In years to come when people wonder how so much money came to be wasted in a frivolous attempt to stop the storms, people will marvel at the failure of parts of the free press. The Guardian will rise above that pack, standing out as the one that dressed itself in the color of gullible.
There are more than 31,000 whistleblowers inside science, 9,000 with PhD’s, 2 with Nobel Physics prizes, and 3 men who walked on the moon. There are meteorologists who won prizes in Meteorology, and physicists who studied with the greats — and they’re warning that the science is not settled, but the journalists at The Guardian know better.
Instead of asking hard questions of both skeptics and believers, the writers saw the passion and energy of namecalling activists and were swept off their feet to join the march. Now they dish out their infinite wisdom on science, on national policy and finance. If only the rest of us could be as genius and kind as Alan Rusbridger, eh?
But what are the Guardian guarding these days? They want to silence skeptics, and push a committee consensus. It isn’t free speech, and it isn’t science. If there are problems with our monopolistic scientific funding, the Guardian won’t be seeking them out and reporting them. If peer review science has become weaker, lax, and biased by one-sided funding, and poor eduction, The Guardian will defend the corruption. If the creative genius of scientists is being dimmed through petty gatekeeping, self-serving jealousy and greed, we all know who won’t be alerting the world. Poor Alan Rusbridger, Editor of The Guardian; he read English, and when the scientists who used tricks-to-hide-declines told him “it’s just physics”, he believed them. They didn’t mention that the feedbacks were 2 -3 times more important, or that predicting clouds and humidity is vastly more uncertain. But then he probably didn’t ask.
The Guardian have launched the “Keep it in the Ground” Campaign. They have jumped feet first in with Greenpeace. They hate “fossil fuels” — oil, gas, and coal — and want people to move their money out of investments in any of them (as if they are all equivalent). Do they still take advertising from BP and Shell I wonder? And will they be sending the Guardian out in solar-trucks? Time to start running the presses on wind-power and coconut oil no doubt. Subscribers might not be excited about paying 10 pound a paper.
Note from Alan Rusbridger, editor-in-chief
The argument for a campaign to divest from the world’s most polluting companies is becoming an overwhelming one, on both moral and financial grounds. As Archbishop Desmond Tutu puts it: “People of conscience need to break their ties with corporations financing the injustice of climate change”.
Divestment serves to delegitimise the business models of companies that are using investors’ money to search for yet more coal, oil and gas that can’t safely be burned. It is a small but crucial step in the economic transition away from a global economy run on fossil fuels.
The usual rule of newspaper campaigns is that you don’t start one unless you know you’re going to win it. This one will almost certainly be won in time: the physics is unarguable. But we are launching our campaign today in the firm belief that it will force the issue now into the boardrooms and inboxes of people who have billions of dollars at their disposal.
Golly, but isn’t Alan important? He also knows things people with billions haven’t figured out yet (don’t they read his paper?). Alan-guru-Rusbridger can see financial arguments so obvious they are “overwhelming”. One day the people with silly billions will too.
Vote for your favourite blogs in the 2015 Bloggies.
More info here.Closes Sunday.
They have launched a series of podcasts on their ‘keep it in the ground’ theme.
Alex Cull has transcribed the first one here
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/2015/20150312_gn
It is beyond satire. About the only thing they get right is
“John Vidal: I mean, our children’s children will be staggered at our idiocy.”
441
The transcript contains this tit bit.
This is from the IPCC report, with figures up to the end of 2011.
In 2012-2015 global emissions will be about 145Gt, so by the time every country signs up to the global pact in Paris this December there will be just 420Gt to go.
Now how much is that?
Suppose China’s emissions only grow by 4% per annum until 2020 and are static thereafter. In 2016-2040 China will have emitted 330GT.
Suppose India’s emissions only grow by 5% per annum through to 2040. In 2016-2040 India will have emitted 135GT.
Suppose the USA really sees the light, and commits to cut emissions by 5% a year from next year through to 2040. In 2016-2040 USA will have emitted 70GT.
These three countries alone will have busted through the 2 degrees of dangerous warming.
Put another way, if global emissions continue growing by 2% a year, the dangerous warming figure will be breached in January 2026. If the Guardian could do maths it would be giving away free packs of tranquilisers to its poor readers. But basic arithmetic is beyond the realms of climate science. 🙂
361
Oh, I thought The Guardian was the tranquilliser. Reading to much of it, can certainly lead to a numbness of the brain.
190
It is a mistake to categorise The Guardian as a newspaper.
It is a collectivist propaganda sheet.
Once you do that, everything it says makes sense …
120
So well said. That’s a fine piece Jo.
Pointman
472
Isn’t it fun to read a physics ignorant man quote physics? A man who read English literature at Cambridge?
How many BAs does it take to be sure of physics, Al Gore, Time Flannery, Alan Rushbridger, even Phil Jones? The crackpot theory known as man made Global Warming is now proven to be wrong. The explanations for why it was wrong are endless, the most popular being ‘natural variability’, a phenomenon which would have been better applied to the warming in the first place.
Physics does not offer explanations for exceedingly complex situations. It offers rules for the most simple. World weather is so complex no one can predict tomorrow’s weather with any certainty but Rusbridger has a certainty usually associated only with true believers.
So the question is whether he really believes what he is saying or is simply manipulating public opinion to suit his political agenda. What a Communist from Cambridge? Who would have thought it?
562
You mentioned Al Gore. Well believing Al is like believing the Guardian, and thinking Al Gore is still investing in any ‘green’ products. No the old hustler is trying to steer the market in that direction while he is taking the opposite way himself.
If he’s lucky he’ll dupe the fools again and he’ll make more of a fortune.
121
The campaign to “keep it in the ground” is entirely directed at keeping fellow luvvies morally pure. It has nothing to do with “saving the planet”. They really lack any perspective. To put it in context:-
Will Vladimir Putin take notice if the Guardian told him to keep Russia’s vast gas and oil reserves in the ground?
Will the nations of the Middle East take notice when the Guardian tells them to keep the region’s vast oil reserves in the ground?
Will China and India take notice when the Guardian tell them to keep their vast coal reserves in the ground?
Will the Guardian tell the glorious Socialist state of Venezuela to keep their oil in the ground?
The only ones taking notice will be their readership – the Islington set who run the Labour party and the rising number of voters for the Green Party. They will sign up to pretend they are doing their bit to save the planet, by tut-tutting at those who make money from serving human needs for heat and electrical power in the cheapest way possible. Just as they feel a glow when they carefully wash every jam jar & compress each cardboard box before putting it in the recycling.
631
Wow! That is one pointed comment! By the way, a small correction for you: “…by tut-tutting [as they drove off in their 4x4s for their twice-yearly holiday in Dubai] at those who make money from serving human needs…”
171
Yes, well it is “the other people” who will need to change their habits. Serve them right for having bad and filthy habits in the first place.
30
That’s to manage the volume available in the wheely to allow for more waste per week … an anti-anti-consumer sort of thing 🙂
161
I often wonder why they dont burn old newspapers…..rather apt really….
Cardboard is roughly 4-18 MJ/kg, whereas coal is roughly 20-24 MJ/kg
As such, rather than wasting energy recycling the damn stuff, why not just burn it?
There must be some versions of it with wax or ink etc that a high temp power station furnace would burn off safely and reclaim some of the energy…..1 m3 of coal is approx 1 tonne, 1 m3 of paper is 0.5 tonne
So in terms of volume, you need 4 times as much paper as coal ( roughly ) for the same 1 MJ of energy output, however its an option……maybe not economical….
The energy values etc are rough at best…I’m sure someone will be more knowledgable then I on this….
40
Flour is about 22 MJ per Kg, a perfect substitute for coal
40
Someone in the Bristol area of England came up with a scheme which worked very efficiently. Guess what? It was banned under EU regulations. Quite, quite mad.
60
A scheme to produce heat from cardboard, I mean.
40
I have seen devices that will compress wet newsprint into elongated golfballs (like a small rugby ball), that you can put into a solid fuel burner. Whether they would pass muster in the EU, would be another matter.
Alternatively, you could give your old newsprint and cardboard to the local yobs, so they had something other to burn, than old tyres, at their next street riot.
20
“The usual rule of newspaper campaigns is that you don’t start one unless you know you’re going to win it.”
~ ~ ~
Wednesday 11 June 2014 19.11 AEST:
The global El Niño weather phenomenon, whose impacts cause global famines, floods – and even wars – now has a 90% chance of striking this year, according to the latest forecast released to the Guardian.
. . .
“the physics is unarguable.”
Not the
physicsstuff the Guardian relied on in that 100% failure.Good luck ‘winning’ with that.
Secrets of popcorn cracked
Now there’s physics.
Popcorn, anyone?
141
The way they plan to win the debate is to censor any comments on their stories that don’t support the cagw religion.
Even when another commenter engages with you and you’re debating each other’s points, the moderators take it upon themselves to delete any comments and references that THEY consider don’t fit their alarmist position.
90
Here’s a prediction the Guardian made in 2009.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jul/27/world-warming-faster-study
Mmmm.
30
Perhaps it was a study, that was done faster then usual? Since they don’t use punctuation in headlines it is sometimes hard to know.
One of the classic headlines was to do with an actor who had to spend a lot of time overseas, on location. It read “Actors Relationship harder with girlfriend”.
20
Maybe Greenpeace is funnelling money into the Guardian to keep it afloat. Financially GP is probably in a stronger position than the Guardian.
241
Financially, GP is probably in a stronger position than many countries.
141
Ah yes, how much of the Amazon rain forest dies GP now own after raising funds from supporters to buy it ? How much – in Billions – does GP stand to make from the value of the carbon credits through persuading the UN to create REDDs which apply to all of its rainforest ?
Was GP acting to ‘save the world’ or was it acting to create a multi-billion income stream ??
I know what I think.
170
Now they say that the Amazon is dying because of CO2: http://www.echo.net.au/2015/03/amazon-losing-carbon-storing-ability/
50
As far as I can find out the Guardian is owned and controlled by 5 people. How it is funded is a lot less clear.
The Guardian used to be owned by The Scott Trust Foundation (charity number 1027893).
However, in 2008/9 the foundation transferred everything into a company called The Scott Trust Limited (company number 06706464). This company is the ultimate parent of many subsidiaries, one of which is Guardian Media Group PLC (company number 00094531).
Guardian Media Group PLC has 900,000 shares, all owned by the Scott Trust Limited, but, by agreement, any dividend paid by GMG goes to The Scott Trust Foundation instead of The Scott Trust Limited. Last year GMG paid £200,000 in dividends.
