What we need is a mature national discussion. But what The Conversation (and the Business Spectator) gives us is logic-according-to-Clive, which is a black and white world where complex debates are reduced to yes or no answers and there are no shades of gray. How much will our climate warm? Clive says “Yes”.
Clive Hamilton is an Australian “intellectual” a Professor of Public Ethics and holds the Vice-
Maurice Newman talked about the IPCC, the satellites, Climategate, Renewable Schemes and $100 billion dollar funds. Clive responds:
“Now unleashed, Newman is in full flight mimicking the anti-vaccinators.”
Clive does not refute a single point that Newman makes. He calls him names and merely declares what Newman said was “bizarre”. Clive obviously has no answer and no evidence — he can’t point to models that work, or predictions that were correct, the best he can do is a pop-psychology analysis of “tactics”. It amounts to smear by association. Like saying that Attilla the Hun rode horses, so if you ride a horse you are mimicking Attila.
Indeed the tactics he cites are so meaningless and common, he uses them himself. “Deniers” he says, may portray themselves as David vs Goliath. (And which academic makes out they fight against monster Fossil Fuel interests against a conservative media?) “Deniers” spread theories about cover-ups, and conspiracies. You mean, like saying that Fossil fuel companies are “the most powerful industry lobby we’ve ever seen in Australia”, so powerful that politicians dance to them, and “they’ve captured universities“? (Or they have their own political party and sometimes form government? That would be the Greens.) Who thinks the ABC is biased in favour of skeptics, thanks to “political pressure”? (What kind of bias means skeptics almost never get any airtime and when they do, the editors take the trouble of editing skeptics sentences to produce quotes they never said?)
His thesis of deniers who can’t be persuaded collapses in a hole upon the smallest inspection
Hamilton argues skeptics can’t be persuaded, but if he’d bothered to do any research he’d know that many leading skeptics used to think CO2 might cause a crisis, or used to be active Greens themselves, like me. What about former Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore, or conservationist David Bellamy? Margaret Thatcher set up the Hadley Met Centre, but later become openly skeptical. Environmentalist Lawrence Solomon, or Peter Taylor (who wrote Chill, A Reassessment of Global Warming Theory) are hardly conservative commentators making ideological calls. My other half Dr David Evans, used to work for The Australian Greenhouse Office. “What kind of denier changes their mind? The kind that aren’t deniers.
There are virtually no former skeptics who have become believers, instead there is only a pretender — Richard Muller, who dishonestly makes out he was skeptical, despite obvious quotes of him praising the consensus and calling CO2 “the greatest pollutant”.
Time to turn off the tap
Sensible people would just ignore Hamilton, but it’s time those who channel our tax funds to him need to start explaining how we get value out of his unresearched, untested pop-psychology, used to denigrate half the population and reduce our national debate to name-calling. Charles Sturt University needs to explain if this is the kind of logic it applies to the rest of it’s science research departments. Do they allow Hamilton to teach students? Will they censure him for abusing English and being irrational? The ARC likewise, and all the universities that fund The Conversation, mostly using your money. Academia in Australia is an irrational swamp and it’s time the bog was drained. The Conversation is the megaphone over the mud.
Are you an alumni of any of these? Can you write to the VC and ask why it supports this kind of baseless, fallacious reasoning, abuse of English and derogatory namecalling?
The Conversation is funded by CSIRO, Melbourne, Monash, RMIT, UTS, UWA, ACU, ANU, Canberra, CDU, Curtin, Deakin, Flinders, Griffith, JCU, La Trobe, Massey, Murdoch, Newcastle, QUT, Swinburne, Sydney, UniSA, USC, USQ, UTAS, UWS and VU.
Does this article represent the standards of these universities?
First up, our national institutions need to stop supporting name-callers and start speaking English
In a science conversation the terms ought to be definable. There is no subspecies Homo Sapiens Denier, and can anyone name a single “climate denier” who denies we have a climate? When it comes to “climate change deniers” the only people who deny the climate changes are those who pretend our atmosphere was stable and perfect until 1880 when the first coal powered station lit the furnace. None of these terms have any scientific meaning. They are a cheating abuse of our language designed to stop rational discussion. Don’t protest to the universities that they ought to look closer at climate science (though they should), but instead let’s just start with English. What does higher education mean if universities don’t use accurate English? Does Charles Sturt University support the use of misleading terms, is this part of their training?
Secondly, all university professors ought understand the basics of logic and reason
Again, we don’t need to ask these universities anything about the climate; we need to ask them if logic and reason matter to their science departments. Hamilton is entitled to his view, but shouldn’t we expect him to argue the points rather than post arrant nonsense? Let’s ask those universities if their science departments train their students to know that vaccines are not the climate.
Hamilton’s logical errors:
The only difficult part about unpacking Hamilton’s logical errors is that they are stacked three deep, meaning he rarely makes a pure error, but compounds them — a non-sequiteur is based on both an argument from authority and a false dilemma simultaneously. Do his readers just nod wisely, thinking he has the vibe just right, or do they think “this doesn’t even begin to make sense?”. Maybe Clive’s texts can be used in a critical thinking course to separate the sheep from the goats.
Association Fallacy: This is where Hamilton says that other people who use these tactics about a different issue are wrong, therefore everyone who uses these tactics is wrong. An unrelated group doesn’t trust authority, therefore all groups who don’t trust authority are wrong. Guilt by association (and this is the loosest kind of association) is the wellspring of the darkest nonsense in public debate. Surely the editors ought to see this?
False Dilemma/Dichotomy: Newman is asking for media scrutiny, and wonders why taxpayers are promoting and massively subsidizing for-profit businesses. Hamilton responds that the debate is over and if you don’t accept all costs unquestioningly you are “anti-science”. It is a non-sequiteur, and argument from authority to boot. And it mistakes an economic argument for a scientific one. Like I said, “three deep”.
Argument from Authority: Hamilton argues that it’s wrong to “dismiss the established experts as frauds” as if experts are never wrong. Hamilton does not bother trying to defend his chosen experts or their record. Apparently they are to be accepted without question — which beautifully supports Newman’s point that the climate crusade is a religion. Mostly Hamilton simply restates Newman’s most sensational phrases as if they must be false, without even discussing Newman’s arguments. There is a perfect circularity in the inference that climate crisis is not a delusion because it’s delusional to suggest that it is.
Why not use Hamilton’s own association argument to knock this down? In other instances the experts have been proven to be frauds–the Piltdown Man and Aryan science spring to mind. Therefore all experts in science are wrong, frauds or worse, therefore his climate authorities are wrong and scammers. Hamilton-logic is a bust.
Hamilton starts with a complex multivariable problem; takes the side the establishment leans towards, and exaggerates it to a 100% absolute truth, a gold-star caricature of reality. Should anyone try to raise shades of gray, or discuss uncertainties, call them names, denier, for they do not believe The Dominant Paradigm. This really amounts to him saying the the Government is right about Everything — because anytime the dominant paradigm is wrong, people will use similar tactics to protest. (And who pays Hamilton? The government.)
Debating dishonestly
Those who don’t quote accurately are not debating honestly. Maurice Newman wrote this about the climate debate:
The scientific delusion, the religion behind the climate crusade, is crumbling. Global temperatures have gone nowhere for 17 years. According to climatologist Roy Spencer’s research, “Over the period of satellite measurement, 1979-2012, both the surface and satellite observations produce linear temperature trends which are below 87 of the 90 climate models used in the comparison” – that is, 97 per cent were wrong.
Hamilton’s quote of this paragraph is just two words: “scientific delusion”. The poor duped readers of The Conversation may not be able to see Maurice Newman’s arguments on The Australian site (paywalled?), so Hamilton may actively deceive some of his readers into thinking Newman does not have hard evidence to support his claim. It’s the only way Hamilton could “debate”. Dishonestly.
Hamilton is so desperate he resorts to proof by 80 year old paper: different topic, different people, different era
It is reductio absurdium in action. To try to show that authorities are always right and Newman is wrong about the economics of changing the weather, Clive quotes a study from 1927 about the small pox vaccine. Could he get more bizarre? Did he have to journey back 80 years to find a group who doubted “the government science” as if it was a proof that The Government Scientists are always right? So we must save the climate because some people who are probably dead now were wrong about a medical treatment 80 years ago?
My questions for Clive, Professor of Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University:
- How is it ethical to use public funds to try to shut down debate with name-calling and ill-informed slurs about half the population?
- Don’t you feel any obligation to do some research to support your claims about the group you call “Deniers”.
- Is it ethical to ignore and denigrate half the population for their views, especially when you cannot point to actual evidence (data, not government authorities) that they are wrong?
There is no point in protesting to Hamilton himself, but The Conversation gets government funding and wears the badges of universities which claim to value science and reason. We can allow these universities to keep pouring money down the sinkwell, or we can draw their attention to that which they support and demand that the Deans of Science and the VC’s either explain why baseless namecalling is worth supporting or tell us how they will stop their funds being misused.
Over to you…
Unfortunately the same kind of debating standards are used by the majority of posters on the Conversation – It’s endemic in Australian academia.
481
It’s endemic in the US academia, too. It just might be endemic in all academia.
220
A Direct consequence of elitist incestuous intellectual starvation, I would say.
Honestly, academia is probably one of the last sheltered workshops for individuals to avoid rounding their knowledge and experiences off. Most intellectuals have never left school.
There are, of course, exceptions, but seriously, the real world has a bead on the traditional academic institutions, and they are going to have to evolve rapidly and effectively, or die.
And then we can actually progress the knowledge of mankind properly instead of this publish or perish stupidity.
150
MadJak,
I hope you’re right. But I wonder how widespread that bead on the traditional academic institutions really is. It may simply be me but most of the people I meet and know don’t show me any real understanding of the problem.
10
Roy – I think it’s coming from multiple angles. Here’s where I am thinking from…
Some Unis are now offering free papers to study online now. The days of having a lecturer lecturing say 100 people locally in a room are numbered. The days where a lecturer makes a professional recording and publishes it to millions, with it being reused many many times is allready happenning. This will result in Unis competing with each other on a global scale.
Without that side of the university (and the revenue stream from it), I think Universities will have more in common with commercial think tanks, and research groups. As such, the nature of their work environment and the sheltered nature of the environment will have to dissipate somewhat.
And then we see how the public are better able to scrutinise the research itself, and demanding access to the data and workings. The speed of ideas being communicated now and the reactions to them is having an influence on the flow of information and power that is having a similar effect to the power structures and institutions that the printing press did. It’s ironic that the arguments against the net and blogs could well have been taken from the catholic churches’ playook form hundreds of years ago.
Yep, I reckon academia is probably the next bunch to get “the treatment” in a similar way to what newspapers and the music industry has experienced. It is ironic that the major change doesn’t seem to be being driven from academia (It should have been leading the charge – in the same way the music industry should have wrt digital music).
That’s my 2 cents worth, maybe a load of cobblers, but I have my popcorn and slushie ready for the show (As I know others do).
30
MadJak,
You “2 cents worth” makes sense. But I think it’s coming along only very slowly within the general public. People tend to dig into only what’s hurting them. As an example: Obamacare here in the states. Many warnings were given and many signs of failure were evident if you looked, yet only now that the pain is felt in everyone’s purse is there any realization of how bad it is.
Obamacare isn’t nearly like what you’re talking about but it shows me that actual attention that sinks in and causes change is something that requires some pain before it’s recognized — or some other equally strong incentive.
10
“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single argument left.
Margaret Thatcher”
40
It is often said that a great empire does not fall to outside forces.
It can only fall from within.
I am beginning to grasp how?
30
More correctly
In his excellent book on the history of Rome, Caesar, and Christ, historian Will Durant observed, “A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has first destroyed itself from within. The essential cause of Rome’s decline lay in her people and her morals.”
30
And we’re all well on our way to that ignominious end. I wonder if it can be reversed.
Rome lasted some 800 years as a recognizable entity. I wonder how long the United States will last. The pace of decline seems to accelerate with easier and faster communication, doesn’t it?
10
I wish Clive would keep his clothes on…most embarrassing.
121
I don’t believe that Clive believes a lot of the things he says.
44
One of the watchwords of the Left is that
offtimessometimesoccasionally the dedicatedLudditeprogressive must choose between telling the truth and being effective. You might be correct in your assumption.201
Then he shouldn’t say them.
“A wise man speaks because he has something to say, a fool speaks because he has to say something.” Plato
I suspect that Hamilton was approached by the Conversation, to deliver a rebuttal of Newman, but made little effort to actually address Newman’s arguments, preferring to rely on. ‘The Little Book of Trusted Sound Bites’.
He should have remembered the words of Mark Twain:
“It is better to say nothing, and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth, and remove all doubt.”
331
I wonder what Charles Sturt would make of this climate debate; extreme temperatures and drought were the experience of his party of hardened explorers in the Australian outback sometime around 1839-40. Just goes to show there is nothing new happening to our sunburnt land.
51
Sorry Sturt’s 3rd expedition,make that 1844
10
Yes he does. He has made a living out of writing about doom from global warming, and he would rather die than admit to such a grievous error of his judgement. His whole academic standing -read “life”- is based on trumpeting the dangers of man made global warming/greedy capitalist society. How the hell he became vice chancellor of a university-even Charles Sturt-beggars belief.
20
O/T WomAdelaide – the planet talks – nice little lefty love in at taxpayers expense. Not one opposing speaker
No doubt they’ll all be uplifted and stimulated by the discussions.
91
28th Woodford Folk Festival, 2014:
AT the opening ceremony of the 28th Woodford Folk Festival, retiring Queensland Folk Federation president Des Ritchie issued the apocalyptic warning that failure to act on climate change would result in “hell on earth”.
As the mercury rose beyond 40C on day three of six at Australia’s largest outdoor festival, his alarmism looked prophetic.
But then a blessed storm hit, and Ganggajang fired up Sounds of Then, a reminder that, back when this great song was written, heat and lightning were not a harbinger of biblical destruction but merely Australia in summer.
191
Why does it seem that heat waves during an ordinary Australian summer herald global warming doom for the entire planet yet unusual cold snaps affecting most of North America raise interest pieces only because of traffic problems on interstates.
100
Just read one of the ‘subjects’ being discussed at a ‘workshop’:
So, it seems people are a threat to the planet. How many of us do they suggest we wipe out? Which of these greenie fanatics are going to volunteer to go first?
“Anyone who uses the word workshop outside of light engineering is a twat.” – Alexei Sayle
140
Without people there would be no one to appreciate the biodiversity and therefore no reason for the planet to exist at all other than as a curiosity in the backwater of an minor galaxy somewhere in the corner of one infinite universe.
30
BIODIVERSITY
Another one fast becoming a 4-letter word to me. It no more stands for concern for other species than it stands for honest politicians. It’s a buzzword for anti-human.
So why don’t we recognize it for what it is? Species are going to come and go. they always have and they always will, including humans. Our problem is to see to it that we don’t disappear through our own stupidity. And we’re well on the way if we keep following the UN and it’s sympathizers.
Just my view for what it’s worth.
30
Just had a further look at the Womadelaide site. Two things:
1) I notice Smeg is one of the sponsors. Don’t they make very un-green energy sucking ovens, dishwashers and fridges? Oh well, you’ve got to keep the vegan yoghurt fresh somehow.
