How the landscape is shifting. If we give people the right question instead of the usual loaded surveys, they surprise us. Here’s an opinion poll with an outrageously skeptical option: “climate change is a total hoax”.
Bloomberg Politics National Poll
31% of US voters surveyed said they strongly or mostly agreed.
See what happens when you ask a good question?
QUESTION:
I’m going to read stances some candidates have taken on key issues. For each, please tell me if you
strongly agree, mostly agree, mostly disagree, or strongly disagree. (Read list. Rotate.)
| Total Agree | Total Disagree | Strongly Agree | Mostly agree | Mostly Disagree | Strongly Disagree | Not sure | |
| Climate change is a total hoax | 31 | 65 | 17 | 14 | 20 | 45 | 4 |
In March 2015 a Gallup poll on Climate Change suggested that 24% of the US population worried “Not at all”. I called these the “implacable skeptics”. I’d argue now that the implacable skeptic group stands at 31% who agree that it is a “total hoax”.
Has it really grown this much since March? Perhaps the ramp up of the US presidential campaign, with Republican candidates like Trump competing to be openly skeptical and even defiantly skeptical has shifted the Overton window (the range of views that are acceptable in polite society). It’s believable that in a mere 6 months 5% of the population who were undecided have become comfortable saying it’s a “total hoax”.
The Gallup poll showed that the only sector of the population that was growing were the skeptics.
Climate is the least popular part of the Pope’s new religion of political correctness
The Pope is gradually transforming Catholicism into the Church of Political Correctness — can anyone name a topic the Pope still supports that goes against political correctness? The Pope is taking climate change, immigration, gays and abortion but not so much about Jesus Christ.
Amazingly, despite all these hot-potato topics, the point that grates with by far the most people is the Pope’s “faith” on climate change. More than half the voters polled said they thought it was a “bad direction”. This was the point of most contention with the Pope — more people felt it was wrong for the Pope to be pro climate, than protested about his denouncement of the economy (37%), or his leniency on abortion (15%), gays (18%), annulling marriages (33%), and immigration (25%).
QUESTION:
I’m going to mention some positions Pope Francis is taking that represent a change for Catholicism. For
each, and regardless of whether you are Catholic, please tell me if you think this is a good direction or bad
direction for the Catholic church to go. (Read list. Rotate.)
| Good direction | Bad Direction | Not Sure | |||||
| Chastising those who deny a human connection to climate change |
33 | 56 | 11 | ||||
How many of those 33% who approve of the Pope telling us off for our climate sins are Catholic?
The Bloomberg politics poll interviewed 1001 people,
Sept 18 -21. 2015.
h/t Climate Depot
Actually, the Pope has come out against gay marriage in a thinly veiled way by saying traditional family life is endangered. He has definately come out against gays having children, saying children need a male and a female parent. He has also clearly indicated the immorality of transgendering. While he has advocated for allowing forgiveness for abortion, he is not the first Pope to do so. Also, the need for forgiveness clearly says abortion is a sin. The media picks and chooses what they report on this.
The remainder of his positions and the encyclical do read like the radical environmentalists who helped write it. It seems evident this Pope is listening to someone besides God. He is also very veiled and generalizing in his speech. He clearly does not want to tell people that God actually has rules. That is very bad news for the Catholic church.
261
Or he’s ignorant about the scientific method or does no research before he speaks, possibly both. Otherwise I can’t imagine his saying what he’s said about climate change. But regardless, he’s putting no end of faithful Catholics on the “warpath” against climate change. Something no one needs.
160
Mr Briggs suggested the Pope was influenced by Hans Schellnhuber in this post:
https://stream.org/scientific-pantheist-who-advises-pope-francis/
I am bit more cynical … CAGW is a rival religion and there is too much money backing it to beat it. Consequently it is simpler for the church to go with the popular flow. Shame really, given that ecopolicies such as biofuels have caused so much harm.
70
your average True B’lver >>>> https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-GZjFFdpmJWE/VgiRFai5wvI/AAAAAAABap0/AlFqkhOpOl8/s557/c59b0644-0c2b-48c0-9d49-da37df549682
20
Oh come now, they don’t all wear such ridiculous shades. 😉
00
Perhaps we should all be more cynical. Maybe I’m giving the man too much benefit of the doubt because of who and what he is.
00
Or, Sheri, like any religious fanatic, he’s only relevant to those who buy into his nonsense. BTW, your (not so) thinly vieled hate towards those different from you show you are still not to be trusted.
00
The thing about the Catholic church is that Catholics do not have to agree with the pope, many don’t, they don’t even have to attend church – 75% don’t.
131
Wouldn’t that make them Catholics in name only? What’s the point?
74
Pope is not a god or a son-of-a-god, so it is OK to disagree with him. I think it is OK to disagree with a god as well, as long as it doesn’t end up being a deadly sin. But I would not know for sure, I’m not Catholic or something
Going to the church is probably a different thing – not OK. But you know how it is with all societies. ‘we have lots of members, over billion’ (non-church-goers are included) – ‘(sh/h)e is not a true Catholic, doesn’t go to church.’
30
It is okay to disagree with the Pope on an encyclical. Not so on church doctrine. There are very few deadly sins as far as know. Disagreeing on church doctrine may not mean you are in disagreement with God or the Bible. It may mean you disagree with a human being speaking for God.
My question was meant to ask why, if one does not participate in a religion (as in not going to church, etc) why do they claim to be followers of that religion. Moreover, if they disagree with the base doctrine, why claim the label at all? I don’t understand why Catholics especially insist on being called Catholics even when they clearly do not believe the doctrine. It’s like Nancy Pelosi, pro-abortion and gay marriage, but claims to be a Catholic. She is not, but she insists on wearing the label. And it is nothing more than a label. Like calling oneself a liberal and then voting for a super-conservative. The label is not applicable, yet the person clings to it.
As for what that 75% should call themselves, I would go with “Christians” and drop the church affiliation nonsense.
93
I was baptised Roman Catholic as a baby, attended a Catholic school and church on Sundays, this lasted until grade 3 when I was told to leave and try a public school (long story), this was the start of my atheism, but since some Catholic’s have said because I was baptised I’ll always be considered Catholic while others say if I reject it then I’m not, who’s right?
The goalposts change a lot where religions are concerned and this is of little concern to me, it’s when those goals direct the believers that outnumber me are directly affecting my life that concerns me, I’m not disparaging Judeo-Christian values entirely but enduring poorly planned economic changes somewhat pales compared to being beheaded for laughing at some ones imaginary friend.
120
Don’t worry – the Mormons have probably got an ambit claim in in you as well
71
Y: First, there is no one more anti-God than a Catholic scorned. It’s almost rabid in some—I think we can all see that. Also, “being beheaded for one’s imaginary friend” is extremely rude and cruel. While you may not believe in God, the fact that others are willing to die in His defense says a lot about their convictions and your lack thereof. I truly have no problem with people calling you anything they want for being a believer in the psuedoscience, superstitious group of skeptics. They can in no way insult you as have insulted others. This is my last response to any comment you write. [snip].
[Let’s tone this down a bit and not go overboard. I think your message gets across without what I snipped out.] AZ
510
Having the ability to comprehend my vilification at the behest of a cult for not complying with their dogmas at 8 years of age?
Wow I was more developed than I thought! 🙂
61
Sheri, I think you misquoted and perhaps even misunderstood, Yoniestone. I don’t think he talked about being beheaded for having a belief. I read that he was dismayed with the Catholic faith which he was born into, but was saying that at least the Christian values were not as bad as some other faiths that would see fit to behead a person who made fun of their prophet – but that was just my reading of the post.
20
I am in moderation for responding to the insult of “being beheaded for believing in an imaginary friend” which apparantly was fine. With so little respect for Christians and the ability to insult them at will without consequence—that’s it. You have just become so bad and so despicable that I am giving up. Complain about what warmists call you—have it coming for the incredible rudeness herein. I want no association with such people.
