Maurice Strong + Earth Summit” check the quotes & specifically the dates
10
I am certain the ABC allow Prof Lewandowsky a forum on The Drum because he spruiks the ABC Corporate Mantra on Climate Change. I have read the ABC’s internal ‘Green Transfer’ and other documents which make it clear ABC management believe CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming. I don’t blame the ABC, it’s not their job to determine the truth of climate science, but they should stop giving Prof Lewandowsky credibility on the subject of climate change. His knowledge is clearly lacking, but most surprisingly for a psychology professor, as you have clearly pointed out Jo, so is his logic! (Note to self: UWA must not be the centre of excellence in this state for Psychology studies). I don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories, I don’t know why Lewandowsky and others so uncritically support the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. Perhaps it’s just that they started out as firm supporters because it felt right, but like loyal football fans, they don’t want to admit the facts that their team is out of finals contention, even when they are sitting at the bottom of the ladder with just a few games to play.
I have submitted a comprehensive response to Lewandowsky’s latest offering to the editor of The Drum Unleashed. It addresses every error of fact and logic in his article dated 12 August 2010. Because of this it is necessarily long at over 3,700 words. It is not a journalistic piece of fluff like Lewandowsky’s so I doubt they will publish my response, but if not, I hope they at least read it and see that Lewandowsky does not deserve the space on The Drum, or anywhere else for that matter.
10
Jaymez: @ #41
August 15th, 2010 at 2:21 am
and, who can be blamed for following the ‘concensus’, even if it is wrong.
Such is the lame thinking which holds back society, by encoouraging mediocrity while preventing real progress.
10
Joe Veragio: #39
You are quite right, Joe. In fact I am as far away from Europe as I can possibly get (and still stay warm). A clear demonstration of Cause and Effect. 🙂
But I was primarily referring to a World Government in #38, and a World Government would be an entirely different matter, compared to recent European history.
It would need to be inclusive of the geopolitical ambitions of China, Russia, and the US (in addition to to those of Europe). Not such an easy thing to ask.
Europe expended most of its natural resources in the industrial revolution and in acquiring and maintaining various empires around the world. It is now a spent force, relying on imports for energy and most raw materials.
One of the driving forces behind the formation of the EEC, and hence the EU, is a realisation of this, and the desire to band together to find renewed strength in numbers. In many ways, it is also the driving force behind some of the weirder demands of the Green movement.
But the venue for “the great game” is now shifting away from Europe and the Atlantic, and is increasingly becoming centred in Asia and the Pacific.
Being at the bottom of the world (or on the back), is purely an artifice of the mapmaker. The English refer to the “far East”, but there is no such thing. If you look at a map centred on the international date line; Europe, instead of being the centre of the world, becomes the “far West”.
10
pattoh: #40
Yes, I am well aware of Mr Strong. He is an influential man who is both well informed, and well intentioned (at least according to his own lights).
Fortunately for him, his views strike a chord with those in power, so he is successful. Unfortunately, his view are anathema to the average person on the street who still thinks of themselves as being patriotic in regard to their country of birth or domicile.
I am told that Maurice never refers to himself as a Canadian, and gets annoyed with those who do. He prefers to think of himself as transcending nationality, and that is part of his appeal – he lives what he believes.
But I am confident that neither he, nor I, will live long enough to see his ambitions for a single world government fulfilled.
There are just too many people who see themselves as being “English”, or “French”, or “American”, in the world for him to succeed. And that does not even consider the mistrust between nations that arises out of religious differences.
10
Rereke, Richard and Graeme,
Honestly I’m not used to having other independent thinkers agreeing with me on this sort of thing, which suggests to me that my views are no longer fringe views at all. So now I’m going to push the point a little further…
WRT the bailout of the big end of town – in the US and elsewhere, the whole notion that any business or institution is “too big to fail” is complete bunkum. In order for capitalism to thrive, bad businesses must fold. By doing so, good businesses get a good deal picking up any pieces that are worth grabbing. Pouring more money into a bucket full of holes is throwing good money after bad. Now this is politically unsatisfactory for some, but that is the necessary downside of capitalism.
With all of this Quantitative easing that has been occurring in the US, Europe and elsewhere, the only thing it could possible achieve is to delay the inevitable and to make the inevitable impact worse. Of course this flies in the face of keynesian economics which says in bad times pay people to dig unnecessary holes to keep the money flowing. Of course, this might have worked if during the boom times reserves were put aside for the downtimes, but it seems to me that our dear leaders over the last 40 years have concluded there would be no downtimes because they can “command capitalism”. They can’t – we’re simply not that intelligent.
And no, the problem is definitely not just an American problem either. Whilst I dislike the source, I do think this is predominantly an “Anglo saxon” crisis. Almost all of the western world bought into the idea that capitalism could be commanded and controlled to the extent where it has been crippled.
There sure were a lot os school lunches involved in that handout (which is continuing).
So how does this relate to AGW? Well, here goes… Right now, just as we have had (and still have) deluded people who think they can command something as simple as the financial sector, we now seem to have a large number of people who seem to think that we have been and can “command the climate”. This is not only Hubris, but IMHO I think it is also extremely dangerous. It is really a stupid idea to manipulate a system that is not fully understood. I am actually worried about things like schemes being devised to combat the “big bad C02”.
If we take an example like “Carbon capture”, I’m sorry the idea of concentrating the C02 underground where it will be “safe” to me really seems like a good way to create a weapon of mass destruction. Besides the plantlife won’t benefit from all that good stuff with it all locked in the underground Bomb.
The other concern I have is that by targeting C02 emissions, other forms of pollution which have proven empirical evidence of being detrimental are getting a free ride. What about the crap being poured into waterways around the world? Also, by trying to tie AGW to combatting poverty, how many people around the world have continued to die as a result of their cause being hooked up to such a stupid set of concerns which originate from predominantly affluent people in the first world.
