It’s not just the money that is leaving the room as reality bites, the chattering classes are not chattering about it so much either. The New York Times closed their Green Blog earlier this year, which covered energy and environment. Seven reporters and two editors were moved into different roles. Did that matter? Seems so.
Think Progress tells the sad story:
The decision was met with disbelief and consternation by many, although readers were promised that The Times’s environmental coverage would be as aggressive as ever, and that the decision was purely structural.
It’s always about “seeming” and not about doing isn’t it?
So much for “structural”, now there are 30% less stories:
Maxwell T. Boykoff, who tracks media coverage of the environment at the University of Colorado, reported to Sullivan that The Times published just 247 print articles that prominently featured climate change between April and September of last year, In 2012, there were 362 such articles during the same time period – that’s a decline of about one third.
Furthermore, in that six-month period since the environment desk closed, there were only three front-page stories in which climate change was the main focus, compared with nine the year before.
The NY Times is just one of many cutting down on climate change related stories as I noted in The day the Global Warming death spiral began. That global trend continues as measured by the Carbon Capture Report. This graph includes all mentions of “climate change” so it includes skeptical articles too.
“This page summarizes all English-language monitored mainstream and social media coverage worldwide of Climate Change”
Milestones came and went
In the second half of 2013 we’ve had the fanfare release of the once-every-five-years AR5 report (as well as the more comprehensive and accurate NIPCC report) as well as the usual yearly two week junket. You might notice those small blips on the graph.
The cause is declining in popularity, but we’re still at the stage where the major players are pretending to go along — “it’s only structural” — and saying how much they are concerned even as their actions suggest the opposite. Look for the next shift where people don’t bother pretending.
One day people will rush to declare that they never really believed it.
POST NOTE The NY times itself admits the Green blog did not have a high readership.
“Times editors emphasized that they were not abandoning the subject — just taking it out of its silo and integrating it into many areas of coverage. The changes were made for both cost-cutting and strategic reasons, they said, and the blog did not have high readership”
Jo,
They still are not looking at real science and reporting it.
They are keeping the scam going…just at a slooooower pace.
Look at President Obama, he is whole hardheartedly pushing AGW no matter what.
390
For what it’s worth, Obammy looks the part of a fool with increasing regularity.
300
From this article, it would appear that Oh! Bummer! could be sailing into the wind.
If the audience would only come to its feet and participate, the people of the USA might be able to change the plot of the drama that is unfolding.
170
As I septic, I’m delighted to see us winning the debate. Even more delighted that there is no climate-catastrophe, of course. Being awarded the debate on points and being wrong in reality would have been somewhat embarrassing.
Nevertheless, part of why we win the debate is because we address the issues, and do not resort to sophistry or insult.
We want to win the hearts and minds of all people of good will, not just those who share our political beliefs or scientific judgements. That includes even Obama supporters.
Accordingly, I ask all of Jo’s readers to follow her example, and avoid silly games with names, like Obammy and Oh Bummer. Just think how twee and foolish a leftie would sound if he tried calling Tony Abbott “Dear Abbey”. That’s just how embarrassing the nicknames for Obama make you sound. It reflects poorly not just on you, but also on everyone who shares your opinions.
Part of the reason we’re winning is because we take and hold the moral high ground. Lets keep doing that.
20
That’s a laudable goal and it would be good if people could achieve it. If you dislike the man so much (as do I), you can use POTUS, instead of typing his name. Part of the problem here is the person in question blatantly lies, makes everything about him (even funerals of others) and generally is an embarrassment worldwide. Yes, he does hold the highest office in land, which is also an acute embarrassment that Americans twice fell for his rhetoric. It is very difficult to have respect for this individual and I suspect people might overlook the names used, as calling him a liar or incompetent or both (the first of which can be empirically proven, by the way) probably won’t sound any better. That’s why using POTUS may be a viable option.
(I would suggest that if we are discussing the science the POTUS claims to be following, we do avoid name calling. Also, should the poster here be a US liberal, it is not considered morally wrong to call others names. They are actually just following their ethics. If they are not liberal, they might accidentally be mistaken for one….)
00
I am terribly sorry. I do apologise.
I believe people have called him worse than that.
Perhaps it is because Obama is not his real name?
When he was adopted by his Indonesian step-father Lolo Soetoro was he not known as Barry Soetoro?
00
Yes, people certainly have called his worse and still do. There’s some confusion as to what his name is/was–he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and that appears to be where the last name came from. So far as I can tell, Barack was always his first name–Barry was a nickname. Where any other legal or informal name changes occurred is unclear. He has a confusing lineage, to say the least.
00
The more influence a politician has, the less room they have to maneuver and change policy direction without the presence of an external stimulus (such as a dramatic weather event).
Also the major economies are like large oil tankers — they cannot go from “full-ahead” to “stop” within the distance of the visible horizon.
This is a severe restriction on the likes of Obama and Merkel, but much less of a problem for Abbott and Key.
The activity graph says it all — politically, it finished in Copenhagen. The elections in Germany provide the opportunity for a reset, and we will see a different set of advisors being consulted within the central EU.
In the States, the change will come with the next Presidential election, irrespective of which party wins the Presidency.
In the meantime, countries like New Zealand, and Australia, that are much more nimble, have an opportunity to “punch above their weight” on the world stage.
You Americans should be glad to have us as friends. 🙂
400
Rereke, We are glad that you are our friends. Even if the nimrod in power does not show it.
120
Boy, are we ever! We’ve not forgotten two world wars and the spirit of the Australians that served in them. Now we’re in the middle of another great war, one where the front is the media and our weapons are information and Truth. Keep up the fight!
170
Inspirational.
10
While the death of the climate scam is indeed good news the way in which AGW caused politicians to fall into line is worrying. Abbott has shown the leadership that many world leaders haven’t. The next big test will be the current Chinese expansionism. Obama is no Kennedy or Reagan and the Chinese know it. They also know that no European leader has the cojones to even speak against the Chinese imposition of a restricted airspace in the East China sea. I see it as a test of resolve on Obamas part because I believe the US has a significant military superiority over the Chinese particularly in the air and on the sea. Even so would Obama come to Japan’s aid over a disputed island or write it off in the interest of peace? Remember your history Barry; a chap named Neville Chamberlain opted for peace 74 years ago and how did that work out?
130
Is that the same Kennedy who fell for Kruschev’s bluff and removed ICBMs from Turkey in a humiliating backdown during the Cuban missile crisis? Or is the Kennedy that totally abandoned Australia when we asked for help during Konfrantasi with Indoesia?
30
Lawrie Ayres says …
In 2013 – you are correct.
By 2020 – the ability of the USA to project power into the western pacific could be entirely different.
REF 1: What China’s New J-20 Stealth Fighter Means for the F-35 JSF and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
Ref 2: The Strategic Impact of China’s J-XX [J-20] Stealth Fighter
Ref 3: J-20 Stealth Fighter: China’s First Strike Weapon
Ref 4: The Chengdu J-20: Peace in Our Time?
Ref 5: People’s Liberation Army Air Power PLA-AF/PLA-N Capability Growth and Strategy
Cheers ExWarmist
10
Alternatively, the NYT may have taken the view that as the science is settled, the debate is over and climate isn’t news anymore. Keeping the scam under wraps is as good a way of controlling information and diminishing public interest and knowledge as any.
330
Kevin,
If it were just the NYT, I would agree with you.
But I am also seeing in other mainstream media as well, and in languages other than English.
