|
|
||||
Ted Cruz — US Presidential candidate and skeptic who “follows the science” on climateI don’t see how this man can possibly get elected. On climate change he is far too sensible. This is one of the best short video responses by a politician that I have ever seen. Such clarity… The full video is at the right scoop. If this man stays in the campaign running for long he will change the dynamics of the whole public climate debate. h/t to Joe B. Thanks 🙂 The short killer summary:
The Skeptics Handbook. The most deadly point:
The Missing Hot Spot. 225 comments to Ted Cruz — US Presidential candidate and skeptic who “follows the science” on climate |
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets
  |
|||
|
Copyright © 2024 JoNova - All Rights Reserved |
||||
If only we could elect this guy! (I’m hoping…)
If ‘Bill’s wife’ (Hillary) gets in we’re screwed.
Henry.
401
A sound and reasoned response to a silly (gotcha type) question by the interviewer (notice his frustration?). But he won’t get in, even though on this one issue he’s sane, otherwise he’s a fundamentalist nutbar with silly ideas about abortion, human rights (including racial issues) and other matters.
43
Ted is the smartest guy in the room.
301
But sadly, Cruz is also a fundamentalist (I believe)
and chose to announce his candidacy at Liberty University
(same place as Reagan, maybe).
My friend with whom I disagree on climate change as
he does not look into it himself (we are a chemist
and a biologist) immediately went to Liberty’s website
and found that all their students have to take a course
in Creationism. Kind of plays into the idea (even though
it is not true for most) that those who “deny” climate change
are also creationists.
542
I don’t know much about Cruz, but Cruz didnt’ even study there according to wiki. He just choose to do a speech there. Unless he says it himself, I would not assume he agrees with everything they teach.
Wiki has no mention of “creationism” in his entry.
I presume all the GOP politicians are courting the Christian vote by speaking there:
“Almost every single GOP presidential contender in recent years has spoken at Liberty”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/03/25/heres-why-liberty-university-has-become-a-pilgrimage-site-for-gop-candidates/
400
Ted Cruz graduated with honors from Princeton University and with high honors from Harvard Law School, see http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=about_senator
130
Bill_W: if you have not studied a subject, how can you construct a rational argument against it? Unless yours is the mind-set of: “Well, that cannot be true, so I will not bother looking at it…”
I do hope you do not call yourself scientific.
210
I don’t think one would have to sit a course on the flying spaghetti monster to have a reasonable and scientific view that it is highly improbable. Perhaps I misinterpreted your point?
42
Bill W most be quite amused. The irrelevant religious trolling totally destroyed this thread. Score many points for the AGW side who will point and laugh, and rightly so. Science is based on empirical evidence, religion is not. Let’s not confuse the two.
One can talk hypotheticals for which no evidence exists, but that is philosophy or theology, not science.
60
agreed, what a bunch of bananas. If someone wants an argument about evolution please pick on me but don’t bother if you don’t actually know what evolution and natural selection are (looking at you Backslider)
01
It does seem that apart from today’s biologists getting and keeping a job a scientist’s views for or against creationism have nothing to do with the advancement of science.
Creationists like the peerless scientist, Isaac Newton and thousands of others who were both scientists and creationists including Louis Pasteur and many others spring to mind.
Even today there are some notable scientists from all science disciplines who find the mathematical probability for spontaneous evolution a mathematical impossibility and favour an intelligent “direction” of the process. Some of those scientists call themselves theistic evolutionists. So Cruz may be in a little more august scientific company, if indeed he is a creationist, than you assume.
92
Llew Jones, you say …
The mathematical impossibility argument is mathematically infantile. Those that propose this spend a lot of time on the denominator of the fraction (probability can always be expressed as a fraction) showing how large it is and do not look at the numerator of that same fraction. However large the denominator, the numerator in terms of the number of particles, interactions, locations and time intervals over the scale of the universe is many, many orders of magnitude larger and so what you have is not a mathematical impossibility but instead you get a rather large statistical population.
90
TS I’m an engineer with very little knowledge of biology and no interest in the theory of evolution as a naturalistic explanation of how our universe including how Earth’s life forms came to be. For me it has about the same validity as say the biblical creation narrative.
I did note that one evolution defender, John Rennie, in the Scientific American attempting to refute the claim:
“Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.”
says this: “….It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.”
That is telling in that even a committed evolutionist contends that evolutionary theory requires a less stringent application of Popper’s falsifiability test.
That of course is the test we skeptics would like to apply to AGW/ACC but if we cannot apply it to evolutionary theory does it not indicate that we may be talking about an alternative historical narrative rather than a robust testable scientific theory?
It you check I think you will find it was on this same ground that Louis Pasteur rejected Darwin’s theory.
As evolution is of no interest to me as a scientific theory I got the notion of “impossible” probability with respect to the theory of evolution from one of my favourite climate scientists, Roy Spencer. Engineers have more important probabilities to think about, like how will the Bombers go under Hirdy this season.
85
Don’t bring that up! Now alarmist will say that deniers also think that the Essendon saga was all about keeping the ALP’s blackest week in politics out of the papers.
10
Re Bombers – Unburdened Domination (Admitted nonsequitor) 🙂
00
Truthseeker, pardon me if I take the word of a far more sophisticated scientist than you, Ilya Prigogine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Prigogine
“The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”
(Joint paper by I. Prigogine, N. Gregair, A. Babbyabtz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28.)
31
Bert,
I have two significant words for you … Bacteria and Viruses. They change and evolve while we watch them. To say that evolution has a mathematical probability of zero is to ignore the real universe and all of its rich complexity.
21
Truthseeker, I think evolutionary scientists do realise the significance of the numerator. Therefore they have to extend to infinity the existence of the universe in order to allow for the highly improbable.
Deep down, everyone, even those who profess to be atheists, know that there is a Creator. For the complexity and the perfection of the cosmos and all life to have happened by chance is so much an act of faith that it make those who believe in a Creator seem logical by contrast.
When it boils down to it, the only reason that evolutionary therefore has been propounded is that it enables mankind to avoid accountability to a higher moral authority. If mankind can theorise God out of existence then we are of the hook in terms of eternal accountability.
Evolutionary “scientists” have this vast yawning gulf – how did one species give rise to another. There is not a shred of evidence of this occurring today and there is no fossil record to show this has ever occurred previously. But they are so desperate to explain away God that they are prepared to pin their hopes on the absence of evidence.
22
Grant(NZ)
The fossil record, patchy though that it is, is full of progressions of life forms from one to another over time. To say otherwise is just wrong and not supportable by the observational evidence available to us.
Personally I see theism and atheism as the heads and tails of the same cursed coin and do not waste any neuron activity on either. They are both based on logical fallacies and not worth the endless debate that they generate, which is ultimately a pointless spiral of irrelevant conjecture.
11
Truthseeker,
Let’s look at your average die. It has six sides each of which has a number carved into it. On each throw, there can only be one result.
In words: The result is always one out of six.
As a fraction: 1/6
What happens if you throw twice and get a different number each time?
In words: Each of the two results is one out of six so two results is two out of twelve which reduces to one out of six.
As a fraction: 1/6 + 1/6 = 2/12 = 1/6
And what happens if you throw twice and get the same number?
In words: The result is two out of six which reduces to one out of three.
As a fraction: 2/6 = 1/3.
The more throws we make, the larger the numerator, but given that the possible outcomes are very low (the denominator), in this case only six, the fraction can be reduced.
The Mathematical Impossibility Argument
When we look at life on earth, the shortest strand of DNA has only so many atoms and they are arranged in a very specific way. This is equivalent to one side of the die. The denominator, as you stated. This is the ‘result of the throw’, the specific outcome, that we’re looking for.
You stated that the problem is that creationists are always looking at the denominator and not the numerator. This is only partially true.
The hypothesis is: given the number of possible combinations that atoms can take, according to physical laws, enough time has elapsed in the history of the universe that the specific combination of atoms in the simplest strand of DNA that we know of, will occur by random combinations of atoms.
The null hypothesis is: not enough time has elapsed.
With the use of computers, it has been determined that there are so many possible combinations of “the number of atoms required to form the simplest strand of DNA” (the denominator), that not enough time has elapsed, because . . .
The number of wrong combinations is so astronomically high that the numerator, as large as it is, isn’t large enough. Not by a long shot.
Prompting a famous nobel laureate, forget who, to propose that life arrived on earth in the ice of comets. In skeptic lingo we call that ‘moving the goal post’. 😉
Abe
01
All complete bollocks. Well done. Give me an example of the mathematical improbability after you’ve evaluated whether it is debunked.
02
Creationism can mean anything from a belief in the literal truth of the Bible narrative to a belief in intelligent design:
– Albert Einstein.
Climatism is likewise a teleological belief, that humans are interfering with the climate, altering the way it ought to be or is meant to be, just as the anti-GM crowd say about food crops, and that the interference is intrinsically bad, even if the outcome is on balance beneficial to mankind.
That’s why a catastrophic consequence is essential to their narrative and trying to argue with genuine climate alarmists about costs/benefits is futile.
261
To the alarmists, interfering with the atmosphere by adding CO2 is intrinsically bad irrespective of the effect on climate.
150
Very true. I just wish that the alarmists would do something themselves to solve that problem, but it seems that they might add as much CO2 as they want; it is beholden upon we others to limit our additions.
90
Everything that exists, has either always existed up to this time, or have come into existence as some time and at some point. Since I exist, I am not qualified to speak for that which does not exist.
80
Even the most staunch Skeptical Atheist’s would have to consider Creationism in any evaluation methods, think about it.
174
I am scientist and through a process of elimination have concluded that creationism is a non-scientific idea. Evolution and creationism are not compatible and are mutually exclusive.
The Idea of the Big Bang and hence the creation of the universe does not have to invoke a creator. Spontaneous formation of subatomic particles in a vacum happens all around us billions times per fraction of a second. These virtual particles come into existence momentarily on a “borrowed” negative energy before they disappear. Now expand that concept to the universe scale and you have have “a spontaneous creation” at much larger scale. This means that we live in an effectively borrowed energy universe that is stretched to say 100 billion years instead of a split milliseconds. This occurs because of the uncertainty principle that is now stretched to a universe scale. We can do this comparisons as the universe at the moment of creation was a subject to the uncertainty principle and was behaving like a subatomic particle. The other way of thinking about this is to think about the virtual particles as failed big bangs. If you repeat this infinitive number of times what do you get? A monkey that can write a Shakespeare or the formation of the universe.
Having said I assume that we are not talking about bible,s fairy tales?
194
I’m actually an atheist Dariusz but I came to the conclusion if you’re to be completely honest with the scientific method and yourself you simply cannot dismiss what is thought of but unknown like any other scientific ideas, I found that ‘Hard atheism’ was the same as strong religious belief where the utmost certainty blinkers you to seeing only what your reasoning will allow, I cannot see the point in either.
151
YS
Don,t doubt you are. I came from a strong catholic family, been on the verge of becoming a priest so I know what is like to be religious. I am not against religion either, unless someone interferes with my freedom. I am atheist now, but really don,t understand what ‘hard atheism’ means. If you refer to commies or nazis than this is a complete misunderstanding. I do recognise the fact that both Christianity and atheists committed millions of deaths in the name of atheism. Now Muslims are doing it.
