JoNova

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


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



ABC Chairman says “Let them speak.” Greens say “Nooooo.”

Today the Chairman of “our ABC” (it’s paid for by Australian taxpayers) said the unthinkable.

It’s not that he said man-made global warming was a scam, and he didn’t announce that carbon wasn’t a pollutant; he just asked for journalists to listen to other points of view.

“At the ABC, I believe we must re-energise the spirit of enquiry. Be dynamic and challenging, to look for contrary points of view, to ensure that the maverick voice will not be silenced.”

In a speech to senior ABC staff, he said that climate change was an example of “group-think”, and that they should listen perhaps “to other points of view that may be sceptical.”

Contrary views on climate change have not been tolerated and those who express them have been labelled and mocked.

I’ve been around long enough to know that consensus and conventional wisdom doesn’t always serve you well and that unless you leave some room for an alternative point of view you are likely to go down a wrong track…

These innocuous non-judgemental lines are too far from the doctrine.

Christine Milne of the Australian Greens responded, and in the true spirit of an open democracy and a free press, urged ABC journalists to ignore him. Fully 40% of Australians might be sceptical,* but Christine Milne wants to make sure that information that aligns with their opinions is not represented by our national government-funded broadcaster. Like Clive Hamilton, she hides in the dark… don’t let them speak. Where is the compassion and tolerance the Greens claim to defend? We’ll defend you if you agree with us, but if you come from a different culture (one that respects data more than “doctorates” and logic over bluster), we’ll use every tool at our disposal to suppress you.

Milne called it “anti-science” nonsense. Why? Because Newman said the unthinkable: “I still have an open mind on climate change.” So closed minds are the way to go?

“So as I said, I’m not a scientist and I’m like anybody else in the public, I have to listen to all points of view and then make judgments when we’re asked to vote on particular policies.”

These innocuous non-judgemental lines are too far from the doctrine.

He might be the Chairman, and obviously has some influence, but he fights a culture where many journalists think it’s conversational to insult scientists. Brendan Trembath, the journalist who interviewed him after the speech, even asked:“Would you say you’re a climate change denier or not as obvious as that?”

Imagine on any other scientific topic, if a journalist asked: “Would you say your opinion is equivalent to someone who denies the halocaust?” Or, “Would you agree that you deny the scientific evidence from an entire branch of science?”

Take this question literally from Brendan Trembath: Is there some doubt in your mind about climate change? It’s a bit like suggesting you have doubts that the tides come and go.

It’s a bit like suggesting you have doubts that the tides come and go.

The caretakers of the Big Scare Campaign have reframed basic English. “Climate change” is so branded now, it’s loaded with inference and double-meaning. The same with the word “denier”. Many people hide behind these terms as if they are labels, but there is no paper or Law of Nature that skeptics deny, and the global climate is constantly changing on every timescale from  hours-to-eons. This false rebranding is insidious and must be exposed for the marketing tactic that it is.

Lastly, one day even journalists may recognize that the effects of global warming are not evidence of the cause of that warming.

Brendan Trembath: Even though we’ve got people talking about longer and more severe bushfire seasons, the melting of polar ice caps, you still have your doubts?

Trembath forgot to mention sea-level rise, droughts, hurricanes, and Dengue Fever, which are also not useful as indicators of the cause of global warming. It is pretty extraordinary that after such an unending litany of the conflated effects of warm weather, anyone can keep a rational, independent mind at the ABC.

Trembath might do well to try explaining to us how solar-magnetic effects or cloud-cover changes, or aliens with rayguns would not also melt polar ice caps or raise sea levels…

Maurice Newman was formerly Chairman of the Australian Stock Exchange. His appointment is a five-year post that started in Jan 2007. We can look forward to two more years of a sane voice at the ABC (I hope).

*A recent poll showed forty percent of Australians disagree that our carbon emissions are significantly changing the climate (ACSC poll, Feb 2010 see page 27 of the PDF).

Hat tip to Mattb.


PS: There’s a special piece of bluster from Prof. Stefan Lewandonsky on ABC Unleashed tonight. I saw him speak in December, and wrote about that here. Get bowled over by the “utterly inconceivable” repetition of argument from authority as he soaks in consensus, and clarifies the issue of the global climate with references to Ivan Milat (a serial killer), HIV, Prince Charles, the global drug trade, and the Falklands war. Feeling edified? For a moment, he stops mindlessly bowing to the gods of science and doing sophisticated research into “google scholar searches”, and tosses ad homs instead. It must be tough watching your cult fall apart.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (4 votes cast)
ABC Chairman says "Let them speak." Greens say "Nooooo.", 9.5 out of 10 based on 4 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/yj5fgml

188 comments to ABC Chairman says “Let them speak.” Greens say “Nooooo.”

  • #
    Philhippos

    My goodness your man Lewandonsky can rant.

    He makes our own beloved George Moonbat look like a Trappist monk.

    Lots of signs of terror in the asylum but we cannot forget, as you have pointed out, how much money is now riding in support of AGW.

    Anyone saying that big oil is behind the sceptics only has to see how much those corporations are now making by trading carbon on their own accounts.

    Our problem is now how to push over the wall of money.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] The other point of view is not allowed, Christine Milne says no to free speech, [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    So much for free speech. If the same was said that people should ignore the greens they would be marching in the streets!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Jo,

    The ABC Chairman didn’t get to where he is by being stupid, he is probably a smart man with some common sense, too! The winds of fortune are blowing against the AGW crowd and they are getting desperate. The ABC needs taxpayer funding and better ratings is one way to keep the public funds flowing. The AGW cult outgunned the skeptics on a huge scale; something akin to the U.S. GDP versus Kenya (no offense to Kenya) and yet the tide is turning against them. Once the funding dries up they will have to be true idealists. That will reduce their ranks to a few eco-loons and that will be the end of the AGW scam with the possible exception of criminal prosecutions where fraud can be proven. The ABC wants to be on record as being there when the truth was finally revealed to the public. It makes for great public relations and smart politics. After all, politics was what this scam was from the very beginning!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    It’s a bit late, isn’t it? Oh well … better late than never.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Eddy #4

    Don’t forget the $10^10 already invested in this. The pigs don’t like it if you remove the trough (speaking as a farmer of course).


    Report this

    00

  • #

    There’s also an article today on ABC Unleashed by Roger Peilke Jnr that makes a little more sense than the rant by psychologist Lewandonsky. It will be interesting to see which one ABC promote, any bets?

    As of 8.00 am EST Lewandonsky has top billing.

    Best to get there through Roger Pielke’s blog:

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/03/op-ed-on-australias-decarbonization.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    The left has always feared independent thought. And the Greens are about as far left as it is possible to get in the modern world.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Binny: #8

    … the Greens are about as far left as it is possible to get in the modern world.

