JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

The consensus is fake

Eminent Professors have taken the extraordinary step of writing another open letter to Congress to warn them again that there is no consensus and they are being deceived. The brand name Science is being used for a power grab. Decades of good-will has been stolen by the hunters from big finance and wannabe autocrats. It’s time for scientists everywhere to stand up and be counted. Write to your associations. Write to your elected representatives. Tell the people on the bus on the way to work!* It will be too late after the deals are signed… — JoNova

Team of Scientists’ Open Letter To U.S. Senators: ‘Claim of consensus is fake’

Science group ‘reviewing its stance on global warming’ after 160 physicists sign petition

Monday, November 02, 2009 – By Marc Morano –  Climate Depot

The following letter was sent to all 100 U.S. Senator’s on October 29, 2009 by a team of scientists. The letter is reproduced in full below:

A GAGGLE IS NOT A CONSENSUS

You have recently received a letter from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), purporting to convey a “consensus” of the scientific community that immediate and drastic action is needed to avert a climatic catastrophe.

We do not seek to make the scientific arguments here (we did that in an earlier letter, sent a couple of months ago), but simply to note that the claim of consensus is fake, designed to stampede you into actions that will cripple our economy, and which you will regret for many years. There is no consensus, and even if there were, consensus is not the test of scientific validity. Theories that disagree with the facts are wrong, consensus or no.

We know of no evidence that any of the “leaders” of the scientific community who signed the letter to you ever asked their memberships for their opinions, before claiming to represent them on this important matter.

You can do physics without climatology, but you can’t do climatology without physics.

We also note that the American Physical Society (APS, and we are physicists) did not sign the letter, though the scientific issues at stake are fundamentally matters of applied physics. You can do physics without climatology, but you can’t do climatology without physics.

The APS is at this moment reviewing its stance on so-called global warming, having received a petition from its membership to do so. That petition was signed by 160 distinguished members and fellows of the Society, including one Nobelist and 12 members of the National Academies. Indeed a score of the signers are Members and Fellows of the AAAS, none of whom were consulted before the AAAS letter to you.

Professor Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara

Professor Fred Singer, University of Virginia

Professor Will Happer, Princeton University

Professor Larry Gould, University of Hartford

Dr. Roger Cohen, retired Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil

List of 160 signers of the APS petition available at http://tinyurl.com/lg266u

* (You think I’m being tongue in cheek? Not at all. Spread the word. The taxi driver I spoke to last week was so delighted to hear it was a hoax he nearly took his hands off the wheel to clap – he begged to come hear me talk. He was thrilled. I’m thinking seriously of getting Skeptics Handbooks into cabs… :-) )

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
The consensus is fake, 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/24hyxgn

38 comments to The consensus is fake

  • #
    Geo Joe

    There is certainly no consensus among my peer group – geoscientists – not that arguments from “consensus” should ever carry much weight. Most geoscientists believe that man has either no effect on climate, or such an insignificant one that it is overwhelmed by and indistinguishable from natural variation.

    The only thing that I would argue with in the APS petition is the claim that the scientific issues at stake are “fundamentally matters of applied physics”. If anything, climate change is the natural domain of geoscientists (but then I would say that) as few other scientists have a historical perspective on the earth’s climate and are less likely to appreciate how much it has varied over time in both directions at all rates.

    Professional rivalry aside, no single discipline can truly lay claim to climate change being its domain. Tthe reality is that climate change touches on many disciplines – physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, meteorology, archaeology etc.

    However, one thing I am certain of is that virtually no journalists have anything more than a cursory understanding of the subject. This is damaging the quality of the public debate.

    00

  • #
    l

    Geo Joe,

    All sciences have Physics at their base. Remove Physics from them and you have little more than subjective hand waving, piles of word salads, pretty pictures, and meaningless diagrams.

    Physics looks at the fundamental workings of reality and provides a demonstrable mathematical description of them. All the other sciences do is provide a verbal or pictorial description of a particular aspect of reality that may or may not be demonstrable. They are especially not demonstrable without the use of physics (aka Applied Physics).

    00

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    Oops. My name didn’t take on my previous post.

    00

  • #
    Robert Dammers

    “All science is either physics or stamp collecting” – Ernest Rutherford.

    I had to write an essay with that title in the General paper of my Physics finals in 1979.

    It could help explain my lacklustre degree.