510
Hi Sheri
Keep your chin up and don’t let them get to you.
31
Church doctrine gave us the spanish inquisition, quess you’re ok with that.
00
Well I’m with the Reformers on this one (also valid for the present Pope):
John Calvin (1509 – 1564)
“Though it be admitted that Rome was once the mother of all Churches, yet from the time when it began to be the seat of Antichrist it has ceased to be what it was before. Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt .. I shall briefly show that (Paul’s words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy.” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol.3, p.149)
91
Not necessarily. They might differ on very clear Christian \ Catholic grounds and they might not attend because of that disagreement. They might consider that the Church has been taken away from being valid, that it has been diminished \ devalued, that it is fundamentally wrong, that it is in a state of sin.
120
Maybe that christianity is a way of action, and much less about belief.
At least that is what one Jesus of Nazareth is reported to have suggested in a parable known as the Pharisee and the Publican.
90
I was not aware of any Christianity based on action and not belief. Biblical teaching is very clear on the absolute need to believe to be saved. Good works are not enough. It may be another religion or it may be someone picking and choosing what to follow, but action without believe is not Christianity.
72
I should perhaps have emphasised the distinction between christian( as in concern for others), and Christian , as in a belief in the divinity of Jesus etc.
70
My ability to spell and proof-read appears a bit shakey. My bad.
10
I am Catholic, bu this current pope is a communist, so I do not recognise him.
141
Current pope………Worst Pope Ever in the catholic Church history.
He is driving Catholics away from the church with his anti christian leftist drivel !
50
The definitive guide to surveys was presented a UK TV series called “Yes (Prime) Minister!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA
100
I will NEVER tire of Yes Minister and Yes PM. Nigel Hawthorne was born for the role of Sir Humphrey. What a brilliant comic actor he was. What a shame we don’t have the writers and the entire original cast around to do their take on politics today, especially in Australia.
Equally tragic is the fact that our country just cannot produce humour such as this (the TV series Frontline being the one exception). The reason this is so is that government funding has warped the artistic output of our country. The education and grants systems reward artists who fall in step with the politics of those handing out the cash, and that means the ‘art’ of our country is nothing more than a thinly veiled political narrative.
130
The 2 original writers did do a new series of Yes, Prime Minister in 2013 (?). The scripts just didn’t quite seem to have the same feeling as the original series, though it was still amusing. There was a small ‘documentary’ (“Yes Prime Minister Re-elected”) made about this – ostensibly to promote the new series, where former politicians came forward to claim they were responsible for the storyline concepts in the original series. What I found interesting was that the 2 writers were at opposite ends of the political spectrum.
40
Thanks James. I had not even heard of the new series. I guess they made the all too common mistake of trying to fill the same roles with different actors. Henry Goodman doesn’t do a bad Sir Humphrey, but he is not Nigel Hawthorne. They needed to create a character who was not Sir Humphrey but was a lot like Sir Humphrey. More generally, to make the characters more believable I think they should have portrayed them in the same understated way as in the original series.
Re Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, I understand that one is a conservative and the other is a leftist. I understand that the conservative is responsible for the show’s cynicism about politics, whereas the other, like many leftists, wants to believe that government serves a higher purpose.
Wishful thinking is a common trait of the Left. You only need listen to some of the eulogies given in memory of recently deceased Labor politicians to see that this is so. Their attempts to deify past leaders are utterly detached from reality. They construct a view of the world as they want it to be, and then act out a fantasy that that is the way it is.
30
Barry, have you seen Utopia?
as a public servant myself (for my sins) I find it both funny and very uncomfortable in the detail. certainly is a modern Australian version of Yes minister but from a slightly different angel.
10
The other point is that Climate Change is a religion as shown by this list “borrowed” from a Bishop Hill post some time ago:
Environmentalism, in the form of Climate Change Alarmism, is a religion.
Note the structural and behavioural similarities:
► Monk ==> Scientist – They provide the articles of the faith
► Priest ==> Journalist – They spread the faith and convert the faithful
► Sin ==> Carbon Emissions – How an individual’s acts hurt the community
► Salvation ==> Energy Reduction – How individuals can redeem themselves
► Indulgences ==> Carbon Credits – Buying forgiveness
► Church ==> IPCC – Organisation in charge of the faith
► Bible ==> IPCC Reports – Official guidebook to the faith
► Evangelists ==> Activists – Aggressive promoters of the faith
► God ==> Gaia – The “superhuman” who will “judge” us
► Lovelock ==> Judas – The betrayer of the faith, the apostate
► Hell ==> 2 degree temperature rise – Hot/cold/dry/wet whatever is bad will be worse
► Signs from God ==> Any Storm or Drought
► Tithes ==> Carbon Taxes – Every religion needs money
► Garden of Eden ==> Pre-industrial world
► The Serpent ==> Fossil fuel companies
► The Apple ==> Burning Things
► Rituals ==> Erecting wind farms, ‘burning’ deniers, ‘stoning’ apostates.
► Warming ==> God …invisible, undetectable, unknowable but somehow universal
► Unbelievers ==> Deniers – to be detested and cast into darkness
► The Devil ==> Big Oil – The embodiment of Evil
► Demons ==> Sceptics, in the pay of Big Oil, vital to cast them out.
► Evil Spirit ==> Greenhouse Gas – it cannot be seen nor touched, but its effects can be felt, even physically.
410
Some of those elements are doctrines of the religion sometimes referred to as contemporary Paganism and have nothing to do with say biblical Christianity. But then the Roman Church has always embraced Pagan elements in its religion as the present Pope does.
The focus of the New Testament is not on this present world and its political systems but on a future new heaven and new earth whatever that may mean. Americans should know that the separation of Church and State is essentially a Christian doctrine. When James Madison was framing that part of the American Constitution he used John Calvin’s biblical references. That includes the words of Jesus eg. “My kingdom is not of this world” and “Give to Caesar (the State) what is Caesars and give to God what is Gods”. And of course many more such references in Paul’s writings about the State.
The Church of Rome has never embraced that fundamental Christian principle of separation of Church and State.
131
“climate change is a total hoax”.
No it is real it just slowed down and became less extreme over hundreds of years to a near total stop over the last couple of decades. Like a hockey stick with the blade horizontal at the top and the handle at a climbing angle. Thank God for giving humans the ability to save the environment by realeasing imprisoned CO2 back to where it naturally belongs. It belongs in the air to provide negative feedbacks, nourish our crops, start the food chain in the oceans and give us our daily bread. What evil generation would not enable future oxygen for their grand children?
353
Oh now which box do I tick for that?
81
I suggest toss the poll. This is what I do if I get frustrated over questions which don’t provide good options.
‘Have you quit smoking?’
* Yes
* No
* I don’t want to answer
71
I’ve quite smoking many time, about once a week in fact. Yes!
20
Obviously it’s easy to do.
60
It is easy, I was also pointing out the fallacy of even a simple question as posed. A yes isn’t necessarily a meaningful answer.
00
oops, sorry for the red thumb. My mouse is drunk.
50
Lock up the liquor cabinet! (Or use a nasty trap and squish that errant mouse! No electronic device should get away with such behaviour!)
50
Siliggy, I think you will find that most of the general public when asked about climate change automatically think of the doom and gloom predictions that have been told and quite rightly consider that a total hoax.
I would go further and say that the fact the climate always changes is regarded by most people as weather.
80
Joanne, how would you yourself answer the question?
* Strongly agree
* Mostly agree
* Mostly disagree
* Strongly disagree
* Don’t know
Because, if the question is set this way, then I’d reason this way
* There is a lot of misinformation in circulation
* Lots of the information can be considered wrong, even when the source is a scientist or group of scientists publishing in a well-known scientific journal.
* Lots of the information have been used to collect money to private pockets, like Al Gore and this famous Indian author.
* Money collectors often do the most hoaxy things, like Gore telling Greenland ice could just melt away in a jiffy.