    … without falling off … now there is a thought! :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    jo, apologies for the length. will do two posts. last nite i listened to ABC Radio Nat “bush telegraph” and was outraged. Mr. Newman’s words need to be translated into action across the ABC platforms:

    MAURICE NEWMAN: I think the ABC has probably been more balanced than most in the mainstream media. I think that we’ve listened to the words of sceptics as well as those who are scientists in the field
    http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2842177.htm

    10 March: ABC Bush Tele: Climate pulled apart
    By Keiren McLeonard
    A lot has happened since we last spoke to Will Steffan the Executive Director of the ANU’s Climate Change Institute…
    http://www.abc.net.au/rural/telegraph/content/2010/s2841791.htm
    (“a lot” but NOT climategate or any other gate, as u will hear, but plenty of talk of “economic instruments”)

    Professor Will Steffen: Executive Director, ANU Climate Change Institute (College of Asia and the Pacific)
    From 2004 he has served as science adviser to the Department of Climate Change, Australian Government.
    http://www.anu.edu.au/climatechange/content/author/will

    13 Feb: SMH: Marian Wilkinson: Crisis of climate-change confidence
    While he acknowledges that some of Jones’s temperature data was questioned in the hacked emails, (Will) Steffen points to thousands of studies across all the scientific disciplines over recent years that have supported the IPPC’s findings on global warming.
    ”There is an enormous amount of evidence from the recent warming of the planet beyond the instrumental atmospheric temperature record,” says Steffen, who authored a report on the issue last year for the Department of Climate Change.
    ”This evidence includes rising ocean temperatures, reductions in Arctic sea-ice thickness and extent, the melting of permafrost, the satellite measurements of rising atmospheric temperature, the loss of ice mass in Greenland, and more recently Antarctica, and thousands of ecological case studies on land and in the ocean showing changing times for ecological events like the flowering of plants and mating of organisms, the migration of fish, plants, birds and many others in response to the warming environment.”
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/crisis-of-climatechange-confidence-20100212-nxmb.html

    ABC’s Bush Tele is unlistenable, just as ABC’s Landline is now unwatchable. funny thing is it is only my generation that listens to and watches the ABC, so what does the future hold for Auntie?

    8 March: ABC Bush Tele: Climate vitriol
    By Keiren McLeonard
    Two of our leading climate-change scientists tell us about their encounters with hate mail
    In this report: Professor Andy Pitman, co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre, University of NSW; Professor David Karoly, expert on climate change and climate variability at the University of Melbourne
    http://www.abc.net.au/rural/telegraph/content/2010/s2839446.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    cont’d
    when it’s Morocco, ABC had no trouble mentioning “cyclical drought”:
    Oct 2008: ABC: 13 dead in Morocco floods
    Morocco, which suffers cyclical droughts..
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/25/2401046.htm?site=news

    but when it’s the Queensland floods – which BBC’s Nick Bryant (“Rise of the Sceptic”) said had “broken” after what our farmers considered a 100-year clyclical drought – you won’t find the ABC or the commercial TV stations mention that possibility. in fact, the media treated the much-welcomed floods as an absolute ‘disaster’, just as our TV weatherman still treat hot sunny days as wonderful and talk of a drop of rain as bad weather! in fact, a google search has found not a single result on the queensland floods that includes the word ‘cyclical’.

    ABC page with multiple links about the recent Qld floods. the headlines tell the story.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/08/2838942.htm?section=justin

    as i’ve said here previously, i voted for the Greens in the last general election but, with what i have learned in the last four months, will never vote again for any party that wants to COMMODIFY carbon. guess it’s vote informal in future. more reason for repealing the undemocratic, compulsory voting law in australia, which precludes a message from the public that we want NONE of them.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    May be off-thread a bit

    Re Pat above

    Better than vote informal – the US has the option to “Write In” a candidate – though they haven’t had a write-in president yet


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ANGRY

    The ABC(All Bullshit & Censorship) must be seriously deluded if they consider themselves to be “more balanced than other media organizations”!

    They are the epitome of Leftist Propaganda.

    This statement by Maurice Newman demonstrates how out of touch they really are.

    They should be sold off if they are unwilling or unable to provide BALANCED reporting.

    I, as a taxpayer, find it offensive that I am forced to fund an organization which espouses Leftist values.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    What I find most appalling is that our ABC which is meant to be unbiased finds itself in a situation where their Chairman finds it necessary to remind the journalists what the basics of their Job is.

    What happened to the ABC charter? Am I the only one that sees this as an admission by the ABC that they have failed to be unbiased on the matter (don’t get me wrong here, it’s about time we got some balance).

    Also, it’s clear the Greens are not in favour of the ABCs charter too.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    It must be tough watching your cult fall apart.


    Indeed!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Couldnt be better times as the Greens show their bias and vilification of free speech only a week or so before their State Elections – word to Tasmanian’s you want censorship and socialism – vote Green!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Every time you mention ABC, I think of the American Broadcasting Corporation. The one that broadcasts from the White House and has had to close all it’s offices except for Washington all in the name of journalism.

    You could use Fox Australia.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Wow,Joanne, I was wondering what the repercussions would be with your posting “The Money Trail” on March 4th!
    I saw this article today from your Wall Street Journal..Here’s my posting of this article and my comments towards how it lead here today! Again great job Joanne!!

    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2104.last

    Always good news and it’s a “thata boy” to those who went over to “The Drum” and supported Joanne..God Bless you all for this help…We have to keep pushing…its NOT over!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DaveB

    I’m happy to say that an ABC local radio host puts to air a number of AGW sceptical segments. Long may this presenter stay in their job!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Couple of things to remember.

    The general public, who aren’t interested in the science are, I think, sick and tired of the “it’s worse than we thought” and the “sea turtle eggs are being cooked” alarmism. The more these lunatics like Lewandonsky and Hamilton rant, the more the public get turned off. So I say give us more.
    Maybe we should think of some alarmism on their behalf. (though it’ll be tough to beat the “Global Warming increases prostitution” claim)

    As far as my ABCs chairman is concerned, his statements will do 2 things. First, other prominent, respected public figures may be encouraged to speak their mind. Second, future complaints to the ABC about the lack of balance will get a better hearing by the complaints department.
    p.s. watching the ABC lateline program last night, our resources minister made it obvious he was an AGW sceptic.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    We have the problem with state-paid for National Public Radio.
    They give zip coverage to the problems the IPCC is having- and then only to let AGW promoters tell their side of the story.
    Of course, over here even the allegedly free press is too timid to give much coverage to the AGW meltdown.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    And The Australian posted an opinion piece by James Hansen who is polluting the Australian media for a while:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/only-a-carbon-tax-and-nuclear-power-can-save-us/story-e6frg6zo-1225839327862

    The head of the ABC calling for more skeptical coverage and The Australian posting Hansen… did I wake up in upside-down world this morning?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I put some choice comments on the Lewandonsky piece… I wonder if they will make it past the moderators. I notice his piece is comepletely devoid of science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    MarcH:
    March 11th, 2010 at 6:56 am
    Thanks for the link to Pielkes article Marc. Reads like a nice big kick up the bum for Rudd and Wong.
    Since Pielke does not argue the merits of AGW, only discusses the emissions reductions folly, not too many commenters can savage him. Hence the low number of commenters.
    It sort of leaves the alarmists with nowhere to go. “We are alarmed about CO2 but don’t know what to do about it” Hillarious really, picturing them with the stunned mullett look on their faces.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce

    Re: Bulldust @ #22

    The Australian also had a great article on the futility of the ETS – see link below.

    It would appear that The Australian allows individual journalists/editors some degree of freedom to express opinions.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/emissions-figures-dont-stack-up-professor/story-e6frg6nf-1225839329853


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Rereke Whaakaro:
    March 11th, 2010 at 6:48 am
    Eddy #4

    Don’t forget the $10^10 already invested in this. The pigs don’t like it if you remove the trough (speaking as a farmer of course).
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Reminds me of a classic opening line I read about the GFC. The author started with something along the lines of: “they said if we paid them peanuts we’d get monkeys, so instead we paid them truffles and we got pigs.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I take back my respect for not associating the term “denier” with the holocaust.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    What a topsy turvy world. ABC head bags the science, and Chinese heavyweights dismiss skepticism: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/11/2842415.htm

    “A deputy director of China’s most powerful economic ministry has come out swinging against climate change denial.

    Senior Chinese government figures have described the view that climate change is not man-made as an “extreme” stance which is out of step with mainstream thought.