I am saying “Climate Change” has been the ultimate distraction which has been exploited first by environmentalists, then by Environmentalist advocates posing as “scientists”, followed by selfish politicians and a greedy “wunch” of bankers.
10
Rereke
I don’t think Kevin Rudd or Bob Brown see it as a quite impossible ideal.
I am scared of the damage these types can inflict even twisting the debate in such a direction while proudly(egotistically) riding high, saddled up on a Trojan horse.
10
MadJak — I go along with your thinking. NZ’s ex PM ( Helen Clark ) is now head of the UN Development Agency ( No. 3 at the UN ). She was back in NZ last week and one of the comments she made to the press was that
” a lack of a global climate change policy” was hindering progress of development programs. That’s how stupid the thinking is with these people.
10
Ross,
Interesting. Of course if they just fronted up and were asking for assistance to combat or even eliminate poverty instead of insulting our intelligence with myth and hyperbole, the third world might not have continued to be paralysed by poverty as badly as it continues to be.
I guess it takes professional politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats to overcomplicate something this simple.
10
Off Topic.
Caught Joolya with Laurie Oakes this morning, Joolya was attacking Abbott’s so called grocery tax to fund paid maternity leave putting a burden on the population, Laurie just let this one slide by unchallenged. When is a journalist going to point out that her so called needed price on carbon will be far more of a burden on us all than Abbott’s levy on big business.
10
Jaymez: #41
I would like to read your response… perhaps you can guest post on this blog?
10
Wilba:#50
I have emailed it to Jo who I think is away this weekend.
10
Mcintyre reporting on new paper that may bring further doubt on Mann’s hockey stick.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/14/mcshane-and-wyner-2010/
Yet to read it, so I’ll leave it to you to judge.
10
Agreed BoB. Or how about the fact that the proposed 1.5% drop in corporate tax rate will effectively cancel out the levy resulting in no justifiable increase in grocery prices. Labor’s rhetoric is so empty even some of the voters are starting to see through it. Almost enough of them given the recent polls.
10
BTW just when you thought the Hockey stick was broken enough, along comes a paper by real statisticians which throws the remnants in the wood chipper:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/14/breaking-new-paper-makes-a-hockey-sticky-wicket-of-mann-et-al-99/
In gaming parlance I would call this “Boom! Headshot!” The Schtick could not be deader now unless someone sweeps up the chips and tosses them in an incinerator.
10
Bulldut: I have never been a coalition supporter,but I agree the proposed cut in the corporate rate does exactly as you say. However this I find only a side issue, I am really peeved that every time Julia uses this to attack Abbott, she is never put under pressure on the cost of a carbon price or the countless studies that question the viability of the alternatives she so proudly boast of supporting.
Or more importantly the growing number of peer reviewed literature questioning her belief in the religion that is CAGW. She professes to be an atheist when it comes to traditional religion, the least we could ask is that she be at least agnostic when it comes to CAGW.
10
Just a couple of passing thoughts:-
How much harder would it be to control particulates/aerosols by burning a highly variable fuel like wheat stubble/bagass?
How could combustion efficiency be maintained compared to very highly tuned coal & gas systems?
10
What labor and the greens intend for us. Have pity on us all!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/taxandtheenvironment/7937911/Business-facing-a-wave-of-green-taxes.html
10
Bulldust @ 54. Thanks for the link. That will certainly “put the cat among the pigeons”
Another thing to watch — the NZ Climate Science Coalition is serving papers in the High Court in NZ against NIWA ( NZ’s research unit that covers climate amongst other things).
Bryan Leyland who did guest piece on this site last week is part of this group.
They are claiming the historical temperature data they have on the NIWA website is not correct. It shows warming where there has not been warming etc. Will be interesting.
10
The news release on the court action mentioned in 58
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4026330/Niwa-sued-over-data-accuracy
10
SUBJECT: ‘Zero Carbon Australia – Stationary Energy Plan’ – Critique
THIS BULLSHIT “ZERO CARBON AUSTRALIA PLAN” IS BEING LAUCHED BY NONE OTHER THAN THE TURNCOAT TRAITOR MALCOM TURNBULL!!!!!
Well worth reading the CRITIQUE of the plan!
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/
10
SUBJECT: Diggers homes for Illegal Immigrants – a disgraceful betrayal by gillard and labor!!!!!
Labor’s shameful plan to evict Defence Force families from their married quarters and barracks to make room for illegal immigrants is a humiliating insult to our servicemen and women.
READ MORE HERE:-
http://www.charlielynn.com.au/2010/08/diggers-homes-for-illegal-immigrants-a-disgraceful-betrayal/
10
I was peeved off myself about Labors attacks on Abbotts corporate levy,
and confounded at the inept way the Coalition allowed Labor to spin away.
I did a back of the envelope calculation using the supermarket giant Woolworths annual report. Assuming Woolworths passes on ALL of the levy to consumers, they would need to raise prices by eight (8) cents per $100 to recoup the levy. IT’S NO BIG DEAL, but Labor is allowed to spruik it’s bullchit spin without challenge.
10
I’d just like to make a comment about ABC moderation on the Unleased story ‘Suing the sceptics’
I got to make one comment on the comments page, that was responded to by an ‘anthony’.
My reply to ‘anthony’ was never published.
I used the ‘Alert Moderator’ function & asked for an explanation, gave my email address, but got no reply from the moderator.
I again tried to respond to ‘anthony’, but my next message was also not published.
Censorship by ‘My ABC’ Ha
10
SUBJECT: Satellite Failure Means Decade of Global Warming Data Doubtful!
US Government admits satellite temperature readings “degraded.” All data taken offline in shock move. Global warming temperatures may be 10 to 15 degrees too high!!!
READ MORE HERE:-
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7491-official-satellite-failure-means-decade-of-global-warming-data-doubtful
10
Hi Bob @ #60,
Relax!