150
This slow demise of so-called environmental journalism is actually an act of euthanasia, a mercy killing. To my mind, it always embodied the very worst aspects of journalism. All the grubby professional sins were there; advocacy dressed up as balanced reportage, an intolerant moral arrogance, totally one-sided reporting, knee-jerk churnalism, absolutely no distinction between opinion and factual pieces, suppression of stories that didn’t square with an approved set of viewpoints, selective misinformation, hit pieces dressed up as respectable journalism directed at their pet hate figures, a crusading willingness to sacrifice truth, by both omission and commission, in the name of a higher cause and a basic dishonesty to both the reader and their profession.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/a-species-facing-extinction/
Pointman
601
“One day people will rush to declare that they never really believed it.”
Hahahahahahahahaha!! You guys are great for a laugh.
Now, who really wants to put their money on the 97% of scientists who are experts in the field vs the backslapping echo chamber of ignorance witnessed herein? I’m up for some easy $$$$….
394
I’m in for $5,000.00.
Terms are simple. Jo knows who I am and where I live.
You email Jo with details establishing who you really are, with address, employer details etc.
Once Jo has confirmed your identity and location, we both send her $5,000.00 via the chocolate box.
Jo holds the money until November 2018 (five years).
At that point we are both offered the choice of having our current views published, along with our personal details and address, or forfeiting our $5,000.00 to Jo and the blog.
Deal?
590
Hey MV,
I’m def up for a bet, and perfectly happy for Jo to adjudicate and/or hold funds in trust. Will contact you via email tmw if Jo sends me your details to sort out a time frame, terms of the bet and a $$ amount etc. Already in bed so, til then…..
Matt.
62
No problems. My bedtime too.
NOTE TO JO
Please feel free to supply Matt with equivalent details on me, for anything he supplies you about himself.
If he supplies you with details about himself where you do not have equivalent details about me, email, and I will supply the required information.
230
I shall be waiting for those emails. Happy to help. Tho I fear there are many details you will want to sort out and I don’t think you both have the same kind of bet in mind.
For what it’s worth David and I have already taken a bet (details here).
MV you are most generous. Thank you
260
You boys should make that bet in gold.
Inflation and a collapsing economy could make that fiat currency worthless…
181
.
While I am in complete agreement with your sentiment Joe, I have complete confidence in Jo’s chocolate box.
I have been following David’s work in Gold Nerds for nearly a decade. In fact, since long before I became aware of Jo and this site, or the connection between the two.
I doubt very much that $10,000.00 in the chocolate kitty will languish for five years in a bank account. I’d be disappointed if it did.
110
Chocolate doesn’t keep so well (‘specially not on a warming planet :-).
It needs to be eaten.
100
make the bet in Chinese yuan ….
50
nah.. make the bet in chinese CO2 output..
that way you get rapid inflation. 😉
80
carbon credits?
60
Nah, those things are WORTHLESS !!
30
Better make sure it is no bank associated with GS as well. Be a crying bastard if they played fiat multiples on such a pot.
20
Make it in bitcoin…
It could be worth $500,000 in 5 years or it might be worth $0….
10
MV,
It looks like you found a sucker. Enjoy your windfall. But it’s too bad you’ll have to wait five years. 🙂
80
Betting on the unpopularity of global warming opinion is certainly easier than betting on temperatures. Over an interval as short as 5 years the random annual natural variability will swamp any underlying cooling or warming trend, you only have to look at different 5 year periods over the last 12 years to see that. HadSST3 shows slight cooling over that whole period, whereas UAH shows slight warming. You cannot guess either of those underlying trends based on any of the 5 year trends shown.
10
Ah yes,‘97% of scientists agree that mankind is responsible for global warming’ – or do they?
This oft bandied-about statement springs from a research paper entitled ‘Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change’ published in January 2009 by Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the University of Illinois at Chicago.
I have it here in front of me. Here’s what happened. Comments in quotation marks are verbatim from the paper.
Survey questionnaires were sent to 10,257 ‘Earth scientists’.
The paper explains that ‘This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey’.
These were:
1)‘When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained generally constant?’
2)‘Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?’
The survey was ‘designed to take less than 2mins to complete’ and was administered online.
The first thing to note is that of the 10,257 to whom the questionnaire was sent, only 3,146 individuals bothered to complete and return the survey – i.e. just short of 31%.
‘Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists’ – as opposed to for example oceanographers and palaeontologists. That’s 157 individuals out of the 3,146.
Of these 157, 79 scientists had published more than 50% of their recent research papers on the subject, and so were deemed by the authors to be ‘the most specialised and knowledgeable respondents’.
Think about that – 79 individuals out the total of 10,257 considered knowledgeable enough to have their opinion sought at the outset of the study!
Of these 79, 76 (96.2%) answered ‘yes’ to question 1, and – wait for it – 75 out of 77 (97.4%) answered ‘yes’ to question 2.
Job done – 97.4% of scientists agree that humans are warming the planet significantly!
320
What the survey did not ask was a questions like
1. Do you think that the planet will warm by at least 2 degrees this century?
2. Do you think we are headed catastrophic climate change without immediate concerted global action?
That is there was nothing about the future
forecastspossible scenariosprophesies, and nothing about belief in human-caused climate change as a non-trivial, adverse, legacy to bequeath to future generations.The importance of the 97% is totally different. It is a proclamation by a community of believers that they are not heretics or deniers.
130
I think Doran himself sums up the value of the survey best:
“Our study was the best it could be. Some people have problems with self-selected surveys, but we said exactly how we did it and put it out there. In my view, a self-selected survey is a better indication of reality than no survey at all.” – Professor Peter Doran
Better than nothing ???
If they added the question of whether man made objects fell from the sky, they could’ve establish that man is causing the sky to fall as well.
150
Brett, except man made objects do periodically fall from the sky – skylab for example.
Anyway, it’s notable that the right questions are never asked.
this is how I’d structure a survey.
Fist, demographics
Male / Female
Age
Political allegance
Second knowledge,
How much do you know about climate change
Do you identify as a proponet of climate change action
Do you identify as a sceptic of climate change action.
Now the good stuff
Has it warmed since 1850
Is some of that warming manmade CO2 (Sensitivity less that 0.7 per doubling)
Is most of that warming manmade CO2 ( Sensitivity 0.7 < x 1.4 per doubling)
Is doubling CO2 bad for the majority of earth’s plants and creatures
Is warming bad for the majority of earth’s plants and creatures
Should we tax carbon dioxide
Do you think taxing carbon dioxide will solve global warming
Do you think there are bad side effects to carbon taxes
Do you think we should adapt to CO2 later
Do you think we get value for money from Trillions spent on global warming mitigation
Do you think there are better things to spend money on than global warming such as poverty and disease.
Do you depend on the reliability of your electricity supply
Should electricity supplies be made less reliable to attempt to prevent 5% of global warming
Does electricity cost too much
Would you be prepared to double electricity costs and add 10 percent cost to most goods, including food, in order to attempt to prevent 5% of global warming.
This is the sort of survey that would really count
100
Sorry, I was trying to use the Doran Zimmerman method. Your method is way off, asking those sorts of questions, you’re likely to get their opinion, not yours.
100
As soon as I see someone use the 97% meme, I know I am dealing with an ignorant moron who has made NO ATTEMPT to verify any of the climate science propaganda…
.. most probably because they don’t have the intelligence to do so.
371
Yes , but do you start trying to get it gently through to them ?