    00

  • #
    Geo Joe

    Lionel and Robert, what you say may well be true at an extremely fundamental level but reducing rocks or depositional processes down to sub-atomic particles and fundamental forces is neither helpful nor meaningful. (Reductio ad absurdum comes to mind). The power of observational sciences like geology and biology lies in their ability to integrate seemingly disparate observations and make meaningful interpretations of the past or present. As for predicting the future, I’ll leave that up to the climatologists.

    I’ve seen Rutherford’s quote before. Not bad for a Kiwi, although it may be worth pointing out that his Nobel Prize was for chemistry.

    00

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    Geo Joe:

    The science of physics does not consist entirely of sub-atomic particles and fundamental forces. The higher levels of physics also apply: laws of motion, mechanics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, and the like.

    Meaningful interpretations of observational sciences must be consistent with the underlying physics or its nothing but BS. See the so called social sciences for a case in point. I understand that the connections may not be obvious nor direct but they exist and cannot be safely ignored. That is if your goal is to understand what actually is.

    00

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    Geo Joe:

    As a physicist I agree with Lionell. Physics is needed to explain how the weather and current climate works. Geoscientists can tell us about the long term climatic behaviour and explain the influence of rocks etc on the atmosphere and oceans (a bit of chemistry here), but the physical processes of mass and energy transfer, radiation, convection etc at any given time are what they say – physics.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    They can’t even tell us if there will be an earthquake tomorrow, how can a geoscientist say anything about long term climate!

    00

  • #

    MattB:
    November 5th, 2009 at 11:56 am
    They can’t even tell us if there will be an earthquake tomorrow, how can a geoscientist say anything about long term climate!

    I don’t believe Phillip was talking about future predictions, but understanding climate over long timeframes…geological timeframes.

    00

  • #
    Flats

    @ Matt

    The MET can’t even predict the weather yet they’re certain we’re thundering towards apocalyptic doom.

    00

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    Indeed I was talking about the past over geologic timescales.

    00

  • #

    I found this comment on Twitter by the MD of the ABC Mark Scott disturbing: “Just left Lowy Institute after blistering attack by the PM on climate change deniers and sceptics. A very punchy speech.”

    This looks very much like the head of the so called independent national broadcaster taking sides in a public way in the climate change debate. How can anyone expect ABCTV for example to present to the public fact based and balanced reporting on the subject if this is what the MD is thinking?

    Heck he even uses the word “deniers”!

    (See: http://twitter.com/abcmarkscott)

    00

  • #
    Glenn

    OMFG. see: http://www.pm.gov.au/node/6305

    The Prime Minister has decided to pick a fight. We need to call him on this. You can bet the conservative columnists will be all over this tomorrow, but the outrageous sentiment in this needs to be met at all levels. Taken to its obvious conclusion people like you and I are now considered enemies of the state. I don’t think the goons are about to come and pick us up, but this is manna to those who believe skeptics should be forcibly gagged. If the PM wants a fight he should get one.

    00

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    Glenn: I skimmed through the PM’s speech without throwing up. What a complete load of political bo**ocks. It sounds like the speech of a desperate failing politician (a bit like Gordon Brown here in the UK).

    He doesn’t seem to recognise that there are thousands of us independent scientists who don’t see evidence for dangerous man-made climate change.

    00

  • #
    Matt Buckels

    Greg you are paranoid. Fact = PM gives blistering speech. Fact (and a bit of opinion)= it was very punchy. How is that biased.

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Talking about picking a fight…Check this rebuttal from Marc Morano…

    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3689/Australian-PM-warns-skeptics-are-too-dangerous-to-ignore-and-are-holding-the-world-to-ransom–Climate-Depot-Responds

    Mr. Morano can hold His own to anyone..even Joe Rohmm! He understands and “knows” His stuff!!!

    00

  • #

    Matt Buckels,

    If you use the language of people who try and shut down debate on global warming e.g. use the term “deniers”) then you display a bias.

    Try this:

    “Just left xxxx Institute after blistering attack by the xxxx on Refugees and Asylum Seekers. A very punchy speech.”

    Would that be acceptable? How would the left respond to that? Would anyone from the ABC even write that?

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Fact = PM gives blistering speech. Fact (and a bit of opinion)= it was very punchy. How is that biased.

