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

Falling public opinion falls faster

The Cliff Of Public Opinion

Newspoll results are out in Australia tonight. Surprise. The opposition that opposes the Great Big (baseless) Tax is having its best results since it got wiped out two years ago, slashing a 26 point lead to just 4 points.

On primary vote support, the Abbott-led Coalition has secured 41 per cent support, with the Liberals securing 37 per cent and the Nationals 4 per cent, compared to Labor’s 40 per cent, with the distribution of preferences – including a significant 12 per cent Greens vote.

The result represents a significant turnaround from the high-water mark support for the Rudd government during its first year. Two years ago Newspoll recorded a 26 point lead for Labor, at 63 per cent to 37 per cent for the Coalition, in February 2008. The gap narrowed to 61 per cent for Labor and 39 per cent for the Coalition in April 2008, and again to 59 per cent and 41 per cent in October 2009.

This is being directly connected by commentators to climate policies.

Way back on November 25th, just a few days after ClimateGate broke, I predicted that the Cliff of Public Opinion would fall fast as the facade of bullying and deceit broke. Way back then (9 weeks ago), it was openly “known” that the opposition would suffer a landslide loss if a double dissolution election was called. People thought the Opposition might pass the dog-of-a-deal Emissions Trading Scheme just to avoid an election.

Now the primary vote is neck and neck, statistically flat level. The PM claims they might lose.

The ruling Labor Party declared back then that “climate change was the great moral issue of our time”, and that “sceptics play with our children’s future” (see here for my scathing rebuttal). But, now that the polls have shifted somewhat, perhaps Rudd has noticed that ClimateGate is not going away. Either that, or he is not so concerned about children now that he’s done his bit and written a cute book for them.

Kevin Don’t-Mention-the-Climate now has higher priorities than saving the planet it seems. He’s not mentioning the climate all over the place.

Though don’t assume the road-to-legislative-nightmares is over. The Greens are offering deals. Turnbull may become Turncoat (and prove that he was the best Labor leader the Liberals ever had). And tomorrow the Opposition is going to reveal its alternative policy:

“Tomorrow, Mr Abbott is promising to release his “fully costed” alternative plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without introducing an emissions trading scheme tomorrow.

“Our policy will reduce emissions, it won’t involve extra prices to consumers and it won’t involve new or increased taxes, unlike Mr Rudd’s policy,” Mr Abbott said today.

“We have a very important job as a Coalition over the next fortnight, we have to save Australia again from Mr Rudd’s great big new tax and we won’t let the Australian people down.

“Kevin Rudd has been frankly dishonest with the Australian public about the cost of his policies. He hasn’t released modelling; he hasn’t released modelling about the jobs impact of his great big new tax. We will tell the Australian people tomorrow precisely how much we think it will cost to have an effective climate change policy.”

I find it hard to imagine there is a Get-Out-Of-Climate-Jail-Free card where the Liberals can reduce carbon emissions without extra costs to consumers. Call me a purist; I don’t like any policy that aims to reduce a harmless gas.

The only policy I want on the climate is: “Let’s do some real independent research, and fully audit and investigate the claims”, followed, presumably, by the obvious corollary for an institution that takes billions of dollars and uses it to to lie, deceive, and scare: “Axe the UN”.

(And maybe that’s how they’ll fund it? Spend more cutting carbon and less on the UN?)

Meanwhile, the Monckton Tour has sold-out around the country.  Extra dates are being booked. ABC interviews are everywhere. Media coverage is mixed.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Falling public opinion falls faster, 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2aumvvy

49 comments to Falling public opinion falls faster

  • #
    janama

    yeah – all the diehard warmists have turned to the Greens leaving Labor with a batch of swinging voters who could go anyway.

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    It was only November the world was rocked by climategate exposure. The bigger they are the harder they fall.

    Choo Choo Pachauri is now selling books. I assume they have spicy illustrations. We will need reading material while waitng for the rapid 3 hour re charges on autos. Will electric auto recharging stations have picnic tables and sell supplies?

