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

A letter to parents who are not gullible

Image: Clive is DARK green.
Clive Hamilton (failed Greens candidate and “intellectual” Australian) couldn’t persuade skeptical adults he’s right about carbon pollution, so instead of improving his arguments, he’s trying the same lines out on our kids.

This is a message for parents in response to Clive Hamilton’s letter to children of “deniers”.

Hi there,

Clive Hamilton has written to your kids. If you’re like me, almost everything he said about you was a lie. How do you answer your children if they say “you are paid a lot of money to try to stop laws about pollution and what you do will kill poor kids?”

After you explain the truth, and point out that this man, a) wouldn’t know, and b) has an interest in promoting the fake scare, it might be time to give them a skill for life.  The most dangerous people in the world are the ones who pretend to have good intentions, and there’s a way to tell the fake heroes from the real ones.

Fake heroes like darkness. Real heroes like light.

Fakes don’t like debates, open discussions or other opinions. They don’t want their ideas exposed to the light of polite conversation, or the plasma arc glare of real evidence. To keep everyone in darkness, fake heroes throw names instead of talking politely. They try to intimidate people who disagree to keep them from speaking. Sometimes they even tell lies (and tell themselves it’s OK, because the ends justifies the means).

Hamilton does all he can to pull the plug on the shining lights. He wants eminent physicists like Will Happer, censored. Happer is a Princeton University professor of physics and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy. But, Hamilton calls Happer a Denier, and says his words “are dangerous.” Just because Happer has excellent credentials doesn’t mean he’s right, but Hamilton does not even think he deserves to be heard.
Ponder what Happer’s grown up children, (or Bob Carter’s, Ian Plimer’s, or Bill Kininmonth’s) might think of Hamilton’s advice about how their dads are “spoiling things for them and the other kids at school.”

If Hamilton really wanted to save the environment he’d want to see all the studies

If Hamilton really wanted to save the environment he’d want to see all the studies on how the suns magnetic field might affect clouds and rainfall, and find out what astrophysicists are saying, or how there have been hundreds of examples where carbon rose, but temperatures fell or visa versa over decades and centuries and even millennia. Only by getting better information could he help the worlds poor, or the worlds polar bears. There’s no danger of that happening.

What’s the worst kind of fake hero?

The worst kind of fake hero (also known as a “scam artist”) wants power and money. He tells you he’s here to save you, but insists you must pay him lots and now! . Mr Hamilton wants to be in charge so he can spend your money, stop you saying what you think, and stop you voting for other people. This is called a tyrant.  Mr Hamilton wants power. He doesn’t want to answer our questions politely; he just wants to scare us into doing it, or force us with threats.

Mr Hamilton wants to be in charge so he can spend your money, stop you saying what you think, and stop you voting for other people. This is called a tyrant.

People who really care about others, don’t want to stop them having their turn to speak, even if they disagree with them. That’s why, even though Mr Hamilton is an overbearing, power hungry smear artist who throws names, I would fight for his right to speak freely. (Of course, as a taxpayer, I have a right to demand our government stops funding anti-democratic fools through our universities and state-funded media. He can talk, but he shouldn’t receive my money to help him do it.)

Mr Hamilton’s “rules” don’t seem all that useful. He claims we sceptics only speak about inconvenient evidence because we are paid lots of money (as if somehow my unknowable intentions could nullify satellite data, say).  But Mr Gore, has earnt millions promoting a scare, and Mr Hamilton doesn’t think that means Al Gore is wrong. So Mr Hamilton ignores his own rule. Such is his insight.

As it happens, the people who try to scare us, receive at least 3,500 times as much money as those of us who claim the scare is fake. It’s a shame good intentions don’t tell us who wins the debate on climate sensitivity, because we would win hands down. But, even kids know that no matter how much anybody on Earth is paid, it won’t change the weather.

Mr Hamilton claims we will kill people, but since there are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that don’t support or even outright falsify his theory, he’s got no case for action at all. He needs to explain how his ideas will not kill children. He wants to stop poor people getting cheap electricity. We know that for people on the edge of poverty, this won’t make them warmer, or better-fed. It has to leave them just a bit colder and in the dark, or in houses with dangerous open smoking fires, and with nearby forests being plundered for firewood. It has to make it harder for them to get to school or visit the doctor.

Mr Hamilton’s claims of crisis are baseless bluster. If you ask him for evidence, he will call you names. What he hasn’t said is telling. He hasn’t called for scientific data to be freely available (in the light of real peer review). He tacitly defends scientists who hide their data or cheat on their results. He defends committees who demand your money and bully anyone who asks “why.”

You can acknowledge for your children, that it’s a bit scary to think that some people are trying to trick them, invent fake scares or turn them against their parents.

It’s scary to think that another grown-up might say lies about your mum or dad, but there is something you can do:  You can rise above. You can tell Mr  Hamilton that we don’t hide in the dark, and we are not afraid of the truth.

You can tell him we are not fooled.

You can be polite, and let him know that anytime he wants to save children or forests or stop tyrants, your mum and dad will be happy to sit down and explain the evidence.

Sincerely,

Jo

—————————————————————————————————————–

The original version of Clive Hamilton’s letter to children of “deniers”.

Hi there,

There’s something you need to know about your father.

Your dad’s job is to try to stop the government making laws to reduce Australia’s carbon pollution. He is paid a lot of money to do that by big companies who do not want to own up to the fact that their pollution is changing the world’s climate in very harmful ways.

Because of their pollution, lots of people, mostly poor people, are likely to die. They will die from floods, from diseases like dengue fever, and from starvation when their crops won’t grow anymore.

The big companies are putting their profits before the lives of people. And your dad is helping them.

Your life is going to be worse too because of what your dad is doing when he goes to work each morning. By the time you are as old as your parents, Australia will be having a lot more heat waves, like the one in Melbourne earlier this year, and there will be more bush fires too.

Droughts will be worse, and you won’t be able to have fun exploring the Great Barrier Reef because it won’t be there anymore.

Deep down your dad knows all this, although he probably pretends he doesn’t. If you’ve asked him about it he probably said that the scientists are not sure what’s going to happen, or that Australia’s carbon pollution is not very big, or that business is business.

He has to tell himself these things because otherwise he would feel too guilty and could not sleep very well at night.

So your dad is not really a bad person. He is not deliberately making the world a worse place for you and all the other kids. But he is telling lies to himself so he does not have to face up to the truth about what he does at work.

The thing is, though, that what your dad is doing is wrecking the future for my children too, and that makes me feel upset. Many Australians feel the same way; they think that what your father does is just plain wrong, and that he should stop.

I am sure it’s hard for you to hear these words, but there is something you can do to help. Why not sit your dad down and have a good talk to him. Tell him you want him to stop helping the big companies that are spoiling the future for you and all the other kids at school. Tell him that the family would rather have less money if he had a different job, one you could be proud of.

Tell him that you know he will feel much happier inside if he is doing something to make Australia and the world a better place, instead of going to work every day to make it a worse one.

Your dad has lost his way, and you might be the only person in the world who can help him find it again. So talk to him.