* When there has been a concrete prediction of dire results, the prediction has either gone badly wrong, OR it is set so far in the future it is practically not possible to expect the ‘religious’ leader in question to be taken to court. (Wadhams. Hansen. Gore)
* There is a climate change running all the time, but that is not what we talk about
* We talk about human-caused dangerous global warming
* I don’t expect the AGW to be CAGW, but many find it usable, so they improve their case to create CAGW discourse.
Thus, my answer is either mostly agree, mostly disagree, or I don’t know. There are hoaxy elements in climate change discussion, and climate change is a concept for hoaxers, but it is not completely a hoax as such, just that when you hear to two words uttered, you know you probably are milked money.
This is much like asking if m*king m*ney is a hoax. Yes, if you see the word pair “m*ke m*ney”, it probably means this is a hoax spam and you should just delete the message. But it doesn’t mean it is not possible to get rich, so it is not a hoax as such.
40
Good point. I would answer it “No”. I believe it’s an idea that took root and then spread like a weed and engulfed otherwise rational scientists. They are in so far now they can’t back out. (It’s that “never surrender” thing.) However, a hoax is different—like the Piltdown Man, where there was an idea presented that the speaker knew to be false (part of the speciman wasn’t even human). That is hoax.
20
Read this as scoring the statement 1 supportive to 5 against, answer 2.
Remove the word “total”, the score would become 1.
00
I don’t like the question.
As a typical geologist, I believe in climate change, the natural kind that’s been a feature of our planet for hundreds of millions of years. As to the man made kind, that’s peddled by alarmists, I believe there is some, but nothing to be in the slightest bit concerned about.
The question should be “Do you believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), as promoted by left wing environmental politicians and activists?”
This question would have resulted in a much larger percentage of people disagreeing, probably a significant majority.
290
It’s still a two part question, and has two subjects.
I believe questions should be single subject only. Perhaps more like:
1. Have humans influenced global temperature averages. (this would be yes to most).
2. Is the global average temperature rise significant. (some would go either way).
3. Is a rise in global average temperatures influenced by CO2. (some would go either way).
4. Will a rise in global average temperatures pass a tipping point and rise significantly.
5. Is is possible for a runnaway greenhouse effect on the Earth.
6. Is is possible for a catastrophic greenhouse effect on the Earth.
7. Do you believe humans can cause a catastrophic greenhouse effect on the Earth.
50
Id add a question about food.
A “control”
Are food crops yields increased by increasing CO2?
And the question.
Is increased CO2 good or bad for humanity?
And
Control
A 2 degree increase in temperature would lengthen growing seasons and improve crop yields? Agree/disagree
Question
In your locality across all seasons would an increase of 2 degrees, mostly in increased minimum temperatures be good or bad?
This way you can apply the control, among people that know about photsynthesis and accept the science that CO2 and warm growing seasons increase food yields, belief in dangerous warming is X
Jo, we need a thread to formulate our crowd funded survey!
90
Your latter questions are expecting people to be expert. Where people are not expert themselves, they tend to avoid be called flat earthers, and so they tend to support the “expert” opinion that has had most publicity.
00
Critical thinking skills are sorely lacking these days in the majority of the population…..
20
Peter, you may not like the question but you should remember that it is being asked of the general public, most of whom are not versed in the niceties of the argument.
Your question would either produce a ‘Huh’ or degenerate to a left/right political stance. Most people here know what you are talking about, I don’t believe the general public thinks along those lines.
To the general public, climate change is associated with the doom and gloom stories they have been fed by the media and they respond to that trigger.
80
A question has to be short and sharp, such as:
Do you believe that leftists, many of whom suffer from a low sense of self-worth and are therefore driven to take revenge on society, while others are simply falling into lock-step with their peer group to be socially acceptable to them, while others have constructed a view in their mind that they are intellectually superior to others and to adopt beliefs that are contrary to the mainstream is a way to distinguish themselves from those they believe they are superior to, while others are juveniles whose hormones have just kicked in and are compelled by their hormones to adopt beliefs that advertise what appears to be their socially desirable qualities, such as virtue, while others are psychopaths who will push any agenda that advances their own interests, especially their wealth, while others have simply been bought off with grant money, while others are simply not able to understand complex issues and are therefore vulnerable to simple messages, have hijacked the debate on climate change to the extent that the arguments are so tainted that they are completely removed from the realm of science?
Oh, that wasn’t short, was it!
150
Ok I get your point. Had me in stitches by the 4th line already.
It’s all that you have to squeeze unsaid into the short question or to work out what the short question really means to your audience.
10
The problem with Americans on this issue, at this point in time, is not if they are believers or unbelievers in CAGW, but their lack of interest in how the believers want to use this issue politically.
I estimate that 9 out of 10 Americans don’t even know about Paris.
Americans still enjoy cheap fuel, and abundant and cheap electricity. These issues are not even on their radar. They do not realize that things will soon change unless they wake up. The media (even the conservative media) are not interested in the proposed solutions and the ramifications. Many just don’t believe it can happen here. Obama and the main stream media want America to stay asleep at the wheel for now.
150
“I estimate that 9 out of 10 Americans don’t even know about Paris.”
A good thing, too. How could we keep them down the farm if they did know?
60
So the Pope aligns himself with hell fires for wicked men as punishment for their sins? So what’s new, except it is the rich West, the Catholic West which are the sinners. Interesting that the wicked muslims are not criticized for supplying the stuff. China as neither does not rate a mention. Of course the solution is to buy expensive pieces of paper which do not stop the sinner, just offer forgiveness for sending billions to European bankers? Is this another Medici scheme?
As for surveys, it is a good result, that 33% think it is a total hoax. How many more are simply not prepared to pay the price for the sins of others? After all, if Australia produces a whopping 2% of the world’s CO2, an inconsequential amount compared with plant respiration, why should Australia have a tax on Carbon which is 98% from overseas?
However losing all credibility will not change the religion, or any religion. Prepare to have victory snatched away at Paris as our very own unelected Prime Minster Malcolm Turnbull tells the country he is the new messiah. Profit, not prophet.
140
What is really silly about Australia paying a carbon tax is the idea that while it is clearly totally unfair and utterly ineffective even in reducing CO2, something it does not do, it will encourage other countries to reduce CO2 ouput and pay taxes too. How does that work? Who really accepts that mad logic? If someone pays a speeding fines for others, are they encouraged to slow down?
Still, this is presented to us as a ‘good thing’ to do, self flagellation and impoverishment. I would have thought this simply showed how really stupid Australians can be? Why is this implicit nonsense unchallenged?
201
Those thinking folk that decided that entropy always increases, had no idea of what “post normal stupidity” can increase to! 🙂
90
TDeF: Because people are taught that caring is all that is necessary. If caring results in disasters, that does not matter as long as one cared. This was brought about probably during the 60’s in the US, where people protested and held sit-ins and very little changed Kids looked at their parents and saw their parents were not doing what they were saying should be done. So at some point, caring was all that mattered. The alternative was that one’s parents where lacking in moral fiber and that was not going to fly. Any action that resulted in a bad outcome did not matter. It’s quite pervasive today—look at all the places that going bankrupt in the USA because of caring liberals. Yet people keep right on voting their own demise because they believe the liberals care if they just say they do.
111
Yes, caring. This is the same caring which lead to the total chaos in the Middle East? Now the governments of Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan have been fixed, we can all breathe easier? This caring is killing us. Australians can only hope the US does not care about us. Why not intervene to stop the Saudis from selling CO2 if it is such a poison, wrecking the planet?
In Australia our very popular Prime Minister (ignore the press), who achieved a landslide win at the election with policies of stopping illegal migration (Australia has the highest per capita intake of refugees in the world) and a man who called the science of Climate Change ‘crap’, has been removed by the very MPs for whom he achieved such success. This is the first time in the history of the country that a conservative Prime Minister has been removed by his own party (excepting John Gorton who voted against himself).