2) An adult ticket costs a minimum of $125! These greenies must be rather well-off to afford such steep prices. Maybe they all work for big-oil like Dana Nuttyjelly 😉
131
Has anyone else noticed that people like Clive want to talk about tobacco, vaccination, flat earth, Heartland etc but NEVER want to discuss the science behind climate?
280
My account has been ‘blocked’ from commenting at the Conversation.
I respect their rights to say anything they want, but I don’t want my taxes paying for it.
361
Hmmm… a conversation where only one participant can talk….
How very very fascist of the conversation.
Goebbels would likely be most impressed
391
No, The Conversation should be kept alive and encouraged. The Climate Change articles bring me a huge amount of amusement and enjoyment. The have a swag of commenters who rabbit on about nothing much in particular but get very angry if a “denier” lobs up and craps in their nest. Here’s Alice Kelly, one of their regulars whose profile informs us that she is a “sole parent…Grow things, Food and more food, also tricky exotic spectacular onco, regelia, eupogon and pogon iris….” She holds the hostess and commenters here in high regard and comments –
So take that Ms Nova, … you, … you semi-beautiful misinforming temptress you.
As I say, let them go, for an academic site it is absolutely hilarious. Granny, breasts, wringer doesn’t even come close.
360
Did I get just a whiff of jealousy in what Alice Kelly wrote? Maybe Alice is semi-ugly.
230
–
Religious profiling has Alice Kelly and Clive Hamilton resembling Dana Nuccitelli and Naomi Oreskes………..
–
It’s no wonder they’re so irritable and bad-tempered!
110
In that order?
20
–
Reed,
In this ‘post modern’ era, it’s important to choose an order that is ‘flattery neutral’, … so that we don’t unintentionally offend anybody.
00
So we’re not only deniers but soap-dodgers as well?
Well, such intellectual arguments from Alice Kelly have definitely won me round to the warmist way of thinking
(do I really need the sarc tag?)
161
So I try to save water. I thought that was a good thing. I can’t keep track.
70
Why should I wash?
I haven’t been in contact with Clive Hamilton.
100
Hard to see her full picture given the watermark. But I am glad Alice is jealous of her looks! LOL
But her tale of triumph is one I have seen many times. The trolls run over, drop a few rabbit pellets, and then disappear thinking they have somehow won coup. I saw her comments – a very old thread. And they were bereft of an intelligence. Now I can see why. She is not educated.
101
That’s racist. I shall have to find out where she lives, and send some of the “unwashed” cuzzies round for a Harley-party on her front lawn. 😉
170
I may have some relatives in the same group of Harley riders.
10
RW,now I know why Michael the redundant was always fearful of his safety and I thought he was paranoid.
00
@ “…a horde of adoring white men fawn over every word[?]”
I think a better question would be:
So why do the hive’s hot-babes prefer to sneak around and get it on with the “deniers”, who all fawn over and adore Jo, and their hot-rod, alpha-stud, throb-whopper power-schlongs instead of settling for the hive’s ubiquitous, standard-issue, brainwashed, mummy’s-boy ****-dorks pitifully endowed with non-threatening, testosterone-free, teeny-tiny peepee-wieners? [Snip…]
00
Mike;
–
Them hot-babes are tryin’ to get their mits on our Big Oil cheques (plus that other stuff you mention) … but mainly the Big Oil cheques.
–
Them hive-dwellers only got Taxpayer Fundin’ (plus that other stuff you mention) ….. but no Big Oil cheques!
10
Jo’s not our cup of tea according to Catherine Deveny
Sorry about the language but people do need to be aware of what the Illuminati are thinking.
20
–
‘Hatewank’ was an oxymoron until Catherine Deveny happened along.
10
What a bizarre thing to say, I think Alice is projecting massively, a bit pent up dear?
10
Alice Kelly, have a great day, buddy.
00
This email would be a lot more interesting if we knew who Clive Hamilton is and what he’s got to do with climate or anything else.
Ditto some of the other people mentioned. Margaret Thatcher is well-known worldwide, but some others are non-entities outside Australia and the UK.
17
Its a blog post Frederick not an email. Type “Clive Hamilton the Conversation” into Google and this will be the first result
60
Frederick, fair question. Sorry. I’ve added in the line you needed:
Clive Hamilton is an Australian “intellectual” a Professor of Public Ethics and holds the Vice-Chancellor’s Chair at Charles Sturt University, and is a former candidate for The Australian Greens.
He is author of Requiem for a Species, and Earthmasters. He achieved his fame by setting up a progressive think tank called The Australia Institute.
Despite his inability to put forward a rational argument (or perhaps because of it) he has been rewarded with jobs and awards ever since.
“In 2009 he was made a Member of the Order of Australia (AM) for his contribution to public debate and public policy. Later that year he was the Greens candidate in the by-election for the federal seat of Higgins. In 2012 he was appointed by the Federal Government to the Climate Change Authority. He is a fellow of the Royal Society of the Arts.”
372
Professor of Public Ethics?
So no surprises that he was pleased to be “appointed by the Federal Government to the Climate Change Authority”.
No expertise, but all too happy to take the Climate Change Authority’s bucks. Definitely sounds like the ethics of climate science.
230
A Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts? Is this supposed to be impressive? It used to be that being elected a Fellow was an honour, like a Fellow of the Royal Society (as opposed to the Royal Society of the Arts) – at least, it was when the Royal Society was a serious scientific body and not just another political lobby group.
40
Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts – FRSA
To claim this as either an achievement or qualification is utterly pretentious – see 26.1
Founder of the Australia Institute
The Australia Institute – never heard of it until today – sounds like it ought to be an august and highly respected organisation. I would like to rename it the Socialist Schoolboys Society, which would be much more appropriate. Here is the link, if you do not believe me:
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tai.org.au%2F&ei=XRLqUtiPMu307AawyoDYBg&usg=AFQjCNERsdsmEJ2Capc902btHaArBFKvkg
Having wandered through their website, I see they are in favour of retaining/growing bloated government bureaucracies and expensive unreliable energy sources, but against mining, fracking, cheap energy and sensible economic policies.
And then I came across this comment:
No mention of the fact the Greens have killed Tasmania’s economy by deliberately making it the most unattractive place in Australia in which to invest. As for the proposed solution to Tasmania’s economic woes, it simply means: “then you can have more funds to grow your bureaucracies and increase regulation on the real economy”, which is the usual, time disproven, socialist way to ‘cure’ an economic problem of their own making.
40
Peter,could this be another attempt to sell forest carbon credits like the WWF failed to do in South America.Puts a whole new meaning to a lot of christine milne’s ranting. <"In contrast, using the forests to generate carbon credits will provide much needed revenues for the government"
00
Out of mild interest, I watched Hamilton on a couple of YouTube videos.
He is someone who has no clue about the nuts and bolts of science, yet understands how to make a well delivered emotional pitch. His psychobabble is pure Lewandowsky.
While obviously knowing absolutely nothing about the science of so called climate change (just like Lewandowsky), he is clearly one of these people who obsesses about being seen to be trying to ‘save the world’.
In other words, he is one of those typical left wing ‘intellectuals’, who like to think of themselves as being ‘very superior’ individuals. However, while safely ensconced in their ivory Towers, they indulge themselves in promoting policies on the basis that they might work in theory, without a thought for would they work in practice out there in the real world. The western world is littered with instances of the damage these academics have been responsible for when left leaning politicians are in power.
“Temptress misinformer of science” – Jo, I would take his description of you as clear evidence that you have provided a much needed service in pricking his bubble of pomposity.
130
Clive is the intellectual heir of Trofim Lysenko and Joseph Goebbels.
(… skating on thin godwin ice …)
10
Peter
You say:
A precise summary of the life of Karl Marx.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Some are also considered to be non-entities within Australia.
These people are the “useful idiots” paid from the public purse, to “condition” the population. Unfortunately, the realisation that there has been a change of Government, and therefore a change of policy, has yet to rise to the upper reaches of academia.
210
Yeah he’s a non-entity INSIDE Australia too.
00
Frederick, you just said a mouthful! Thank you.
40
Philippa, as a matter of interest have you ever been described as a “semi-beautiful conservative” on your own blog? Has Transverse City got a disproportionate following from white males?
00
Government Science shut down debate and brought in the Cane Toad, too…
180
i knew Hamilton would get your blood pressure up with his latest diatribe. apart from the Unis connected to The Conversation, u have:
The Conversation: Funders & Partners
Strategic Partners:
includes COMMONWEALTH BANK
http://theconversation.com/au/partners
as a customer, i’m going to complain to them.
Voice of Russia is the equivalent of the CIA’s Voice of America:
28 Jan: Voice of Russia: Geoengineering, another haven for climate change denial
By Toni Tileva
WASHINGTON (VR)– In May, scientists reported that the average daily level of CO2 in the atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million, an alarmingly high concentration level last seen two to four million years ago…
Renowned author Clive Hamilton recently visited American University’s School Of International Service to talk about his recent book, Earthmasters, and the environmental justice implications of climate engineering proposals. SIS Professor Simon Nicholson, who is a part of The Washington Geoengineering Consortium, moderated the event. Hamilton explained that until recently, geoengineering was largely a scientific discussion, held behind closed doors, and that it was very much viewed as a “Plan B” solution in the event that cutting greenhouse gas emissions was unsuccessful at the requisite speed. He referenced Harvard professor David Keith as the foremost proponent of climate engineering. The main climate geoengineering plan was inspired by sulfur-spewing volcanoes and involves using jets to spray sulfates into the stratosphere, where they would combine with water vapor to form aerosols. Dispersed by winds, these particles would cover the globe with a haze that would reflect roughly 1 percent of solar radiation away from Earth…
Couching the discussion in the context of environmental justice, Hamilton stated “we need to implement the sulfate aerosol shield to protect the Pole as a matter of justice, because there is nothing more unjust than the impact of climate change itself.”…
Hamilton agreed that what was initially a Plan B is now a nearly inevitable course of action as mitigating efforts do not seem to be progressing forward at the requisite rate to stem drastic climate change. But he expressed a lot of reservations about the Promethean-like nature of this sort of intervention and the “technology will save us now” air to it. “In essence, this plan is being marketed as turning a drastic failure of the free enterprise system into a triumph of humanity’s ability to solve our greatest problems through technology.” …
http://voiceofrussia.com/us/2014_01_28/Geoengineering-another-haven-for-climate-change-denial-4305/
the writer, Toni Tileva, lives in Washinton DC & writes a weekly music column!
Toni Tileva’s Blog
http://toniswriting.blogspot.com.au/
110
Reminds me of John Holdren’s idea of seeding the Artic with black soot to melt the ice and prevent the oncoming ice age… swing and a miss…
100
China may inadvertently be doing precisely this – smog clouds an all…
After all – melting polar ice is a strictly northern hemisphere phenomenon.
00
Beyond reason indeed, this is where the warmists have arrived as there is no other avenue to take except outright contradiction in argument.
There simply is no conscience or accountability with the ABC or most of the MSM, these parasites make me sick.
180
to be fair, VOA is no longer funded by the CIA, but i was still surprised to see the Geoengineering piece on VOR, but see the second & third links below:
Wikipedia: Voice of America
When the USIA was abolished in 1999, the VOA was placed under the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which is an autonomous U.S. government agency, with bipartisan membership…
Broadcasting Board of Governors services
This governing body was established in 1993 to replace the Board for International Broadcasters, which was created in 1973 to manage broadcasting companies previously funded by the CIA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America
Wikipedia: Voice of Russia
On 9 December 2013, Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a presidential decree liquidating Voice of Russia as an agency and merging it with RIA Novosti to form the Rossia Segodnya (Russia Today) international news agency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Russia
10 Jan: CriticalDistanceBlog: Voice of Russia to be Liquidated
Russia Today news agency to get all RIA Novosti and Voice of Russia funding
It didn’t take long for the Putin’s government to wind up the old RIA Novosti New Agency and the Voice of Russia radio network (what was once called Radio Moscow World Service). The budget of 83 million dollars has been transferred to the newly created news agency called Russia Today. BBC Monitoring in Caversham caught this official announcement below this afternoon.
Russia’s newly-created state news agency Rossiya Segodnya [Russia Today] will get the funds that were to be allocated by the government to RIA Novosti news agency and Voice of Russia radio, RIA Novosti reported on 10 January quoting amendments to the 2014-2016 budget law published on a government website.
RIA Novosti was to get R2.68bn [83m dollars] in 2014…
RIA Novosti and Voice of Russia will be liquidated.
Source: RIA Novosti news agency, Moscow, in Russian 1423 gmt 10 Jan 14…
What I find strange is that several hours later there is still no mention of it on the Voice of Russia website…
And what of the “other” Russia Today (better known as RT.com). Question More!… ETC
http://criticaldistance.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/voice-of-russia-to-be-liquidated.html
50
I’m a C-specific CAGW skeptic.
Reported comments of Clive Hamilton equating my and similarly held skeptical views of others on CAGW to opposition to human disease vaccination are an insult to me and every B-and T-cell in my body’s immune system.
Immunology and epidemiology are well known to me.
Parents please fully vaccinate your children and resist their (and your) indoctrination by an irrational anti-vaccination cult or an equally insidious now scientifically discredited CAGW cult.
Despite contradictory contemporary empirical evidence abounding, Clive Hamilton’s line is irrevocably tied to the flawed IPCC’s CAGW predictions.
151
I’m also an AGW sceptic. I also question the safety and effectiveness of vaccination, as I have witnessed vaccine damage. You’ve used the same approach as Clive Hamilton. Would you say that because I am sceptical of vaccine safety and effectiveness that I’m anti-vaccination? I’m not part of an anti-vaccination cult. I do however, question the safety and effectiveness of the one-size fits all approach to vaccination. Epidemiology is also well known to me and I am yet to find any research which confirms that vaccination is 100% safe and 100% effective. On the contrary in the literature it is well known that vaccines are not as safe and effective as you think. There will always be collateral damage, so the question is, whose kids should be the ones who suffer collateral damage? Yours maybe? If you have empirical scientific evidence that vaccines are completely safe and completely effective and not likely to result in death and disablement for some unfortunate kids, please provide that evidence. I’m happy to read said evidence since I am qualified to do so.
33
I think it’s a good narrative – CAGW denier = vaccine denier. Both groups reject things that have a 1 in 100,000 probability of causing them great harm. Clive really IS an intellectual after all!
As for the vaccine question gbees, I think that’s the wrong question. I believe vaccines are dangerous. Simply an order of magnitude LESS dangerous than the disease it’s avoiding. Sure, I’d be devastated if my kid got a dreadful illness from measles vaccine. But if they CATCH measles, the death rate is non-trivial. Likewise, they have a better chance of coping with autism spectrum disorders than the have of coping with polio. (Or death.)
I drive a car, not because people have proven that cars are 100% safe and 100% effective but because it’s 2 orders of magnitude safer than visiting my regional clients by horse.
00
Gbees
You contort the narrative.
If you genuinely have had a family issue of vaccine-proven adverse effect, I commiserate for that extremely rare association. In turn, how does one “prove” a vaccine causation of disease in one clinical case?
I have numerous examples in medical and veterinary science that confirm the overwhelming preventative effects of vaccination that benefit populations that would otherwise be devastated by major infectious disease morbidities or mortalities.