Yours sincerely


UPDATE: I’m glad I kept a copy of his letter here, because the ABC has taken down his piece. Gone, “not found”. Thanks to Mal for pointing that out.

UPDATE 2: The page is back up http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2765351.htm. I have no idea why it was “not found” but probably a banal reason. Thanks to deadman for the news.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
A letter to parents who are not gullible, 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ydn6l6c

89 comments to A letter to parents who are not gullible

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Jo,

    Your link to “Clive Hamilton’s letter to children of ‘deniers’” goes to a “Sorry, Page Not Found”.

    00

  • #
    dave ward

    The same thing has been happening in the U.K. Scaremongering adverts on the telly and in newspapers, trying to use impressionable children to get at their parents.

    Utterly disgraceful.

    00

  • #

    Thanks. Fixed the link.

    The comments under the story on ABC unleashed…
    “Wombat :
    Can I get an AVO to keep this creepy guy at least 100 metres from my kids’ school and playground?”

    Gina :
    This letter has unsettling parallels to the Hitler Youth in Germany before WWII. It too started out obliquely telling children that they are wiser than their older and corrupted parents and that it was their duty to bring their parents towards the ‘truth’. What came next was children turning their parents into the authorities, thinking it was the only way to ‘save’ them. What a strange, creepy man this Clive Hamilton is. By the way, what a sexist letter. Obviously in the author’s mind only men rise to high levels in big business. And no, I am not a flag waving feminist, but currently a very happy stay-at-home, raise my children Mum.

    McCain’s Wedges:
    Is there a button somewhere where I can Alert the Moderator about this article itself?

    10

  • #

    What do you think of this story?

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails

    Just curious.

    It sounds like more back-peddling. Am I wrong?

    00

  • #
    JA

    Hamilton is a disgrace. In the 1980′s-90′s there were a number of (mainly American based) “self improvement” groups operating in Australia, the “Est” group was just one, my sister was a victim to one of these organisations and after a number of “workshops” her attitudes and outlook on life was affected. It took years of gentle persuasion by a loving family to undo the damage and thankfully avoid a disaster for her. Hamilton is a victim of a similar process, day after day the AGW believers are reinforcing their own group think, becoming more and more seperated from reality and the community.

    It is clearly time a psychologist was employed to expose their illness before lasting damage is done by normal people turned extremists (dare I say terrorists who attack the minds of children) like Hamilton do more damage.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    How do you answer your children if they say “you are paid a lot of money to try to stop laws about pollution and what you do will kill poor kids?”

    My response would be, “So, you’ve heard about the loot huh? You want a share? How about ice cream?”

    Children tend to be far more self oriented than adults. They only bother with ideals when they become teenagers and discover how complicated the world is, then start looking for an easy way out.

    By the way, Clive Hamilton’s letter has too many letters, it is long and boring, and full of waffle. There is absolutely no need to panic about children ever reading this.

    00

  • #
    Glenn

    I’ll pop here what I popped on Tim Blair’s blog – in retrospect, there are a few thing’s I’d like to improve, but for consistency I’ll leave it as is. Feel free to use and improve at will.

    I have it on good authority that this is the first draft of Clive’s appeal children on this topic:

    Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except what they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

    Yes, Virginia, there is Global Warming. It exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how decadent would be the world if there were no Global Warming. It would be as decadent as if there were no Virginias. There would be no greenie faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no hair shirts, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which green philosophy fills the world would be extinguished.

    Not believe in Global Warming! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch all the wind gauges in the troposphere above the tropics to catch the “hot spot”, but even if they did not detect Global Warming’s signature, what would that prove? Nobody detects Global Warming, but that is no sign that there is no Global Warming. The most real things in the world are those that neither greenies nor skeptics can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

    You may tear apart the hockey stick and see why it shouldn’t be so bendy, but there is a veil covering the scientific world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, lentils, bureaucratese, zealotry, protest marches, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

    No Global Warming! Thank God! It exists, and it exists forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, it will continue to make glad the heart of greenies.

    00

  • #
    amortiser

    Michele:

    More backpeddling? The AP have done its own investigation and while finding some nasty things said in a few emails concludes that the science is as solid as it has reported for years.

    No need for any review of this scandal. The AP reporters have been on the job and have given us all the necessary assurances. Our confidence in the reporting ability of AP should only be enhanced.

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Michele (#4)…

    I know you really meant “back-pedalling”, but your use of “back-peddling” is actually pretty apt. As well as “back-scratching”. Trying to re-sell the same tired old story.

    00

  • #
    Marrion Morrison

    This letter has unsettling parallels to the Hitler Youth in Germany before WWII. It too started out obliquely telling children that they are wiser than their older and corrupted parents and that it was their duty to bring their parents towards the ‘truth’. What came next was children turning their parents into the authorities, thinking it was the only way to ’save’ them

    .

    Glad the denier camp doesn’t stoop to the level of those darn AGW people with their alarmist rhetoric and their exaggerated fear-mongering. Australia, I am afraid you are doomed. Thank you, Jo, for telling it like it is.

    00

  • #
    Bryn Thomas

    I cannot believe a) Hamilton is so unhinged as to write an article like that and b) the ABC seriously allows such drivel, not just from a climate viewpoint (I allow them their bias) but from the moral/ethical — whatever — stance they take in the context of parent/child responsibilities. This is child abuse.

    What is so bizarre is that, according to Wikipedia (ref. below) he is described as “Professor of Public Ethics at Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE)” at Charles Sturt University. Public Ethics??? Public intellectual? He might deserve a place in Hyde Park with a soap box among the demented to be jeered and laughed at. But this is not even amusing.

    I wonder if he has any students? If he does, heaven help them.

    I also wonder at the “authorities” who thought fit to make him a “Professor”. I have studied/taught in five universities in my time and never met such a nincompoop in such a high position. His utterances say little for the standards at Charles Sturt.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Hamilton

    00

  • #

    [...] Global warming predators [...]

    00

  • #
    John Concannon

    Get used to it folks. The idea of infecting (indoctrinating) young minds is nothing new. It has a lot to do with idiology but nothing to do with science so take it as a resignation from the scientific world by Mr. Hamilton.
    The best form of defense is to just ridicule it as children like to hear the funny side of things. If you speak too seriously about it then then children will assume that it deserves seriousness.
    On the other side, if he gets withing 500 meters of my children then he is in deep trouble.

    00

  • #

    Joanne,

    Your blog post “Fake Heroes” inspired my blog post today. In it, I include a video showing how groupthink makes some conform, while others don’t. I call the post “Fake Heroes and Groupthink”:
    http://aprilbaby.typepad.com/a_california_life/

    Another long ramble. All this trying to fight disinformation is causing me to sound like a rambling crazy person. I meant to focus on Fake Heroes and got sidetracked in to groupthink.

    Thanks, again, for your great site!

    00

  • #
    Mattb

    How do you know Clive isn’t writing to the 30 year old kids of senior executives?

    It is true though isn’t it Jo… in 30 years when it was all a scam I’ll have a lot less to explain to my kids than you will if the climate cripples society.

    Not a great article from Clive, emotional blackmail clap-trap, but I think it is meant to be read by parents (not kids), but it uses a literary technique where the adult imagines their kids are reading it to prompt self examination.