So now we have a man who thinks Gay Marriage makes sense, that there is magic about mass drownings, that a carbon tax will do good and who used to be a partner in Goldman Sachs? As a very rich man, he lives in Australia’s most prestigious address and has no problem spending our money. Of course the leftist press ignore all this because it is doing so much damage without their commentary, until closer to the election. Now all three groups are promising a caring Carbon tax while our Country party fumes, trapped in a coalition of the unwilling. Watch Turnbull flip flop in Paris.
40
Incidentally Turnbull also wants Australia to have a Republic, possibly with himself as President. You could never accuse Tony Abbott of being egotistical or anything other than open but for very successful ultra wealthy lawyers and merchant bankers like Turnbull, the reverse is true. He and he alone knows what is good for the country and if Goldman Sachs benefits, that is just good luck. Perhaps he was just too rich for the Labor party?
We also keep reading about how intelligent he is, which means he knows much more about man made Global Warming than any scientist. Perhaps Malcolm could get this printed on his T shirt? This as true of failed tycoons before him, John Elliot was known as Figjam.
This is infuriating as in a lifetime, I have not met a lawyer who could perform simple arithmetic or do his own tax return, so it is a different sort of intelligence. To Malcolm, a partial differential would be racist. It is easy to predict that this means disaster for sceptics in Paris.
30
Settle down a bit TdeF! The man hasn’t done anything yet. He already lost his job once over AGW. Don’t assume he didn’t learn from that. And he obviously does have an above average ability to not just count, but to also spot the flow.
Do remind him that we already have a republic.
As a lawyer, he does wear a truly remarkable scalp on his belt. The British Government’s!
Nobody has mentioned this yet. Malcolm Turnbull is Australia’s answer to Donald Trump. But he is a whole lot better looking by any measure.
10
Sun-Climate-Gate…
It’s good to see real backbone.
NoTricksZone & JoNova are not timidly & submissively caving in to devilish “sun has no effect” propaganda:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/suggestions-14/comment-page-1/#comment-107728
Pendulum backlash with NO(!!) resting on laurels.
60
Paul,
Both blogs need much more of your input. Preferably with much of painful explanation, for us children, that get excited, and wet ourselves!
10
The survey question is worthless, and the person who chose the question is ignorant.
I am an “ultra-denier” (defined below)
Yet my answer to the question, based on a literal reading of the words, is to strongly disagree.
That means the survey question is worthless.
Earth’s climate is always changing — that is not a hoax.
It is warmer than it was 150 years ago – that is not a hoax.
Humans are responsible for at least some of the warming (at least UHI, and dark soot on Arctic ice and snow) – that is not a hoax.
I know that leftists define climate change in a specific, scary way, but that is NOT included in the question.
Definition of climate ultra-denier:
(1) Does not see any proof that CO2 caused any of the warming since 1850, and does not care,
(2) Celebrates the slight warming since 1850, and wants more warming,
(3) Celebrates the increased CO2 since 1850, and wants more CO2 (speaking on behalf of green plants),
(4) Considers the climate change since 1850 to be within normal natural variations,
(5) Believes climate models are a waste of taxpayer money, with no predictive ability,
(6) Believes most “climate scientists” should be on the unemployment line, and
(7) Believes the “coming climate change catastrophe” is primarily a leftist scam (boogeyman) to scare people, and allow central governments, and the UN, to seize more power over ordinary citizens.
(8) (Optional) If put in charge of the world, would throw all climate modelers in jail for disturbing the peace (the climate has been improving since 1850, for humans and green plants, yet we are not allowed to celebrate that fact because for over 40 years smarmy leftists have been (falsely) bellowing that climate change will end life on Earth as we know it).
Free, no ads, no money for me, climate blog for non-scientists, presented as a public service:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com
230
“(8) (Optional) If put in charge of the world, would throw all climate modelers in jail for disturbing the peace”
Some small fraction are innocent. It is those top academic Climate Clowns that need be indited tried, convicted, of intentional public fraud. Even then, they should have the democratic choice of jumping into, or being thrown into, the volcano! FOR THE CHILDREN!
“(the climate has been improving since 1850, for humans and green plants, yet we are not allowed to celebrate that fact because for over 40 years smarmy leftists have been (falsely) bellowing that climate change will end life on Earth as we know it).”
——AMEN—–
90
Richard, you are a special case and in no way relate to the general public and what they perceive climate change to be based on what the have been fed by the MSM.
50
Big thumbs up !
30
Warming since 1850?? That means you are a mainstream believer. What evidence do we have that the weather in 1850 was different from today’s? Maybe in parts of Europe it was, but were there even as many thermometers about worldwide then as there are now. There aren’t enough now to make any reasonable guesstimates as to what, if anything, is happening, so the 1850s are a closed book to us.
The satellite record is at least consistent in its data mining, so we should stick to that, and it says no warming, no cooling, just business as usual.
I suppose you believe the oceans are acidifying because someone once said average ocean pH is 8.2 and now some people are saying it is 8.1 or whatever they are saying. It would make as much sense.
Ultra-denier indeed!
10
Evidence of government cover-up is bound to cause first suspicion , then doubt amongst the sheeple.
Follow the money.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-26/did-goldman-sachs-sacrifice-australias-prime-minister-his-doubts-about-global-warmin
30
I don’t think the theory of [man-made] climate change is a “total hoax” but the theory is certainly falsified by the IPCC’s own criteria:
IPCC climate change criteria: radiative forcing “measured at top of atmosphere” (IPCC AR4 FAQ 2.1, Box 1 – “What is radiative forcing?”).
FAQ 2.1, Box 1: What is Radiative Forcing?
[A] – “The word radiative arises because these factors change the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation within the Earth’s atmosphere. This radiative balance [‘measured at the top of the atmosphere’] controls the Earth’s surface temperature”
And,
[B] – “When radiative forcing [‘measured at the top of the atmosphere’] from a factor or group of factors is evaluated as positive, the energy of the Earth-atmosphere system will ultimately increase, leading to a warming of the system. In contrast, for a negative radiative forcing, the energy will ultimately decrease, leading to a cooling of the system”
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html
# 0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance, trendless (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al 2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2).
Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg
Loeb et al (2012) Figure 1
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Loeb2012-TOAfluxvsOHC.jpg
# 1.9 W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”, trending (dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co), C 400ppm Co 280ppm, IPCC Table of Forcings, same as net anthro).
Game over. CO2 “forcing” is more than treble the TOA imbalance and increasing, CO2 is an ineffective climate forcing.
# 0.6 imbalance TOA = 0.6 imbalance Sfc
Sfc imbalance is global average ocean heat accumulation (around 24 W.m-2 tropics, -11 W.m-2 southern ocean). Therefore, TOA imbalance is simply solar SW going straight into the oceanic heat sink and lagged in energy out at Sfc and LW out at TOA.
No need to invoke CO2 “forcing” and it is impossible to invoke anyway – it doesn’t fit between Sfc and TOA. IPCC AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution fails to address this.
Game over.
No formal hypothesis for man-made climate change (that I know of) but one can be inferred from the IPCC’s criteria:
Obviously it doesn’t given the evidence so the hypothesis is null.
The neglect by the IPCC of it’s own criteria in Chapter 10 begs 2 questions:
1) Was it just sloppy incompetance?
2) Or was it willful negligence?
90
The climate change theory falsification above has been presented at four blogs now including Carbon Brief and Climate Conversation Group.
Also at Judith Curry’s Climate Etc Here:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/28/week-in-review-science-edition-19/#comment-728167
Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1 and Loeb et al (2012) Figure 1 linked above are displayed in the Climate Etc comment.
And at WUWT here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/23/when-messaging-collides-with-science-the-hottest-year-ever-inside-a-global-warming-pause/#comment-2034435
Again, Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1 and Loeb et al (2012) Figure 1 are displayed at the WUWT link but not as easy to view as at Climate Etc.
No traction anywhere to date of any note. I’m starting to wonder why not.
40
># 1.9 W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”
I’ve put forcing in quotes here because it is a theoretical forcing i.e. it has to be proven to be effective in reality.