Hamilton’s reported alignment of CAGW “deniers” with the anti-vaccine putsch is nothing but rhetorical.
Based on your stated epidemiological background, just what level of application by vaccination risk-takers in susceptible populations of children do you believe is needed before the vaccine skeptic minority can feel smugly safe that their progeny are thereby unlikely to exposed to any future epidemics of known child killing or maiming diseases which are still in circulation?
Unvaccinated, naive vulnerability to outbreaks of lethal diseases lasts into adulthood, as I presume you recognise. The probabilities of relevant infectious disease morbidities/mortalities mount against their individuals as the unvaccinated population percentage increases.
Your underlying contention seems to be based on just let enough vaccination-adherent others get their kids vaccinated and my case is proven and my own should be protected.
10
“extremely rare association”
its not as rare as you state. but my issue with vaccine science is not the science itself which I support but the lack of understanding of why kids (not all) are injured by vaccines. to date all I see is people who have vaccine damaged kids treated as pariahs. it’s irrefutable in many cases that the vaccine caused the injury yet it gets swept under the carpet and not studied. the stated effectiveness of vaccines in the whole population has a long way to go before you can claim success and the safety for all not proven. given that some kids are maimed or die as a result of vaccination (this is not under dispute, if you think it is you are ignorant of the issue) my recommendation is that it be made a priority to be researched. but it never is. every year in Australia we educate people to try to reduce the incidence of drowning in this country because one drowning is one too many. when I see that one vaccine damaged kid is one too many I’ll be satisfied that this issue is being addressed correctly. currently it is not. if one of your kids was damaged you would be raising the same issue as I am.
11
oh and I forgot to add. you state that “vulnerability to outbreaks of lethal diseases lasts into adulthood”. this may be true but given that vaccine immunity wanes as is well known in the medical literature what is the cause of that ‘vulnerability’. is it the unvaccinated? do you really believe that if you’ve been vaccinated throughout childhood that as an adult you have immunity to all of those diseases you were vaccinated for? if you think so go and have yourself tested for immunity to those diseases for which you were vaccinated. get back to me with your results.
00
btw (partly taxpayer-funded) SBS has the Hamilton/Vaccinators’ diatribe on a blog, with typical SBS comments
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/01/28/comment-climate-and-vaccine-deniers-are-same
plus i love the first comment at the following!
28 Jan: Clarence Valley Daily Examiner: Clive Hamilton: Vaccination and climate change deniers beyond persuasion
COMMENT #1: Camble Newman is trained as a soldier , not a scientist , so its like talking to a brick the only thing he understands is resources is $…
http://www.dailyexaminer.com.au/news/immunisation-climate-deniers-beyond-persuasion/2152643/
u have to laugh.
60
thanx to whoever put up the Sea Shepherd oil spill story on the previous thread, with Bob Brown being chairman of that particular Sea Shepherd org. put it up at WUWT, as it’s so funny it comes up even before the Chris Turney Fiasco ends.
also janama’s WOMADelaide link is hilarous. more taxpayer-funded folk who think they speak for the planet:
WOMADelaide 2014: The Planet Talks
The Planet Talks return to Speakers Corner with a line-up of stimulating and inspiring speakers from Australia, Europe and the USA.
The sessions will be hosted by Robyn Williams (ABC Radio National) and Bernie Hobbs (ex ABC TV’s The New Inventors).
The Planet Talks is presented by the University of South Australia.
Speakers:
TIM FLANNERY
Tim Flannery is one of the most well known Australian environmentalists and climate change activists of our time. With a long list of published works and a past Commissioner of the Australian Climate Commission, Flannery brings a wealth of practical experience and fundamental understanding of the key issues facing our planet today…
PROFESSOR TOM WIGLEY
Dr Tom Wigley is a Professor at the University of Adelaide and has a position at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. He is one of the world’s most highly cited scientists in the field of climatology.
PLUS other assorted smug-faced, well-off CAGW zealots.
SUNDAY PROGRAM INCLUDES:
Politics, Media, Law & Merchants of Doubt
SESSION 01 – The Captain Kirk & Dr Spock of communicating climate change
Hosted by Robyn Williams (TAXPAYER-FUNDED ABC)
Speakers: Annabel Crabb (TAXPAYER-FUNDED ABC), Tory Shepherd, Tanya Ha
The Media, MPs and Mothers all play vital roles in shaping our emotional (Kirk) and rational (Spock) attitudes to environmental action.
How do they frame a climate change message in ways that are relevant, accurate and meaningful to their audiences?
Our panel of expert science, environment and politics communicators discuss some of the social, cultural, political and psychological machinations behind the things we see, hear and read about climate change…
SESSION 02 – When Polly met Peter & Tim
Hosted by Bernie Hobbs (EX-TAXPAYER-FUNDED ABC)
Speakers: Polly Higgins, Peter Garrett & Tim Flannery
Find out what happens when one of the world’s most visionary thinkers in the area of law and environmental action – Polly Higgins – meets Australia’s leading environmental thinker, writer and activist Tim Flannery and former government minister, ACF president and Midnight Oil frontman Peter Garrett for a frank conversation about why and how the law and legislation must tackle climate change.
http://www.womadelaide.com.au/program/the-planet-talks
how much fun would that be? i’ve posted it at WUWT as well.
80
Sounds like a white robe and pointy hat meeting. Who are they going to crucify?
English Aborigine
110
keeping to the comedic theme of this thread:
28 Jan: PR Web: Thermosoft Offers Radiant Floor Heat as Solution to Global Cooling
This winter it became perfectly clear that mankind’s effort to solve the global warming crisis is a mission accomplished. Now is the time, and Thermosoft is the company, leading the way to winning the war against global cooling with energy-efficient radiant floor heat.
Never was it more evident that the mission against global warming was fait accompli than when the December 2013 Australasian Antarctic Expedition of global warming scientists verified the existence of abundant levels of ice in Anarctica. The enduring photo of the two-ton, ice-strengthened ship, the Akademik Shokalskiy, stuck in the Antarctic ice, demonstrated global warming’s retreat as convincingly as the adventuresome polar bear, cruising adrift a tip of the iceberg, alerted millions to its inconvenience.
With the global warming bump-in-the-road behind us, now is the time to move forward to the real crisis plaguing humanity. Global cooling’s debilitating effects have been felt across America during this winter’s record low temperatures and high snowfalls. The absolute truth is that there’s nothing that can be done about the weather, but there is something that can be done to defeat global cooling and keep warm, comfortable, healthy and in good spirits.
Don’t neglect the feet. One of the primary ways to keeping warm, comfortable and healthy is keeping the feet warm. There is no better way to keep the feet and the whole body warm than with Thermosoft’s electric radiant floor warming…
Speaking about Thermosoft’s energy efficient electric radiant floor warming systems coupled with the latest energy-saving programmable floor thermostats, Thermosoft’s President and CEO, Eric Kochman stated, “Together we can [make the world warmer]. We are definitely in the right place at the right time to solve global cooling. Thermosoft’s mission is to warm the world through education, dedication and floor heat installation.” …
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/01/prweb11518657.htm
70
Bolty sums him up.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ormer_greens_candidate_professor_clive_hamilton_is_furious/
100
Andrew has had difficulties with Clive before.
Clive is Professor of Ethics?
The Oxford has this to say:
Seems to me Clive failed at the first fence; his behaviour isn’t governed by any principle that most would call moral.
The second fence seems to me to be a failure as well. Not too sure about metaphysics ( who is? ) but perhaps he gets a pass because his form of “ethics” is, for him, a religion. Shaky, I know.
I find it difficult to believe Clive would call himself a disciple of utilitarianism, but I have no doubt whatsoever that he believes that the greatest number, regardless of the actual figures, includes him.
I have no scientific credentials at all, as I’ve said before, but I can recognise a charlatan when he shakes his
snake oilvitriol in my face.170
I guess Jo is ruffled because the Clive Hamilton essay in The Covnversation was graced by this response:
“No, I’ve ventured onto Jo Nova’s abhorrent site in the last couple of days for the first time and got into a slanging match with the woman herself. What is it with these conservative semi-beautiful women who want to play their persona, in order to have a hoard of adoring white men fawn over every word. There are a few in the media, particularly at News Corp. I mean, these temptress misinformers of science wouldn’t want to meet any of their audience, unwashed the lot of them.”
I’m unwashed and I’ve never met Jo, but from her photos she’s not particularly semi-beautiful. Just leave off the ‘semi-‘. Fixed now?
Modestly, I’ll print my blog here, as Hamilton was comparing climate deniers to vaccination deniers.
“The science behind vaccines can be tested, for example by taking two groups of people, one vaccinated and the other not, and making deductions from observations.
Climate observations can seldom be replicated in a similar way.
It is therefore quite misleading to compare scepticism about vaccination observations with scepticism about climate observations.
It follows that fraudulence with vaccination work is far harder than fraudulence with climate work.
Fraudulent misrepresentation of data is a particular problem when authors refuse to make data freely available for audit.
The authors of this essay should acknowledge this fundamental mismatch and the invalidity of the comparison.” Geoff Sherrington.
202
Well put Geoff – on all counts!
I was wondering whether any of the politically correct left wing audience at The Conversation called the overtly sexist comment made against Jo Nova for what it plainly was? Clearly the content of this blog or the content of articles by any ‘temptress’ the writer may be referring to at Newscorp has absolutely nothing to do with the writer’s Gender.
How would that commentator describe the male skeptical bloggers and the male and female alarmist bloggers? Perhaps the person graduated from the same logic class as Hamilton? The individual should be passing their theory on to Lewandowsky who I am sure could whip up another peer reviewed paper on this topic. And while he’s at it I’m sure John Cook could probably prove that Climate Skeptics are overwhelmingly anti-vaccine campaigners if he runs his surveys on the appropriately selected blogs! And then of course drops the data which doesn’t fit the answer he’s looking for.
80
Geoff, I’ve been trying to figure out which name that interlocutor was commenting under on our side of the fence. It’s a puzzler.
Assuming “the last couple days” means two weeks, there are only 6 candidates that I can find which fit the “got into a slanging match” criteria.
Adding the criteria they were here “for the first time” eliminates “Philip Shehan” and BA4th from the suspect pool.
It can’t be Willis Eschenbach, Steven Mosher, or William Connelley because of the gender mismatch.
Neither can it be PopTech, which has 4 members listed on their website, all male.
I’m sure it’s all elementary, but right now I’m feeling more of a Watson than a Holmes. Maybe Jo can recall a slanging match that I missed in my searches.
(Or quite possibly “Alice” was making up some part of “her” story and identity, but what possible motive is there to do that on The Con where (s)he would be preaching to the converted?)
20
Andrew.
On my first reading I assumed that any slanging match had happened off line. Don’t know.
It never pays to assume too much of what goes on at TC. I go there to whip myself into a fury before blogging. (Ho ho).
10
I cannot help but wonder how one becomes a professor of public ethics? Could I just call myself one? Who administers the exams?
120
So far as can work out they are some type of thrill killers that seek to kill babies.
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full
30
“Who administers the exams?”
Gleike, Of course.
100
Clive Hamilton is the Professor. Surely HE could do that??….
50
I reckon you get a Gleick type hair style and turn into one of those miracle wraparounds that American Evangelists are so into. It seems to help them to pressure the money out of people’s pockets .
‘Do you beleeeve, or are you a sinnah, I will save yuh, come up to the stage for salvation’.
I say this though seriously, the next stage in the cognitive dissonance process will be singing songs at the end of their CAGW meets. Remember the singing on the shokalsky.
English Aborigine
60
Let us be honest here. Hamilton has no understanding whatsoever of the science involved. His motives, whatever these might be, come from elsewhere.
120
I’m disappointed that RMIT would fund something like ‘Conversation’. Way back in the distant past – the early 1960’s – whilst studying for a “hugely” practical Diploma of Applied Chemistry we did a subject called “Clear Thinking”. Seems this sort of subject should be re-instated and maybe at year 11. Thinking clearly and weighing up pros and cons seem to be none existent.
130
I share something in common with Clive Hamilton, almost. Some Science papers I have cited were older than the 80-year old paper that Professor Hamilton cited.
When I was doing an M.S. in Earth Science, I selected the rejection of continental mobility (continental drift) as a research paper. http://www.geoscience-environment.com/es767/index_es767.html
I prepared a graph of papers in Science referring to “continental drift” during the period 1923 to 1997. http://www.geoscience-environment.com/es767/science.html
One of the papers I cited from the journal Science called continental drift, “Germanic pseudo-science”. So it is no mystery why so few papers in Science referred to continental drift in the 40 years from 1923 to 1963.
Naomi Oreskes made the point that the “fixed continent” paradigm was difficult to overturn and thus illustrates Thomas Kuhn’s philosophical theories about how “normal” science works.
To me as a graduate student in Earth science, the rejection of mobile continents meant something else altogether. To me it demonstrated the herd effect in academia. To me it showed that editors of journals ride herd for academia to silence dissent.
Finally, it showed me how a theory could be elevated so high that observations could not be used either to falsify the theory or to allow an alternative theory to get a fair hearing.
The mobilists had the observations and the geophysicists had the theory–but the theory could not explain the observations.
Whenever, I feel diffident about my skepticism concerning catastrophic anthropocentric global warming (CAGW), I remember that the mobilists / drifters were right and the geophysicists were wrong about plate tectonics, the most important theory in modern Earth science.
160
Hey Frederick. I did not mean to attack you earlier. I have spent the day being with, debating with and doing some work with m Tasmanian German friends. I did not know who this loser was either.
40
Bauer’s “Dogmatism in Science and Medicine” is worth a read in support of your argument, though I’ll admit Bauer seems to have his own pet peeves and blind spots.
00
You’re right – “Australian intellectual” is an oxymoron!
hehehehehe….
16
Not specifically Australians; it’s the people who proclaim themselves to be “intellectual” that are likely to be the oxymoron.
90
Oxymoron? How about carbomoron? Certainly a moron.
10
Oooh! Hit a nerve, have I? SIX red thumbs!
00
On a more serious note, I have followed many of your links, and the vanity of the man is truly breath-taking: “What if it meant seizing control of Earth’s climate? Yeah? How?
He cannot be wrong because he is always right… hmmm… I am sure there have been many others with that mentality throughout history. Logic and cold reasoning do seem to be beyond him; that one, totally unrelated discipline has erroneous detractors does NOT mean that detractors of every discipline are wrong.
100
I never never heard of Clive Hamilton until his name cropped up in this blog some time ago. So I started digging.
Dear old Clive used to parade his “FRSA” qualifications – perhaps some people would unwittingly confuse that with FRS – quite prominently on his columns until very recently. (There’s no mention of it in this particular effort we’re discussing now, and FRS itself has become debased anyhow.)
Well, it’s quite good fun to keep heaping ridicule on types like Clive. They deserve it. The FRSA is actually quite a wank, anyone can simply buy one online. Here’s the recent experience of someone who (almost) did exactly that:
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2013/07/how-to-impress-like-clive-hamilton/
I’ve posted this before, and it’s a low blow to be sure. I just can’t resist spreading it about…
I wonder if Clive bills his institution for the recurring subscription.