    00

  • #

    Mattb:

    “…if the climate cripples society.” You must have been born after the ’70s, otherwise you’d been a little less hysterical with your crippled climate talk. See here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ndHwW8psR8

    00

  • #
    John of Cloverdale WA

    Ugly!

    00

  • #
    Possum Hunter

    Fakes don’t like debates, open discussions or other opinions, they don’t want their ideas exposed to the light of polite conversation, or the plasma arc glare of real evidence. The worst kind of fake hero wants power and money. He tells you he’s here to save you, but insists you must pay him lots and now! (Also known as scam artists).

    Are you sure this article isn’t about Kevin Rudd?? :)

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Jo,

    Being someone with a German Jewish ancestry, I would like to know Clives address. I would like to pay him a visit to have a “Robust Discussion” as Kevin – “I get my scientific knowledge from videos”- Rudd phrased things.

    It does sound like they are using the Nazi tactics – disorientate kids from parents who aren’t on side, provide a father figure, promote them rapidly and they will pretty much do their begging. Yes, it is a form of brainwashing, and unfortunately it’s yet another example of “the ends justifies the means” attitude that pervades at the moment.

    Mattb, whilst to slightly bag Clive, you’re also trying to provide an abstract justification for Clive. It is amazing how peoples Ideologies cloud their judgement.

    00

  • #
    bananbender

    I see that Colonel Klink has changed his name. He is still as stupid as ever though.

    00

  • #
    bananbender

    A former KGB officer explains indoctrination techniques. He notes that the indoctrination of Americans into believing communist/socialist propaganda was incredibly successful.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlkPkJInUmU

    00

  • #
    Mattb

    MadJak as a german with jewish ancestry you;d appreciate Monkton the other day calling a jewish climate protester part of Hitler Youth.

    00

  • #
    BJM

    With all the money making ‘Sad Fads’ that have been perpetrated over the years, – mainly from that despot riddled and corrupt organisation, the United Nations. We made sure our children had their BS meters finally tuned while growing up. I really do feel for some Parents with children these days. With the amount of Indoctrination at some schools, from ideologues and the stylish people, it must be a full time job, just to keep their children normal. Doubly hard with ‘creepy shockers’ like that loon Clive Hamilton, who now have access to technology and the internet.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    The behaviour of those youth in that particular city would have been reminiscent of Hitler Youth. Re: the particular jewish lad, I doubt he was thinking about his jewishness when he got caught up in the euphoria of the “mob”. Precisely what happened in the 30′s.
    So Monckton was / is absolutely correct when he iterated over and over again, “If you continue to behave in this manner, I will continue to call you Hitler Youth”.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    BJM Sad but true. I have a 13yr old. About 12mnths ago we sat down and discussed this whole AGW thing. She had already watched An Inconvenient Truth at school, I gave her the Great Global Warming Swindle to watch. (I own a video store) When I came across Hamiltons diatribe, I printed it out and gave it to my daughter to read, we didn’t even have to discuss it, she dissmissed it as “crap” immediately.

    Something good often comes out of these types of generational kerfuffels. I’m hoping that in a few years time, todays youth will have mega BS detectors.

    00

  • #
    Mattb

    That is what I love – calling someone Hitler Youth = a-ok.
    Calling somone a “climate denier” = shocking subtle reference to hitler.

    you guys ARE too funny.

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Mattb,

    I don’t agree with anyone (Monkton included) in cheapening WWII and what happenned in Europe with these sorts of references. Of course, I am aware that this might result in some form of stereotype breakdown for some people.

    However, when I see things like Clives approach, as an avid historian, I get extremely concerned to see these sorts of tactics -regardless of whether I agree with their perspective on other matters or not. Unfortunately, people are much more easily manipulated than what we would like to think.

    Anyone who believe their perspective on a particular matter makes it OK to resort to these sorts of tactics will never get my support. Call me weird, but I do not think the end justifies the means.

    Of course, this has been the whole problem with the AGW issue, IMO, there has never been a balanced debate. For the record, I am of a generation where Environmental issues were rammed down our throats at school, but probably not to the extent that is happenning now in some areas.

    00

  • #
    LB

    I find denier or denialist despicable because very few sceptics (I prefer the latin root) actually deny climate change. They merely question that humans are behind it, and in some cases question the severity of the warming. Calling a bunch of ideologically driven youths in the act of denying a respected peer his freedom of speech ‘Hitler Youth’ is perhaps poor taste but not unwarranted.

    Lord Monckton, the best argument for hereditary peerage I’ve seen in a long time.

    God Save the Queen and Heaven Protect the House of Lords.

    (this coming from an Australian atheist)

    00

  • #
    Tiff

    As sick and ridiculous as Hamilton is, he obviously didn’t not read “Scaremongering Children for Dummies”. I’m not a child, and even I got so bored in the first sentence of his letter that I got distracted by the color of paint on the wall. If he wanted to get the point of his letter across to kids, why didn’t he just draw a cartoon of the kids’ parents killing poor kids with cow farts? Humor and pictures work well. Hamilton is disgusting, and your article, Jo, is superb. From across the pond and on the other side of the world, thank you for writing this.

    00

  • #
    typo alert - no need to publish

    Hi, Jo.

    No need to publish this, but I wonder if you’d be able to fix a typo in your post? In the big prominent letters, where it says

    Fake heroes like darkness. Real hero’s like the light.

    would you be able to change “real hero’s” to “real heroes”? ‘Heroes’ isn’t possessive there so it doesn’t need the apostrophe.

    It’s just that I like your blog a lot and think that this post will get quite a few hits, and don’t want some green-lefty to go all pedant-y on y’all. ;-)

    Cheers.

    00

  • #
    JAC

    Mattb,

    Please tell me why disrupting a private meeting because you don’t agree with a point of view is NOT akin to the tactics employed by Hitler and his supporters to shutdown opposing views. Then tell me why people should be happy about being labelled a denier, just because they don’t believe there is sufficient evidence of AGW.

    I would be very interested in the evidence that, in your opinion, is definitive proof of AGW. Give me your top 3 (more if you want) – I’m genuinely interested. Although I’m currently a sceptic, I’m willing to change my mind if the evidence dictates.

    00

  • #
    Waterman

    Some people will believe anything. Those who are truly gullible are the easiest to deceive, which is why they so often make fools of themselves.
    Those who are merely credulous might be a little too quick to believe something, but they usually aren’t stupid enough to act on it.
    Hamilton is gullible and unusually stupid enough to be led by the same doctrines they had in the former DDR ( Germany Democratic Republic also called East Germany).
    You should take him in court for insulting parents and approaching children on an indecent way.

    Otherwise please keep in mind that we have to save the world from using nowadays 200%, we have to make the transition to solar energy because fossil energy is gone in 40-50 years and what is left we have to use for our industry for things we need.

    00

  • #
    Peter

    I mentioned Clive to my kids. They think the dog maybe barked at him once. I don’t really acknowledge him either.

    Pathetic man.

    00

  • #
    Dr. Ross Taylor

    Disgraceful. It is not just children though, it happens through TV to elderly people as well, the BBC for example. My elderly mother in the UK has been scared by the whole thing. This makes me extremely angry.