40
That should have been… ‘ Where do you start …’ btw.
10
Question: How many scientists does 97 per cent represent?
40
Just 75 out of 77 very carefully selected scientists, out of over 3000 responding scientists.
Doran & Zimmerman 2009g
100
ROFL 97% and you call us deluded. Your a funny guy Matt.
60
Heres a stat youll like
http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/
50
Here’s another interesting group of studies: http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/search/label/CliSci%20Survey
(You do have to register at academia.edu to get the articles. There is no cost.)
00
There is that 97% again. You must have missed this post
20
Well Joe, you have actually already lost the bet, unless you can show us all exactly how you arrive at that 97% figure in a way that has not already been thoroughly debunked.
20
Yeah Matt, and when you have a bank account that looks like a line of fat men at a pie stall it’s a lot easier to forget the ethics of the better people who educated you or am I wrong?
00
Buggered if I know why missive in response to Matt appeared here, lost like a guff wave in a perfumery.
00
“decline of The Great Global Warming Scam”
Just curious, if the scam is declining, who is to blame? Could someone point me to who is the head a the ‘scam’..? Where’s the control centre that is so badly failing its minions and how have they managed to make everyone tow the party line these last 20-30 years? Seems they’ve been pretty effective to make even the world’s leading scientific journals keep things mum…..
Aaaaah the delusion.
157
.
Well, if they’ve all been busy “towing” the party line, it’s no wonder they’ve been mum.
Those party lines can be pretty damned heavy.
320
Indeed, MV. I keep seeing “tow the line”. (And not just from Americans.)
Are these people so close to illiterate that they have never seen “toe the line” written down?
Are they so ignorant of the fierce Royal Navy discipline that is the (probable) origin of the phrase?
Dammit, even Nigel Molesworth gets it right.
100
I’d assumed toeing the line referred to lining up on the starting line in a footrace?
10
Sailors standing in line on deck.
20
Another origin for “toeing the line” comes from the Georgian sport of bare-knuckle prize-fighting. A line was marked on the floor of the ring, and after every knock-down the contestants had to stand up at the line facing each other to continue the fight. If a fighter was too beaten up to make it he forfeited the contest. “Up to scratch”, and, “Up to the mark” have the same origin.
10
I always knew my military social history papers would find use, some day … 😉
The line that sailors were required to toe, was a line marked on the decks of the old wooden warships. The line marked the extent of the recoil from a firing cannon.
Thus, when they entered harbour, and gave a salute, the guns would be fired one by one, along the ship’s side, but the sailors would remain at attention, and not be seen to move.
The degree of discipline required to actually make this happen, was what set the Royal Navy apart from all other navies during the Napoleonic wars.
00
Hey MV
Can’t believe I actually typed ‘tow’ either, knowing perfectly well that it’s a line that is being “toed”. Put it down to late night fatigue and inadvertent aping of poor internet grammar seen everywhere. It hurts to see it in print as I am normally a stickler for grammar and avoiding “text talk”… Probably serves me right then 😉
I asked Jo about 24 hrs ago to send me you email (or give you mine) but I never checked back and it appears to be lost in moderation somewhere… Give her a heads up if you see this.
Cheers, M
00
The ‘scam’ doesn’t need a head. It owes at least as much to self delusion as to orchestration.
It just takes a sharp smack ( or a few in this case) up side the head to begin bringing the collective back to reality. A smack like the long overdue ejection of ALP & Greens from Government. A smack like rising fuel bills and renewables failing to deliver through a cold winter. A smack like reduced funding for the climate gravy train. A smack like Warsaw.
How many smacks does it take . ?
270
Matt, No one had to drive most of this… once the idea took hold, self interest did what self-interest does.
It’s a thousand small scams at work independently. There’s a lot of people who stand to win from an exaggerated forecast of global warming — green activists raise donations and get invitations to UN events, financial houses broker an imaginary market (worth $176b at the peak in 2011), renewable investors get guaranteed returns ($250bn invested in 2011), whole government departments gain in status, money and power, some scientists get the red carpet plus giant junkets and rewarding grants, UN bureaucrats get jobs, journalists impress their friends at dinner parties with their moral vanity, and thousands of unpaid people get a sense of importance and self worth (albeit a false one).
Added to that some bullies get an excuse to lord themselves over others — calling them names (denier) and pretending their preschooler skill of namecalling is admirable “for the sake of the planet”. Even this behaviour is a kind of scam — uninformed, ill-educated people are seeking a free ride — they want to get approval and social rewards (among other uninformed people) for holding an opinion they haven’t researched.
681
Yes, it has been largely self-sustaining (like the tulip bulb disaster). Until it no longer is – and that time just might be in sight.
But someone had to set off the chain reaction, then sit back and quietly admire their work. I can immediately think of two names:
1. Maurice Strong
2. George Soros
220
This little biography is just a teaser.
It doesn’t mention the damage done through the creation of Petro Canada and Strong’s leadership of it. It fails to mention that in 1972 he kicked off a campaign to target carbon dioxide because the climate was becoming too COLD!. It doesn’t mention the million bucks he scammed from a gullible African nation, after which he went into a self-imposed exile in Communist China. It fails to mention the role his wife has played in the PRC either. It doesn’t even mention the role played by his Communist parents in the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919.
If you are looking for an source of ignition, this is it.
140
The Wiki article is somewhat more revealing, but still brushes over the nastier parts.
You have to dig a lot deeper to get the real dirt on him.
60
WSJ –
The U.N.’s Man of Mystery
Is the godfather of the Kyoto treaty a public servant or a profiteer?
“I don’t trust you, and I also question your integrity.” Thus did Maurice Strong offer me a seat on his living room sofa.
80
Exactly Jo.
This is why our spokes person after Warsaw turned out to be the director of Oxfam. He was so busy sitting on his ass at the conference that he failed to notice how many 3rd world nations are experience desperate poverty and disease RIGHT NOW with no input from CO2 whatsoever. His purpose in attending the conference and chiding his own country for being stupid enough to send him, was to secure more funding, plain and simple.
60
Jo, the movements we are discussing do not have traditional management structures with a CEO as you correctly point out.
FWIW, I met Maurice Strong a couple of years before he was centre stage at Rio in 1992. He was a soft spoken, charming personality but his message was privately disturbing to me. There I was, with managers from the Australian Mining Industry Council, being told by Strong that if we were to trade internationally, we needed to support a more centralised world, as in a one world order. Some of my colleagues were impressed by the advantages that Strong claimed were there for the taking, but I did not want to have any part of this movement. I don’t remember much about it the meeting because it was not noteworthy at the time.
From the little I know from behind the scenes, I’d tend not to credit Strong with being a creator of the mess we are now in. It takes quite a few people to move a global direction. He was more a mouthpiece for a collection of wealthy patrons who long ago knew that money can be made faster in a time of change. So they engineered a change. These guys were quite clever, with detailed long term planning to infiltrate governmental decision making positions in many countries with chosen converts. It would have required massive financing (and possibly massive bribes or special deals to make people wealthy). So I go for old, bored money buying hearts and souls for a big change in a lifetime or two. Try the traditional bankers and industrialists, mainly the bankers though.
110
We would probably all get a little bored if we didn’t get a Joe like Matt Bennett drop in occasionally.
Thanks for the entertainment sonny.
BTW folks, I am now back in Oz!!!! Woohoo!!!!
50
Yes Backslider, you were conspicuously absent during our final hours with Michael TR. Happy that you are back home. If you want to read up it’s in the David Suzuki thread.