I couldn’t find any references to Malcolm Turnbull “launching” the zero carbon Australia plan. See link below where he participates in a forum and gives his support – though I notice he still paid lip service to the coalitions direct action plan.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/how-to-be-fully-renewable-in-10-years-20100812-121l0.html
I’m sure people are starting to realise what a despicable, selfish traitor he is,and how his main interests are his renewable energy investments and his Goldman Sachs mates.
I have also included a link to Zoo magazines 50 most hated people in Australia. (previously posted on this site) There is Malcolm Turnbull at #4 along with Fritz the pedophile and Kim Jong Il – fitting companions!
http://www.smallnightin.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3779
10
J. Smyth @ 63, what was the comment?
10
Thanks for the compliments. I am just back.
As always please cut and paste your comments sent to the ABC pages here. It would be quite interesting to assemble a list of the comments deemed “unacceptable”.. indeed it would make a good post. The best of all would be a screen capture of the comment on the ABC site if possible (Use “ALT & PrtScn” to save a copy of your whole screen as a jpg).
Here’s a curious thing, comment #24 was a violent suggestion which I have snipped immediately. The commenter has a hotmail address, and had never posted before. So maybe it’s “faker” planted to try to make us look bad?
Another sign of success? Maybe we need to be on the lookout for the sceptics who aren’t…
10
Rereke Whaakaro @15,
The census for which the punched card was first used was that of 1890 and the company that put it all together became what we know today as IBM. The inventor was Herman Hollerith and the punched card was known as the “Hollerith Card” throughout its life. It was in continuous use from 1890 on until rendered obsolete by the PC and better methods of data entry and storage. I worked with the things for a long time and I can’t say I miss them.
The free market quickly adopted the better technology ― something lost on our foolish friends who push AGW.
The IT revolution got off to a slow start at first but it goes clear back to the 19th Century.
10
Bob,
Sounds just like the good St. Albert. I’ve often wondered where he spends his time. Could he have firsthand knowledge of how hot it is down there?
10
Recent research has evidently put the missing hot spot to bed — permanently. The moist air which ascends to higher altitudes where it could absorb additional energy, (the lower atmosphere already saturated in that regard) some of which presumably would be radiated back to the earth, instead quickly descends and merely adds more cloud cover which (as most everyone except apparently CRU inmates has experienced) results in cooling, also known as negative feedback.
10
denis: #70
Could you give us a reference, please?
10
Whaakaro @ 71
Monckton (who appears to be prudent about such claims) mentioned it in a recent presentation,(I believe in St. Paul) referring to (as I recall) a study by Lindzen, MIT, and involving 20 years of data. (? wonder why it didn’t come out after 17 or 18 years). I’ll see if I can locate that video, but you may get it via Lindzen.
10
The recent ‘Science Illustrated’ edition features a section on wave and tidal power. A trial wave power station is positioned north of Scotland. There are about 3 other types on the drawing board. Also shown a diagrams of possible ways to utilise tidal power. But these are all untried. They are extremely more expensive than wind because their structures have to be larger and more strong or robust. Also not all areas are suitable. e.g. the tides in NW of WA would are huge but far away from population.
Despite the wish for hybrid cars or fuel efficient cars to replace our fleet their is looming, within 10 years, a 100% dependence by us on imported oil for petrol. (We produce ‘heavy’ oil.) When prices get to $8 a Litre there is a solution. But it will be rejected. Why? Because we could rely on shale oil deposits near Gladstone for 75 years to make petrol. Alas, that produces emissions and a project to use the shale has already been shut by conservation protestations.
What baffles me is that the A-bomb was built in 3 years from theory on paper to reality. The money was kept secret and VP Truman didn’t even know of it. If AGW is SO dire then several billions and many physics scientists could hasten development of fusion power. Why is this not being done? Is the doom of the earth less important than losing lives in WW2? You tell me.
10
Here’s a bit of random off-topic thinking from a Kiwi perspective.
In the 1980s/1990s New Zealand was to the fore in removing tariffs and trade barriers. Our pastoral farming subsidies were eliminated. We even rejoiced in having Mike Moore as the head of the WTO (still can’t get our apples into Aussie though).
Meat and wool producers have had a hard time after being exposed to the realities of the world economy. Dairy farmers have really coined it. But we have also grown in efficiency, with fewer animals producing more protein now that we did in the 1960s.
Come forward to now, and we seem to have lost sight of or rejected the lessons of those two decades. We now have an ETS – which I am now viewing as an “Extra Tree Subsidy”. The forest industry in NZ is falling all over itself with joy at the bonanza that the ETS represents. However, they are blind to the effective subsidisation that the ETS represents.
Meanwhile I am reliably informed that there is a looming crisis in the production of protein. According to what I heard there is about 90 days supply of food globally. In a few years we will be in a situation of 1 days supply i.e. living hand to mouth on a global scale.
And the vilification of the producers of this food is almost ‘nasty’. Our animals are eco-terrorists belching methane and our pasture occupies land that should be covered in trees to sequester more CO2.
I wonder what would be the response if we took a case against the ETS to the WTO?
10
MadJak: #45
Priceless
Yes, absolutely, but …
We live in an age where politics has become polarised, and the general liberal view is that failure is bad, failure must be avoided at all costs. Where I live, there is a sporting competition for children where there are no special prizes for the winner and runners up. Everybody who takes part gets a prize, because they tried. It is even called a Tryathelon. 😉
We also live in an age where politics has become corrupt. Most political campaigns are simply a bidding war between financial interests. The process may differ between countries, but it is the money that talks, and I am not just talking money from big business – the socialist unions and lobby groups have just as much access to funds as any corporate.
The only real difference between left and right in western politics is who you are predisposed to take the money from.
From what I have said above, you need to question who is actually commanding “capitalism” in the modern political systems. And, remember, financiers hate to see money just sitting around in “reserves” – such a waste – they would much prefer to borrow it from their children and grandchildren as and when needed.
But you are right, it is predominantly an “Anglo saxon” crisis – and one brought on by our arrogance and continued belief in the fable that the “west” actually rules the world.