The Scott Trust Limited has 1000 ordinary shares and each of the following people own 200 of them:
William Nicholas Hutton
Alan Charles Rusbridger
Anthony Michael Vaughan Salz
Jonathon Prestwich Scott
Heather Stewart
It is the above five people who ultimately own the Guardian.
The only assets remaining in The Scott Trust Foundation (the charity) is about £50k in cash in the bank.
140
Good digging tomomason
I believe the Guardian ( not which of the entities you mentioned) sold their biggest asset recently –Autotrader for several hundred million pounds. I wonder who got that money ?
90
Yes and they made a small fortune from selling that.
I wonder where the money went?
I wonder if Mr Rusbridger could clarify it with a public statement, and explain how and why they appear to use some off-shore accounting with Scott Trust entities and tie-ins that are very opaque.
90
From a lead at http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/191499/guardian-will-survive-because-we%E2%80%99ve-assets-outside-of-the-guardian-says-chief-exec/
Where Don Montague says –
and other sources.
70
I’m busy today –
Found another link in the chain –
http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=5456411
Will Mr Rusbidger will be a part of the appointment system for his own replacement? I wonder.
So not that much time left for more vanity publishing from him then.
60
Is it possible that upon taking the Chair (shame its not electric) that Alan himself will achieve Dame status?
Oh ,this is just ridiculous , it is turning into a pantomime , oh no it isn’t! OH YES IT IS!
Nutticcelli for Editor I demand , lets kill this rag off as quickly as possible.
The Guardian needs a new name, I think Jihadi Seance has a nice ring to it?
Meanwhile the good folks at red cube are demanding a crusade :-
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Climate_Crusade_Progs.jpg
40
The Guardian’s self-righteous, self-important, science-free credo: – demolished in less than 400 words.
161
“There’s none so blind as those who will not see”
( but first you have to open your eyes & mind crank up the propaganda filters)
131
I can read Mississippi with my eyes shut tight!
50
Possibly, but can you send it in Morse code? 😉
30
— .. … … .. … … .. .–. .–. ..
Unable to tap it out – accident playing tug toy game with family dog
40
Well done. 🙂 It is a dying art.
But we will need people with those skills if a nuclear war ever breaks out. The electro static discharges will stop any broadband transmissions, and the ionosphere will be shot to ribbons.
HF radio, using morse code, in short hops, or lamps, in even shorter hops, will be the only way to communicate over distance.
30
What has four eyes and can’t see? Mississippi.
10
With the average global temperature following or below Hansen’s 1988 scenario C ‘CO2 emissions reduced to year 2000 levels’ prediction, one wonders what their problem is; although Santayana’s definition of fanaticism ‘redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim’ seems to apply.
281
As with our universities, the Left and the Greens, the media is on the same ideological path that was followed by some countries post-WWII. The means may appear quite different, but the ends are just the same.
173
“The technology is straightforward”. This was large ancient dead wombat specialist Tim Flannery spruiking the failed Hot Rocks venture in South Australia where the directors were on $300Kpa and above. Don’t you love certainty in life? Aren’t scientists wonderful? The Rapture was certain too. The common thing in all crazy cults is that the people at the top do very well. The Inconvenient truth is that Al Gore is a billionaire with many homes. Now we are to believe Rusbridger is convinced of the physics?
Has anyone noticed “The Science is IN” has utterly vanished and now the agreed mantra is that the “Physics is unarguable”. What physics? Who said so? Rushbridger?
151
Well TdeF, given that this is coming from a bloke who wouldn’t know black body radiation from latent heat, the physics would have to be unarguable, wouldn’t you think?
120
Yes your point is that the Physics is only unarguable because he cannot make a cogent argument. He knows as much physics as say, Al Gore. When was the last time two physicists publicly argued man made global warming? Never. So the discussion is between journalists of the extreme left, like two blind men discussing colour.
110
Exactly
60
Actually, the discussion is between journalists, politicians and very, very, very wealthy people like those that own the Guardian and wind turbine subsidies.
They truly understand what it means to:
“Go Green”
30
The Guardian, Fairfax, NYT…why is it that the biggest tree munchers are the biggest tree huggers? Why is it that green merchandise shamelessly advertised and promoted in the Guardian is so useless, fetishistic, expensive and such a vast waste of production/transport costs?
Divest from the Guardian.
181
mosomoso
See comment above as to why divestment is not possible.
30
To be fair to the Guardian ,the circulation is not very high so perhaps only a branch or three needs to be pulped per day to produce the paper required for the yoghurt knitting ,tree hugging loonies.
I hate ad hom attacks , but seriously the writers there are a collection of the smuggest looking ^&*%3 you would never get tired of bullying even if your fists were sore you would still want to give them a smack.
Sorry my fantasies these days are becoming embittered by the crass laziness of journalism, especially in the pseudo seance rag that is the Guardian.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
50
Very good, I had to think about that one. 🙂
30
The guardian is entirely attuned to promoting the left-wing socialist-marxist agenda.
Seeking World government by the unelected who ‘know best’ and who will run it along marxist-socialist ideals. The means to achieve this is through ‘Global warming’ – no – ‘Climate Change’ – no – ‘Climate Disruption’.
These arrogant self-serving, letf-wing, get-rich-quick (like Al Gore) self-styled ‘intellectuals’ are hell-bent on ending democracy and capitalism in any form.
What do they care how many millions of people in the third world are sacrificed to achieve their aims. Why would they worry that denying people in the third world simple basics like clean energy from fossil fuels and clean, drinkable water causes misery and millions of premature deaths.
Why would their hypocrisy feel challenged by the fact that the best preserved and protected environments are in the wealthiest nations and have been achieved through capitalism and reliable energy from fossil fuels.
No they don’t care at all and the bleeding hearts at the Guardian are up there with the most anti-democratic and dishonest campaigners such as Greenpeace and WWF – not forgetting Obama and Gore.
At the end of the day it is democracy itself which is at stake here.
351
Well said Roger, thanks.
60
The base concept of a Leftie is ‘Everything would be better if *I* was in charge’.
The base concept of a Rightie is ‘Why wont everyone stop sticking their nose in and let me do my own thing’.
A Right can get quite selfish, as freedom to do what you want can allow that, but they are also pragmatic enough to know that mutual compromise can be a grand thing. A Leftie on the other hand would see an injustice, and want regulations to control it.
Now having regulations is not necessarily a bad thing, the problem is that the vast majority of Lefties, when teased with the promise of change, cast themselves into the new administator role. Even Marx played the game that way. He saw the world as an interaction between the workers and the owners but dispite being part of neither, decided they needed to be shaken up.
Leftist is all about jealously and power. They see the success of others and believe it is their right to be part of that success – with them in a position of responsibility of course – but fail to admit that success is the reward for hard work.
121
No, no, no!
To make things better, I need to be in charge.
Simple, ain’t it.
30
Witnessing the widespread destruction of shanty buildings in Vanuatu served only to highlight the plight of the poor in such circumstances, as some reportedly tried to anchor their homes with wires strung over them.
As stated by Christiana Figueres, Secretary of the UNFCCC the ambition of the UNEP, IPCC et al. and their disgustingly bloated bureaucracies intoxicated by eco-marxism is fixedly focused on the dismantling of the “failed” 150 years of Western capitalism.
These UN organs appear singularly responsible for what the deluded high priest Tutu claimed was “financing the injustice of climate change.”
Little do the poor of Vanuatu realise that they are destined to pay for the sins of their country with hopeless incarceration in poverty…Vanuatu generates 90% of electricity from fossil fuels and 10% (nameplate) from renewable resources. (CIA World Fact Book).
40
Another take on this at
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/03/18/the-guardians-editor-in-chief-hits-peak-stupid/
101
Love the punch line:
151
The Guardian is his vanity publishing outlet – see above
90
Under Rushbridger the circulation and credibility of The Guardian have plummeted to new lows.
The financial strains have caused them to sell off their cash cow. Certainly they got a huge sum for the site, but they have to live on the capital. Of course they could invest it and live off the returns, but does anyone really think that The Guardian management can/will invest wisely and well?
So the influence of the larger advertisers is very strong. Shell, HSBC and the BBC. Shell diverts Green pressure and gets a preposterous energy system that can only be rescued by oil and gas. HSBC (and other banks) want carbon trading to continue and the BBC is stuffed full of Guardian readers.
201
The important thing to note here is that they are not saying ‘The argument for a campaign to INVEST IN … .’ They are not advocating something; they are simply opposing something. That tells you everything you need to know about their motive and their reasoning.
Many of these people are well-intentioned but are not able to reason through complex issues. They respond to simple messages like the green-left slogan ‘Solar, not nuclear’. It makes them feel good and it drives their politics. They are simply not able to understand the more complex issues involved.
Others are people with a mental disorder that makes them vulnerable to obsessive behaviour – much the same as drug addicts, compulsive gamblers and so on. Once they become obsessed in their belief that global warming is an issue, it becomes all-consuming and they are no longer able to think rationally or control their behaviour.
Still others are driven by pure, unadulterated hatred for everything that is regarded as ‘mainstream’. These are the self-loathing Left. These individuals do not like what they are and their minds, as a subconscious self-preservation mechanism, construct a narrative that sees them as being victims of ‘forces’ or ‘values’ in society. They develop a deep-seated and all-consuming hatred for everything mainstream – capitalism, the US (and, by extension, Israel), success, wealth, happiness and so on.
Then there are those who simply use the issue for their own gain – politics, money, getting on the gravy-train, joining the right social circles and so on.
You are right, Jo:
161
Others are waiting for the divested price to hit a minimum, like sea-side real estate.
100
I’m afraid the Grauniad could charge ten quid a time without damaging sales, because most of the sales they make today are both effectively locked in and are, ultimately, courtesy of the taxpayer. Famously, the Beebyanka has the Daily Rusbridger as its house rag, but the same is true of universities and “universities” alike, along with many, many schools, government departments, quangos, councils and taxpayer-funded “charities”.
Besides, with its £600 million (circa US$1 billion) windfall from selling Autotrader, a publication in which fossil-fuel-powered vehicles tend to predominate, clones of Rusbridger could continue to spout hypocritical claptrap for decades, even if nobody ever bought another copy. Fortunately, too, for the Grauniad, its parent group squirrels away its lucre in offshore tax havens, even while Rusbridger editorialises against such things.
161
Owen, I understand they lost over £20 million the last year from their attempts to break into other markets (Australia and the USA). The full loss hasn’t been published? They lost £55 million overall in 2013.
At that rate they will struggle to see out a single decade.
