Reddit is a social media website which calls itself the “front-page of the Internet”. It’s possible you’ve even heard of it (but not from me.) One Reddit moderator proudly announced on Grist that climate change is the hottest battleground in all of science, and actual debate is too hot for Reddit.
I’d like to thank them for sending more traffic to skeptical bloggers as they stop pretending to be on the “front line” in science. Though to be honest, I don’t expect to notice the difference: their “environment” page is positively raging along, with most posts getting only 1-2 comments. “Front page of the Internet” my foot.
According to Nathan Allen, Reddit-science means following consensus polls and doing pop-psychology on your opponents , while allowing people you like to post conspiracy theories, but protesting when opponents do the same.
Here’s a wild idea, perhaps this debate is the hottest battleground in science because a religious theory about the climate has usurped real science, and thousands of scientists are rising up in protest? (If I’m right, the number of skeptics will be increasing and the tenor of the discussions will get more and more acrimonious. Oh look… UK poll suggests there are nearly five times as many skeptics as there were in 2005. Australian poll showed same trend. * I’m just sayin’…)
I think the real issue here is that Reddit attracts a pretty low base “scientist”, and the flame wars make it pointless. Reddit’s answer was not to raise standards by insisting that both sides stick to logic and reason (which would have blocked most of the fans of man-made global warming as well) but to block one side and allow the other to keep parroting fallacies.
Allen seems to miss that most of the believers commit all the same mistakes as the skeptics he’s blocking. Mistakes that start with himself — he calls people who disagree with him names which guarantees a scientific conversation never even begins. As long as Reddit allows the use of “denier” it isn’t discussing science, but just letting bullies score points.
After some time interacting with the regular denier posters, it became clear that they could not or would not improve their demeanor. These problematic users were not the common “internet trolls” looking to have a little fun upsetting people. Such users are practically the norm on reddit. These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial thinking. They had no idea that the smart-sounding talking points from their preferred climate blog were, even to a casual climate science observer, plainly wrong. They were completely enamored by the emotionally charged and rhetoric-based arguments of pundits on talk radio and Fox News.
As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their “skepticism” on climate change. The evidence simply does not exist to justify continued denial that climate change is caused by humans and will be bad. There is always legitimate debate around the cutting edge of research, something we see regularly. But with climate change, science that has been established, constantly tested, and reaffirmed for decades was routinely called into question.
But maybe the problem with Reddit was that it didn’t attract high quality thinkers in the first place. This was the first page I clicked on. Not exactly front line analysis. Look out, Allen says the most important thing is that your comment doesn’t contain any conspiracies – like this right?
mysticsmick -1 points ago
This comes from a self described “free market” orientated nonprofit that seeks to limit government in all areas of endeavor. It has been funded by Exxon/Mobile, The Koch brothers, and insurance companies.
This above mentioned bias is clearly expressed in the document. I would not call this science, but rather a presentation of information that supports a viewpoint.
Presumably in Reddit-science, these conspiracies are facts — turn off your brain — recite the litany.
Humans are masters of rationalization. Allen justifies one-sided censorship thus:
There is always legitimate debate around the cutting edge of research, something we see regularly. But with climate change, science that has been established, constantly tested, and reaffirmed for decades was routinely called into question.
It’s news to me that science had climate models that had been verified and working for decades. My understanding was that 98% of them couldn’t even hindcast the last ten years, let alone predict the next ten.
Allen seems to think Guardian articles and one-sided psychology are scientific observations:
And like our commenters, their rejection of climate science is not based on an accurate understanding of the science but on political preferences and personality.
Real scientists know that two minute Internet polls of scientists tells us nothing about the climate. We want empirical evidence about the real world around us, not the opinions of certified groups or one sided junk-surveys of “political inclinations”. Skeptics outnumber and outrank believers, but it’s a pointless competition in fallacies so we don’t bother to play that game.
Real debates are difficult. I sympathize with Reddit moderators. Propaganda is so much easier to moderate. The rules are simpler, just allow the politically correct team to run wild, block the opposition.
The answer to managing contentious debates is as old as human civilization itself. It’s called manners. The rules of etiquette have been hammered out over eons. If you call someone names and can’t justify it, you have to apologize. If someone asks you a question, it’s rude to ignore it or just change the subject. An honest conversation means if you want to be condescending, you have to earn it.
I won’t pretend moderation here is perfect, but anyone is free to post, and no one with good manners has ever been blocked. (Note, it isn’t good manners to turn up to a book club and dominate the conversation, not having read the books or listened to past discussions, and continuously repeat non-points in a condescending tone as if the other members are stupid. This is especially so for points which the other members agree with said poster on, namely that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that temperatures have gone up in the last few centuries. The rest of us know that, but we also recognize the fallacy known as “correlation is not causation”. The group is ten years ahead of the dominating newcomer, and very very bored. You know who you are….).
Coincidentally I see the top-science-announcement is Subreddit Announcement: Nature Partnership with Journalists and Editors. I guess Reddit wanted to cement their position with the old decaying institutions of science as a new propaganda unit, and didn’t want to wait 140 years to achieve it. Er.. “congrats”.
——————–
*Obvious caveat: Just because skeptics are winning the polls doesn’t tell us anything about the climate. I’m talking about the state of science as a human industry here. Skeptics are right about the climate too but for other reasons…
Reddit has it’s merits, but it’s not really a place I’d go to debate AGW.
71
You would be welcome to visit /r/climateskeptics for discussion of news and science. I just posted this link there.
50
Lubos Motl got it right when he said:
If I go to reddit.com right now, the only thing I see and absorb is the Makers Mark Whisky ad, the rest is just a blurred sludge of poorly presented links about puppies and cats.
Reddit.com banning climate skeptics is about as upsetting to me as not being invited to a 7 person party of doped hippies sitting on the floor of their freezing bug infested apartment above a service station (gas station for American readers)discussing Marxist philosophy while chewing on dried organic pumpkin skins.
400
“a place where this foam of the Internet interacts with itself ”
In sewage treatment parlance.. that is called flocculation. 🙂
550
You are a never-ending mine of information Andy. How could my life be complete, without knowing that word existed.
220
S*** usually sinks (after a while).. but us water engineers have found a way to make it float to the top so it easier to remove. 🙂
Be very thankful, because similar techniques are used to purify your drinking water ! 😉
280
And if you live in a country town that draws its water from a river…….
its quite fun to find out how many times that water might have been “used” before you get to use it.. and dispose of it ! .
Have a good Christmas and new year , guys 🙂
190
Of course. Water that’s been through that number of kidneysmust be pure. A Merry and Peaceful Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year to you and yours Andy. I’ll be looking forward to reading your thesis once it’s approved.
140
AndyG
You are oh so correct.
I’ve said many times on this blog and others that every drop of water on earth has been peed out by a “woolly mammoth” or such at some time in the past.
Amazing how resilient our earth is to almost everything that is thrown at it – including as it turns out a few million parts of CO2 plant food.
Cheers, (and Merry Christmas to all)
110
Ahhh woolly mammoth tinctured water*… good for male virility and hangnails, or summat like that.
What’s weird about flocclation? I am familiar with the term from my 30-year old mineral eng degree. If memory serves starchy compounds make decent floccuants, but it’s been a while.
* yes, a homeopathy reference on a topic about non-science and other nonsense.
10
So you’ve done the calculation about how much urine has been produced by animals (inc man) during the history of the earth and it easily exceeds the amount of water on earth? That’s a fun calculation; what’s the ratio please?
00
Anton. Nobody could possibly do the calculation but it helps if you think ‘fish’.
00
Arty, order-of-magnitude estimations like that are what keeps the mind of physicists like myself supple and of course the calculation is possible. I do not mean to ten decimal places! Start from how much urine a typical human produces daily; from that and from population vs time curves, calculate how much human urine has been produced in the last 10,000 years; estimate what proportion of biomass of urine-producing animals comprises humans; then extrapolate back using all such animals (not humans) to the estimated date at which such animals evolved – be generous and say 100 million years. That gives you the amount of urine. Now suppose the oceans are an average of 1-2 miles deep and cover all (rather than 70%) of the earth’s surface, of area 4 * pi * r * r where r is the radius of the earth = 4000 miles. That gives you roughly the volume of water. Now compare. It can all be done on the back of an envelope, which is the right place for such things.
00
So, the big lumps always float to the top, it is just the same with politicians.
170
Actually, flocculation is aimed at getting all the smaller particles into a ‘collate’ or ‘flock’ with enough air in it to float. Aerated particles also stick to larger lumps and help them float.
You can also use the process to make lumps sink, and remove them from the bottom of the tank. Depends on the removal process you want to use.
Its all basic chemistry 🙂
here’s a Wiki link that does a reasonable job explaining.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarifying_agent
You will note that the me process is used to clarify wine 😉
120
last line.. was sure I typed ‘same process’
31
Turds of a feather flocc together?
100
I think we are confusing flocculation and froth flotation here. The former generally utilises starch-like substances to bind very fine particles into larger flocs which sink. The latter utilises chemicals that bond to a mineral and are hydrophobic, so with a bit of air injection and agitation the mineral floats and can be skimmed off. Generally the mineral being floated is a metal sulphide, but floatation is used for other purposes as well.
10
Hi BD.. the chemists at “the plant” call it flocculation whether it rises or sinks.
Maybe they are just generalising or being lazy.
00
ps.. It’s about 6-7 years since I did that stuff at Uni, so I could be a tad mixed up.
00
why not use foam fractionation to remove the particles ?
00
I’d call it Frog Sprog.
60
I thought it was what people into BDSM did.
60
MV I think you have a few vowels and consonants mixed around.
10
“flocuaustralians” too!
00
Strange.. we start discussing “Reddit” and it immediately morphs it talking about purifying sewage. 🙂
Or maybe not that strange 😉
250
I think that Dilbert based this strip on the Reddit web site …
20
That’s far too generous; more like 100% and a century either way.
291
The mere mention of the phrase “social media website” is enough to convince me it’s a waste of time, and certainly not fit for intelligent discussions.
200
Reddit; made me puke.
150
Saw some writing on a public toilet wall… Reddit.
180
We should care about this Reddit thing?
110
I don’t think you should care about it, but I will say that it is a very popular web site with the Gen X and Gen Y crowd. If you told someone under 30 that you’ve never heard of Reddit and didn’t care about it they would look at you googly eyed. It would be like saying you’ve never heard of Google and we shouldn’t care that they censor images of Tianamen Square from Chinese users.
Reddit will continue to be popular for all matters unimportant enough to be eligible for polite conversation. Climate Science won’t be one of them.
The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.
80
I’m not sure which generations X and Y are (though I think they’ve been around long enough for Z to come along) but they all seem to count as Young People, and I stick to the well-tried principle that anything Young People do is wrong. And I eschew polite conversation.
31
“My understanding was that 98% of them couldn’t even hindcast the last ten years,”
With the number of fudge factors … whoops.. ‘parameters’ they use, they ought be hindcast to basically anything.
But they can’t even do that properly !!!
Therir main problem is they attempt to hindcast to a non-realistic, non-data set ie HadCrud or Giss, and are therefore absolutely guaranteed to end up predicting massively higher than reality, because of the unrealistic positive trends they have manufactured to sell their climate warming agenda.
Catch -22… come on down 🙂 Either fix the data record by removing the data fudges, or continue to predict JUNK !!
Gotta luv it ! 😉
170
That is a great point! If your hind cast is of false data, your forecast will be false also.
110
guess i won’t post this at Reddit then!
19 Dec: UK Independent: Emily Gosden: Hundreds of businesses to be paid to switch off to prevent blackouts
Businesses could be paid to shut down from 4pm and 8pm on winter weekdays, under plans approved by regulator Ofgem
Hundreds of businesses could be paid to switch off their power between 4pm and 8pm on winter weekdays as soon as next winter to prevent blackouts, under plans approved by regulator Ofgem.