My Atheism is a byproduct of individual thinking, not the result of it. I am very interested in a science that attempts to Answer big questions. One of them is the science of cosmic evolution. I am not trying to destroy the creator. If fact you can say that I am looking for him and can,t find a single trace of him.
61
Dariusz I’m not hinting that your a commie or Nazi that would be very insulting so apologies for any misunderstanding.
This is a good link to what I was trying to say on Hard Atheism and conveys the message much better than I did, from your reply I see we are of the same opinion which is interesting to see as many seem to think our views to be rare but many that delve into these questions with an open mind often come to the same conclusions.
I have to improve my more serious comments as people tend to expect some satire or lowbrow humor instead. 😉
41
YS
many thanks for the link and it looks like I am a hard atheist. I did not think you meant any of the comnazi stuff. Just making sure.
Having said that this blog is frequented by not obviously climate skeptics (I am one of them) but also believers in god. This is of course a prerogative of an individual person and I stay out of any religious polemic. The only exception is when science is mixed wih god. Whilst no religious discussion about the weather is taking place (perhaps with the exception Of the pope trying to get in) I see mental blocks related to creation and evolution. The same people that are so passionate about the climate logic aren,t ready to apply the same rigor to bigger questions. I see adherence to religion by the right as mostly harmful to the cause of the individual freedoms and hence republicans and liberals in Australia chances to win elections.
Jesus after all was the very first socialist that created the envy toward more successful people.
Will leave this topic as I have not wish to offend anyone’s believes on this forum.
41
There are no atheists in fox holes, I can assure from experience. When the communist mortar bombs are landing, no need to reflect on the subject
20
Ahaaa……. OK.
So where did this “negative energy” that the universe is borrowing come from?
60
The negative energy is an old physical concept. Hawking refers to it in his books. The world is like a pendulum always striving for the lowest energy possible but never attaining it as it always overcompensated and goes to the other sides. The same with the universe. The borrowed negative energy is the same, nothing unusual about this. Like for each particle there was antiparticle initially before their all annihilated other leaving the rest or us, again this unbalance allowed by the uncertainty principle.
If you asked me about who created physical laws this is simple again with the multiverse theory when you have infinite number of trials during which our universe is created and only this one in which we can exist.
63
Dariusz,you haven’t answered the fundamental question. Are you really saying the universe appeared spontaneously from nothing – no matter, no energy – nothing?
60
Me@home
Yes we came from nothing or zero energy plane that was disturbed by the uncertainty principle. When this zero energy plane is disturbed then the energy bubble is created and we live in it until it comes to zero energy again. Despite what you may think we live is a universe that after say 100 bill years will die in cold or return to zero energy through entropy and normal dissipation of energy according to the laws of physics.
You may say that god is the uncertainty principle as we the direct result of it. Hardly a heavenly creator eh?
55
So there was something there – a zero energy plane and it was disturbed by what? BTW what has your speculation about what I might think got do with the price of fish? Please tell me you’re joking.
42
The argument is that random is not alternating. Entropy is related to probability and as its likely that in an infinite universe that there will be highly ordered areas that are very large and heading to greater entropy, we can exist in such an area by chance. If we weren’t in one, we wouldn’t be talking about it.
Now back to science. If you want to be religious, find one that is more liberal towards sex and is a little more sciency with its superstition. How about Scientology?
10
The last hundred years of physics with all it.s imaginary friends and zero point energy is a crock of Sh ,t . It makes less sense than the global warming theory, real science is being done in all fields but is by necessity done under the carpet, as going against the status quo is still career or life threatening. Sadly this is modern science.
10
Dariuz,
The uncertainty principle statesthat we cannot know the both,
1. the position of a particle (within a reference system)
and
2. it’s momentum (Like velocity, linear momentum is a vector quantity, possessing a direction as well as a magnitude)
To simplify this, a reference system is just a way to describe where a particle is.
Momentum is just what direction it’s going at what speed.
The problem with knowing both of these pieces of imformation (data points) is that in order to measure either of them, we have to bring some other particle into contact with the particle we want to measure. By coming into contact with the particle being measured, the particle making contact with it must, by necessity, alter both the location and the direction of the measured particle.
This is where the uncertainty comes from.
By definition, then, without any particles, there is no uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle is what is called an emerging property. If there are no particles to begin with, what you call ‘the zero energy plane’, then there is no uncertainty principle.
To put it yet another way, the uncertainty principle only describes what is already there and therefore cannot be used to describe something that is not there.
Rational thought, by application of valid logical arguments, proves that the idea that because of the uncertainty principle particles can come into existence from nothing, is as false as 2 + 2 = yellow.
The thing which you call the zero energy plane, even if it exists, cannot be disturbed by the uncertainty principle because the uncertainty principle describes the disturbance of particles that already exist.
No particles, no disturbance.
No disturbance, no uncertainty principle to describe it.
Abe
10
Only if you consider one model of evolution
00
Daruiz,
The first statement in bold letters, contradicts the second statement in bold letters. Infinite means that no matter what quantity you define, there is always another quantity that’s bigger. You cannot, therefore, repeat something an infinite number of times and give a finite result because to give a finite result you have to stop repeating. If you stop repeating then you’re not repeating an infinite number of times.
Please think this through carefully.
Abe
00
Correct me if I’m wrong but the whole theory of evolution was initially based on Darwin’s finches-whom he noted ADAPTED to different beaks in different seasons due to the change in vegetation. At times they would adapt back to a previous beak-sounds like devolution-it appears to me the theory of evolution should be called the theory of adaptation. FTR-I’m agnostic-I don’t believe evolution fully explains us nor do I comprehend the idea of a creator. I do think we humans are a fluke-and alone in the universe.
00
And so what if he is a fundamentalist Christian, (and I doubt you know what that actually is), and so what if he does believe in creation. Who are you, I, or anyone else to say that creation and evolution are mutual exclusives.
181
My position also TedM. I can’t see why God cannot create by means of evolution. To say otherwise is to limit God who we Christians believe is almighty!
211
Ditto Annie
R-COO- K+
80
Annie… that is not what creationists believe. It is not how the Bible describes creation. You can concoct any sort of complicated untestable caveat filled theory but it wont have a basis in science. The FSM is justs as good as any such construct.
01
Gee Aye
Please do not take offense, as none is intended.
I am curious. Do you speak for all “creationists”? Do all “creationists” believe exactly the same things? Is there only one interpretation?
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
—Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species
The full title is “On the origin of species, and the race for survival”. It has been some time since I read the entire thing, but I very definitely got the impression that Darwin’s thoughts were very much along the same line as those expressed by Annie. Some very recent work with RNA suggests that Lamark was not so far off the mark.
To which version do you refer? Had it occurred to you that it is possible to infer some logic to scripture without taking each word literally? Consider the audience for which these verses were composed. The audience was an ancient people, requiring some guidance in dealing with the mysteries of the natural world, many of which they did not understand. In fact, it is still possible to ponder over these mysteries, since while we may have a better understanding than ancient desert-dwellers, there is plenty that we do not understand. I wager that the ancients had an understanding of some of those mysteries which have long since been forgotten.
When you read Shakespeare, do you take each word literally, or do you, with your intelligence, discover images and ideas that are cloaked behind those words?
I have read your comments for several years. In my imagination, you are a person who is well educated and well read. I expect that your contributions to society are manifold. I anticipate that you are a person of “upstanding character”; one who is capable of a clear contrast when considering right and wrong. I suspect that you possess an outstanding work ethic. Were you born with this moral compass, or have you been influenced by the culture in which your skills developed? Had you considered the possibility that this culture was in turn heavily influenced by one or more of the major religions? More than likely Judeao-Christian?
Can we move this discussion to the end of the thread? The post is not about creationism. Please no more here. – Jo
10
Simple answer to this Rod is that there is a thing called “creation science” that is attempting to appear like a cohesive theory/hypothesis/whatever it is. I was being loose with my language and was meaning this attempt at a unified creation theory and was comparing it to Annie’s wishful concept that tried to make her and everybody happy. So you are right, I appeared to characterise creationists as being unified in their definition which I know is not the case.
Thanks for the indulgence Jo… I’ll desist now. It is probably going to happen again. If you discuss a particular candidate you must expect discussion of their views and their context. Containing that discussion can be a problem though.
00
Understood. I took it as a sort of nasty put down of Annie’s comment. Blame it on the medium! Cheers.
00
That’s almost a parallel with Isaac Bashevis Singer – “We must believe in free will, we have no choice.”
Try a thought experiment. Scientists discovered the calendar is incorrect; it not only needs an extra day every few years to keep it properly aligned with the seasons, but needs a whole fortnight ripped out immediately. You can’t do that – it will ruin the crops, cause plague and havoc, and change the climate. The sun will stop in its tracks. The non-rational Catholic Church did it. The more modern protestants didn’t agree with the logic for another century and a half. The rational atheists of the Soviet Empire waited until after the Great War.
PS – What was Galileo doing in 1582?
30
The Catholic Church could not have done that without rejecting Copernicus’s ideas. His model was just too clumsy. There would have been more to the story. There would have been the same pettiness we see in science today. The “we need to stop humans raping Mother Earth”/”we need to stop the irreligious decay of society” zeal or just the basic office politics of needing to placate egos and be a mini me. In the end though, Copernicus’s and Galileo’s ideas were based on a simpler explanations but their’s was nowhere near good enough to match observation.
20
Why do we need “creation”?
Matter and energy exist. I don’t need to know where they came from, or if a supernatural being created them.
Let’s go with what we know, rather than inventing fantasies to explain what we don’t know.
I worry about Cruz being a religious nut, so I’m waiting to hear what Rand Paul comes out with. It’s a pity his father Ron never got a guernsey. The Republican selection looks like fun, doesn’t it?
11
Those creationists proud to believe,
In God,would hardly deceive,
By manipulations,
Of climate,the nations,
As warmists a tangled web weave.
170
Unfortunately, there are many who purport to believe in God, but who also believe or purport to believe in AGW. In my view the two positions are irreconcilable.
If one truly believes in God, then it is inconceivable that He would create a universe with a planet and environment that is so imperfect and unstable that it can be threatened by the actions of mankind. Especially when he has commanded that we “subdue the earth” Genesis 1:28. I respectfully submit that pollution and the damage we have done to the environment is a result of greed and sin, but I don’t believe that we can have the impact that the alarmist’s models predict.
10
Bill_W nails a critical point.
But, with the ALL the religions (the home of creationism) hitching their donkeys to the Doomsday Global Warming cart, a tipping point is reached:
20 June 2013, ABC: Religions speak with one voice on climate policy
An open letter from Australian religious leaders
(Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Uniting Church, Baptists, Salvation Army, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Baha’i )
~ ~ ~
As in this satirical video from the Onion, which now imitates life, will it be a global warming doomsday, or biblical one?
Youtube: Christian Groups: Biblical Armageddon Must Be Taught Alongside Global Warming
. . .
At this stage of the debate, the ‘creationists’ are firmly on-side with the 97% climate doomsday consensus.
61
Bill_w,
Liberty College is a RELIGIOUS school,a conservative group that Cruz is one of,therefore not surprising that he chose to speak there.
Issac Newton was an astrologer,alchemist and very religious,but he manage to discover Laws of Motion.