00
Sounds like a pyramid scheme idea. I’m no lawyer but isn’t this illegal in several of the countries where it’s being pushed the hardest?
00
Illegal only matters if someone cares enough to prosecute.
00
Matt,
When the time comes and you recant your emotional but unscientific feelings about AGW, you’ll probably be welcomed to the fold. Probably.
81
Which is the “lead fish” in a school of fish?
120
Sheep, would be just as good a choice. Moronically following without even a basic thought process.
81
The fish at the front.
30
The one that swallowed too many sinkers?
(that had nothing to do with margot)
41
Greetings Matt.
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.”
Quote: Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group III
✈
Matt B has yet to free his self from the
illusiondelusion this is about ‘saving’ the environment.The truth is out there Matty.
And the truth is here, at Jonova.
Free yourself. Think for yourself.
———————-
Just a quick reminder here that Mattb is not the same as Matt Bennett, just in case… – Jo
100
“Mattb is not the same as Matt Bennett, just in case…”
The original Mattb was infinitely more erudite and intelligent than this one. !
40
Just wondering Matt, if it’s not a scam then perhaps you could point out at least one of the predictions of the IPCC that have come true. There’s the melting of the Arctic, but that was supposed to happen at both poles. Surely the ‘97%’ must have at least one piece of empirical evidence to back up the predictions of the IPCC? No? None? Not even one?
How flawed is the 97% consensus claim? Dr. Roy Spencer stated that he is within the 97% according to the questions yet he rejects that man is the main cause of the temperature changes. Maybe you should examine the 97% a little closer to see how you’ve been taken in. Not that a consensus matters, but here is a new survey from the American Meteorological Society that has direct and clear questions – it shows that only 52% accept AGW:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/
90
Matt B “Just curious, if the scam is declining, who is to blame? Could someone point me to who is the head a the ‘scam’..?”
1. The UN is to blame because they have used this as a method to scare gullible governments into funding their flagging financial resources that started declining shortly after the cold war ended and only had a temporary stay during the Hole in the Ozone Layer ‘crisis’. People aren’t as gullible as governments prostituting for votes from fringe groups desperate for a cause – any cause as long as they get attention.
2. There is no ‘head of the scam’ this is just like any other confidence trick – it self perpetuates – the more greedy people that see there is a dollar to be made the more outrageous the claims of Armageddon, and just like any other good con trick when the globe doesn’t warm as predicted, when the dams don’t dry up as predicted, when the sea level ‘rises’ are localised (kind of defies physics that one), when the sea ice expands, when the medieval warm period and the little ice age can’t be ignored then they move on to ‘Climate Change’. Big whoop. Next they’ll try to say that the extra heating of the Earth’s crust will cause expansion devastating the planet with quakes, tsunamis and volcanoes. Give me a break.
If Flannery, Mann, Suzuki and their ilk seriously believed that any remedial action will take 1,000 years to have affect yet the Earth will reach the point of no return within the next century they would all be building bunkers, storing food and water and stockpiling illegal weapons, counting the money they collect from donations and not purchasing mansions by the sea in between jetting from country to country to promote the scam.
160
the scam spread like a disease once it began ….. I’ll toss out Maurice Strong as being a key initiator ..
http://www.mauricestrong.net/
80
Maurice Strong is now HIDIG in EXILE in China..
China is THE country that is really pushing ahead with beneficial CO2 emissions 🙂
I wonder how much Maurice is still making from this scam of scams !!!!!!!
81
HIDIG = HIDING
51
Matt,
A far more interesting question is:
Why would a seemingly intelligent and well educated person such as yourself (from the tone and content of previous posts here) still cling so fervently to this pseudo-religious doctrine , which at its core is relentlessly anti-human, shows a callous disregard for the suffering of the poor and the disenfranchised, and which if it were successful would spell the end of the glorious progression of Homo sapiens as a species, from cave dwelling feral animal to a space conquering, highly organised and proficient civilisation? Were you abused as a child, ostracised at school, a dud with the ladies? What possible motivation could there be for ignoring the fact that observations do not bear out the hypothesis of a catastrophic and exponential rise in temperature (Its flatlining), that a warmer world is worse for humanity (when every historical precedent says the exact opposite), or that extreme weather events are more frequent when clearly there is nothing unusual there at all, in fact extreme weather events have been remarkable by their rarity compared to even the 1970s? When I think of the 100s of thousands of dollars spent educating you, that this is the best you can come up with? if that’s the case, then yes, you are right, we are all doomed. Just not for the reasons you think.
411
Legendary response as usual Winston. 10/10
101
Thats a great description of exactly whats happening Matt.
Can you imagine being a junior environmental scientist within something like the CSIRO climate division. Are you really going to stroll up to the boss and go “listen Im not so sure”? Keep in mind Darwin sat on his ideas for a long time. Almost so long that Wallace nearly trumped him for history. Why? Mainly because he was so afraid of the response of the established “consensus” of science and religion at that time, he wrestled with the idea of bringing it all down. Not many people have his strength and conviction. Then throw in a nice salary and family and mortgage commitments and silence becomes genuinely golden.
As usual, you and your ilk exist in a rarefied atmosphere of unreal beliefs and expectations about how the real world functions.
It must be nice and I have often craved that level of disconnection.
Cypher: You know, I know this steak doesn’t exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize?
[Takes a bite of steak]
Cypher: Ignorance is bliss.
70
Safetyguy:
there was the human element too, in that he knew it would upset his wife who was quite religious. He knew the church goers would blame her (illogically) for his ideas.
He had no qualms about discussing his views within scientific circles. That is why Wallace wrote to him because he had heard of Darwin’s interest (Wallace wasn’t part of the main stream circle like Darwin). And note that the original double paper presented caused no fuss whatsoever while circulated among scientific circles.
O/T but Darwin behaved very properly over Wallace and always acknowledged his work, and used his influence in official matters on behalf of Wallace.
40
Hey Graeme, yes point well made. Darwin shared the credit once it became apparent they had to publish together for fairness.
Your point about the family and other issues is also well made. Like many of you (no doubt) I have lost friends over this topic and I am about the only one in my immediate family who holds the views I do. We basically dont talk about “it” as a family. But I have always been outspoken and my singular motivator is the desire to be on the right side of the truth. If evidence emerges tomorrow that convinces me CO2 drives our climate and that the CO2 we have put in the atmosphere creates the “tipping point” where naturally occurring CO2 goes over into Armageddon creating CO2, then I am ready to switch camps at a heartbeat’s notice.
So far, having read more or less every bit of material I can find from both sides of the argument, I find the notion that AGW will end life as we know it to be poorly thought through, alarmist and all but completely unsupported by observational evidence.
So given that’s how I see it, I will continue to argue strongly with anyone who wants to have the debate, that AGW is akin to a religion and has about as much to do with science as Scientology does.
At the same time having been formally warned about my views in my last workplace (Wind Turbine Manufacturer) I can absolutely understand how some people in some positions would have just raised the white flag on the whole topic and figured that its not worth having an independent view, for some people it can cost them their career, their family, their public credulity and more. Its a sad, sad day for science when asking questions and thinking outside the so called box is not only unwelcome, its dealt with in a hostile and hysterical manner.
The people currently aligning themselves with the so called consensus will look back in years to come and the shame of being so easily hoodwinked will almost break them. Talk to any German who lived through WW2 while attending rallies for the National Socialists, time and again you will hear them say “I don’t know what we were thinking, we just got swept up in the times” So it will be for AGW when realisation dawns that all the panic was for nothing.