Mothballed old gas-fired power stations will also be paid to come back to stand-by so they can be fired up to prevent the lights going out when demand is high…
National Grid would hold a reverse auction next spring where companies will offer the lowest price at which they will agree to switch off when needed.
Grid said that 1,000 MW of capacity – equivalent to hundreds of industrial or commercial sites – could sign up. They could be paid in total about £10m up-front for taking part in the scheme.
A 2MW site could then potentially be paid between £2,000 and £120,000 to switch off four a four-hour period, depending on what price they bid in the auction. Grid estimates assume it would be more likely to agree to do so for about £40,000…
Under the measures for mothballed power plants, Grid estimates that up to 2,000 MW of plants could sign up – equivalent to a handful of plants.
They could be paid in total about £50m to come out of a mothballed state so that they could be fired up within hours if needed…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10528157/Hundreds-of-businesses-to-be-paid-to-switch-off-to-prevent-blackouts.html
100
Told ya’s all the UK system was in DEEP DO-DO !!
Get off your high-horses, and bring back decent solid coal fired electricity..
Save your country……. idiots !!!
320
Andy,
Last 30 days UK imported more GW from Holland and France Interconnectors than wind produced.
As usual, Coal and Nuclear provide over 70% of UK power, the other 30% is becoming so expensive that government will have to act soon, or riots will start on the streets of London.
And here’s the UK Government reducing the Fuel Poverty percentage with the stroke of a pen, by 800,000 people. GREEN criminals. This is disgusting behaviour by David Cameron. He’s sort of a Julia Gillard of the UK.
160
Exactly AndyG55. In fact I wrote to our PM Abbott stating that point. It will give our economy a welcome boost. We should do what China and many other countries are doing and start building cheap coal fired power stations instead of wasting our time and money with solar and wind power. We need to reduce the cost of electricity here to as low as possible. It would be a far better and more significant and useful stimulus than cutting interest rates. I feel we should start a campaign to that effect. It would give a boost to our failing industries and help the working public (the very same ones who the unions are supposed to help but are in fact hurting).
210
Pretty sure Tony Abbott, judging by his various comments over the last couple of tears is a fan even of brown coal fired power plants.
Here is an article from the Age in July 2011 which by my reading of him is consistent with his other statements on the future of coal fired power plants:
“Abbott: the future is bright, brown”
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/abbott-the-future-is-bright-brown-20110720-1hoxc.html
60
Yes but installing new coal power stations will reduce CO2 emission when we need to increase CO2 to 800ppm for food production!
61
Don’t worry, China, India, Germany and Brazil are all doing their fair share.
Nothing we do down here will make one bee’s d*** difference,
which is what makes the economically destructive Carbon Tax, RET and expensive unreliable wind and solar such monumental idiocies.
Only effect these have will be to take us backwards toward third world status, where the Greens and their hangers-on would be happy.
If they want to live in third world conditions, they should do us all a favour and emigrate !!!
70
South Australia is the first state to go under down here.
Probably not this year, but if they don’t change their moronic reliance on renewables, I give them only a couple of years before that have major power issues, long black-outs and failures to supply.
180
Andy G55: In reply to your comment “Get off your high-horses, and bring back decent solid coal fired electricity..save your country……idiots !!!”
As a UK resident, I’ve written to my Member of Parliament (a Labour Party ‘greenie’) about the issues of ‘climate change’, wind turbines and more.
I enclosed figures from reliable sources (referenced) to back up my comments. I sent the letter on August 3rd, and so far haven’t had the courtesy of a reply. I’ll be sending another one soon.
Given that most of our MPs voted for the ridiculous Climate Change Act, it’s had to see what else members of the public can do. Those on ‘high horses’ are those holding the reins of power, and until we get a few politicians ( from any party) who have the intelligence and will to do a bit a bit of research themselves and have the guts to say ‘we were wrong’ I can’t see that much will change. Perhaps pressure from the business world and industry will bring a bit of reality into the Houses of Parliament – or should I say Brussels?
140
Wasn’t there a war fought once to prevent the UK from being ruled by unelected socialist bureaucrats in a European city starting with ‘B’?
120
The propaganda of Western socialism (as distinct from Asian communism, which is far more pragmatic and dead against all this global warming hysteria and crap) and the global warming “terrorists” are so good it’s still convincing too many people into believing the renewable crap. As long as that keeps up I’m afraid the Western world has no hope of survival. People will eventually look back in history and be amazed at our stupidity to let Western civilization destroy itself. The enemy is not from outside but within. Yet going by our polls they have a good chance of being re-elected sooner rather than later! Go figure.
120
It still amazes me that you people in the UK don’t seem to think,or haven’t heard of UKIP.They may not have the Full backing of the Media,but they are the only party who have said they will tell the EU where to go,if elected.They also don’t believe the CAGW bulls–t,so even if they don’t get enough votes to save you all from the Lib/Lab/Con. they are your only hope!
160
Vote for UKIP in the 2015 Election and tell all your friends to as well – that is if you want a return to “cost effective energy supply” – I said recently that the UK’s “shale gas” is the UK’s saviour – only UKIP have plans to utilize this vast resource. Unfortunately UKIP’s polling numbers rarely exceed 20% – so I suggest a media blitz via the MSM with the Telegraph the best bet with AGW skeptic journos like Booker & Delingpole very likely to fly the flag – they do now but it needs to be ramped up to a “full media blitz”.
101
Andy’s firing today 🙂 pew pew…
10
Off on a week or 2 hols tomorrow. Gotta get my words in 🙂
00
That is sad news.
70
Pat I think we can pat the UK goodbye with measures like those you mention. The UK are becoming energy poor and when an economy suffers from this affliction it can prove terminal. Regulator Ofgem should be overhauled by UKIP if it can find a way to win Govt in 2015 with another Party in coalition which also is not obsessed with those hopelessly uneconomic “Giant Wind Turbines”. Should the current Green Govt or Labor win the 2015 Election then I think the UK is going to go down the gurgler like most of it’s EU cousins. Gordon Gecko said “greed is good” – I say “green is bad” – very bad if you want a viable economy.
250
2015 is too late. By then countries like the UK will be destroyed from within due to the Green agenda. If things are not reversed right now it will be all down hill with no possible way of stopping. It may be already too late, and I suspect it is, even in Australia where we have booted out socialism, for a while. Our only hope here in Australia is for Abbott to come out with some very dramatic policy changes in the new year. Cut out all Green associated crap and reduce electricity prices dramatically ASAP. Then put a ban on all renewable research work until such a time when our economy is back in good shape, which may take several decades. If all this is not done then we will go down with the rest of the Western world, risking our sovereignty and possible takeover by foreign powers. Odd that the West did not learn the lessons of Russia about how bad socialism was there. Now that Russia has dumped socialism and gone to a more democratic form of republicanism and with Putin becoming more and more of a devout Russian Orthodox Christian, things are turning around. Meanwhile we in the West were going the other way. If the trend overall continues it won’t be too long before our paths are crossed and the West will be begging for mercy.
141
You just cannot make this stuff up.
And it is going to get worse!
In years to come, the UK’s current energy policies will be studied by economics and business students as a practical example of how to attain Third World status.
240
How to attain Third World status in less than a generation.
60
The vexing question mark that the Climategate emails have placed over the peer reviewed literature as well as the continued emergence of supporting evidence for CAGW skepticism (warming hiatus, absence of the tropo.hot-spot, decline in hurricane stats, poor performance of the climate models) has left the CAGW proponents with the default choice of ‘tactics’ rather than credible scientific argument.
Too often these tactics are in the negative form of dis-information, insults and the closing down of debate.
Reddit’s action and its stated rationale are squarely in the realm of ‘tactics’.
140
So their answer is to retreat. Not to regroup, but to totally withdraw from the field. That is the best news we have had all year.
Jo will not be the only person to have noticed this, other notable skeptics will have noticed too, as will the other alarmist sites. Will those alarmist sites redouble their efforts to fill the gap? I doubt it. Will the science improve, in an attempt to recover the high ground? Well hardly, they are past that now.
The meme is dying, and not before time.
180
Unfortunately, what it actually means that there will be an unopposed diet of alarmist articles with no dissent permitted, at least on the /r/science subreddit. The stated pretext for removing comments is not accurate. Polite, well reasoned, comments supported by data are routinely deleted, while abusive ranting from the faithful is left untouched. This has been the informal policy for some years now.
100
So they end up with an echo chamber, that will quickly get boring, once everybody has agreed with everybody else.
People will then move on to other topics, and the meme will die. What is not to like?
100
Sounds very much like Australia’s ABC, Rereke.
Perhaps Reddit is positioning itself for taxpayer funding!
110
For confirmation of this, check out Real Climate, lights are still on, just.
20
The value in this situation, is that anybody investigating CAGW (there must be a few out there), and reading through Reddit, will simply understand intuitively that it’s not a credible source of information.
When you want information on a subject, you expect to read in depth articles. Rants, whines, abuse, and self congratulations identify themselves quickly to anyone who is at least a little smart.
Reddit may find themselves in the same location as printed news.
40
For a bit of fun non-erudite seasonal frivolity.. go here
70
They need to do something about the iambic pentameter.
30
What the **** is that ?
something that measures 5 things?
30
It is the rhythm of a poem, that is given by stressing certain words to give five beats to the line.
‘Twas the night before Christmas and all through the house not a creature was stirring not even a mouse
Stockings were hung by the chimney with care in the hopes that St. Nicolas soon would be there
80
An iamb is a stress pattern in verse that goes one accented beat, and then one unaccented beat thus: DUH-duh, DUH-duh.
An iambic pentametre means five such units in a line, for example:
From fairest creatures we desire increase
That thereby beauty’s rose might never die.
(Shakespeare)
which is stressed as follows:
From FAIR/ est CREA/ tures WE/ deSIRE/ inCREASE
That THERE/ by BEAU/ty’s ROSE/might NE/ ver DIE.
That verse is in iambic pentameter, because every line follows the same pattern.
A stress pattern “d-d-DUH” is called anapest.
“The Night Before Christmas” is anapestic tetrameter (four anapests to a line), not iambic pentameter.
70
Peter,
Wonderful info, but didn’t anapestic, iambic, tetrameter, dactyl, pentameter etc in poetry now come from marching songs from the Spartans and Greeks? And also whats’s a dactyl, is it the original in Greek for one or digit?
So much stuff to learn.
Thanks Dave.
30
And I thought poetry was so simple,string a few words together,make ’em rhyme and get the money.What do I know.You have also steered O/T and thats Roy’s job.
20
20
Wow, such knowledge on this site or did you get that from Reddit poetry pages?
10
But what do I know? It is just a phrase I picked up somewhere that was poetricity like.
At school, we studied the Ancient Mariner, and I still carry the mental scars from that experience.
00
RW.. You thought I didn’t know, hey.
Look carefully at my comment at #10.1.1 😉
10
I honestly never even knew what reddit was, before they decided to ban me from it.
130
Is it worth getting banned from. ?
00
“These problematic users were not the common “internet trolls” looking to have a little fun upsetting people. Such users are practically the norm on reddit. These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial thinking.”
Sounds like the tedious and pretentious ‘Michael the Realist’, who made so many fatuous comments in Jo’s previous posting.
I had never heard of Reddit before today, but usually when you are in the wrong you try and censor those opposed to your way of thinking – after all, there is no point in letting a few facts get in the way of your beliefs! This is very obvious in the blogosphere world of ‘climate change’, where alarmist sites rigorously censor all contrarian views, while sceptic sites are very much more tolerant. It is always good to read some alarmist comments on a sceptic website, as their arguments are rarely original and usually just the shallow mantras of the Global Warming Cult, which can easily be torn apart.