140
Oops, sorry, that wasn’t the article I meant. [Corrected in above post Level – Mod]
Do this one, it’s a hoot:
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2013/07/how-to-impress-like-clive-hamilton/
[HOT TIP – THIS IS GOLD! – Mod]
100
Better than gold. Very funny. Another one for Kenjie?
30
In London, the RSA is sometimes referred to, as the “Royal Society o’ Farts”. I had no idea why, until I visited their web site, following your comment.
Now I understand.
Is this where Clive gets his inspiration, I wonder?
30
What do a bunch o’ fartists imagine they can do about climate change anyway ?
What some of these creative types as well as a lot of progressive management types seem to overlook is , any idiot can have ideas.
It is usually the rest of us that have to live with cost s of their ill conceived and poorly thought out and invalidated indulgences.
40
from that link, a little cartoon https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bbw0ZIOCIAA9_FL.jpg
except that by 2019, he will probably be asking ” would someone turn the heater on”
00
yep. worthwhile for a read over coffee. just don’t be wearing a white shirt.
10
This is the Calibre of our University Leaders!
As noted, Clive Hamilton is a Professor of Ethics and Public Policy and Vice Chancellor at Charles Sturt University. He was also appointed by the Gillard Government to the Climate Change Authority and was awarded an Order of Australia for his contribution to public debate and policy. You’d think he was a smart guy. But he is a shameless left wing activist who breaks all the rules of logic and intellect when arguing his favourite causes.
On the question of who is ‘beyond persuasion’, it would seem that only the ‘true believers’ like Hamilton are beyond persuasion. It doesn’t matter how many times you show him that his so-called settled science was wrong, it doesn’t matter how many times his adored climate leaders such as Al Gore, or Tim Flannery made stupid predictions which didn’t come true, it doesn’t matter how often the peer reviewed research confirms the uncertainties the climate skeptics have raised for decades, Clive Hamilton and his ilk will not veer from their course which requires a rapid de-carbonisation of the economy.
As Jo Nova pointed out, the evidence refutes Hamilton’s basic tenet in the title of his logic free article. Hamilton’s so-called ‘deniers’ are the ones who have proven they can be persuaded by the scientific evidence as Jo Nova writes:
“Hamilton argues skeptics can’t be persuaded, but if he’d bothered to do any research he’d know that many leading skeptics used to think CO2 might cause a crisis, or used to be active Greens themselves, like me. What about former Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore, or conservationist David Bellamy? Margaret Thatcher set up the Hadley Met Centre, but later become openly skeptical. Environmentalist Lawrence Solomon, or Peter Taylor (who wrote Chill, A Reassessment of Global Warming Theory) are hardly conservative commentators making ideological calls. My other half Dr David Evans, used to work for The Australian Greenhouse Office. “What kind of denier changes their mind? The kind that aren’t deniers.
There are virtually no former skeptics who have become believers….”
What is particularly concerning to me is an article like Hamilton’s, if written as an essay for a first year undergraduate arts course, would sure fail based on lack of logic and substantiation. Yet Hamilton is a Vice Chancellor and Professor at an Australian University! Is there any wonder the quality of our graduates is rapidly in decline?
But hey, the new breed of scientists our universities are pumping out will perhaps be able to save the world with their ability to rap? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiYZxOlCN10
210
Logic & reason may only get you so far. Saying the right things seems more important in certain circles.
But as they say you don’t need to be religious to pontificate on Relgious Education. With Ethics I doubt if it even helps.
70
Appealing to Logic & Reason seems lost on the Left..
The Logic of the Left is more about emotion, appealing to a herd instinct and a fear of being seen at odds with the fashionable.
Guilt is a tool used shamelessly by the Left and no less than by any of the great religions.
The end justifies no end of persecution of the individual.
But you already knew that.
80
Socialism is one of the world’s great religions. Marx is its Christ and Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky are it’s saints. Eco-socialism is merely cargo-cult Marxism..
100
Has anyone noticed that there are one or two at the very top of each of the government or quasi-government agencies who are died-in-the-wool climate alarmists.
CSIRO, BOM, etc have one or two tradgics at the top, who control the agenda and employment.
Megan Clarke, David Jones…..
Also many universities have AGW apostles in key positions..
Many of the so-called science academies also have alarmists at the helm.
Did this happen by accident?
How are they funded? Do they receive “extras”, if so, from who ?
30
Thing is, I don’t remember any of this global warming, climate change stuff even being mentioned when I went through UNSW (BSc, Maths Hons-1) a decade or so ago.
Where did it all come from ?
10
It was being taught in schools in Grade 9 from 1992 onwards, at least in Queensland and probably other Australian states too. Either your school hadn’t drunk the KoolAid yet, or else … you weren’t paying attention in class! 🙂
10
BTW, is anyone else suspicious that Flannery is simply Hamilton with a fake beard trying to collect 2 pay cheques? Has anyone seen both of them in the same room together?
10
The ‘progressives’ have no option but to try to shut down debate, because they can never win in the marketplace of ideas.
Hamilton is someone who believes that his utterances should be accepted and acted upon immediately without discussion.
120
Of course, he is a member of the Royal Society of Arts.
40
I understood one of the platforms Catastropharians use for the Professor’s category of “deniers” was, “only qualified
matesclimate scientists” were “permitted” to talk authoritatively on matters ofshort and long term weather patterns and “extreme” weather eventsclimate. So how does an appointed Professor of Public Ethics rationalise his foray into climate “science” armed only, as it would seem, with ad-hominems torebuttattack rational argument and logical reasoning? Perhaps the Professor might feel more at home teaching the psychology and art of Lewandowsky theatricals than in ethics where he seems to be struggling with the concepts. Perhaps he has contracted a severe case of the Green disease? Perhaps we can send him a get well card?This example of irrational argument that brings into question the over-arching issue of the value of government funding via the ARC and direct grants to individuals and institutions alike. Where does the value and return on investment reside by funding irrational rants? Poor Clive, it’s a sure sign of desparation, illogical argument and devoid of ethics (attacking the person to hide an inability to refute the argument). Surely that is exactly what should NOT be condoned in institutions of alleged higher learning.
110
“Surely that is exactly what should NOT be condoned in institutions of alleged higher learning.”
By both reason and common sense you are right. However, neither of those apply in this case. I have found that, all too often, academia prizes “pure” knowledge. It is “pure” in the sense that it has no contact with reality and has no practical application.
Heaven forbid that an academic would get his hands dirty dealing with anything real. The very thought that an academic notion may describe reality and have some kind of practical application is taken as proof that it cannot be true.
This idea comes from the Kantian dictum that if it pertains to reality, it cannot be known. If it is known, it cannot pertain to reality. The only possible knowledge is social knowledge (consensus). Hence their insistence on proof by consensus and synthetic models. Neither of these things need to have any contact with reality and especially no practical application. Therefor, they conclude, they must be true.
However, this does not keep them from asking for and accepting Government grants to do more of the same. A contradiction? Yes but only in the real world. In their minds, they evade (blank out) the contradiction so it really does not exist – or so they think.
Evidence from experiment and actual measurements are held to be mere distorted fantasies. While their mighty mental constructs created from nothing take on the aura of absolute truth. After all, you can’t prove them wrong because proof means to produce reality based evidence and demonstrations which, according to them, are a priori false and thereby do not need to be taken into account.
THIS intellectual pathology is what is known as “higher learning”. It is worse than religion. At least religion admits its foundation is faith – belief without evidence and often, in spite of the evidence. While the academics hold that what they do is “pure reason” and “pure science”. It does not rise to the level of fraud. It is pure evil and is destructive of mind, man, and life. Which, I think, was the point from the get go.
100
Yes Lionell, you are absolutely correct. For those “over the hill”, in decades past the years spent walking the corridors of higher learning was something to take a measure of pride and achievement in, and the outcome was highly sought after by employers for the very reason you state of practical application, and advancing knowledge to contribute to the nation’s future wealth. Sadly, for the nation’s future, I feel this is now only the case for some, but no longer the case for many, if not most graduates (an assumption as I do not have any data to support the statement).
Perhaps some institutions have “upgraded” their alleged quality criteria by consensus, of course, from the metaphorical degree written on the back of a weeties packet, to a scribble written in social media “English” on the back page of the The Conversation? It would certainly fit an agenda of simply churning out a “product of the times”, with many being “educated” well beyond the level of their intelligence, as fodder for easy manipulation.
10
The whole concept of CAGW propaganda has been to reduce a complex hypothesis into a simplistic proposition that the media will run and the uninformed majority will buy. Terms like ‘Pause’, ‘Denier’, ‘Climate Disruption,’ ‘Carbon’ etc., are not random, but carefully crafted.
Keeping it simple, together with the powerful fear-factor and the use of authority is nothing short of a brilliant PR strategy. Add an unlimited budget and infiltration of ‘respected’ bodies and individuals in science, government and education, plus smearing /closing down opposition and debate, provides a more powerful global marketing scheme than any corporate multinational on the planet could dream of.
And then there’s always plan B: mandatory law and legislation.
140
You absolutely right Tim, and we have evidence for it. Look this up (if you haven’t already):
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/11/how-the-bbc-became-a-propaganda-arm-of-the-uk-government-and-wwf/
Now the link is broken, try this one:
http://www.ippr.org/publication/55/1529/warm-wordshow-are-we-telling-the-climate-story-and-can-we-tell-it-better
Sadly most of the recommendations of this report have come to reality (at least where i live, in Canada).
40
Yup.
And just last week this:
“Stern is in Davos beating the drum for an organisation called the New Climate Economy. … Its aim is persuade finance ministers rather than simply environment ministers that tackling climate change should be a top priority. … what sort of pitch is Stern making? … Firstly, governments do not have to make a trade-off between growth and preventing climate change. On the contrary, action to slow global warming could result in a period of “discovery, innovation and investment”.”
It’s possible we will soon see the most brazen lie yet, that CAGW will make the world richer.
40
Try this one Jo:
Wikipedia begins describing the author thus: “Philip Cary Plait (born September 30, 1964),[1] also known as The Bad Astronomer, is an American astronomer, skeptic, writer and popular science blogger.”
I guess the proper null hypothesis to use is this. Any randomly chosen scientist should be assumed to be irrational, unless and until there emerges evidence to the contrary.
00
The missing link from the above comment:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html
00
The same shredding procedure could be applied to that article as Jo has done to Hamilton’s but… there’s a difference of scale involved.
When you trash-talk a 3rd-rate rusted-on Leftist mouthpiece that nobody outside of Australia has ever heard about, like Clive Hamilton, it doesn’t really matter much. But when you take on Phil Plait the Bad Astonomer, it’s a pretty big deal. That guy has a long way to fall.
I dare say it could be done, but more preparation is required.
The falsehoods and non sequiturs are many, nearly one for every hyperlink.
* English: “Climate deniers” don’t deny either that climate exists or that it changes.
* Fallacy: Proving “climate deniers” are wrong does not prove IPCC is right.
* Falsehood: Climategate was not “manufactured”.
* Fallacy: The consensus doesn’t tell us the reality.
etc.
70
That wouldn’t be to keep the Vice’s chair Ethically cleansed of any vices would it ?
20
What the hell does a “Professor of Public Ethics” know about climate anyway???
The current version of “Public Ethics” is that it doesn’t matter whether you lie to the people or tell the truth to the people, as long as what you are telling the people results in them believing what is “best for the Earth”. It is that whole “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the needs of the individual) lie that has been foisted on us for a long time. The so-called “greater good” is an artificial construct which does not exist. The only thing that I, as an individual, can discern (if I can evaluate things logically and think critically) is what is best for myself. I cannot discern what is best for “some other guy”, and I certainly cannot discern what is best for “the collective whole”.
The delusion that someone can correctly determine what is best for “everyone” and then attempt to force everyone to accept what is “best for them” is the root of virtually all evil.
60
It seems obvious Hamilton is so far up his own behind it’s beyond funny. No doubt his suffocating arrogance and sense of self-importance is what makes him feel qualified to publicly comment on matters of climate science. Perhaps his field of study helped nurture this attitude? Do other “Professors of Public Ethics” display such arrogance?
That Hamilton belongs to the Australian Greens political party is a breach of ethics in my opinion – science is supposed to be above politics. Not bad for a “Professor of public Ethics”.
But in my opinion it will be Hamilton’s arrogance that will prove his undoing. He serially under estimates his opponents.
What concerns me more is why Charles Sturt University puts up with this guy?
40
Children often descend into name-calling when they realize that they cannot win an argument. It doesn’t matter in this case that the children are “intellectual” or that they are, at least by age, “adults”. If you cannot win an argument by sound logic and sound evidence, call the opponent names in an attempt to smear the reputation of the opponent and make the opponent less believable in the eyes of the public.
Sadly, the majority of the public is now so under-educated and mal-educated (on purpose), that the majority not only enjoys watching the mud-slinging, but they fall for it! (Hence the enormous popularity of so-called reality TV here in the States). Why people actually want to watch (literal) crap, and why people actually find it entertaining, is well beyond me, but then again, I was extremely lucky to go to schools which taught me HOW to think. Most schools do not teach logic and critical thinking skills any more, because that would allow the people to be independent and would also enable the people to think for themselves and analyze complex situations for themselves, and that is the primary danger to “The State”. It is much easier for “The State” to run rough-shod over sheep than it is for “The State” to control people who can actually think for themselves.
Thomas Jefferson knew that the only way to preserve a Constitutional Republic was to TRULY educate the people. Unfortunately now, the VAST majority of people don’t even know that the USA was founded as a Constitutional Republic, since they are all taught that the USA is a “Democracy”. Look up what the founders of the USA ACTUALLY WROTE about “Democracy”, and you will easily see that they had no intention whatsoever of the Constitutional Republic of the United States being a “Democracy” at all.
Really, it is sad times we live in. The ability to REASON is being systematically eliminated from society, and the whole CAGW thing is just a symptom. Sure, it is a big problem in and of itself, but it is not the ROOT problem, it is merely a very visible symptom of the root problem.
100
You should check out this site: http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/ It gives a good history and discussion of Common Core and Agenda 21 and how they are playing out in our school systems. Often links to Australian and other systems.
30
I haven’t been to that site specifically, but I am pretty well aware of common core and Agenda 21. The ultimate goal is global governance of the sheep, and the easiest way to accomplish this is to ensure that the sheep are not competent to govern themselves or even question those who govern them.
The enlightenment was wonderful, it was an attempt to convert the sheep into sapient beings with freedom, liberty, and the ability and moral basis to be self-sufficient and self-governing. The fact that these ideas actually BEGAN TO WORK was the greatest threat to those traditionally in power over the majority of the people. Ever since the realization that truly educated people probably could be self-sufficient and largely self-governing, there have been repeated (often masked and incremental) attempts to reverse the entire process.
Many believe that we are headed back to the “Dark Ages”.
90
Peter-
The Club of Rome in a 2006 document I write about in my book Credentialed to Destroy: How and Why Education Became a Weapon specifically viewed medieval times and the governed and governors relationship as something to be encouraged.
I have similar documents out of UN, including UNESCO announcing they are in charge of education globally and the intended curricula and desired Worldviews and values. They also announced that they are doing all this as task manager under Agenda 21. Their precise language.
And thanks Specter for the plug.
30
I’ve always called it a form of slavery, where 45% of my wage goes to the government in taxes. True slavery is where they don’t let me keep any money (or very little).