60
Darwin did state his views among his fellows — and he never stated the crux of the theory he was later to claim as his own. Darwin was a man who had all of the pieces but lacked the unifying concept. Wallace’s letter to him put all the pieces together for Darwin.
Wallace didn’t need Darwin to discover the theory of evolution but Darwin needed Wallace to understand what his own data meant.
Darwin had never hesitated to publish before and his own older ideas on the subject are on record — and they indicate that he lacked the unifying idea that Wallace sent him.
You forget that Darwin had no evidence for his claims for priority — except his word as a gentleman of the upper class — and Wallace, in the thinking of the times was too lowly a person to be allowed to make the upper class look bad by outdoing them. You forget how vicious the system was back them.
So really what Darwin did was, with all his complied data, confirm the idea of Wallace. And he allowed his own class of people who held the power to proclaim him the originator of the idea while occasionally, like a “gentleman” should, mentioning Wallace.
And remember this — In “Origin of the Species” — where it really would have counted and had impact — did Darwin mention Wallace? The book that all would read, that would carry down through the ages, totally cut Wallace out.
20
And add, to all of the above, that the response to Climate Change has been primarily regulatory, which requires associated administrative and monitoring bureaucracies.
A primary objective of any bureaucratic organisation is the continued maintenance of the status and power of that bureaucracy. This is especially so, when the bureaucracy happens to be within the secretariat and supporting functions of the UN, which is solely answerable unto itself, and does not require any external electoral mandate in order to function.
90
Just one acronym Matt I P C C you know that quasi scientific body which really is a political body structured to redistribute the worlds wealth. Please keep up.
51
Mr Bennett, it seems Jo, LevelGaze, and James have given you most of the answer already.
Not much more needs to be added.
There are few that would deny that a warming in global temperature had occurred. It is the blaming of such warming on industrial CO2 and the subsequent social and political response that we occasionally describe as a scam, or more rarely in terms of “The C Word” (it rhymes with literacy).
If you think the Global Warming hypothesis is not a scam then you would have to wonder how it could all go so fundamentally wrong for so long. My brief history of the backwardness of climate science was here. Roy Spencer’s “My Climate Skepticism” list is more succinct and points 11 through 17 are particularly relevant to your question.
If you are open to the possibility that it is operating as a scam now you may wonder if it ever started with good intentions. My previous attempt to find evidence of Global Warming operating as a deliberate scam, past and present, was here. Some related events in the corruption of climate science are covered by JoNova on the ClimateGate Timeline page, and other events covered by Steve McIntyre on his Climate Audit blog such as here and here.
BTW… a cooling in climate over at least the next 15 years is as certain as any statement made about the future can be certain. In your bet with MV you have given Jo the easiest $5,000 she is ever going to make.
50
‘All the grubby professional sins were there; advocacy dressed up as
balanced reportage, an intolerant moral arrogance, totally one-sided
reporting,knee-jerk churnalism …’ Hmm … sounds like ‘our’ ABC.
250
I find this lack of interest dangerous. It allows the scam to be prolonged and run at a lower level beneath the public awareness. What we need is their ‘green’ desks to be overturned and made into investigation teams to report on what happened, why it happenned and point the finger of blame.
190
Jo If you didm’t watch Foreign Correspondent last night maybe you might like to. Far from being an objective and compassionate report on the wreckage of the Philippines much of the footage consisted of the reporter asking members of the local communities leading questions about the relationship between Typhoon Haiyan and climate change. It looks as if the diehards at the ABC are certainly not going to fold their tents and silently slip away. I object to paying tax to help support this organisation which certainly doesn’t represent my views.
180
That is the standard for what passes for journalism these days. It is argument by emotion. Rationality has little to do with it. The stories are constructed almost to a formula much like this.
===========================================
Step 1: Find a person (pefereably a child) with a pitiful sob story and wring every ounce of emotion out of their specific plight that you can find. Let’s call them “Jonny”.
Step 2: Identify a villain. Perferably the western world or a corporation. Incite anger. No need to actually make the case – pointing the finger is enough.
Step 3: Back to Jonny. More tragic sob story.
Step 4: The voice of the activist. Someone terribly concerned about the plight of “kids like jonny” who will state – with barely raw emotion leaking from every pore – that the villain is to blame.
Step 5: The sop to rationality and balance. Find the most foolish looking person you can find to speak for the villain and present the other side. Cut out all but the 10 seconds where they make the weakest of their arguments and present only that.
Step 6: Back to the activist to destroy the selected weak argument and rage at the villain once again for denying responsibility for the plight of kids like Jonny.
Step 7: The wrap. “But none of this matters to poor Jonny – he is just wondering where he is going to sleep tonight.”
120
Living in Woodside which was in the “news” when the Camp was announced and the TV crews descended on us, I know that they come up with the “predetermined view” and look only for evidence supporting it.
You may recall the TV shots of people speaking “against the camp” at the public meeting. 5 of the 6 shown were not residents of Woodside. One bloke shown swinging his arms around but NEVER with any sound was actually speaking in favour of the camp. He was upset that he reappeared 3 or 4 times always as an objector.
Curiously, Channel 9 were the worst. Someone I know was getting out of her BMW when their crew approached for her view, believing she would be against it. They recorded about 15 seconds then abruptly left and she never appeared on TV. They got people out of the less classy pub where they were spending the weekday, and coached them with written answers to get “the right views”. I never saw any money change hands but believe it was readily “available in liquid form”.
This got us a reputation as a bunch of rednecks. Yet when some party tried to get a protest meeting going months later they struggled to get 20 people from Woodside to attend. They had to hold meeting elsewhere to get enough numbers for the TV.
The reaction of the bureaucracy was also negative. Kids were bussed all over the place, but none ever went to the local Primary school (admittedly almost full due to lack of Gov. funds for years). Sporting Clubs which approached the Camp offering coaching and facilities for the kids never got a reply. In hot weather the local pool was only ever used by the Camp if exclusive access was made available.
The Council appointed 2 Community Liaison Officers (part-time, subplot teach those rednecks how to behave) who resigned after 6 months having never received any instruction nor permission to do anything. They were replaced but I’ve never heard anymore about them, save they were running an information meeting at a town 25 km away.
Don’t think there wasn’t opposition. I recall that when some outside mob put out that the camp kids had jumped the perimeter fence and raided the neighbours grapevines saying “I was against that camp, and the way it was announced, but if those kids can find ripe grapes in the Hills in early January, I know of 6 growers who’ll hire them as pickers”. (O/T but the basis of the story was the kids were getting into a vacant house inside the Camp with 2 plum trees in the backyard and helping themselves to ripe fruit. Not the sort of news the TV wants to air).
10
The decline in AGW column inches reflects the publics attitude, i.e. the public isn’t as interested about AGW as they were a few years ago. HOWEVER….
The public is irrelevant in this instance. So long as policy makers are interested (why wouldn’t they be, this is the biggest potential broad based tax in history), so long as academics are interested (why wouldn’t they be, the grants keep coming), then the scam is alive and well. Just ask Obama.
p.s. Yes yes Australia and Canada have gone in a different direction to the rest, but it will take a change in government and just one big El Nino and they’ll be back in the fold.
This scam will last as long as the money does.