80
According to http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/09/us-guardianmediagroup-results-idUSKBN0M50KX20150309 , they’re expecting to announce £30 million in losses, so, as you say, they seem to be on the slippery slope. I suspect, though, that they are gambling that competition will fall by the wayside and that advertising revenue will drop into their lap. It is certainly the case that the paper sales, themselves relentlessly declining, are only sustained at even current levels by the public sector contribution (a bit like the way the Morning Star, the “newspaper” published by the British communist party, used to keep its head above the capitalist waves thanks to a regular purchase by Moscow of twenty thousand unreadable copies). There is a sly hint of that in the Reuters article:
“The privately-owned GMG, [Grauniad Media Gruppe] which also owns the Observer and Guardian.com, said it had seen strong growth in British and U.S. advertising, and said it receives higher yields than most of its peers due to the high caliber and loyalty of its audience.”
I’m not sure how to judge the calibre of an audience (sounds like Rusbridger-speak to me and I suspect that that is a direct quotation from GMG, even if it’s not marked as one), but it’s pretty obvious where the loyalty factor comes in. Incidentally, Rusbridger is a vociferous supporter of state regulation of the British press. Since he already has a virtually symbiotic relationship with considerable elements of the judiciary, of academia and of the civil service, not forgetting, either, the Beeboids, that does suggest that he looks forward to a time when the opinion of the Grauniad is the only one that gets published, opinion and “facts” being interchangeable to Rusbridger.
40
All,
I recall haveing a chat with an ex-F****** hack once , who left because of heavy censorship of what they could write about.
Theory – that 97% of journalism ( ok , its a cheeky pun ) is somehow controlled by a pro-CAGW handler.
Evidence – see most newspapers.
What can we do about it ? – keep speaking the truth.
It appears the pro-CAGW crowd are panicking, and as predicted, are doubling up on the message, rather than just backing away slowly. THis tells me that if we keep being successful, the next step is they will set up a “climate court” and come after all skeptics to try and silence us. I can see a day of the ddeath penalty coming back for “subversive” people.
This is also why I say we need to print out all proof of lack of global warming so our kids and grandkids have a reference. The G**** “truth filters” that are proposed, show a bared-teeth aggression to try and stop information flow ( the truth ) to anyone who cares to read……
Its clear now that “news” outlets are predominately now just offical propaganda outlets.
This is the end game now…they are desperately trying to keep the wheels on the wagon…they will do anything to make it happen….be careful….
91
The power of using a cultural meme and enforcing it with shame, namecalling and ridicule, is that there is no need for a controller because every weak minded puppet who picks up the namecalling “denier” becomes a mini-controller. These low self esteem people seek to score points with friends and colleagues by putting others down — it advertises their IQ and social standing amongst other low self-esteem weak-minded people and becomes self fulfilling until someone with an independent brain turns up at the party. Though even then, mob rule will mean that one person making sense can still be scoffed at. Groups do rule. That’s why it’s so important that skeptics speak up.
282
I believe I heard Mark Levin speaking about Obama’s attempt to rule through “mobocracy”. I think it’s basically about low information types who are organized around a grievance; along the lines of encouraging “class warfare”.
50
that would be communism then….
30
I fully believe that Steve, my local Fairfax paper has actually blocked me from making any comment whatsoever, last month a few local CAGW skeptics were really making some impact in comments with good facts and links and when we started making too much sense all comments were deleted on that article or letter as if they never existed.
This is just a small scale example of what you suggest in regards to controlling internet content via selective censorship, and as Jo says it’s important to speak out and form groups to get noticed, I believe there’s plenty of people out there who will listen but it’s critical on how the message is delivered as by now the PC social engineering has instilled a negative reflex action towards anything that dares to question the mantras.
71
I’d agree that – F***** has a policy of not allowing any links to anything outside F*****, which is just bonkers, unless of course you want to stifle variety of sources…..
I have a few regional F***** rags I “patrol” re:climate change to make sure the skeptic point of view is presented fairly. Most commenters are reasonable, although you do get a few regulars who “dial in” from canberra or sydney who clearly are Leftie agitprop experts, but when you start listing facts and papers you throw a bucket of “water” on them, they scream “I’m melting, I’m melting” and then slink off….
I’ve learnt how they work, the Saul Alynski tactics they use, so have managed to keep them honest. And this is what its all about – making sure a balanced view is possible.
One tactic they use is diversion. I keep bringing them back to the main point and holding them there – in effect using Alynskis tactics agaisnt them. They hate it.
50
They always have been. The MSM was tightly controlled through WWII and that continued through the Cold War. Witness the McCarthy era. Once you have control, why relinquish it? It was very useful through the Korean and Vietnam Wars …so expecting it to be `free’ now is …well, naive.
30
The picture alone tells me why the Guardian is going to be toast .
People that live in glass houses…. the guardian is a tree killing machine that
finds it convenient to point the green guilt finger outward .
111
Surely The Guardian is only printed from recycled toilet paper ?
It certainly has a certain odour of je ne sais quoi !
30
I don’t mean to be petty but did you have to publish his photo.He looks similar to our local university’s co-ordinator of peace studies.Striking!Maybe a cloning effort going on out there;what with all these hard-wired left-wingers out there who are totally ignorant about the issue at hand,but feel entitled to push their opinions about imminent doom if we don’t change our ways.Man against nature indeed!
111
Looks like Billy Gates too.
30
Yes the photo is required. That weedy nerdy 4 eyes little guy owns 1/5 of the Guardian newspaper and is therefore a very rich man. He is using his power as editor to control the climate debate in a way that Gina Reinhart could only dream of.
Now he is exposed, like the Wizard of OZ.
70
When searching for truth in the news,
Ignore those reports which refuse,
To allow opposition,
To the ‘settled’ position,
By reflecting the editor’s views.
281
The Guardian and their subscribers are collectively so stupid that the only use for them is to gild their bums and hang them in the Christmas tree.
Do they think that oil, coal and gas are only used for fuel? If they are left in the ground, what do they propose we use to make plastics, pharmaceuticals, lubricants, solvents, printers’ ink??
153
We could always go back to using whale oil…
151
… extracted from whales caught and killed by harpoons thrown by hand, from open whaling boats driven by men pulling on oars, with a wind powered mother ship to pull the carcass alongside so that the whale oil and whale meat can be processed.
They could use “Moby Dick”, as a training manual. Or on second thoughts …
80
They are all very well paid. I have never met a poor Guardian reader.
100
And fertilizer to grow the crops to feed their bellies.
90
Not to mention vaseline.
50
I prefer my proper Christmas tree decorations, thanks all the same!
30
How many of these people have given up their “indulgences” to remove the need for investment in the expansion of the assets which produce all the goods they use? Why don’t they lead the way and give up all the modern material things without which our current civilisation could not survive? Not just the jet flights for their holidays or the SUV to drive to work, but the paracetamol for the headache, the vaccines to which they owe their good health, the chlorine to treat the drinking water, the steel for the water pipes, the cement for the sewer lines, the terracotta tiles on the roof, the glass for the test tubes and microscope lenses, gas for cooking, electricity for the light to turn on when they get up every morning, or the chia seeds for the bread. On and on it goes. It has taken nearly 200 years for the industrial society as we know it to evolve to give people a reasonable chance to survive beyond childhood. If they wish to revert to an earlier era, let them go and establish their own world, but do not try to inflict it on everybody else or prevent those who have never known a safe life from progressing.
130
Instead of talking the talk The Guardian newspaper could walk the walk simply by cutting itself off from the electricity grid — now.
120
And food made from fertilizer (Natural gas, oil for tractors, trucks, etc.) and electric light, and indoor plumbing made from mining and energy from fossil fuels) and never fly, drive, or take public transport because they all depend on mining and fossil fuels. Also, get their own water from “natural sources” and haul it home to their organic house in their organic bucket. dispose of their sewage by composting on their own property while meeting air and water quality standards. And they shouldn’t use any roads or cross any private property using fossil fuels and metals from mines. And on and on until they just fade away.
100
The Guardian? Give me a break. Why would one ever expect it to print anything other than left, progressive fact free propaganda. This is the BBC newspaper, and those middle-aged socialists who used to be Marxists in their late teens, all finds very comfortable high salary jobs in the government and BBC thank you very much, peasants.
140
It’s the same with those against minerals. When they stop using any, I might listen.
Good luck with that.
100
If we cannot grow it we have to mine it. Try doing that by leaving it in the ground. I assume ground means soil nutrients taken up by plants and no animals are to be eaten because they too ultimately depend on things from in the ground. Skinny lefties, an amusing idea.
60
I’m trying to get my carbon footprint down to Al Gore’s level.
Boy, this ain’t easy.
I’ll have to burn an open fire in my back yard and I still won’t get close.
Maybe if I throw some old tires on the fire, too?
60
Who was it that said, “Have you ever heard so many different good things packed into one regular sized sentence?”* Well, Alan Rusbridger has managed to do just the opposite. He’s managed to pack so many different bad things into one regular sized sentence.
The Three Lies
Alan Rusbridge made this statement:
1. Divestment serves to undermine the financial stability of a business. It removes capital from the business reducing it’s ability function properly. That’s not deligitimizing a business model, that’s pulling the foundation out from under the business.
2. Investors own shares of the company. They are legally part owners. When they invest, shareholders expect the company to continue to operate according to the current business model. This is the very reason they invested in the first place. The companies don’t use investor’s money, investors are the company, (relative to the amount of shares they own, of course).
3. Fossil fuels can be safely burned as they have been for the last hundred and fifty years, (more or less). This is true because CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere and essential to plants and plankton, both of which are crucial and irreplaceable links in the carbon chain. The foundation of life. They are not dangerous pollutants that can’t be safely burned.
The Three Truths
1. Fossil fuels are the most efficient and reliable sources of energy. All of society depends on them.
2. Fossil fuels are currently the only way to maintain the world’s economies. This is true when we consider them as comodities and/or as natural resources. But it’s even more true when we consider that, without energy, an economy will colapse.
3. Fossil fuels provide life-giving CO2, a vital link in the food chain of all living things.
In a very real but twisted way, a call to divest from fossil fuel producers is a direct attack on the very stability of our hard earned, well deserved, and essential way of life.
.
.
Just for the record. There’s no way to know what’s really going on inside the mind of another person. It may be that Alan Rusbridger really believes the things he says. Unfortunately for him, and anyone who swallows this ‘Note’ without a grain of salt to wash it down, reality has a way of sweeping away the dust that clouds our minds.
Abe
* Eduardo Saverin, in The Social Network.
70
Given that 50% of the population are skeptics, what effect does divestment have? Won’t there just be a nice opportunity for half the population. Would the share price change much anyway?
141
According to this,
http://divestmentfacts.com/pdf/Fischel_Report.pdf
there will be unintended consequences. No measurable effect on the targets of divestment, significant effect on the proponents.
Amazing how consistent these people are. Unable to get anything right apparently.