    The comments were made during China’s annual sitting of the National People’s Congress.”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “PS: There’s a special piece of bluster from Prof. Stefan Lewandonsky on ABC Unleashed tonight. I saw him speak in December, and wrote about that here. Get bowled over by the “utterly inconceivable” repetition of argument from authority as he soaks in consensus, and clarifies the issue of the global climate with references to Ivan Milat (a serial killer), HIV, Prince Charles, the global drug trade, and the Faulklands war. Feeling edified? For a moment, he stops mindlessly bowing to the gods of science and doing sophisticated research into “google scholar searches”, and tosses ad homs instead. It must be tough watching your cult fall apart.”

    Yeah its just an embarrassment. Whose minding the store at unleashed? Is there no peer review?

    But I don’t know if the cult is falling apart. A lot of us are tired. Need to get on with other things. This cult looks beaten for the moment but might not most of us back off and relax a bit and this T-1000 reconstitute itself?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The thing is Matt, Chinese people can be just as stupid as our own guys. We imagine these wily orientals lack the sort of faults that we have. But this is not the case. After all the Japanese bestrode world commerce, then they took up Keynesianims after their real estate cash. In so doing they crippled themselves, and thereby forced themselves into being just another player.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Actually Graeme I thought it more likely that China is just taking a chance to encourage the west to slash carbon, to China’s advantage.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Which is most effective? Fiscal or monetary stimulus? Well I don’t think there is any such thing as fiscal stimulus. I think this is just these guys looking at the wrong metrics.

    But even looking at the wrong metrics. There is no case where the money supply has been falling in any time or place and fiscal deficits can create buoyant conditions. We can say that there is not time ever where monetary and fiscal policy collides, but that monetary policy is the stronger.

    Well how about GREENHOUSE GASES versus AIR PRESSURE????

    Is there anywhere on earth or indeed in the solar system where these two factors are running head-to-head and air pressure not win out as the stronger determinant of temperature?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bunny

    The ABC is running a poll asking:

    “Do you agree with China’s point of view that man-made climate change denial is an extreme stance and out of touch with mainstream thought?”

    Naturally on the ABC website the faithful agree with the Chinese point of view.

    I wonder who is really out of touch with mainstream thought.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    But its not “China’s” point of view. Its just some idiot Chinaman. So quick they are to press-gang one fifth of humanity in service of their bullshitartistry.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Actually, I think I have to agree with MattB here: It’s to China’s advantage to keep the Western carbon-slashing going, and if they can encourage us to set up carbon trading it’s even better! They will profit both ways!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    for details of funding to the ‘greens’, read the full article:

    11 March: EU Referendum: Richard North: The sinister nexus
    Specifically, the report examines funds allocated to the so-called “Green 10″ – a coalition of ten NGOs pushing for an “environmental” agenda in EU policy-making. It finds that nine out of the ten receive funds from the commission, eight receive one-third or more of their income from the commission, and five of those rely on the commission for more than half their funding…
    What, in effect, therefore, has happened is that the NGOs have become an arm of the state, contributing to “the development and implementation of Community environmental policy and legislation.” They are part of our system of government, subsumed in much the same way that trades unions became part of the Soviet Union…
    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/sinister-nexus.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Pat,

    RE:

    What, in effect, therefore, has happened is that the NGOs have become an arm of the state

    This is meant to be surprising? After railing against the system in their youth, they became the system. The very system it will be up to later generations to Usurp and rebel against.

    Ironically, many of that generation never realized they reached the point where they were the system, and continue to bang out about rebelling against “the man” like they’re independent thinkers or something. Clive Hamilton and Monboit, I think are good examples of this. It’s actually quite pathetic.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Shelley

    You’re doing a great job Jo. Keep at it. :)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mattb, I’m not into the “Halocaust accusation” — it all seems patently ridiculous, but we can hardly ignore that that’s how some alarming commentators see it. Both New Scientist editors, and Clive Hamilton among others, make explicit references to the Halocaust.Akin too: “Deniers are worse, they will kill more people…”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    LMAO Here is the infamus Hockey Player Michael Mann defending the “GlacierGate” error in the IPCC report.

    “I look at it like this: Let’s say that you’re in your car, you open up the owner’s manual, and you discover a typo on page 225. Does that mean you stop driving the car? Of course not. Those are the kind of errors we’re talking about here,” Mann says. “Nothing has fundamentally changed.”

    But I look at it like this: Lets say you’re contemplating buying a car, the Pacahuri 3000. You open up the manual, and it says you should service the car every 200,000 kms. You ask the salesman “is this right?” “Yeah yeah sure it’s right” he says. You think, “that’s good value, running costs will be cheap”. But after you’ve paid for it and taken it home, you find it was a typo. The Pacahuri 3000 needs to be serviced every 2000 kms. You feel dudded, cheated. Sure, it’s just a typo, but what a typo. And it turns out the salesman knew about the typo but didn’t alert you to it for fear he’d lose the sale. Sound familiar?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Lewandowsky’s effluent suddenly shows no comments. Comments closed.

    Nearly 300 comments flushed. Incompetence or censorship?

    My recently-visible comment read:

    What is the basis of your belief system? Is the basis a matter of trust in others? Or is it based on your personal investigations, getting back to fundamental physics, thermodynamics and fluid mechanics to look at the real science behind the alarmism?

    Ad hominem attacks on various high-profile individuals only erode any argument that you may have. Similar ad hom’s could be applied to highly-regarded historical figures, such as the confessed “axe-murderer” who helped forge a nation; George Washington.

    Care to cite the survey of thousands of “Earth scientists” responding to climate change? The recent survey which I’ve read is “Klimakatastrophe oder Katastrophenklima?” by Senja Post (ISBN 978-3-88927-446-5; ISSN 0939-9712) which shows no consensus at all amongst 133 surveyed climate researchers, those actually doing research in the field, in Germany. No consensus at all that there’ll be a catastrophe.

    Out of that survey; e.g. only 10% reckon that we have sufficient understanding of the climate system to make any predictions and only 13% judge that there’s sufficient empirical data.

    But that’s not science. It’s opinion polling.

    You’re aware of the principles of falsifiability, but this article doesn’t reflect the necessary rigour that that principle compells; of seeking to find empirical data that falsifies hypotheses and theories. Instead; you ridicule those who do it.

    It is not sufficient, as some would have us believe, that anything that cannot be explained as a known, natural effect, must be anthroprogenic. That’s called “argument out of ignorance”. If one doesn’t know what produced an observed phenomenon, it’s NOT GOOD ENOUGH to attribute it to any preferred cause.

    That is how “civilized” people arrived at proof of witches. Of claiming that selected individuals had “cooked” unfavourable weather; and justified the internment of live children and young adults into the foundations of major buildings to protect them from flood and earthquake.

    Speaking of witches: The terminology “denier” is used extensively by AGW protagoonists to denigrate those who don’t believe. An accurate classification of those who do not believe is “infidel”. But you’d be reticent to call your opponents “infidels” because nuance exposes AGW catastrophism as a religious belief system.

    IMNHSO, there is about as much scientific basis in AGW catastrophism as there is in “intelligent design”.

    Finally; you ridicule the Leader of the Opposition for listening to Lord Monckton. Even if (and that’s a long stretch of the bow) Christopher is the fool that you make him out to be; keep in mind that a wise man can learn from a fool but fools do not learn even from a wise man.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Bulldust: #26

    I gave you a thumbs up for that – nice one!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I can’t believe the level of “debate” at The Drum and unleashed. Just goes to show how a lack of moderation completely obliteraes the intergrity of a web site. Heck, Crikey’s Pure Poison is civilised compared to the ABC blogs. You’d really think the ABC would be able to deliver a better product.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Joanne Nova: #39
    March 11th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
    .