    00

  • #
    ANGRY

    It is a good start at ousting Chairman rudd and his ANTI AUSTRALIAN REGIME.
    However, in order to secure my vote The Liberal Party/Tony Abbott MUST TOTALLY AND UTTERLY REJECT THIS GLOBAL WARMING HOAX!
    The last thing that Australia needs is “THE ETS ACCORDING TO TONY ABBOTT”.
    I will not vote for any party that supports a HOAX!

    00

  • #
    ANGRY

    Another sticking point with me regarding Tony Abbott, is his support for BIG IMMIGRATION, just like Chairman rudd.

    When are these politicians going to realize that this is NOT what the silent majority of Australians want!

    In this regard there is NO DIFFERENCE between Chairman rudd and Tony Abbott.

    Where is the CHOICE for Australians?

    Nobody ever asked ME if I wanted this policy for my country!

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Henyr:

    It was only November the world was rocked by climategate exposure.

    Alas, Australia wasn’t rocked by climategate, because the media crushed the story. Only independant thinkers like those who frequent this blog and a couple of others were able to string together the information.

    The story still has not been covered to any real extend down here.

    It seems to me that all the Liberal party and the National party here in Australia needs to do is to put together some form of public education campaign stating the facts regarding the IPCC, the University of east anglia etc etc.

    It seems to me the timing is right now. People have been getting mixed signals about copenhagen -everything from “abject failure” to “complete success” to everything in between. There is the entry point I reckon.

    I am sure the frustration of the people would be directed exactly where it needs to be directed.

    I’d bet the average Joe sixpack here in Aussie would sigh a breath of relief about “Cap N tax ‘em” (copenhagen) too.

    00

  • #

    [...] Climate skepticism a definite vote winner! [...]

    00

  • #
    cabat10

    The changing polls and the (slowly) changing public opinion on climate change is great for Australia and Australians.

    We must remember a few things though.

    First, Tony Abbott is in the game of politics. We as bloggers and the public can speak our mind but in politics that can be tactically dangerous (look what happened when Tony was asked what he would advise his daughters in his capacity as their father). We do however know what Tony thinks about man-made climate change – “B@!!S#!+”.

    Second, to have any chance of affecting the governance of this country, the Liberal/Nationals must do well at the next election. One of the arts of democratic politics is pleasing the majority without compromising yourself.

    Third, while the public are slowly waking up to the IPCC headed climate scam (and various polls from around the world will support this), the majority still believe the rubbish. The gap is closing but the alarmists still have the numbers although they are shrinking.

    So what is likely to happen? The public have not swung enough for Tony to speak his mind again or he risks losing public support. The alarmist believing public still want to see an opposition response to climate change if there is any chance for them to vote Liberal.

    I suspect we will see a scheme that is low-cost, ecologically sound, and “addresses the issue of climate change”, yet can be scaled down or shut down if necessary once the public majority accept that we have all been conned. The ETS is not low-cost, it is not ecologically sound, and it cannot be shut down once implemented. It will be a softer approach so Tony doesn’t paint himself as an AGW convert – not a good long term political position given the changing public opinion (Penny must be feeling very anxious about the future of her portfolio).

    With politicians, it is important to read the game. Don’t think for a second that just because the Liberals announce a climate change policy that means they are alarmists and don’t deserve our support. They could very well be our only chance to stop an alarmist driven, freedom sapping, wealth redistribution scheme.

    00

  • #
    Peter of Sydney

    All we need now is a very cold winter and more will change their minds and not vote for Labor. Of course this is not very scientific but then voters generally never think anyway. Otherwise the AGW hoax wouldn’t have taken off in the first place. If everyone bothered to read the blogs sites and details about how the IPCC lies about the peer review process and number of scientists supporting the findings revealed over a year ago. Most still get the “facts” from newspapers and TV news shows. It’s time to introduce laws that stipulate any news media found guilty of continually reporting lies is fined millions and the editors put behind bars.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Peterb

    “It’s time to introduce laws that stipulate any news media found guilty of continually reporting lies is fined millions and the editors put behind bars.”

    This is the wrong approach – one’s laws are in place, it’s very difficult to repeal them, and such a law would be used by the dictatorial to stifle dissent.