Yes, a theoretical forcing effect can be derived from ground-based measurements of the increasing DLR flux specific to CO2 (Berkeley Labs did this at Oklahoma and Alaska getting 0.2 W.m-2/decade 2000 – 2010).
But if the theoretical “forcing” has no effect where it is supposed to in the first instance (TOA) then the theory is busted – and busted it is.
40
“Obviously it doesn’t given the evidence so the hypothesis is null.
The neglect by the IPCC of it’s own criteria in Chapter 10 begs 2 questions:
1) Was it just sloppy incompetance?
2) Or was it willful negligence?
How about:
3) Deliberate, intentional, [snip], for profit?
All the best! -will-
41
Q1) Do you find questionnaires tend to have missing or unsuitable options?
a) No
b) A banana
Q2) Do they try to polarise what are subtle opinions?
a) Black
b) White
Q3) Do the question designers understand the issues?
a) Please repeat the question
b) What is an issue?
Seriously, I don’t know why they keep asking the public about climate change all they have to ask is ‘what is your carbon footprint?’ Some won’t know what one is. Most won’t know the answer and some won’t want to say. It would give a result of about 95-98% not bothered. You might even call it a consensus.
As for the Pope – how can anyone in the 21st century have not noticed that consumerism has resulted in the most peaceful, least poor countries in the world? Ok, they’re not perfect but they’re the closest mankind has come to utopia and religion has had nothing to do with it.
130
Grin;— 😉
00
You would think a pope would know a great deal about history, particularly the past popes.
I’m currently researching pope Boniface VIII. At his ordination there were riots in the streets outside and “much blood spilt that day”. His reign was 9 years before he was murdered.
Yes, these days are much calmer.
30
Time for earthlings to study Raccoons! Three seconds after sperm penetration, already the most self aware entity! Before birth, this entity has identified, and acknowledged all competing for mommy’s tit! Kind of nasty critter, but way smarter than most!
All the best! -will-
10
Another question – What’s air. The range of answers would be a never ending joke.
Another question – What temperature is CO2? Is it too hot or a little on the cool side?
Most of the general public would think that’s a valid scientific question.
50
The best question is a consumer relevant one
How much extra per week are you willing to pay to reduce CO2:
Or
Is is acceptable to you if substitution of renewables for coal sourced energy resulted in regular power outages?
If yes then
What level of power outages is acceptable
Every day
Every week
1 day a month
5 days a year
2 days a year
1 day a year
8 hours a year
No outage is acceptable
Note that about 8 hours a year is what we get now.
60
http://www.martindurkin.com/short-thoughts/new-luther-needed .
20
In paragraph 238 of Laudato, we have:
“The Father is the ultimate source of everything, the loving and self-communicating foundation of all that exists.”
. . .
According to this Red Pope, The Father is not powerful enough to control carbon(sic), which he created.
60
With millions the penny has dropped,
That warmist false claims have now flopped,
A hoax far too far,
Like a run-away car,
Which needs to change gear and be stopped.
120
With millions the penny has dropped,
That warmist false claims have now flopped,
A hoax far too far, Like a run-away car,
Which needs to change gear and be stopped.
Nice! but how to stop? Pointman claims containment of the infection, and let it kill itself. No longer can earthlings demand that others must do! 🙂
40
The papacy has issued two infallible statements in the last 2,000. That is an average of 1 per 1,000 years. Pope Francis hasn’t issue any.
As far as the nearly one third of Americans that think climate change is a hoax, make that one third plus one. It isn’t just a hoax, it is a [snip], period!
50
What you people continually fail to understand is that Climate Science Research is strategically peer reviewed for specific points of agreement and published to support statistically predicted outcomes of CO2 based Climate Models.
110
I am still tying to translate this comment.
What I think you are trying to say is that all ‘peer reviewed’ ‘climate research’ has only one purpose and that is to provide, no matter how spurious, support for the dodgy and demonstrably inaccurate results spewed out by computer climate models.
If so, I concur, as that is a reasonable reflection of today’s reality in ‘climate science’.
81
Apologies for that thumbs up that went off target. Smart phone finger.
20
I.e.
The research is organized to support the Hypothesis – not to refute it.
This is the standard Humanities approach to research which is as follows,
(1) You are introduced to and indoctrinated into an ideology,
(2) You read further books, pamphlets, materials, and other peoples essays that are directly supportive of the Ideology.
(3) You write an essay where you regurgitate the central ideas of the ideology while correctly referencing what you have read.
(3.a) The referencing proves that you know who the accepted authorities are.
(4) You get graded on your ability to conform.
(5) If you conform well enough – you get your degree.
Any attempt to refute the hypothesis will result in failure for lack of conformity.
140
Sadly, what you say is all true.
70
Yes el gordo. It does read like every primary school experience I remember, and a good many secondary education experiences. My collage was by correspondence, but the subject Australia Asia and the Pacific is exactly as described. I failed that one because I answered as I saw fit to do so, and since it was about religion of those regions, I don’t see how I could be so wrong.
30
31%…
That’s a lot of people to shove into
re-education,labour,death,fertilizer plants, Re-Education Programs70
That is the ticket! Now what?
For you my special friend, many, many finely honed pitchforks, suitable for controlled poking at whatever. Perhaps ‘the now’ has no need for careful poking. Again for you, my special friend, many, many not so good pitchforks, but quite suitable for riots. For you, my friend, a very good price for large quantities!
All the best! -will-
30
Ex Warmist,
Many similar socialist ideologies used bulldozers and quicklime.
60
Boy you deniers – we would never use quick lime.
20
Zerohedge reports on the link between Tony Abbott’s Fall, The proposed audit of BOM Data and Bankster Cap and Trade
30
In February the trio of Turnbull, Hunt and Morrison were seen having a quiet chat on the shores of an artificial lake and I knew instinctively they were up to no good.
They are passionate zealots.
20
If I was asked “is climate change a total hoax” I would have to answer NO.
Now I know that the question implies that we all understand that the question really means AGW. But if that’s what it means then why not say so?
I’ve always believed that over time climate changes NATURALLY and I’d doubt the sanity of anyone who doesn’t.
70
The word ‘climate’ has only meaning for a Realtor trying to complete a SALE!!! 😉
50
Neville, why is it not a total hoax?
30
Sorry EG I can only respond using English. If you can’t understand what I mean that’s your problem not mine.
30
Pity, I thought we might have a debate on sensitivity and the precautionary principle.
Its a semantic exercise, but ignoring that, do you think global warming will return in your life time?
30
EG I don’t know if GW will return in 10 years or 20 years or 50 years.
But I’d be very careful about Had or Giss etc claims that it had returned ever. So I’ll stick with balloons and satellites for now.
10
Fair enough, I’m happy with balloons and satellites.
Has the Central England Temperature data been adjusted or corrupted in any way?
It would be good to have a ground base we can all accept.
20
It has been fascinating to see this Pope, who is clearly a character who understands the peril his church faces going forward, delicately try to abandon the foundation policies of his anachronistic organisation.
It is of course a complete farce, because the very change he seeks to ensure their survival is transforming Catholicism into something unrecognizable. Effectively they are attempting to transition from a very average myth based cult to a progressive youth / developing nation advocacy group.
Climate change has been a fascinating topic for me as espoused by the christian movement. As I have stated before I find it just one more tiny step on the road to the utterly bizarre that a group who claims to know the exact manner and timing of the “end of days” and bases its belief system around that occurrence being the best thing that could happen and that should happen ASAP….. Suddenly start pretending to care if the world is destroyed prior to their particular brand of Armageddon coming to pass.
The notion that the 4 horsemen would care if they arrive to find a rain forest or a desert, is one I could listen to explanations for all day. There has not been a great deal of side splitting comedy since the days of Python, but The Pope is doing his best to make up for lost time.
61
“It has been fascinating to see this Pope, who is clearly a character who understands the peril his church faces going forward, delicately try to abandon the foundation policies of his anachronistic organisation.”