    For starters they forgot to mention the hypocrisy. Rudd uses the word “fear” to denounce his opponents (my emphasis below):

    … these three groups of climate skeptics are quite literally holding the world to ransom, provoking fear campaigns in every country they can …

    … that eternal motto of the Liberal and National Parties is never let the facts stand in the road of a good fear campaign

    … the Liberal and National fear campaign about the design of the CPRS …

    … Senator Joyce – fearmonger in chief on climate change …

    … they offer maximum fear, the universal conservative stock in trade.

    And in the midst of denouncing the use of fear as a political tactic, Rudd boldly goes out and uses fear as his own political tactic:

    For people who claim to hold the conservative torch, their scepticism is in fact radical in its riskiness and recklessness. By deliberately undermining and eroding the capacity to achieve both domestic and international action on climate change the skeptics are attempting to force the world to take the single most reckless bet in our long history.

    My message to the climate change skeptics, to the big betters and the big risk takers is this:

    You are betting our children’s future and the future of our grandchildren.

    You are betting our jobs, our houses, our farms, our reefs, our economy and our future on an intuition – on a gut feeling; on a political prejudice you have about science.

    That is too big a risk, too radical a departure from the basic conservative principles of public policy.

    Malcolm, Barnaby, Andrew, Janet – stop gambling with our future.

    00

  • #
    Matt Buckels

    well it is clearly what the PM gave a speech on. Would you rather he reported it was on freddo frogs and weetbix?

    00

  • #
    Glenn

    The timing and thrust of Rudd’s speech demonstrate two things:

    (1) an attempt to divert attention from the asylum-seeker issue;

    (2) a reaction to the realisation that public opinion is sliding away from support for the CPRS.

    On (1), he’s only going to be partially successful. The asylum-seeker lobby will ensure the issue stays in the headlines. That, and the contiued arrival of boats.

    On (2), he’s apparently read the Skeptics’ Handbook playbook for AGW believers – ad homs, calls to authority, not debating the facts. He might as well have held up his hands and said “take your best shot”. Thankfully some are. However, I have to say Marc Morano at Climate Depot crossed the line into ad hominem a bit in his rebuttal of the speech, and it didn’t sit well. Stick to the facts, point out the lack of evidence and the pointlessness of a cap and trade system (and the vested interests in it) and there’s really not much more to add.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Glen:

    I respectfully disagree with you when you say;

    “Stick to the facts, point out the lack of evidence and the pointlessness of a cap and trade system (and the vested interests in it) and there’s really not much more to add.”

    Of course one should “stick to the facts” but there is much more to add to what you suggest. Very importantly, your list omits mention of the effects of constraining the emissions by any means.

    Stopping the emissions would reduce fossil fuel usage with resulting economic damage. This would be worse than the ‘oil crisis’ of the 1970s because the reduction would be greater, would be permanent, and energy use has increased since then. The economic disruption would be world-wide. Major effects would be in the developed world because it has the largest economies. Worst effects would be on the world’s poorest peoples: people near starvation are starved by it.

    The precautionary principle says we should not accept the risks of certain economic disruption in attempt to control the world’s climate on the basis of assumptions that have no supporting evidence and merely because they’ve been described using computer games.

    Climate has always changed everywhere and always will: this has been known since the Bronze Age when it was pointed out to Pharaoh by Joseph (the one with the Technicolour Dreamcoat). Joseph told Pharaoh to prepare for the bad times when in the good times, and all sensible governments have adopted that policy throughout the thousands of years since then.

    That tried and tested policy is sensible because people merely complain at taxes in the good times, but they will revolt if they are short of food in the bad times.

    But in 1990 several governments decided to abandon that policy and, instead, to try to stabilize the climate of the entire Earth by controlling it. The UK started that policy and intends to continue it. Many governments of many countries are doing the same.

    This attempt at global climate control arises from the hypothesis of anthropogenic (that is, man-made) global warming (AGW).

    And the effects of this policy would be devastating for peoples of the Third World because holding the use of fossil fuels at their present levels would be to kill millions – probably billions – of them. Please note that this is not an opinioni it is not a prediction, and it is not a projection. It is a certain and undeniable fact that holding the use of fossil fuels at their present levels would kill billions of people, mostly children. And reducing the use of fossil fuels would kill more millions or billions.

    I explain this certainty as follows.

    Most of us would not be here if it were not for the use of fossil fuels because all human activity is enabled by energy supply and limited by material science.

    Energy supply enables the growing of crops, the making of tools and their use to mine for minerals, and to build, and to provide goods, and to provide services.

    Material Science limits what can be done with the energy. A steel plough share is better than a wooden one. Ability to etch silica permits the making of acceptably reliable computers. And so on.