280
Agreed … unprecedented, much worse than thought, new studies show, nearly too late and so on and so forth. Climatic Armageddon is upon us slothful sinners
By then the national power grids will be almost unsalvageable
50
The money ends in late 2014, early 2015, right now it is important to encourage the “righteous” to continue their doomsday preaching.
The internet never forgets and the stunning denial of the current evidence, actually aggravates the non involved.
Putting the general public into the classic; ‘Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes”, while you berate them for daring to doubt your divine wisdom, generally does not end well.
A continuation of the “pause” in the Teams own data base, more cold winters and continued economic damage due to idiotic green drama and reality will return, the media (even the Presstitutes) do sense the public mood , they are currently going silent or doubling down on the CAGW hysteria.
I trust I am not alone, in noting the ever increasing shrillness of the cult of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming?
When there is nowhere else to go, these same presstitutes, will be insisting that they were sceptical of the hysterical claims of human induced warming, but those evil “scientists” led the poor gullible media astray.
Or the progressive classic;”We had to lie to you, for your own good”.
150
I don’t think they need much encouragement. Just give Timmy Flim Flam one mild summer. He will go nuts and say something like there will be cane toads in thredbo. I’d like to see who could guess his next prophecy. Good luck, he has a million dollars worth of ideas.
30
The NY times itself admits there just werent that many readers who were interested.
As the money moves out of the Green world, there will be less people employed in the field who feel they need to keep up, less investors trying to stay informed, possibly less students studying it at uni who see future careers in these areas.
This is all a perfectly natural sign of decline. People are moving on.
Though of course there are billions of dollars of momentum yet to burn out…
360
Just as aggressive eh, just not like anything so often 🙂
Doesn’t ‘purely structural’ mean, like. If we take the structure away it’ll collapse by itself.
Compare this to typical UN & EU initiatives that consume all the resource in the structure, producing little worthwhile output.
110
Way back around Climate Gate and Copenhagen in in late 2009 [ anybody remember where they were when that was the NEXT BIG THING in global governance and politics ? ] I read somewhere on a blog and darned if I know where, that a media research project had shown that it took the Media about 7 years to switch from one hard held public position to another or opposite position following a major shift or change in the subject .
Climate Gate and the failure of Copenhagen in late 2009 was the catastrophic shifting of the goal posts for the CAGW meme.
That shifting of the goal posts from a full on aggression by the apostles of CAGW meme whereby the world was slated to bow to their ideology, to a defensive position where they have tried to just hold their previous gains is now well on the way towards spelling the end of the whole of the immense corruption and hostage taking of science and public policy by the CAGW climate science scammers.
Copenhagen and Climate Gate were a bit like Stalingrad and Midway in WW2 where at the time nobody realised that those battles were the climatic battles that sealed the fate of one of the belligerents. But it was still to take much time and blood and treasure to finish the fight.
From Climate Gate and Copenhagen in late 2009, those seven years that the media research project indicated would be the length of time before the media had completed it’s switch over to a new and perhaps opposing position, would place the final media switch around the end of 2016.
In between of course will be a whole range of changing media and now political attitudes to the CAGW claims, something we are now witnessing as the big media shift is getting under way.
Also don’t discount the ever shifting, changing personnel in the media as editors, sub editors, reporters and commentators all retire or move on over the years. Each new entrant will try and do something that will diferentiate himself / herself from all those who have gone before hand and had set that media’s previous policies and attitudes.
The new entrants will try and shift away from those older attitudes and policies as they have lived and grown up in another and always different cycle of our generational outlooks.
So am i surprised by the shift in the media towards more of and an increasingly skeptical outlook on the whole CAGW meme?
No!
I expected something like this to emerge sooner or later and the fact that it has in a highly recognized format such as the NYT’s can only be a very good omen that the whole of the CAGW scam is on a rapidly increasing downward trajectory towards being just another entry on the stupidity of mankind’s foibles that will be consigned into the dust bins of history, there to be hopefully and carefully forgotten by all those who were suckered in by the climate catastrophe snake oil salesmen.
90
Were I a politician, I’d start to jump ship now and say upfront that I considered the whole CAGW business to have been shown to be a flawed concept, and that it was now time to move on.
That would I think be a good bet for my career say 5 years on from now.
160
Although the apparent end of this source of alarmist propaganda is welcome, it is probably more due to the growth of climate agnosticism, rather than any other reason.
Amongst the people I know, I have noticed a growth in the attitude of “Of course, all this guff about global warming is BS, but there’s nothing I can do about these stupid politicians who just want to find new ways to tax us.”
200
That’s probably the most of it. It seems only the professionals care about Global Warming anymore. As in those who make a living from it .
100
Decrease by 30%, 9 people, that means the NYTimes had 30 people working on it? Seems hard to imagine that many people at one newspaper reporting on climate….
What are the 21 people left at the NYT doing??
70
Reading tea leaves and burning incense.
50
97% of journalists agree, the stories aren’t making money any more.
100
When I see someone roll out the 97% argument I’ve shot that down in flames several times where someone has written to my local paper with this theory that because 97% agrees we should believe anything they say,without requiring them to provide proof. It’s the argument of someone that has already lost the argument.
20
The AGW has introduced two new concepts which are anathema to science: Scientific consensus and the Precautionary principle. This is because the main bastions of science, observation, experiment and measurement, did not give the politically correct answers.
The AGW hypothesis failed to meet these criteria so they had to make-up others to accommodate it. And now even these are seen to be fundamentally flawed, e.g. 97%, so the philosophy of Herr Goebbels is relied on, if you say anything often enough people will believe it. But now there is a diminution in this as well as some articles to the contrary are appearing in the media. I don’t think the “Hockey Stick” carries much weight now, but it served its purpose very well at the time in the IPCC summary.
Will it go away or continue because of the money involved; that’s the $$$ question.
100
the graph at “The market does not care that the TV audience is declining” is a laugh. free wifi is obviously playing a part in the US, as this article states, but from Climategate on, it has clearly been counter-productive for the MSM to continue inserting CAGW scares into their programming, especially in TV documentaries, which are expensive & lose their repeat value as a result:
25 Nov: BusinessInsiderAustralia: Jim Edwards: TV Is Dying, And Here Are The Stats From The US That Prove It
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/cord-cutters-and-the-death-of-tv-2013-11
10
Put your money where your mouth is. Things are changing.
There are now some who appear confident enough to stand-up and pronounce:
‘With BHP Billiton’s annual meeting being kidnapped by the climate chorus, the chairman finally snapped in defence of the Global Australian’s continued embrace of its carbon future’.
Wind, solar, not for BHP
Finally Jac Nasser cracked.
120
Wow that’s excellent. Showing some ca-hones for a change.
Meanwhile in the land of rainbows and panic….
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-28/preparing-for-natural-disasters-catalyst/5120268
Sorry that should have been….
DONT PAAAAAAANIIIIIIIC!!!!!
50
You mean like this …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR6wok7g7do
20
Precisely the example I had in my mind.
20
And there is the little Jonny formula as discussed in 8.1 except its little Jan
10
What they really need to do is invent a process that uses CO2 to do the fracking.
Then they can call it carbon sequestration…… problem solved,
might even be able to get tax back and subsidies for it. 🙂
31
Well actually Andy!
Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery
For the techo minded the above site is quite interesting and another window on the vital fossil fuel industry which if it did not exist we would not have a modern civilisation and we would not have 7.2 billions of generally adequately fed humanity on this planet.