Unnatural Climate Variation (UCV) – formally known as AGW – is an artifice of its practitioners.
These people love to use proxies for what they do – it gives them a sense of plausible deniability in the political sense:
“Everybody agrees that it is much too expensive to measure (x) at every point of the earth, so we propose to use a couple of dozen trees in Russia as a proxy, because I happen to have some data that I prepared earlier”.
And not only do the politicians accept this, it becomes their preferred way of working. So you have to look upon CO2 as a proxy for every other undesirable gas or aerosol that may be entering the atmosphere by one means or another, and probably use it as a proxy for unwelcome water-born compounds as well.
But they have made a serious mistake, because it has taken the world’s eyes away from some of the more serious pollution problems, involving toxic chemicals, that are occurring in Asia and Africa, and caused them instead to focus on an innocuous gas that happens to underpin the whole of the food chain. A brilliant stroke of stupidity.
Others have commented on the transfer of wealth represented by ETS systems, and I can’t add to that except to point out that the poorer countries are really being paid because they are not developed and not developing.
This is really interesting. While you pay people to not do something, they will continue to not do it.
I think the expression is, “Duh?”.
10
Roy Hogue: #68
You are quite right, Roy.
I had two thoughts in my mind at the same time (always a dangerous thing for me to do), and what should have been two paragraphs became one.
There was a time when I could read Hollerith code straight off the card. I could also read Murray code straight off paper tape. Not sure I could do either now, though. I find that my brain gets full of other stuff as I get older.
There used to be a poem about a real programmer dying from a combination of stress, and long hours, and being buried face-down, nine-edge first. Very few people now get the joke. 🙂
10
Roger Piekle Jr politely puts the World Met. Organization in the same league as Jo puts Lewandowsky.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/08/it-has-been-foretold.html
10
Whaackaroo:
I just went thru that entire video, (google “Monckton speech at St. Paul). It’s not the Monckton video that I took the quote from, although there is some possibly relevant commentary near the end. Monckton does bring up Lindzen’s name in this video, but now I’m not certain he was quoting a study by Lindzen or someone else. Also don’t know if it was pending publication or not.
I’ve just looked at the titles of about 15 available Monckton videos but can’t yet identify which one (if in fact it’s even in that list). It wasn’t one of his speeches, he was being interviewed by someone (?name not known).
I thought that was very exciting news since the warmists are still holding (barely by their fingernails) to their hot spot claim. I believe my comment was very close to what Monckton said in that interview, but given its importance, if it’s not already known to some of the usual visitors at this site, then either Monckton (or I) got it wrong.
10
O/T addition to Ross 58,59
Details of NZ Climate Science Coalition High Court action against NIWA:-
Background to our application for judicial review
Our Statement of Claim against NIWA
Dynamite changes to raw readings
High Court asked to veto NIWA graph
All here: http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/
10
the hockey stick is now just a boring piece of wood.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/14/breaking-new-paper-makes-a-hockey-sticky-wicket-of-mann-et-al-99/#more-23450
10
Another ABC gem courtesy of Sara Philips – ideology not rationality apparently drives “understanding” of climate change. A rather interesting tacit admission halfway through in relation to personality types, however Gore and Stern will always be her heroes judging by the last para;
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2010/08/12//2981317.htm
10
Maybe Lewandowsky and the ABC need to get back to their respective areas of expertise:
Lewandowsky…How to hoodwink most of the people most of the time …Compare and contrast methods of pro-AGW and previous propaganda machines
ABC…how to present unbiassed reports on major issues
10
SUBJECT: New Zealand carbon tax
Alan Jones talks to Rodney Hyde – New Zealand MP on the impact of an ETS…..
http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjoneshyde120810.mp3
10
Richard @ 79; that is interesting; I would think a similar action could be commenced in Australia against the CSIRO on the basis of their State of Climate Report and the earlier Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report.
10
Maybe someone could help me with this. Lately I have been hearing and seeing in the media reports that 2010 has been the warmest on record. Am I dumb or what? Do the meteorology boffins have time machines? Last I looked it was still mid August. There is a fair bit of 2010 to go yet. So how can they make such statements before the year is out? I must be missing something.
10
Cohenite
If questions are to be asked publically, I’d like to see David Jones answer a couple too.
I still shake my head when I think of his public utterings.
10
Here comes a green tax on your electricity!!!
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/here_comes_a_green_tax_on_your_electricity/
10
Hi Jo
At August 16th, 2010 at 12:27 am you said “Thanks for the compliments. I am just back. As always please cut and paste your comments sent to the ABC pages here.” I contributed seven comments to your, Cox and Stockwell’s article “Suing the Sceptics” and all were published. Three comments were in response to a Dr Paul Smith, three to a shrill GraemeF, and one to a Dave.
A sample in response to Dr Paul Smith: Raredog :
12 Aug 2010 12:44:50pm
Hi again Dr Paul Smith. I might follow you in these posts and ask you to look, too. Given that the year 2010 is barely two-thirds over ask yourself on what basis is the claim that this year points to being the hottest year on record across the planet. Leaving aside the possibility that natural variability such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) or Indian Ocean Dipole (let along numerous other decadal oceanic oscillations) just may have had some role in the observed temperature increases over the past thirty or forty years we are left with the question of just how much of this heating is a result of anthropogenic CO2 output given that anthropogenic CO2 accounts for barely 4 per cent of CO2 in the atmosphere at any one time. (I can argue about CO2 residence time and e-folding time if you like.) Furthermore, your hottest year on record is based on temperature anomalies (not actual direct and unhomogenised temperature measurements), which themselves are based on an arbitrarily set 30-year time period that, for instance, barely covers a half cycle of the PDO. If you extend that arbitrarily set time period to 60 years your temperature anomalies virtually disappear.