90
Peter,
You are quite right in the thrust of your argument. It is natural not to like challenges to the values that we hold most dear. It is a part of being human. However, for the collective knowledge of the world in general (and the scientific knowledge in particular) to progress, there must be incentives to undermine the received wisdom. Popper had a view that many would find perverse. Scientists should make their hypotheses vulnerable to falsification, then rejoice when it is falsified. Nobody wants to see their life’s work (and the status derived from it) undermined.
The way round this issue is to design structures that foster dissent and non-conformity. That can be through open competition and/or funding pursuit of diverse points of view in climate research.
40
The problem with current sceptic debate is that it seems to be limited entirely to discussions of temperature. This supports the underlying claim that CO2 in the atmosphere is somehow effecting the global temperature.
My admittedly layman studies show this as extreme unlikely. There are two scenarios. When the sun is dominant, and when night prevails.
With the sun shining, CO2 can absorb LWIR in all its three well defined signature bands centred around 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns. This raises the vibrational level of the CO2 molecule which can collide with other atmospheric molecules and transfer some of that energy by conduction. But we are talking about a gas here. CO2 molecules are not locked rigidly to other atmospheric molecules thus there is a time delay between collisions which allows the CO2 molecule to emit a few lower energy photons before the next collision. This implies that not all the sunlight energy absorbed by CO2 is transferred to the atmosphere as heat, which will rise anyway, but ALL the energy absorbed by the CO2 fails to reach the surface. This sunlight heat limiting effect on the surface is not discussed.
After sunset surface temperature sets the start of the adiabatic lapse rate up the air column. The atmosphere is cooler than the surface and cooling with altitude. The surface can be considered as a black body radiating at a temperature of say 15C (288K). The surface will not be radiating at 2.7 and 4.3 microns as those require peak radiating temperatures of 800C and 400C respectively. Peak radiation temperature for the 15 micron band is -80C (193K). Yes, minus! So the surface will be radiating vigorously over the LWIR bands 13 to 17 microns which are definitely part of the CO2 active bands. The 13 micron band peaks at around -50C.
Now for the sad news. What is the altitude of the atmosphere where temperature is close to -50C? Around the tropopause. So basically all the CO2 in the atmosphere is TOO WARM to absorb any surface radiation in the 13 to 17 microns bands. The kinetic energy of collisions with all the other atmospheric molecules raise the vibrational level of the CO2 molecules such that they immediately attempt to emit photons over that band range. This is a direct cooling effect in the atmosphere AT ALL ALTITUDES. It is certainly possible that CO2 molecules will absorb some within band photons from the surface but this will NOT warm up the CO2 molecule above the current vibrational level. But the CO2 in the atmosphere IS radiating over the 13 to 17 micron bands and half that radiation does indeed reach the surface. The energy in the 13 to 17 micron band photons is limited. Planck’s constant times frequency. Since the surface is already radiating those bands it cannot reabsorb them. There isn’t enough energy.
This is why I believe the CO2 argument for AGW is a total fraud.
190
Yes. CO2 is used in greenhouses to enhance vegetative growth.. but that’s about it !! 🙂
90
Its premier use is to put bubbles into certain beverages, thanks to some helpful little microbes
100
In fact, a great deal of the carbonation in soft drinks comes from rock these days. You quarry limestone, marble or dolomite, react it with acid and capture the resultant CO2 for compression and sale to Coca Cola, Pepsi Co, or elsewhere. Beer ideally is still innocent of this, but I fear the day will come.
00
Thanks Richard,
Your comments here explain some of this complex problem.
30
You should post this on,…. er….Reddit?
🙂
30
I am sure they are aware of Jo’s comments.
They might even sneak in and read some of it!
🙂
20
These are Reddit pundits.
Sorry, but most of the comments on this forum are WAAAAAAAAY too long for them to digest.
Probably even this one. !
20
can’t even be bothered reading the “explainer”!
20 Dec: ABC: Daniel Miller: What is the Coalition’s direct action climate change policy?
Environment Minister Greg Hunt has released the Government’s Green Paper for its direct action climate change policy.
The paper released today is open for consultation until February, after which time a White Paper will be developed…
The Green Paper details how the Coalition’s Emissions Reduction Fund will operate.
The scheme is budgeted to cost $300 million, $500 million and $750 million over three years, starting on July 1, 2014…
Mr Hunt says new figures show Australia needs to to reduce its emissions by less than thought to achieve the targetted cut of 5 per cent by 2020.
“It’s going to be easier to achieve that figure now because of changes in Australian manufacturing,” he said.
“That’s not a desirable cause, but it’s a reality.
“We’ve seen a number of coal mines and a number of manufacturing businesses either not proceed or close down.”
Take a look at our explainer below on how the Coalition’s climate change policy works…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-20/coalition-climate-change-direct-action-policy-explained/5067188
???
20 Dec: Guardian: Tan Copsey: Communicating climate change
Reaching new, broad audiences requires diverse, innovative communication strategies
On a frosty November morning in Warsaw, a workshop entitled Be the Movement brought together a wide variety of global climate change professionals to discuss practical strategies for building a stronger and more far-reaching global movement to combat climate change.
My contribution focused on the question of how people can communicate better about climate change and reach new audiences. To answer this, I started by asking my workgroup a series of smaller questions…
http://www.theguardian.com/connect4climate-partner-zone/communicating-climate-change
10
Reddit ignores the truth:
BOM & IPCC declared December 19th the 4.54 billionth longest day in a row, and this will increase in the next 100 years plus. Absolute idiots, equivalent to Reddit.
Channel 9 says Adelaide has nudged 43 degrees, making it the hottest December day since 1931 and the second hottest on record. They ignore that this is the 4.54 billionth longest day in Adelaide EVER.
Reddit thinks it’s famous because one of it’s USERS, was given a GIFT by warmist BILL GATES.
Don’t think I’ll ever visit this site again after today. Reddit is now sitting at over 400th in most popular BLOG sites, down 100 in one week.
GREEN BLOGS are failing all over the world.
You little beuaty.
160
Did you say the hottest ever Dec day in Adelaide was in the 1930s?
Funny how many temp records date from the 1930s. Of course, they can’t have happened (or were affected by poorly sited thermometers near jet aircraft).
120
And funny how the BOM graphs show the 1930’s – 1940’s as way colder than now.
Well.. not funny.. more like fraud.
70
In one of my last posts before Phys.org similarly cracked down on competent seasoned skepticism last month, this time informally by full account bans due to fake OFF TOPIC and CROSS POSTING excuses, an all time record in a single thread was obtained of pure bile response to my slow methodical and referenced exposure of the background of the Hockey Stick Team and the Skeptical Science Tree House Club (who had just published their new pause busting Frankenstein satellite/HadCRUT4 paper):
“flawed cognitive process”
“caps-lock key stuck”
“inclined to suggest therapy”
“the trolls”
“underlying motivation”
“#DenierForHire”
“sheer level of the craziness”
“some sort of mental illness”
“the pills are in that bottle”
“chess playing pigeons”
“inclined to suggest therapy”
“spouting incoherence”
“mental illness”
“political motivation”
“frantic, desperate”
“pathetic mental disease”
“really losing it”
“delusional visions of grandeur”
“terribly shrill and desperate”
“fraud and worse”
“talking points”
“unshakeable faith”
“smarter than you have the capacity to imagine”
“Illuminati Conspiracy”
“Urinate”, not “Urinated”
“the Whore of Lucifer”
“AGW deniers”
“consumption != AIDS”
“you flatter me with terms like propagandist”
“delusional denialism”
“descent into madness”
“Pedophiliaville”
“fraudulent liar and a criminal”
“desperate, shrill keening sound”
“denialist bollocks”
“just another fraud”
“a fraud, a charlatan”
“definitely a tea partier”
“gish-galloping fraudster”
“criminal fraud”
“share a cell”
“typical denialist”
“petulant child”
“trying to perpetrate his fraud”
“college drop-out”
“drug addict”
“Your motivation”
“purveyor of lies and filth”
“denialist purveyor of smut”
“denialist bollocks”
“the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch”
“seas rising steadily, without end, due to our fault.!”
“sick tastes”
“brain damage”
“ring of fire” ADD”
“(re-hashed) miss-truths”
“denialist bigotry”
“beyond stupid”
“other choice nouns”
“blind admirers”
“guy at the hospital”
“Like every other Conservative”
“Nikkitard”
“anti-psychosis medication”
“TardieBoy”
“psychotic self delusion”
“Tinky Winky thrusts his wanton pelvis”
“Chromium poisoning”
“voices in your head”
“consensus science”
“rabbit-hole occupiers”
“What a maroon!”
“a UFO trailing ISON bandwagon”
“far better off in Prison”
“Not just stalking, pedoboy, hunting.”
“denialist scumbag”
“religious extremism”
“lack of education”
“deranged pervert”
“Charles Manson has a better understanding”
“What a moron”
170
Shocking,
Truly shocking!
00
It’s always fascinating to see the AGW believers use exactly the arguments they are accusing their opposition of to block a debate on the facts. If the facts are so strong they are easily defended, yet the fire seems to flare up at every corner.
140
Yes, Kaboom, one of the many favoured ‘tactics’ deployed by the AGW disciples that I referred to up-thread.
Understandably, tactics must be used in the absence of a plausible scientific case.
80
Did Reddit mention how MUCH belief in AGW is required to be admitted? Everyone I’ve ever met believes (at least) that CO2 is a weak GHG, creating diminishing (logarithmic) heat trapping with concentration, and that (across a cycle) it has made a non-trivial % contribution to the 0.8C of warming claimed by satellite and proxy data. I have never met anyone who “denies” this tenet of science that’s now 150 years old.
Is one required to also:
– disbelieve that any adjustments (such as the greatly pro-warming transition from HadCRUT3 to HadCRUT4) have exaggerated history
– disbelieve the IPCC’s view that a weak solar cycle has overwhelmed CO2 resulting in (at most) flat temps for 13 years
– disbelieve the statistical evidence accepted by the IPCC about the lack of resultant weather, drought and flood catastrophe increases
– assume a certain min % feedback for the future (not evident in the past)
– believe reports of a “record November” contrary to the low and falling RSS dataset
Must we accept all of these viewpoints, AND also
– the efficacy of any or all of carbon taxing, ETS, and/or Direct Action subsidies of renewables in reducing global CO2 emissions(contrary to 23 years of history which showed only economic devastation in the GFC was effective in interrupting emission growth)
– believe that renewables are consistent with grid stability up to a minimum level (20%? 50%? Milne’s 100%)
Are we required to be for or against hydro (or for it when “world leader in clean energy China” does it but aginn it when we do it)?
I’ve tried to establish from the warmies (including Lewandowski, who censored 97% of my question on his blog) what the minimum qualification is, and where the boundary line between “d****r” and “[whatever they call themselves these days]” is. I’ve never got a straight answer from them on what is required on me – they just look at me slack-jawed and dribble “global warming is real.”
231
It’s Lewandowsky, innit?
40
10
1. CO2 absorbs Infrared radiation, particularly in the 15um range.
2. CO2 radiates infrared radiation.
3. CO2 traps radiation
4. CO2 consequently is a green house gas which can cause warming.
5. The warming effect of more CO2 is a diminishing logarithmic function with increasing concentration.
6, The warming effect of CO2 is non trivial.
Gotta fix this for you.