They let me keep just enough to be self sufficient and enjoy a holiday every now and then.
00
I used to think that at least Margaret Thatcher had been right about one thing. And now I discover that she actually was wrong about everything! Oh the disillusionment!
026
Wasn’t she suitably left-wing enough for you John?
Perhaps you should have lived through the social chaos of the UK in the 1970s to realise quite how much of a great job Maggie did to turn the country around in the early 1980s
Anyway, that’s all I’ll say about her, as I don’t want to get dragged into a left/right argument with JB
80
–
John Brookes:
‘And now I discover that she actually was wrong about everything! Oh the disillusionment!’
–
Don’t worry John; you’ve still got Paul R. Ehrlich.
50
John,
Surely you don’t think that she was wrong, to drop bombs on a British runway, located on a British Royal Air Force Base, on a British Territories Island, in order to prevent the Argentinean Air Force using that runway, to drop bombs on British Royal Navy ships, that were carrying British Army Soldiers, sent to liberate British Citizens, who were held, by Argentinean Soldiers, prisoners in their own homes?
As she said to the vacillating Chiefs of Staff, “Now, is not the time to get wobbly”.
70
… or maybe she finally stepped away from consensus propaganda and evaluated information independently.
20
John, what happened to the period [.] that everyone expected to see after the fourth word in your comment?
10
disillusionment comes naturally to you John.
60
Unfortunately, Clive is not unique. As the evidence goes against them, alarmists quickly turn to his tactics. He is not a thinker, he is a follower. He has his marching orders and no amount of brains will make him question those orders.
60
Hamilton conveniently avoids to point out the difference between the two debates – vaccines and climate.
With vaccines we have decades of proven historical data showing that the vaccinations work. That hundreds of millions of lives are being saved around the world every year. We know this because we know how many people used to die of the various diseases before we introduced vaccinations, and we can count how many die of it now. We could also test the vaccines in laboratories before it was used ‘live’.
In contrast, Climate science which blames CO2 for most of the warming since industrialisation is based entirely on theory, and quite poor statistical correlation. Computer models which have been designed based on the theory have failed miserably to predict future temperatures.
That would be the equivalent of vaccinations failing to alter the death rate from diseases but the medical scientists telling us we still needed to use the vaccinations! Clive Hamilton just fails the logic test miserably!
Skeptics are not that difficult to please, we simply ask for proof. We can’t argue with the data like this: http://www.behance.net/gallery/Vaccine-Infographic/2878481 which proves the efficacy of vaccines. And before we had that data on such a large scale, there were of course small scale tests which were replicated and proven. Medical scientists didn’t expect us to proceed with mass vaccinations based on assumptions and computer models which didn’t take into account many of the variable which impact on the immune response to a particular disease. It was based on successful trials.
The IPCC has NOTHING approaching this, and in fact they have the reverse. many of the predictions they and leading warmist scientists made have been proven to be untrue and overly alarmist. And even the IPCC and most climate scientists have now admitted that the climate is not as sensitive to CO2 as originally though.
60
Jaymez – The point is, the ACTUAL logic is not important, and Clive is counting on the fact that most people will not (and in fact cannot) analyze what he is saying logically.
The important thing is that if he links vaccinations (which have been shown to help eliminate disease) to climate change, the listener is supposed to automatically believe the association which he is trying to make, which is that people who “deny climate change” are equivalent to people who believe that vaccines are somehow bad.
Since he is counting on the fact that the average person cannot logically analyze what he is saying, he can rely on his assumption of a position of expertise to con the people into going along with what he is saying.
Fortunately for us (and fortunately for everyone, really), there are now a significant enough number of people saying, “Wait a minute, there are tremendous problems with this whole theory AND with the goals of the people who are foisting this theory upon the rest of us” that the average person is finally starting to realize that the so-called and self-styled experts may have simply been either wrong, or (even worse) may have been purposely attempting to deceive us from the beginning.
Even the “sheep” still have an inherent distrust of government, though it takes a lot more to awaken it than it once did, but it still can be awakened if the “sins of the government” become egregious and obvious enough. In this case, I believe that the threshold has been exceeded and that the average person is now pretty well convinced that they have been duped in this particular instance. The main question is, will the realization of being duped translate into any significant action on the part of the people, or will they largely accept it as “government as usual”?
Most people have been trained to accept the “fact” that government is terribly inefficient and will even outright lie to you, but it is still absolutely necessary, so we just have to put up with it, because “that’s the way it is”.
70
You are quite right Peter. I suppose we are all falling for the assumption that because he is a ‘professor of ethics’ he acts ethically. Perhaps he simply discusses ethics from a purely academic perspective. He knows they exist, and can describe how they work and even give plenty of examples. It doesn’t mean he actually endorses living by them!
50
Isn’t Peter Gleick associated with “ethics” in some way as well? As you say, just because someone is associated professionally with “ethics” in some way, shape or form does not mean that that person ENDORSES ethics in any way whatsoever….
Either that, or the person may truly believe that it is a higher ethical calling to lie, in such cases where the lie promotes the “greater good”.
Those who believe that lying is ethical, so long as the end result promotes the “greater good” are among the most evil and dangerous people in the world.
50
If you go back 80 years, there is a very good reason why people were skeptical of government science – the latest failure was fresh in everyone’s mind.
By the late 1930s, Government scientists across the world had tried and failed to convince governments and people to implement policies to avert the imminent “crisis” they had predicted with their statistical models. The movement was in full blown collapse – only the Axis powers took them seriously anymore. Despite massive high level support from establishment scientific organisations, politicians and leading public figures, Eugenics supporters were rejected at the ballot box.
To see how powerful and well funded this global this movement really was, have a look at the following document – created by teams of scientists working in an IPCC like international conference (their third), organised before the age of mass travel.
https://archive.org/details/decadeofprogress00inte
The lesson of history is a powerful one – anyone who listens to academics warning of an imminent global crisis is a gullible idiot.
60
Fantastic link Eric thanks.
First page first paragraph “Applied Eugenics, like religion, is essentially something for belief and practice, it is not a thing that works well if it’s imposition on one nation or family is attempted by another” well that little tidbit was well and truly proven a few years later wasn’t it, what a bloody understatement!
00
So then, Clive is a troll?
30
On a good day.
10
Odd that Hamilton would diss the AntiVax crowd. Much of the Green/Left in North America have support for the notion that vaccination is a fraud perpetrated by Big Pharma who they accuse of cherry picking, biased studies, withholding of adverse data, etc.
Health care unions in Canada were actively campaigning against compulsory immunization or mask wearing (even for those exposing fragile elderly clients) claiming immunization was useless,a plot by the pharmaceutical industry and nurses should be able to follow “philosophical and religious objections”.
A rash of H1N1 cases, deaths and subsequent run on vaccine supplies seemed to kill this story line.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-health-care-workers-must-wear-mask-or-have-flu-shot-1.2223888
30
So just to prove how peurile Clive hamiltons arguments are:
Penn and Teller on Vaccinnations
Penn and Teller on global Warming
Penn and Teller on the green movement
And Penn and teller are not funded through your taxes either. They make a much better case that Dr Clive hamilton – their logic, communication and experimental approach runs circles around Dr Clive Hamiltons’ immature and poorly developed attention seeking.
So why is anyone listening to the man? It is obvious he just comes out with these things so he feels he needs some attention, so why give it to him? Honestly, anyone who believes him is not going to change their mind about anything, because they obviously have very little capability and absolutely no tolerance for independent thought.
70
Mr Hamilton says he is a Fellow of the Royal Society of the Arts. Sounds impressive and is meant to sound so, I presume. What sort of creature would add this to his name? Read below:
http://www.thersa.org/fellowship/apply/anz
10
It makes you wonder if he also has a mail-order degree, doesn’t it?
10
More settled science from the Conversation.
https://theconversation.com/tropical-cyclone-frequency-falls-to-centuries-low-in-australia-but-will-the-lull-last-20814?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+30+January+2014&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+30+January+2014+CID_46c02ad34aa53c544b9b52a7e1992036&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=research%20co-author%20Jonathan%20Nott
Even though cyclonic activity has been in decline for the last 40 years, (empirical data) the auguries suggest that fewer cyclones mean stronger cyclones a meme that has crossed the Pacific from the US. Interestingly, there is no mention of models,merely an inference but there is a useful section on the use of stalactites as proxies.
30
Unfortunately, as the global temperature continues to drop over the next decade or 3, I suspect the activity will climb back up.
These things are driven by differences in temperature and hence pressure, and as the polar regions continue to cool, so the difference between tropics and polar regions increases.
The very slight warming there may have been over the latter part of last century, due to a series of very strong solar cycles, was highly beneficial in many ways.
But its over, and a lot of countries, particularly in higher latitudes, are going to be wishing it wasn’t.
50
ps, not much surf today 🙁 nice for a paddle though. 🙂
http://www.coastalwatch.com/surf-cams-surf-reports/nsw/cronulla—wanda
00
Kevin you may be interested to know that the astute weather scholar (wait for it) known here as John Brooks once correctly correlated the sudden drop in eastern Australian cyclone activity with the death of Elvis Presley. This insight of genius sparked a frenzy of research into diagnosing the influence of the death of The King on cyclones for cobbers. The results may surprise you. (You might even be… all shook up.)
Odd that even our own BoM at the time didn’t want to actually say “it was duuuue ta cliiimate chaaaange” and opted instead for some story about an elevated discriminatory power in meteorology during the satellite era. The weather boffins were overdiagnosing storms as cyclones before 1978, or so we were told. Overdiagnosing by a factor of 5 times if you can believe that. Overdiagnosing storms as cyclones… even after they had crossed the coast and could be directly observed.
Ha ha ha. Cornered climate alarmists say the darnedest things.
Their explanation today still carries the “discrimination” excuse, yet also carries this astonishingly honest disclaimer:
“It is difficult to sort these natural trends from those that may result from global warming.”
Yes. Quite.
31
How the hell is a stalactite a proxy for a cyclone?
They must be doing some wonderfuly inventive statistics for that one.
20
Yeah saw that. Loved this comment…
“Several recent studies published in leading journals – including these papers involving the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Columbia University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology – have all separately projected the frequency of tropical cyclones will decrease in the Australian region due to global climate change.”
Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/weather/tropical-cyclone-frequency-falls-to-centurieslow-in-australia–but-will-the-lull-last-20140130-31o6d.html#ixzz2rqg2vmRY
*head explodes*
I just don’t know who to believe anymore lol
10
this is what happens when universities are publicly funded instead of being paid for by the students. He who holds the purse strings holds the key.
40
Gore & Gates come out! all in the name of CAGW, so it’s okay:
24 Jan: CNBC: Jeff Cox: Contraception key in climate change fight: Gore and Gates
Stopping overpopulation is one way the dangers of climate change can be mitigated, according to two of the most prominent believers in global warming.
Former Vice President Al Gore and Microsoft founder Bill Gates said at the World Economic Forum in Davos that contraception is a key in controlling the proliferation of unusual weather they say is endangering the world…
Though Gore said corporations collectively are coming around to the dangers of global warming—a condition that has been the subject of fierce dispute—they still too often treat the atmosphere “like an open sewer.”
“These extreme weather events which are now 100 times more common than 30 years ago are really waking people’s awareness all over the world, and I think that is a game-changer,” he said…
He (Bill Gates), too, made a pitch for birth control as a way to reduce excess population that generates pollution, which in turn creates unusual weather events…
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101361600
00
I wonder if it will ever occur to these people who get paid by Government that implementation of the policies they advocate would result in their personal loss?
Obviously if we shut down industry, mining and current agriculture mass unemployment follows. That means less tax for the Government, so one of the first reductions would be in the non essential areas, like Universities, Commissions etc. And it is no good claiming that the “green economy” would result in higher employment as there wouldn’t be the money to pay the necessary subsidies.
20
Your comments on ClLive’s confused logic are apt. As Wolfgang Pauli is famously supposed to have said of a colleague’s paper, “This isn’t right. This isn’t even wrong.”
30
We need to reduce our carbon footprint immediately. This poster at the following site shows how. http://www.salvomag.com/new/mag/fakeads/neuter.php
20
all in the name of CAGW:
EDF may close two British coal plants by end-2023
LONDON, Jan 29 (Reuters) – EDF said on Wednesday it may close two huge coal-fired power plants in Britain by the end of 2023 as it is still deciding whether to invest in technology to allow the stations to comply with tighter European pollution laws.
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.3867591?&ref=searchlist
Wikipedia: Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station
In October 2013 the government announced that it had approved subsidized feed-in prices for the electricity production of Hinkley Point C., with the plant scheduled to be completed in 2023 and remain operational for 60 years…
Throughout 2013 the operator has been in negotiations with the Department of Energy and Climate Change and other government agencies. A major sticking point has been a demand by EDF Energy for a guaranteed price for the electricity to be produced, which was aboubt twice the current UK electricity rates. The project is part of the UK’s plans to implememt a fifty per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by the mid-2020s, which provide for building this and several other nuclear power plants…
At an estimated £16 billion, the construction costs are more than twice that of two similar EPR reactors at Taishan, China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station
EDF: From the early 2020s onwards, however, greater numbers of low-carbon power plants, such as those powered by nuclear and renewable energy sources, will be built. So retaining existing coal stations for a few more years before their final closure can make their direct replacement by lower carbon technologies more likely…
EDF Energy operates two coal-fired power stations, Cottam and West Burton, both located in Nottinghamshire, close to the market town of Retford.
Cottam power station has a generating capacity of 2 million kilowatts (kW)…
West Burton power station also has a capacity of 2 million kW…
The UK Government is encouraging investment in CCS to help reduce emissions.
http://www.edfenergy.com/energyfuture/edf-energys-approach-why-edf-energy/coal-and-edf-energy
22 Jan: Reuters: S.Korea Doosan in talks with EDF for $2.8 bln maintenance contract
South Korea’s Doosan Power Systems Ltd is in talks to secure a maintenance contract worth 1.7 billion pounds ($2.8 billion) for nuclear power plants operated in Britain by French state-controlled utility EDF, South Korean media reported on Wednesday.
EDF owns and operates 15 nuclear plants at eight nuclear power stations in Britain. They have a total installed capacity of 8.8 million kilowatts (KW).
The duration of the possible contract is more than 17 years, the media added…
Asia’s fourth-largest economy has been under pressure to curb its use of nuclear power in the wake of a scandal over fake safety certificates for parts at some reactors and public unease sparked by Japan’s Fukushima disaster.
But Seoul remains deeply committed to nuclear energy, and aims to sell nuclear technology abroad. A consortium led by state-owned Korea Electric Power Corp won a contract in 2009 to build four nuclear reactors in the ***United Arab Emirates and started construction in mid-2012.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/22/doosan-nuclear-idUSL3N0KW10N20140122
***Saudi Arabia too.
another great outcome for (pretend)CAGW alarmists like Hamilton. EDF should give him a kick-back.
00
The French are smart in utilities. They buy up all the Brit’s utilities, run them down, then get the Brits to either pay them to build new ones or to buy from across the Channel when they run out.
Is that what comes of Maggie being a shopkeeper’s daughter ? Wasnt it she who started the selling off of everything.