    It is bit chilly in Copenhagen now, fortunately all the UN delegates are nice and cosy in expensive hotels, being paid for, that’s right, by you and me. I apologize that the figures are not absolutely precise because they are taken from graphs at weatheronline.co.uk. Anyone can check my calculations.

    In the last 28 years (as far as the online records go back), the highest December temperature in Copenhagen was 11 degrees C and that was back in 1983. Over these years, the average highest December temperature was around 7 C. Please note, I am using the highs, to put the strongest possible case for the warmists.

    Day 1: a high of 7 C, exactly the same as the average high of the last 28 years and 4 degrees COOLER than the high of the last 28 years.
    Day 2: a high of 7 C, the same.
    Day 3: a high of 6 C, 5 degrees COOLER than the December high of the last 28 years.
    Day 4: a high of 6 C
    Day 5: a high of 5 C, 6 degrees COOLER than the December high of the last 28 years.
    Day 6: a high of 3 C, 8 degrees COOLER than the December high of the last 28 years.
    Day 7: a high of 2 C, 9 degrees COOLER than the December high of the last 28 years.

    I must be dim, as I obviously can’t grasp the science of global warming.

    00

  • #
    Michael Leahy

    I would guess that if this sort of drivel is being promoted by the government’s broadcaster then you will see similar being directed at your kids via the state school system. Is anyone seeing this?

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Dr. Ross Taylor,

    To be anything other than a hypocrite, Al Gore should leave the windows open when he gives his speech.

    00

  • #
    Mattb

    JAC: “Please tell me why disrupting a private meeting because you don’t agree with a point of view is NOT akin to the tactics employed by Hitler and his supporters to shutdown opposing views. Then tell me why people should be happy about being labelled a denier, just because they don’t believe there is sufficient evidence of AGW.”
    \
    well JAC – for a starter no one would have said anything had Monckton said “You are acting like a youth”… similar to “you are a denier”. ie you are young, or you deny this particular thing. Why should someone be named a Holocaust denier just because they don’t believe there is sufficient evidence of the holocaust? I don;t really care if Monckton used the term Hitler Youth… I do care about hypocritical skeptics who express fauxtrage at the term denier, then don;t call their poster boy for calling a jewish kid “Hitler Youth”. Jo bans people from this site for using the term denier FYI.

    also – there is no evidence I know of that is definitive proof of AGW. Who says there is such evidence?

    A mate’s kid comes home form school one day and asks where is the family Bible and why is it not on display… the priest at school said they should all have a family bible on display… talk about propaganda to kids… I still think you’ll find Hamilton’s letter is actually directed at parents, not kids… for what it is worth.

    Someone above mentioned global warming swindle… I’d ask why would you choose to get back at a school for showing biased science by showing them totally discredited science??? strange…

    And Dr Ross Taylor, get back to batting for NZ and yes indeed if you think that this weeks temps in Copenhagen are at all relevant then you indeed can;t grasp the science.

    00

  • #
    Michael Cejnar

    Clive’s creepy letter should be mandatory reading for the 32% that voted for him in Higgins. Is this what you had in mind – suspension of democracy and using children for emotional propaganda. Hope you are proud.

    00

  • #
    Glenn

    “also – there is no evidence I know of that is definitive proof of AGW. Who says there is such evidence?”

    Al Gore was pretty confident. Rudd and Wong seem to think the evidence is in.. hasn’t the word consensus been thrown around with gay abandon?

    “Someone above mentioned global warming swindle… I’d ask why would you choose to get back at a school for showing biased science by showing them totally discredited science??? strange…”

    Which movie you talking about Mattb, An Inconvenient truth or Great Global Warming Swindle? Maybe you are one of those disinfo people trying to distract the conversation to something that Monckton said. All you did was bring out the race card when you are scrambling for something pertinent to say.. typical. move on to the greenie websites will you. They might get your logic.

    00

  • #
    Mattb

    Glenn… can you explain the race card? pardon??? UNless you mean my reference to New Zealand? Ross Taylor is a NZ international cricketer FYI.

    I’m talking about both movies Glenn… not that I’ve seen either.

    00

  • #
    JAC

    Mattb,

    “I don’t really care if Monckton used the term Hitler Youth”

    Fair enough, but the point is that comparing the actions of these kids to the Hitler youth (Jewish or not) was a fair reflection of their behaviour. It is not fair to call people deniers because they are sceptical of a point-of-view, especially when there is no definitive evidence for that point-of-view. No Hypocrisy.

    In any case, Monckton didn’t mean they are literally Hitler Youth, he was referring to their tactics and their tactics were wrong by any standard. These kids are not bad, far from it, but they needed reminding to respect the rights of others least we repeat the mistakes of the past.

    I actually agree with you about Hamilton on this point. He is using a literary device and it is not really a direct address to children.

    Don’t know why you brought up “Great Warming Swindle”, but I guess you were addressing someone else.

    Don’t know who Dr Ross Taylor is … but of course the temperature in Copenhagen is irrelevant, just as the temperature in Melbourne was a few weeks ago back when Kevin Rudd mentioned it as proof of AGW.

    Ok, definitive was a bad word. What, in your opinion is the best evidence for AGW ? What has impressed you most? Give me your top 3 (or more if necessary).

    00

  • #
    Mattb

    JAC – post 25 by Humbug links inconv. truth and GWS movies.

    My top 3… it is known and has been known for a long time, in as much as science “knows” anything that CO2 is for want of a better word a greenhouse gas. we know that humans are responsible for considerably raising the atmospheric concentration of GHGs. We have the temperature record over the period of emissions and the best efforts of our best scientists indicate that the increased GHGs is raising temperature… or rather we are increasing GHGs and temps are rising and CO2 fits the bill and we don;t know what else it could be (yes yes argument from ignorance is it?). In the face of this evidence it appears prudent to reduce GHGs rather than face the likely consequences of not doing so. We have off the shelf technological solutions to reduce GHGs (combination of nuclear and renewables and better energy efficiency though end use or say city design for example).

    So we are faced with a problem that science says is something like 90% likely, and we have easy solutions at our fingertips that will enable our society to continue to prosper and the developing world achieve higher standards of living.

    I’d like to know your top 3 (or more) for thinking it would be wiser to do nothing and continue the status quo emissions?

    00

  • #
    Mattb

    I noticed the blog specifically says ” Clive Hamilton’s letter to children of “deniers”.”… but I read the letter and Clive does not use the word “deniers”… so who are you “quoting”?

    00

  • #

    Mattb Clive not only thinks ALL sceptics are Deniers, he thinks they are worse than Holocaust deniers.

    http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/16/hamilton-denying-the-coming-climate-holocaust/

    “Climate sceptics resent being called deniers because of the odium associated with Holocaust revisionism.”

    No we resent being called deniers because it’s a baseless insult designed to stop anyone talking about evidence.

    “Holocaust deniers are not responsible for the Holocaust, but climate deniers, if they were to succeed, would share responsibility for the enormous suffering caused by global warming.”