1. Ok
2. ok
3 arrant BS
4. unproven by any science
5. IF there is any warming effect it will be logarithmic (and probably also threshold limited at about 250-280ppm)
6. The warming effect of CO2 is
non trivial.unproven in an open atmosphere.140
Thanks AndyG55,
That’s what I thought
40
The only
datathat claims a 0.8C warming is the much adjusted Giss and Hadcrud ex-data80
“science that’s now 150 years old”
You mean, like Alchemy?
70
Reddit is another site I have never gone to and won’t miss.
Intellectual cowardice seems to be highly correlated to strong AGW beliefs.
160
re the mines at Maules Creek. ABC gives activists all the space &, in this exchange, incite further action!
20 Dec: ABC PM: Federal Court rules coal mines to proceed
REPORTER: So will we see more things, actions such as you know, chain, chaining to vehicles…
PHIL SPARK: Definitely…
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3915788.htm
50
“POST” them a roll of dunny wrap and tell them they are “wiped”, apart from that don’t waste any time on them.<:o)
50
Jo-
Reddit’s position is entirely consistent with the troubling document released by the UK’s Royal Science Academy this week called “A New Agenda on Climate Change: Facing Up to Stealth Denial and Winding Down on Fossil Fuels.” I wrote about it here http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/developing-dispositionscharacter-traits-as-the-new-global-focus-resilience-resourcefulness-reflectiveness-reciprocity/ where the actual reality of climate change is to no longer be the subject of debate. It is to be treated as a “social fact” and the discussion is to focus on solutions.
The fact that the global push in education throughout the Anglosphere has shifted stealthily but demonstrably to developing student “dispositions” to act to solve “real-world problems and challenges.” This means we are priming our students and future voters to change future reality through false perceptions about current reality. A very dangerous, unstable situation.
RSA has called on media to cooperate with its vision and it sounds like Reddit is saying “Sign us up!”
160
In so far as the internet is a mirror, the R site (which I had never heard of until reading Jo’s post and following the link) seems little more than a haemorrhoid that has applied a ligature to itself.
Some here may be aware of the fraud perpetrated by the ministry of we know best regarding the ‘toxicity’ of second hand smoke. In an article recently published in the J Natl Cancer Inst (2013) 105 (24): 1844-1846. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djt365 First published online: December 6, 2013 and already commented on by James Delingpole under the title of Passive smoking – another of the Nanny State’s big lies
At Reason.com this comment by an MD is cited by Jacob Sullum:
as Delingpole points out, there are obvious parallels with the CAGW meme
The demonizing of fossil fuels is a case in point. The strategy appears little different to the spurious demonizing of fossil fuels and the recurrent and tedious attempts at establishing an association of, I read this phrase recently, ‘Team Denier’ with the Big- tobacco. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the combustion of fossil fuels is eventually likened to smoking tobacco cigarettes.
102
Reminds me of the chook who was a librarian recommending books to a frog:
Chook: “Book book”
Frog: “Reddit reddit”
120
Perhaps Reddit’s announcement is a feeble attempt to gain some relevancy? In all the debates I have seen, with thousands of links supporting each side, I have yet to see one link to Reddit.
I suspect they are just another dot com bust. Vainly screaming for attention as the Internet passes them by.
90
I was thinking a similar thing after reading the article transplanted to the Guardian, that they might just be trying to be controversial to grasp at some straws of publicity.
I think the pressure of the dawning recognition of approaching failure is beginning to tell, if the mounting hysteria is anything to go by.
Some of the cAGW proponents at the Grauniad did actually take the trouble to point out that what was being suggested was breaking the principles of freedom of speech and opinion, which the paper and readers claim to cherish.
Needless to say, you-know-who waded in with his ‘ban them and all their opinions everywhere, all the time’.
60
When I see ‘contrarians’ and ‘deniers’, I feel like responding with ‘carbonazis’.
But I won’t.
80
Alarmists is quite restrained enough for those proportionaly challenged who would have us panicked into expending enormous ammounts on futile gestures just for the sake of it.
00
Hadn’t even heard of “Reddit” until this post at Jo’s, and so now I will endeavor to forget that I ever heard mention of it.
At my age, it is not difficult to forge … … … … …
Was I typing something?
60
The best thing about alzheimer’s/dementia is…….
You get to meet new people every day !!
60
You know, that’s just what I thought I was thinking…or maybe not…I can’t recall…what were we…No that’s it! I saw it on Ridddditt or something.
10
watching india/south africa cricket!
re Guardian Warsaw article posted earlier, written by BBC’s Tan Copsey. note it’s a Connect4Climate piece. well, it would seem it’s controlled by the World Bank:
5 Dec: World Bank: Connect4Climate Competition Winners Announced
Connect4Climate is a global partnership initiative supported by the World Bank and the Italian Ministry of Environment. Connect4Climate Knowledge Partners include…(LIST TOO LONG TO POST, BUT GEORGE MASON & GEORGETOWN UNIS, PLUS MANY UN BODIES, ARE INCLUDED)
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:23061504~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html
20
Bring it on!
But I’ve the distinct impression that the whole global warming thing has been the low quality science, pretty much as you describe Reddit – always that
80
re Maules Creek story posted earlier:
from this page, u can listen to individual segments. i wondered why abc used “REPORTER” and not a name for the person virtually inciting more activism. to my ears, it’s someone with an american accent!
AUDIO: ABC PM: Federal Court rules coal mines to proceed
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/default.htm
on the same program, there’s a segment: “NuCoal threatens legal war on Government if mining licence cancelled” which u can hear at above link, or read the transcript at –
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3915789.htm
plus there’s: “Government releases draft emissions reduction fund”, transcript here, with plenty of space for Christine Milne, as always. is she the head of the Shadow Govt or something?
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3915776.htm
50
Why are we even bothering to discuss a 4th rate (at best) website that is populated by infantile trolls who cannot win an argument, so they have decided to take their ball and go home?
Let the true believers create all of the low-traffic echo-chambers that they want to. Meanwhile, sites like this one, wattsupwiththat, climate depot, and others that discuss actual science will continue to win awards, gain more traffic and readership, and flourish, while the eco-tards in their echo-chambers isolate themselves into ignominious irrelevance.
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win” – Ghandi.
We are now seeing the beginning of stage 4, and it is about time.
P.S. Let me clarify that I am all for things like conservation and SENSIBLE treatment of the environment and the planet, but CO2 is nothing but an extremely necessary and beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere, and things like AGW, non-economic intermittent “renewables” such as wind and solar, and “carbon taxes and carbon trading” are all just complete nonsense, and should make all real conservationists extremely irate (to say the least).
211
I hope you are right but it’s not certain just yet. The propaganda machine of the Greens is in full force and if it goes on harder and longer then it will still suck in enough gullible people into believing in their crap. Most people may not always be fools but they can be some of the time. So, all it takes is for the anti-AGW side to do nothing or very little while the pro-AGW side keeps on peddling their crap to convince enough to swing the political pendulum back in say countries like Australia to the left, strange as it may appear for now. Do not underestimate the stupidity of voters and the cleverness of the the Greens movement. Time will tell as to how it all pans out. Meanwhile, sites like this one will have to keep up the fight. The war is by no means over, and going by some parts of the Western world the pro-AGW side is still winning hands down.
160
There’s more to this.
Nathan Allen is the guy who wrote the article about banning skeptics in the science forum (he’s one of the mods there) and the call for all media to censor “deniers”. Except he works for Dow Chemical. Here he is:
http://i.imgur.com/3Fu71SD.png
Dow Chemical you say?
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/dow-chemical-one-of-the-next-green-giants
And the guy who posted Nathan Allen’s article in pretty much EVERY subreddit he could think of, and gets a special status icon in r/science, and constantly spams articles and comments in every climate thread? …he works for a climate PR NGO called Climate Nexus, which is funded by Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. His name is Philip Newell:
http://climatenexus.org/team-bios/
—“Since our formation, Climate Nexus has been focused on an important strategic goal: spotlight ongoing extreme weather to bring the current impact of climate change into focus for Americans.” (Here… but check out the entire site, it’s pretty shocking.)
Reddit is gamed by professional climate activists and bands of zealots, who just repeat the standard alarmist talking points about “deniers”. 90% of people buy it. They want to censor skeptics, and they want the people there (most between 15 and 35) to think it’s normal and acceptable.
Not everyone is cool with this, though. The skeptics there compiled the critical comments from the r/science thread, because the mods were starting to delete them (looks like they had to give up, otherwise the thread would’ve looked ridiculous):
http://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/1t11fj/best_posts_in_defense_of_not_banning_climate/
Here’s the original r/science thread, with the link to the article, and all the comments:
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1t0c9v/reddits_science_forum_banned_climate_deniers_why/
110
Heh, that’s Jo’s old telepathy skills kicking in again. I also noticed the deal with Nature and was going to…speculate about secretive biased collaborations, but stopped when I realised that the Nature deal happened only recently whereas the “moderators became increasingly stringent with deniers… About a year ago”. While the stringent comment guidelines are not inconsistent with the trend of Reddit buddying-up to the mainstream, it’s also not necessarily indicative of a package deal on climate issues.
It would be natural for skeptics to now see /r/Science/ as astroturfing gatekeepers. I wondered if this was in fact happening and have tried to find examples of it. Luckily if anyone has replied to a censored comment then the reply remains while only the censored comment is blanked.
Under a post titled “This November was the warmest November ever recorded”, one deleted comment has two replies:
It’s my guess the deleted comment was a link to the same Allen/Grist article above, which would mean even suggesting that climate skeptics are banned will itself get your comment deleted. This is bizarre because Mr Allen is a /r/Science moderator and it was his own wording that “Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.”
In Reddit’s defense one of the other /r/Science moderators (Inri137) has already commented about this moderation rule, saying:
Remember two of the clearly stipulated requirements of ALL submissions to the /r/Science forum are:
1. a direct link to or a summary of peer reviewed research with appropriate citations. If the article itself does not link to these sources, please include a link in a comment.
3. not editorialized, sensationalized, or biased. This includes both the submission and its title.
How does a headline like this next one qualify as “not sensationalized”?
‘Whole world at risk’ from simultaneous droughts, famines, epidemics: scientists
It was also a link to a London Guardian environment piece which did not have a direct link to the science papers that spawned the headline. On both those counts this post should have been deleted by moderators. But don’t worry, another very helpful soul added a comment containing the links to the papers that the post author should have added to begin with. That very helpful soul? A user named
nallen, yes, Nathan Allen himself, happy to bend the rules to help the alarmism.Seems that most posts that are deleted are deleted for legitimate reasons, such as not being current or not being peer-reviewed research, regardless of topic. A day ago someone decided to test the waters and posted a link to SkepticalScience’s own list of “Peer-reviewed climate papers by climate skeptics”.
This post was removed by moderators on the technicality that it was not a link to a paper singular, with Mr Allen’s moderation comment: “as you can guess, I am sympathetic to the ida of posting this.” The post also received more user downvotes than upvotes.
Reddit may not be censoring all posts to climate skeptic papers but, as readers here are aware, the top scientists of climate skepticism have an ordeal publishing papers through the establishment review system. Jo is right in that regard; Reddit is in effect becoming part of the problem by refusing to become part of the solution, which is open access science journals free from gatekeepers.
In my perusal of /r/Science I found virtually no deleted comments. Occasionally there were half-baked comments from people who even I would describe as “climate change deniers”, yet their comments were not deleted, just downvoted a lot. Censoring of comments seems few and far between and there Mr Allen has some trepidation as this comment on the moderators’ forum shows: “If the moderation log would become public I would switch to moderating with a completely anonymous account, which frankly I have started to do already for any public explanations, as has most of the active moderators.”
That’s because (in his opinion) there is a chance some climate deniers are gun-toting sociopaths that will murder his family over a deleted comment. It’s the old death threats argument except this time the threats are in the future. A doxxing incident on /r/gaming a few weeks ago has spooked a few mods, so that’s a real threat on a very high volume site. Strange that Mr Allen then goes and states a strong banning opinion on Grist under his own name.