Do not take my word for it. If you go to the Bureau of Meteorology’s Australian high-quality climate site data web page you can see for yourself, when looking at long sited (preferably over 80 or more years) rural-based weather stations that most actually show no global warming signal whatsoever, or global cooling. By comparison sites surrounded by altered land uses over time, typically deforestation, altered albedos or unrbanisation, as well as moved sites (to typically airports) generally do show a “global warming” signal. The question for you Dr Paul Smith (and I am assuming you are a scientist and not an advocate) is why, if anthropogenic CO2 output is ubiquitous in causing global warming, temperature averages at long sited rural stations differ so markedly from stations sited in urban areas, at airports or in areas where there has been radical changes in land use. I await your response with interest.
There has been no response to date.
Likewise, I posted this comment in reponse to GreameF: Raredog :
12 Aug 2010 1:30:46pm
“The same with unsubstantiated criticism of the IPCC modelling. Another organisation obtained publicly available temperature records and used their own compiler. They also came up with the same results.”
GraemeF, you need to dig deeper. You do not say which organisation; nonetheless are you aware that both GISTemp and CRU, the two most widely quoted organisations in producing global near-surface temperatures derive their anomalies, not from producing or the taking in of raw temperature data but rather, in part, Global Historic Climate Network (GHCN) data. This data has already been adjusted and homogenised under the auspices of the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), often after earlier adjustments (due to site relocation, temperature splicing, etc) by the various national recording authorities. In other words, though GIStemp and CRU are bodies independent of each other, they obtain their data (in part) from the same source hence, as you say, “they also came up with the same results.”
“How many times must a hypothesis be independently proven before deniers will believe it.”
The anthropogenic CO2 hypothesis is yet to be proven above and beyond the impact that all CO2 (both naturally derived and anthropogenically sourced) has on temperature, that being an exponentially declining relationship such that between approximately 200ppm and 800ppm there is less than one degree Celsius increase in temperature. Anything beyond that, including climate catastrophism, is based only on conjecture, modelling and unproven hypotheses (Bodes equation, positive feedbacks, climate tipping points, CO2 residence times, the Revelle Factor, etc) that do not withstand the scrutiny of empirically observed measurements.
I think that what gets posted at the ABC Unleashed site is less to do with censorship and more to do with the whim of the moderator on duty at the time.
I do not normally blow my own trumpet in this way but interested readers can find other comments at http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2979736.htm
10
Rather interesting that after a day and a half no one has attempted to rebutt any of my comments on the ABC Lewandowsky dribble. Perhaps they were all too busy walking backwards yesterday?
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/walkers-send-nottoowarm-message-to-pollies-on-climate-20100815-124xw.html
Walking backwards in search of the Dark Ages they are. Perhaps they should visit countries in central Africa or North Korea to understand what they are walking for?
10
Bulldust
It looks like the message is getting through – even the most rabid of AGW advocate has worked out that Prof Lew’s arguments are undefendable!
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Re: Rereke and MadJak’s interactions on economics/capitalism, this is an interesting article on Quadrant:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/08/where-we-are
“Regardless of ostensible differences in political parties in developed countries, all major parties must appeal to the votes of a majority constituency comprised of non-producers and those directly or indirectly employed by government. Irrespective of the party in power, government has its own constituency and they vote for benefits which must ultimately be paid for by what has become a minority who actually produce our material wealth. When non-producers become a majority, democracy becomes a kleptocracy”
I don’t know if I agree with him on the state of our fossil fuel reserves, but he makes some excellent points about the unaffordability of carrying on as we have in terms over over-regulation and government spending.
Food for thought: There are two kinds of people: Those who work for a living and those who vote for a living. For the first time in history, in many Western countries (my native Denmark is one), the latter category is now bigger than the former.
10
#90. Speedy:
Get through to whom? The choir? Nobody else is “singing” on this site because it’s boring.
10
Some info about the “walk for the barin dead useful idiots”……
Heat goes out of warming:-
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/heat_goes_out_of_warming/
10
Amargi @ 92
Then perhaps you would share the benefits of your wisdom and tell us why you apparently disagree with Jo’s post?
THAT would be interesting!
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
Amargi; this would be more to your taste perhaps; such diversity of opinion [not] and mutual grooming:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2010/08/05/warm-aid/
10
Cohenite
Have you had any joy getting into print on the Crikey comments? Their science is pretty ropey and you would have a field day.
I suppose I’ve answered my own question – but one thing still puzzles me. If their science is correct, then why are they afraid of us sceptics?
Cheers,
Speedy
10
How Less Became More: Wind, Power and Unintended Consequences in the Colorado Energy Market
http://redneckusa.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/how-less-became-more-wind-power-and-unintended-consequences-in-the-colorado-energy-market/
10
Speedy; because they are saving the world and don’t want anyone to steal their thunder
10
Cohenite
So they’re very busy saving the world but they don’t know the world doesn’t need saving? How embarrassing!
Still, I like Binny’s idea about giving them a few months in their very own green utopia (somewhere else). That would be a nice little reality check for them.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Bulldust: #89
Don’t bother going to North Korea, if the Cultists have their way, the North Korean workers paradise will be coming to you.
10
Speedy, @#96:
What does correct science have to do with people’s decisions? Your Voodoo Science will fan the flames of Hell on Earth, consuming future generations.
10
Anne-Kit Littler: #91
You are so right. Thank you for the reference, I had not seen it previously.
In one of my other lives, I survive by being productive for the unproductive sector – how pathetically sad is that?
10
@#100. Rereke Whaakaro
That’s one reason you people bore me. Your psychotic conspiracy theories. We are, in your delusional minds, Fascists, Anarchists, Communists, Trotskyites, Socialists.
In reality, though, we have:
F
ascismA
narchismC
ommunismT
rotskyismS
ocialism10
@ amargi
how does it feel to be a recipient of a darwin award.
When you leave this earth you will have lifted the average IQ of the planet.
10
@ amargi
(snip) CTS
Stop the personal insults.
10
amargi:
Always with the negative vibes !!!!!!
10
@ amargi
How does it feel to be part of the Nazi Party propaganda machine?