    00

  • #
    Dr. Ross Taylor

    Of course I don’t pretend that the Copenhagen temperatures are anything more than they are. Nevertheless, they are there for all to see. Irrelevant? I am not so sure.

    00

  • #

    Mattb @ 42: I’d like to know your top 3 (or more) for thinking it would be wiser to do nothing and continue the status quo emissions?

    1. When government does anything other than protect individual rights, it makes matters worse even by its on standards. They then use that failure to justify doing more of the same which continues to make matters even worse which they use as justification of more of the same.

    2. The so called AGW-Climate-Change science violates the three laws of thermodynamics and is therefore false to its core.

    3. The leading “experts” of the alarmists have been caught cheating by fudging the data, hiding the decline, “losing” the raw data, violating FOI laws, carry picking reviewers and journals, and generally acting contrary to the scientific method. Hence, their conclusions cannot be trusted.

    4. No matter what, they claim the situation is getting worse than expected more rapidly than expected without taking the slightest pause from the fact that their expectations are ALWAYS wrong. The only conclusion one can draw from this is they haven’t the slightest notion about what it is they are talking about.

    5. In spite of the above, we are to accept an unelected and unaccountable world government seated at the UN; an immediate 20%, 50%, or 80% reduction in our emission of CO2; a moment by moment, act by act, intrusion into our lives by the UN appointed authorities; AND , not the least, have a major portion of the developed world’s productive capital transferred through the UN to the rotting sinkholes (aka despots) of the third world.

    6. The only consistent aspect of the entire scam is a monumental grab for power and unearned wealth on a global scale.

    Yes, I would say doing NOTHING with respect to “saving the planet by eliminated emissions of CO2″ is far far better than the above.

    The 90% certainty bullshit is not even a joke. Its just a random number pulled out of someone’s ass that has absolutely no objective scientific bases. The only thing that is certain is that we cannot possibly know what is going to be the climate 100 years hence and that we cannot possibly do anything about it one way or the other. Our ONLY chance is to become even more wealthy so we can adapt to whatever happens. That requires the governments of the world to get the hell out of the business of theft of wealth and meddling in the economy – ie. implement a full and free world wide capitalism.

    The ONLY other path is mutually assisted suicide. Which, by the way, is the power grabbers not so hidden agenda. They do not mean well. We had better understand that and act accordingly.

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by spot_the_dog , Bill Giltner. Bill Giltner said: A letter to parents who are not gullible « JoNova http://ff.im/-cQYXe [...]

    00

  • #
    Tony

    The letter is from someone with a sick mind. Getting young children, who normally accept the views of elders, to promote your political is very worrying. As has been said this is the technique of totalitarian states not democracy. What a sad commentary on a failing career.

    00

  • #
    Pompous Git

    Mattb wrote: “… it appears prudent to reduce GHGs rather than face the likely consequences of not doing so. We have off the shelf technological solutions to reduce GHGs (combination of nuclear and renewables and better energy efficiency though end use or say city design for example).

    So we are faced with a problem that science says is something like 90% likely, and we have easy solutions at our fingertips that will enable our society to continue to prosper and the developing world achieve higher standards of living.

    I’d like to know your top 3 (or more) for thinking it would be wiser to do nothing and continue the status quo emissions?”

    Matt, I am a sceptic/denier [delete whichever is inapplicable]. My carbon footprint is approximately 20% of the national average, though I had to calculate this manually. The websites that do this for me say otherwise. If I paid someone to grow trees for me, I’d get a credit, but I don’t. I grow my own because I burn firewood to cook my food, heat my water, and heat my energy-efficient home. If I purchased organically grown food, I’d get a credit. I grow my own organic vegetables so I don’t qualify. I eat the meat that eats the grass outside my home, and I lose carbon credits for that. If I ate Chinese soybeans (that do not arrive by sailing ship) I’d qualify for another carbon credit.

    I have a low carbon footprint, not because I buy the bullshit about AGW, but because it makes economic sense and suits my lifestyle.

    Yet I am labelled a denier and stand accused (not by you I hasten to add) of promoting the worst kinds of pollution.

    I’m in favour of plantation forestry and was before the Wilderness Society existed. Today’s Greens oppose plantation forestry. Today’s Greens are in favour of photo-voltaic electricity, but are opposing the establishment of the silicon mine and refining plant that’s needed to make them “because it will pollute our environment”. Go figure…

    Wake up and smell the coffee, Matt. AGW alarmism and living a less energy-intensive lifestyle are almost completely unrelated. Those promoting the former have no intention of living the low-carbon lifestyle themselves.

    00

  • #
    Patrick

    My 12-year old has a mind of her own, and a very sound one at that. She made her own mind up years ago that AGW is rubbish and can provide her own logical arguments why. I know what she would say to Clive Hamilton and she doesn’t suffer fools gladly.

    00

  • #
    Rod Smith

    Basically, much the same thing is happening in the US. I live in the panhandle of Florida and take the local paper. My wife pointed out a part of today’s (Sunday here) comics section for kids.
    This was what I saw:
    ————–
    Dear Jax,
    What can I do about Global Warming?
    Andrew Harwin — New York, New York

    Dear Andrew,
    It’s important to let other people know how you feel.
    Out of every 1 million parts of our air, 387 parts are the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. To keep the planet from warming up, the CO2 should only be 350 ppm (parts per million). This is not a maybe thing. We’ve got to roll back the greenhouse gases to 350ppm.

    There is another paragraph about cutting out the “art” (project 350 .org logo ) and taping it “…where people can see it, like your front door.”
    —————–

    I guess these folk think they are saving the world, and they have every right to their opinion. But I wonder how many of these folks have ever taken even a beginning chemistry course.

    And I do question their right to propagandize the youngsters. Plus this is a sneaky way to do it.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Jo,

    Can you make your opening dissertation available to download as a pdf file?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Jo in 44 I can’t find the words in that article that say that all sceptics are deniers. Did you put them there?

    This line, however, is true “Holocaust deniers are not responsible for the Holocaust, but climate deniers, if they were to succeed, would share responsibility for the enormous suffering caused by global warming.”

    Surely Jo you have to accept that if in the end you are wrong you will have to face up to having assisted directly in ensuring CO2 levels get as high as anthropogenically-possible. Just as Gore et al will be judged if it is all just a scam.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Patrick, honestly I doubt your 12 year old daughter made a mature sensible decision about whether she thinks AGW science is accurate “years ago”.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Pompous Git – do you have a banjo and rocking chair? ;)

    00

  • #
    Patrick

    MattB, you don’t know me or my family. You don’t need to be a subject matter expert to spot logical flaws in popularly expressed arguments.

    00

  • #
  • #
    MattB

    Lionell,

    1) No doubt here is the root of your objections. And have no doubt they are similar to many of the protesters on the left.

    2) No, AGW theory does not violate all three laws of thermodynamics. Unless you are a crackpot. There are uncertainties at the grey areas of climate science (as any science), and the models do what they can, but ignorance of the basic laws of thermodynamics is not an accusation you can throw around willy-nilly.

    3) I think you interpretation of the emails is tainted by your thoughts in (1) in particular… but I’m not going to defend anyone involved and have no doubt that somewhere somone probably has fudged something as they are human and subject to getting ahead of themselves.