    I think you’ll find that losing circulation and hence the advertising revenue, that will bite hardest. IN any case the Fairfax media are in a terminal decline – and they still don’t understand why. The solution is not to buy the SMH or The Age etc. No advertising to wages to pay the journalists.

    But adding more regulations and laws will only make us even less free than our present state.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Peter of Sydney I meant :-)

    00

  • #
    MikeO

    I really can not see how a credible policy can be produced to reduce carbon emissions that does not cost. A direct tax would be honest and voters would see it for what its. The CPRS would not be a tax it will just increase the price of everything, what the hell is the difference! The likes of Krudd and Wrong talk as if giving carbon a value then issuing credits will work because companies will solve the issues or absorb the cost. No they won’t it just does not work that way. They will move the capital into other industries or increase prices. Our power stations with the most emissions are brown coal. Largely in Victoria and private running on credit. Pass an ETS and likely they will go into administration. This is because you have just decreased the asset value and it will no longer cover debt. So the administrators take over, the plant is sold and what capital is left goes to the creditors who lick there wounds and move on. The only thing perhaps would be to set up a government body whose task would be to reduce emissions by developing new suitable technologies and then introduce that into industry. Could fail in the long term but in politics does that matter?

    00

  • #

    cabat10, I think you’re right on the money, well said. At the moment Tony Abbott has one leg each side of a barbed wire fence. I don’t think he believes that man-made CO2 is a problem, but he must be seen to placate the warmers and tender a watered-down ETS. He wants their votes as well as the sceptics (that’s me). And, as you say, he can later change his stance and scrap it entirely, citing overwhelming evidence that it’s all a scam.

    00

  • #

    [...] the original: Falling Public Opinion, Falls Faster « JoNova Share and [...]

    00

  • #
    LINDA

    Voters in other states, take note of WA as it has Liberal /National coalition and has done nothing to revoke or help property owners who have property resumed or locked away for conservation purposes,
    Property owners have been tied up for 11 years, unable to sell on the open market and now many cannot even get a pension.
    Farmers in the wheatbelt are selling off stock to pay wages , worrying as to who will buy the farms when they sell or when the banks foreclose.
    And what has happened to all the lobby groups supporting farmers and property owners?
    People read your hansards ,or watch it live, dont rely on media to disclose what is really going on, and be very vigilant , as they serve the same master, and that is not the working class person in Australia.
    Looking forward to Lord Monckton coming to WA on 8th Feb , a great pity is that Peter Spencer will not be coming to WA .
    SECURE TENURE OF PROPERTY FOR ALL AUSTRALIANS IS NEEDED.
    Are you listening Mr Abbott, Barnaby Joyce so far is the only politician speaking loud and clear to the people to what the people really want for future prosperity in Australia.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    I keep asking these questions: ” What organisation audits the IPCC?” “Who audits the UN”

    Practically every (legitimate) government I know of has an Auditor Generals’ Department, or similar independent body. So why would an “Uber-Government” be exempt?

    Inquiring minds would like to know.

    00

  • #
    Sandy

    Jo,
    Love the illustration,summed up prefectly.
    I agree with many here,the biggest hurdle now is to inform
    the remainder of the population(easier said than done)
    Can’t see the MSM changing anytime soon!!
    ?? what course to take and ASAP.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    To quote from a quote in the article:

    “Tomorrow, Mr Abbott is promising to release his “fully costed” alternative plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without introducing an emissions trading scheme tomorrow.

    If his words can be taken literally, he is talking about “greenhouse gas emissions” which may not necessarily include carbon dioxide. Perhaps this is an “interesting” way of being able to backtrack from the whole carbon thing?

    00

  • #
    papertiger

    Waiting for the statist media to pick up a story that goes against their multi-year agenda, that’s going to be a long wait.

    We have to be our own coverage. Look how well it’s worked out so far.

    00

  • #
    Cement a friend

    Rereke (17)the only so called “greenhouse” gases are water vapour and ozone. Water vapour condenses to water droplets and ice particles which form clouds and these in turn have an additional “greenhouse” effect. Nothing humans do will change the radiation inputs from the sun and space or the natural cycles of energy absorption and release (including evaporation of water)by the oceans and ice coverage in the polar regions which total over 70% of the earth’s surface. Any talk of reducing “greenhouse” emissions is nonsense. A much better option for this country and an aid to productivity increase is to get rid of the government “Greenhouse” Departments and all other departments involved with sustainability. Sustainability requirements and industrial relation laws are the major restrictions to productivity improvements.