For Nature it’s win-win. They may impress the magnificence of their fine regal clothes upon a new generation of proto-scientists, hopefully with subsequent maintenance of journal brand value and institutional subscription fees. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. The emperor’s clothes are of the finest quality and require the most expensive and meticulous cleansing.
For onlookers it may seem more than co-incidence that a user called ElsevierConnect had been posting links about once per month for the last year, then a month ago was threatened with removal of their links by an /r/Science moderator, with no further posts after that date. Two weeks later the partnership with Nature was announced. As they say on Reddit… o_O
50
“In my perusal of /r/Science I found virtually no deleted comments. Occasionally there were half-baked comments from people who even I would describe as “climate change deniers”, yet their comments were not deleted, just downvoted a lot.”
The comments get deleted in batches. Possibly, if you refresh the page later, many will have vanished.
It is not always obvious when comments have been removed. Many comments are simply deleted without record of their ever being present, possibly by an auto-moderator script, and many dissenters are simply shadow-banned, again leaving no sign that they had ever commented.
Low quality ‘denier’ comments are not as much of a priority as well reasoned, well cited and polite ones. The good arguments get removed first, often through shadow-banning the submitter.
50
While ever government funds science and universities, this stuff will just keep going on. The only thing that will change is the pretext. Government funding of science is no more justified than government funding of religion.
Some people say “we” (they never say who we is) need government funding of “basic” science (they never say what basic is). But what could have been more basic and innocuous-seeming than taking temperature measurements? And look what became of that: the biggest alarum and pious fraud in the history of the world.
The theory that politicians are “representative” of society and the social good lacks explaining power; besides being unhistorical. Besides, conceivably anyone could be representative of society, for example if I say murderers should be stopped. The question is not whether government is representative of society to some degree; the question is whether it’s more representative of society by its compulsory actions, than society is of itself by its voluntary actions.
The theory that government originates in conquest and subjugation, and subsists by double standards and parasitic behaviour is much more parsimonious, historically and factually correct, logically defensible, and has much more explaining power for all the facts in issue. The fact that this theory jars with fondly-held beliefs about the social benefits of government funding of science and universities, doesn’t mean those beliefs are true or that the theory is wrong, especially since said fondly-held beliefs just happen to have been inculcated by government’s compulsory indoctrination of the whole population during the formative years.)
Government funding of science and universities should be abolished.
60
Adults may be coming more sceptical, but down below children are being brainwashed to provide a new generation of CAGW ‘believers’ to keep the religiuon going.
140
It is in the kiddy preschool cartoons, the school books, and essentially every science related documentary shown on TV. On a science show about discovering planets on other solar systems they described how the would be able to tell if there were advanced life forms by the high levels of CO2. That statement seemed to me to be the dumbest on several counts.
Why is that civilization using carbon? If they were advanced, then why are they not advanced enough to use only nuclear and not burn carbon? How do you differentiate between these other beings burning carbon and that is just a result of the decay of plant life. What if the life form evolved more like plant life here and depends on CO2 rather than oxygen for “life?” Their arrogance of predictions is utterly amazing.
How can you possibly detect 0.02% or 0.04% or 0.08% of CO2 several thousand, million light years away? I fired off a letter to the PHD that said that B/S, and asked in a way that would provide me with in answer to just that question. AND he replied! His answer assured me that they had the capabilities to do this! I can not believe that is possible, but can not say it is not possible.
60
To UsUrBrain;
So Venus must be thriving matropolis, with a CO2 concentration of 96.5%.
I’m going to go out on a limb and ask “a scientist said that”?
00
WUWT has picked this up as well …
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/20/discussion-thread-reddit-bans-climate-change-skeptics/
60
In the spirit of Christmas I thought I’d bring all those worried about CAGW some glad tidings regarding that true symbol of GW and Albert Gore’s chief concern, the polar bear. (Admit it. You lie in bed at night worrying whether there will be any polar bears left for your children to see as you play back those sad images from “An Inconvenient Truth”.)
Here’s a letter from the Dec 17 issue of the Canada’s National Post. The letter was in response to a typical plaintive tail of polar bears having to be bred in captivity.
Here’s the link to the letter page:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/12/17/todays-letters-santa-is-not-canadian-hes-a-new-yorker/
And…..
as added interest use Google Maps to see where Tagak Curley actually lives by typing in “Rankin Inlet, Nunavut”
PS. having moved from Auckland to Toronto 20 years ago this is by far the coldest winter I have experienced. I know it is weather and not climate (I get that. Only hot weather counts as climate), but it is getting ridiculous. Where is GW when you need it? I’ve tried letting my SUV idle in the drive, I’ve burnt wood in the fireplace and our gas furnace runs almost continuously. And still it is cold.
70
I am with you on that Mike, similar lines Tuatapere to Yellowknife, I run two diesel trucks and an old 350 chev and burn anything I can, still no global warming.
On the polar bears, the lies are stunning,our politicians so gullible they actually fired the last real bear biologist, cause he told them they were horribly mistaken,yet Parks Canada strongly suggests visitors to the High Arctic National Parks, hire an armed native guide or carry a high calibre rifle.
The only bright side, here in the NWT, the government policy documents state, that global warming caused by co2 emissions is a fact, so I guess I can sue for the higher heating bills, failure of my date palms and frozen tropical garden.
Medicocracy rules, the GNWT states Global warming caused by increased manmade co2 emissions as fact, then refers to the IPCC FAR as the science backing their policy.
I have yet to meet a policy advisor,politician or activist, often the same person, who has read said report.
Very similar to arguing with born agains.
20
Perhaps it is different in Northern Canada, but in my experience in the US, Britain, and NZ, most good politicians will look for a skeptical (or at least critical) view of any subject matter put before them.
Mostly, they do this to identify potential arguments, from all sides, so that they can have answers at the ready, should questions arise in any debate.
And in some cases, they have a genuinely open mind, and want to have sufficient information to privately decide for themselves on the merits of climate “whatever”. These politicians will still toe the party line in pubic, but they will work behind the scenes, in an effort to keep the bureaucrats under control.
And it is in the bureaucracy, that the real problem lies with the Climate debate. Whole new government agencies have sprung up, in response to the perceived threat, and they will work diligently to maintain that threat, because their tenure, future promotion prospects, and ultimately their pensions, rely on it.
40
I used to think so too Rereke.
However “good politicians” are short on the ground here as the Government of the NWT of Canada can best be envisioned as a sponge, designed to absorb nearly $2 billion/year and absolve the Federal Govt of any blame.
There will be no questions as there has been no debate, also no reply to queries from the public.
This is a welfare territory with a few mines.
Government is the largest industry with constant cross traffic between the elected positions and appointed positions.
A classic kleptocracy but funded by the taxpayers of Canada, hence we locals don’t riot.
00
Sorta like Halifax, but without the military. Gawd, last time I was there, 90% of the hotel rooms and restaurants were occupied by Government types. At least in the True North, you still have some mining. Oh, wait….
00
O/T.
Can some one check the man made global warming sea level rise in south Western Australia:
“In a remote corner of the world, east of Esperance, in Western Australia, a stone fish trap has been re-discovered by Traditional Owners and an integrated research team operating within the Gabbie Kylie Foundation (National Trust of Australia, W.A.)
During the mid-Holocene (c.a. 7,000 to 3,000 years ago), the local environment is likely to have had a different configuration associated with changing sea levels and coastal formation processes.
Indeed, the Gabbie Kylie team and other archaeologists from the Western Australian Museum have documented archaeological sites and evidence of complex human occupation on several offshore islands; demonstrating that people were able to once walk through a vast coastal plain that is now the Islands of the Recherche Archipelago.”
.
If only they knew about carbon(sic) action, they could still be walking that vast coastal plain.
40
UPDATE:
Ex-PM Julia Gillard has volunteered to the most dangerous job of checking coastal sea level rises caused by humans.
Julia had earlier warned of dangerous sea level rise because of man made global warming, “invoking a doomsday-like scenario of metre-high sea level rises and a 2000km southward shift of Australia’s climactic zones as she battles an opposition scare campaign over her proposed carbon tax.
Since then, Julia has further put herself at danger from metre-high sea level rises/doomsday global warming.
Armed only with her trusty carbon(sic) tax price in place, Julia has purchased a $2M property on the front line of global warming, keeping a watchful eye out, demonstrating her commitment to the environment, “I’m looking forward to doing some international travel and pursuing internationally the causes I’ve been so passionate about …”
.
120
Wow finally Julia and I are working as a team. We bought on the edge of the Tamar (200m to the water as the crow flies) 6 months ago.
We also bought a boat just in case. But Im quietly confident it wont come to that and Julia’s teamwork gives me a lot of comfort.
50
Actually that part of the Brighton foreshore is a bit above the high tide mark. It’s only likely to be flooded if the sea level rise is as high as Flannery’s predictions, and we know how likely that is. In fact Flannery’s “little” place on Pittwater would be flooded first.
Isn’t it odd that all the believers in massive sea level rise like Flannery, Gillard, Rudd, Gore, have all bought houses by the sea side? I wonder where Malcolm Turnbull and Sarah hyphen-hyphen live.
60
Great minds think alike….
And ours 😉
20
I used to live in Altona, still have family there. Gillard’s house must have been beachfront to fetch a price like $928,000. Altona is pretty flat, it used to be sand dunes, so nothing there is higher than a few metres above sea level.
I guess its a bit like Al Gore and his beachfront house in Montecito http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/photos-al-goree-new-8875_n_579286.html#s91230 – when they talk about multi metre sea level rise, they must expect that Gaia will spare their beachfront houses, because they are the good guys.
70
That seems to be a popular “denier fallacy” and one I don’t mind dismantling, since it is irrelevant to climate science and hunting for Gores on Google Earth is so much fun.
First the visual evidence. From the exterior photo you linked to it would seem the only way it could be an actual beachfront property is if tall trees are growing in the sea. Look at the centre of the background. Bit of a problem with the “beachfront” hypothesis right there.
I was going to search Google Earth manually for the pool and house outline, but someone’s done it already.
http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/al-gores-house-2/
Co-ordinates for “deliveries” are 34.44776538, -119.62862644
Al Gore’s Montecito house is in fact about 160 metres (524 ft) above sea level, it is an “ocean view” property, not a beach front property. The houses of Tom Cruise, Oprah Winfrey, and Neil Armstrong (yes the astronaut) are closer to the beach than Al Gore’s hideout. (They each have Google Earth Community markers.)
It would not surprise me at all if Gore had secretly bought a couple of beach-front properties around the world, but the property in Montecito is not one of them. His jet-setting high consumption lifestyle is more hypocritical than his choice of residence.
20
Uh, yeah, the threaded comments have become unthreaded. My above Gore-ish comment currently showing as #50 was definitely composed as a reply to Eric at #42.
I have two hypotheses about that.
1. It’s caused by unmoderated replies to unseen moderated comments.
2. It’s the Matrix, this happens when They change something.
40
It seems that the nesting has corrected itself, but the numbering has changed as a result, so your reference to Eric at #42 is now wrong, since he is now at #37.1.2.
They have definitely reloaded the Matrix. I blame the Lady in Red …
10
Also it begs the question….
How many people in public office over the last 5 or 10 years have talked down the value of waterfront real estate, then shortly thereafter bought some?
So far we know about T. Flannery and J Gillard.
Royal Commission anyone ?
40
The Pleb went ape on the old codgers on the central coast a few years ago..
Where does she live?
No I don’t really want to know, my egg throwing arm is stuffed, and I’d just hurt myself.
20
This was meant to be at #39 !