    4) Unfortunately the media enjoy listening to the more extreme viewpoints. THere are always scientists who think it is worse than the “consensus” and so they get a headline or two… ahh well.

    5) this is really #1 again isn’t it.

    6) and again. Yes I get the point.

    Your last line again gives you away… I personally think you and your like minded fellows should give some thought to accepting the science (go on humour me) and figuring out a way to solve the GHG issue which is more in keeping with your politics. You never know you could come up with something superb. To me though a simple price on carbon IS THE CAPITALIST SOLUTION to the problem… You can tell this as the left HATE the idea – I was listening to a direct action campaigner ont he radio this morning, and I see the emails from the Environmental Collective at this university… they don;t like the market solution as it is capitalist… you don;t like it as it is anti-capitalist???

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Is the troll comment in relation to the banjo comment. Again I was having a laugh and smile with Pompous Git… is that a problem to share a joke with someone you have a disagreement with? Seriously I meant no offence, I think PG has a great lifestyle and attitude.

    “You don’t need to be a subject matter expert to spot logical flaws in popularly expressed arguments” indeed you don’t but I’d suggest you need to be older than say 9 to make an accurate assessment of climate science and politics.

    00

  • #

    Mattb & 58:

    You asked:

    Mattb @ 42: I’d like to know your top 3 (or more) for thinking it would be wiser to do nothing and continue the status quo emissions?

    I gave you my answer and now you are arguing with me. Do you disagree that I gave you my answer? Or was it that you really did not want an answer?

    Oh well, one more time.

    1) No doubt here is the root of your objections. And have no doubt they are similar to many of the protesters on the left.

    Yes, it is a significant part of my objection to ANY government action with regard to this issue. So what?

    2) No, AGW theory does not violate all three laws of thermodynamics. Unless you are a crackpot. There are uncertainties at the grey areas of climate science (as any science), and the models do what they can, but ignorance of the basic laws of thermodynamics is not an accusation you can throw around willy-nilly.

    I will make it simple:

    Thermodynamics is the study of the inter-relation between heat, work and internal energy of a system.

    The British scientist and author C.P. Snow had an excellent way of remembering the three laws:

    1. You cannot win (that is, you cannot get something for nothing, because matter and energy are conserved).

    2. You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state, because there is always an increase in disorder; entropy always increases).

    3. You cannot get out of the game (because absolute zero is unattainable).

    If your theory breaks one of the three laws, it breaks them all. They are simply different aspects of the same thing. Besides the third law specifies that you have no choice but play by the rules.

    The most fundamental way that the AGW “theory” breaks the three laws is that it states that CO2 TRAPS heat. This is a direct violation of the second law. If CO2 has contact with an environment and is at a higher energy state than its environment it WILL transfer its excess energy to its environment. The how and how fast is not specified. It simply WILL happen. Hence NO trapping in the free standing atmosphere.

    This ONE violation is sufficient to discredit the entire house of cards known as AGW/Climate-Change-Alarmist bullshit! There is no need to go further but, unfortunately, we must.

    3) I think you interpretation of the emails is tainted by your thoughts in (1) in particular… but I’m not going to defend anyone involved and have no doubt that somewhere somone probably has fudged something as they are human and subject to getting ahead of themselves.

    I see. You want to use the “boys will be boys” excuse. They presented themselves as scientists and violated every principle of good science. I don’t give a damn what their motive was. That it happened totally invalidates the AGW house of cards a second time. That it happened on taxpayer’s money only makes the crime worse.

    4) Unfortunately the media enjoy listening to the more extreme viewpoints. THere are always scientists who think it is worse than the “consensus” and so they get a headline or two… ahh well.

    I see, its the “boys will be boys” excuse again. What about the fact that their ballyhooed “expectations” are always wrong. Doesn’t that give a clue that their ballyhooed expectations of the global temperature 100 years hence is likely wrong too? If you can’t get it right in the short term, you can’t possibly get it right in the distant future.

    5) this is really #1 again isn’t it.

    Yes but this time I am specific about the proposed governmental action. Do you really think that is what should happen and that its effects will be more benign than if we had done nothing? I don’t. Abundant energy is fundamental to modern technological civilization. Without it, the civilization cannot continue. Without a continuation of said civilization, the vast majority of people on earth will parish. THAT is what you want?

    6) and again. Yes I get the point.

    Do you? I remain unconvinced that you really have thought out the consequences if they actually do “get away with it.” If you have, is that really what you want to happen?

    00

  • #

    Mattb et.al,

    More on CO2 “trapping” heat.

    I know, its a post by an AGW/Climate-Change denier who is not a recognized climate scientists and the post is not published in a peer reviewed journal approved by the CRU, IPCC, or you. However, it addresses the SCIENCE and states unambiguously that CO2 does not and cannot “trap” heat in the sense required by AGW.

    How about addressing the issue and refuting the SCIENTIFIC CONTENT of his post?

    Oh, I forgot, you don’t know a damn thing about physics, math, or climate so you can’t. At least try to address the issue for a change.

    00

  • #

    This is a little off topic. But I found a voice of reason and thought I’d share it:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p6vln/b00p6vkw/A_Point_of_View_11_12_2009/

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Yes sorry Lionell I have one of those postmodern physics and engineering degrees where you don’t need to know about science and maths and stuff.

    Thanks for post 60 too – it is good to know where people are coming from. Plus thanks for your original response.

    No boys will be boys excuse… just the reality that you’d have no science if every field of science was dismissed because of some individual in the field’s emails.

    “Abundant energy is fundamental to modern technological civilization. Without it, the civilization cannot continue. Without a continuation of said civilization, the vast majority of people on earth will parish. THAT is what you want?” No not at all. I agree completely.

    00

  • #

    Matt: How do you know Clive isn’t writing to the 30 year old kids of senior executives?

    Clive said, “Tell him you want him to stop … spoiling the future for you and all the other kids at school.

    It is true though isn’t it Jo… in 30 years when it was all a scam I’ll have a lot less to explain to my kids than you will if the climate cripples society.

    No, as your children pay a tithe each year to a parasitic financial class and miss out on using that money to say, go on an overseas holiday, or donate money to a village in Africa which needs a water well, they’ll ask you why, when it was so obvious the legislation was based on fraud, they’ll ask you why you didn’t march in protest, or email your minister.

    They’ll ask you why you let their future be sold to GoldMan Sachs for no good reason, and why they work 2 months of each year to provide bankers with their yachts. They’ll ask you why you thought it was OK to give an undemocratic corrupt institution like the UN some of their sovereign rights, and now they have to drive in cars with GPS’s that track their every move.

    00

  • #

    mattb @ 63: No boys will be boys excuse… just the reality that you’d have no science if every field of science was dismissed because of some individual in the field’s emails.

    It wasn’t just “some individual”. It was the major scientists in the US and England who have been leading the IPCC’s conclusions since the get go. They were Cherry Picking the data, fudging the data, losing the raw data, hiding the decline, obstructing legitimate FOI requests, selecting the peers of the peer reviews, and black balling scientists and journals who proposed alternate evidence and theories that countered the central AGW hypothesis. The IPCC’s conclusions based upon the fraudulent science are being used to justify the UN’s takeover of the world’s economies and the looting of the wealth of the developed world.