    People die without energy and the ability to use it. They die because they lack food, or housing, or clothing to protect from the elements, or heating to survive cold, or cooling to survive heat, or medical provisions, or transport to move goods and services from where they are produced to where they are needed.

    And people who lack energy are poor so they die from pollution, too.

    For example, traffic pollution has been dramatically reduced by adoption of fossil fuels. On average each day in 1855 more than 50 tons of horse excrement was removed from only one street, Oxford Street in London. The mess, smell, insects and disease were awful everywhere. By 1900 every ceiling of every room in Britain had sticky paper hanging from it to catch the flies. Old buildings still have scrapers by their doors to remove some of the pollution from shoes before entering

    Affluence reduces pollution. Rich people can afford sewers, toilets, clean drinking water and clean air. Poor people have more important things they must spend all they have to get. So, people with wealth can afford to reduce pollution but others cannot. Pollution in North America and Europe was greater in 1900 than in 2000 despite much larger populations in 2000. And the pollution now experienced every day by billions who do not have the wealth of Americans and Europeans includes cooking in a mud hut using wood and dung as fuel when they cannot afford a chimney.

    The use of fossil fuels has provided that affluence for the developed world. The developing world needs the affluence provided by the development which is only possible at present by using fossil fuels.

    We gained our wealth and our population by means of that use.

    The energy supply increased immensely when the greater energy intensity in fossil fuels became available by use of the steam engine. Animal power, wind power and solar power were abandoned because the laws of physics do not allow them to provide as much energy as can be easily obtained from using fossil fuels.

    The greater energy supply enabled more people to live and the human population exploded. Our population has now reached about 6.6 billion and it is still rising. All estimates are that the human population will peak at about 9 billion people near the middle of this century.

    That additional more than 2 billion people in the next few decades needs additional energy supply to survive. The only methods to provide that additional energy supply at present are nuclear power and fossil fuels. And the use of nuclear power is limited because some activities are difficult to achieve by getting energy from the end of a wire.

    If anybody doubts this then I tell them to ask a farmer what his production would be if he had to replace his tractor with a horse or a Sinclair C5.

    So, holding the use of fossil fuels at its present level would kill at least 2 billion people, mostly children, in the next few decades. And reducing the use of fossil fuels would kill more millions, possibly billions.

    Improving energy efficiency will not solve that because it has been known since the nineteenth century that improved energy efficiency increases energy use: as many subsequent studies have confirmed. (Google ‘Jevons Paradox’ for explanation of this).

    So, in a period of a few decades we have moved from the tried and tested climate policy that has stood the test of time since the Bronze Age, and we have replaced it with quasi-religious political madness which – if not stopped – will pale into insignificance the combined activities of Ghengis Khan, Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot.

    Sad, but true.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Richard S Courtney: Post 21

    Mr.Courtney, very well stated and accurate. If I may ask, what are your credentials?? Is this a major subject for you? I hope you don’t mind me asking..Would like to know what’s behind another Phenomental Mind that visits here.. :o )

    Thanks,
    Denny

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Denny:

    I do not know what you mean by mt “credentials”.

    I am a human being in possession of a human brain. Does anybody need more “credentials” than that to have an opinion?

    All thoughts and opinions should be assessed on their merits: they should not be accepted or rejected on the basis of who provided them.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Richard S Courtney: Post 23,

    I do not know what you mean by mt “credentials”.

    Mr. Courtney, forgive me suttleness! Let me ask straight out if I may. What do you do for a living?
    Are you a Scientist, Doctor, Politician, etc,etc???

    I

    am a human being in possession of a human brain. Does anybody need more “credentials” than that to have an opinion?

    I’m not questioning you capacity to “Think”! I didn’t request anything of the sort!

    All thoughts and opinions should be assessed on their merits: they should not be accepted or rejected on the basis of who provided them.

    Yes, Mr. Courtney, I totally agree but I didn’t challenge on that either. For if these complex answers are the response’s I’ve asked for and it’s your way of stating “no don’t bother asking” I can accept that..Thanks for replying!

    Denny

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Here’s the latest from Erl Happ! It’s a amazing paper. Hope you all take time to read it!

    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1217.last

    Regards,
    Denny

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Denny:

    I do not understand your personal interest in me, especially when you do not provide your own name. But you ask me;

    “Let me ask straight out if I may. What do you do for a living?
    Are you a Scientist, Doctor, Politician, etc,etc???”