10
oops….. looks like the hierarchy is play up again !!
10
Oh, you probably don’t believe the Moon is real either.
(/so)
00
Environmental writer Lawrence Solomon explains why wind and solar energies are a toxic environmental disaster for the planet.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/11/14/lawrence-solomon-fossil-fuels-now-beat-wind-and-solar-on-environmental-as-well-as-economic-grounds/
Matt Ridley has also shown that fossil fuel use has helped to green the planet over the last 50+ years.
We only need to take away the subsidies for these toxic disasters and the whole mess will soon cease to exist. Apart from the inevitable clean up that will have to take place.
50
Perhaps their only motive is to reduce their bandwidth charges. /sarc off
20
Yeah I come here to be told what to think by people who are secretly being paid enormous sums of money by coal and oil companies.
How could I have been so blind.
If it wasn’t for Reddit I may have lived in ignorance forever.
/sarc off
If its talk of being brainwashed you want, then all I can say to any warmist is…. mate it takes one to know one.
40
Just came across a very funny article <a href="http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/climate-arse-of-2013.html>Here“>
10
Sorry about the link just trying something out, very embarrassing. 🙁
10
Yonnie
Try this
Good article BTW.
Cheers,
20
Since we are on iambic pentameter. From memory, with apologies to P.Shelley if I got it wrong.
I met a traveller from an antique land who said
Two vast and trunkless legs of stone stand in the desert
Near them on the sand half sunk a shattered visage lies
Whose frown and wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that the sculptor well those passions read
Which yet remain stamped on these lifeless things
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed
And on the pedestal these words appear
My name is Ozymandias King of Kings
Look on my works ye mighty
And despair
Nothing beside remains
Around the ruins of that colossal wreck
Boundless and bare the lone and level sands stretch far away.
By the way non-rhyming iambic pentameter is known as blank verse. Hate to see a good civilisation go to waste.
50
Friday, December 20, 2013
STATUES DISCOVERED AT ANCIENT HERMONTHIS IN EGYPT
Since 2004, regular archaeological work has been carried out at the site of Armant – ancient Hermonthis – which sits a few kilometres south of Luxor.
10
can’t believe i woke up to this! “environmentalists” aren’t happy? professional CAGW environmentalists? Richard Denniss?
21 Dec: ABC AM: Simon Lauder: Fed Govt gives go ahead for Clive Palmer’s coal mine
SIMON SANTOW: Environmentalists aren’t happy at news of the approval…
SIMON LAUDER: In a decision published late yesterday, the Environment Minister, Greg Hunt, has given the go-ahead for Clive Palmer’s company to build the China First mine near Alpha in the Galilee Basin.
Waratah Coal says the mine will produce 40 million tonnes of coal for ***export every year…
SIMON LAUDER: The company says the project will create thousands of jobs, but the executive director of the Australia Institute, Dr Richard Denniss, has concerns about the broader economic impact. He’s examined the company’s own economic impact statement and says the mine will cost jobs elsewhere…
SIMON LAUDER: Just because the Federal Environment Minister has given it the thumbs up, doesn’t mean it will go ahead though, does it?
RICHARD DENNISS: Look, there’s lots of risks with this project. One of which is that, luckily for the climate, ***China is losing its appetite for coal.
Certainly, today’s decision is a real blow for people interested in tackling climate change, but there’s a lot more hurdles for this mine to get over…
SIMON LAUDER: The managing director of Waratah Coal, Nui Harris, rejects the Australia Institute’s concerns.
NUI HARRIS: The reality is that the project will develop jobs. There’s a total of about 6,000 jobs all up in the mine component, the rail, and the port. It won’t be taking jobs away from the rural community; it’ll be adding jobs to the rural community…
(FINALE)SIMON LAUDER: The Federal Government has imposed 49 conditions on the project to protect a sensitive wilderness area nearby. Environmentalists say they still have concerns about the impact the mine will have on groundwater and biodiversity.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3915965.htm
WHO ON EARTH ARE THE TWO SIMONS?
SIMON LAUDER: Climate Council links NSW bushfires to climate change
Professor Steffen says to deny the influence of climate change in areas of Australia with extreme bushfires places people and property at risk.
“To deny and say that nothing is happening and we don’t need to change anything actually would increase risk for people and property,” he said.
“Fortunately fire authorities do understand the science and are taking, I think, appropriate action to deal with these increased risks.”…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-25/climate-council-links-bushfires-to-climate-change/5046164
ABC AM: Scientists say cooler summer doesn’t mean end to global warming
SIMON SANTOW: What about the political will – are you detecting any drop-off in a desire amongst our politicians to make the necessary changes to accommodate climate change or to tackle climate change because of current weather conditions?
MATTHEW ENGLAND: Not particularly. You hear people – I mean great politicians like Malcolm Turnbull is forever good on this topic. He understands the science well, he’s been briefed well and he understands the science well…
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3453705.htm
as for RICHARD DENNISS:
Prior to his appointment at The Australia Institute, Denniss was Senior Strategic Advisor to Australian Greens Leader Senator Bob Brown and was also researcher to Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja, former Leader of the Australian Democrats.[1] Denniss has also worked as a researcher at the H.V. Evatt Memorial Foundation (the ‘Evatt Foundation’), a public policy organisation with strong links to the Australian Labor Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Denniss
10
irrelevant in the bigger scheme of things, but apologies for putting UK Independent on the UK Telegraph “Hundreds of businesses to be paid to switch off to prevent blackouts” story.
a weekend laugh:
19 Dec: Huffington Post: Frostpaw The Polar Bear Will Follow Obama Around Hawaii To Fight Keystone Pipeline
Frostpaw the Polar Bear — the Center for Biological Diversity’s mascot — has been following the President around for months. He was in Martha’s Vineyard this past summer, in California this fall, and he even held a Thanksgiving vigil in front of the White House in an effort to catch the President’s eye. Now he’ll also be traveling to the Aloha State — a “long swim” according to the Center — to follow the President around on his Christmas vacation…
His mission is simple: by being adorable and showing off impressive dance moves (see below), Frostpaw hopes to raise awareness about the perils facing polar bears because of climate change, and more specifically, the Keystone XL pipeline. The Center argues that the pipeline would be “game over” for avoiding the worst effects of climate change, and that two-thirds of the world’s polar bears will disappear by 2050 if climate change is left unchecked…
The Center for Biological Diversity is no stranger to using unconventional marketing techniques in its fight against climate change. Since 2009, it has distributed over 500,000 “endangered species” condoms to raise awareness on population growth and its effects on the environment. Colorful packages with cuddly animal pictures include slogans like, “Wrap with care…save the polar bear,” “In the sack? Save the Leatherback” and “Be a savvy lover…protect the snowy plover.”…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/19/frostpaw-polar-bear_n_4474872.html?utm_hp_ref=green
20
EU carbon slips 3.2 pct on lower than expected supply cut
LONDON, Dec 20 (Reuters) – European carbon prices fell 3.2 percent on Friday as traders digested Thursday’s news that the number of permits to be withheld from the market in 2014 is likely to be lower than originally expected…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.3477547
China’s carbon markets to be over-supplied with offsets: analysts
BEIJING, Dec 20 (Reuters) – China’s emerging carbon markets will demand around 50 million offset credits a year, but after an initial squeeze, supply will be more than enough to satisfy demand, analysts said Friday…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.3476062
19 Dec: Platts: France adopts 2014 budget; carbon tax on fossil fuels
France’s Parliament definitively adopted Thursday the Socialist government’s budget for 2014 which introduces from January a carbon tax on the use of gas, heating oil and coal, Parliamentary documents show.
Key priorities in the budget are ***reducing the public deficit*** to 3.6% of GDP in 2014 and prioritising the government’s planned “energy transition” to support renewable energy and energy efficiency projects while reducing the role of nuclear power.
In a deciding vote Thursday in the lower house, L’Assemblee Nationale, the bill was agreed after support from Socialist, Green and other left-of-center parties. Members of the main centre-right opposition party, UMP, voted against…
The duty will be charged at a rate of Eur7/mt of carbon in 2014, rising to Eur14.50/mt in 2015 and Eur22/mt in 2016.
As well as gas, heating oil is used commonly in French homes, and the government expects the scheme to generate Eur340 million in 2014, jumping to Eur2.5 billion in 2015 and Eur4 billion in 2016…
Budget documents show that the government intends to channel the full Eur340 million received from the tax in 2014 into its energy transition plans, hoping to boost employment in the green sector…
But in October the government postponed the introduction of an “eco-tax” on heavy goods vehicles using French roads, after violent protests against the measure in the north-west region of Brittany where food and agriculture industries rely heavily on road transport…
http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/france-adopts-2014-budget-carbon-tax-on-fossil-26563408
21 Sept: Reuters: French carbon tax to yield 4 bln euros in 2016 – PM
The Socialist government is attempting a delicate balancing act in satisfying demands for tougher environmental targets from its Green Party allies and resentment among households and businesses over rising taxes…
The carbon tax would let France invest an extra 1 billion euros in its so-called energy transition from 2016, on top of nearly 4 billion euros already spent annually on renewable energies and 1 billion on household renovation, he said…
***Elected last year pledging ambitious energy reforms, Hollande said on Friday the cut in fossil fuel use was needed to meet the country’s goal of halving overall energy use by 2050.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/21/france-energy-idUSL5N0HH04K20130921
20
LOL.. and France heads towards becoming yet another energy poor third world country !!
Good luck for your limited future, bozos !!
60
Never heard of it.
20
AAACckkk! .. I went to Reddit for my very first (and last) time. People actually read that site? What a mess? What a pile of junk.
21
Relevant link over at the excellent notrickszone:
Scientist turned film-maker Randy Olson is interviewed here by Spiegel Online’s science journalist Axel Bojanowski.
From the interview it becomes glaringly clear that the AGW movement has failed to communicate its message of climate catastrophe and the need to profoundly re-order society. It’s over.
“Skeptics spun circles around the climate crowd”
30
Now that Phys.org lacks many skeptics, after their sudden informal November activism by a similarly inclined moderator, they are going crazy:
“Not just the Koch brothers: New study reveals funders behind the climate change denial effort”
http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html
10
Hmmm time to run the numbers.
USA Government climate research funding: $79 billion over 21 years [1989…2009].
Corporate shill climate skeptics: 558 million over 8 years [2003..2010].
The per year spend ratio of warmists to skeptics: (79000÷21) ÷ (558÷8) = 53.9.
Gosh that’s scary, the battle of the CDMs is getting nail-bitingly close. It used to be over 1000:1. Looks like the Climate Denial Machine is catching up to the Clean Development Mechanism. Now the funding by deniers is only outweighed by government IPCC spending by a mere 54 to 1.
Presumably if Big Government spending falls as low as 20:1 in the climate stakes they will inform us of the enormous unfair advantage that deniers have. What a crock.
Hey Nik I see that reference to your astronaut slide the other day has brought you out of the woodwork. I thought you’d gone into semi-retirement on the CAGW Internet battleground for a while. On which sites have you been correcting the ignorant lately? Not Phys.org by the sounds of it.
What’s the alarmist climate myth du jour?
00
NikFromNYC: you’ve drawn attention to a claim that ‘“Not just the Koch brothers: New study reveals funders behind the climate change denial effort”
I for one wouldn’t know about any so-called ‘funding’ or ‘climate change denial effort’ – I’m not interested in what the media or any organisation has to say and most certainly don’t regard any of it as being factual.
But – as an interested member of the public, I’ve spent many hours reading all sorts of published research papers on the subject as well as books on meteorology. I’ve looked at records of supposed global temperatures, and examples of flawed work and claims made in support of the extravagant notion that mankind is capable of changing the temperature of planet Earth to a dangerous extent. I’ve come to the conclusion that the idea’s nonsense.