    00

  • #
    Geoff Croker

    Melbourne faces a very cold, wet winter. The Timor and Coral Seas are cooler than they have been for more than a decade thanks to Hamish and Laurence.

    Its going to snow on Collins Street this winter. Even the BoM El Nino pushers have noticed. Its has been raining in Sao Paulo and other states in Brazil since December. The last time was in 1947.

    Floods are coming to the lower MDB. Its time to clean out the drains. Victorians have wasted $10B on water schemes that will not store this flood. A flood that would have stored five years of consumption if more dams were available, during a period of drought when they could have been built. Now we have bankers who own our water production, policy makers who want to be bank directors and governments who will do ANYTHING to get elected.

    00

  • #
    Peter of Sydney

    MikeO you described how an ETS/CPRS would pan out very accurately. I can’t understand how anyone with half a brain can’t see the same logical outcome. So much so that if the new tax ever did manage to be implemented, the public should “destroy” the Labor Party at the next election. Although I don’t hold much hope for the Libs, at least we all should vote against Labor in protest. If the voters don’t kick them out then Labor is given the green light to dish out more of the same, and the people deserve it, and I hope they suffer a lot. It’s often said people learn their lessons the hard way. Sad but true.

    00

  • #
    Peter of Sydney

    Better be careful what we say else we could be breaking the law. See:
    http://www.news.com.au/technology/south-australian-state-government-gags-internet-debate/story-e6frfro0-1225825750956

    If this gets any worse, I’ll move to another country. NZ perhaps.

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    find it hard to imagine there is a Get-Out-Of-Climate-Jail-Free card where the Liberals can reduce carbon emissions without extra costs to consumers. Call me a purist; I don’t like any policy that aims to reduce an harmless gas.

    The only policy I want on the climate is: “Let’s do some real independent research, and fully audit and investigate the claims”, followed, presumably, by the obvious corollary for an institution that takes billions of dollars and uses it to to lie, deceive, and scare: “Axe the UN”.

    Yep, same here… Though I’d be happy if Abbott opened up the Nuclear power issue. For long term energy supply, Australia needs to skill itself in this field… We after all do export uranium and apparently have about 40% of the worlds stocks of this mineral… Then there is Thorium. Plus, if the greens are serious abour reducing pollution and emissions, then they can’t deny Nuclear power.

    00

  • #
    Philly McTankerous

    We live in a world of pro vs con. Our popular media, our governments, our divergent societies and religions rely on it’s nature. Otherwise they can’t triumphantly beat on a drum saying that they are correct, have always been correct and if you throw your hat in their camp, support them with your votes and your business, you will be just as triumphant. The sides game never ends.

    If we remove the grand scale that the term “global warming” seems to represent and we merely scale it back to the very provable notion of pollution. We see that the problem isn’t that our world is heating up due to factories, un-checked burning of fossil fuels and all of that hype; but we acknowledge that the economic model of build bigger and bigger companies allows pollution and corporate malfeasance and wasteful environmentally corrupting practices to go unchecked.

    That is the issue at it heart. Not that we’re heating our world up, but that we’re destroying our environment, polluting our waters, decimating small scale farmers and villages attempts to grow their own food and find their own unpolluted water. We’re changing the structure of our cities, killing off the middle class, displacing whole segments of populations.

    People are clamouring for a change that will give hope to future generations and a sense that we’re not doomed. However, as long as the economic models and hocus pocus games of economics lead those with unchecked power, those at the helms of gargantuan companies, those who’s fear leads them to insulate themselves against what is truly happening underneath their very feet…as long as the economic bottom line is towed…

    …then your children and your children’s children…are doomed to suffer from your inability to see the forest for the trees and see political rhetoric as a call to arms, rather than a call to common decency, simple scaling back, simply caring for our crumbling cities and people. Reaching across lines drawn in the sand to build a better world.