50
Divestment from fossil fuel associated companies is a very bad idea at the moment since such companies’ share prices have plummeted because of the low oil and gas prices,those that are still invested should hang on until recovery,it is very cyclical and counter to the normal economic cycles.It is a boon for most economies to have this gift of cheap fossil fuels and it is evident that Countries like China and Japan will certainly buy up and store as much coal and oil as they can whilst it is relatively cheap.
For the Guardian to give such advice is fairly typical of their mentality,lacking any moral compass they wish to enslave nations by energy starvation,making them the beggars at the banquet tables of the rabid left wing governments they hope to establish.
They simply do not have a clue.
40
Joanne Nova,
Let’s say we have a company that makes widgets. It turns out that children are putting these widgets into their mouths and the paint is coming off making the children sick. A campaign is launched to divest from ACME Widgets, Inc. in order to ‘deligitimize their business model’.
In this case, the business model is indeed flawed so the divestment campaign would work. Investors would begin selling their shares, and share prices would begin to fall. Now here’s the key point about share price. Because the business model is in fact flawed, the price of the shares would fall because no other investors would be willing to buy any shares that become available through the divestment process. This is what would force the company to re-evaluate their business plan.
The company is now faced with two choices. Find another way to make widgets so that they’re no longer harmful to kids or anybody else. Or they will have to close up shop.
Before getting into why share prices of fossil fuel companies would not change, I’d just like to clarify some thing about my original comment.
By saying ‘delegitimize their business model’, Alan Rusbridge is implying that there are two options open to the fossil fuel industry. Unlike ACME Widgets, Inc. who really did have two options, fossil fuel companies have only one, and that is to close up shop. What he would have to have said is that these companies need to be shut down. That was the point of the first ‘lie’ in my original comment. And while the nuance between having two options or only one is minor in and of itself, in the case of fossil fuel companies, the difference between saying ‘delegitimize their business model’ and saying ‘force them to close up shop’ has a huge impact upon the person reading the article.
If he would have started off by saying, “Divestment serves to force these companies to close up shop because . . .”, he’d lose the complete attention of most of his readers right there. At this point the average reader would begin to ask themselves in the back of their mind, ‘What? Close them Down? How would that affect energy production . . .” and so on, and so forth. His choice of words allows the reader to continue reading and taking in the rest of the ‘message’ without giving much thought to what would happen next in a world without any fossil fuels at all.
.
.
So, why did I say that the share price of companies in the fossil fuel industry would not change? To begin with, in the case of fossil fuels, the business model of the companies extracting these raw materials from the ground is not flawed. On the contrary. Because of the complexity and high initial expense of fossil fuel production, the busines models used in the fossil fuel industry are excellent. Add to that the competitiveness within the industry and the ~150 years of experience in fossil fuel extraction and you get business models that probably can’t be much improved, if at all. (Climate Change, Inc. would say, using their weasel language, “The pathways implemented for the production and distribution of these collective natural resources are quite rubust.” I couldn’t help myself. I just had to throw that in. 🙂 )
On page 18 of the PDF in Marin Clark’s comment above this one, under the heading:
A. Divestiture is unlikely to impact equity values of divested companies.,
there’s an excellent explanation of how this works in financial terms. H/T Martin Clark. I chose to contrast the fossil fuel industry to ACME Widgets, Inc., to make the explanation more easily understandable to a wider range of ppl. I hope this worked.
Abe
40
Somehow this paragraph got lost. . .
Given that the business models are not flawed, there will always be other investors willing to buy into these companies. And so, any shares that become available through the divestment process will be snatched up immediately by other investors thereby maintaining the share’s price.
30
Joanne Nova,
I’d like to use a hypothetical example, if it’s OK:
Let’s say we have a company that makes widgets. It turns out that children are putting these widgets into their mouths and the paint is coming off making the children sick. A campaign is launched to divest from ACME Widgets, Inc. in order to ‘deligitimize their business model’.
In this case, the business model is indeed flawed so the divestment campaign would work. Investors would begin selling their shares, and share prices would begin to fall. Now here’s the key point about share price. Because the business model is in fact flawed, the price of the shares would fall because no other investors would be willing to buy any shares that become available through the divestment process. This is what would force the company to re-evaluate their business plan.
The company is now faced with two choices. Find another way to make widgets so that they’re no longer harmful to kids or anybody else. Or they will have to close up shop.
Before getting into why share prices of fossil fuel companies would not change, I’d just like to clarify some thing about my original comment.
By saying ‘delegitimize their business model’, Alan Rusbridge is implying that there are two options open to the fossil fuel industry. Unlike ACME Widgets, Inc. who really did have two options, fossil fuel companies have only one, and that is to close up shop. What he would have to have said is that these companies need to be shut down. That was the point of the first ‘lie’ in my original comment. And while the nuance between having two options or only one is minor in and of itself, in the case of fossil fuel companies, the difference between saying ‘delegitimize their business model’ and saying ‘force them to close up shop’ has a huge impact upon the person reading the article.
If he would have started off by saying, “Divestment serves to force these companies to close up shop because . . .”, he’d lose the complete attention of most of his readers right there. At this point the average reader would begin to ask themselves in the back of their mind, ‘What? Close them Down? How would that affect energy production . . .” and so on, and so forth. His choice of words allows the reader to continue reading and taking in the rest of the ‘message’ without giving much thought to what would happen next in a world without any fossil fuels at all.
.
.
So, why did I say that the share price of companies in the fossil fuel industry would not change? To begin with, in the case of fossil fuels, the business model of the companies extracting these raw materials from the ground is not flawed. On the contrary. Because of the complexity and high initial expense of fossil fuel production, the busines models used in the fossil fuel industry are excellent. Add to that the competitiveness within the industry and the ~150 years of experience in fossil fuel extraction and you get business models that probably can’t be much improved, if at all. (Climate Change, Inc. would say, using their weasel language, “The pathways implemented for the extraction and distribution of these collective natural resources are quite rubust.” I couldn’t help myself. I just had to throw that in. 🙂 )
Given that the business models are not flawed, there will always be other investors willing to buy into these companies. And so, any shares that become available through the divestment process will be snatched up immediately by other investors thereby maintaining the share’s price.
On page 18 of the PDF in Marin Clark’s comment above this one, under the heading:
A. Divestiture is unlikely to impact equity values of divested companies.,
there’s an excellent explanation of how this works in financial terms. H/T Martin Clark. I chose to contrast the fossil fuel industry to ACME Widgets, Inc., to make the explanation more easily understandable to a wider range of ppl. I hope this worked.
Abe
10
Joanne Nova,
It would be nice if buying and owning stocks in companies was as easy as buying groceries at the local supermarket. That way if an item or items go on sale, we could all just go and pick some up.
The way it works today, stocks are traded in bulk and owned by large financial institutions. Although you or I can buy them as individuals, the vast majority are managed by Mutual Funds and Hedge Funds, among others.
But that isn’t the biggest problem. If divestment were to actually bring the price of fossil fuels down below their true value, the real skeptics would get to them before anybody else.
What I mean by real skeptics is this: We all know that CO2 isn’t a pollutant, and it doesn’t cause global warming or climate change. Science hasn’t proven this. In fact, the opposite is true. Science has shown that CO2 is beneficial. So does anybody here still believe that people like Buffet, Soros, Gates, Gore, Oreskes, etc., don’t know all of this themselves? Do we really think they’re that stupid and ignorant? Sure, skeptics ridicule their apparent ignorance as diplayed daily by all the nonsense they say in public, but who except the trully gullible true believers actually accepts all of that?
These true skeptics, and others like them will eventualy own most, if not all of the worlds fossil fuel reserves. And when the long winter finally arrives, they will reap all of the real profits.
But even though divestment doesn’t work to bring the price of these shares down, as has been shown, there are still those that are divesting.
The real questions are:
Why are some large organizations divesting in fossil fuels anyway? 😮
Who is buying up all those shares that enter into the market? 😮
If we ever get the answers to these questions, then we’ll know what the scam was all about. 😉
Abe
40
Graeme No.3 says –
“HSBC (and other banks) want carbon trading to continue and the BBC is stuffed full of Guardian readers.”
Guardian (with Peter Oborne’s help) attacked the Telegraph for being soft on HSBC, but wasn’t quite as tough about BBC’s Rona Fairhead, tho they have covered this story:
9 March: UK Telegraph: Rona Fairhead told to resign as BBC Trust chairman over HSBC controversy
The chairman of the BBC Trust was told: ‘You are either incredibly naive or totally incompetent.’
By Chrstopher Hope, and James Titcomb
Rona Fairhead, the chairman of the BBC’s governing body, had been told to resign because of her links with HSBC, the bank linked to claims of tax avoidance at its Swiss operation.
Margaret Hodge, the Labour chairman of the Commons’ Public Accounts Committee, told her she did not trust Miss Fairhead as chairman of the BBC Trust due to her links to HSBC…
In one key exchange, Mrs Hodge said: “I want to come to you, Ms Fairhead, and I’m going to say something. It’s a bit unpleasant to say, and I’m just saying it as a licence fee payer.
“Having watched your performance this afternoon I’ve got to say this to you, that either you knew and you…”
Ms Fairhead interjected to say: “I categorically deny that.”
But Mrs Hodge continued: “Or you didn’t know. And in that case you are either incredibly naive or totally incompetent.
“I don’t think that the record that you have shown in your performance here as a guardian of HSBC gives me the confidence that you should be the guardian of the BBC licence fee payers’ money.
“I really do think that you should consider your position and you should think about resigning and if not, I think the government should sack you.” …
HSBC’s annual report showed Miss Fairhead received £513,000 in fees and benefits last year including a £334,000 fee as non-executive chairman of HSBC North America Holdings.
Miss Fairhead said she worked 75 to 100 days a year including weekends for the bank, plus 150 to 180 days for the BBC, as well as 25 days in a separate role for Pepsi.
One Labour MP, Austin Mitchell, said her pay seemed like “money for jam”. …
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11460160/Rona-Fairhead-told-to-resign-as-BBC-Trust-chairman-over-HSBC-controversy.html
from Wikipedia: Rona Fairhead
Fairhead’s early business career was spent at Bain & Company and Morgan Stanley in the 1980s before she moved to British Aerospace as an independent consultant in 1991…
In 1996, she became director of planning and acquisitions for Imperial Chemical Industries before joining the company’s executive management team as executive vice-president for planning and communications in 1997, and continuing as executive vice-president for strategy and control from 1998 to 2001. From 2002 to 2006, Fairhead served as chief financial officer for Pearson PLC.