    This is not science in any way shape or form. Its criminal fraud and theft by deception on a monumental scale.

    If you have a physics and engineering degree, how about addressing my point that CO2 cannot TRAP heat and thus is NOT properly called a greenhouse gas. It really does not require math and the level of physics is only slightly above high school level.

    00

  • #

    [...] A letter to parents who are not gullible « JoNova [...]

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Jo – have you ever noticed in plays that a character sometimes talks to another character… but really is talking to the AUDIENCE…

    And Lionell – They are called GHGs because they warm us up, and greenhouses warm the air up… so some bloke used an analogy that was not entirely accurate and it stuck who cares?

    I assume you think that the basic (no feedback) 1 degree C per doubling of CO2 also contravenes the laws of thermodynamics… you may want to take that up with Jo as she is the science communicator and if it were that simple then the sceptics handbook would be a 1 pager demonstrating this basic flaw?

    00

  • #
    Grant

    MattB

    They are called GHGs because they warm us up, and greenhouses warm the air up

    Matt, have you ever seen a greenhouse? They look a lot unlike the atmosphere of planet earth. The dissimilarity is very hard to miss.

    You now need to explain to me simply (‘cos I am a real dolt) how exactly the atmosphere works and how CO2 dispersed through the atmosphere can act in anyway like to the barrier that artificially eliminates the transfer of heat out of a greenhouse. You might also explain to me the science of how the CO2 at concentrations of 350ppm (0.035%) has any significant ability to heat the balance of the atmosphere. To a really simple mind like mine, even if a minority gas like CO2 had a heat capacity, the other gases would tend to draw heat away from it. (Much like what Lionel is alluding to by reference to thermodynamics).

    If you can explain this to me then I would be convinced that CO2 could be implicated in warming the atmosphere.

    00

  • #
    Grant

    MattB

    Just as Gore et al will be judged if it is all just a scam.

    Nuhhuh! Just like the scuttling going on at UEA et al these guys will cover the whole mess up. They have have conveniently framed their projections and the duration of the “mop up” long enough into the future that they won’t be around to endure the wrath of the disaffected masses. They will have enjoyed the largesse they have skimmed (more like ladled) out of the scheme and will die fat and at ease.

    00

  • #

    Mattb @ 67: And Lionell – They are called GHGs because they warm us up, and greenhouses warm the air up… so some bloke used an analogy that was not entirely accurate and it stuck who cares?

    1. “They” do not warm us up. The Sun does that by sending us sunshine. If there were no sun, we would be rather cold – approximately 3 degrees Kelvin. THAT would be a real global winter.

    2. I care about the misused word and you should too. It is not only TOTALLY inaccurate, its intentionally misleading. It includes the subliminal concept of “trapped heat” which specifically exists in only in enclosed spaces with transparent air convection stopping windows exposed to sunlight. Such as real greenhouses or automobiles with windows closed. Which, by the way, does NOT exist in the free atmosphere. This misdirection leads to all kinds of logical and scientific travesties in the so called AGW/Climate-Change science.

    I had requested you to use your self asserted engineering and math training to discuss the concept of CO2 trapping heat in the free atmosphere. Which I contend that the second law of thermodynamics prohibits. As usual, you are unresponsive and come up with something that is totally beside the point.

    Is it that you agree with me and know it blows the AGW hypothesis out of the water? That would be embarrassing because of your rather tight allegiance to the AGW cause.

    Stand and deliver or be convicted again for the fraud we know you are.

    00

  • #
    JAC

    MattB,
    Ok. That is pretty much my understanding of the AGW proponents “best” evidence, so there is no difference between us on that score. I’ll just make the following points:

    1) By itself, CO2 can only warm the planet by a limited amount due to the fact that additional warming reduces logarithmically in response to additional Co2. For a “catastrophic” temperature change additional positive feedback mechanisms are required that increase the climate system’s sensitivity to CO2.
    2)I assume by “best efforts” you mean creating climate models, plugging in CO2 as a variable and finding warming.
    3) “We have the temperature over the period of the emissions” – The period of the emissions is relatively short period of time and cannot tell us anything by itself – we need to put the current warming into historical context to see if it is unusual. Perhaps it is natural!
    4) You don’t mention reconstructions of past temperature from proxies – non-tree ring studies show the medieval warm period was as warm as it is today. Tree ring studies show a different picture (i.e. Hockey stick).
    5) 90% likely – is an opinion (maybe an informed one), but still an opinion.

    In the face of this evidence I’m still skeptical.

    Even with this level of evidence – if all the solutions are easy and at our fingertips and if our society will continue to prosper and if the developing world achieves a higher standard of living I have absolutely no objections for ending the status quo emissions.

    00

  • #
    Mattb

    JAC:

    1) agree
    2) agree. but there is more than just models.
    3) agree, except that the models also match the historical relationship too
    4) to be honest I’m not that worried if there was a MWP. I don’t thing the evidence shows there was one but it is like the lag.
    5) agree

    the future is nuclear btw.

    00

  • #
    Sharpshooter

    Reply to #72

    #3 – The models do no such thing – quite to the contrary, the completely wrong and missed the past ten years. If a model can’t even present the PAST correctly, it’s worth ZILCH about the future.

    #4 – Just plain nuts!

    Geez, man ! Get a clue…s single solitary clue!

    00

  • #
    Sharpshooter

    When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already. . . . What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”
    Adolf Hitler (1889–1945), German dictator. Speech, 6 Nov. 1933. Quoted in: William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, ch. 8, “Education in the Third Reich” (1959).

    The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.
    Adolf Hitler (1889–1945), German dictator. Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 3 (1925).

    The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.
    Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), English philosopher. Essays, vol. 3, (1891).

    00

  • #
    Mattb

    Sharpshooter seriously you appear to have a brain the size of a pea, and a small one at that.

    00

  • #
    JAC

    Mattb

    Re #75

    #2 What is there besides the models ?
    #3 Can you provide a reference that shows the models have been accurate for the past. What about the current (last 10 years)divergence between the models and temperature – is it significant? Models can be adjusted retrospectively as they prove to be wrong, so their predictive power is more relevant.
    #4 Not worried about MWP? Its existence shows that the current warming is not “unprecedented” and therefore possibly natural. Are you saying that evidence for the MWP is weak?

    Yes there should be a debate on the use of nuclear.

    00

  • #

    My version of Clive Hamilton’s letter is here.
    My letter to children would be much shorter: “Greetings, my advice is fairly simple: find a copy of Lewis Carroll’s Game of Logic, read the book and play the game; it’s fun and will help you to think logically, to distinguish good arguments from bad ones, and to discern whether people are trustworthy or trying to deceive you. Also, read lots of good books. Farewell.”

    00

  • #
    Dom

    @Joanne Nova

    Clive not only thinks ALL sceptics are Deniers, he thinks they are worse than Holocaust deniers.

    Did you read the article you link to? He specifically says that he does not think they are worse. Read the last sentence.

    “So the answer to the question of whether climate denialism is morally worse than Holocaust denialism is no”

    You have misrepresented him.