    Alas, those that live well off care not for those of us that cannot afford to live well at all. They feed us contentious issues for us to argue over and fend over what other scraps they allow us to have in broken down cities and forgotten corners of the world. So long as we pay our taxes and buy into what the new fad, issue or fear mongering tells us to believe.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Heck J. Hansford even I’d vote for Abbott if he went genuinely with nuclear power. But if you were going nuclear why would you limit your cuts to 5%? The nuclear card would trump all other efforts to reduce emissions in Australia.

    What I’m interested in now is what other services will Abbott be cutting to make his scheme cost free?

    This is the interesting bit, fromt he ABC website:
    “The $1 billion fund would be used to provide incentives to farmers and industry to reduce emissions.

    Those who cut their emissions below their “business as usual” levels would be able to sell that reduction to the government and those who pollute more will incur a penalty.”

    what is BAU, and what is the penalty… industry and big business will want a lot of detail about that. Because at the end of the day if you can sell your exess, and pay a “tax” on overemissions… hmm well it kinda jsut sounds like a “great big tax” in sheep’s clothing.

    00

  • #

    Seems that not only all the ___gates re: ‘peer reviewed’ science are opening the way for the fall in public opinion, but the hypocrisy of global warming’s chief cheerleaders has driven people toward the open gate, stuff like this
    http://www.aprilbaby.typepad.com/

    00

  • #
    janama

    @Geoff Croker: 20

    I’m currently reading “Back from the Brink” by Peter Andrew – the natural sequence farming bloke. He’s concerned because we are due for a heavy rain period like you mentioned in 47. He suggests that if we get it we could end up with all our rivers so saline that they become undrinkable and useless for agriculture. He doesn’t paint a very pretty picture.

    00

  • #
    Nick M

    I can’t help thinking about how this may parallel the first election win by Menzies.

    Chifley had been fighting the communist unions at the time, and bore the brunt of the conflict, given Menzies was in opposition.

    He subsequently took a battering at the following election, 12 months later.

    Now Abbot is in oposition and Rudd is going to take the brunt of this mess, providing it is capitalised on.

    It may take another election and another term for Rudd, to really deliver a death blow for the furture of Labour, which is a shame, both for Labour and the country. The country still needs an effective opposition.

    I have a feeling they are going to be in opposition for a long time, once all this unravells completely.

    Late news. Just saw Rudd calling the Liberals policy as a “Climate Conn Job”.

    WOW. Get him to keep saying that, then bury him with it ;-)

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Ineresting development. Note how NASA scientist Eric Setzer distinguishes himself from “climate change advocates”! Is this the start of the stampede and a return to real science carried out by credible ethical scientists?

    NOAA, NASA: Water Vapor Largely Responsible for Global Warming

    An increase in atmospheric water vapor is responsible for at least a third of the average temperature increase since the early 1990s, say scientists at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    The research, facilitated by a state-of-the-art NASA satellite codenamed AIRS, suggests that water vapor is responsible for twice the global warming effect of carbon dioxide, both man-made and naturally occurring. While this theory has been carried by climate change skeptics for some time, global warming advocates dismissed them, saying that water vapor in the atmosphere was only a feedback effect caused by human emissions. NASA scientist Eric Fetzer say that the new study created models much more accurate to past events than those previously used by climate change advocates, and proves that “water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned.”

    http://ecofactory.com/news/noaa-nasa-water-vapour-largely-responsible-global-warming-012910

    00

  • #
  • #
    MattB

    If you go to the newspoll: http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/100106%20Federal%20Voting%20Intention%20&%20Leaders%20Ratings.pdf

    then the result at the last election was 2PP ALP: 52.7% COALITION: 47.3%
    and this poll 2PP: ALP 52% COALITION 48%

    with the major mover being the Greens: ’07 election 7.8% NOW: 12%

    So it will be interesting to see if Abbott’s policy gains any traction, but at the moment things look very similar to last election which was a resounding ALP victory.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Not to mention the Nats have lost a whopping 27% Of their vote since the last election! how is that for a ringing endorsement of climate skepticism!

    00

  • #

    Ummm…

    Oh, oh….

    Did someone just flood the AGW closet with light???