00
Joe:
the French only look smart when compared with the British. Since the future of the UK electricity supply has been in the hands of Loonies for years (Millibrand, Huhne and Davey in England, and Salmon in Scotland) and nothing has been done for years to safeguard the future. Salmon seems impervious to facts, data or rational thought, but lately in England panic has set in, with various Ministers doing headless chook imitations (and doing it very well if I may so).
EDF only had to wait to get their price, but it is very close to the cost of solar power.
00
“Margaret Thatcher set up the Hadley Met Centre, but later become openly skeptical.”
Quite a few of us were believers at one time, but we didn’t have the influence Thatcher had. If it were not for her, I doubt this website would be necessary.
Mind you, I doubt she had any really strong belief in Global Warming. I suspect that she just found it a convenient tool to use to destroy the miners.
30
Turnbull, ultimately the ABC – and you – are accountable to the public, and even former fans of Auntie such as myself, are sick and tired of the rubbish being broadcast at taxpayers’ expense:
30 Jan: SMH: Heath Aston/Rick Feneley: Malcolm Turnbull defends ABC after Tony Abbott’s attack
Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has strongly defended the ABC’s editorial independence in the face of Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s attack on the national broadcaster, which he says ”instinctively takes everyone’s side but Australia’s”.
Mr Turnbull defended the Prime Minister’s right to critique the ABC but, in comments that could be interpreted as resistance to Mr Abbott, he said the ABC was rightly accountable to its board of directors, not politicians…
”What’s the alternative … the editor-in-chief [of the ABC] becomes the prime minister?” he said. ”Politicians, whether prime ministers or communications ministers, will often be unhappy with the ABC … but you can’t tell them what to write.”…
”The ABC has to play it straight down the middle. The ABC has a bargain with the Australian people. They have to be rigorously balanced in their coverage.
”Remember, if it wasn’t for the ABC and Fairfax we might not know of the latest round of union corruption.”…
Coalition senator Ian Macdonald vigorously supported the Prime Minister’s criticism of the ABC on Thursday, noting that constituents asked him, ”when are you going to get rid of the ABC?”
In an interview with ABC radio, the Queensland LNP senator said it would be ”nice” to see the ABC ”occasionally reporting the positives and giving some balance”.
When asked to give an example of unbalanced reporting, Senator Macdonald replied that it was not one incident, but a ”general approach” of the broadcaster in Sydney and Melbourne.
”I find local radio very, very good,” he added.
Senator Macdonald – who last year slammed Mr Abbott office for excessive control – said many people said to him that the ABC had a ”clear left-Green agenda”.
He said that the ABC went ”on and on about minor matters that are derogatory”, nominating the issue of climate change.
***”You get weeks of a story that supports the view of ABC producers and some journalist on their view on climate change, and you get barely a whimper from the majority who understand that the climate does change,” he said…
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/malcolm-turnbull-defends-abc-after-tony-abbotts-attack-20140129-31n5z.html
***i don’t even know Senator Macdonald, but i’m rather glad he phrased it this way, as ridiculous as it sounds. however, MSM must argue for AGW or CAGW & stop the nonsense of calling it “Climate Change”.
30 Jan: Australian: Ean Higgins/Justine Ferrari: Story doubts? Why not call in fact checkers
THE ABC could have used its own fact-checking unit to determine whether allegations that the navy assaulted boatpeople and burnt their hands were true, said former editor-in-chief of The Sydney Morning Herald Peter Fray.
Mr Fray, who founded the recently closed-down fact-checking website PolitiFact, said such a move by the national broadcaster could “clarify and get beyond” the imbroglio that has forced the ABC into damage control…
It emerged yesterday that the ABC fact-checking unit had apparently not tried to verify whether the actual underlying allegation of the boatpeople being maltreated was true…
ABC director of corporate affairs Michael Millett would not say whether the unit had checked the facts behind the burning and bashing allegations.
ABC Fact Check unit presenter John Barron said the unit’s remit was not to check facts in ABC reports but to check the veracity of statements made by public figures…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/story-doubts-why-not-call-in-fact-checkers/story-e6frg996-1226813381792#
00
Every time Clive has a rant, I seem to start having delusions of intellectual adequacy. This is not false humility, because if you have not read my book on humility, you have not read anything yet!
10
it takes one para to get from good news story to doom & gloom:
29 Jan: Phys.org: Jonathan Nott, The Conversation: Record lows for Australian tropical cyclone activity
The number of tropical cyclones hitting Queensland and Western Australia has fallen to low levels not seen for more than 500 years, new research published in Nature shows…
But while that’s seemingly great news for people in cyclone-prone areas, our new research into Australia’s past cyclone records also highlights a serious risk…
Our study shows that current seasonal cyclone activity is at its lowest level in Western Australia since 500 AD and since about 1400 AD in Queensland. That decline began about 40 years ago.
While Australia’s official cyclone records only date back to 1906, we can track cyclones further back in time using measurements of isotopes housed within limestone cave stalagmites…
But while the number of cyclones is expected to decrease, the intensity of those cyclones that do occur is expected to increase…
We cannot be sure that this current decrease in cyclone activity is due to climate change – but it is mirroring the forecasts…
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-lows-australian-tropical-cyclone.html
30 Jan: The Conversation: Jonathan Nott: Tropical cyclone frequency falls to centuries-low in Australia – but will the lull last?
Disclosure Statement: Jonathan Nott receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
COMMENT by Victor Jones: I guess if there is a positive to come out of more destructive cyclones is that those who contributed to global warming the most, the rich, will be hit hardest in first world coastal areas.
http://theconversation.com/tropical-cyclone-frequency-falls-to-centuries-low-in-australia-but-will-the-lull-last-20814
00
Oh Jo Fawn Fawn
20
Sorry I accidentally posted this in the Newtons 3rd law blog post. I repost here ….
There is no doubt that modern medicine continues to discover amazing protocols, treatments and therapies but to be fair to people who are sceptical about vaccination science, the jury is still out on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines as a one size fits all modality. As a person who has a friend with a child (amongst many others) brain damaged by a vaccine I ask where is the empirical evidence that vaccines are 100% safe and 100% effective and suitable for a one size fits all approach. In fact there is no such evidence. On the contrary there are a number of papers in the published research which point to vaccines being ineffective and waning in immune response after a very short time. Unexpected waning of immunity after pertussis vaccination is now well known and is well described in medical literature. In fact, increasing whooping cough is seen in large proportions of the vaccinated population. Also the pertussis bacterium pathogen has been ‘adapting’ and resisting the vaccine. As a person sceptical about anthropogenic global warming I remain sceptical about vaccine effectiveness and safety. The Gardisil (cervical vaccine) was never thoroughly tested prior to release. The release was the testing and the CDC recommended a marketing program to report side-effects and adverse reactions. Not a very scientific method for testing something injected directly into the bloodstream of our young people. By the way, just for the record, my children have been fully vaccinated. However, I am used to being called all kinds of names because I question the ‘science’ of vaccination, just like I’ve been called all kinds of names because I question the ‘science’ of AGW.
Pertussis resurgence: waning immunity and pathogen adaptation – two sides of the same coin.
00
28 Jan: Norton Rose Fulbright: Australia: Release of Carbon Farming Initiative Legal and Contracts Guide
Norton Rose Fulbright Australia today released the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) Legal and Contracts Guide, which is now available here.
The Guide has been developed with the support of funding from the Australian Government, and draws upon our experience advising on the CFI legislation and working with clients to develop and implement CFI methodologies and projects. It builds on other resources released on the CFI, including our previous legal updates and Implementing the CFI from a market perspective: a guide for business released by the Carbon Market Institute and co-authored by Norton Rose Fulbright and RAMP Carbon (see here)…
The Guide will play a key role in helping you to understand the CFI and to maximise your commercial opportunities and environmental outcomes as the carbon policy landscape and the CFI develops over the coming 12 months and beyond.
We will be holding a series of workshops on the Guide in capital cities around Australia, as follows:…
Please email Leanne Currie if you would like to pre-register to attend one of these seminars.
http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/288892/Climate+Change/Release+of+CFI+Legal+and+Contracts+Guide
29 Jan: RenewEconomy: Graph of the Day: Would we do more if we could see CO2?
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/graph-of-the-day-would-we-do-more-if-we-could-see-co2-47561
00
the public fund through taxation universities and the abc, and both of these, it would seem to me, have been striving to support a political agenda that is broadly similar
the question remains how to regain taxpayer, as opposed to elector, control of spending priorities
and also to defund -taxpayer paid for- spending on the political agendas of these groups
00
I’ve noticed that the comparison to anti-vaccine campaigners seems to be on the increase. The Conversation is now rife with it. Maybe its a sign that the ‘denier’ campaign hasn’t quite worked so they’ve decided to go for something a lot more ‘motherhood’ as a way of smearing any sceptics.
As many have mentioned, one is tried and tested over centuries, the other is a theory that continually fails and is full of nothing but contradictions.
20
Vaccinations have been used for centuries?
10
Indeed, it seems the practice started in India and China well before the 18th Century. See here.
00
But there again, there has never been a time when the climate has not changed, so I am not sure I understand what Brendan’s point was.
00
It is believed likely that some form of inoculation was developed in India or China before the 16th century.[6] Scholar Ole Lund comments: “The earliest documented examples of vaccination are from India and China in the 17th century, where vaccination with powdered scabs from people infected with smallpox was used to protect against the disease.
Smallpox used to be a common disease throughout the world and 20% to 30% of infected persons died from the disease. Smallpox was responsible for 8% to 20% of all deaths in several European countries in the 18th century. The tradition of inoculation may have originated in India in 1000 BCE.”[22] The mention of inoculation in the Sact’eya Grantham……..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination
00
Edward Jenner,( an English physician and scientist, discovered that those who had contracted cow pox rarely caught small pox. In 1796 he conceived the process of inoculation, scratching infants with a needle infected with cow pox and proved his theory.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/jenner_edward.shtml
So yes, Vaccination, from vacca, latin for cow, has been known to Western medicine for centuries.
20
30 Jan: Daily Telegraph: Wentworth Courier: GetUp enlist Bananas in Pyjamas and Play School personality to lead pro-ABC action at Rushcutters Bay
ACTIVIST group GetUp has brought in big guns B1 and B2 to defend the ABC against Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s attacks against the national broadcaster.
The Bananas in Pyjamas joined Play School personality Benita Collings and other protesters in Rushcutters Bay this morning as part of the organisation’s pro-ABC campaign.
A “Protect our ABC” billboard was unveiled on New South Head Rd, paid for by the donations of more than 12,500 GetUp supporters.
The snap protest was held in the federal electorate of Wentworth to put pressure on its federal representative, Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull, to protect the ABC from funding cuts.
The activists held signs with messages such as “Malcolm, help save our ABC now!” and “Hands off our ABC”…
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/city-east/getup-enlist-bananas-in-pyjamas-and-play-school-personality-to-lead-proabc-action-at-rushcutters-bay/story-fngr8h22-1226813723069
oh yes, that would be this Get Up, who received a million-plus of hard-working CFMEU members’ exorbitant Union fees to carry out stunts such as the following, & push CAGW:
2010: SMH: Get Up! funded anti-Abbott ad with union’s $1m gift
THE advocacy group GetUp! accepted a record $1.12 million donation from a large union just before the federal election, at the same time supporting a ban on political donations from unions and business.
The donation from the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union funded a prominent TV advertisement that attacked the Liberal leader Tony Abbott’s ”archaic” views on women and social issues in the days before the election in August.
It went to air as a GetUp! advertisement with no reference to being largely funded by a big Labor-affiliated union.
The high-profile group, which says it has more than 300,000 members, pursues issues such as climate change and refugees…
http://www.smh.com.au/national/get-up-funded-antiabbott-ad-with-unions-1m-gift-20101112-17r7j.html
00
Interesting that “your ABC” has morphed into “our ABC”. A Freudian slip perhaps?
00
Hamilton is one of the most dangerous people in Australia. Don’t ever believe he is not genuine, he is. And what he believes is quite plain. Take his book Growth Fetish.
In Growth fetish Hamilton maps out his Utopian solution to the unsustainable lifestyle currently enjoyed in Australia. Hamilton would reduce Australia to an electricity free rural based agrarian society [and who does that remind you of?].
Hamilton is a genuine misanthrope who can only deal with other people from a position of domination and ideological imperative. The fact that he is in charge of a University is typical of the success that people like him have had in infiltrating our institutions.
92
Cohenite
I don’t suppose the good professor would care to illustrate his electricity-free agrarian society by (say) EXAMPLE? After you, Professor…
Cheers,
Speedy
00
free speech? Senator Macdonald should put together a file on ABC coverage of CAGW, which could be easily compiled from their websites. where is the balance, he needs to ask? where is the free speech for Australians who have a different, less-alarmist view of the matter?
30 Jan: SMH: Judith Ireland/Heath Aston, with Rick Feneley, Jonathan Swan: ‘What goes around comes around’: Kevin Andrews says ABC should be open to criticism
Coalition frontbencher Kevin Andrews has defended the Prime Minister’s comments about the ABC, arguing the national broadcaster should be open to ”constructive criticism” about its performance.
Speaking at Canberra airport on his way to a cabinet meeting, the Social Services Minister said that in a robust democracy, the media should be scrutinised as much as anybody else…
”I think the ABC should be open to constructive criticism about its performance as it would be about the performance of other people and other institutions in Australia,” he said.
”What goes around comes around.”
At the same time, Mr Andrews said there was nothing wrong with his frontbench colleague Malcolm Turnbull’s opinion on the national broadcaster, that appeared to be at odds with Tony Abbott’s critique.
”[The Liberal Party is] a broad church,” he said…
”There’s nothing wrong with people expressing opinions about these things,” he said, adding freedom of speech extended to the government…
Mr Turnbull’s comments were supported by Liberal western Sydney MP Craig Laundy, who posted a spirited defence of free speech on Facebook on Thursday morning, arguing that if people did not like the ABC’s work, the could change the channel.
”There are many great things about living in a democracy – one of them the luxury of free speech,” he posted…
Greens Leader Christine Milne said the ABC was independent and loved by Australians and should be allowed to freely report the news.
”What on earth is Tony Abbott thinking, suggesting that the national broadcaster not do its job but, instead, pick and choose what it reports and how it reports it on the basis of whether it supports the Prime Minister’s view of some jingoistic nationalism,” she said…
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/what-goes-around-comes-around-kevin-andrews-says-abc-should-be-open-to-criticism-20140130-31ocn.html
00
There was a time when academics were neither seen nor heard,they just went about doing what they were employed to do.
Unfortunately having degrees seems to give someone rights without conscience,for that matter academia has distanced itself from believing in a higher power,they have adopted degrees as the high power and their belief in their intelligence as the ultimate being.
As the saying goes – When men stop believing in God they don’t believe in nothing the believe in anything!
20
It was once pointed out to me, that holding a qualification simply meant that, on one particular day, in one particular place, the examinee could answer a specific set of questions, and do so in such a way, that a specific group of examiners, would collectively rate the answers slightly higher than the minimum standard required to pass. For most qualifications, passing the examination implies that the examinee is at least slightly above the median.
Qualifications prove very little about the amount of knowledge held, nor how that knowledge could be appropriately applied to any given situation. As the saying goes: To an expert in using a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
To an expert in ethics, every problem tends to looks like an ethical choice, between what is right for the majority, and what is not.