Fairhead moved to the Financial Times Group (a subsidiary of Pearson) in 2006 as chief executive…
She also serves as a non-executive director on the boards of several large corporations, including HSBC Holdings and PepsiCo and as a “business ambassador” for UK Trade & Investment…
She stepped down from her Financial Times role in 2013 after being overlooked for the position of Chair of the Pearson Group when the post was vacated by the previous incumbent, Marjorie Scardino. Her leaving package was estimated to be worth over £1 million in addition to stock options estimated at over £3 million—a contributing factor to a shareholder revolt at Pearson’s annual general meeting in April 2014…
Fairhead’s husband, Tom, is a businessman and director of Campbell Lutyens. He was a Conservative councillor for Earl’s Court in West London from 1994 to 2010. He now serves as an honorary alderman of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rona_Fairhead
61
19 March: Bolt Blog: Why does the ABC not declare Tony Jones’ earnings from Big Warming?
He was MC at the 2012 CarbonExpo for “emissions intensive business and low-carbon economy product & service providers”. He was also a moderator at the 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 CarbonExpo conferences, too, as well as for ABC Carbon, a climate change consultancy.
Surely that commercial interest and that bias should have been disclosed when Jones last night had a very chummy interview with fellow warmist Geoff Cousins last night about the “polluters” both claim are heating the world dangerously.
Note the spin – and the omissions – in their too-friendly chat…
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_does_the_abc_not_declare_tony_jones_earnings_from_big_warming/
i want to highlight these excerpts. more on them later:
18 March: ABC Lateine: Interview: ACF (Australian Conservation Foundation) President Geoffrey Cousins on Australia’s Top 10 polluters
A new report by green group ACF lists Australia’s worst polluters. Find out which companies make the list…
TONY JONES: Now the data on political donations as a way of exerting influence, if you like, in your report is inconclusive, it seems to me.
GEOFF COUSINS: Yeah.
TONY JONES: Most of the countries (BIG TYPO – SHOULD BE “COMPANIES”) make donations to both sides of politics.
GEOFF COUSINS: Yes, I agree with that. I don’t – I think we did that research because we thought it was a good thing to look at. I don’t think the report comes to a conclusion on that, and our report is a factual report. ***All the figures in that report are from government sources. So where we don’t find any conclusive evidence, we don’t try to make it up. But I’d agree; nevertheless, I think if you look at what the industry bodies say, which these big companies are all members of, of course, what they say about climate change issues and the carbon tax and the RETT and so on…
And what the Australian Government should be doing, rather than handing out subsidies to these companies to basically keep these plants operating and maybe change them a little bit using taxpayer subsidies, what they should be doing is drawing up a plan to start closing these plants down, as they’re doing in the US, as they’re doing in China, for goodness sake…
But you don’t need the transition to gas anymore. You can go straight to renewable energy. There’s any amount of evidence on that and that’s what these other countries are doing…
And I think we saw that very, very clearly in the G20, when this issue wasn’t on the agenda, it got on the agenda. Suddenly we had the President of the US talking about it, we had the Secretary General of the UN, we had the Prime Minister of the UK. So virtually the only leader of a developed country that is clinging to this concept that coal is good for humanity is the Prime Minister of Australia. It’s a shameful situation…
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2015/s4200406.htm
72
Hmmm… he has a distorted view of the definition of Shame…
Shame is lying to the whole population
Shame is fleecing people under false pretences
Shame is asking people to go without knowing full well its not necessary
70
I don’t think so. One key tract of this PC idiocy is Robert Fulghum’s best-sellerAll I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.
You know: Play nice. Share. Don’t hit.
They’re a decade less mature than teenage thinking.
60
They’re a decade less mature than teenage thinking.
You got me. Fair point.
71
I think this is a fair piece of philosophy
Jo ! do not look!
http://memegenerator.net/instance/24306283
10
***Cousins on Lateline: “All the figures in that report are from government sources”. yet Jones made it seem like ACF originated the data, as in his opening remarks to Cousins:
TONY JONES: Now, did you sit around and think, “Top 10 top big polluters; that’ll focus people’s minds”?
GEOFF COUSINS: Yes. Absolutely…
the summary at ABC Breakfast and Gregg Borschmann, the reporter, both present this as an ACF report, but listen to Keiran Donoghue ESAA, about 2 mins in, where he responds: well, we’re not being told anything new; the data from the report was published by the Government a few weeks ago, and it’s similar to the data from previous years”.
AUDIO: approx 7 mins: 19 March: ABC Breakfast: Fixing the RET won’t fix power industry problems
The warning comes as Australia’s Top 10 climate polluters have been named in a new report – seven of those ten biggest polluters are power companies, including well known names such as AGL, Energy Australia and Origin.
Guests:
Keiran Donoghue, General Manager of Policy, Energy Supply Association of Australia
Tristan Knowles, Energy analyst, Australian Conservation Foundation
Reporter, Gregg Borschmann, Environment Editor
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/fixing-the-ret-wont-fix-power-industry-problems/6331010
even the typo in the Lateline transcript, “COUNTRIES” instead of “COMPANIES”, making political donations seems almost contrived, as Jones had singled out foreign-owned companies:
“TONY JONES: Now that’s (Hazelwood) owned and run by a French company, but as we mentioned, the biggest polluter on your list, the number one, is the Chinese-owned Energy Australia.”
70
Meanwhile, over @thecon …
John Quiggin is a Member of the Climate Change Authority:
“The push for divestment from fossil fuel assets has moved to a new stage, with a campaign by The Guardian newspaper to pressure the world’s two biggest charitable funds, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust, to move their money out of fossil fuels.
The core point is that extracting and burning the currently known reserves of coal, oil and gas using current technologies will result in catastrophic climate change.”
. . .
We’re on the road to Paris, and the level of impending climactic catastrophic stupidity will only get shriller.
In an effort to ‘out superlative’ each other about doomsday, get ready for some zingers.
90
The climate catastrophe / climate change paradigm will eventually and fatally collapse as the claimed science supposedly underlying that entire climate catastrophe paradigm is slowly dissected as all scientific hypothesis eventually are subjected too.
Already the most basic of the underlying claims of the climate catastrophe ideology are found to be totally without any scientifically based foundation.
when this fact is increasingly realised a full on crisis, much of it personal, will develop for the most rabid supporters of the climate castrophe ideology which are to be found in the media and even more so the green eco- fascist organisations such as Greenpeace, the WWF, the Sierra Club and etc.
These organisations plus the likes of media outlets such as the Guardian, the NYT and other similar hard left media outlets including many rabid climate catastrophe promoting blogs and their commenters have virtually staked their entire future existence solely on what they believe is the unchallengeable veracity of the anthopogenicly created climate catastrophe meme.
They have not left themselves a get out clause of any sort nor do they have anywhere else to go if Nature for reasons of her own, decides and decrees that global temperatures will decline or even just run at a plateau for the next couple of decades.
And if that happens and I am of the belief that it will as the global climate is a gigantic jigsaw of constantly changing inputs that constantly change the local climates, summed up in the whole as the “Global Climate”, in a continuing unforecastable and chaotic fashion, then the greens and alarmists will lose what is left of their credibility with the bulk of generations that have experienced their vastly over blown hype, their self anointed blustering, their vicious bullying and overt denigration of anybody who did not subscribe to their failed catastrophe ideology.
As I have posted previously, there does not yet seem to be much recognition as to how vulnerable the greens and the alarmist organisations and it’s media running dogs are if and when the whole climate catastrophe meme collapses as the science begins to come around to a far more nuanced view of the forces and drivers of our climate are further researched.
Even a casual read of the papers on what is emerging in the climate science field today indicates that this increasing concentration on a reviewing of the forces involved as the major climate drivers are admitting that these forces and influences are far more nuanced, far more complex and far harder to disentangle and far, far less known about than was ever thought let alone claimed previously.
There is a deep and increasing wariness creeping into every quality climate science paper today as it is realised that far from the science being settled, it is to all intents and purposes becoming far more complicated and far harder to establish any firm defined rules that might characterise some aspect of the global climate today.
Any claims made today are likely to be challenged and / or overturned tomorrow, a sure indication that climate research science is now in a very deep state of flux as so many of the old climate catastrophe nostrums are increasingly challenged and are often overturned.
Every time another hard fixed unchallengeable climate catastrophe nostrum of the greens and the alarmists and the Guardian type hard line, hand wringing, tear jerking leftist media is challenged and doubted and even dis-proved using scientifically based data and facts, another nail is driven into the coffin lid of the global warming catastrophe ideology.
There are very few survivors indeed once that coffin lid has been firmly nailed down as will surely be the case for the catastrophic global warming ideology and it’s strongest and most rabid adherents in the media, the green eco-fascist organisations, the advocates of catastrophic climate science and the political sphere.
Perhaps this quote sums up much of climate alarmist science and it’s media running dogs today;
Josefina Vazquez Mota
101
There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens:
a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build
[Ecclesiastes, 3 1-5]
A Generation is about 30 to 40 years. Many memes last a generation before succumbing to full disbelief and rejection. Some tattered remnants may hang around for another half decade before being finally trashed.
A good example is the Piltdown Man hoax. It was first sprung on the scientific and lay public in 1912. In 1913, David Waterston of King’s College London, concluded in a paper published in Nature, the sample was comprised of an ape mandible and human skull. The French paleontologist Marcellin Boule arrived at the same conclusion in 1915. American zoologist G. S. Miller offered a third opinion in which he concluded Piltdown’s jaw came from a fossil ape. In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported them to consist of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth.
Nevertheless, despite such strong early opposition, argument and debate raged until 1953. In November 1953, Time published evidence gathered by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner, which proved Piltdown Man to be a forgery. They demonstrated that the fossil was a composite of three distinct species. The skull was that of a human from the medieval age, the 500-year-old lower jaw was from an orangutan and the fossil teeth were chimpanzee in origin. The appearance of age had been obtained by staining the bones with an iron solution and chromic acid. Examination of the teeth under a microscope revealed file-marks, and it was deduced that someone had modified the teeth to a shape more suited to a human diet.
It took 40 years from the start of the hoax to lay it completely to rest.
If we set 1984/1985 as the start of CAGW hoax, then we are seeing it in its age of disintegration, as it begins to unravel. Nature will complete its final destruction over the next decade as the northern hemisphere winters continue to bite with increasing savagery. I am seeing an increasing number of papers describing the Solar effects and interactions with the climate being written and published, as listed by the Hockeyschtick.blogspot.com. If the papers are coming out in increasing numbers, then there are bound to be significant discoveries which nobody will be able to ignore. Research continues apace in Copenhagen (Svensmark’s team) in Jerusalem (Shaviv’s deductions of Galactic structure and physical behaviour from Terrestrial fossils, rocks and radioactive spectroanalyisis), and in Geneva by CERN’s CLOUD project.