    00

  • #
    Michael Cejnar

    BBC Pension fund invested in Climate Change.
    Is this why BBC staffers are rabid warmists? Their £8.2bn pension fund is run by a Mr Peter Dunscombe, apparently a Climate Change investment fanatic. If true and he invests in what he preaches, then BBC staff’s pensions may directly depend on Climate Alarmism and carbon trading. Hopefully Fairfax or someone will investigate further.

    There you are, and we were falsely accusing the BBC them of being naive socialists. Its always, always …. the money.

    The story: http://politically-confused.blogspot.com/2010/02/bbcs-huge-financial-stake-in-climate.html (from Andrew Bolt’s blogger “steve of melbourne”)

    00

  • #
    Keith

    I keep thinking of Minsky’s theories about the instability of financial markets and his ideas of sudden catastrophic collapse. Their are parallels it seems within political and media discourse.

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Michael Cejnar @ 34. The BBC Pension Fund is just the tip of the iceberg. Have a look at IGCC Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change which currently has 47 members including the BBC and many Church Pension Funds and manages investments amounting to four trillion euros ! Along with the heavy involvement in carbon trading of many leading financial insitutions, Al Gore, etc., you really do start to understand what powerful forces are involved and why so many want to keep the AGW scam going and why the MSM are so reluctant to report the truth.

    http://www.iigcc.org/index.aspx

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Rereke Whaakaro @ 15. From Roger Pielke Jr website. “As far as I have been able to discern, the IPCC has no policy governing conflict of interests. This is remarkable, given the importance of the IPCC to international climate policy as well as the importance that has been given in recent years to conflicts of interest in scientific advice. The question that needs to be put to the IPCC is: why should it be exempt from adhering to conflict of interest policies that are deemed appropriate in every other important area of scientific advice?”

    I’m not sure about any audit of the IPCC as the money just seems to be shovelled out as long as they keep coming up with their charter to find “evidence” of man-made global warming. The CRU emails throw up some very interesting dealings though, particularly about payments by IPCC scientists to some Russian researchers and their attempt to subvert currency laws.

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01-ipcc-and-conflict-of-interest-anything-html

    With regard to the UN, there apparently is some auditing which I think found an embezzlement or “disappearance” of 50,000,000 dollars by the head of one agency which I believe was the one that wanted to administer the huge Copenhagen Treaty handouts to third world nations. Will check on that one when I have time if you can’t locate it.

    00

  • #

    Bulldust, as you say, “proof in science is not derived from consensus”, but people here argue that humans are NOT causing climate change (in other words, they are making an unfounded, unsupported and unscientific claim), despite the accepted science (not consensus). These claims are based on a bunch of dismissive claims and a massive conspiracy theory. THAT’S NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS EITHER!!!

    If there is fault in the thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed papers that form the science–not by consensus but by the fact that they have not been falsified–people here should be able to change the state of scientific understanding. But they don’t, I guess because they can’t?

    The “evidence” comes regularly in the form of papers, journals and studies. The evidence is the product of thousands of hard-working scientists. Not amateurish and childish propaganda like your “Skeptic’s Handbook”.

    00

  • #
    Clive popham

    letter 38 from Mary Bargwara:
    I clicked on her name and was taken to the ‘Atheist Foundation of Australia’.
    My suggestion is that the views put forward in 38 was to make readers do as I did.
    A clever way of promoting your views as nothing was there on ‘Global Warming’
    Clive

    00

  • #
    Pete

    Mary Bargwara:
    February 3rd, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    “Not amateurish and childish propaganda like your “Skeptic’s Handbook”

    lmfao! Mary dear, (I hope Jo does not get mad about this but) I regularly print out a copy of the “Childish” handbook and drop it at the bar I pop into. I then move down the bar and after getting my beer in, settle down to wait for it to be picked up. The copies have never been torn up or thrown in the bin and have won me many new friends who had fallen for your sort of garbage but now have been won over.

    For instance your, “If there is fault in the thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed papers that form the science” statement. Not that old trolls line again! Which peer review? The WWF? Greenpeace? The one that was peer reviewed over the phone? Or Mann’s stuff peer reviewed by Jones? Or Jones’s stuff peer reviewed by Mann? After all Mann worked his but off to get Jones awarded some spurious doctorate and then wanted one in return!