Questions around the scientific constraints on applying the ethical choice, or the political ramifications of the ethical choice, do not enter the equation, for such questions are outside the purview of philosophy.
Sociological joke: How do you change a tyre? Answer: That depends, first of all, the tyre has to want to be changed.
40
Heh, heh – liked the tyre joke. The original version I heard was, “How many social workers does it take to change a lightbulb? Only one, but the light bulb has to really want to change.”
20
It has been suggested that science didn’t start until Christianity and Islam became popular. The ancient Greeks were too vain to check by experiment or to associate with craftsmen (with exceptions such as Archimedes and Hero). If their logic was pure it was sufficient. It was only the attitude that people could not think like God and had to check their deductions with reality that sparked true science.
20
There is little doubt that scientific discovery and the technological advances that ushered in the contemporary Western world could only have occurred because of the Judeo/Christian cultural matrix from which science blossomed in Europe
Here is the opinion of the mathematician Alfred North Whitehead:
“How was it that the Christian faith aided the scientific approach of many of the original thinkers of those times and enabled them to break with the preconceptions of the past?
In his 1925 lectures, Alfred North Whitehead had said that Christianity is the mother of science because of “the medieval insistence on the rationality of God”.
Because of the confidence of the early scientists in this rationality, they had an “inexpugnable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles.
Without this belief the incredible labours of scientists would be without hope.”
Or:
“…Furthermore, Herbert Butterfield, in his book, The Origins of Modern Science, persuasively argues that the rise of modern science in the sixteenth century and subsequent periods was not the result of new information, but rather changed minds.
P.E. Hodgson also remarks, “Although we seldom recognize it, scientific research requires certain basic beliefs about the order and rationality of matter, and its accessibility to the human mind … they came to us in their full force through the Judeo-Christian belief in an omnipotent God, creator and sustainer of all things. In such a worldview it becomes sensible to try to understand the world, and this is the fundamental reason science developed as it did in the middle ages in Christian Europe, culminating in the brilliant achievements in the seventeenth century. “
These writers believe that while other ancient cultures have given great discoveries to the human race, the Christian West had the unique set of assumptions or theological teachings required by science.
The three main assumptions are: the universe (world) is orderly; this orderly universe can be known; and there is a motive to discover that order. These assumptions were not present in the Greek or Roman cultures. The Greek science of nature was not experimental. The ancients believed in a vast hierarchy of beings extending from the deity in the Empyrean heaven at the outer edge of the universe, through graded series of angels.
M. B. Foster maintains that the modern investigators of nature were the first to take seriously in their science the Christian doctrine that nature is created. Francis Bacon noted that the Greeks were simply wrong in their approach to nature because they failed to regard it as created.
Many other non-Christian scholars such as Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947), a widely respected mathematician and philosopher (see above), and J. Robert Oppenheimer (1904-1967), who was director of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, have acknowledged the role of Christianity in the birth of modern science.
http://www.christianity.co.nz/science4.htm
What relevance does this have to Clive Hamilton and most of the very mediocre alarmist climate scientists?
Apart from Clive Hamilton tending to be a nutter and obviously, from his essays, having no understanding of the so called “settled science” behind the alarmist sect of climate science, he rejects one of the key drivers of historic Western science and technology viz “have dominion over and subdue the Earth”.
Alarmist climate science practitioners are driven essentially by a Pagan rather than a Judeo/Christian view of nature in which nature is in so fragile a balance even a whiff of human emitted CO2 can upset Gaia that “spiritual being” they “worship” , also called Mother Earth.
In summary Christianity provided the motivation for a science and technology which has brilliantly “subdued the Earth” to make it a better home for those humans who today live in scientifically and technologically advanced societies.
Pagan climate scientists acknowledge no such “command or permission” and have no beneficial goal in mind. And of course their alarmism does not spring from real science but rather from their primitive religious presuppositions.
60
something to look forward to on SBS tomorrow night…again.
btw the link shows 100+ pages (1,040 results) for CAGW stories on SBS. find a fair one?
SBS: Science Under Attack (rpt) Fri 31 Jan 2014 | 1:00am | SBSONE
… to be under attack, and why public trust in key scientific theories has been
eroded – from the theory that man-made climate change is warming our …
http://www.sbs.com.au/search/?query=%22climate+change%22&form_build_id=form-f3Th3BB-6O53YTVQqtg9rIebxJ3LIwrycquRqZjatuE&form_id=sbs_global_widgets_search_block
2011: WUWT: Barry Woods: Has the BBC broken faith with the General Public?
It is my opinion that the BBC in broadcasting the BBC 2 Horizon program ‘Science Under Attack’ did not treat the general public in the UK and at least one of the interviewees with the ’good faith’ that they should be able to expect from the BBC…
However, the programs underlying message to the general public came across to me as that climate science was under attack by climate sceptics or deniers of science who are on a par with those that deny Aids, vaccines and extreme anti GM environmentalist activists.
Yet, in discussion with a NASA scientist, the presenter Professor Paul Nurse apparently makes a gross factual error informing the viewer that annual man-made CO2 emissions are;
seven times
that of the total natural annual emissions. This raised a number of eyebrows and is now subject to some discussion amongst the blogs, including at Bishop Hill.
That such an apparent major error was presented to the public as fact, in the BBC’s flagship science program, should I think raise questions with respect to the handling of all the issues within the program.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/03/has-the-bbc-has-broken-faith-with-the-general-public/
10
ABC search results for “climate change”, Page 1 of 6,553 results…with complicated navigation options to get to the stories. find something fair:
ABC
http://search.abc.net.au/s/search.html?collection=abcall_meta&query=%22climate+change%22&form=simple
00
“Hamilton argues skeptics can’t be persuaded”
Yeah funny isn’t it. I try to read and take in arguments from both sides of the debate as much as I can. On the skeptic side I find intelligent, well researched, observational based, referenced comments. On the warmist side I find insults, slurs, over simplifications, broken models, wild and inaccurate predictions and an elitist/moral high ground attitude.
I am open to being convinced any time, by anyone who reckons they can convince me CO2 drives the climate, creates warming in excess of the power of the sun’s ability to warm and that such warming will be catastrophic for life on earth. I will commit any amount of time and resources to learning why my current understanding of “the science” is wrong. I imagine Jo and David, at the end of the day, are of the same mind. The last thing they want is to pour all this personal effort into arguing a position that is wrong, what would be the point? I imagine they would change their views (as they have done in the past) to align them with the best evidence in a heartbeat, skeptics not only can be persuaded, we are in the main eager to be persuaded, by EVIDENCE!
So as usual and just like others (Oretski, Cooke etc) Mr Hamilton’s unimaginative attempt to pigeon hole skeptics is unsurprisingly incorrect. That probably makes him eligible for a promotion and a pay rise.
80
30 Jan: Australian: Dennis Shanahan: ABC’s Asia TV Network faces axe
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/abcs-asia-tv-network-faces-axe/story-e6frg996-1226813457204
multiple letters:
30 Jan: SMH: Sorry, PM, the ABC should not be a cheerleader for Australia
SMH: Letters to the Editor
Tony Abbott’s criticisms of the ABC being anti-Australian are spurious and just plain wrong. The ABC is the only reliable news- reporting media Australia has at the moment.
The ABC’s website has a ”fact checker” which sets out its aims to ensure accuracy of reporting, unlike commercial media. The ABC also has many mechanisms monitoring bias within the ABC. This was set up by Jim Spigelman, chairman of the board.
The ABC fact-checking team monitors the media daily for contentious claims. Opinions and exaggerated rhetoric are avoided and the site asks for audience feedback via Twitter, Facebook or its contacts page…
Bill Johnstone former NSW president of Friends of the ABC, Marrickville
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-letters/sorry-pm-the-abc-should-not-be-a-cheerleader-for-australia-20140129-31n3f.html
Memo to Bill Johnstone:
It emerged yesterday that the ABC fact-checking unit had apparently not tried to verify whether the actual underlying allegation of the boatpeople being maltreated was true…
ABC director of corporate affairs Michael Millett would not say whether the unit had checked the facts behind the burning and bashing allegations.
ABC Fact Check unit presenter John Barron said the unit’s remit was not to check facts in ABC reports but to check the veracity of statements made by public figures…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/story-doubts-why-not-call-in-fact-checkers/story-e6frg996-1226813381792#
00
like Paterson, i do not criticise ABC for reporting on the Edward Snowden NSA revelations, in fact i fault them for not doing more on the “Five Eyes” arrangement, not digging into the TPP, not reporting on Agenda 21, not exposing the CAGW scam, etc etc. imagine ABC’s outrage if the Snowden revelations had taken place when George W. Bush was US President! indeed, i fault ABC for not having reported on American so-called “Progressives” becoming completely disillusioned with Barack Obama.
30 Jan: SMH: James Paterson: Ignore the hysteria: it’s time we privatised the tone deaf, left-leaning ABC
(James Paterson is the editor of the IPA Review at the Institute of Public Affairs)
No media organisation is above criticism – even from a prime minister. That’s especially the case when the media organisation in question is funded by taxpayers.
The reaction to Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s criticism of the ABC has bordered on the hysterical.
Former ABC managing director David Hill told Fairfax Media Abbott’s criticism was “dangerous”. The Age’s political editor Michael Gordon labelled it “astonishing”. The Guardian’s Katharine Murphy warned darkly that things might “escalate”.
The ABC is not such a faultless organisation that it should be above criticism. As a media outlet totally funded by taxpayers, it deserves much greater scrutiny, and has special obligations to be rigorously fair, balanced and impartial. As an organisation, it has shown itself to be tone deaf when it comes to the legitimate concerns of many Australians, that it leans to the left and is not a welcome home for conservatives or classical liberals – particularly among its salaried employees.
In many ways the ABC has made a rod for its own back. Its defenders are right to argue that it should not be an uncritical cheerleader for Australia, and that it should place the pursuit of truth above nationalism. The ABC was perfectly entitled to report on revelations from Edward Snowden on the growing apparatus of state surveillance in much of the Western world. It was a legitimate news story unquestionably in the public interest, and ignoring it would have done Australians a disservice…
Ultimately the case for reforming the ABC does not rest on one week of reporting. If there was ever a case for a taxpayer-funded state broadcaster, it doesn’t exist today. Australians have at their fingertips access to more news from more varied sources than ever before. Online, every niche interest and point of view is well covered. And as private media companies continue to struggle with profitability, the continued lavish funding of the ABC only serves to undermine their business model further.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/ignore-the-hysteria-its-time-we-privatised-the-tone-deaf-leftleaning-abc-20140130-31o39.html
00
who is asked to comment tells us a lot:
29 Jan: UK Independent: Kathy Marks: Australian PM Tony Abbott attacks unpatriotic ABC over broadcaster’s lack of ‘basic affection for the home team’
While his comments bemused some observers, others feared they might herald cuts to the ABC’s budget – which some of Mr Abbott’s conservative colleagues have demanded. He ruled out funding cuts during last year’s election campaign, but has already shown himself prepared to break campaign promises.
The acting opposition leader, Tanya Plibersek, defended the broadcaster. She said that “every government has been subject to the scrutiny of the ABC, and we should all welcome that”. …
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/australian-pm-tony-abbott-attacks-unpatriotic-abc-over-broadcasters-lack-of-basic-affection-for-the-home-team-9094253.html
BBC doesn’t even attempt to explain the doubts about the asylum seeker abuse story:
29 Jan: BBC: Australia’s Tony Abbott calls broadcaster ABC unpatriotic
The ABC has been at the forefront of reports on abuse claims from asylum seekers and reports that Australia had spied on Indonesia.
The ABC had no immediate comment on Mr Abbott’s statements.
However, the opposition said that the government should welcome media scrutiny…
Acting Opposition Leader Tanya Plibersek said every government had “been subject to the close scrutiny of the ABC, and we should all welcome that”.
“From emergency broadcasts in times of trouble to coverage of the events that shape our nation, the ABC is there, ***free for all Australians,” she said…
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said: “We need strong voices in parliament to stand up for the public’s right to an independent national broadcaster”.
Critics have accused the government of secrecy over asylum policy…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25925312
29 Jan: UK Telegraph: Jonathan Pearlman in Sydney: Tony Abbott says ABC unpatriotic
Tony Abbott launches “extraordinary” tirade against Australia’s public broadcaster, the ABC, saying it takes “everyone’s side but Australia’s”
A political commentator, Michael Gordon, said the “extraordinary” comments were hypocritical and deeply flawed. He pointed out that ABC had just helped to break one of the week’s top stories, an expose of union corruption which came just as Mr Abbott revealed plans to launch an inquiry into union misconduct.
“Tony Abbott’s tirade against the ABC betrays a deeply flawed view of the role of the Australian media,” he wrote in The Age.
“That it comes from a man who has always expressed pride in his past life as a professional journalist makes the outburst all the more puzzling … This astonishing proposition – that coverage should be somehow skewed by nationalism, or patriotism – sits uncomfortably with the ideals of a robust democracy with a free, fair and fearless media.”
Labor said the ABC was “there for all Australians” and its coverage had always been tough on the ruling party…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10604115/Tony-Abbott-says-ABC-unpatriotic.html
00
29 Jan: WUWT: Bombshell from the Snowden Docs: The U.S. Spied on Negotiators at 2009 Copehagen Climate Summit via the NSA
From the “don’t trust but verify” department comes the revelation that the Obama administration went into COP15 negotiation with spy help…
The document, with portions marked “top secret,” indicates that the NSA was monitoring the communications of other countries ahead of the conference, and intended to continue doing so throughout the meeting. Posted on an internal NSA website on Dec. 7, 2009, the first day of the Copenhagen summit, it states that:
“Analysts here at NSA, as well as our Second Party partners, will continue to provide policymakers with unique, timely, and valuable insights into key countries’ preparations and goals for the conference, as well as the deliberations within countries on climate change policies and negotiation strategies.”
“Second Party partners” refers to the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, with which the U.S. has an intelligence-sharing relationship…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/29/bombshell-from-the-snowden-docs-the-u-s-spied-on-negotiators-at-2009-climate-summit-via-the-nsa/#more-102417
00
It begs the question given the previous revelations – who was surprised they spied on Copenhagan and how naive did they have to be to be surprised?
00
Some time ago, I sat through many episodes of Clive doing ‘Media Watch’.
It was a mistake to spend my time thus.
These days, some of my scariest dreams involve Clive Hamilton changing a tap washer.
20
Professor of Public Ethics holds forth?
I poo my pants.