What about Nicholas Copernicus, who was a Catholic Priest, but manages to realize that the SUN is the center of the Solar system.
What about Georges Lamatre, a Belgian priest, who first proposed what is now called the “big bang” in 1929.
The point is that religious people have done good,even productive science while they are very religious.
Senator Cruz,is making it clear that while being a Religious man,still considers science an important part of our life.He alike many skeptics,do not accept the full brunt of the AGW conjecture. Only the first half of it has been validated, but so feeble a warm forcing, it matters little in the long run. It is the never seen large Positive Feed backs, that fails to show up,which is why there is little to no warming the last couple decades. CO2 by itself will NEVER be a warming force on the planet, as it is a trace gas with a minimal IR absorption range and nearly saturated.
Most candidates are religious anyway,thus picking on Senator Cruz,for being religious,as a Baptist,is unfair.
170
Keppler wanted to be a minister but was talked into becoming a teacher of mathematics and astronomy.
There is also Nicholas Steno (became a bishop). He doesn’t seem to get enough credit even though there are a few things in science named after him.
00
Still trying to find on google if Cruz is a creationist but interesting to know he has an academic background in law. Not too many lawyers are intelligent enough to see through the ACC scam e.g. Obama.
Here’s a bit from WP on Liberty College and Cruz:
“Liberty is the perfect school to help the party’s right wing forget Cruz went to Princeton University and Harvard Law School. It may be the largest private nonprofit university in the country, in part because of its extensive online program, but no one calls it “elitist.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/23/why-liber
10
Seriously? Has the US under the Kenyan degenerated to the point someone must HIDE going to Princeton and Harvard Law School and hope everyone forgets? (Except the Kenyan himself, who us Soooooooo smart or at least was.)
51
I had to study gender discrimination in my arts degree. It was a core subject. It did nothing to change my views or my beliefs.
00
Nor, I’m guessing, did it do anything to further your understanding of the universe. When one is young, one tolerates that sort of drivel as being a brief interlude in an otherwise taxing academic schedule. In hindsight, it was blatant theft of potentially productive time when I could have learned something useful, dammit!
00
This has been our version of ‘Lysenkoism’ with imaginary ‘back radiation’, a radiant emittance, potential energy flux to absolute zero our era’s ‘Phlogiston’. 4 basic Physics’ mistakes came from Sagan and have been taught to US Atmospheric Science for 50+ years; ALL practitioners were deceived. The modelling is fake; the discrete OLR emission zone from Hansen et al in 1981, 33 K GHE, was a trick to offset ‘back radiation’ by 238.5 mean negative convective heat flux to stop predicted temperature gradient exceeding Lapse Rate.
333 – 238.5 = 94.5 excess energy is imaginary, 94% supposed to go into the oceans, the remaining 5.7 being 3.5x increase of atmospheric emittance in the industrial age, mostly CO2. This ‘positive feedback’ does not exist, coming from using 1/3rd excess low level cloud albedo as a hind-casting parameter trick. For 2/3 rds cloud cover it means sunlit oceans are twice as warm above the correct mean as it is cooler under clouds.
Now the atmosphere has stopped heating we have had nearly 70 spurious explanations as to why the 5.7 has suddenly decided to enter the ocean deeps where it can’t be found. It never existed.
In reality, the atmospheric water cycle exactly offsets the non-feedback GHE that well mixed GHGs would create for a cloud free planet. There is no CO2-AGW on our World but it’s impossible to bypass Corporation and Government funded blocks to real Science as they keep the Hoax alive.
Houghton knew the real Science; he showed in Fig. 2.5 of his 1977 ‘Physics of Atmospheres’ why there can be no net surface IR warming of a grey body atmosphere (Lapse rate keeps surface and atmosphere temperature drop near zero; main GHG bands mutually annihilate same band surface IR).
When he co-founded the IPCC he switched allegiance to the fake GISS physics and now Lay Preaches Thermageddon; apparently the same role as Priestley in the 18th Century. It took 7 years for the Phlogiston Hoax to die after Lavoisier proved it wrong. I give the IPCC Hoax another 21 months; 7 years from Climategate!
90
Another appeal to irrevevant authority, Ted is a creationist with zero scientific knowledge.
03
Frank,
You’re a zero creation with irrelevant knowledge.
20
Right! He can’t possibly get elected, because he is a man of convictions… Many of his fellow Republicans will even be happy to brand him a denier.
230
Cruz lacks swagger.
He doesn’t make one want to jump up and follow him.
He may not be able to get young people to the polls.
So I believe Hillary could beat him.
The press will make her an angel and Cruz Satan himself.
If Walker or Paul gets the nod I look for the dems to dump her and get O’Malley.
Although, from what I’m seeing the dems may nominate O’Malley anyway.
Less baggage.
Better swagger.
Executive experience.
O’Malley might be tougher to beat.
26
The interviewer asks if Cruz is out of step with young people.
Firstly, if young people are out of step with old people this does not mean there is some problem with the old people, as either side could change to rectify the mismatch. Old people have learned more lessons the hard way, but most old people have less ability to change. I don’t know which of those two effects dominates.
But having everybody agree is not quite as important as ensuring the most optimal outcomes are reached via the most economical action. If individuals predict accurately, but people disagree on the desirability of the outcome, then at the very least some sort of dynamic equilibrium compromise will be reached through the opposing actions of many. That’s probably close to the world we already live in. If nobody can predict the consequences of their own choices then the whole thing goes to hell quite quickly. So it’s more important to have an accurate mental model of the world than to be harmonious about goals.
Therefore the interviewer’s question is unproductive. A better question is, who is most out of step with reality?
Why would we think this is split across generational lines anyhow?
I don’t know the survey results on youth belief in CAGW, but there is plenty of evidence on the web that whatever fraction of youth believe in CAGW they believe it very vocally and belligerently. As an example from just yesterday, read the comments on Reddit about this article:
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/30hfnl/australias_140_top_polluters_will_set_their_own/
Just count the fallacies. The “Wrong side of history” circular argument. CO2 is pollution double standard. Rampant ageism ad-hominems. Abbott666 genetic fallacy. And yes… it’s cliché but true… these people vote.
50
early, often and in many key electorates.
10
I never thought that in million years I would agree with anything Cruz said.
Will wonders never cease! You know, even a broken clock is right twice a day –
but I would not depend on it to run (or win).
116
How embarrassing is it when your politically-based stance on science forces you to align yourself with fruitcakes and nutters? then again, maybe you guys recognise a fellow traveller. Too funny.
————–
Joker, more ill-will and namecalling? Is that your best? Time send for reinforcements. – Jo
01
The Galileo-Flat Earth connection was a bit of a screamer but, hell, I doubt if Americans have heard of Galileo. They probably won’t notice.
420
Americans do not know who won the American Civil War.
77
Canada?
20
The bankers won the “civil war”.
10
Even religious fundamentalists knew the world was round. Read Bede’s Ecclesiastical history of Englind, written in the 8th century, and you’ll see he knew the earth is round.
Galileo also had his shortcomings. Living in the Mediterranean, he was unfamiliar with strong tides, and thought Kepler was nuts for believing the moon was the cause of our tides.
Although intelligent, Galileo was a bit of an a**hole, and brought on his own problems. He accused Grassi of being a drunk and suffering hallucinations after Grassi wrote on comets. Likewise, he accused Scheiner of ripping off Galileo’s idea’s on sunspots. Being only human, Scheiner and Grassi naturally detested Galileo, and sickd the inquisition on him by stating his belief in atoms went against the Catholic belief in “transsubstantiation”.
190
Brilliance often is accompanied with ars.. behaviour. Einstein was the same. I have come across my fair share of ars… And most of them were and are terrible.
I don,t judge how people behave. I judge them on how they think.
80
Interesting approach Dariusz.
In my experience other peoples behavior is what matters, and what they think irrelevant.
It’s behavior that can kill you, where as what people think does nothing.
10
To be strictly accurate, Galileo was prosecuted by the Catholic church because he publicly challenged church authority, not because of his scientific belief.In fact, the church unofficially accepted the validity of his, and several other scholars, on the subject.However, due to church/social politics they were obliged to maintain a particular stand in public.
Had Galileo kept a low profile and pushed his views without blatantly and deliberately attacking the authority of the church, the course of history would have been significantly different.
As has been stated above, he was an assh*** who liked to shoot off his mouth. Then he paid for it. Hardly surprising.
100
Galileo was a space probe! Everybody knows that, duh?
70
Yeah, that bothered me. The shadow of the Earth on the moon during an eclipse is round. That’s been observed for millennia. Cruz has some serious homework to do.
10
A brave politician talks sense,
While others just sit on the fence,
And shut down their brains,
To false climate claims,
By being so clueless and dense.
500
These need to be published in on place so that we can read them at will.
R-COO- K+
90
OOOPS …………….one place……
40
I just wish one of our politician could say something similar with the same conviction.
290
saying things with conviction, but not having criminal convictions…
20
@Kirby
To agree, or intelligently disagree with something someone says, you have to listen.
First, make sure the person said what they “said”, ie quotes, not paraphrases by the opposition.
Second, understand the context.
A broken clock is not right twice a day. A clock is a device for tracking the passage of time. If it is broken it does not do so, and is always wrong. You need to access an accurate timekeeping device to confirm the possible coincidence it is correct at a given moment… the broken clock itself isn’t telling you anything.
Most of what Mr Cruz says can be tested. Some things are opinions you can agree or disagree with, some are facts that can be tested against reality.
And some, like the allusion to creationism, are conflations typical of the global warming crowd and not worthy of the tenor of discussion usually found here.
I am not sure Mr. Cruz is electable, to a national office. Senator from a populous state is a pretty good steppingstone betokening electibility, though not necessarily qualification for office.
There is a somewhat mysterious “connection” with voters we see from time to time from both sides of the spectrum. Mr Clinton and Mr Reagan shared a group of voters that may have provided both the winning margin.
But he will give you a clear exposition of his views, less ambiguous than most. He didn’t wiggle on the warming question, did he?
280
He may not be electable.
I read earlier about the difficulty electing a bi-racial graduate of an ivy-league school who was born in another country and has no executive experience.
Impossible!
Never happen, you say!
What idiot would vote for that?
60
Apparently a big group of idiots did.
00
Maybe his honesty and integrity will be his downfall. US voters may prefer a more polished presentation of what they want to believe.
10
Control of the energy sector and every aspect of our lives. Such clarity! Thank you. A child of two mathematicians who believes in evidence based science. Now that’s new. You could see the interviewer was frustrated and wanted to argue, but so unlike our ABC and especially the non interviews of Jon Faine, did not interrupt at all.
As for being out of touch with young people and therefore go along with Global Warming/Climate Change simply to get elected, his implied answer was that young people will actually listen, so tell the truth. That is so different to most politicians. A serious part of the Climate Change marketing phenomenon is that it has reached such a fever pitch among the press and interviewers, that politicians refuse to confront the utter contradiction between the predictions and the facts.
280
Wow Im speechless. What a seemingly sensible man. If everything he said wasn’t completely undermined by the fact that he’s a politician, Id be impressed. He must have another agenda and its probably to take control of the energy sector and every aspect of our lives, its the only game in town for these people.
Yes Im even sceptical of people who agree with me these days, that’s how bad its become.
156
LOL!!