    At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers

    June 2, 2009, 9:42PM

    What is so frustrating about these fools is that they are the politicians and greedy bastards who don’t want a cut in their profits who use bogus science or the lowest scientists in the gene pool who will distort data for a few bucks. The vast majority of the scientific minds in the World agree and understand it’s a very serious problem that can do an untold amount of damage to life on Earth.

    So when the right wing fuc*tards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events – how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn’t we start punishing them now?

    The above from Talking Points Memo (TPM)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    I bet you’ll see nothing like this on the 7:30 Report tonight…

    The Man of the Hour
    (If the ABC was Relevant, Part 14)

    Bryan: Prime Minister, thanks for joining us.

    John: Thank you Bryan

    Bryan: Prime Minister, you have stated that Global Warming is the Greatest Moral Challenge of the present time.

    John: Yes Bryan. Greatest Moral Challenge of the present time.

    Bryan: And what time was that.

    John: It would have been the time at the present Bryan. [Consults diary] … Tuesday morning between 10 and 11 a.m.

    Bryan: And it’s your first priority.

    John: Global Warming is my first priority Bryan.

    Bryan: What about health care?

    John: Health care is my first priority Bryan.

    Bryan: What about education?

    John: Education is my first priority Bryan.

    Bryan: What about the economy, employment, aboriginal health, housing, agriculture, aged care, industrial relations and international trade?

    John: I refer the honourable member to my previous response.

    Bryan: You certainly face an enormous number of greatest moral challenges Prime Minister.

    John: I’m a morally challenged man Bryan.

    Bryan: Why do you have so many first priorities Mr. Rudd?

    John: For two very good reasons Bryan. Firstly, because there are a great number of objectives that I need to achieve as Prime Minister. And firstly, because my job as Prime Minister is to set those priorities. And firstly, because without a clear set of priorities, the government would become leaderless and ineffective.

    Bryan: You mean a hollow shell? A cruel parody of the legislative process, capable of delivering nothing but a litany of broken promises?

    John: Been known to happen Bryan.

    Bryan: But surely you can’t treat all these issues as first priority items at the same time?

    John: No Bryan, I can’t.

    Bryan: But you just said you do.

    John: No Bryan I didn’t. What is the present time ?

    Bryan: It’s (looks at watch) just after 3:30.

    John: The day Bryan – the day!

    Bryan: Thursday.

    John: On Thursday afternoon at 3:30, the greatest moral challenge of the present time is… [consults diary] …health.

    Bryan: Do you discuss this with Penny Wong?

    John: Every week, Bryan, on Tuesday morning.

    Bryan and John: [Together] Between 10 and 11 a.m.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    But wait, theres more…

    Small sampling of threats, intimidation and censorship:

    NASA’s James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for “high crimes against humanity.” Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics of 2007 declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors” In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies “criminal enterprises” and declared CEO’s ‘should be in jail… for all of eternity.”

    In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be strangled in their beds. “An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds,” stated the remarks, which Romm defended by calling them “not a threat, but a prediction.”

    In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.” In 2007, The Weather Channel’s climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.

    A 2008 report found that ‘climate blasphemy’ is replacing traditional religious blasphemy. In addition, a July 2007 Senate report detailed how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation.

    In 2007, then EPA Chief Vowed to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptics and dissenters of warming fears have been called ‘Climate Criminals’ who are committing ‘Terracide’ (killing of Planet Earth) (July 25, 2007)

    Lots more where those came from


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    And lastly (for now)

    Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics (January 17, 2007)

    Excerpt: The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to “Holocaust Deniers” and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    MattB: #28

    Thank you for pointing out that article Matt.

    To understand Chinese press statements, you need not only to translate the language, but also how they answer a question. Here is my decomposition of the translated answers:

    … made-made climate change denial is, at best, a very marginal view.

    There are still more “believers” than sceptics.

    Climate change is a fact based on long-time observations by countries around the world

    The earth is definitely getting warmer.

    “There are two different views regarding the causes for global warming. The mainstream view is that climate change is caused by burning of fossil fuel in the course of industrialisation. There’s a more extreme view which holds that human activity has only an imperceptible impact on the natural system.”

    We have believers and sceptics. The believers think burning fossil fuel is the cause. The minority sceptics disagree.

    … the responsibility for this climate change rested squarely with the Western world …

    The debate was started by the west – they stirred-up concerns over the world getting warmer – it is their problem.

    The climate in China is warming. It’s something every one of us can feel.

    The climate is warming here as well …

    Climate change is having an impact on China in terms of the instability of agricultural output

    … and we are already having problems with food production and distribution

    There’s now more flooding in the south of China and increasing shortages of water in the north. Forests and grasslands are being eroded and there are more typhoons and storm surges along our coast

    This winter has been a crock …

    … [in] the long term, climate change may have a huge impact on China’s food security …

    … but we will be able to blame the west if we stuff up food production and distribution again

    … current statistics on climate change [are] not reliable enough … more work [is] needed to be done on the minutiae of the statistics …

    If research grants are being given out, we want some too.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Rereke @ 49

    CO2Science yesterday had a review paper indicating that “global warming” would increase China’s rice production by between 3 and 15%. I don’t suppose they’ll thank us filthy westerners for that though. Certainly not enough to pay for this aerial fertilizer!

    In fact, in such a scenario, I firmly believe that the Chinese could be easily convinced that temperature variations of the late 20th century were entirely the result of natural variability…

    Cheers!

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bunny

    While I was prowling around on the ABC I had a look at their Environment Info and came across an article titled “Climate Change is a Slow Burn” which quotes Andy Pitman saying there is a 20 year time lag in the climate system. He says it takes 20 years for greenhouse gas emissions “to work their way through the planet’s oceans, atmosphere, soils and ice-caps, and then come out the other end as impacts such as increased temperatures, melting glaciers, rising sea levels or acidifying oceans.”

    The article then goes on “…global temperatures would remain elevated for 1000 years even if emissions of greenhouse gases were to stop overnight.”

    I haven’t heard about this 20 year time lag before, can anyone enlighten me on this?

    Also, if global temperatures will remain elevated for 1000 years no matter what governments do to slow emissions, what is the point of doing anything?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ANGRY

    Forest fires put Carbon Credits at risk

    A forest fire burning near Dunedin, New Zealand last week highlights the risk of natural disasters to carbon which run into millions of dollars, Carbon News reported last Friday. Wenita Forest Products, which owns the 800ha of forest and cutover which had been burning most of the week, has registered under the Emissions Trading Scheme, but has not yet claimed credits.

    If it had, it would be liable for the carbon lost in the fire, according to Carbon News, the country’s specialist news service on the carbon markets. Under the ETS, the destruction of trees through natural disaster is treated in the same way as harvesting – making the forest owner liable for the loss of carbon.

    That means that in the case of fire or wind damage, the forest owner would have to surrender as many credits as it had received for the forest lost. If, for example, a company had been receiving credits on 700ha of forest for 20 years it could be liable for some 500,000 tonnes of carbon – worth $10 million at a carbon price of $20 a tonne. Carbon News says the issue of how to protect forest owners from the cost of carbon loss through natural disaster is now being investigated.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Mattb is paid to be here. There is no other explanation.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Overseasinsider

    Mark,

    Hold on a minute… without the likes of Mattb, this blog could get quite stale. Even though he doesn’t listen to reason, doesn’t verify facts and doesn’t have a working bullchit detector, he does provide us with a valuable target and is generally a good sport…


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Rereke Whaakaro:
    March 11th, 2010 at 6:48 am
    Eddy #4
    Don’t forget the $10^10 already invested in this. The pigs don’t like it if you remove the trough (speaking as a farmer of course).