Please do not dismiss this Pope so easily! He has a fine, well paid, capable organization. He is almost as good as a Raccoon. Put him up against Putin, then watch the odds go all over the board. 😉
50
I’m afraid that the CAWG religion has similar tenets to the Catholic Church’s Doctrine of Infallibility and that why it is going to be very difficult to destroy the CAGW meme.
40
A soul arrived in Heaven and was greeted by St. Peter, who took him to the Heavenly Plain with the radiance of God illuminating all.
When his eyes had become adjusted he noticed groups of worshipers arranged from the foot of the throne. “Who are those people immediately in front of the throne?” He asked St. Peter.
“Those are the true believers and propagators in Climate Change” St. Peter replied, “and it is only right that they should be there so close to the All Seeing”.
“And who are they right behind them?” “Those are the ones who never questioned Climate Change” said St. Peter, and their faith makes it proper that they take their place there.”
“And the next group?” “They are the lukewarmers, those who believed there was some truth in it.”
“And who are those behind God’s throne?” ” those are the sceptics” said St. Peter ” they’re the only ones he can trust”.
170
I’ll pay that one.
40
Thanks for that Graeme No 3; you’ve cheered me up. As a Christian I feel very upset that the pope and various clerics are pushing the AGW line; they certainly do not speak for me.
40
before commenting on the poll.
already referenced in comments above, but this is most important & potentially influential piece online today.
if anyone is registered to comment at ZeroHedge, please post the Graham Lloyd articles (which Durden hasn’t done because they are not in the ABC piece he links to & he hasn’t searched them out) or Jo’s threads on the subject, PLUS Christopher Monckton’s short youtube PLUS Alan Jones interview with Monckton. i will locate the urls if someone will post the comments:
26 Sept:ZeroHedge: Tyler Durden:Goldman Strikes Again: Did A Probe Into “Global Warming” Fraud Cost A Prime Minister’s Job
According to Freedom of Information documents obtained by Australia’s ABC, now-former prime minister Tony Abbott’s own department discussed setting up an investigation into the Bureau of Meteorology amid media claims it was exaggerating estimates of global warming…
Goldman Sachs.
While we hardly have to remind readers that it is Goldman that conceived of the carbon-credit market, and was behind cap and trade, here is an (in)convenient summary of who the true puppetmaster is behind the worldwide infatuation with stopping “global warming”, and who stands to benefit the most as the world is manipulated into doing everything to kill global warming dead in its tracks, courtesy of Matt Taibbi…
In retrospect, while Abbott completely unexpected exit on September 14 was a shock, his Prime Ministerial replacement should come as no surprise at all: Malcolm Turnbull, as we noted, just happened to be Chairman of Goldman Sachs Australia from 1997-2001. The same Turnbull who was deposed as opposition leader in 2009 over his support for a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme, a “scheme” that, when fully implemented, would lead to huge monetary windfalls for none other than Turnbull’s former employer: Goldman Sachs.
So was Goldman the responsible party behind Abbott’s ouster? One can only speculate, however one thing is certain: any concerns and fears of “probes” or “audits” into Australia’s global warming “data and statistics” are now history.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-26/did-goldman-sachs-sacrifice-australias-prime-minister-his-doubts-about-global-warmin
10
Here is another interesting US poll:
Gallup: 60% of Americans Want a New Political Party. But, Why?
30
If the undertakings given by the romantics to the rationalists, on maintaining the existing approach to reducing CO2 emissions were critical to their support of the assassination, they should be at least a little concerned.
Because of the comments and demeanour of the Environment Minister Greg Hunt – firmly on the alarmist side of the ledger.
Firstly, why the necessity to boast that it was he who convinced the government not to investigate of the Bureau of Meteorology “adjustments” to the historical temperature record which to be generous, have not been well explained?
Is Hunt attempting to court favour with his fellow alarmists, soothe the offended bureaucrats at BOM or something else?
Secondly, isn’t there are at least a shred of concern from a mob who express at least an appreciation of our current financial position that the billions of dollars committed to renewable energy via direct action; should have a demonstrably sound and scientific basis in terms of the scientific data?
BOM’s adjustments can reasonably give rise to suspicions when their affect is to reverse the obvious contradiction between the observed temperature data and the models – the pause – at a time when it’s becoming particularly difficult for the alarmists to pretend it doesn’t exist.
It might well be that the adjustments can all be properly rationalised and the timing is coincidental.
If so, what’s the problem?
Why this this constant hysteria at the mere mention of what the observed data shows?
At the end of the day, surely warmies and their propagandists in the establishment media, would relish an opportunity to rub the sceptics noses in a finding which validates a more alarmist position?
Not a costly exercise financially – particularly comparable to what we are and will spend on this alleged future disaster.
It all just seems a little strange to me.
50
It’s a boast about his political power and sneakyness as a mole. It’s a selling point on his CV, saying “Hire me. I’m an experienced skullduggerist.”
30
have posted a comment I wish to add to, but it has gone into moderation. help.
re the Bloomberg poll. it had one aim – to suggest two thirds of the public agree CAGW is real. that the poll was asking about “climate change” makes the response UTTERLEY MEANINGLESS. in fact, 100% should have responded that CC isn’t a hoax. period.
the “deny” question is loaded as well, and was just another opportunity to portray CAGW sceptics as DENIERS.
23 Sept: WaPo: Philip Bump: Americans believe in climate change. But they don’t think the pope should criticize deniers.
The last question is more straightforward. Should the pope encourage the Catholic Church to speak out against climate change deniers?…
Basically, more people are comfortable with the church bashing free-market capitalism than with it bashing people who doubt that climate change is caused by humans. You have to figure that some not-small part of this derives from the vagueness of the capitalism question and the specificity of the one about climate change, and you have to figure that some part of it is rooted in the hyper-partisanship of climate change politics in the United States…
a decent number of people oppose criticizing climate change deniers even though they strongly disagree with the most extreme position of that group…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/23/america-is-more-comfortable-with-the-pope-bashing-capitalism-than-pushing-climate-change/
MSM worldwide mostly ran with the Quinnipiac Poll which Reuters circulated – and which found – SURPRISE UNSURPRISE – that TWO THIRDS of Americans agreed with the Pope on CLIMATE CHANGE:
Quinnipiac Poll: September 25, 2015 – Americans Of All Faiths Like Pope Francis, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Agreement With Pope On Climate Change Tops 2-1
All American adults agree 61 – 26 percent with Pope Francis’ call to do more to address climate change. Agreement is 67 – 23 percent among Catholics, 51 – 36 percent among Protestants and 74 – 16 percent among those with no religion…
From September 17 – 21, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,832 adults nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 2.3 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2284
00
OT. Don’t know if has been raised here but it is important.
http://themarcusreview.com/tag/climate-change/
30
So, now we are back to Lib/Lab being a distinction without a difference – except, perhaps, for the quantum of financial damage inflicted.
All thanks to Mr waffles, the black bishop and their band of centre left plus ‘Liberals’.
20
followup to comment #26 –
these are the links which i’m hoping those who are registered at zerohedge will post in the comments. they do not all have to be posted in a single comment. Tyler Durden needs this background information, which bolsters his case:
26 Aug: Bureau Of Meteorology finally explains! Cooling changed to warming trends because stations “might” have moved!
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/bom-finally-explains-cooling-changed-to-warming-trends-because-stations-might-have-moved/
Australian: Heat is on over weather bureau by Graham Lloyd
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/heat-is-on-over-weather-bureau-homogenising-temperature-records/story-e6frgd0x-1227033714144
Australian: Bureau of Meteorology ‘altering climate figures by Graham Lloyd
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/bureau-of-meteorology-altering-climate-figures/story-e6frg6xf-1227033735740
23 Aug: The heat is on. Bureau of Meteorology ‘altering climate figures’ — The Australian
See also Jennifer Marohasy’s blog: Corrupting Australia’s Temperature Record (LINK)
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/the-heat-is-on-bureau-of-meteorology-altering-climate-figures-the-australian/
Top Australian Talk Show Host Alan Jones talks to the climate change sceptic about his prediction LAST YEAR of a move against Prime Minister Tony Abbott by Malcolm Turnbull before the Paris Climate Conference at the end of 2015.
http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/129386
Christopher Monckton in Australia, October 2014 warning about possibility of a Turnbull coup against Prime Minister Tony Abbott (video posted in Feb 2015 when first, failed attempt was made to oust Abbott.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG0WcjGHkEw
it doesn’t matter if multiple people post these links – the more the better.