10
amargi: # 92:
Ooh, a reference to “the choir”, presumably to my comment #22 – I am flattered – I might even blush.
10
Amargi:
At #101 you ask the good question:
Yes, the “voodoo science” of AGW will have such dire consequences as you suggest if it is allowed to influence government’s decisions.
Climate has always changed everywhere and always will: this has been known since the Bronze Age when it was pointed out to Pharaoh by Joseph (the one with the Technicolour Dreamcoat). Joseph told Pharaoh to prepare for the bad times when in the good times, and all sensible governments have adopted that policy throughout the thousands of years since then.
That tried and tested policy is sensible because people merely complain at taxes in the good times, but they will revolt if they are short of food in the bad times.
But in 1990 several governments decided to abandon that policy and, instead, to try to stabilize the climate of the entire Earth by controlling it.
This attempt at global climate control arises from the hypothesis of anthropogenic (that is, man-made) global warming (AGW).
AGW does not pose a global crisis but the policy of attempted global climate control does because it threatens to constrain the use of fossil fuels. And that constraint – if implemented such that the use of fossil fuels were constrained to present levels – would kill billions of people before 2050.
AGW is a political issue. It is not a scientific issue. Simply, the AGW hypothesis is voodoo science of a most extreme kind.
The AGW hypothesis always was implausible and it is now known to be wrong (e.g. it predicts the ‘hot spot’ that has not happened).
The AGW-hypothesis says increased greenhouse gases – notably carbon dioxide (CO2) – in the air raise global temperature, and anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing the carbon dioxide in the air to overwhelm the natural climate system.
The hypothesis is founded on three assumptions: viz
(1) It is assumed that the anthropogenic CO2 emission is the major cause of the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration
and
(2) It is assumed that the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is significantly increasing radiative forcing
and
(3) It is assumed that the increasing radiative forcing will significantly increase mean global temperature.
There are reasons to doubt each of these assumptions. But if any one of them were known to be false then the entire AGW hypothesis would be known to be false.
Think about it.
The hypothesis is that a trace atmospheric gas which is the very stuff of life itself may – if it increases its atmospheric concentration – become Shiva, the Destroyer of Worlds. In fact, it’s worse than that. Nature emits 34 molecules of CO2 for every molecule of CO2 emitted by human activities so AGW suggests that a minute increase to the annual emission of this essential trace gas could cause Armageddon. Furthermore, in the geological past and during ice ages the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been more than ten times greater than it is now.
If you had never heard of AGW and somebody came in off the street and tried to sell it to you would you say, “Oh dear! Of course, we must change the economic activity of the entire world”?
So, as you say, the AGW hypothesis is “voodoo science”.
What does correct science say? The following.
The global temperature seems to vary in cycles that are overlaid on each other. The cause of these cycles is not known but some are associated with known phenomena (e.g. ENSO, NAO and PDO) although the causes of these phenomena are not known.
There is an apparent ~900 year oscillation that provided
the Roman Warm Period (RWP),
then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP),
then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP),
then the Little Ice Age (LIA), and
the present warm period (PWP).
And there is an apparent ~60 year oscillation that provided
cooling from ~1880 to ~1910,
then warming from ~1910 to ~1940,
then cooling from ~1940 to ~1970,
then warming from about ~1970 to ~2000,
then cooling since.
These oscillations form a pattern of climate change over time.
And if this pattern continues then either
(a) cooling will continue until ~2020 when the ~60 year oscillation change phase and warming will resume until global temperature reached the levels it had in the RWP and the MWP
or
(b) the ~900 year oscillation will change phase and the globe will start to cool to the temperatures it had in the DACP and MWP.
There is no observation that indicates there has been any change to this pattern.
But the ‘voodoo science’ of AGW says cooling will not happen so people should not prepare for it and billions will be killed by its reduced crops, etc..
Yes, as you say, that “Voodoo Science will fan the flames of Hell on Earth, consuming future generations” if we do not ensure that it is displaced by correct science.
Ms Nova’s handbook is a weapon for use to defeat the proponents of the dangerous voodoo science of the AGW hypothesis.
Richard
10
Ooops! In #109 I wrote:
“(b) the ~900 year oscillation will change phase and the globe will start to cool to the temperatures it had in the DACP and MWP.”
Obviously, I intended to write:
(b) the ~900 year oscillation will change phase and the globe will start to cool to the temperatures it had in the DACP and LIA.
Sorry.
Richard
10
amargi: #103
Not at all. Apart from Anarchism, which is actually a lack of philosophy, the other philosophies you mention all had their place in time and location. But that was then and there, and not now, and not here.
I deal with propaganda every working day, so I consider myself to be somewhat of a connoisseur.
One of the best propaganda producers in the world – the Châteauneuf du Pape of propaganda, if you will – is Fenton Communications, who produced much of the media publicity around the initial awareness campaign for Global Warming. Their brilliance was to do it by vilifying a gas that underpins the whole of the food chain – and is therefore critical to all life on Earth (if you ignore a few methane consuming bacteria). The campaign was brilliant, and I still use it as a case study when I have students.
The other noteworthy proponents of propaganda are the North Koreans. Like the protagonists in both world wars, and the cold war, they do not use it not against the “enemy”, but against their own people. It is the means by which the ruling Kim family stay in power. North Koreans will fight and die to protect the ruling dynasty, and all because of the power of propaganda.
You see, if you are immersed in it, as the North Korean population is, you are not aware that it is propaganda, and you really cannot tell “truth” from “untruth”. The fish cannot see the water.
Understanding how propaganda works – how it affects the cognitive processes – is a frightening experience. Some people think it is better to take the blue pill after all.
The central point of that scene in The Matrix was that we all have a choice, I have taken mine. Have you taken yours yet?
10
Richard S Courtney: #109
Rather than use the term AGW, I am trying to promote the use of the phrase, “Unnatural Climate Variation” because I think it is closer to describing the real subject of the debate.