Without fossil fuels and the energy they produce the earth would probably be able to support no more than a billion people
900 million was the numbers of humans living on this planet prior to 1800 which was probably close to the limits of what the planet could support without the benefits of the immense amounts of energy provided by fossil fuels.
10
worth reading it all:
27 Nov: UK Telegraph: Sean Thomas: Most scientists believe in man-made global warming. Here’s a new reason why they may be wrong
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100247913/most-scientists-believe-in-man-made-global-warming-heres-a-new-reason-why-they-may-be-wrong/
50
27 Nov: Reuters: Germany sets out plan to rein in surging energy costs
By Henning Gloystein and Christoph Steitz
(Additional reporting by Madeline Chambers in Frankfurt and Matthias Inverardi in Duesseldorf; Editing by Jane Baird and Noah Barkin)
German parties have agreed to limit the growth of renewables and reform controversial incentives for the sector by next summer in a move to slow the rise in electricity costs for households and give big utilities more time to adapt their business models…
One of their top priorities will be a reform of the renewable energy law (EEG), which has sent costs for consumers soaring because of generous incentives for solar and wind power…
“The coalition aims for a fast and fundamental reform of the Renewable Energy Law and plans to submit a draft by Easter 2014, with the goal of passing it by summer 2014 in order to a create a reliable energy policy framework,” the coalition contract said.
The agreement stops short of promising a reduction in utility bills…
From 2018, grants will be handed out through competitive tender offers, which will be based on a 400 megawatt photovoltaic pilot tender scheme to be launched in 2016.
“In the further expansion of renewable technologies, cost efficiency and economic viability of the entire system … need to have a higher significance,” the deal reads.
The coalition deal says the new government will not change any schemes that had been paid out or are already running…
Germany still plans to generate 40 to 45 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025 and 55 to 60 percent by 2035, according to the agreement.
That is broadly in line with the outgoing government’s goal to raise the renewable share to 35 percent in 2020 from roughly 25 percent today. But it falls far short of SPD demands for a target of 75 percent by 2030…
***To safeguard security of supply, the government will encourage the expansion and modernization of the grid and the development of power storage technology and find ways for power generators to operate gas and coal power stations profitably as backup for renewable capacity, the agreement said…
Bank analysts said, however, the reforms would not be enough to improve utility profits.
“We maintain our view that these measures are unlikely to dramatically improve generators’ profitability,” JP Morgan said in a research note. Credit Suisse said that “none of the (reforms) will alter the economics of the German power and gas business in the short term”…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/27/us-germany-coalition-energy-idUSBRE9AQ0WJ20131127
00
New German coalition opposes cancelling CO2 permits permanently
LONDON, Nov 27 (Reuters) – Germany’s new coalition government, while backing the EU’s backloading plan to delay the sale of 900 million carbon emission permits, will oppose any move to cancel them permanently, a coalition document showed…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.3106006
26 Nov: Reuters: EU agrees new compromise on car emissions limits
More flexibility compared with agreement reached in June…
The European Union on Tuesday agreed a compromise to enforce stricter rules on carbon dioxide emissions for EU cars, ending months of wrangling after Germany insisted an earlier deal was torn up.
The new outline agreement delays 100 percent implementation of a limit of 95 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre (CO2/km) for all new cars until 2021 from a previous deadline of 2020.
***It also changes the rules on flexibility, giving more leeway to German luxury car manufactures such as Daimler and BMW whose emissions are higher than those of smaller, lighter automakers such as Fiat…
(HUH? HA.)Environmental campaigners, who have strongly criticised the German stance, gave a very cautious welcome to the deal, saying at least it provided certainty.
“It is disgraceful that the heavy-handed lobbying of Germany has paid off in weakening the 95g target,” Greg Archer of campaign group Transport & Environment said.
“Still, this revised deal will provide much needed regulatory certainty and ensure cars continue to reduce their CO2 emissions and improve fuel efficiency.”…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/26/eu-cars-idUSL5N0JB3W020131126
00
26 Nov: Reuters: Ben Garside: ECC to allow EU carbon permits as margin collateral
Germany-based clearing house European Commodity Clearing (ECC) will allow EU emission permits to be used as collateral for margin payments from December 2, it said, in a move that could boost liquidity on its partner exchange, EEX.
“Until the emission allowances are used as compliance instruments, our customers can make use of their stock of EU Allowances (EUAs) to reduce the capital commitment through other forms of collateral,” said Thomas Siegl, ECC’s chief risk officer, in an emailed statement on Monday…
Margins act as security payments for exchange-based trading. Allowing dealers to use their holdings of permits as collateral potentially frees up more capital to trade.
ECC is the clearing partner of EEX, which aims to gain market share in carbon trade from Britain-based ICE Futures Europe, the market leader…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/26/us-eu-carbon-exchanges-idUSBRE9AP0EM20131126
Reuters Point Carbon had this headline as their good news story today! of course, they don’t get to the ***but in the excerpt they publish for non-subscribers:
26 Nov: BusinessRecorder: Reuters: EU carbon hits 8-session high after German government deal struck
EU carbon prices climbed to their highest in almost two weeks on Wednesday as news that Germany’s two main political parties had reached a deal on forming a government increased the chance that a measure to cut permit supply would pass, traders said.
The December 2013 EU Allowance climbed 2 percent or 9 cents to 4.58 euros, the highest since Nov. 15.
***But it fell back into negative territory as traders sold permits in expectation that there would be no further gains and it ended down 1 cent at 4.48 euros…
The coalition agreement contains a raft of energy policies including extending renewable energy goals but cutting back on support payments to producers of wind power.
***”There’s an argument that with a deal in place, utilities will find it easier to plan ahead and sell more electricity,” the trader added, suggesting this could lift demand for carbon…
http://www.brecorder.com/top-news/109-world-top-news/146284-eu-carbon-hits-8-session-high-after-german-government-deal-struck.html
00
At this rate I’ll soon have nobody left to bite back at.
Joanne, you’ve got to keep at least 1 or 2 of them going. 🙂
30
Tim will always be around to provide humour Im sure. I doubt he will stop talking about the droughts we can expect in a warmer, wetter world any time soon.
40
O/T but this is a piece many here will appreciate I am sure:
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/two-economic-myths-about-paper-money/2013/11/27/
A sober look at two of the myths associated with paper money written by Ron Paul.
20
for reference:
27 Nov: Reuters: FACTBOX-How do China’s carbon markets work?
http://www.trust.org/item/20131127060348-lb2g1
00
Running out of emissions, are we? Hehe….
20
Part 2 of the climate change story (post climate wars) needs to play out. There is now observational evidence that high latitude regions (record sea ice in the Antarctic all months and the start of a rapid recover of Arctic sea ice) are starting to cool (20th century warming is reversing). Significant global cooling would be newsworthy, a game changer.
There is a very strong scientific case to support the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes and that the majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 was due to warming of the ocean, as opposed to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. If there is unequivocal cooling of the planet due to the new solar magnetic cycle, Maunder like minimum and if atmospheric CO2 levels drop, there will likely be some public discussion concerning the $2 trillion dollars that has been spent on green scams.
The obvious news store will be the billions and billions that has been spent on ‘climate’ research that reached an incorrect conclusion, trillions of dollars spent on green scams (what has been accomplished?), and that the complete scientific basis of the IPCC reports was incorrect.
It is expected that news story would have legs and would take a few years to pay out and will have political ramifications. What will make the end of the climate wars particularly entertaining, is the CAWG crowd will continue their propaganda and attempt to explain the cooling away.