10
27 Sept: Sky News: AAP: Bishop vows best efforts for climate meeting
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has joined counterparts from a key grouping of countries to affirm they will make their best efforts to ensure success at a key climate change conference in Paris.
On the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York on Saturday, Ms Bishop chaired a meeting of the MIKTA group comprising Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey and Australia.
The five foreign ministers released a statement on climate change affirming their countries would ‘make the best efforts’ to work towards a successful outcome at the Paris conference in December to negotiate the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change…
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/09/27/bishop-vows-best-efforts-for-climate-meet.html
27 Sept: Courier Mail: Anna Caldwell: Foreign Minister Julie Bishop boosts Kevin Rudd bid for UN job
JULIE Bishop says the Australian Government would give “serious consideration” to supporting Kevin Rudd in a bid for him to become the next United Nations secretary-general.
Ms Bishop, who met with Mr Rudd on Thursday in New York, said she’d been contacted by a number of people about the position…
The Courier-Mail revealed this week that Mr Rudd was on a charm offensive in New York, hopping from public engagement to public engagement while Kevin Rudd insisted last night he was not a candidate for the top diplomatic job.
Ms Bishop — who would need to support any possible bid- was invited as a guest of honour this week to Mr Rudd’s think tank, the Asia Society, where the pair sat side by side and spoke in hushed tones.
When asked yesterday if Australia would support Mr Rudd in a bid for the top job, Ms Bishop replied saying he was a former prime minister.
“Of course if Kevin Rudd were to put his hand up Australia would give it serious consideration,” Ms Bishop said.
“After all, he is a former PM of our country.”…
Shadow foreign affairs minister Tanya Plibersek was also invited to speak at the Asia Society, where she last night heaped praise on Mr Rudd’s work on the foreign stage and at home.
She said the Labor Party would “back 100 per cent” a Rudd bid and “would be mad not to”.
Ms Bishop has also this week met with former NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark who wants the top diplomatic job…
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/foreign-minister-julie-bishop-boosts-kevin-rudd-bid-for-un-job/story-fnihsrf2-1227545755880
30
Those gales of laughter coming from the Cabinet-room don’t mean they aren’t giving it serious consideration, it means they are!
30
” JULIE Bishop says the Australian Government would give “serious consideration” to supporting Kevin Rudd in a bid for him to become the next United Nations secretary-general.”
Isn’t the next SG supposed to come from a Developing country ?
10
Oz possibly will be not too long after Kevin gets appointed.
10
What is the difference between a “total hoax” and a “normal hoax” or just a “hoax”??
30
I will venture some distinctions:
“total hoax” = no basis in fact and laugh out loud ridiculous.
“normal hoax” = no basis in fact and moderately risible.
“hoax” = no basis in fact.
40
scaper –
what do Australians know about Agenda 2030? (btw everyone should note it’s all about Agenda 2030 now, not Agenda 21).
nothing whatsoever.
25 Sept: CNS News: Barbara Hollingsworth: Vatican Official Backs Away From ‘Verbatim’ Endorsement of UN Agenda 2030 Goals
Archbishop Bernardito Auza, the Vatican’s permanent observer to the United Nations, has backed away from his prior “verbatim inclusion of the UN sustainable development goals and targets” in the UN’s 2030 Agenda…
Auza endorsed the goals “verbatim” in a June 22 statement even though “radical population control policies, ***especially in the developing world***, are embedded in them,” human trafficking expert and former Vatican observer Elizabeth Yore told CNSNews.com…
Yore went back to Rome in April as part of a six-member Heartland Institute delegation in an effort to encourage the Vatican to engage in “open dialogue and open debate” about climate change prior to the release of Pope Francis’ encyclical, Laudato Si.
But Vatican officials refused to meet with them.
“My concern from the beginning is that this document is going to be used as the moral foundation for the radical UN agenda,” she told CNSNews.com…
“I was shocked at the leftist number of experts they brought in to the Pontifical Academy, so from that point forward, I started to really watch what was going on,” she said, citing population control advocates Jeffrey Sachs and Hans J. Schnellnhuber, who helped co-author the Vatican’s April 2015 document on climate change.
“Incredibly, these are the people that the Vatican has turned to, and we’re there saying: ‘Do you know what these people have been advocating for the last 25 years? They’re in direct contravention of the Catholic teaching and Catholic doctrine.’
“But we’re ‘Tea Partiers’ and we’re dismissed.”…
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/vatican-official-backs-away-verbatim-endorsement-un-agenda-2030
30
Agenda 2030 – NGOs love it. want public to ensure its carried out…yet the public knows nothing!
24 Sept: SwissInfo: Urs Geiser:Sustainable Development Goals: Think tank cautions against high hopes for Agenda 2030
Non-governmental organisations say Switzerland will have a tough time implementing the new goals for sustainable development. Politicians and the business community will have to deliver and civil society must do its part to ensure words are followed by action.
Alliance Sud, a Swiss think tank of six leading development organisations and charities, welcomes the United Nations Agenda 2030 as a compromise of sorts…
“It is a document riddled with contradictions,” says Eva Schmassmann, the Alliance’s expert on development policy. “But it is the result of three years of negotiations and consultations among states and civil society. Therefore, it is already a success to have agreed to this document.”
A crucial point for the group is how the goals will be implemented and to what extent governments and the private industry can be held accountable…
Schmassmann concedes that details of the monitoring process remain to be defined. “Although there is a moral obligation, accountability is ultimately difficult because the goals are not legally binding. It will be up to civil society to keep an eye out and tread on feet.”…
She says the Agenda will bring about a paradigm change, as the fight against poverty worldwide becomes part of sustainable development, including environmental and economic issues, notably for countries in the northern hemisphere…
Herkenrath (Alliance Sud) is concerned that Switzerland’s budget for regional cooperation on development aid will be reduced in order to contribute financially towards international climate policy, humanitarian aid and increasing cost for asylum.
***“There is less money in the coffers but more players want to help themselves from the pot,” he says…
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/sustainable-development-goals_think-tank-cautions-against-high-hopes-for-agenda-2030/41667008
30
good question that should have had input from the people affected prior to any signing surely:
26 Sept: Thomson Reuters: Belinda Goldsmith: Who funds the trillion dollar plan of the U.N.’s new global goals?
While aid funds and debt relief were key for the millennium goals, there is wide recognition of the need for other sources for the estimated $3 trillion a year needed to enact the SDGs.
***The World Bank, with other development banks, coined the phrase “Billions to Trillions” to illustrate the challenge.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Secretary-General Angel Gurria said private sector participation was critical while governments need to strengthen tax and regulatory systems to encourage investment…
Meanwhile the world’s richest nations again committed to a target of earmarking 0.7 percent of gross national income for overseas development assistance – although few meet that level in practice – which now stands at about $135 billion a year…
While some criticize this as tinkering with a broken global tax system, Gurria said SDG funding does not need new initiatives but can build on and improve existing structures.
He called for a team of “tax inspectors without borders” to build trust in countries’ systems and boost investment.