Perhaps I should apply for a grant for my studies in the light of your posting.
00
Too much navel gazing inevitably leads to trouble.
The Jung and the Restless
Jung had a native American friend back in those days, the Governor of the Pueblo at Toas in New Mexico, who confidentially described this collective illness of “the whites” as a kind of insanity.
00
Thanks Jo for red flagging another junk/trash Internet site in the collective consciousness. The wasted time saved by recognising these things upfront is incalculable.
30
Reddit – Recognise it & forgeddit.
10
Maybe this will help explain the problem. It was found on the blackboard of a classroom by the janitor.
60
21 Dec: Bloomberg: Rudy Ruitenberg: Cows’ Role in Global Warming Seen Overlooked in Climate Talks
“Reducing demand for ruminant products could help achieve substantial greenhouse gas reductions in the near-term,” Helmut Haberl of Austria’s Institute of Social Ecology, a study co-author, was cited as saying in the statement. Lowering demand would be “a considerable political challenge,” he said…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-20/cows-role-in-global-warming-seen-overlooked-in-climate-talks.html
20 Dec: Guardian: Adam Vaughan: Tax meat to cut methane emissions, say scientists
Growing population of ruminants such as sheep and cattle is biggest human-related source of the greenhouse gas
Several high-profile figures, from the chief of the UN’s climate science panel to the economist Lord Stern, have previously advocated eating less meat to tackle global warming…
The scientists’ analysis, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, takes the contentious step of suggesting methane emissions be cut by pushing up the price of meat through a tax or emissions trading scheme…
The farming industry said the tax proposal was too simplistic. Nick Allen, sector director for Eblex, the organisation for beef and lamb producers in England, said: “To suggest a tax is a better way to cut emissions seems a simplistic and blunt suggestion that will inevitably see a rise in consumer prices…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/tax-meat-cut-methane-emissions-scientists
let them eat rice.
00
The whole Reddit stance seems to be catching on as the Climate
fund raisingCouncil have now stepted things up to the point where anyone who even questions that the world is going to end in a flooded heatwave is completely blocked and their posts deleted. But not only that, the posts that are appearing from the usual attack dogs are sounding more and more extreme.This from one guy, who at times comes off as an extremist. Who even the CC blocked for some of his more extremist behavior. (Thou was later unblocked due to begging of his fellow clan) –
While of course being accused of being in the IPA, LNP, ABC, IGA 123 and any other combination that roles off their tounge.
And from this charming lady –
Why can I see this woman knocking on my door on Sunday moring with a “your going to burn in hell” smile on her face?
Thou now with all the corresponding posts deleted, they all just sound like a bunch of loonies in a mental asylum screaming at characters that don’t exist.
20
an extraordinary ABC Geraldine Doogue interview with supporter of the Iraq invasion, George Packer, who must be the only “progressive” left in America who has not become disenchanted with Obama. poor Obama can’t get anything done, incl on climate change, because of those ultra-right tea party types & republicans, who don’t represent America any more, but there’s still hope the right will disappear demographically… for Doogue & Packer anyway:
21 Dec: ABC Saturday Extra with Geraldine Doogue: A divided United States of America
AUDIO: Guest: George Packer, Journalist, playwright and author
So how has the country of the free and great ended up being held to ransom by a group of Americans who don’t reflect the demographics of the people?
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/saturdayextra/a-divided-united-states-of-america/5156132
funny, i thought Labor just prevented our Govt repealing the carbon tax, which was THE burning issue of our last federal elections:
i haven’t noticed Obama having any trouble doing whatever he wants to do:
Jan 2013: Graph: US President’s Executive Orders 1900-2012
Obama 37 per annum
George W. Bush 36 per annum
Four out of Top 5 are Democrat Presidents – Truman 113, Carter 80, Kennedy 71, Johnson 65.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2013/01/28/when-it-comes-to-abuse-of-presidential-power-obama-is-a-mere-piker/
20 Dec: WaPo: Ed Rogers: The Insiders: Is Obamacare shattering?
The White House is bending, extending, changing and reinterpreting the Obamacare rules on the fly. Last night, the administration announced “at least the 14th unilateral change to Obamacare that’s been made without consulting Congress.” There is no reason to believe that more changes aren’t coming…
It doesn’t look like people are signing up for Obamacare in sufficient enough numbers to make the law work. The White House knows this, and all these sudden rule changes suggest officials are in a panic. The Democrats never expected to be in this position. Obamacare just isn’t happening…
It is possible that Obamacare will shatter into a cluster of volunteer products, with the law devolving into yet another entitlement program that can’t pay its own way…
Will Democrats on the ballot in 2014 stand idly by as millions of Americans are determined to be guilty and the president gives the IRS the nod to unleash their power to force these Americans into submission? I doubt it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/12/20/the-insiders-is-obamacare-shattering/
00
There’s been a very real possibility of the right disappearing, not just in the imagination of Obama fruitcakes. But the unfolding of Obamacare has begun to look like their undoing and might just reverse what was otherwise likely to be the permanent disappearance of the political right. Undone by their own incompetence — death by stepping on their own discarded banana peel as it were — is looking more and more inevitable. And, as Jackie Gleason used to say,
10
This sounds like a bright note but unfortunately a whole lot of people will be hurt, some very badly before it plays out.
There is another similarly hopeful note playing in the background. The U.S. economy is at last improving in the opinion of sound economists who know up from down. It’s happening not because of anything Obama has done but in spite of what he’s done. It’s happening because that’s what people do when faced with difficulty — work to fix their problem. So don’t believe any claims from the Obama administration or his supporters that anything Obama did is responsible for the improvement.
The downside here is that not nearly all of those lost jobs are going to come back. I’ve been through a few recessions myself and I can tell you that from personal observation. Once business tightens its belt and learns to prosper with fewer employees there’s no good incentive to hire back so many people. The real killer is that government can easily damage or even destroy an economy and with it people’s living. But they can’t create wealth which is required in order to create jobs (except public payroll jobs). Obama’s job creation has been all public employees or jobs depending on public money.
The rule is very simple tax away a dollar and you destroy a dollar’s worth of someone’s wealth. Give someone a dollar and you don’t give him a dollar’s worth of wealth. I figured this out years ago and I keep wondering why so many can’t see it. I think it’s probably not because they can’t but because they don’t want to.
So for those who can make it through the trouble, things are looking up. For those who’ve been hurt too badly the struggle will continue for a long time.
20
OT.
Well, I’m off. Have a good season, all !! 🙂
10
Where can Andy be going for 2 weeks, with no JoNova access ? It could be quiet without him.
00
Is there such a thing as Jo Nova Withdrawal Syndrome?
Just thought I’d ask…
But Eddie, I’m sure you can step in and provide some of the missing excitement. 🙂
00
When they know they cannot argue their point with substance…
* They start calling names.
=> “Denier”, “Skeptic”, etc.
* They redefine terms.
=> Global Warming to Climate Change.
* They introduce their own conspiracy theories.
=> Its the energy companies or some rich conglomerate or person.
* They exaggerate things even more.
=> Now, anything is because of man-made Climate Change!
* They suppress opposing view.
=> Ultimately, they do NOT like free speech and open debate. They must control the narrative they have created.
Climate Change as a whole, is an activist movement. Activists don’t fundamentally work on science involving integrity and honesty. It really is the ends justifies the means to them. Their perspective is that being unreasonable is the only way to get things done in the world. So they will say and do anything. Even when it does NOT even make any sense! This explains their erratic, rude, manipulative, and dishonest behaviour. They don’t express an opinion, their impress THEIR opinion. To impose on others. Its advocacy.
They function based on a narrative they have created. Its all political. Science, mathematics, and engineering to them is a tool to support their agenda. Its portrayed as the all knowing authority that cannot be questioned. Just ask any academic who has been bullied, fired, transferred, or forced out if they did NOT tow the Climate Change narrative.
What they don’t understand is that some of us do have science, mathematics, and engineering backgrounds. This makes us skeptical of activists when they deliberately subvert long standing scientific and common sense processes to push their agenda.
Take for example, I did Aero Engineering. That involves designing aircraft on the computer to simulate airflow (Computational Fluid Dynamics), structural stresses (Finite Element Analysis), and flight behaviour of flight control systems (Flight Mechanics). This is backed up by wind tunnel testing, static/dynamic structural testing, and flight of prototype designs.
In our area, you use computer models to estimate and predict. You then use testing/prototypes to confirm those theoretical results in the virtual world. Now if they do not align, we verify that the real world testing proceduces are correct, the testing equipment is not faulty, and explore/analyse why the theoretical computer models don’t match our testing results. Once we find the reason, we modify the computer model to include new factors in. (Factors we either previously presumed to be true OR did not previously know about; say a new flight condition we never encountered before). We run the computer models again to verify. This whole cycle gets repeated over and over again until our computer models become more accurate and align with the real world testing data.
In an undergraduate level, the acceptable error is approx 10%. As this is because the lecturers/professors want the students to learn and understand the modern aero design process.
At a commercial level (say if you work at Boeing), the acceptable error is 1% to 2%. This is because Boeing products have a real risk of killing lots of people; if they get it wrong! (Serious legal consequences!)
So what does the Climate Change movement do?
* They built a narrative to promote their agenda.
* They use computer models to back that narrative.
* The computer models have a surprising amount of assumptions that do not get explored.
* If real world data collected from sensors (like weather satellites), does not align with the computer models, they defiantly spin (marketing) the interpretation of the model’s results!
* If that doesn’t work, they look for something else to excuse and justify their narrative.
* When you look at the models and real world data, they aren’t just off by the acceptable 5% threshold. They are off by 200% to 300%!
What is disgusting to me is that, while engineers are legally held responsible for their actions, Activists/Politicians/Academics that are part of this Climate Change scam are NOT! They are not responsible for imposing pain and suffering on the taxpayer. They are not accountable for any of their lies, deception, and manipulation.
I also realise one other thing. Being intelligent, going to university, etc is no replacement for being honest and demonstrating character and integrity. We see a good number of so-called scientists and academics (depend on Govt funding in this scam) behave really questionably. They get paid AUD$17K to AUD$23K for publishing papers for the UN and for presenting their propaganda to the public.
What annoys me the most is media sources like Sydney Morning Herald chant on about how specific areas of Australia will flood, etc on a specific year in the future. They undermine themselves when genuine Climate Scientists tell them that the models are not supposed to be used that way! It is not for propaganda, alarmism, and fear mongering! Computer Climate models cannot predict what will happen in a specific area, on a specific year. All they can do is forecast what could happen in a certain period of time. Say in 10 to 20 years. Even then, this is with considerable error, due to the complexity of interactions of the Climate system itself. (Their models have not accounted for ALL the factors. Some are assumptions which need to be explored; so as to improve model accuracy. The complexity is such that, we may even need to port the computer models onto quantum computing platforms that currently exist in the US military research projects. They use it to model stealthiness of future designs and WMD scenarios.)
But Climate Change activists don’t want to improve the accuracy of models. As this will very likely reveal the truth. The truth that will destroy their narrative and the fundamental existance of the movement itself. They must fight the truth in order to protect their narrative. What goes against them is the Internet. You can’t stop the truth unless you are willing to be an oppressor.
The only remedy to this nonsense seems to be to shame activists for lying to the general public and highlight organisations like Reddit of promoting the idea of suppressing any view that doesn’t support the narrative.
Most sane people don’t like being lied to. Especially when they have to pay for the lie with their own hard-earned money!