    Don’t worry, they will find another trough such as the declining oxygen levels, the methane in the Arctic, etc. The greens may wind up with a bounty on their heads. Gee wiz, I sure would hate to see that. I would be willing to settle for seeing them added to the endangered species list!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Surely they could get better value for their money… whoever it is who is paying me?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Speedy: #50

    Yes, warmer temperatures will increase rice growth. The problem the Chinese face is in harvesting it and distributing it effectively.

    That is why they take every opportunity to blame the west for everything. It keeps the populace quiet.

    Also, I liked your post at #46 – Classic John Clarke


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    #54 you only add to my point. [snip repeat...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bunny in 51 sorry I don;t have a reference, but as you would know the total predicted temp change relies on a number of feedbacks, and these are not instantaneous. Eg melting of ice is not instantaneous, and that would have an impact on earth’s albedo, which means less reflection etc, causing a warming. Changes to climate patterns resulting in warming. That kind of thing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    But by whom Mark… maybe I get a % of the chocolate for getting you guys stirred up.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    I don’t get stirred up
    [snip...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Mark D:

    Have you considered, MattB might be Joanne in drag. Or would that be out of drag? I get confused.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Baa Humbug

    The Pacahuri 3000? I laughed for five minutes! I can see the ad now, “Half the price of a NANO Tata and built to the exacting standards of the IPCC in the TERI factory under the supervision of Rajenda himself.” The problem is that when you take it in for maintenance, upkeep or repair they will have conveniently “lost” the original data and can’t fix the problem. Then, they will tell you to read the small print that says they were only 90% sure that the car would last and they can’t show you the warranty because it is protected by non disclosure agreements! Any disagreement with Rajenda will be viewed as voodoo sophistry!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Have you considered we might ALL be Joanne in drag?
    [snip]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    MattB

    My hypothesis is that you are with us as an eccentric millionaire due to your share of the $10^10. (I agree it is a very shakey hypothesis – I believe you have children.)

    Applying the scientific method, could you provide any evidence that would either falsify that hypothesis or demonstrate that it could be considered as a feasible theory?

    What should I do if it transpires that this hypothesis is incorrect? (Besides sending you a few bags of that lovely money Exxon dropped around yesterday, of course?)

    Cheers,

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Mark D.:
    March 11th, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    Mattb is paid to be here. There is no other explanation

    Well, I wasn’t going to reveal this but…..MattB is actually Jo.
    Jo Matt causes a ruckus (mildly offensive) Matt Jo demands an apology, then Jo Matt duly apologises etc etc
    It’s a great scam. Sure gets Eddy and I sucked in lol


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    You guys want the truth?

    You can’t handle the truth.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    eccentric millionaire? Half right.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Baa you may be right, even still: [snip this is a bit too O/t]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I have a feeling that if I was paid a dollar for every time Mark D says “Mattb is paid to be here. There is no other explanation.” I’ll be a rich man after all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    OK seen as you all seem to be in a good mood (I wonder why) here is a joke for you.

    An Aussie sceptic holidaying in Bali. Having a drink at the bar. Recognizes Keith Briffa and Michael Mann also at the bar. Obviously there on one of their IPCC junketts. He observes that they are betting with each other. One takes out a picture of a tree cross section, the other has to guess the age of the tree.
    After observing them for a while (and a few drinks) the Aussie goes over to them, says g’day and duly bends over, drops his pants revealing his “ring” (don’t laugh yet)

    Mann/Briffa: Oh god!!!you’ve got hideous wrinkly rings around your.. ….

    Aussie sceptic: yeah, but how old am I?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB has referred to himself as the wrestler that everybody likes to boo. Actually, that strategy was employed by Gorgeous George the wrestler. Everybody was willing to shell out the money to see him because they could not stand him. George laughed all the way to the bank. A young boxer who wanted a quick title shot emulated Gorgeous George and it worked. Muhammad Ali, then name Cassius Clay and known as the Louisville Lip knocked out Sonny Liston on February 24, 1964 to become the HeavyWeight champion of the world. He was 23 years old. Never underestimate MattB who has adopted Ali’s rope a dope. He lets everyone tire themselves out flailing away with logic and evidence while Matt covers himself well with endless appeals to authority. Ali could float like a butterfly and sting like a bee. Matt can segue like a scientist and preen like a green! And just like Ali, he can take a punch! ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    I have read your 100 + previous posts. You have never been this “squishy” before….

    [snip]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB:
    March 11th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
    You guys want the truth?
    You can’t handle the truth.
    LMAO!

    Mr. Nicholson, can I have you autograph and maybe a few of your Laker tickets?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    What is next? Are we gonna hold hands around the global warming campfire and sing Kumbaya!?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Overseasinsider

    Eddy,

    We don’t need a campfire…. Don’t you know it’s TOO warm and getting warmer???


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Hummm … obviously a slow news day …

    Watta we gonna do now …?

    Anybody got a spare troll?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bunny

    Speedy @ 46

    That was your best effort yet. I’m still laughing!

    Mark D @ 53, 58, 61, 64, 69, 73

    We heard you! Can you let it rest now please?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Yep! We were nice to Matt and now we’ve really hurt his feelings! Maybe he is celebrating his good fortune by marking the calendar or he might be out buying some lottery tickets before his luck changes!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Bunny (51)

    If it took that long for the CO2 to take effect, that would be wonderful! Just in time for the end of this present interglacial. We (or our collective descendants) would appreciate all the CO2 we can bequeath them.

    Assuming, of course that all of what the good Prof says is true…

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Bunny 78

    Don’t worry, he will wear out as we all do with Matt. You either accept Matt as he is or consign yourself to sharing a padded cell with Inspector Clouseau’s Supervisor!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Another Failed Prediction: Latest Peer-Research Finds Claims of Increased Mudslides Due To Global Warming Is Wrong

    The pro-IPCC climate scientists predicted that mudslides and landslides (debris-flow) would increase due to global warming. Researchers examined the historical evidence and found the prediction to be without empirical merit. It appears that the left/liberal/progressive global warming, alarmist scientists (and IPCC) are again caught hyping calamitous predictions without the requisite scientific evidence.

    Read here
    There you go Rereke. Speed up your slow news day


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Speedy (#50)…

    True story:
    I was reading the New Zealand Police magazine today. Front page article about how the constabulary is coming under extra pressure, due to the fact that global warming is causing a boom in the cannabis cultivation industry.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Overseasinsider

    Steve @83,

    Maybe that will get the Greenies to INCREASE their CO2 emissions!!!! Better DOPE!!!!!! DUUUUUDE!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Baa Humbug: #82

    Thank you for the reference – not as satisfying as a good troll – but fun nonetheless.

    Summation: IF the world is warming, and IF that causes an increase in cloud cover, and IF the increased cloud produces more precipitation, and IF the said precipitation happens to fall on areas where there is loose soil or shale over clay, THEN we will get more mudslides or landslides.

    Or to further sum up – Shift Happens.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Steve Schapel: #83

    It is an ill wind …

    But how come? I thought all that stuff was grown indoors these days to avoid the “eyes in the skys”?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    On slow news days we do what the MSM does. make up our own news.

    BREAKING: Anthropogenic Fingerprint Found: Global Warming is Man Made.

    Upon studying available data and cross checking with the FBI and MI5, Scotland Yard have identified the long missing fingerprints. Interpol have been asked for assistance in locating the following individuals to help with Scotland Yard’s enquiries..