    00

  • #
    Deadman

    Dom writes that Clive Hamilton “specifically says that he does not think [sceptics] are worse [than Holocaust-deniers]” and that Joanne Nova has “misrepresented him.” Well, I read Hamilton’s piece and, despite the claim at the end of the article that sceptics are not morally worse than Holocaust-deniers yet, in the preceding paragraph he claims that, whereas “climate deniers are less immoral than Holocaust deniers [...] they are undoubtedly more dangerous.”
    Hmmm, not as immoral but more dangerous: is that better or worse, I wonder.
    Hamilton explicitly says that those who deny or who are even doubbtful of the claims made by proponents of AGW will cause untold suffering, “deserve greater moral censure [...] because their activities are more dangerous[,]” and, whereas “Holocaust deniers are not responsible for the Holocaust [...] climate deniers [...] would share responsibility for the enormous suffering caused by global warming.” That suggests to me that Hamilton does indeed claim that sceptics are worse than Holocaust-deniers, and that Joanne Nova has not misrepresented him.
    I could similarly claim that Dom is not yet a semi-illiterate halfwit. Dom cannot discern nuance seemingly, makes baseless claims, and implicitly and insultingly intimates that Nova does not properly read articles whereon she comments; but Dom is not a contumelious calumniator.

    00

  • #

    UPDATE: I’m glad I kept a copy of his letter here, because the ABC has taken down his piece. Gone, “not found”. Thanks to Mal for pointing that out.

    00

  • #
    Dom

    @Deadman

    Whatever nuance you can find, or whatever his words “suggest” to you, Hamilton concludes his article by specifically saying they are not worse. Nova claims he says they are worse. This is misrepresentation, and the question of whether the whole article was read is appropriate.

    If you want to criticise Hamilton for his bizarre behaviour, you should take care to at least attribute his views correctly. Perhaps you disagree.

    Unfortunately, you are wrong, regardless of whether I am yet a semi illiterate half wit. What an aggressive way to try to make your point! I assume you are really a nice person though, and just disagree with me (and the facts). That’s OK.

    In terms of your baseless accusations of me making baseless claims and “cannot discern nuance seemingly” (did you mean cannot seemingly discern nuance?), I reject them and refer you to the answer given above.

    00

  • #

    to Dov:
    Hamilton explicitly says (I repeat) that sceptics “deserve greater moral censure [...] because their activities are more dangerous[,]” and that “Holocaust deniers are not responsible for the Holocaust [but] climate deniers [...] would share responsibility for the enormous suffering caused by global warming.”
    This is saying that sceptics are worse than Holocaust-deniers: worse in causing more suffering (eventually, supposing his alarmist predictions come true) and bearing moral responsibility thereof. The entire tenor of his article is that sceptics are dangerously bad, and deserving of the utmost obloquy which the opprobrious term “denier” connotes. I am sorry if you cannot perceive that. Hamilton concludes his article, as you correctly say, by stating (disingenuously, in my view) that sceptics aren’t quite as bad as Holocaust-deniers in one respect, morally, but he qualifies that with the adverb “yet.” The clear inference is that by some far distant day they will be worse morally. Nova’s claims are correct and you needlessly calumniated her by querying whether she read an article which she clearly had.
    One certainly should take care to attribute Hamilton’s views correctly. Reading an entire article and not being swayed by a slight, spurious concession at the end would help to do that.
    An aggressive way to make a point? I gave an example, with Hamiltonian extravagance, of a claim I could make. Don’t you care for parody? I did indeed deliberately write “cannot discern nuance seemingly” and not “cannot seemingly discern nuance” for a reason: “seemingly’ functions as a sentence adverb and qualifies all three preceding words and not just the verb; your subsequent questioning of my nuanced adverbial placement is … well, I shall indulge in aposiopoesis…

    00

  • #
    Dom

    @ Deadman

    Your response made me smile.

    I’m glad you agree with me that Hamilton concludes his article very clearly, explicitly stating that they are not worse.

    We could talk about what you think he infers, or considers dangerous (or the basis for your certainty that Nova read the whole article) until the cows come home, but that is his conclusion, clearly stated, as you say.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I watch these debates closely and I find Deadman to be the more persuasive. One always considers the whole context, not just a part of it when making such judgments. But the broader point that Hamilton shamefully tried to use children against their parents should not get out of focus.

    Here in the US this same thing has been going on for a long time and the venue is our public schools. Every cause — and there are many — will realize that if you indoctrinate the children you can win the war. In California some of it has been cast in the concrete of state law. It’s embarrassing to any critical thinker and extremely pernicious.

    There is no end to intellectual dishonesty.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    UPDATE: I’m glad I kept a copy of his letter here, because the ABC has taken down his piece. Gone, “not found”. Thanks to Mal for pointing that out.

    Jo,

    This is the benefit of exposure. They hide from the light of day knowing they can’t withstand scrutiny.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    mmmm so let me see. I can write a whole book insinuating someone is worse than someone else, make analogies, veiled accusations, then in the very last line of the book say “well not really.” And all will be ok then will it?

    So what was the point of the book?

    00

  • #

    The link is working again to the original Hamilton story. http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2765351.htm Thanks to deadman for pointing it out.

    00

  • #
    Rod

    I’ve been reflecting on this alarmist climate change thing for a week or two, and wondering how it has got so out of hand that we can see the ugly head of totalitarianism emerge again so clearly in the debate.
    To me it seems very strange that these people like Hamilton get air time and can get away with plying their nasty craft.
    I was born just after WWII, and was bought up by a generation that knew a thing or two about the Nazis, the Stalin era and Mao, and how the operated to gain, retain and misuse political power.
    Hamilton would have been immediately recognised for what he is.
    Sadly, it seems to me a whole new generation that has greatly benefited from the removal of the totalitarian regimes has not learned how to recognise the face of totalitarianism. It is beginning to look like the fight for freedom will need to be fought all over again.
    Every year I deliberately open my old copy of Hayek and the The Road To Serfdom, just to remind myself how gullible people can be. Its context is getting out of date, but the message remains frighteningly relevant with increasing modern parallels.
    Thankfully, there are people like you, Andrew Bolt and many others who are prepared to speak out, and a means of communication through the internet as an alternative to the mainstream media that these people seem to have infiltrated.
    Keep up the good work.
    We need to be ever on our guard, or we will have to build more war memorials with long and sobering lists of names as can be seen at Canberra, and far to many other places.

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Rod,

    Well written and well said. Just as the generations who had the bitter experience of the depression era subside, the lessons learnt from that time are ignored again (and a taste of the consequences experienced).

    The same goes with Totalitarianism, although I do think that whilst the net is free from significant influence at least people have the ability to find information from history and learn it’s lessons (maybe).

    Personally, I think despite advances in communication mechanism, many many people are becoming almost delusionally naive. To put this in perspective, we have been seeing thousands of people getting arrested in Copenhagen for protesting to be Taxed more and to be partially governed by some form of Cabal. All for a problem that doesn’t exist.

    Whether its the extreme left or the extreme right, it doesn’t make a lick of difference IMO. The consequences have and will be the same.

    00