    OK. To avoid any assertions of evasiveness, I point you to the information about me that is in the public domain. It is on pages 25 and 26 of the item at
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf

    And that is all I will say in response to personal questions that deflect from the subject of discussion here.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Girma

    IPCC Projection Already Disproved.

    When are they going to accept what they observe?

    00

  • #
    David Hewison

    Matt Buckels = Text book example of blind faith. No critical thought or reason. He agrees with the message therefore cannot see through what is an exceptionally childish, partisan abuse filled put down of anyone that doesn’t agree with the PM.

    If a politician presented a speech like that that happened to agree with my opinions, yet publicly denounced all naysayers as deniers – he would lose my support instantly.

    If those that blindly follow our chairman have any self respect they would also react badly to this disgusting example of a ‘wanna be’ dictator.

    As for those that he was attacking – one hopes that have some spine and rise against him. He deserves everything he gets – sacking wont be enough.

    00

  • #
    David Hewison

    Richard – that was the most compelling, well structured and common sense peice of writing i’ve seen in a long long time.

    I had to copy your text – I hope you dont mind!

    00

  • #
    Matt Buckels

    Actually David in 28 it clearly states “deniers and sceptics”. Or do you seriously believe there is no such thing as a climate change denier? Surely you agree there are people out there who would deny even if the kind of evidence was produced that satisfied for example Joanne?

    Regardless of your stance on climate change, the tweet just says it as it is… PM delivers whatever to the “quote pm’s terminology”. It is totally unbiased and does not even slightly allude to the authors personal stance on climate change.

    Sorry mate but you are fair dinkum delusional.

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Richard S Courtney: Post 26

    OK. To avoid any assertions of evasiveness, I point you to the information about me that is in the public domain. It is on pages 25 and 26 of the item at
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf

    Mr. Courtney, I would like to say “Thank You” for your response and input. You have answered my question! You do have the right to question someone’s request about “personal” information..As we all know the Internet can be and is a place you have to be careful…I thought my interest in you was, as I would say,
    general in nature..I’m not that kind on person. As far as “my identity” goes, my first name is Dennis, but I want to be friendly in nature so I go by Denny…Joanne Nova “knows” who I am and I think She’s the only one who should know for this is Her Web Site and she should know. If need be, I can provide my full name if the “need” arises.

    Thank you, Mr. Courtney for your referral. I’ve learned something today! Keep up the “great” work that you do…for “Realists” need you!

    Regards,
    Denny

    00

  • #

    Richard,

    I read your interesting paper about the inability of windfarms to reduce CO2 usage (because they have to be backed up by thermal powerplants running on standby).

    There is something that could be done to make windfarms contribute to the energy mix – use them to synthesize hydrocarbons instead of generate electricity for the grid. Then take the natural gas or kerosene that they generate, and burn them in thermal powerplants – or in cars, trucks and airplanes.

    Although it would be far more effective to synthesize the hydrocarbons using nuclear reactors, I think.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Brad Jensen:

    I am away from my base and with very limited internet access here so this reply is short.

    Yes, that would work. But why do it? It would be grossly inefficient, very expensive, and would provide little power.

    As you say, there are better options.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    David Hewison

    OK Matt, i read your post, read it again.. then once again and I truly believe that pone of us has a comprehension problem.. I expect its you.

    I was referring to the PM being biased.. what author are you on about? The PM Is biased, although I am sure he doesn’t believe what he is saying in respect to the science, as the science is pretty clear – especially research conducted over the last couple of years.. its all a non issue.

    Politically though, he is absolutely biased. TO claim anyone who doesn’t agree is a denier??? mate, you must be a real nut not to see that.

    Tweets??? Are you 3?

    Idiots call people deniers. Simpltons. fools..

    There are people that question the theory of AGW – you might call us skeptics, however it is in fact the normal state to be in when it comes to science. You question, test, retest.

    If there are people that, as you say ‘deny’ that the climate changes, well sure, they are as foolish as you.

    Go look up Dr Richard Linzden, MIT. His research on radiative output from the atmosphere proves conclusively that the greenhouse effect is not driving climate change.

    And just today I discovered this… http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html from the UNiversity of Bristol… THis finding has been confirmed by other studies and noted independently…

    Then there’s the blindingly obvious ones:

    No hotspot
    The climate is cooling
    Temperature drives Co2 NOT the other way round
    Sea levels are not rising as predicted.
    the bears are doing quite well actually – how that has anything to do with man is beyond me.
    blah blah blah

    In fact, every single claim made by your side has proven to be wrong. Theres nothing left but for twisting the facts.. and making ridiculous predictions, which you do very well.. but data doesn’t lie. What we observe will always override childish alarmism.