20
It took me a while, but I finally worked it out – the editor in Jo’s opening comments above, looks like Harry Potter……
30
…which may be apt, given CAGW is all smoke and mirrors fantasy…..
20
Yeah Harry Potter after 10 years on Methamphetamines!
Looks like a wannabe wizard that that burnt out his wand…
20
A pointedly witty view.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Guardian
41
This is classic stuff.
30
Liked that el gordo!
I read “
Pity I don’t want to read it.
10
Some end results of this nonsense includes starvation due to bio fuel crops trumping food crops and the elderly freezing through lack of affordable heating.
60
don’t mean to bore people (LOL), but i’ve just posted multiple comments on jo’s previous thread, “Vote for your favourite in the Bloggies”, which UNCOVERS a network of people behind the PM Abbott/St. Patricks Day FAUX OUTRAGE “non-story”.
am sure it’s a pattern we could find behind each & every FAUX ABBOTT OUTRAGE story, but i decided to focus on ONE of the latest!!!! enjoy.
50
Well yes, but all these non-stories take the focus off the Metadata retention….
50
I wish these sorts instead of moaning about it would JUST…STOP…USING…THEM. If They were forced to rely on random bursts of electricity from Their whirligigs and shiny things to do everything and pay for it themselves for a while I suspect 97% would lose interest real quickly .
50
The case of coal hoaxer Jonathan Moylan demonstrates the risks activists run in trying to influence investors’ decisions by spreading false information.
According to Sinclair Davidson the divestment campaign may contravene the letter or spirit of the Corporations Act”:
As a rider Professor Davidson notes that the WWF has not divested its fossil fuel exposure but hedged any risk.
50
Agree. ASIC should act against Guardian Australia
20
For me the whole problem has been created by the renewable energy market. (REM) They has systematically convinced all the left-luvies that we can power the globe with renewable energy systems. Groups like Zero Emissions who claimed we could power Australia with wind turbines and Molten Salt Solar Towers. There’s a whole group in our society who adamantly believe what the REM has told them, we don’t need fossil fuels anymore and the only reason we are still using them is because of lobbying from the fossil fuel industry and the actions of corrupt governments. They claim we must build these new power generation systems and keep it in the ground.
When you point out to them that Google’s leading renewable energy scientists have declared, after 5 years of investigation and involvement, that we CAN’T power the world on current renewable energy systems and we must start looking somewhere else – the luvies just tell you that’s a false story spread by the fossil fuel industry.
70
All these that studied with the greats and, of course, the queen of science herself, Jo, proclaim how obviously flawed the science of climate change is and yet not one of them has come up with an iota of evidence that can shift the science in 3 decades.
Geez, there must be an enormous conspiracy to have that happen. Or else the most perfect storm of Group think ever.
Then, of course, there’s another possibility – that Nova is just another attention seeking contrarian and a pied piper of gullible and deluded fools?
I’ll go with Occam’s razor on that minor conundrum.
Still waiting for the release of the cooling predicting notch filter paper….
118
Yep, it is a logical falacy to expect people to prove the negative.
But we don’t need to, because the climate is proving it for itself. How many degrees warmer should it have been by now, according to Hansen, three decades ago? Shouldn’t we all be frying about now? I don’t feel any warmer, do you?
But you are right, all of the climate scientists appear to have closed ranks over the last three decades, even in the presence of counter evidence of their hypothesis. Of course, when your income and tenure rely on a single outcome, that can have a tendency to influence objectivity somewhat.
Occam’s razor would say that there should be negligible warming, and so the hypotheis disproves itself.
171
That’s all you people have isn’t it? The same old idiotic straw man lies. We should be frying. No evidence of runnaway warming, etc. No, that isn’t what scientists have said, that is the phantom argument you created to have a battle of wits with yourself so you can console yourself that you defeated someone. Its intellectual masturbation.
Scientists predict warming and significant risks as a result over the coming century and beyond. If we are seeing signs of “frying” and runaway warming it is too late.
Please stop telling lies – even your comrades here aren’t buying them, despite their silence.
05
Ah, I see that you do not understand sarcasm. My mistake. How silly of me.
Hansen did, however make predictions on decadial temperature increases, although I forget what they were, exactly, since they proved to be rubbish. Hence my attempt at humour.
The rest of your diatribe is no more that an ad hominem rant, which says more about your uncertainty and your fear of uncertainty.
And yet the scientists involved admit that there has been no significant warming for over a decade now, and they themselves refer to it as “a travesty”.
They are silent because they know when I am joking. And it is the publicists and journalists who act as cheer leaders for the scientists involved in climate “research”, who tell the lies.
Go back through the press archive, and count the number of the predictions made by Climate Scientists, that mention time and/or magnitude, or any other hard fact, for that matter. You will find that there are not very many at all. It is all soft and fluid “frightening the children with monsters under the bed”, type stuff.
They may be scientists, but they are not doing science. And most journalists, do not record the facts, they only state opinion.
40
Well, he made several predictions but I think you are referring to the one about 1-2℃ per decade after 2000. So we should be a minimum 1.4℃ warmer than in 1988.
Alternatively you might mean the A, B or C predictions depending on the amount of emissions reduction. In that case it is A prediction or 7.6℃ per century for “business as usual”. Since emissions have gone higher than the assumed rate that prediction of his is still 10 times the official announced rise.
30
Thank you.
Yes, the one I was thinking of, was the 1-2℃ per decade after 2000. I will make a permanent note of it, for the next time somebody like Thejoker turns up.
20
Rereke Whakaaro,
I was wondering about TheJoker’s particular insight to the human condition that allows him to say —
From nothing (silence) is revealed other peoples knowledge of a third person’s intent (lying)- uhmmm,
No, still in the dark.
How does this work?
I’m sorry but this new form of reasoned logic is lost on me, could you or TheJoker take me through this important process.
10
I think he is referring to the way socialism works in some Union movements, at least in Europe.
If a senior negotiator for a Union lies to a shop-floor meeting of workers, about what was said at a meeting with management, then the other Union members present at the management meeting, are honour bound to say nothing.
In other words, the more disreputable Unions, acting as “a broker”, would lie to both parties in the negotiation. The rationale for this, is that the end justifies the means, the end being more income for the Union.
The use of the word “Comrades” is a clear indicator.
30
Your unique reasoning powers are evidenced in your phrase –
Could you take me through the process by which you gain from your assumption that particular conclusion.
10
Gee, Joker,
You’re really smart, you must have finally produced a climate model that actually predicted the ‘pause’, I mean, that would be a real coup for you because up until now every CO2 based climate model has failed thereby proving CO2 is not a factor.
181
Climate models are inaccurate, therefore CO2 is not a factor?
The first is wrong and the second doesn’t follow either way. Fail.
06
That is not exactly what James was implying, you need to work on your English comprehension skills.
And to address your second point, CO2 is increasing – now over 400ppm, we are told – and yet the predicted rise in mean global temperatures, documented in the various IPCC reports, has not eventuated. In fact there is a “pause” in the predicted increase in temperature, as acknowledged by Phil Jones, at the CRU.
Thus the predictions from the models have been falsified, as has the hypothesised relationship between CO2 level and global temperature.
You can no longer rely on science to support the anthropogenic causes of climate variation. All you have left, and the reason you are probably here, is politics, and the associated desk thumping and foot stamping that goes with it.
Sorry, it is you that fails.
70
Again – utter bullocks.
Look at any temperature series – global surface temperature is not rising linearly and continuously with CO2 throughout. That being the case, why wasn’t the theory “falsified” years ago? If you take the series and extract bits of it there are periods of deceleration and even periods of cooling. You talk below about other cycles and factors but here you want to ignore them – cognitive dissonance.
The current cherry picking of the latter years of the surface temperature series following the “outlier” El Niño of the late 90s by “sceptics” merely provides evidence of their lack of scientific and personal integrity. They know that little gig is about to be up, which is why they’ve been praying for neutral ENSO. Even then, the global surface temperature maxed out. The graphic showing temperature increase factoring in ENSO destroys the “pause” fallacy:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Enso-global-temp-anomalies.png
You got nothing Whakar but you’ll still get your little green thumbs and think otherwise.
04
What are you referring to, when you say “again”, may I ask?
The comment by me, that you refer to, makes several points that have nothing to do with your incoherent rant.
Let me summarise what I said: 1. CO2 levels exceed 400ppm. 2. The likely temperature rise, predicted in the official IPCC reports has not occurred. Therefore the lack of correlation between CO2 and global temperature is at least called into question, if not falsified. Phil Jones avoided that point by calling it a “pause” (My bolding).
If you read the various official IPCC reports, and compare the predictions contained therein, against the ensuing reality, you are driven to a certain conclusion. One you will not like. Do your own reading.
50
Thejoker,
I guess I’ll agree with you on this.
It’s not that the models are inaccurate, it’s that they’re just plain wrong.
Abe
30
Ah Joker – your rant is so p… weak and so disappointing for one who presumes he is so smart!
“All these that studied with the greats and, of course, the queen of science herself, Jo, proclaim how obviously flawed the science of climate change is and yet not one of them has come up with an iota of evidence that can shift the science in 3 decades”
97% of “scientists” agree that the earth is warming and man and CO2 is the cause.
HAHAHAHAHA
Yet NOT ONE of those 97% have been able to PROVE that the models are correct and thereby PROVE their theory.
So – up to you Joker – let’s see your PROOF!!
Cheers,
121
I presume I’m smart? How did you come to that conclusion? it’s Jo Nova, a children’s science show compere, that is presuming she is smarter than the scientists that are experts in their field.
The fallacy that the models are linked to a proof that CO2 causes global warming is inane and unscientific. But, let’s see the model that Jo says is superior and predicts immediate cooling. She refuses to say why it is “doing excellently” but completely invisible to the scientific community. Why it’s glorious rebirth is being hidden, Jo also refuses to say but none of you sceptics are remotely sceptical about that.
Have some more spinach, Poparse.
07
Oh dear, how childish, to call people names, based on their Blog Handle?
But at least it has demonstrated that Popeye’s assumption that you were smart was incorrect, as you yourself, point out.
But to more substantive matters.
You say, “The fallacy that the models are linked to a proof that CO2 causes global warming is inane and unscientific.” This is an ambiguous sentence, and I would expect better from a journalist, but no matter.
The fact that CO2 has properties that retain heat within the atmosphere is not contested by anybody who understands the physics involved. But, it is not the primary mechanism, which is water vapour although CO2 does have a secondary impact. The arguments are over the cataclymic conclusions drawn (with a very long bow) from these simple scientific observations.