I would be interested in your thoughts.
10
Good news from P. Gosselin in der Vaterland:
http://notrickszone.com/2010/08/15/climate-change-in-germany-has-become-a-loser-topic/
Seems the Germans have had this crap up to their necks and ain’t gonna take it anymore.
10
Anybody else think that the satellite scandal might just be the “coup de grace” for the dragon?
10
Rereke:
At #112 you ask me:
I think it is an interesting idea that has some merit. However, advocates of AGW change the subject whenever they can (because they lose every argument) so using a new name for the subject gives them an opportunity to dispute the new name instead of the subject. Hence, I prefer not to do it.
Richard
10
What we are talking about is not AGW, but simply Industrial CO2 Release. We’ve just got to back people up and insist they speak English. To call something AGW when they actually mean industrial-CO2-release is to inject a wrong conclusion into the premise. The repetition of it serves to hypnotise people. And the ability of these guys to swap meanings from substitute, to literal, at any time of their choosing, means that they can be lying flat out and telling the literal truth at the same time.
People think its a small matter to make these people speak English. One doesn’t really wish to be a language-nazi. But the Orwellian language is one half of the reason for the success of the fraudsters. The other half being funding.
10
“That’s one reason you people bore me. Your psychotic conspiracy theories. We are, in your delusional minds, Fascists, Anarchists, Communists, Trotskyites, Socialists.”
I don’t which ones of these you are confessing too. But it would be bad enough just to be an environmentalist with a phsychiatric problem to do with CO2. CO2 being so beneficial to the environment, the more the better at any relevant level.
Its like kids jokes about giraffes with sore throats, or an elephant with a blocked nose. Its a really big problem for someone to be so idiotic as to claim to be an environmentalist, and for this person to be hysterical in the face of us pumping CO2 into the air. Confessing to being a Trotskyist sounds almost intellectual by comparison.
As far as conspiracy theory is concerned I think all debates over whether you people are idiots, or whether its a conspiracy … these are all good debates. I think they are healthy. They may get very heated. But I would encourage debates such as this.
You might want to pick up that Schaums outline on logic, since I assure you (SNIP), that there is no “you said its a conspiracy” trump card in logic. You will not find such a trump-card in any other text on logic either.
Personally I’m openminded about that side of things. Are you an idiot? Are you part of a conspiracy? In the end this is for you to try and figure out.
CTS
10
Rereke Whaakaro says: “Apart from Anarchism, which is actually a lack of philosophy, the other philosophies you mention all had their place in time and location.”
I know this going off topic from climate, but I would respectfully ask that you reconsider your thinking on anarchism. It is very much a philosophy and perhaps the most ethical one out there. I am not personally an anarchist — I do not think that enough humans have reached a moral state to allow it to function — but try reading at and you will no doubt be surprised. Initially shocked, later intrigued, eventually impressed. I suspect that the near universal bad portrayal of anarchism is a propaganda effort against it. It is the single philosophy that, if widely accepted, would end all coercive governments. Period.
You also say: “Rather than use the term AGW, I am trying to promote the use of the phrase, “Unnatural Climate Variation” because I think it is closer to describing the real subject of the debate.”
I disagree strongly. For the last two decades the subject under discussion has been catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. The basic warmist stand has been that human actions are increasing the global average temperature, and that the warming is going to destroy life-as-we-know-it on Earth. CAGW, not UCV. Now that more and more data fail to follow the linear upward temperature trend predicted, I read more and more warmists who are suddenly moving the goal post. “We are just saying that extreme weather events will happen, not that the world is heating up!” Nope, I’m not buying that.
10
The wonder of software has made an embedded link in my post above change font color. At the break above where the font changes from black to red, insert a link to http://www.strike-the-root.com.
Sorry for the error and/or confusion on my part.
10
Courtney @109
You summary sounds great – as far as it goes – but given where we seem to current be, perhaps 15,000 beyond our last ice age, you should add the longer oscillations summarized at this website by Joanne in the past, namely average 90,000 year ice ages, interspersed with average 10,000 year warming periods?
Hell, let’s think big. It seems likely that there are also longer oscillations that affect climate, including the 200+ million year transit of the solar system around the milky way. (courtesy, Svensmark)
10
oops. “currently” in place of “current”
10
Yet another report to combat climate “misinformation”. A cynic might say this is because we could be having an election soon…but I am not a cynic…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/16/2984712.htm
10
… and insert “years” after 15,000, this to help those who have no clue (amargi take note).
10
@#108. Rereke Whaakaro:
Nope, it’s a reference to Speedy’s #90. I didn’t start reading this thread that early.
10
@#109. Richard S Courtney:
Richard, of course I did not say that AGW was the voodoo science. I said it was “your voodoo science” and all the “proof” you gave otherwise reminds me of the Biblical Chronological End Times calculations that psychotic theologians conjured up in order to prove that History was going according to their mystical plans.
http://image.absoluteastronomy.com/images/encyclopediaimages/c/ch/chart_from_divine_plan_of_the_ages.gif
10
Amargi:
At #125 you say to me:
Say what!?
Have you lost your senses (assuming you had any)?
I wrote nothing but demonstrable fact in #109.
If you have any dispute of any kind with what I wrote then state it, and be prepared to back it up because I can substantiate every word of it.
Your claim that observation of reality is like some psudo-Christian cult merely demonstrates how anti-science you are.
We have had a series of incompetent trolls here and even the worst of them managed to do better than your feeble effort.
Your voodoo science of AGW catastrophism is completely discredited. But it still threatens policies that pose disasterous consequences.
Take your belief in voodoo and stuff it (SNIP) CTS
Richard
10
Denis:
At #120 (with amendment at #121 and addition at #123) you say to me:
With respect, I did not say that the two oscillations I described are the only ones. I said:
And I described and stated the two that enable prediction in the near (i.e. decadal) future.
Ability to accurately predict is a test of any explanation according to the scientific method.