100
I believe Ted Cruz is a good man. I would vote for him over any other politician in America. He keeps telling the truth just as he has on global worming on many other subjects as illegal immigration/open borders, deficit spending, not accepting jihadists into the mainstream, betrayal of our best allies, helping Iran get nuclear weapons and long -range missiles to deliver them to Israel, Europe, and the west coast of the USA, etc.. But now the radical leftists have their long knives out for him and he is accused of such nonsensical things that are untrue. He has a steep hill to climb, but I sure hope he makes it.
Thanks for the post here Jo.
370
I’ve written before and I’ll write again – God bless Ted Cruz.
He will polarize people, I only hope those that love him outnumber those that don’t.
290
We do.
90
Lure out the RINO’s first and cull them from the party, even the white ones as they’ve recovered to un-manageable levels in the political environment.
130
A very good interview to see. At least there is one presidential candidate who understands the science, and that the same dubious arguments are used for global cooling, now warming, now climate change.
Coming to the local situation are there many politicians who really have the same understanding as Ted Cruz on the subject and are prepared to keep an open mind? Shorten no, Milne no, Hunt no, Abbott ? …… Jensen yes.
In view of the enormous expenditure on global warming it’s time that a critical look was taken of it since there hasn’t been any of significance for 17 years or so, even as budgetary measure to see if we are getting value for money.
170
Agreed, but Tony Abbott, who got rid of the CO2 tax, is overall a good team leader, and while Dennis Jensen is on top of the science side of things, how would you rate his ability to respect and work with others as part of a team ?
80
Zero – Jensen has beclowned himself and will never hold senior office. And A666ott hasn’t organised the team coherently – they’ve done nothing to make cuts, picked fights they can’t win, and relied on out years to demonstrate fiscal repair. He has allowed loons to remain in damaging PS roles, accepted abhorrent advice that an economy growing at 3% was “too weak” for cuts – it’s now growing at 1% as commodities have a GFC.
20
Commodities are simply returning to more realistic price levels. Gold prices are still high by historic standards. Most don’t seem to comprehend the massive mining construction boom we went through. The GDP fall off from decreasing construction was forecast a year or two ago. Construction will still taper somewhat. This was expected… heck even the RBA wrote papers about it.
10
Hi Bulldust,
Suggest that you adjust the gold price for inflation…before making that historical claim.
00
1 out of 10
00
I doubt he knows the science. Hell, who does?
But at least he can recognize when he’s being conned.
I like that in a leader.
50
He may not understand climate science but, he understands the scientific method and the need for evidence.
That’s another trait I like in a leader.
50
Let’s see which candidate will stand up for solar variability as the real reason the climate changes. It’s one thing to be against the “consensus” groupthink, it’s quite another to have a viable replacement explanation that is communicated well and registers with the voters.
180
Yes, it seems odd to me that solar activity has not been picked up by people who have not climbed aboard the anthropogenic climate change bandwagon. Not only is it scientifically sound, but it is perfectly plausible explanation for those who seek to develop and confirm their beliefs by listening to others rather than looking at the basic information themselves. Once one understands that solar activity is not constant, but is variable, then it is a very short path to accepting it as the explanation for whatever changes we can trace. Nevertheless, there is one thing that disturbs me about it as an explanation, and the advocacy of the non-anthropogenicists. On the one hand there are arguments that the temperature figures are fudged, and that there has been little or no change over long periods, on the other that sun activity matches the graphs of change provided by the anthropogenic community. That is trying to have your cake and eat it too: ‘The real change, if any, is not what the anthropogenicists say it is’ and ‘Sun activity matches the changes the anthropogenicists propose.’ I have not seen this dilemma tackled, and wonder if Jo has a view? I should say that I have grave misgivings about the anthropogenic proposals and agenda, and am very strongly swayed by the solar argument, but I become unsettled in this when I read of temperature fudging and that some reach the conclusion there has been little or no warming at all if one looks at the unmassaged data – a proposal I am also not disinclined to accept.
100
By the way, I am not talking of the hockey stick graphs when I refer to ‘the graphs of change provided by the anthropogenic community’. Rather, I am talking of the more generally accepted graphs of change, for example at http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/analysis-finds-global-warming-of-20th.html and in other papers referred to at that (excellent) site.
10
You have hit on a qualm of mine too. Making an accurate model of “solar sensitivity” is difficult when one isn’t quite sure what temperature data series is the best representation of reality. Perhaps one thing to do is to make several estimates based on several data series and present them together as a range of possibilities, as much as I don’t like that idea, as it could look too much like the many IPCC model “spaghetti” scenarios – “iffy”.
40
The USA needs a UKIP, Ted Cruz has to himself a demographic representing (based on you recent article) 25% of the American Public. The possibility is there for a massive shakeup of not only the Dems but the GOP itself. Global warming sceptics need to decide NOT TO VOTE FOR ANY CANDIDATE THAT SUPPORTS GLOBAL WARMING ACTION. Transfer your votes even if it means voting for the other side, make it clear in emails to the candidates that belief in fairy tales like global warming makes them unfit for government in your eyes. If they are so incompetent as to not be able to see the simple refuting arguments or they are prepared to lie about it in order to get elected then they are not the sort of person you want in Washington. Use your vote to make a statement, register if you are not, and take a political stand. To make a difference you just need one term, surely 4 years of Ted Cruz is worth it if you sink the carbon brigade for good. Maybe he’ll even have a shorter pen, and a smaller phone.
Dem voters, just for the record I lean to the social progressive, but HATE it when the government starts to interfere with my world, whether I have a pool, what light bulbs I can use, whether I should use ethanol in my car, hell, whether I can go fishing at my local beach. Lately the progressive politics has slipped left and is all about social control, largesse and bribery of the public without any economic responsibility seeping in there anywhere. This has been predicated on placing “the planet” and getting elected ahead of actual people. It has gotten sooooo bad that I have had to vote conservative – so far for 2 terms. I don’t like it but it is necessary to preserve individual freedoms, and get the countries economic future sorted for my children’s benefit. The right voter backlash will bring both parties to heel on climate change propaganda. I urge you to consider what is right for your country, and vote for the right candidate to bring that about even if that means voting against your traditional alliance for a term or two. Remember, it’s about what is right in the long term even if that is uncomfortable restraint and debt reduction. Look behind the curtain, it’s certainly not about the trinkets they hold out for you at election time, the colour of the candidates skin, or their gender, or even whether homosexuals should marry (which debases a central a pillar of your society). It’s just about preserving a life of freedom and opportunity for your kids. No matter what they tell you, more rules restricting what you can and can’t do, or new and inceeased taxes will not preserve freedom and opportunity. Despite what the greens say, you can’t tax your way to success.
Go to it
250
Bobl
Always sensed that you were on the left side of the spectrum and thank you for your post. Having said that being on the right that does not mean that I am anti gay, pro gun, a racist or don,t care about the planet. I am exactly the opposite and yet would never vote democrats or in oz land labor worse greens. The reasons you outlined already about individual freedom and individual responsibility. In oz we use the “nanny state” which is a trivialising description of giving up our freedoms.
120
What if one was not anti-gay, just pro-marriage, owned and used licensed firearms, but wasn’t pro-gun, and abhorred racism in both individuals and as expressed by entire ethnic groups (does that make one a racist or an anti-racist?), and cared enough about the planet to put the well-being of the human race above that of environmental advocacy groups? I would grit my teeth and vote Labour or the Greens in order to punish my preferred party, for example, if they made a self-professed champion of carbon offsets trading their leader.
60
Wouldn’t characterise myself as left, rather centrist, though I have voted Labor a lot. Hawke was very good, and didn’t like Frazer much, was very Anti Howard because of his lies (Never Ever be a GST) and never voted for him because of that lie. Likewise Gillard Lied about the Carbon Tax and Never saw my vote. I hate being lied to, especially on the big things, Yes, Yes Abbot has turned on a few smaller promises but on the whole the Big Issues (Boats, Carbon % Mining taxes) were done – he is on notice with me at the moment but if he can address the debt and keep us out of Paris on climate then I’ll probably judge him pretty well. In contrast I judge Labor very poorly at the moment, their stance in the senate has derailed the debt repair and I consider them to be putting their own interests ahead of the country by doing so. The various royal commissions have flushed out a lot of corruption in and around the Labor party that doesn’t smell very good. This doesn’t play very well with me, someone who is seeking above all, some sort of honesty of purpose.
To get back in my good books the Left need to start really caring about the people they profess to – that is NOT supposed to be union officials, Muslims and Gays. They need to come backs to the centre and start giving a hoot about the MAJORITIES. They need to dump climate change and rampant environmentalism, and stop trying to tell me where I should fish, what light bulbs to use, whether I can clear a fire break on MY OWN PROPERTY or how to THINK (so-called Political Correctness). While I care for the world and the worlds people, and I’ll do what I can, what I want the most is to be left alone…. The Left can’t seem to manage that at the moment, and the Tories are only marginally better.
PS Oksanna – If labor or the Greens said they were dumping AGW and had a real plan to address the debt instead of slogans (and I could trust them – which I can’t) and the Libs stayed with direct action them I would change my vote. Having said that the chances of that happening are about the same as a snowball has in hell.
120
A good post bobl.
00
The interviewer looks like he wants to strangle Ted Cruz. Like he’s holding back strong anger.
140
It’s called “Recursive Stupidity”, I’m writing a paper on it based solely around the CAGW Cult.
A few that have been rescued from the cult describe a red mist that descends over your eyes when a cult denier dares to disagree with the dogmas and blocks out any reasoned thought processes.
240
I get the same thing with any subject I’m committed to. Which is why I recognize it.
It’s like a blind fury, that clouds the mind and blocks thinking. I refuse to act upon it because i recognize what it is, but I still experience it. It takes several seconds to re-gather my thoughts and catch up with the conversation.
40
Same here Greg, it’s a natural reaction to Recursive Stupidity which I labeled “Recursive Frustration” 😉
20
I agree, but if I turned warmist and had 15-20 minutes with him, I would make him suffer. His main mistakes are a)reference to “global temperature” as something real and b)not saying that the main foundation of the climate scare “greenhouse effect” is non-existent, physically impossible.
The arguments about that “pause” in “global warming” and some failed predictions can be dealt with by warmists successfully, unfortunately.
85
I think the opposite is true. The interviewer, the warmist, was gob smacked and he was the sufferer when faced with such clarity.
170
I do not think you get my point. Right, in the context of this interview Cruz did very well, but at the same time, like I said, under more favorable conditions a well prepared warmist could have made him lose fairly easy for the reasons I mentioned above.
115
How exactly does a “well prepared warmist” get around the fact that the world has not warmed for 17 years? Short sentence please.
110
Just like that: it is irrelevant, since the official warmism does not suggest a constant warming. Look at their diagrams. All you can claim is therefore merely a failed prediction by models, but this does not refute in any way the main point about “CO2 warming the world”, which is meant physically, by the “greenhouse effect”.
Usually when dealing with persons who use that irrelevant argumentation about “pause” it is sufficient to ask a)if they believe in “global warming” after the industrial revolution (showing the diagrams when necessary) and b)if they deny that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas”. The answer is usually “yes” and “no” respectively. Thus they confirm both nonsensical foundations of the climate scare and are no real threat any longer.