But more to the point, are concerns over the politically imposed financial mechanisms, and tax structures that have been put in place as a result. That is a great deal of wealth distribution to have been put in place, politically, over what remains an unproven hypothesis.
The global warming hypothesis regarding CO2 is only one of several potential hypothesese, and one that ignores natural variations in the sun and the regular, and irregular, solar cycles.
As far as I am aware, David Evans is developing a new hypothesis that takes solar influences into account. I will be interested to see it when if finally eventuates.
But these things take time. It took Ernest Rutherford several decades to determine the structure of the atom. I do not imply that what David is doing will be quite that earth-shattering, but it will be very interesting, I have no doubt.
80
Absolute bollocks. You don’t know what you are talking about or you are just making stuff up to sound like you know what you are talking about. Solar variation and every other “natural cycle” is taken into consideration in climate science.
Stop spreading misinformation and lies.
05
I see I have managed to get up your nose. Sorry about that. I just have a natural aversion to blowhards who quote people out of context. I really should try keep it in check.
My actual quotation was:
It shows how scientifically illiterate you are, when you say that, “Solar variation and every other “natural cycle” is taken into consideration in climate science.” (My bold).
Any scientist or engineer will tell you that there are an infinite number of potential contributing factors, as to the cause of an observed phenomina, some more reasonable and potentially valid than others. But you cannot claim that, “every other ‘natural cycle’ is taken into consideration”. That is absolute bollocks, because neither you, nor I, nor the CRU, nor Doctor David Evans, knows what all the possible contributing factors might be. There are infinite possibilities, period. Some just happen to be more likely than others, that is all.
Phil Jones is on record as saying that the computer models do not completely model solar activities, and especially abnomalities, such as solar flares. And who am I to argue with him? I just mention what he said, as being relevant to the “conversation”.
If that does not fit your worldview, then that is your problem. Reality has a nasty habit of not being exactly the way we would like. Get over it.
40
Another uneducated example of the Great Green Tragedy.
Unable to tell the difference between CO and CO2; one being life and the other death.
Lost amongst the green moral superiority, the togetherness to a cause, and methane induced suffocation of intellect.
KK
30
Wrong site joker, you need to go here http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html – that is where Dr Evans hangs out.
David Evans is an electrical engineer and mathematician, who earned six university degrees in mathematics and electrical engineering over ten years, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering (digital signal processing): PhD. (E.E), M.S. (E.E.), M.S. (Stats) from Stanford University, B.E. (Hons, University Medal), M.A. (Applied Math), B.Sc. from the University of Sydney. He is an expert in Fourier analysis and signal processing, and trained with Professor Ronald Bracewell late of Stanford University.
Failing that email him at http://sciencespeak.com/contact.html and explain why his ideas are wrong and your AGW pseudoscience is correct.
70
Nice one.
40
You are not really serious are you?
You are just being a attention seeking contrarian and one of Al Gore’s many gullible ones aren’t you
If you’re not please have a read of Chiefio reply to Paul Bain for a little eduction.
120
‘…and yet not one of them has come up with an iota of evidence that can shift the science in 3 decades.’
The plateau in temperatures for 18 years is a worry, as you are probably aware they are saying the models are flawed.
‘Geez, there must be an enormous conspiracy to have that happen. Or else the most perfect storm of Group think ever.’
Glad you recognize the power of biased communication by the ABC, SBS, Fairfax and of course the Guardian. When they eventually begin to tell the truth it will come as an enormous shock to the masses.
80
The Guardians’ headline for April 1st?
APRIL FOOL !! WE GOTCHA!
40
So, what is the truth, El Gordo? You forgot to tell us what that was. An oversight?
08
In science as in life – Truth is not given, it must be sought.
41
Joker what ideas or information do you have as to why “Nova” would want to use so much time and energy to debate “the science”?
I’d genuinely like to know, cheers.
81
I gave you my theory Yonnie – Jo loves attention – look up her history and you’ll see it doesn’t contradict that theory. Children’s television host. She was once an active member of The Greens – she was clearly strongly convinced of their policies. She was convinced she was right then; now she’s married David Evans and she’s adamantly convinced she’s right about her new position – his.. Shes on the record saying she wants to see if she can make money out of the climate caper. here she is asking for yours.
She keeps saying there’s big news coming in relation to the “notch filter” model that was pilloried even by her fellow sceptics, all the while she’s happily taking money from you and which she has said she won’t repay if nothing comes of it.
She asks you to believe that all climate scientists are either conniving fraudsters or gullible fools while she knows better than them all despite not a whit of evidence of her expertise in the field.
You go with Jo. I’ll go with the scientific process that allowed us to walk on the moon and me to transmit this message over thousands of kms in milliseconds.
07
Personal attacks? Google Jo Nova and any ot the following names: Jones, Trewin, Mann, Manne, Flannery, Gore, Redfearn, etc, etc.
And then have a look at the personal attacks directed at anyone offering a counter view to the Group Think moderation employed here.
You are what you say you condemn.
03
TheJoker
Now with that line of –
shows just how delusional you truly are.
.
If you can provide real science with references for your counter-argument then you will be listened to. While you act like some adolescent just trolling these pages, then your treatment is (IMO) very deserved.
The fact that you, and your like, keep appearing here shows how much trouble the consensus view is in.
20
Not to mention the “he’ll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes” nature of this very post, in which she has posted a picture of a person.
Sociopathy at best, psychopathy at worst. too funny.
02
Quote me. You are in fantasy land. And if you don’t like the pic, take that up with Rusbridger, he picked it.
40
TheJoker
Utter ßµ|lsĦit!
20
Shucks Mr/Mrs Joker, your cup of hate runneth over, and you flatter me that I could fool these readers. You project your own “scientific method” onto everyone else — which means “find a guru and blindly follow them” The rest of us think for ourselves. And as for money, I’ve spend the last six years working against our financial interests. Wash your conspiracy theory through that.
As for the taunting of the notch filter. David posted everything right here on the blog. You couldv’e gone through it all, but don’t understand it. Not much interest in real science then, just venting your malice. (it’s hard when your religion crumbles isn’t it?) We follow the scientific process, we look at the data. You follow the industrial-bureaucratic practice of what is known as the modern professional practice of science. You don’t even know what the scientific method is. Poor gullible puppy you. They namecall “denier” and you soak it right up.
70
Your fictional analysis of me merely confirms that you are willing to conjecture over what you know nothing about. How do you know what I’ve read, understood or what I follow? I’d call that teenage or younger thinking. Unintelligent.
How heroic of you working against your financial interests – otherwise you’d be a multi millionaire no doubt.
As far as I’m concerned then, you’re getting exactly what you deserve for running a site which bullies, defames and besmirches people doing their jobs in science.
My conspiracy theory? Are you really that lacking in self awareness? I can point to posts here where you claim all the worlds climate scientists are perpetuating a hoax for grants and other favors. And to comments you’ve allowed which are legally defamatory.
You’re the one that sounds angry and hating. Don’t flatter yourself – I have no hatred for you – just pity for being trapped in transparent narcissism, tribalism and sociopathy. But, I’m surprised you have time for this when your calling to save science and economies must be heavily taxing.
12
I hit close to the bone eh 😉
Name this post.
Number that comment.
“which are legally defamatory.”
40
So what’s your real beef?
That the AGW tower of babble is crumbling and you fear that you’ll be left with nothing, stranded on the the muddy outreaches of pseudoscience?
Is it that the intellectual midgets of the elitists’ greatest propagandists (MSM) have failed to convince those of independent thought?
Or is it that you are just and angry person, stupidly taking pot-shots at anything you don’t like.
As has been said before –
30
Typical lefty tactics – can not adequately argue your case so attack the person.
Very weak, very inadequate.
50
18 March: Boston Herald: Howie Carr: Snow record only ‘Inconvenient Truth’ we need, Al Gore
We won! We won! “We” just broke the record for the most snow ever in one winter, 108.6 inches.
And in an amazing coincidence, Al Gore, the pied piper of global warming, is responding to the unprecedented snowfalls and low temperatures. He has issued a fatwa, calling for a PC jihad against the heathens who actually believe what they see, rather than what they are told by fake scientists waving made-up “hockey-stick” graphics…
In his papal bull, Pope Albert ranted on: “We have this denial industry cranked up constantly. In addition to 99 percent of the scientists and all the professional scientific organizations, now Mother Nature is weighing in.”
I thought it was 97 percent of scientists. Now it’s apparently up to 99 percent…READ ALL
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/howie_carr/2015/03/carr_snow_record_only_inconvenient_truth_we_need_al_gore?utm_campaign=bostonherald_trending_stories&utm_source=bostonherald&utm_medium=trending_stories
60
Let us not forget that The Guardian was an enthusiastic supporter of “The Ship of Fools” fiasco down in Antarctica the summer before last. What was to be an expedition to demonstrate the shrinking ice sheets around the old base used by Mawson instead ended up with the expedition surrounded by EXPANDING ice sheets. Talk about a laugh!
Anyway, the clowns at The Guardian share the same comedy category as the illuminati who predicted:
1. Snow would become a thing of the past.
2. The dams in eastern Australia would never fill up again.
3. Perth would become the first ghost city of the 21st century.
4. World crop yields would start declining dramatically leading to massive famines by year 2000.
5. Temperatures would reach intolerable levels by the year 2010.
Such clowns continue to receive the enthusiastic support of the likes of Ban-Ki-Moon, Vivienne Westwood, Naomi Klein and Al Gore who, collectively, might be able to solve the simplest of algebraic equations. Why, heck, one or two of them might even know what the chemical formula for water is.
It just goes to show that not much account is given to REAL scientific competency.
90
more advocacy for a Gore presidential run:
18 March: The Atlantic: David A. Graham: Why Is Al Gore Warming Up?
Six potential culprits for the former vice president’s sudden reappearance as a rumored presidential candidate
Al Gore, just like the planet, is getting hotter by the hour these days.