00
i may be cynical, but surely one of the main purposes of bbc sending a team for 4 weeks on the Chris Turney Expedition was to gather footage/supporting evidence to back up these two papers, which i feel sure bbc KNEW IN ADVANCE were coming out in the New Year?
whilst varying topics were discussed on the four bbc Discovery programs, it was always the Adelie penguins dying out because of CAGW that dominated Andrew Luck-Baker’s news appearances, with the BBC presenters even asking leading questions on the matter:
WUWT: Counting Your Penguin Chicks Before They Hatch
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Well, the BBC, which as I understand it is an acronym for ”Blindly Broadcasting Cra- ziness”, gives us its now-standard tabloid style headline, that
Climate change is ‘killing penguin chicks’ say researchers
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/29/counting-your-penguin-chicks-before-they-hatch/#comment-1554393
29 Jan: UK Daily Mail: Sam Webb: Penguins in peril from climate change: Chicks are dying because of rainstorms and heatwaves, claim scientists
Birds in Argentina and Antarctica are dying from shifts in weather
Many chicks die from extremes of temperature and rainfall
In some years, climate change was biggest cause of death
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2548164/Penguins-peril-climate-change-Chicks-dying-rainstorms-heatwaves-claim-scientists.html
29 Jan: Guardian: Press Association: Penguins suffering from climate change, scientists say
Heatwaves killing Magellanic penguin chicks in Argentina, and Adelie penguins in Antarctica are finding it harder to feed
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/30/penguins-suffering-climate-change-scientists
00
remember this study came out during the Turney Fiasco:
9 Jan: NatureWorldNews: Emperor Penguins Adapting to Climate Change, Study Suggests
Scientists from the Australian Antarctic Division and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego in California also worked on the current research.
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5580/20140109/emperor-penguins-adapting-climate-change-study-suggests.htm
8 Jan: PLOS One: Emperor Penguins Breeding on Iceshelves
That emperor penguins can move their breeding site depending upon ice conditions to a more stable location, including onto the top of the ice-shelf itself, means new factors should be incorporated into modelled population trajectories for this species. Whether such factors will provide temporary or permanent relief from the impacts of climate change remains uncertain.
The fact that emperors exhibit a previously unknown breeding behaviour, intimates that other less-well known species may also have similar unknown adaptive behaviours that may also offer temporary or permanent relief to the challenges of climate change…
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0085285
00
Penguins made it through the Holocene optimum, the RWP, the MWP, the LIA.
Were they around during or before the last major ice age, most probably, and that was far more harsh than anything we flimsy modern humans have experienced.
They seem to be able to adapt quite well to these natural variations in climate and weather…. tough little buggers…
…… otherwise they wouldn’t still be here.
10
And in today’s world that will be the last thing we get, either here in the states or there in Oz. I keep wondering if the degree of rabid polarization we see now is something new or whether it was always there and I just didn’t recognize it for so many years.
I suspect it’s a little of both. It was probably a lot easier to miss and less tempting and less easy to participate in it in the days before such instant communication as the Internet, Twitter, Facebook and a host of others. I also suspect it has to hit rock bottom before there’s a chance of improvement. The more’s the pity. 🙁
30
Hi Roy,
I think the polarisation was allways there, but the speed of communication and the ability for people to focus on a topic is accentuating it. Those who didn’t used to have much of a voice are now making their voices heard.
One of the keys is that online media has given introverts a forum. I see the situation where the introverted specialists are challenging the extraverted generalists which is challenging the extroverts’ power. Let’s face it, most leaders these days are generalists by their very nature – unfortunately many have very little substance to them.
As allways, I think the generations that grow up in the new media will probably end up showing us “pre internet Generations” how to manage it. They have allready learnt to be their own editers and censors of the barrage of information they have been exposed to.
10
Mostly the former. If you observed the OWS movement, what you saw was very few “homeless” or “poor” people, mostly privileged snots of the wealthy doing their Peter Pan imitation. Someone coined the term “affluenza”, which basically means a feeling of guilt for being successful. This is related to that, but these snots are not even the ones that were successful, but their ancestors were. And now (starting with the post WWII generation) is the first time in history where people have more free time to whine about their good fortune, than at any time in history.
So instead of channeling the free time into constructive endeavors that help mankind (that some do such as Doctors without Borders), they use it to demonize and destroy the institutions that gave them the ability to be slugs.
Many will point to figures throughout history that displayed the exact same characteristics (the latter part of your question), but those were much fewer and farther between (how many Karl Marxes were there?). So yes, it is indeed something new. And as long as some channel their energies into productive outlets and society continues to progress to reduce “needs”, the parasites and slugs will continue to feed on the bounty and try to destroy it.
10
Phil,
I’ve believed for a long time that we humans have become too successful for our own good. And I don’t mean that in the sense that we have, as some complain, over populated the Earth. You seem to echo my understanding quite accurately.
MadJak,
“…very little substance…” is a masterful understatement.
20
And to Clive Hamilton — get yourself a real job.
40
Parasites do not know how to do real work.
00
30 Jan: Reuters: US consultancy ICF wins bid to help plan China carbon market
U.S. consultancy ICF International has won a 5-million euro ($6.8 mln) contract to help the European Union advise China, the world’s biggest carbon-emitting nation, on designing a national emissions trading scheme (ETS).
ICF fought off competition from other carbon advisory firms eager to get involved in designing what is likely to be the world’s biggest emissions market, worth billions of dollars, when it launches before the end of the decade…
…and has sought expertise from Europe, which has operated its own market since 2005…
The EU project is one of several offering assistance to China in designing a nationwide carbon market. The Asian Development Bank and the World Bank are funding other initiatives. (Reporting by Stian Reklev; Editing by Joseph Radford)
http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/01/30/china-carbon-idINL3N0L412J20140130
Wikipedia: ICF International
ICF International, formerly known as ICF Consulting, is a management, technology, and policy consulting firm based in Fairfax, Virginia…
ICF employs more than 4,500 employees in more than 60 offices worldwide. Washington Technology ranked ICF No. 64 in its “2011 Top 100” list of the largest government contractors based on prime contracting revenue…
ICF was founded in 1969 as the Inner City Fund, a venture capital firm established to finance inner-city businesses. Its first president was C. D. Lester, a former Tuskegee Airmen, who was joined by three U.S. Department of Defense analysts…
ICF’s Integrated Planning Model (IPM®), a detailed model of the electric power sector, has been used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in support of its air regulatory analysis for more than 15 years. ICF provides support to EPA in applying the model…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICF_International
LOL:
2013: Desmogblog: Ties That Bind: Ernest Moniz, Keystone XL Contractor, American Petroleum Institute and Fracked Gas Exports
Congress will review the Obama Administration’s nomination of Ernest Moniz for Secretary of the Department of Energy (DOE) in hearings that start today, April 9.
Moniz has come under fire for his outspoken support of nuclear power, hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) for shale gas and the overarching “all-of-the-above” energy policy advocated by both President Barack Obama and his Republican opponent in the last election, Mitt Romney…
As first revealed on DeSmogBlog, Moniz is also on the Board of Directors of ICF International, one of the three corporate consulting firms tasked to perform the Supplemental Environmental Impact Study (SEIS) for TransCanada’s Keystone XL (KXL) tar sands pipeline…
Moniz earned over $300,000 in financial compensation in his two years sitting on the Board at ICF, plus whatever money his 10,000+ shares of ICF stock have earned him…
Moniz’s American Petroleum Institute Ties to Shale Gas Export Advocacy
In this arena, the DOE – via the consulting firm National Economic Research Associates (NERA), a firm with historical ties to Big Tobacco – said exports of the U.S. shale gas bounty (LNG exports) were in the best economic interests of the U.S. in its long-awaited Dec. 2012 report…
If he receives congressional confirmation, this means Moniz will jump ship from his ICF Board of Directors position and have the final say over DOE LNG export decisions.
While heading the MIT Energy Initiative, Moniz also worked alongside John Deutch.
Deutch headed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) under President Bill Clinton and now serves as head of the Board of Directors of Cheniere Energy, a corporation that owns many proposed LNG export terminals along the Gulf coast…
If he receives congressional confirmation, this means Moniz will jump ship from his ICF Board of Directors position and have the final say over DOE LNG export decisions.
Further, the Vice President of ICF International is Karl Hausker, the husband of Kathleen “Katie” McGinty, one of the members of the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Hydraulic Fracturing Advisory Panel and also a member of the DOE fracking subcommittee. She recently threw her name into the ring as a Democratic Party gubernatorial candidate for the 2014 election in Pennsylvania…
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/04/09/ernest-moniz-keystone-xl-contractor-american-petroleum-institute-fracked-gas-exports
29 Jan: News Ltd: The man who could be US president: Ernest Moniz, the country’s Energy minister
EVERY year when the US president gives his annual State of the Union address to Congress, there is a “designated survivor”.
That is a member of the President’s cabinet who is taken to a secure location during the address in case a calamity occurs that wipes out the president, vice-president and the rest of Barack Obama’s executive team.
This time, that man is a fellow named Ernest Moniz. He’s the country’s Secretary of Energy and also well known for having a distinct, wavy bob…
And despite the polarised nature of American politicians, the country’s Senate voted unanimously to confirm him to his position…
http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/the-man-who-could-be-us-president-ernest-moniz-the-countrys-energy-minister/story-fnh81jut-1226812986353
but do Hamilton, Lewandowsky & other CAGW zealots approve? i wonder.
00
30 Jan: ABC PM: Rising carbon dioxide affecting health of fish living on the Great Barrier Reef
MARK COLVIN: Queensland researchers say rising carbon dioxide levels are causing worsening health effects for fish living on the Great Barrier Reef. A James Cook University study has found the changed water quality is affecting the eyesight of some reef fish.
A conservation group says the findings are a further reminder of the extraordinary pressure being placed on the reef.
Caitlyn Gribbin has more…
PHILIP MUNDAY: So, what we’ve looked at is a thing called the critical flicker fusion rate, and this tends to be correlated with the activity level and the environment that an animal lives in. So if they live in a very bright environment, they’re very active, they have a high critical flicker fusion rate. If they’re more sluggish or live in a dim environment, they have a much lower one.
And what we’ve found is that the sorts of CO2 levels we ***might see*** in the atmosphere later in the century, and also in the surface ocean, actually reduce the flicker fusion rate of these fish. So ***it’s affecting*** their vision, directly affecting their vision, and affecting their retina…
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3935130.htm
00
29 Jan: Bloomberg: China Panel Makers Turn Solar Farmers to Counter Glut
Combined, China’s top five panel producers are planning at least 4.6 gigawatts of projects this year, enough to power 5 million homes in the nation and almost quadruple the capacity completed last year…
State planners in Beijing are pushing the expansion with the China Development Bank Corp. extending 7.57 billion yuan ($1.25 billion) in new loans since December, the same system the nation used to wrest control of solar panel manufacturing away from German, U.S. and Japanese companies in the last decade. The move will solidify the finances of the manufacturers after a plunge in the cost of the technology triggered losses across the industry for more than two years…
Since 2010, the China Development Bank has committed $68.8 billion of credit lines to solar, wind and other clean energy companies though the exact amount of loans disbursed isn’t known, according to a research note published in April by London-based Bloomberg New Energy Finance…
China’s top five panel manufacturers completed 1.29 gigawatts of solar farms last year, according to data compiled by BNEF.
Yingli Green Energy Holding Co., based in Baoding, China, Trina Solar Ltd. and Shangrao, China-based JinkoSolar Holding Co. had combined losses of $2.85 billion in the two full fiscal years to Dec. 31, 2012, according to data compiled by Bloomberg based on company statements…
The nation plans to add 10 gigawatts of solar power in 2014, the National Energy Administration said last week in a statement. Developers in China installed a record 12 gigawatts of solar panels in 2013, almost matching the total amount of solar power in operation in the U.S. according to data compiled by Bloomberg…
Yingli this month agreed to form two separate ventures with China’s Datong Coal Mine Group and China National Nuclear Corp. Both ventures will develop solar farms…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-29/china-panel-makers-turn-solar-farmers-to-mitigate-industry-glut.html
00
the CO2 industry proudly boasting of market-fixing once again:
30 Jan: Bloomberg: EU Environment Panel Backs Faster Approval of Carbon Fix
Ewa Krukowska, Jonathan Stearns
***The market fix, known as backloading, would delay the auction of 900 million carbon permits in 2014-16 until the end of the decade. For the fix to be enacted, the Parliament and EU governments must finish their scrutiny. The commission, the EU’s regulatory arm, then needs about three weeks to adopt the plan and notify market participants of the new auction calendar…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-30/eu-environment-panel-backs-faster-approval-of-carbon-fix.html
31 Jan: BusinessSpectator: Reuters: California carbon to track low
A glut of excess permits will keep California carbon prices low through 2020, reducing the revenue the state will raise from the sale of permits to its largest carbon-emitting businesses, according to a new analyst report.
The output of heat-trapping greenhouse gases from California’s carbon market partner Quebec was 12 per cent lower than anticipated last year, analysts at Thomson Reuters Point Carbon said on Thursday, which means prices for the linked market will hover just above the program’s auction floor price of $US11.34 a tonne this year.
As a result, California’s quarterly permit auctions will only raise $US21 billion for the state through 2020, far below the projections of up to $US60 billion floated by some analysts when the program launched in 2012…
Earlier this month, California Governor Jerry Brown released a 2014-2015 budget that proposed spending $US850 million of the program’s revenue on projects designed to reduce the state’s carbon footprint, including $US250 million on a controversial high-speed rail project.
Carbon allowance prices are expected to rise gradually in the coming years. The auction floor price is set at $US11.34 in 2014 and will increase by 5 per cent plus inflation every year. Thomson Reuters Point Carbon estimates the price floor will hit $US17 in 2020…
Buyers have also shown increasing interest in purchasing permits covering emissions in future years like 2016, indicating that they believe the program won’t be derailed by a lawsuit in the near term.
“That level of banking – plus the recent sellout of future vintage allowances at California auctions – suggests that California companies know the market is here for at least six more years” said Ashley Lawson, a senior analyst with Thomson Reuters Point Carbon. ”What they’re still looking for is some certainty about what happens after 2020.”
California policymakers are expected to release preliminary details of the post-2020 cap-and-trade program in the coming weeks. Officials have suggested that they will extend the cap-and-trade program out to at least 2030.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2014/1/31/carbon-markets/california-carbon-track-low
00
29 Jan: UK Independent: Tom Bawden: EU energy commissioner says it is “arrogant or stupid” to think cutting Europe’s carbon emissions will have an effect on global warning
Mr Oettinger argued that the EU was only on course to meet its existing target because the economic downturn had curbed industrial output and the closure of polluting soviet-era plants in Eastern Europe.
“These were low-hanging fruits but there are no more now, so every percentage going down gets more difficult and cost-intensive,” he said, adding that the EU is responsible for just 10.6 per cent of global emissions today, a sum that would fall to 4.5 per cent in 2030 if the target was met.
“To think that with 4.5 per cent of global emissions you can save the world is not realistic. It is arrogant or stupid. We need a global commitment,” he said…
Experts agree with Mr Oettinger that even a significant reduction in emissions in Europe – and much less the UK – will not in itself make much difference to global warming. However, Ed Davey, the Energy and Climate Change secretary and others hailed Europe’s 40 per cent target as a crucial step towards reaching a global agreement because it made developing countries more likely to follow its lead.(???)
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/eu-energy-commissioner-says-it-is-arrogant-or-stupid-to-think-cutting-europes-carbon-emissions-will-have-an-effect-on-global-warning-9094061.html
00
Joanne is ‘killing’ these people with her logic and her arguments.
Anyone who looks at this site knows this is true.
Joanne please keep up the good work. Many people like myself are behind you.
Joanne is a person of great courage with her insght and logic into the truth.
Everyone – please keep the arguments simple and focus on the real issues.
This way we will convince others of the truth of our argument and thus win the day.
Geoof W
10