(And it is a test that the AGW hypothesis has already completely failed: i.e. nothing the hypothesis predicts has been observed and the opposite of some of its predictions are observed).
Richard
10
Richard @127
I really have no problem at all with what you said, just thought it was worth mentioning some other cycles.
On AGW / CAGW, you’re preaching to the choir
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddrj9jjs_0fsv8n9gw
10
OK, Lewandowsky can demonstrate how “exciting” it is for us by living like Australopithecus afarensis for a period of ten years, then reporting back on his “exciting” experiences.
No cheating!
10
Anne-Kit Littler@91,
Thanks for the link. Here’s another link which is more based on the US which is interesting and is of the same veign.
Richard S Courtney@109,
That has got to be one of the best responses I have seen made by anyone. Bravo!
10
Over on Roger Pielke, Jr’s site, re: the economic cost benefits, he writes of “an argument against suggesting that reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be an effective tool of disaster mitigation.”
The first two comments [with a joking reference to the post’s title] were:
Aw, man. I thought we were going to see Joanne Nova in a whipped cream bikini or something.
Sun Aug 15, 08:06:00 AM MDT
2
Fred said… 2
“Joanne Nova in a whipped cream bikini or something.”
I’d sign that petition . . . . 🙂
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/08/climate-porn-2010.html
10
Rereke Whaakaro,
9 and 12-edge, I know both. I’ve also run afoul of 900 card/minute readers that were real good at accordion folding my whole deck as the cards emerged into the output tray. Paper tape was a dream compared to punched cards. Fun to look back on though!
Buried 9-edge down? It sounds awful!
Roy
10
“As always please cut and paste your comments sent to the ABC pages here.”
I’ve come to the conclusion that the side of righteousness has to get serious about language. A sizeable proportion of us have to become language-nazis to bring this racket to an end. The weight ought to fall on so many of you who come onto the internet anonomously. Since its a hassle to be pulling these dummies up on language all the time. Being a language stickler doesn’t reflect well on the pedant. But it seems to be necessary here. Billions of words are being chewed up in pointless circular arguments or argument cul de sacs, and mostly because people will not speak English.
Plus others are better at this sort of thing than me. I don’t know how to smoothly request that someone not use Orwellian language. Here is my post and there is very little chance that it will get through on the ABC:
“If you are not prepared to speak English Hudson, why not just do the right thing and exclude yourself from discussion? This would have been normal etiquette prior to the internet age. Back in those days it would not be alright to harangue other people in a discussion, with Orwellian language, and use this language as a cover for telling outrageous lies.
“Climate change doesn’t suggest localised short term weather effects but a long term trend to more extreme weather.”
Are you lying and claiming that INDUSTRIAL CO2 RELEASE was meant to create, not warming, but more extreme weather? Because this is indeed a lie. What Greenhouse theory are you postulating with this particular lie?
I don’t think its too much to ask for you to say INDUSTRIAL-CO2-RELEASE if thats what you mean. Instead you keep on calling INDUSTRIAL-CO2-RELEASE “climate change.”
Notice what this achieves Hudson. It puts a disproven conclusion in the premise. And also it allows you to lie and claim “plausible deniability.”
If you speak English in the first place you are holding yourself to some sort of standard. Some sort of standards of behavior that puts you above the crude tribal level.”
10
Whaackaroo: The reference you requested follows, along with Monckton’s transmittal:
Reference attached. The additional water vapor that the Clausius-Clapeyron Relation would lead us to expect in the atmosphere as the space occupied by the atmosphere warms tends to subside from higher altitudes (where it might act as an amplifying feedback) to lower altitudes where the principal absorption bands of water vapor are already saturated, so that little or no additional warming occurs. This process in the tropical upper troposphere is known as “subsidence drying” of the upper air, and is perhaps one reason why the model-predicted tripling of the tropical surface warming rate at altitude has not been found (except in a single dataset known to be problematical). Note the cautions in Dr. Paltridge’s excellent paper: observations are still inadequate to explain exactly what is going on up there. – Monckton of Brenchley
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Carie, Rannoch, Scotland, PH17 2QJ
+44 1882 632341; fax 632776; cell +44 7814 556423
warm-paltridge09.pdf
10
Climate Change Timeline – 1895-2009
http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/climate-change-timeline/
10
Lewandowsky sez:
“….totally giving up fossil fuels is not scary “…a transition can also be exciting and rewarding….“
Valentine sez;
“OK, Lewandowsky can demonstrate how “exciting” it is for us by living like Australopithecus afarensis for a period of ten years, then reporting back on his “exciting” experiences.”
I sez:
Yeah its pretty funny isn’t it. I sometimes wonder if this mental problem with the warmers and the divide between us isn’t partly a city-country deal. We of course know that many of the global warming pushers weren’t educated in weather systems at all, but are ring-ins from physics, maths and computer programming. They all seem to be adepts and true-believers in maths-magic.
But there may be something else going on here: Who are the scientists, who push this global warming nonsense … who grew up on outdoor plumbing, fed the chickens as one of their choors, burnt their own rubbish, made tree-huts and stayed overnight in a hut they’d made in the bush? Such people may be quite thin on the ground. Yet the skeptics in Australia that have a connection with the far North, the far West or Woop woop more generally, seem to be numerous out of propertion to the population of the sort of digs they hail from.
It may be pretty unhealthy to be bringing these kids up in concrete jungles, even in swish surroundings, prior to their teenage years. The pushers don’t seem to have any understanding of, or affinity for, nature. Which may be deeply ironic but it seems that way just the same.
Here is this deeply mentally ill Lewandowsky fellow, and as Valentines comments hint, he appears to be harbouring the fantasy of living like some sort of nature-boy. If Lewandowsky was deprived of wide open spaces before his thirteenth birthday, and this bad craziness is the result, then I suppose one might feel a little bit sorry for him.
He’s a deeply messed-up individual. Someone needs to look inside his head and a course of remedial action needs to be agreed upon.
10