16
So, muddy the waters and leave everyone none the wiser?
40
The other side (me) does not deny warming either. It is its cause that we all want to debate. If the bad humans did what the warmists claim then not only the “pause” (which is a loaded description by itself as it suggests resurgence of warming and no temperature movement in the opposite direction) should not be there but the warming should accelerate with the co2 increase. The co2 effect works in closed systems like In the lab or greenhouses. But the earth is not a closed system and hence it does not work with the same intensity or feedback.
Geologically there is no correlation between the temperature and co2 and I am ready to debate anyone with a different view, if need be for more than “15-20 minutes”.
40
There is no CO2 effect even in closed systems. Warming in greenhouses has nothing to do with CO2.
20
Greg House,
You blew it right there. The model outputs are the diagrams. All of the model-generated diagrams predict steady warming. The models are designed specifically to represent the hypothesis of co2 induced global warming. If the models fail, so does the hypothesis.
But that’s not even the real issue.
When a hypothesis is put forward in a scientific investigation/experiment, it must contain a predicted outcome. That prediction must be such that the outcome of the investigation/experiment will either confirm the hypothesis or reject it.
The IPCC has made it clear that it does not deal with predictions but rather it deals with projections. A projection, by definition, can be modified, a prediction cannot. AGW adherents are constantly re-assessing their projections. Science calls this ‘moving the goal post’. What they do is termed post-modern science which is based on the idea that even if the conclusions are not definitive, action should be taken anyway. (also known as the precautionary principle – a political concept not a scientific one)
Science is predicated on predictions not projections. Science does not subscribe to the moving of goal posts. Science does not accept confidence level percentages.
Science deals with verifiable facts contingent on being falsifiable. Anything short of that is not science.
Abe
10
I agree somewhat with GH. The interviewer was fairly lame and generally displayed superficial knowledge of the policy areas discussed. This was an easy win for Cruz. However, I did get a sense of Cruz being a solid debater and would like to see him up against a more challenging interrogator.
50
In fact, I thought the whole interview appeared to be a GOP promotional piece rather than hard hitting journalism.
40
That is not unusual for most of the left-leaning media, they are so sure that they are right that most of them go into these types of interview completely unprepared.
50
Victor Ramirez,
There is ‘no way known to man’ that will allow one person to know exactly what is in another other persons head. The facial expressions of the interviewer can just as easily be explaind as those of frustration. Frustration at not being able to find a way to interject because of the veracity of the statements put forth by Mr. Cruz.
Ted Cruz may be a great debater, but it sure helps to have the truth on your side.
Abe
10
Big, bold, brash and beautiful. And all of DC hates him. They hate him because he’s right. And he’ll come to any debate prepared for battle, for which they will soon enough hate him even more, both Democrat and Republican alike.
Whatever the outcome I’m going to enjoy Ted Cruz on the campaign trail.
And it’s too early to count anyone out. So you Democrats relax and get your own house in order. Ted Cruz will be able to handle himself very well. And may the best man win (and that ain’t Hillary).
240
I should have added that Republicans need to concentrate on picking a candidate who can win a consecutive pair of presidential elections, not the candidate who is right on every particular issue, not even on climate change. The objective is to win the war, not to fight battles we can’t win.
I have no idea at this point if Ted Cruz will turn out to be that candidate. And if the sniping and infighting doesn’t stop we’ll never get there.
40
If this piece from Salon is an indication, it’s gonna be a fun ride:
Ted Cruz — adamantly, and against all logic — does not believe in climate change.
President Ted Cruz’s dystopian America: The scorched hellscape of a climate-denying White House
. . .
The hysterics will be laughable, the low-hanging fruit of mockery will be bountiful.
140
Thanks for the link. Amazing nonsense. Salon predicts “mega-droughts, monster storms and other extreme weather events that will characterize an America hit increasingly hard by the effects of climate change”. They even allege that Ted Cruz is going to be a pawn of the evil Fossil Fuel industry. Now that’s some fine advance slandering.
Extreme weather caused by CO2, presumably a conclusion from the many weather computer models which cannot get the temperature right?
However if CO2 does not affect temperature, how exactly can CO2 do all these incredible things? No one seems to explain this.
Or are explanations not necessary for true believers and only a denier would ask for an explanation? Sometimes you feel that with some modern superstitious Americans, the Salem witch trials would still make sense.
After all, black is the color of carbon (unless it is invisible or diamond or a carbohydrate like sugar) and black is the color of Satan and Witchcraft and dirty black coal and Hell is a very hot place full of burning coal and sulfur, so Carbon is the Devil’s element. Makes sense to some. So I suppose death to deniers is next and a new witchhunt is approaching. Do you denounce Ted Cruz and all his works?
50
By the way, on black (evil) Carbon
Organic: Relating to or derived from living matter.
Organic Chemistry: The branch of chemistry that deals with (evil) Carbon compounds
So while Black is the colour of raw carbon (not diamond), the green of leaves is (evil) Carbon too.
In fact all life on earth is a result of CO2 capture by photosynthesis. All the devil’s work.
The Devil himself invented chlorophyll, C55H72O5N4Mg for example is mainly carbon. All (evil) green carbon capturing more evil carbon in the form of invisible CO2.
Greenpeace should ban Carbon, as they banned Chlorine. Actually ban the lot. Chemistry is the Devils’ work.
70
Sorry about the rant. I just get so tired of non science, non mathematics, non chemistry, non physics and utterly illogical CO2 science stories. Do any of these scared young women like the Salon writer who pushes Global Disaster have any idea about science? No wonder Scientology prospered, created by a science fiction writer and so many of our leading Global Warming proponents are writers with BAs like Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Phil Jones.
90
Sorry again. I was writing as a Thetan.
Xenu was according to Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, the dictator of the “Galactic Confederacy” who 75 million years ago brought billions of his people to Earth (then known as “Teegeeack”) in a DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes, and killed them with hydrogen bombs.
Sounds more plausible than CO2 driven extreme events.
50
I’d be happy if I could go a day without being confronted by that accursed word GREEN.
What does it even mean except a certain wavelength in the visible spectrum? Nothing! That’s what it means. Nothing — or anything the speaker wants it to mean, which makes it still mean nothing for lack of definition of terms.
“Go green,” can go take flying leap for all I care. And fear of carbon along with it.
20
Think Gang Green..gangrene.. they are one and the same.
Greenhorns can grow up, the gangrene can only kill its host.
10
Judith Curry didn’t find much wrong with Ted Cruz’s ideas on climate change either.
http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/24/the-stupid-party/
90
Picking up on California Governor Jerry Brown’s statement regarding Cruz on Climate change.
I would like to see Ted Cruz and Jerry Brown in a head to head debate on the matter. Cruze would wipe up not only the stage but the entire auditorium with Brown and his arguments. And he’d manage to do it even with a biased moderator in charge. If there is one thing I know about Ted Cruz it’s that he fights to win. He’s never caught making statements he’s not well prepared to support. Brown on the other hand, lacks the background to evaluate the science and has to rely on someone’s opinion. He would falter at every step. I’d pay top dollar to see that debate.
Unfortunately I’m not sure Cruz can get himself nominated, much less elected in the current political climate. Hence my belated addendum to the comment at #18.
10
Since when did young American voters care about AGW? Hillary Clinton insists that they do, but the last time I checked, this was not the case. Cruz would easily win a debate about AGW with Clinton.
BTW I’m a conservative in general, who usually votes Labor. But I’ll vote Coalition if I have to. Right now, I’d vote Coalition solely because it’s the only way to stop Australia committing to the Paris agreement later in the year.
170
Be careful, KG.
Abbott said he wouldn’t give money to the UN-IPCC, but finally gave $200m.
$200M. The UN-IPCC failed to stop cyclone Pam.
~ ~ ~
“The last dark deed of the Howard Government was the passage of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act in October 2007.
That act is the auditing basis of the carbon tax.
Mr Howard’s plan was to get the auditing system bedded down, then start taxing.
Labor’s carbon tax would be a couple of years behind schedule if Mr Howard had not laid the bureaucratic foundations for it.
As for any politicians who have ever believed in global warming, or supported the carbon tax, or a carbon-constrained economy, there is no hope for them.
They are either too stupid or incompetent to be taken seriously.”
(excerpt from a speech David Archibald delivered at an anti-carbon tax rally in Sydney on July 1, 2012.)
. . .
The track record is not good.
70
What is the alternative?
The big fat man? No thank you.
The liberal democrats perhaps?
30
Bingo.
SMH: Federal government commits to global accord on climate
“The Abbott government has committed Australia to joining the next big global climate pact.
The global accord is to be agreed in Paris in December. Countries are announcing their carbon targets to take effect from 2020, with the US pledge expected next week.”
20
The paper sets to rest the fear among environmentalists that the Abbott government would be overrun by climate sceptics and refuse to consider further cuts to carbon output.
Egad.
40
I think the best way to let”Your Elected Pollie”know what will happen to their job if they give our rights away,is to Email them.Jo has given us links to most of our Elected Reps,so there is no excuse not to use this to our advantage.I have been doing so since the “Back Stabbing” of Tony Abbott started.He needs our support,with the “Paris Love-In”coming up in December.
110
Clive is right. If the Reps gets constant messages showing how deep the feelings run against pouring money down the sink to change the weather, even the die hards will lose conviction. It does matter. Your email to your rep is another drop in the bucket weighing against climate-action and climate-money.
120
And against anyone. However, the election is not about climate change but about reversing the course we’ve been on for 6 plus years (actually much longer).
The left doesn’t care about winning debates about anything. They care about keeping themselves in power. Republicans better realize this and concentrate on wresting that power from the Democrats. And climate change is but a small fish among a lot of much larger ones, chief of which is, how to get a conservative Republican elected.
10
Ted Cruz is the smartest guy running for president of the US!!! His professor, Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard professor, tutored Cruz when Cruz was attending Harvard! I’ve watched Cruz debate panelists on TV shows and he usually leaves them flummoxed! He certainly left te presenter on this blog speechless with his only comment we should
follow the Precautonary Principle just to be safe!!
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/09/dershowitz-tex-cruz-one-of-harvard-laws-smartest-students/
160
Francis Collins, director of the US National Institutes of Health, is one of the world’s top scientists and a born-again Christian.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html
50
One could also read “In Six Days”, why 50 Scientist choose to believe in creation.
R-COO- K+
20
Just in case you missed it Ron, there are 1.5 billion Catholics in the wold.
I’ll see your 50 and raise you….
20
If you are physical scientist the believe in god is utterly illogical. Believe is only a believe and I believe that what people believe is their personal matter as long as they don,t push god Into the science sphere. This has been going on since the separation of astrology and astronomy. Sadly a lot people today still a have problem with that distinction.
11
I think you will find that biological scientists are a bit closer to the life creation thing
00
You have to seriously wonder why they want to do this.
Those who do want this control must know what that means.
They have to know that 55 to 60% of every Watt of power being generated is required absolutely, for 24 hours of every day.
Now, while here in Australia that amounts to 18,000MW required 24/7/365, in the U.S. that figure is 250,000MW.
That’s to keep everything going.
If it’s not there, then the COUNTRY shuts down, not just isolated areas where they can keep some power, but it cascades to failure across the whole Country. That’s disaster on a scale unimaginable.