***”If you get it right, you can get trillions,” Gurria said…
http://www.trust.org/item/20150926201514-s5nbc?view=print
30
25 Sept: European Commission Press release: European Commission welcomes new 2030 United Nations Agenda for Sustainable Development
The EU has been a leader in contributing to this process from the start. It is now committed to take this agenda forward, both inside the EU (such as through forthcoming EU initiatives like, inter alia, the Circular Economy Strategy which is designed to address more sustainable patterns of production and consumption) and through the EU’s external policies by supporting implementation efforts in other countries, in particular those most in need…
First Vice-President Frans Timmermans, responsible for sustainable development and leading the Commission delegation on behalf of President Juncker: …” The result is a landmark achievement uniting the whole world around common goals for a more sustainable future. We are determined to implement the 2030 Agenda which will shape our internal and external policies, ensuring the EU plays its full part”…
The 2030 Agenda (‘Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development) was informally agreed by consensus at the UN in August this year…
The new 2030 Agenda will re-define how the international community works together on a global commitment to a different kind of future for people and the planet – one which will put the world on a path towards sustainable development…
The geopolitical changes of the past 15 years have led to a realisation that a more universal set of targets, requiring integrated solutions, is now more appropriate. The new Agenda is much broader and applies to all countries…
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5708_en.htm
20
There is no “weekend unthreaded” so I hope it is OK to post this. I don’t know much about it but what is your opinion on the idea of an “electric universe”, i.e. the idea that our sun and galaxies are governed by inter and intra galactic massive electric currents? I am skeptical about this. There is a video at https://youtu.be/5AUA7XS0TvA Of course, the relevance of this to climate is that solar activity may be influenced.
30
I’m a big fan of the electric universe theory and myths, both ancient and modern.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/07/14/article-2691479-1FA11B5C00000578-176_964x766.jpg
20
Oh what the hell, since I unleashed an unintentional S#!tstorm upthread and now considered Dawkins’ two headed love child, yes I too have been interested in the Electric Universe theory considering the known atomic mass and the energy involved to react in forming molecular structures.
Note, not once did I suggest that Gravitationists suck!
30
Earlier post intended for Yonnie.
20
btw
The correct form of expression is “sux”
KK
30
Bloody hell even my satire sux today! 🙂
40
I was there ; the storm of scheit was not of your making. Your factual observation was misconstrued completely, even though it was obvious to which religion you were referring; obvious to most that is.
30
I did write something about your comment in, what was for me, a very diplomatic manner seeking to defuse the issue.
Unfortunately it was moderated probably because of mention of the M religion and heads and stuff .
Act in haste, repent at leisure .
And I have done that frequently.
My church was the Congregational church from age 5 to 14 or so when I decided to do other things.
Avery laid back organisation full off good people teaching not much more than the Parables along with a lot of singing (funny story there).
KK
60
Appreciate the effort KK, I hold no ill feelings towards anybody who was offended, the line between opinion and empathy seems very fine indeed.
The same person I offended was quite surprised a while back at my being pro-life, where they got the impression I spit on anyone who holds a religious belief has me stumped?
50
I think a lot of it was just gentle build up of comments before yours and the yours was a bit hard to decipher.
30
You should all convert to Judaism. Athiesm is permitted. You’re expected to be opinionated and outspoken. More holidays and interesting foods. In some affairs you’re granted favors as an ethnic minority, while being an insider at the foundation of the western mainstream. And you gain shared patent rights on the invention of the weekend.
60
The Roman Catholic church jumping on board just confirms the global warming scam
is faith based .
After 20 years of scary global warming hype the Roman Catholic church now wants to save the planet too .
Does the church even get that the agenda of the planet savers is only accomplished with massive population controls(deaths )
The RC church are going to look like fools by falling in with the promoters of one of the largest scams in history .
80
It won’t be the whole Catholic Church. You should find that the majority would not accept the global warming hoax. Certainly George Pell doesn’t.
I have read that a certain archbishop said to the Cardinals after Francis’ Election “May God forgive you for this”. Slightly different to what Tony Abbott’s young staffer said to their Malcolm.
40
The Pope is a politician – not a scientist.
He is also an oportunist without any scruples.
Jumping on the bandwagon of the climate alarmists.
He sees this as as the opportunity to advance the Catholic Church
Why wouldn’t you be synical about religion.
Geoff W Sydney
60
The problem is that the Pope is actually seriously damaging the church due to his rabid leftist rants….
20
http://pickeringpost.com/story/-julie-quickly-into-bed-with-un-warmists/5377
Turnbull got what he wanted
40
OT, I know, but from Tim Blair…
Liberal Party strategist Mark Textor believes “the loss of disgruntled conservatives will be outweighed by the appeal of a more moderate party to swinging voters”:
“The qualitative evidence is they don’t matter,” Mr Textor said. “The sum of a more centrist approach outweighs any alleged marginal loss of so-called base voters.”
WTF !!!!
60
Well, it has been noted a number of times – the general public has the attention span of a goldfish. Every cycle around the bowl is brand new
80
In other words, you’re replaceable. It’s the numbers that matter, so bugger off if you want, we’ll catch some easy fish instead.
30
IOW: ‘We believe in nothing, we will swing whichever way the wind blows to get into power.’
Look how that turned out for Rudd and the ALP.
40
More like, is there another I phone in this for me?
30
“Mark Textor” is dead wrong !
Conservative voters will never ever accept a LABOR LITE Liberal Party led by TURNCOAT TURNBULL (a labor party stooge)..
30
we are seeing this in Canada right now with both Mulcair and Trudeau jr (spit!)
00
AndyG55 –
to this day, the MSM has not reported on the overwhelming objection to the Turnbull COUP via emails/calls to Liberals, the alleged 1 million calls to Alan Jones’ program which crashed the 2GB switchboard, the 500 texts/emails or whatever an hour flooding into the Ray Hadley program, or the outrage expressed on other talk shows.
instead, MSM/polls told us the public loved the COUP.
sovereignty is disappearing completely under Agenda 2030. Textor sounds as smug as the rest of the self-seeking globalists. Julie Bishop endorsing Rudd for top spot at the UN! says it all.
MSM & fake polls tell us regularly that the public demands action on CLIMATE CHANGE. really.
consider:
26 Sept: WUWT: Google forecasts no interest in Paris COP21
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/26/google-forecasts-no-interest-in-paris-cop21/
I posted in the comments:
– same as there is no interest in these so-called “climate protests”. apart from the organisers (always a lengthy list) and their friends, no-one turns up.
PIC: Another Climate Prediction Fizzles: DC Climate Rally for Pope shrinks from expected 200,000 people to just ‘hundreds’
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/09/24/another-climate-prediction-fizzles-dc-climate-rally-for-pope-shrinks-from-expected-200000-to-just-hundreds/ –
remember the big CLIMATE protest planned for Obama’s visit to Canada early September, when no-one but the organisers turned up, judging by the pic I posted at the time on one of jo’s threads?
to any parents with adult children still at home who believe the CAGW mantra.
send them packing, so they have to pay their own bills, especially for electricity/heating, and they will soon change their tune.
70
The Turnbull coup has strings, I bet, to Mr. Obama.
10
I wonder if there’s much overlap with the 29% of Americans who can’t locate the pacific ocean on a world map.
11
It seems that the Propaganda Pope may have found a new religion >>>> CAGW or CACC or whatever its disciples call it this month !
Must be wondering to himself that this new religion doesn’t even need a history …..just propaganda ……the ” Climate Crusades ” of the 21st century have begun !
Whom ever believes the strongest is the most righteous …..Hallelujah !!!!
Look no further than the AlpgreensBC journalists ( or lack thereof )!
They will always have ‘Sage’ Flannery for enlightenment !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/climate-change-warnings-over-the-years.jpg
30
Its very important because 31% Americans believe that they have been had. Its a huge number and if it grows beyond40-50% ther is no way the team will get away with it
20
This Pope has damaged the Church in ways not seen since Galileo and its reaction against Luther’s request for a debate.
20
If the Pope (God’s PR spokesman for less than <15% of the world's population ) was so concerned about tweaking the earth's temperature
what was God thinking with the last ice age ?
Michael Mann has been invited to take on Conrad Black (by Black ) and the silence as they say is deafening.
10
Hmmm, the survey numbers should add up to 100%–they don’t. Not good! I’m glad to hear, however, that more Americans are waking up to the climate scam.
00