110
Not all that much of a surprise, though.
The socialists and crypto-Marxists of Morgan Stanley, Barclays, Deutsche Bank, UBS, etc., aren’t making any more big bucks out of it, so their mouthpieces in the media have no reason to push it any more.
50
Naw, RoHa.
They’re not socialists or even crypto-Marxists, they’re just opportunistic capitalists.
They merely go where they see a chance to make a buck (or a billion or three), then move on when the well dries up.
Whether they are morally superior to socialists or crypto-Marxists is problematic, but at least they don’t particularly want to enslave and cull us, and they don’t bother to pretend to be anything other than they are.
30
I’m being sarcastic, LG. I keep hearing about the terrible socialists behind the AGWQ scam, but all I see are the Big Money boys who will happily enslave us all to fill their pockets.
20
Thank you Jo, the local FreeTV Weather Presenters are making up for the Times, by declaring nightly “records” ad nauseam. The really sad part is, that I am well and truly OLD and experienced enough to know that they are lying to further a totalitarian agenda.
40
Has anyone else noticed how the ABC and most other news media weather reports have adopted the Boy who cried wolf principle with their weather reports, and it’s most obvious on the ABC.
Every tiny indication of poor weather and it’s the worst case scenario possible as they report high and damaging winds, flooding rain, rising rivers, large and damaging hail, etc etc. and accompanied by further advice on what to do.
They virtually covered the whole of Queensland on a couple of days last week. It seems to me to be a case of covering their fundament in the event of complaints along the lines of ‘why weren’t we told’, and then those not affected can say ‘whew, lucky, dodged a bullet there.’ Also looks like a concerted effort to beat up climate change as things that barely raised a mention as early as 12 to 18 Months ago are now reported as extraordinary.
Tony.
111
Quite honestly, I haven’t noticed. But you get that when you don’t watch or listen to any ABC I suppose.
It is all storms in thimbles these days, competing mediums to excite those that are not reality savvy.
Got the ABC thingy rolling along but the timeline is of budgetary incremental specificity. Rudd speak with the spectre of actual action. Calves are getting weary from doing the walk. Apologies for being cryptic, has to be.
20
Hi Tony,
I’m not sure that I agree regarding the “covering their fundament”.
Having complained to the ABC in the past, I realize that they have all the deflection and obfuscation skills honed to a fine point.
I think it’s a concerted effort to maintain the fraud, keep “climate change” in the conversation.
They don’t have to worry about running out of superlatives because the general public will simply absorb the information on a daily basis, which will reinforce the concept that “climate change” is getting worse. Why do they think it is getting worse? Because they keep hearing of all these “serious” weather events.
50
I only today received a response to a complaint I had made regarding the ABC “Science show” with Robin Williams. The complaint is a year old, and pertained to a broadcast on 24 November 2012 in which he likened ‘deniers’ to pedophiles; specifically that it contravened Standard 7.7 says “Avoid the unjustified use of stereotypes or discriminatory content that could
reasonably be interpreted as condoning or encouraging prejudice.”
ACMA didn’t think there was any wrongdoing on ABC’s part!.
81
I’m pretty sure that it can be shown that human emitted CO2 acts as a “seed” for the creation of hail the size of oranges….
Not sure exactly how it can be shown, but I’m sure that Michael or Matt Bennett (long lost brotherds) will be able to enlighten us….. or perhaps BlackUdder knows?
20
A lot of British and US bloggers have congratulated us on our change of government. Hopefully we can maintain and strengthen more rational and truly scientific ways to improve Australia and steer it away from fuzzy headed feminazi post modernistic thinking.
101
The main hope we have of that is by voting LDP: http://www.ldp.org.au
10
It seems to me the coverage of environmental issues should be objective, not aggressive.
50
While we are on the topic of journalism and word shills, this crossed my email desk this morning.
…………………….
The following is the winning entry from an annual contest at Oxford University calling for the most
appropriate definition of a contemporary term.
This year required a definition for the contemporary term,
‘Political Correctness’.
The winner wrote:
“Political Correctness”
is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by an unscrupulous
mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is
entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end’.
120
Hey, remember how some moron a few years ago saying something about rain not filling dams ever again ???
Well, up in sunny Newcastle (not)…. the record for November rainfall has just been broken.
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/nsw/hunter/newcastle
Can ANYONE remember just one prediction the climate drama queens have got right ????
(and I don’t mean vague if, maybe, perhaps’s that they always seem to thrive on.)
81
Oh, that was that guy that said:
and:
and:
I suppose that last one goes well with David Suzuki’s maggots.
Professor Tim Flannery. He truly professes…. bullshit.
31
the unrelenting, negative nature of the MSM’s daily CAGW diet is depressing…and has worn itself out.
billions of people have just begun enjoying access to global information, & this is the kind of absurdity that accompanies almost every mention of nature in the MSM:
28 Nov: Australian: AAP: Reef fish find it too hot to swim: study
A study has found large reef fish are becoming more lethargic as oceans warm up.
James Cook University researcher Jacob Johansen says the fish are spending more time resting at the sea bottom and less time swimming or reproducing.
Even when they muster up enough energy to swim around, they swim at a much slower rate, he says.
“The loss of swimming performance and reduced ability to maintain important activities, like moving to a spawning site to reproduce, could have major implications for the future distribution and abundance of these species,” Dr Johansen said in a statement.
However, the study showed evidence that coral trout might be able to adapt to rising temperatures…
Coral trout is one of the most important fisheries in the southeast Pacific. If we want to keep this fishery in the future, it is critical that we understand how global warming may impact the species,” he said.
“This will allow us to develop management plans that will help to keep the species, and its fisheries, healthy.”
The study results have been published in the journal Global Change Biology.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/reef-fish-find-it-too-hot-to-swim-study/story-e6frgcjx-1226769898069
10
Rereke, ya knows ya stuff buddy. I concur with what you said at 1.2. We here in this part of the world know how to dance.
10
‘We here in this part of the world know how to dance.”
Me.. two left feet, and I’m not sure which is which !! 🙂
10
It’s like this Andy, your left foot follows the bass line. You other left foot hovers and watches with disinterest and then just leaves like a jilted teenager. It’s not your fault.
10
NB. Count yourself lucky you don’t have two right feet. The double goosestep lands you on yer bum every time.
10
30% less coverage from the NYT?
Can only mean one thing. 30% less bullshit from the NY Times.
20
Matt:
I know who is responsible for the “decline of the scam”…Mother Nature…she refuses to cooperate with your fantasy world computer generated forecasts of doom. She gets the last vote, and right now, it looks like she is supporting the cold ticket on the ballot. Interesting that you chose the word “decline”…neither you nor your false god MM can hide that b.s. any more, Mate.
40
Such a statistic as 97% is useless. Science is not about a consensus but about evidence and contrary evidence. At the moment we have far more evidence to discount the man-made global warming (myth) than there is to support it. Besides, some time ago, a very high percentage of scientists thought the world was flat yet they were all wrong.
30
[…] pm In Alarmisme, Geen categorie, IPCC, Klimaat, UN Geen reacties schuldig aan N2O productieThe CO2 enemy is losing profile in media and in environmental policy worldwide. For those who live from environmental problems, the […]
00
A new scare is being created by UNEP:
http://climategate.nl/?p=29875&preview=true
10
sorry, is should be the link:
http://climategate.nl/2013/11/28/unep-coming-activist-organisation/
20