    So Matt, not matter how many times you call me a denier, or delusional… the world will do what it does regardless of what you want it to do.

    I was looking at the BOM web site today, do you know average temperatures in melbourne have stayed perfectly level over the past 100 years? How can that be if Rudd claims we are the most prone to climate change? But I guess the BOM is delusional too hey..

    Take the blinkers off… and wake up.. gullibility is not a good quality to have. Especially when it leads to taxes that effects others that actually make the effort to find out the facts. if the tables were turned, you’d feel the same.. in fact, your side is well known for preaching but never practicing.

    00

  • #
    Secondsight

    Wow, there’s a lot of talent being displayed on this site. My hat is off to you all, especially you Jo, and anyone else who has the guts to allow debate on their site.

    Notice how hard it is to find AGW alarmist sites that will allow posting of questions, comments, and requests for back-up info. How does that make everyone feel? Geez, even the AGW gullibles are allowed to play on this site – but not at your Mummy’s house. Ha ha ha!

    A little jab at ‘scientific consensus’: How could the world’s top investment bankers be wrong? Now the world is monetising carbon. Why is everyone so stupid?! Naive!

    Yeah, it’s shows like 4 Corners that get interviewees to relate bushfires in South Australia to IPCC findings. Can you believe it, stats and models being used to predict weather extremes?

    The US just had its third coldest October on record. Proof of global warming? Sure, they said it would be herladed by weather extremes.

    There is a ‘forum’ coming up at Moruya High School (south coaast of NSW), sponsored by the High School’s Environment Group. Everyone means well. Prof Clive Hamilton, author of Scorcher, and Dr John Kaye NSW MP for the Greens will be there. But it’s only them, talking to our kids.

    Maybe we all need to get off our talented bums and take the teachers and local politicians to task. Or maybe one of us, with an old mate ex-QC, will have to take the issue of carbon taxes to the high court one day and upset the entire shambles. I can imagine it, arguing that I only had one child, so I ought to be exempt from ALL carbon-related costs and tarrifs, forever in carbon credit.

    Yes, thats going for the ‘A’ in AGW. How else can we solve it if we let it go so far?

    PS, anyone with nifty powerpoint files on the AGW theory (pro or con) will be most welcome. If only I had a job (poor darned geologists during the GFC) I would sponsor high school debates on AGW.

    Let’s all hope that the GFC is enough cause for the politicians of the naive world to defer, and think more carefully about donating their GDP to China.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    David in 34… sorry happy to disagree but you need to re read the thread… the 1st post about this was #12 by Greg Atkinson, and the accusation was that “This looks very much like the head of the so called independent national broadcaster taking sides in a public way in the climate change debate. How can anyone expect ABCTV for example to present to the public fact based and balanced reporting on the subject if this is what the MD is thinking?”

    My reply was that I felt the head of he ABC was just giving a fair assessment of what the PM said. Again my post at #19 makes it clear we are discussing the ABC bloke’s reporting of the issue on Twitter. I’ve not said anything about the appropriateness of what the PM said, which appears to be what is firing you up. You think I’m defending the PM, but I’m defending the ABC honcho.

    Lastly, regarding your concerns about my use of the noun “tweet”: “A tweet is a post or status update on Twitter, a microblogging service. Because Twitter only allows messages of 140 characters or less, “tweet” is as much a play on the size of the message as it is on the audible similarity to Twitter.”

    You seem to think I’m using a childish insult by saying “the tweet just says”, when in fact I’m using the accepted terminology for the action of making a comment on the Twitter platform.

    00

  • #
    Chris B.

    Mr. Courtney, please, I mean no disrespect in any way toward you. I agree with your stance on global warming 100% but out of curiosity’s sake could you explain how an “energy expert” and “Expert Peer Reviewer for the IPCC” gets invited to brief the Congress of the United States of America on climate change? Being an American and knowing how our goverment puts such stock in credentials I find it curious that you didn’t have to walk in with at least five science doctorates rather than a diploma in philosophy. One of the major arguments used in America against skeptics is credentials. I would love to use your invitation as ammunition against that argument.

    00

  • #

    Fantastic blogpost, thanks so much!

    00