    • MIKE MANN: lead conspirator in the United States.
    • PHIL JONES: lead conspirator in the United Kingdom.
    • TOM WIGLEY: older conspirator who becomes increasingly worried about the unfolding scandal.
    • KEITH BRIFFA: older conspirator whose blunders lead the others to all but abandon him.
    • BEN SANTER: dangerously arrogant and naive young conspirator in the United States.
    • OTHER
    CONSPIRATORS: of varying degrees of complicity and integrity.
    Source AAP


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John from France

    Pat,
    In France, where voting is not compulsory and in Belgium where it is, you have the option of casting a blank vote if you want none of them. It could potentially have an effect if enough people do this. Don’t you have that possibility in Australia?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Yes John there is nothing to stop you just submitting a blank voting paper in Australia.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter Whale

    I think every time the word “denier” is used in context of sceptic we should use the term “warmonger” in reply.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Overseasinsider @ 84.

    I think that’s a pretty big tick in the box for the “green” vote!

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    This was fun, had to share.
    From climateQuotes.com

    A climate rhyme

    Dr. Suess’ birthday has inspired me to create a climate rhyme.

    ‘The world is hot, the world is hot!’
    I tried to tell them ‘no it’s not!’

    They didn’t listen to what I’d said
    They just kept saying ‘you’ve lost your head’

    ‘The world is warmer, we know it’s true,’
    ‘Explain why we should listen to you?’

    I told them ‘the science is weak at best’
    They responded ‘Oh please, just give it a rest!’

    ‘A consensus exists, we know you are wrong!’
    ‘We must act now, we can’t wait for long!’

    I said ‘But look, the world has cooled!’
    They said ‘Oh no, you’ve just been fooled,’

    ‘Trust us, please, we wouldn’t lie,’
    ‘There’s no bias, we’d never try!’

    I pointed out ‘Your models aren’t right!’
    They said ‘That’s no reason for fright,’

    ‘Yes, they aren’t perfect, but don’t dismay,’
    ‘We promise they’ll be better one day’

    Then they told me ‘the science is settled’
    Statements like that just make me nettled!

    I stopped our conversation right then,
    Why listen to them again and again?

    That’s when they said ‘You’ve denied the science’
    ‘You and the oil companies have an alliance!’

    I realized then I had the upper hand,
    This knowledge helped me to make my stand!

    I watched their movement fall apart,
    Forced to retract chart after chart

    Their science in shambles, gone up in smoke,
    The public now knows it was all just a joke.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Bunny:

    At #51 you report:

    While I was prowling around on the ABC I had a look at their Environment Info and came across an article titled “Climate Change is a Slow Burn” which quotes Andy Pitman saying there is a 20 year time lag in the climate system. He says it takes 20 years for greenhouse gas emissions “to work their way through the planet’s oceans, atmosphere, soils and ice-caps, and then come out the other end as impacts such as increased temperatures, melting glaciers, rising sea levels or acidifying oceans.”

    The article then goes on “…global temperatures would remain elevated for 1000 years even if emissions of greenhouse gases were to stop overnight.”

    And you ask:

    I haven’t heard about this 20 year time lag before, can anyone enlighten me on this?

    Also, if global temperatures will remain elevated for 1000 years no matter what governments do to slow emissions, what is the point of doing anything?

    Both suggestions are complete nonsense.
    They are presented by warmers as an excuse for the decline in recent temperature. (Global temperature is now similar to what it was 20 years ago in 1990, has not risen over the 15 years since 1995, and has fallen over the 12 years since the El Nino year of 1998).

    There cannot be warmth “in the pipeline” in the absence of stored heat. Global air temperature has not risen, ocean temperatures have fallen slightly, and globally ice has increased slightly over recent years. So, the claim of a “20 year time lag in the climate system” is a falsehood. It is pure nonsense that is observed to be untrue.

    At #59 Matt B demonstrates the nature of the excuse when he asserts:

    Bunny in 51 sorry I don;t have a reference, but as you would know the total predicted temp change relies on a number of feedbacks, and these are not instantaneous. Eg melting of ice is not instantaneous, and that would have an impact on earth’s albedo, which means less reflection etc, causing a warming. Changes to climate patterns resulting in warming. That kind of thing.

    This kind of silly ‘arm waving’ is typical of the justifications warmers make in attempt to excuse the complete failure of all their predictions to date.

    Radiative forcing occurs at the speed of light and does not have a “20 year time lag”.

    Feedbacks are within the climate system that has a response time of months and not “20 years” (warmers seem to have not noticed that seasons exist).

    Melting of ice takes a long time but globally ice cover is near stasis or is increasing. About 90% of the fresh water on Earth is in the form of Antarctic ice. Reduction to Arctic ice reversed two years ago and Antarctic ice is near stasis but shows a probable increase.

    Increased ice cover would make negligible change to albedo. Polar regions receive little radiation from the Sun (none in winter) which is why they are cold, so they obtain little solar radiation to reflect. Indeed, polar regions are net emitters of radiation and the bulk of solar radiation is absorbed in the tropics.
    .

    And it is plain daft to claim that “…global temperatures would remain elevated for 1000 years even if emissions of greenhouse gases were to stop overnight.”

    This claim is either an assertion of magic or a denial of climate change. The facts are as follows.

    The different estimates of the Earth’s average surface temperature (mean global temperature: MGT) all show
    cooling from ~1880 to ~1910,
    warming from ~1910 to ~1940,
    cooling from ~ 1940 to ~1970,
    warming from ~1970 to 1998,
    cooling since 1998.

    The general trend has been warming, but the rate of temperature rise was the same for the rate of rise in the two ~ 30 year warming periods: i.e. from ~1910 to ~1940 and from ~1970 to 1998.

    However, over 80% of the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) were after 1940. Clearly, there seems to have been little change to rate of temperature rise induced by the CO2 emissions from human activity. Indeed, if the emissions were causing the most recent rise then why has the temperature not increased for the last 15 years? And why did the global temperature rise in the period from ~1910 to ~1940 when everybody agrees the CO2 emissions from human activity were not sufficient to induce the rise?

    It seems that there are several natural cycles that are overlaid on each other. The global temperature variations listed above seem to be a ~60-year cycle (i.e. ~30 year periods of alternating warming and cooling). And there is an apparent ~900 year oscillation that caused the Roman Warm Period (RWP), then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP), then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), then the Little Ice Age (LIA), and the present warm period (PWP). All the observed rise of global temperature in the twentieth century could be recovery from the LIA that is similar to the recovery from the DACP to the MWP.

    These two observed natural cycles provide a complete explanation of the rise in MGT over the twentieth century. The recovery from the LIA is responsible for most – possibly all – of the temperature rise over the twentieth century, and the ~60-year cycle (that coincides with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, PDO) counteracted that rise in the periods ~1880 to ~1910, ~1940 to ~1970, and since 1998.

    If these two natural cycles continue then
    (1) the present stasis in MGT can be expected to continue for another 20 years after which global temperature will resume its rise until it reaches the level it had in the MWP
    or
    (2) at some time global temperature will start to fall until it reaches the level it had in the LIA.

    And there is no reason of any kind to suppose that “…global temperatures would remain elevated for 1000 years even if emissions of greenhouse gases were to stop overnight.”

    But there is good reason for governments to do something about climate change.

    In the Bronze Age Joseph told Pharaoh that climate has always changed everywhere and it always will. He told Pharaoh to prepare for the bad times when in the good times, and all sensible governments have adopted that policy throughout the thousands of years since then.

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

    Importantly, cold climate provides more problems – and more serious problems – than warm climate. So, preparing for all possibilities is sensible, and preparing only for warming but not for cooling is stupid.

    But there is no reason to cut emissions of carbon dioxide: such suggestions are made by cultists who think humans can alter the climate of the entire planet by changing some lightbulbs.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Interesting article from MiltonConservative
    Simple Chemistry and the Real Greenhouse Effect.

    Truths:

    1. Most of the Sun’s radiation that gets to the Earth’s lower atmosphere passes through substantially unabsorbed.

    2. Most of the radiation is then absorbed on contact with the Earth’s surface. This includes the majority water and the minority land.