    Now run along and leave we grown ups to our fun!

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Oh Mary Mary, what you say is quite contrary….to IPCC’s own statements. Here, let me show you.

    IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM (Summary for Policy Makers)

    Page 4 Fig.spm2 lists all the radiative forcing components and includes the Level Of Scientific Understanding (LOSU)

    here is a summary

    Of the 9 components listed, 2 (CO2 and other ghg’s) are listed as high LOSU.
    The other 7, including most importantly the Sun are listed as low or medium low LOSU.
    Most pertinently, the very important climate drivers of Water Vapour and Clouds are NOT listed at all due to near zero understanding.

    You are welcome to check by downloading the report from the IPCC website. What are your thoughts?

    By the way Mary, ALL living beings, be they animal or vegetable change their environments to some degree. The question is, how much change, how soon and what effects if any on other living beings.

    00

  • #
    Peter of Sydney

    It does look like that a “climate tax” is needed to avoid another even bigger financial catastrophe. The climate issue is just a diversion and a con job. If that’s the case, I would have preferred they were honest about it and just told us we would have to pay higher taxes. At least it would cut out all the crap about AGW. Given the way things are panning out though, I hate to be a scientists in the future. Their reputation will be smashed to pieces, and be thought of as bad as robbers and politicians.

    00

  • #
    buzz345

    here’s a letter a friend of mine has written to Penny Wong today
    To all federal Members of Parliament, Letter to the Editor

    The Weekend Australian newspaper (Sa.19.12.09) published a major article headlined “Scientists ‘crying wolf’ over coral”. Quotes: “Professor Ridd said scientists who predicted corals would be mostly extinct by mid-century had a credibility problem because the Great Barrier Reef was in ‘bloody brilliant shape.” “Ten years ago, I was told that the coral was going to die from sediment, and we have proved that is complete rubbish”.

    Its editorial stated: “The Queensland tourist attraction is proving its resilience”.

    During 2008 winter’s record low temperatures, ABC News reported coral bleaching due to cold. The reef was adapting to natural weather variations as it’s done for millions of years.

    UN IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri is reportedly under investigation in Britain for ‘very serious financial irregularities’. Separately, he has reportedly used bogus claims of alarm to secure millions of dollars for TERI, of which he is a director. He has many huge conflicts of interests now publicly exposed. The scientist who made the statement of unfounded alarm at the centre of the UN IPCC’s Himalayan scandal works for TERI.

    Our free-spending Prime Minister gave Pachauri’s TERI one million dollars. Senator Wong gave almost $50,000 in a grant entitled ‘Influencing International Climate Change’.

    Nature controls global climate through galactic, solar, planetary, oceanic, atmospheric drivers and their interactions. Grants to TERI only influence climate spin.

    Before spending millions of taxpayer dollars on bogus global warming claims during the financial crisis, why did our free-spending Prime Minister and Senator Wong not do their due diligence?

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    sdcougar @26,

    Funny thing, Mrs. Gardiner’s response from Senator Feinstein is a duplicate of the one I received. Senator not so Fine-Stein is a true Kool-Aid drinker.

    00

  • #

    Roy, give me five! We belong to some sort of club. What kind of club I’m not sure – maybe the receivers of clueless politician’s form letters, I don’t know. But at least I know I’m not alone.

    We must persist!

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I know how you guys feel. In the Abbott lead up to the CPRS I sent many emails to Liberal Senators urging them to come up with a decent climate policy, and all I got in return was regurgitated nonsense about shooting down Rudd’s CPRS.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Michele,

    Here’s your five!

    At least Feinstein responded but not so for Boxer. On the other hand Boxer’s popularity is down in the basement and she could easily be out in November. We all need to get behind whoever her Republican opponent turns out to be. Not that Republicans are exactly sterling but at least they will not like cap-and-trade.

    00

  • #
    Rich

    Miranda Devine in the SMH: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/climate-alarmists-out-in-the-cold-20100205-nik5.html

    Especially the phrase “noble cause corruption”.

    00

  • #

    sweet article…I’ve really liked it!

    00