60
I find it a little concerning whenever the general opinion of commentators on a blog or online article apparently, or perhaps even coincidentally seem to support the author of the original article. Perhaps it is a simple matter of the author or blog moderators selectively culling all the dissenting points of view as seems to be the case with the Reddit story you cite, but could it also be the case that over time the blog site becomes a bit of a safe haven for points of view supporting the blog author? From what I have read in the short time I have followed Joanne’s articles is that Joanne and her moderators seem to give everyone a fair say but that does not seem to translate into pro and against commentator numbers which reflect the current climate debate demographic, so I think it is fair to say there is more to it. But, as Prof. Julius used to say – why is it so?
Joanne, you mentioned about newcomers to your blog not having good manners and stating points that the ‘group’ were already in agreement on. I can appreciate all your comments in relation to that but I would again point out your fine moniker about ‘tackling tribal groupthink‘ and ask ‘are we as commentators at risk of becoming just another tribe with you as our leader?’ Secondly, this is not a ‘forum’ but merely a repository of comments, whereby you can comment on the original article of yours or perhaps another commentator’s opinion with the threading facility of this blog software. I am not sure that any particular reader that lands on your site necessarily needs to read any more than the particular article that interests them before they are justified to make their comment. I guess though, that for many of the regular ‘group’ as you describe them above, is that they view this as more of a ‘forum’ and certainly know a lot more about who thinks what and what has been said before. Personally I can’t see a real problem with any newcomer simply stating their viewpoints even if others already share this same point of view, but again, what the ‘group’ agrees on should be irrelevant. Any newcomer should be excused for not expecting some sort of ‘consensus of view’ amongst your commentators.
I still can’t understand the purpose of your (or at least your blogware’s) like and dislike buttons for every comment and even the voting system for the original article. I don’t think it really adds to any debate to praise or slam people with no explanation. I think that this is one of the many tools of ‘groupthink’ that is pervasive these days. Is this just a tool for anonymous ‘bullies’ or ‘groupthinking sycophants’? – queue the ‘thumbs downs’ 🙂 At least if it was one of Rupert’s blogs it would only have a thumbs up button so it is a tad more democratic for both the haters and sycophants alike.
30
Thanks Joe!
A thoughtful post which I enjoyed reading.
The fact that you are here, commenting freely, intelligently and civilly tends to dispel the concerns that you raise, from my perspective, however. You have accepted the kind invitation that Joanne extends to all – subject to quite reasonable behavioural standards.
By comparison, Nathan Allen of Reddit has decided to formally disallow comments from people that he chooses to insult as “deniers”.
ie… He is deliberately creating a Tribal Group Think forum.
“I still can’t understand the purpose of your (or at least your blogware’s) like and dislike buttons for every comment and even the voting system for the original article. I don’t think it really adds to any debate to praise or slam people with no explanation”
I believe this system invites participation from readers who, for reasons of their own, are not comfortable with actively commenting. Certainly, it seems to be well received and used and, above all, provides an avenue of dissent – something that seems to be anathema to the likes of Nathan Allen.
A range of views, civilly presented, makes a blog much more interesting, IMHO.
20
Joe,
I think you have raised some interesting points. A fair proportion (don’t ask for numbers) of commentators on this blog are trained scientists or engineers, or skilled technicians in some field or another, and those folks recognize bad maths, and dodgy physics when they see it. Jo’s skill is in finding interesting topics where they can anonymously vent their frustrations in a more or less safe environment.
Another group, are those folk who are concerned about the politics of climate change, and want to be able to sort the truth from the lies, and they often come here to learn, but end up giving some valuable insights and perspectives. Many find out that they know more than they thought they did, because much of what we discuss here boils down to human nature, at the end of the day.
Then we have members of all these groups who just like to fool around sometimes, with a bit of humour, and a degree of wit.
We also get the evangelical believers, with their jihad to take us back to the dark ages, and a lot of the interesting stuff comes from demolishing, or at least questioning, their position, or lack thereof.
And finally we have the lurkers, who come here to watch the show. These folks never comment, for many reasons, but they can use the thumbs to up-vote or down-vote comments by others, and so they feel they have contributed to the debate, as indeed they have.
The regular commentators will also use the green thumbs to show appreciation for a witty remark, and sometimes use the red thumbs to indicate that a regular commentator is being a dork. Some regulars see a red thumb as a badge of honour, so I tend to give them one if I am in a particularly good mood.
But there is really no groupthink, except that we, as a group, do recognise that the scientific method must be at the heart of science, and that consensus of opinion, is not proof of anything.
We tend not to argue (we are polite, as Jo expects), but we do get to learn from each other, and in that process we sometimes get vigourous debates. But that again, is part of the scientific method.
All in all this blog is very open and unstructured, and the moderators are rarely seen on the open thread. They do occasionally block stuff that is rude, or libelous, but they generally have a light hand, and leave us to mostly police ourselves.
I hope that helps.
40
Joe the risk of groupthink is always present in groups of people, the herd instinct is hard wired.
But the scientific method is a tool that evolved from recognition of our tendencies, the desire to belong(AKA survive).
It works.
Helping to avoid the nastier tendencies of authoritarian groups.
There will be no perfection in the actions of man, but we muddle alone as best we can.
The only groupthink I see on this site, is the shared opinion, of people who dislike being deliberately mislead.
Most of us have been fooled at least once,I see the CAGW agenda as naked theft and a grubby grab for power.
Science as an institution, may not survive the fallout of this UN(Operation Kleptocracy) scam as it unwinds.
Science as a method, will live on, stronger for this dismal period of authoritarian abuse.
40
I hope you’re right. It’s time for science to be reclaimed by those who actually do it and care about it. Getting rid of the institutions that grew up around science with the intent of sucking the very life out of it can’t hurt anything.
30
Jo,
Please check out this Facebook post by The Richard Dawkins’ Foundation for Reason and Science — please tell me what you think.
00
Christopher,
It is all so immature: to brag about blocking “deniers” and suggest newspapers should do it too is childlike.
The people that they did block may have been doing the wrong thing — the problem is that there is no principle in science or logic in the way they apply it. Blocking conspiracy talk is fine, if they block it from both sides. To be statesmanlike, scientific and respect free speech all Reddit has to do is decide on a set a rules and stick to them impartially. It should never come down to a moderator deciding who is “scientifically correct”. The process is so open to being rorted (or collapsing under the accumulated ignorance).
How pathetic was Nathan Allens education if he thinks his attitude is clever? He obviously knows no real history, and nor much Philosophy of science either, despite the fact he has a PhD. The notion that “climate science is settled” is so abjectly wrong you’d think any respectable uni would want the doctorate back.
70
Maybe, but I doubt it. I also will bet you a gazillion dollars that they didn’t apply this principle the other way around with anything resembling rigour.
I like Dawkins on some things, totally disappointed in him on others. At least he posed the question about whether it was unscientific censorship. You’d be surprised how many of his commenters take him to task when he posts on global warming/climate change/crap he knows little about.
Yep.
20
There are forums where I would ban classic climate deniers. Because I might want a serious discussion, rather than just a rehash of discredited ideas.
Imagine if this blog was infested with “It breaks the second law of thermodynamics” nutters. If they persisted in polluting every thread, I think you’d be justified in banning them. Worse still, what about the “iron sun” brigade?
Where you have particularly vocal interest groups, banning them may improve the overall discussion. Some blogs even do things like not allowing single-issue nutters on most posts, but allowing them in some forums (which others presumably learn to avoid).
—————————
REPLY: Dear John, we know what we say is discredited because we are the ones saying it (that’s how it works isn’t it?) But methinks you missed the point. It’s not about the interest group. Moderation is about the principle and the argument, not “the team”. There are only a few people who are not welcome to post here, and that includes people on both sides of the debate. (Though I admit, I am more lenient towards believers of man made global warming. If I blocked the illogical arguments, hardly any of their comments would get through.) — Jo
10
Generally you wouldn’t want to restrict someone’s freedom to speak because if you did you would soon enough find someone willing to restrict what you can say.
But there is another side to that issue.
In the U.S. the constitutional guarantee of freedom to speak only protects the individual from government. The government may not censor what you say. Others, including broadcasters, newspapers and so-on certainly can decide they don’t want to handle something they don’t agree with and they should have that right. If I run a radio station and you offered me advertising for something I find offensive I should have the right to say no I won’t broadcast it. This right extends even to a property owner, say a business, being able to say to some group, you can’t make your solicitation or push your cause on company property. Unfortunately some courts are getting this wrong.
From my point of view, Reddit certainly does have the right to control what shows up on their site. I may think they’re being childish and ridiculous but they have the right to do it.
21
Jo nailed it.
Our almost universal human failure when it comes to something we don’t like is everywhere on display.
30
Big fan here, Jo, but you got this one wrong.
Reddit is a BIG deal with the young-and-hip, and one of the reasons for that is that “Reddit”, meaning the top-level site admin, don’t give a damn. Your sniping at them is misplaced. Anybody can set up a “subreddit”, define their own rules and appoint their own moderators. If you don’t like it, you can run off and start your own, differently-ruled, subreddit. It’s the USENET of our age. If you think Reddit is a censorious bunch of leftoids, consider this subreddit. Hell, until recently, there was even an “/r/niggers” subreddit. Personally, I’m a Bitcoin freak, which is how I came to it, and it’s now my top Bitcoin-related source. Great site.
The /r/science subreddit is a big “magazine”-style subreddit covering the whole of “science”, and in fact climate doesn’t feature very largely in the content. The problem is simply that the usual leftoid control-freaks have temporarily won a little local shouting match; that’s all.
Two other subreddits worth noting are /r/climate and /r/environment; which, while predictably warmie in tone, don’t censor. Indeed, there’s a very encouraging takeaway here. Both of those groups are practically dead, while livelier subreddits attract thousands of comments. The young-and-hip no longer give a damn about “climate change”. They’re wise to it.
11
Or are they just tiring of it? Or are they just distracted from it? I don’t know and frankly, you can never tell for sure. So while I remain hopeful and I rejoice in anything that looks hopeful, I don’t count my money until it’s in my hand.
20
Thon,
I seems, from what you write, that not only is Nathan Allen’s action capricious, but also futile.
The cAGW paradigm appears to be contracting to a classic pro-establishment venture; much the same as the Vietnam War of the early 1970s (and before). The striking difference, of course, is the ideological complexion of the ‘establishment’.
Finally, the ‘young-and-hip’ are finding some common ground with the ‘old-and-hip-replaced’.
10
Whoops. HTML for links not doing the right thing. Retry:
non-PC link
Climate subreddit
Environment subreddit
00
Great post as usual, JoAnn.
There is a formatting error in your post.
The following paragraph is part of the quote above of the Reddit comment, and not part of your comment.
“This above mentioned bias is clearly expressed in the document. I would not call this science, but rather a presentation of information that supports a viewpoint.”
Merry Christmas,
Adrian
PS The Guardian’s comments censorship is worse than Reddit’s….
They wait until someone with an antiAGW view wins an argument and then they erase him from history.
I grew up in Eastern Europe under state sponsored scams and the most horrible censorship, came to the US as a scientist, and now I find it all again.
———————
Thanks for spotting the formatting problem. Will fix asap. Merci. Jo
00
The strategy of trying to shut down any opposition or criticism of the global warming party line continues.
Below is an email circulated by a far left American activist organization called MoveOn.Org. MoveOn was helpful in organizing and getting out voters for the Obama elections. Although it claims to be self-funded it was originally funded by George Soros.
Now as the freezing North American winter continues the watermelons are in something of a panic since the man in the street is oblivious of the difference between weather and climate. And in the fine tradition of Reddit, L A Times and the Guardian (among others) they are trying to get the NY Times to stop publishing anything that is contrary to the warmist agenda.
Here is one of the first ‘green’ responses to their mini crisis brought on by a very cold America. The email has likely been sent out to well over a million recipients. As expected the extreme cold is yet more evidence of global warming.
00