    3. Most of the Earth’s surface is either water or moist vegetation.

    Most of the radiation from the sun is converted to infrared wavelengths at or near the surface.

    The water molecules absorb the infrared radiation causing increased vibration within the individual water molecules. This is converted into translational energy during intermolecular collisions.

    Water is an unusual compound. Its molecular weight (18) is half that of nitrogen (28) and less than half oxygen (32). Water should by all rights be a gas.

    The reason water is liquid or ice normally, is that water molecules are naturally attracted to each other and form large aggregates which are substantially heavier than air.

    When liquid water absorbs infrared radiation or is otherwise stimulated it vibrates more quickly and more intensely. This breaks down that tendency to aggregate.

    In fact, in order for an associated water molecule to break free and escape into the air, a specific amount of energy must be absorbed. This is called the Latent Heat of Vaporization.

    In fact, this is a very large amount of energy as anyone who has boiled water knows.

    It takes 1 calorie of heat to raise the temperature of liquid water by 1 Celsius degree.

    It take 539 calories to change one gram of water to steam.

    Enormous amounts of energy (principally translational and vibrational) are carried from the surface into the atmosphere by fast moving free or loosely associated water molecules.

    Collisions between water molecules and the majority nitrogen and oxygen molecules transfer the energy to the greater atmosphere. As the energy level of the water molecules diminishes, the probability that water molecules will reaggregate increases. This leads to condensation and has the effect of transferring that 539 calories per gram to the rest of the atmosphere.

    Now for the Kicker!

    Carbon dioxide does NOT form aggregates. It is not lighter than air and thus does not rise quickly. There is no phase change when carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide carries less than half the heat per molecule compared to water.

    One gram of Carbon Dioxide heated at the surface by incident sunlight carries (2 * 539 = 1078) 1078 times less energy into the atmosphere than one gram of water.

    Carbon dioxide represents 0.0387 % of the atmosphere. Water in the lower atmosphere represents 1% to 4% or 25 to 100 times the amount of carbon dioxide.

    Combining the two statements above, Water is (25 * 1078 = 27,175) to (100 * 1078 = 108,700) times more responsible for greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide.
    Posted by BillM at Wednesday, March 10, 2010


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    News from my country of birth:

    Wind power is a complete disaster

    “Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).

    ” … the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    I never put a blank ballot paper in the box. I spoil it with a bunch of zeros or something along with a pithy comment. A sharp-eyed and light-fingered party scrutineer could make use of a blank ballot.

    I’m always amused in Oz when some bang on about squandering my “right to vote”. Voting is either a right or an obligation, it can’t be both. Only polling booth attendance is compulsory.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob

    HOW CARBON GASES ‘HAVE SAVED US FROM A NEW ICE AGE’

    http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/162506/How-carbon-gases-have-saved-us-from-a-new-ice-age-

    MAN-MADE carbon emissions are staving off a new ice age, says a leading environmental scientist.

    Climate-change expert Dr James Lovelock says the greenhouse gases that have warmed the planet are likely to prevent a big freeze that could last millions of years………….

    http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/162506/How-carbon-gases-have-saved-us-from-a-new-ice-age-


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Bob:
    March 11th, 2010 at 8:40 pm

    Leading climate expert? I guess at 90 years of age, he has more “observational” evidence than most of us.
    Unfortunately I have to disagree with the good gentleman. CO2 is just not that powerful enough.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Baa @ 40

    That should be the “Pachauri 0000″
    All four nought. :-(


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob

    HOW CARBON GASES ‘HAVE SAVED US FROM A NEW ICE AGE’

    The strange thing about the article above is that the consensus is that an ice age is coming shortly, Dr James Lovelock says the greenhouse gases that have warmed the planet are likely to prevent a big freeze that could last millions of year, effectively saying it could be soon or would already have started had it not been for the fact that we pumped so much CO2 into the air.

    Meanwhile, Thomas Crowley, professor of geoscience at Edinburgh University, responded: “People have thought about the possibility of an ice age but it wouldn’t be for many thousands of years. What makes him so sure?

    One thing is for certain their is a lot of open talk among scientists that we are entering a phase of global cooling, when and exactly how bad it will be seems to be the talking points.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob

    Baa Humbug, all he is doing is urging greater caution in climate research, I dont think his age matters, he has still a lot to offer and is probably less tied to ideology and funding than other in his field.

    “The 90-year-old British scientist, who has worked for Nasa and paved the way for the detection of man-made aerosol and refrigerant gases in the atmosphere, called for greater caution in climate research.”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Thats the way we ought to look at it of course. If CO2 is warming its a good thing and obviously so. I used to think exactly as Hanson now seems to. But I cannot seem to find the warming signal. You can think you’ve found something, if you didn’t know that the Goddard stuff was rigged. Actually the Goddard rigups would be the most optimistic stuff imaginable if they were valid.

    Its such a topsy-turvy world we live in.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bunny

    Richard S Courtney @93

    Thank you Richard for your detailed response to my query about the 20 year climate time lag.

    I am not a fan of Andy Pitman, and it seemed like a lot of nonsense to me, but I am no scientist either, and sometimes it’s hard to take in all the information we are bombarded with. That’s why I like Jo’s site. Most people here speak in a language that a layman can understand, and I really appreciate that.

    I also appreciate the humour and good will here. Viva Jo!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BOILING FROG

    I must say I was a little taken aback initially,and then somewhat chuffed when I heard the interview of Maurice Newman on the ABC yesterday.
    I do trust , in their inimitable “ad hominem” style, Williams(R), Holmes, Faine et al. will do their full, objective and dispassionate investigation into Maurice Newman and “follow-the-money” to make sure his bank accounts aren’t stuffed with petro and carbon dollars from those nasty companies who daily defile Mother Gaia.
    This is going to be very interesting- can’t wait for the next chapter.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DougS

    I have a dream – yes I know that’s been used before – but I can still dream, viz.
    Green tax money, ripped off the peasants in the name of saving the planet, will be used to start an eco-colony where the eco- loons and those of a similar stripe can live a bronze-age existence far away from the rest of us.
    Naturally, it will need to be located at high altitude in the Arctic Circle so that they are protected from the ravages of AGW and its accompanying rising sea levels.
    I wonder if the Russians might oblige by providing an old disused Gulag in Siberia? Some modifications may be needed such as disconnecting the electricity supplies, turning off the running water and digging up the sewerage (such provisions are the devil’s work anyway). The deep-greens and dedicated AGW ‘scientists’ could live out a utopian life far away from ‘sceptics’, who would continue to ‘pollute’ the rest of the earth with airborne plant food.
    The best part of the dream is the names of the people who would (I’m sure) rush to be among the first to volunteer, names like; Porritt, Jones, King, Wales, Viner, Mann, Gore, Moonbat, Hanson, Miliband, Lucas, Watson, Strong, Pachauri …the list is almost endless.
    I’m not holding my breath, but I can still dream, can’t I?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Dear Baa

    Please consider these as off the cuff.

    We sometimes ignore the role of water’s capacity to transfer heat around the globe and the atmosphere by virtue of its ability to exist in the gaseous, liquid and solid states at the predominant temperature range on this planet. (Location location location!) The immense energy involved in heating water and the reason water freezes to a substance with a LOWER density than it’s liquid state is due to hydrogen bonding – a water molecule looks like a set of Mickey Mouse ears and has a distinct electrical polarity that causes it to behave a bit more like a solid than a perfect gas. And solid ice is not enough of an ionic substance to form an ordered latice – hence the lower density. These same attractive forces between the molecules (the electrically negative side being attracted to the positive side) are what makes water a liquid at ambient temperatures. It should be a gas – like you said.