They can keep little bits of power here and there, but without all of it, they have no control of anything.
Think about it.
Politicians must know this, or if they don’t, then there would be someone to tell them on the quiet, and in no uncertain terms, because to so publicly espouse these wrecking policies is going to come back to bite them on the fundament, and when word does get out, they are severely embarrassed to the point of being ridiculed out of Office so fast the removals truck would take a Month to catch up with them.
They MUST know.
They also must know that NOT ONE of the renewable ‘flavours of the
MonthDecade’, Wind Power and any form of Solar power can actually supply that power, let alone on the scale required.When word gets out, this whole thing is just going to crash and burn. So many people will be discredited for so publicly saying the things they have, because they won’t be able to run and hide, or claim ignorance, or that they weren’t told.
There’s no victory in any of this, just laughter and ridicule.
The only thing I can see in all this is the make your money now principle, and when the bovine waste does come into violent contact with the rotating wind generating device, then who cares, they’ll have enough money to live in luxury away from all of the ridicule.
I want to see the looks on their faces when we the people really do find out the truth.
It won’t happen any time soon though.
Tony.
120
“The only thing I can see in all this is the make your money now principle, and when the bovine waste does come into violent contact with the rotating wind generating device, then who cares, they’ll have enough money to live in luxury away from all of the ridicule.”
The irony in that belief is that if the stated goal of eliminating the use of fossil fuels to generate energy were actually achieved, nothing could be produced for long in even subsistence quantities. The fact is, the only value of money is that it is a medium of exchange of value for value that is simpler and more economic to use than direct goods and service barter. If no excess goods and services can be produced, what then would exist for their money to buy?
What the takers are counting on is that the makers will continue to make in spite of the destruction of the means to produce: energy and the freedom to think and act based upon those thoughts. How? By the magic of SOMEHOW! Reality is what it is and their plan to escape reality, their predation produces, will fail. As always, our challenge is not to become collateral damage in the process of their failing.
40
Looking more and more impossible to do, Lionell.
00
UK or Germany will likely get there first.
In those countries solar and wind have priority to the grid and subsidized operation and/or rates. Coal and gas power stations that can only get backup contracts to the grid are closing because such operation is not profitable.
It will be interesting to see if they repeal the green power subsidies before they have grid failure or try to nationalize fossil fuel energy production to prevent it.
00
I wish Ted and numerous other Americans would get history correct. Many of them have been taught that Colombus proved to the flat-earthers that the earth wasn’t flat, whereas in fact it had been proven by ancient Greeks for 1800 years at the time that the earth was spherical.
The issue at the time of Galileo was whether the earth was the centre of the universe, or whether the planets went around the Sun.
Regards,
80
Columbus knew that the earth was not flat. This was coming from his navigational skills and the simple geometry demonstrating that the earth was much bigger than people thought. He did not have to go to the Ancient Greeks to form this view. He was a skilful salesman saying to the queen I will find you cheaper and shorter way to the known rich land like India knowing full well that was a lie. A discovery of new land really was not a surprise in his mind. Again when he returned he sold the new land with riches like a pro.
20
Love Cruz!!
But look at this Orwellian madness from AP:
https://twitter.com/APStylebook/status/581469219944005632
New entry: global warming can be used interchangeably with climate change. Climate change is more accurate scientifically.
40
Thanks for posting this story on Senator Ted Cruz.
40
Off-topic somewhat, but this just shows how absolutely stupid are the climate worriers: http://www.theage.com.au/executive-style/top-drop/drought-draught-its-the-taste-of-climate-change-20150327-1m9go3.html.
20
I heard that a person cannot be declared drunk as long as they can lie on a floor without holding on. I thought that climate drama queens only drink water and cafe latte?
50
First they try to scare us with meat becoming bad due to climate change and now they start on beer. What next? These people are insane.
00
Australia’s polluting coal fired power stations criticised by UK source:
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/australias-most-polluting-power-stations-055545372.html
20
Oh dear,
and to think that this person is a journalist!
He says here, just as I was about to stop reading:
If you seriously believe China especially are going to close their recently constructed state of the art latest technology coal fired power plants ANY time soon, then you’re actually dreaming.
They’ve spent literally Billions constructing them, and opening them at a rate of around one every seven to ten days for the last eight and more years.
There is NO WAY KNOWN that they will be closing them down before the contract to supply runs out, and that’s going to be a long ….. long ….. long way into the future.
We here in Oz could lead by example and close our old coal fired plants, and all China will do is laugh.
And if you think any plant here in Oz is going to close before its contract expires, then you’re just as crazy as this journalist.
Closing those coal fired plants early here in Oz will cost so much in compensation, it will drive State Governments to the wall.
Take Hazelwood as a prime example. It has a legally binding contract to supply 10TWH of power a year (25% of Victoria’s total power consumption) until 2031, when it will be 71 years old. That power alone is worth $5.6 Billion. They won’t get that, but they spent $2.3 Billion to purchase it, and have spent $1 Billion in Upgrades.
Good luck trying to get them to close the plant down, and pity the Victorian State Government which tries. They have nothing to replace it with.
You’d think journalists would actually find out stuff like this wouldn’t you?
Tony.
50
Amen brother, preach it…
… I’ll go and sit over here.
10
Yes, I would like journalists to report facts.
10
more links on both pages below:
28 March: Dept of the Prime Minister & Cabinet: UNFCCC: Setting Australia’s post-2020 target for greenhouse gas emissions in the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations
The Australian Government has committed to a review of emissions reduction targets in 2015. The review is part of Australia’s preparations for the UNFCCC Paris Conference in December 2015, where negotiations on a new global climate agreement will conclude…
The taskforce is working closely with the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Industry and Science, the Environment and the Treasury. Further information on UNFCCC negotiations can be found at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website. For information on action Australia is already taking on climate change, please see the Department of the Environment’s website…
Public Consultations on Australia’s Emissions Reduction Target
The Prime Minister, together with the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and the Environment, announced a public consultations process on Australia’s post-2020 emissions reduction target on 28 March 2015.
The Australian Government values the views of the Australian community. You are invited to submit your views on Australia’s post-2020 emissions reduction target.
Issues paper and fact sheet
To assist you in writing your submission, this ***issues paper briefly outlines the context in which the Government is considering post-2020 emissions reduction targets for Australia. Additional information about the UNFCCC preparations for a new global climate agreement can be found in the accompanying fact sheet and links to background information.
Information on how you can make a submission.
Submissions open Saturday 28 March 2015 and close 3pm AEST Friday 24 April 2015…
https://www.dpmc.gov.au/taskforces/unfccc
***Issues Paper
Publication abstract:
Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution…
A strong and effective global agreement, that addresses carbon leakage and delivers environmental benefit, is in Australia’s national interest. The latest climate information from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Bureau of Meteorology indicates that Australia has warmed by 0.9°C since 1910, with most of the warming since 1950. There has been a rise in sea levels of about 20 centimetres over the past century, increased ocean acidification and a shift in rainfall patterns…
Download PDF
https://www.dpmc.gov.au/pmc/publication/setting-australias-post-2020-target-greenhouse-gas-emissions-issues-paper
30
25 March: Lowy Interpeter: Stephanie Dunstan: Australia and climate change negotiations: At the table, or on the menu?
In a new Lowy Institute Analysis paper released today, Howard Bamsey and Kath Rowley argue that a failure to pay high-level attention to international climate change negotiations raises several risks to the national interest. Australia and Climate Change Negotiations: At the Table, or on the Menu? argues that climate change negotiations are changing the global economy in ways that matter to Australia. Strong, constructive engagement in those negotiations by Australia would serve climate, economic and other national goals.
‘As one of the world’s biggest fossil fuel producers and exporters, Australia has an important stake in when and how the world pursues emissions reductions,’ say Bamsey and Rowley.
Climate change negotiations will create new norms, standards, rules and laws. These developments create challenges and opportunities for Australian businesses and individuals. Bamsey and Rowley argue that ministerial leadership, a strong negotiating team, and active support for preparations for the Paris conference in December would return much needed momentum to Australia’s negotiating effort…
DOWNLOAD
http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2015/03/25/Australia-and-climate-change-negotiations-at-the-table-or-on-the-menu-13.aspx?COLLCC=3832482756&
About the writer, Stephanie Dunstan:
On a UN posting in Bangkok, Stephanie served as an international campaign coordinator for the UN Environment Program and coordinated a region-wide Millennium Development Goals advocacy program for the UN Economic & Social Commission.
In 2009, Stephanie’s expertise in climate change was put to good use when she worked as Special Assistant to the UN Assistant Secretary General (UNDP) providing policy advice and coordinating the UNDP delegation to the Copenhagen Climate Summit.
Stephanie holds a B.Arts-B.Public Policy from Melbourne University and is a Chevening scholar with a MSc in environmental regulation from the London School of Economics. She started her career at the Environment Protection Authority, Victoria.
http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/profile.aspx?id=Stephanie Dunstan
00
Aussies on the Beeb:
AUDIO: 26 March: BBC: Science in Action
Antarctic Ice Shelves Melting (with Scripps co-author Helen Amanda Fricker. Dr. Fricker received her Ph.D. in Glaciology from the University of Tasmania.)
Eighteen years of satellite data reveal the big jump in ice loss from the floating shelves around Antarctica. In some areas of West Antarctica, the shelves have lost a fifth of their thickness in just two decades. The ice shelves act as buttresses to the rest of the ice on the continent. So if the shelves continue to disappear at current rates, we could be looking at a one to three metre rise in sea levels…
Coral Reefs (includes Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, who does his CAGW scare at the end of the item)
Coral reefs around the world are disappearing – some reports say we have lost up 40% of them over the last 30 years…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02mtgqg
26 March: BBC: Antarctic ice shelf thinning speeds up
By Jonathan Amos
Fernando Paolo and colleagues used 18 years of data from European radar satellites to compile their assessment.
In the first half of that period, the total losses from these tongues of ice that jut out from the continent amounted to 25 cubic km per year.
But by the second half, this had jumped to 310 cubic km per annum.
“For the decade before 2003, ice-shelf volume for all Antarctica did not change much,” said Mr Paolo from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, US.
“Since then, volume loss has been significant. The western ice shelves have been persistently thinning for two decades, and earlier gains in the eastern ice shelves ceased in the most recent decade,” he told BBC News.
The satellite research is published in Science Magazine. It is a step up from previous studies, which provided only short snapshots of behaviour. Here, the team has combined the data from three successive orbiting altimeter missions operated by the European Space Agency (Esa)…
Many of Antarctica’s ice shelves are huge. The one protruding into the Ross Sea is the size of France.
They form where glacier ice running off the continent protrudes across water. At a certain point, the ice lifts off the seabed and floats.
Eventually, as these shelves continue to push outwards, their fronts will calve, forming icebergs.
If the losses to the ocean balance the gains on land though precipitation of snows, this entirely natural process contributes nothing to sea level rise. But if thinning weakens the shelves so that land ice can flow faster towards the sea, this will kick the system out of kilter. Repeat observations now show this to be the case across much of West Antarctica.
“If this thinning continues at the rates we report, some of the ice shelves in West Antarctica that we’ve observed will disappear by the end of this century,” said Scripps co-author Helen Amanda Fricker.