There he is at SXSW, rubbing elbows with tech elites, hipsters, and the commerce secretary. There he is, svelte and poised and proclaiming his new optimism to The New York Times. There he is in Vox, where Ezra Klein is trying to draft him into the 2016 presidential race. He’s even popping up in conversations between Bill Kristol and Paul Begala…
It’s not bad for a dude who peaked at 10 p.m. on November 7, 2000. Sure, he’s had some good moments—notably the Nobel Peace Prize—but he’s also had some not-so-good moments, and it’s strange to see him getting so many headlines now. But what’s behind this Gorenaissance? This reinvi-Gore-ation? This renew-Al? One way to think through the question is to think about what constituencies might benefit…
1. Al Gore…
2. Vegans
3. The Climate-Change Community: Quick—name a prominent global-warming activist who’s not Al Gore. Tom Steyer? Bill McKibben? It’s hard to argue they compete with the former vice president. Even with An Inconvenient Truth nearly a decade in the past, he remains the most visible figurehead for the movement. While there are some signs of positive change for activists, like new rules implemented by the Obama administration, it’s never enough when you see global catastrophe on the horizon…
4. Climate-Change Skeptics: It’s important for a movement to have a leader, but it’s also important for the opposition to have a villain. For climate-change skeptics, Gore’s name remains a potent (if nonsensical) punchline. Senator James Inhofe, who chairs the Senate environment and public works committee, is a ringleader of this group…
And Gore appeals to a strange, wide swath of the party. He has links to the moderate Democratic Leadership Council types who brought Bill Clinton to office. More recently, he’s built strong ties with the party’s progressive wing. But he’s also a wealthy businessman, wealthier than Mitt Romney, able to speak the language of commerce. Ezra Klein suggests he could shift the focus of a campaign away from income inequality and toward the environment…
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/why-is-al-gore-warming-up/388069/
20
http://preview.images.memegenerator.net/Instance/Preview?imageID=2732092&generatorTypeID=&panels=&text0=Winter%20is%20coming&text1=Damn%20you%20Anthropological%20global%20warming%20&text2=&text3=
10
When we are no longer pulling fossil fuels from the ground, what will we use for (not exhaustive):
◾Heat & Electricity
◾Adhesives
◾Solvents
◾Corrosion inhibitors
◾Textiles
◾Inks
◾Adhesives
◾Shampoos
◾Detergents
◾Soaps
◾Paints
◾Coatings
◾Pipes
◾Hoses
◾Wire Coating
◾Coolant
◾Antifreeze
◾Films
◾Packaging
◾Bottles
◾Paint Remover
◾Plastics
◾Tire and Rubber
◾Lubricant Additives
◾Solvent
◾Industrial Cleaners
The wind generators as well as the factories to produce them plus solar panels will be using a lot of products requiring fossil fuels – how will these be produced?
80
You need highly refined oil to run windmills. The bearing will not last long, if reliant on animal grease
60
The Guardian – Keep it in the conifer plantation.
60
Christine Figueres, UNFCCC head, has stated that the climate change con is all about destroying capitalism and little to do with climate change.
What is never made known is with what will they replace capitalism. Will it be their new world order of povertyism… you know, like we see in poor third world countries whose many citizens have not yet had the pleasure of indoor electricity let alone using an electric cooker or microwave oven or an electric kettle?
60
So, how does this divestment work?
Mutual funds and Superannuation funds around the world are supposedly going to start divesting themselves of fuel and energy stocks. And as they do so the price of those stocks starts going down, so that they start make capital losses against their previous book value, and the more funds that join this divestment mania, the greater their capital losses.
Meanwhile, the companies themselves keep making profits and paying dividends (since the world needs energy), and as their share prices go down, their yield keeps getting higher and higher and the Price/Earnings ration keeps getting better and better.
And investors are stupidly going to look at these higher and higher yields and not going to buy the stocks at the bargain basement prices?
And members who have savings in mutual funds and superannuation funds are going to be happy that their funds are taking capital losses, and equally happy that their funds aren’t performing as well as those who have heretically gone and bought the cheap energy stock?
What an utter nonsense from the Guardian.
Regards.
50
The Guardian is a
staunchstench defender of Lysenkoism.40
Sorry to be coming late to this but my Grandson was born yesterday. I was a bit distracted. 🙂
Need I say what I think of this kind of nonsense argument?
50
Travis Jordan Hogue, born at about 8:40 PM PDT, March 18, 2015, Weighs in at 8 Lbs, 9 oz. He is 22″ long. Grandpa is ecstatic. Mother and baby are doing very well also. His father is still a bit in awe of the whole thing but he’ll eventually settle into fatherhood very well.
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
100
Congrats to all Roy !!
KK
50
Congratulations Grandad! 🙂
Regards, Annie.
PS I love being a grandmother.
50
Congratulations Roy.
Wait till he reaches the age of 16, and is still calling you Poppy.
It still makes me happy to hear that from our grand daughter.
Watch in wonder the look on her face as she sings along with the latest hit Single, only to find Poppy singing along with her. How do you know that song Poppy. Well, it was a hit when your Mother was your age ….. and some even older than that.
Do they ever reach an age when they stop calling you Poppy? I keep waiting for the day when she asks to call me something other than that.
I would occasionally get to help her with her homework, and some of it entailed research. In my day, that was done at the Library. Now, it’s just done in front of the computer with the Internet. I showed her the importance of wording in the search facility. If you didn’t find what you wanted, just use other (similar) wording. It would seem that some teachers have rigid ways that they do things.
I’ll never forget the day she asked me (tentatively) to help her with her Maths homework, and I showed her some tricks she had no idea about. Oddly, her Maths results improved out of sight, so much so that her Mother (our daughter) asked her why, and when told that Poppy helped, our daughter looked across at me with an almost astonished look one her face. So many things change at High School, but not Maths.
Grand children are a revelation because you also learn, just be being around them.
Life’s little pleasures.
Tony.
80
You are just a flower, Tony 🙂
(Those who have served in the military, especially in a Commonwealth Air Force, will get that joke. — For everybody else, “As you were!”).
30
Tony,
I remember my two grandfathers very fondly. Both grandmothers were gone before I was old enough to appreciate them but grandparents have a unique relationship with their grandchildren — they don’t have to be the disciplinarians and can spoil the kids a bit.
My grandfather Hogue delighted in such things as showing his grand kids the mercury he worked with every day in his dental practice, pouring some of it into his hand and pushing it around to show us how it behaved (can’t do that anymore).
One day there was a hailstorm that left about 4 inches of small hailstones on the ground. What did granddad do? He took a bowel outside, scooped it full of those hailstones, brought it inside and poured sugar all over it. Then we all ate ersatz ice cream.
And he’s the one who, through telling stories and showing us pictures from his railroading days, turned me into the steam locomotive fan that I’ve been ever since. I don’t know why it was considered a fun outing for the rest of the adults but grandpa loved to go down to the train station in the evening to watch the trains go by. He had a little coin purse and he’d take out a penny, put it on the rail and after the train had passed we’d go looking for that penny. It would be nearly as thin as a sheet of paper and close to twice it’s original diameter. I wish I had one of those pennies now. And standing next to those big locomotives was a real big deal for a young kid. They seemed alive, steam hissing and air compressor going chug, chug, chug. You knew there was a demon in there that would do your bidding if you kept it under control but if you didn’t it would get out and the result would be terrible. You could feel it.
That’s the kind of thing grandparents take the time to do when parents are busy with important things like jobs.
I’m looking forward to being that kind of grandfather to Travis, yes, even to the extent of helping him with a tough math problem.
40
Reading about CAGW and Vanuatu and other bits of messed up political agro,
this news must beat them all.
A new life, one that is appreciated and wanted and loved.
What is more important in the world than that?
Again, best wishes to all!!
🙂
KK
50
Absolutely nothing, Keith. Not a single thing.
40
A word of advice from somebody who has been there. Always wear an old pair of trousers when in a baby’s company. I learnt the hard way.
But congratulations.
50
No need for that advice, Rereke. Remember, I was there once already. But at least diaper technology has improved some since then — thankfully. 😉
30
Fantastic news Roy our best wishes to all your family. 🙂
Travis is actually a popular name in Australia usually shortened to “Trav” but I can see TJ Hogue being used maybe?
50
How it will get shortened is yet to be determined but frankly I’m hoping it won’t be. Nicknames are OK but Travis is short enough to say when you mean Travis.
However, my maternal grandfather went by MW. His name was Marion Willis Mills. I’m sure he didn’t like that masculine version of Marian. I’m named after my two grandfathers, Roy Virgil Hogue and MW and I’m glad myself that it didn’t turn out the other way around. On the other hand, if a name you don’t like is the only problem you have you’ve got it made.
20
And thank you all for the congratulations and the kind words.
30
Bill McKibben at the barricades.
‘Triumph is not certain – in fact, as the steadily rising toll of floods and droughts and melting glaciers makes clear, major losses are guaranteed. But for the first time in the quarter-century since global warming became a major public issue the advantage in this struggle has begun to tilt away from the Exxons and the BPs and towards the ragtag and spread-out fossil fuel resistance, which is led by indigenous people, young people, people breathing the impossible air in front-line communities. The fight won’t wait for Paris – the fight is on every day, and on every continent.’
Guardian
—-
I’m also at the barricades and only see a plateau, gradually dipping to the right.
60
el gordo,
No here’s a laugh,
The funding that flows though GreenFleece, World Wildlife Fund, Siera Club and and all the hundreds of other anti-fossil-fuel eco-fiend front-groups must be thousands of times greater than that of the skeptics and the fossil-fuel proponents put together.
Ragtag indeed.
Abe
80
If this newspaper editors personality is reflected in the paper I would short sell it immediately .
Hopefully not, but he just looks like one of those guys that was given a hard time through
school and now he has barrels of ink at his disposal for payback .
Could be the nicest guy too but one thing seems certain based on their reporting forget balance .
51
What’s the sense of keeping it in the ground when it could be percolating to teh surface all by itself? It’s not always going to be fortunate as with Jed Clampett.
BRICS Bank was founded largely because of the mis-developed world’s idea that the rest of the world needed to be kept in energy poverty; to save the world from catching a fever. Africa today needs another 1000 decently-sized, coal-fired power stations. It’s the cheapest fuel in terms of bang for buck.
The entry costs of established nuclear, the only other viable option, are too high. The balance may be different in a decade but we can only base today’s decisions on what is tangible today.
40
If the Guardian wants to tackle global warming, let them try.
Here’s a fact about the state of world-class journalism on the topic of climate science.
If you search the Youtube channel of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists you will presently find no videos about climate science.
Are rigged debates and propaganda movies the only way this subject ever gets presented to the public? Anyone can play that game.
For every “Inconvenient Truth” there’s a “Great Global Warming Hoax”.
For every “Merchants of Doubt” there is “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”.
All those serious investigative journalists out there and, despite all the friction and hoopla of the issue, none of them will touch global warming.
It’s just… interesting.
40
After a 50% decline in readership over the past seven years the Guardian finally
made a good move. The arrogant twerp editor in chief is being replaced by someone who claims to be open .
Rushbag obviously wasn’t an open kind of guy and with the business free falling, surprise surprise, they hire his replacement . Good news ? Not really, she reports to Rushbag .
She will however wear the free fall unless she runs the show.Given his preachy arrogance about the earth has a fever scam does she even have a chance ?
It won’t take long to find out that is for sure . Everyone deserves a clean start .
40