A number of these ice shelves are holding back 1m to 3m of sea level rise in the grounded ice. And that means that ultimately this ice will be delivered into the oceans and we will see global sea-level rise on that order.”
Prof Fricker was speaking on this week’s Science In Action programme for the BBC World Service…
Modelling capability
Various studies have now confirmed that the land, or grounded, ice in Antarctica is losing mass.
Esa’s current polar observing spacecraft, known as Cryosat, recently reported that the continent’s ice sheet was diminishing at a rate of 160 billion tonnes a year. Cryosat found the average elevation of the full ice sheet to be falling annually by almost 2cm…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31965454
00
ouch! a bit of fun.
27 March: UK Daily Mail: Janet Street-Porter: Arrogant, smug and sneering: JANET STREET PORTER, who spent years as a senior BBC boss, excoriates the incestuous luvvie clique who run it
Proof that the people who run the BBC live in a precious world of their own was supplied this week when Alan Yentob — whose title at the corporation is ‘creative director’ — told Newsnight’s Emily Maitlis that ‘there are quite a lot of programmes which reach out to audiences which are C2s, DEs, which aren’t the metropolitan elite’.
In other words, he seemed to be saying that Jeremy Clarkson may have been sacked by the BBC ‘but common people will still find something to watch’.
How simply outrageous! And how very, very kind of the BBC to make a few programmes ‘reaching out’ to the non-metropolitan elite (as if they live on Mars) — those downmarket low-earners who live in places outside London and the South-East…
People who live in small houses and flats, who don’t drink Terroir Series Malbec wine from Argentina and eat tapas.
People who don’t holiday in Tuscany or rent nice houses in Devon and Cornwall. But people who manage to be happy, despite living outside sought-after Islington and Notting Hill postcodes, where most of our political leaders, media chiefs and the chattering classes seem to reside.
In his hamfisted way, by talking about social classes ‘C2s, DEs’, Yentob was referring to the large majority of Britons — the kind of people the BBC top brass and most politicians tend not to mix with on a daily basis, unless they are partaking in a rare public meeting…
Having spent nearly a decade working as a top executive at the BBC, I can vouch that it’s run by a bunch of smug, self-satisfied, over-educated types (nearly all graduates of the same universities) who communicate in an opaque language and conform to a very limited set of beliefs.
These Polenta People (as I like to think of them, since they enjoy eating the fancy Italian cornmeal) embody Left-wing Hampstead talking to trendy, Left-leaning Barnes. Everyone else seems to be excluded…
***Their best pals inevitably write for The Guardian and they share the same set of leftish, liberal and politically correct values.
They loathe people such as Clarkson — a rare beacon of political incorrectness — which makes it even more remarkable that he lasted so long at the BBC.
Just how inward-looking BBC bosses have become was illustrated this week with the fallout from the Top Gear debacle.
The story of Clarkson’s sacking was the lead item on the 5pm news on Radio 4, ahead of the plane crash in the Alps in which 150 people died.
How predictable that, in the rarefied atmosphere of the BBC, a millionaire TV host is deemed more newsworthy than a major aviation disaster…
The tragedy is that it is not only BBC top brass who live in this out-of-touch bubble. The same applies to our political leaders.
David Cameron, with his well-heeled pals in the Cotswolds (who, ironically, include Clarkson), knows no more about white van man and ordinary women than his nemesis, Ed ‘Two Kitchens’ Miliband, who lives in a £2 million home in London…
No wonder a survey of voters this week found that the three attributes they thought best described Cameron were ‘out of touch’, ‘smug’ and ‘arrogant’. Miliband was ‘weird’, while Nick Clegg was also ‘out of touch’…
***The BBC should reflect the diversity and richness of British culture — not just the tastes of those who read The Guardian, drive eco-friendly cars, despise Clarkson and make their own sourdough bread…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3013946/Arrogant-smug-sneering-JANET-STREET-PORTER-spent-years-senior-BBC-boss-excoriates-incestuous-luvvie-clique-run-it.html
40
To grasp how terminally broken US democracy is, you only have to look at the fact that they have a demonstrably totally corrupt two-party system (many of who indulge in insider trading and are funded by Banks and Corporates) and a nomination process that puts forward G.W. Bush, and now Jeb Bush as saviors of the free-world, but only because daddy GH Bush was once the savior of the free-world. And it’s going to ->again<- flush (reverse cycle) to reproduce Dillary, as savior of the free world, but only because she's a known celebrity who was once the spouse of unfaithful Billary, who was also a former two-time savior of the free-world. Just love what she did with Libya, she like totally prevented a Gaddafi genocide donchaknow! All good since though, she really knows how to fix things and make them work properly. Unfortunately some no-account black minority community-organizer, that no one had even heard of, stole her throne from her last time. “Is that fair?”
And then there’s Canberra, which has at least managed to produce a politician who was prepared to tell Australian and the world that the carbon scare is complete BS.
But good luck to this guy, be he has no chance at all. This will be a trillion dollar advertising and propaganda blitzkrieg to get the throne. At least he may dislodge a few of the teeth of the main cohort of liar’s, before he’s blown away by the hydro-electric damn flood of money that will gush toward the two most adept and presentable mainstream liars, and personal myth contrivers. Oh Hillary, tell us again how you bravely ran the gauntlet of sniper-ally, when visiting Sarajevo! Was Brian Williams with you during the fire fight hilly?
Can you guess who the two liars will be already, right? Not really a mystery, the presidential nomination process is like, totally transparent.
And do you think either of them will claim anything other that that we’re on the brink of total climate calamity and imply (knowingly), that it’s all due to ‘us’, we-humans, and that ‘we’ now have to use state powers to enforce control on people to live in subservience to the latest contrived hobgoblin of the ‘we’. “Here there be Dragons!”
Other than that US democracy and its public policy debate, about any topic at all, is totally exceptional-ish.
141
Now tell us how you really feel. 🙂
Can’t say I disagree either. But it doesn’t look like anyone else, besides perhaps the Swiss, is doing much better. Of course there aren’t many people who want to mess with the Swiss, that’s where all the money’s hiding.
10
Well, was hiding. Wealth creation in, say, Hong Kong invested into tax havens, maybe an HSBC bank account for a company structure, credit cards issued to company structure for the use of the company shareholder, shareholder spends money on credit, bank bills company, company pays bill, shareholder escapes detection and taxation liability. ATO now aware and investigating. As it should be. Meaning tax liability detected.
30
Contrary to Labor Australia propaganda: The Liberal National Coalition Government had success at their first G20 Meeting in gaining support of member nations to legislate to stop profit shifting, multinational companies moving profits/tax liabilities offshore from points of sale, lowering tax exposure by distributing sales internationally. Of course legislation takes time. And when there is Senate obstruction, as in Australia, Canberra, we can see that Labor Greens are on side with multinational tax evasion. A senior partner at a well known major accountancy firm told me, circa 1990s, that the number of Union Labor offshore accounts in tax havens well exceeds the Coalition side. We should not be surprised.
30
Around this thread IMO
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/well-if-nobodys-going-to-ask-the-question-i-will/
10
***the usual anything goes so long as it’s in the name of CAGW:
26 March: Asbury Park Press: Shannon Mullen: Six Flags to cut down 18,000 trees to build New Jersey’s largest solar farm
JACKSON – Six Flags Great Adventure plans to clear more than 18,000 trees to build a 90-acre solar farm capable of meeting virtually all of the theme park’s electrical needs.
At 21.9 megawatts, the facility would be the largest of its kind in New Jersey, generating enough energy to power about 3,100 homes.
The ambitious project, which Bedminster-based KDC Solar LLC will construct, operate and own, is aimed at making Great Adventure the largest self-powered theme park in the U.S…
The facility won’t generate any extra traffic, and once the property is developed it will be taxed at a higher rate, he noted.
“God knows what their electric bill is, and what they’re going to be saving annually,” Bressi said. “They wouldn’t be doing projects like this if they weren’t going to around for a long while, so this is great for Great Adventure and for Jackson.”
Six Flags and KDC Solar have pledged to replant 25,000 trees over a period of seven years. Most of the trees slated for removal are in “poor” or “very poor” condition, according to Six Flags spokeswoman Kristin Siebeneicher…
On cloudy days and at other times when the facility isn’t generating enough electricity, the park will draw power from the electrical grid, explained Joseph Nimphius, a KDC Solar project manager.
Conversely, if the facility generates more power than the park needs, the surplus will go to the grid in exchange for a credit, he added…
At 21.9 megawatts, the new facility would generate more generate solar power than the city of Newark, he added.
The destruction of so many trees is a valid concern, Beavers said, because of the critical role forests play in reducing air pollution and mitigating climate change. But parking lot-based solar farms are far more costly to construct because of the steel piers used, he said.
***”Hearing that they are going to be replanting those trees, it definitely sounds like it’s going to a worthwhile initiative,” Beavers (David Beavers, a solar power expert with Environment New Jersey, a statewide environmental group) said.
http://www.app.com/story/news/local/2015/03/26/six-flags-great-adventure-solar-farm/70496800/
10
O/T
Earth Hour
28 March 2015 20:30 Eastern Daylight Saving Time (Australia)
Every light in my house is burning brightly.
“Let there be light”
R-COO- K+
80
Dammit! I was so busy mowing my lawn under the spotlight i forgot about it.
60
Don’t let it bother you.
The Australia Greens were burning the midnight oil, partying all night like there was no tomorrow because they won 4 seats in the NSW elections.
If there was ever a really good reason to turn all the lights of and curl up into the foetal position that would be it.
30
20 March: Bloomberg: Anthony Adragna: CLIMATE CHANGE GETS HIGH-PROFILE ROYAL FAMILY BOOST DURING VISIT WITH OBAMA
President Barack Obama met with Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, and his wife, Camilla Parker Bowles, the duchess of Cornwall, the week of March 16 and atop their list of discussion topics was climate change…
Prince Charles has become an outspoken advocate for global action on climate change and warned earlier this year that the problem was a “challenge of astonishing complexity.” Despite that, the Prince of Wales expressed optimism the nations of the world would come together toward a global agreement to address climate change December in Paris…
The Planet’s Death Certificate?
“If, and it is a big if, we can muster agreement there, we can only pray that our sick planetary patient might be placed on a road to recovery,” Prince Charles said during a January speech. “Failure to write the prescription, however, might leave us contemplating the death certificate instead.”…
http://www.bna.com/climate-change-gets-b17179924259/
28 March: Daily Mail: How Charles has his shoelaces ironed …
Secrets of the royal household revealed in new biography of former page…
In total, the Prince’s retinue is said to number 133 staff, including 60 domestic servants: cooks, a head chef, senior footmen, junior footmen, chauffeurs, housemaids, gardeners, cleaners and three valets whose responsibilities include laying out the royal pyjamas, filling the hot water bottle adorned with the Prince’s motto Ich Dien (I Serve), and even — famously — squeezing the Highgrove toothpaste.
This indiscreet tally was totted up by the Queen Mother’s favourite page, William Tallon — known to the other servants as Backstairs Billy — a man who rarely left Her Majesty’s side, and whose wickedly sharp eye saw into all the royal secrets…
Billy even claimed that the Prince of Wales’s shoelaces were ironed: ‘My dear,’ he said, ‘he can’t be seen to be slumming it!’…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3015296/How-Charles-shoelaces-ironed-Queen-Mum-hit-gin-11am-Oh-Camilla-NEVER-wears-s-washing-machine-gossipy-royal-revelations-years.html
20
Brilliant video – I’ve never seen an interviewer looking SOOO uncomfortable…
40
The interviewer looked like he wanted to run to a corner and cry for being made to look like a fool. He should.
40
He list the reasons – control of the energy sector and controlling peoples live but left out the big one, TAXATION.
40
[…] Russian Freedom Lovers (who probably know all about the Gulag Archipelago!) Want Ted Cruz for President ~ Woo-Hoo! So do the Aussie “climate deniers.” […]
11
“climate deniers”. Tell me, just who denies that there is such a thing as climate.
30
Ted Cruz could end up as the GOP’s VP candidate. They have a tradition of picking retards, viz. Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin. With friends like these, climate skeptics don’t need enemies.
215
Didn’t like the video huh? 😀
70
Obviously not.
10
Beethoven had his critics too.
20
Apparently debating by name calling deems you smart. Please help us to be like you.
20
Ted Cruz is anything but a retard. Many think he is “the smartest one in the room”. No one can touch him in a debate. You’ll see in the coming months.
I actually contributed to his presidential campaign. First time I ever contributed to a politician or party. (and I am 71) He’s not your typical lightweight republican. He actually has principles, and can verbalize them.
30
Eligibility for POTUS?
Well, it’s complicated.
00
I admire his style, which is forceful, not to say almost un-interruptable. Can’t say I admire his views. This is the thing that I always deplore – find a politician who is a climate change sceptic and nine times out of ten he or she will also oppose gay marriage, any kind of Government spending, immigration, all the far-right shibboleths.
He says he follows the science. But just like the warmists, he believes that the science leads to his particular tribe’s promised land. I’m a centre-left sceptic. I continually find myself in company with Yanks, cranks, and right-wing… wallies. It does my head in.
00
So what is wrong with opposing gay “marriage”? Ditto government spending, and illegal immigration? These are all positions arrived at as a consequence of analyzing the issue, and coming to understand the consequences of each side of the argument. Then taking the side which causes least damage to society.
Seems that the genius of the left is that they have figured out how to adopt the emotive “feel good” side of every argument, and happily ignore the consequences. They know that when the left creates the mess, the “right” will always step up and fix it.
So the left can feed their narcissistic parasitism in the full knowledge that they will be shielded from the consequences of their own actions.
Unfortunately, with all the damage the left has already caused to civilization, we are approaching the point where even the “right” will not be able to fix it. Our civilization will follow the path of Rome. Gay marriage notwithstanding.
00
the gay marriage debate, like the one over abortion, is OVER and PAST.
01
There’s nothing wrong with it. It’s a perfectly valid political opinion, one that I happen to strongly disagree with. Ditto all the other ideas you mentioned. A person’s right to be wrong is inalienable, or should be.
What does my head in is that these all come in a neat little package along with climate scepticism, labelled “How To Be A Right-Winger”. I’m not, and don’t want to be. I just know lousy science when I see it.
00
Oh well. As a Canadian, I just enjoy watching the silliness as the yanks get themselves into a frnzie before their next coronation. What a silly political system they chose.
10
Damn he spoiled it by referring to Galileo and the flat earth, it was accepted that the earth was round well before Galileos time.
10
Well he’s fundamentally wrong, he keeps saying that governments want to control the energy sector….wrong….scientists want us to stop using dirty fossil fuels, that’s what it’s about. There’s plenty of free renewable energy available to us, but the coal lobby don’t want to see their rivers of cash dry up. He is a wholly owned subsiduary of the fossil fuel industry. He says there’s been no warming for ’17’ years, absolute rubbish, the oceans have been absorbing it til now, ice sheets in the Antarctic are melting at unprecedented rates. People like him will scuttle off when the full effects of CC kick in, they’ll be counting their money in their vaults.
12
Brian, if there was “plenty of renewable energy” and it was easy to collect, everyone would be using it. It wouldn’t need subsidies, nor carbon schemes — it would cheap and popular.
There’s been no surface warming for 17 years according to nearly every major dataset. That shows the models are wrong.
If there is warming in the ocean, we don’t have the equipment to find the tiny hundredth of a degree C we need, and the best equipment we have didn’t find as much as the models predicted.
As for the antactic melting. Most of the Antarctic is either not melting, or at record highs (sea ice). The west antarctic sheet is meling, but did the “tipping point” folk forget to tell you the melting Glaciers lie over a volcanic ridge?
They forgot to tell you a lot.
31
Jo Nova will now tell us how much the coal industry is subsidized so that she provides a fair comparison.
Oh wait, she never does that.
04
Except when she does.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/government-burn-70-billion-a-year-subsidizing-renewables-and-wild-claims-of-fossil-fuel-subsidies-debunked/
20
Hardly a reasonable comparison – how much were fossil fuel energy systems subsidized when being established? In fact, most electrical generation plants were gov. owned – I.e. 100% subsidized.
Start being honest, Jo.
03
You are being a baby. Either the govt still owns them, or it sold them and collected money.
You have no response at all to my argument in the link which destroys your previous point.
Instead of admitting you were wrong, both that I wouldn’t discuss subsidies, and that the subsidies were significant, you imply I’m a liar. This is the kind of integrity we expect from you. Why do you bother commenting — you are getting thrashed.
10
You have ignored my point, Nova – fossil fuel energy has and is heavily subsidized by government and you have provided no real comparison.
Grow up and stop telling lies.
01
TheRiddler: Riddle me this, Batman – When is TheJoker just a Clown?
Batman: Duh! Always!
00
The Democratic and Republican parties are both big unwieldy coalitions.
And the USA is highly religious for a developed country.
Hence the usual package deals, to which even a guy like Ted Cruz, who regularly bucks the leaders of his own party, is not immune.
As an atheist who supports gay marriage and has never belonged to the ban-abortion crowd, I have no problem supporting Ted Cruz over most of the other Republicans who are running for President. (If it comes down to Cruz versus Scott Walker or Rand Paul for the nomination, I don’t mind having to worry over the choice.)
If Cruz is elected, there’s a lot he can do about energy policy, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, etc. By November 2016, gay marriage will very likely have been approved nationwide by the Supreme Court, making it impossible for him to do anything about it (Presidents can’t do much anyway). And if Congress wants to ban late-term abortions and the President wants to sign that, I don’t have a problem with it. The Supreme Court is not about to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Meanwhile, “climate change” can’t help being an issue in the election. Barack Obama is going to keep harping on it through midnight on January 19, 2017—it’s widely anticipated that when he runs out of delays, he’ll just issue an order suppressing Keystone XL—and the hard left of the Democratic Party (which includes some of the biggest donors) will lean on Hillary or whoever to run on it.
Either the Dems will resign themselves to Hillary “
I burned the tapesI erased the server” Clinton, who is looking eminently beatable, or they’ll have to scramble to replace her.As long as Republican primary voters send Jeb Bush packing (some polls show more than 40% of Republicans refusing to support him), their chances look pretty good.
40
Thank you JunkPsychology.
(This man is pragmatic.)
10
Most of the things they rail against Cruz for, they also railed against Ronald Reagan. They said Reagan at this stage could not win as well.
Who are the Democrats going to run that can beat Cruz..et al? Hillary? Don’t think that is automatic in the wake of the OB disaster. Maybe JFK would be a shoe in, but they don’t have another JFK. Actually JFK could not even get the Dem Party nomination today because he was an anti-socialist hawk.
20
The Left will vote for whomever the Democrats choose, they have no decisions to make, it’s just a Democrat versus whomever the Right brings to the fight. They will do what they are told; and they will be bussed in to vote and bribed, hassled and have their identities stolen or faked.
The Right will agonise for months about purity, amnesty, energy, abortion, Obamacare, Indiana laws, campaign finance, Islam, etc; and then pit the field against each other in a desperate fight to advance their own candidate. Some good people will be destroyed in this process. A compromise candidate will emerge, and various factions will talk about ‘holding their noses’ and sitting this one out. It’s funny how the Left never has this dilemma.
I guess the basic difference is the Right want their President to be the best one who follows their ideals; the Left just want it to be not a Republican.
Ouch SR. Starpick from me- Jo
50
Can’t disagree. The last election was disheartening. Many conservatives stayed home because they could not stomach voting for a Mormon. Additionally, some urban voting districts in key swing states, had 120% voter turn out with 99.9% of them voting for Obama.
20
Another thing about Ted Cruz.
At his first big event in Iowa, knowing that many in the crowd might not like it and some big donors in the state definitely wouldn’t, he declared his opposition to mandates and subsidies for corn-based ethanol.
30
He seems to me to be a man of integrity, vision and decency. Which probably means he won’t stand a chance against the establishment darlings. His biggest enemy will be the GOP.
10
Tragically, your words possibly spoken in jest, ring very true.
And not just in the USA.
As the sun sets on the greatest civilization humanity has experienced, we can lay the blame on our “political class”.
These are individuals who seek positions of political power for the sole purpose of enriching themselves at the expense of civilization.This is directly opposed to the past, when most rulers at least made a token effort to serve the needs of their societies.
As I have said before: we are following the trajectory of Rome, and there is no turning back.
10
No William. Don’t succumb to pessimism. We still have free speech on the Internet. The corruption seems bad, but it’s been worse for most of human history. There is truth in the spotted reptile, but it doesn’t have to be that way. The parasites are bad, but they haven’t won yet.
Isn’t the greatest civilization on Earth worth fighting for?
20
The Republican Party establishment—Trent Lott and Haley Barbour and Karl Rove and John McCain and the whole shabby crew—will relax its grip only when compelled to. So it will take multiple election cycles.
But if the GOP establishment were invincible, Ted Cruz wouldn’t be in the Senate today. When he ran in 2010, his strongest adversaries weren’t Texas Democrats. They were Texas Republicans. His main opponent in the primary was the sitting Lieutenant Governor.
00
This is very very frightening !
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/frightening_superstitious_catastrophist_in_charge_of_us_foreign_policy/
That somebody with the mentality of a COCKROACH (John Kerry) has such a high ranking position in the US is disturbing to say the least.
I hope and pray that OBUMMER and his crazies like john kerry and others are replaced sooner rather than later with people with common sense and intelligence such as Ted Cuze !!
20
Well Kerry is not really in charge of anything. He like most with an official post in this regime is just an empty suite. Trust me, Obama and his donors behind the scenes, and his un-vetted and un-accountable shadow cabinet are in charge.
20
Right. A Secretary of State under Barack Obama has no discretion whatsoever. He or she is there to carry out orders from the President and his political advisers in the White House. Competence and initiative might show this President up.
Which is why John Kerry meets Obama’s specifications, perfectly. Dave calls him an empty suit. I call him The Nincompoop. There’s no danger Kerry would be tempted to do something on his own.
20
Cruz had nearly perfect SAT college entrance exam score to attend Princeton and a nearly perfect LSAT to attend Harvard Law where he graduated magna cum laude. He also was a champion debater on the Princeton debate team.
One thing he did in this interview I had not heard of before was his accusation against the left that their solution for global warming is the same as it was for global cooling decades before. His Galileo reference needs to be shouted from the rooftops – the alarmists are the “flat earthers”.
10