    The relationship between both water and CO2 gas and infrared absorption is related to the internal bonding of the molecules – this causes the molecule to resonate at a specific frequency – hence we see CO2 absorbing energy at about 14.5 microns whereas water absorbs at a different frequency (primarily around 10 microns from memory). This is why people say that a particular “window” is saturated when it comes to infrared emissions – the simple fact is that there is SFA of a particular wavelength (generated, as you mentioned by absorption of low frequency radiation at the earth’s surface) left to be absorbed. More CO2 doesn’t matter if there’s practically none of the IR wavelength that CO2 “likes” left!

    But the essential point of your post is that water has a significant effect on our climate (rainfall as well as temperature, oddly enough!) and the unique properties of the water molecule do indeed contribute to the potential for life on earth.

    Condensation of water vapour to form clouds is a well known phenomenon. Even though it has a huge effect on climate and is acknowlegded as such, it seems to have been ignored by the IPCC – who are very, very, happy to assume it causes things to get hot, and don’t want to know any more. It seems odd that, in their relentless pursuit of knowledge, they only manage to find out what they already know, and ignore the things that they don’t. THAT is what they call the Precautionary Principle!

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    BernD #99 lol i was thinking of the 3000 pages of the AR4 lol


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Bob:
    March 11th, 2010 at 8:57 pm

    I was being flippant Bob, what with all the “funny” stuff we’ve been posting due to slow news day. I’ve read comments from Dr lovelock before and i respect his opinions. Age doesn’t matter, i agree.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Marty

    Let no-one ever speak ill of their masters, let none have a voice that differs from what they’ve been led to believe.
    Freedom is futile, you need it not.
    “Democracy? This is not a democracy, we govern based on consensus. We all agree. DON’T WE!”

    What a farce this country is fast becoming, with freedom to think, to speak and act differently being stifled at every opportunity by overzealous neo-fascists in suits (and mostly in Canberra, the nation’s capital of the educated idiot). We don’t need you to tell us how to think, thank you very much.

    As for the issue at hand – isn’t it funny that without the greenhouse effect and global warming, we’d all be dead (the earth would be uninhabitable at about -130 degrees below zero) and the rhetoric surrounding “carbon pollution” when CO2 is fundamental for carbon based life (photosynthesis of plants which produce oxygen)? Also, why aren’t the warmists targetting termites, who produce something in the vicinity of 33% of the world’s TOTAL “carbon emissions” by volume? Ahh… Biodiversity, it’s a wonderful thing.

    NEXT…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Hey speedy, thanks for taking the time to reply.
    I come across these sorts of articles (#94), I glean some understanding from them, then I post here so that others with an interest may comment and help me understand better.
    I have no way of knowing if the figures are correct, but the gist of it makes sense to me.

    I’ve never liked the fact the IPCC virtually ignores water, in oceans and atmosphere, when logic says it plays a huge role, a variable one at that.

    p.s. I’ve always been a big big fan of John n Bryan. love reading your parodies with their voices in my head. You out john Bryan, or is that out bryan John lol


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    DougS:
    March 11th, 2010 at 9:54 pm

    Doug, how about the Galapagos Island? Nothing but nature and lots of idols to worship. Best of all far far away.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    Many of our AGW true believer friends seem to be suffering from delayed mourning:
    1. Denial and Isolation: The first reaction to learning of terminal illness or death of a cherished pet is to deny the reality of the situation. It is a normal reaction to rationalize overwhelming emotions. It is a defense mechanism that buffers the immediate shock. We block out the words and hide from the facts. This is a temporary response that carries us through the first wave of pain.
    2. Anger: As the masking effects of denial and isolation begin to wear, reality and its pain re-emerge. We are not ready. The intense emotion is deflected from our vulnerable core, redirected and expressed instead as anger. The anger may be aimed at inanimate objects, complete strangers, friends or family. Anger may be directed at our dying or deceased pet. Rationally, we know the animal is not to be blamed. Emotionally, however, we may resent it for causing us pain or for leaving us. We feel guilty for being angry, and this makes us more angry. The veterinarian who diagnosed the illness and was unable to cure the disease, or who performed euthanasia of the pet, might become a convenient target. Health professionals deal with death and dying every day. That does not make them immune to the suffering of their patients or to those who grieve for them. Do not hesitate to ask your veterinarian to give you extra time or to explain just once more the details of your pet’s illness. Arrange a special appointment or ask that he telephone you at the end of his day. Ask for clear answers to your questions regarding medical diagnosis and treatment. Discuss the cost of treatment. Discuss burial arrangements. Understand the options available to you. Take your time. Both you and your veterinarian will find that honest and open communication now are an invaluable long-term investment.
    3. Bargaining: The normal reaction to feelings of helplessness and vulnerability is often a need to regain control. If only we had sought medical attention sooner. If we got a second opinion from another doctor. If we changed our pet’s diet, maybe it will get well. Secretly, we may make a deal with God or our higher power in an attempt to postpone the inevitable. This is a weaker line of defense to protect us from the painful reality.
    4. Depression: Two types of depression are associated with mourning. The first one is a reaction to practical implications relating to the loss. Sadness and regret predominate. We worry about the cost of treatment and burial. We worry that, in our grief, we have spent less time with others that depend on us. This phase may be eased by simple clarification and reassurance. We may need a bit of helpful cooperation and a few kind words. The second type of depression is more subtle and, in a sense, perhaps more private. It is our quiet preparation to separate and to bid our pet farewell. Sometimes all we really need is a hug.
    5. Acceptance: Reaching this stage of mourning is a gift not afforded to everyone. Death may be sudden and unexpected or we may never see beyond our anger or denial. It is not necessarily a mark of bravery to resist the inevitable and to deny ourselves the opportunity to make our peace. This phase is marked by withdrawal and calm. This is not a period of happiness and must be distinguished from depression.
    http://www.greaterswiss.com/mourning.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Folks,

    Apropos comments above that it is in China’s interest the West gets involved in cap and trade etc – heavens sakes, China is a communist totalitarian state, and communism’s goal is to eliminate private property and hence capitalism. In order to do that most effectively your destroy the capitalist economies – which is the game plan for the US Democrats, UK Labour Party, the Australian ALP, etc. The Eu is already a socialist state and its economy is like those prickly green plants found in the Sonora Dessert.

    You think the issue is the science? Wrong – it’s politics – statists (those who believe humanity’s problems are solved by omnipotent government, and the non-statists, or capitalists. Its the old politics dressed up in new clothes.

    Life on Earth is a carbon based, and regulating carbon, in all of its compounds is to regulate life.

    I really think few of your understand what the game in play is. Graeme Bird is one who does, as do Jo and David, and a couple of others.

    Socialism is nothing other than a post-modernist feudal system where a self anointed and appointed intellectually superior class determine what is good for the rest of us.

    They are fighting the was on the battlefield of ideas, and AGW is, when reduced to its essentials, an idea, (but not a physical fact).

    I wore a T-Shirt this evening emblazoned with “I am more concerned with the Intellectual climate”, and on the obverse “Demand Debate.com”. The Qantas hostie spotted it and had to read it. Cause a few piercing gazes as well.

    The only weapon we have against them is that of humour and ridicule – for they can run rings around us when it comes to verbal virtuosity, for they are expert in this.

    The ABC here is, and will remain, what former ALP senator and minister Graham Richardson described it as, a communist collective.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Hi Humbug

    Science can be complex but we can’t forget that it is only a tool to help us understand the world around us. I find it hard to understand how a true scientist can be proud or arrogant unless they completely fail to understand the implications of their field. In “The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy”, there is an instrument of torture known as the “Total Perspective Vortex” that imposes on its victim a crystal clear understanding of their role in the universe and the insignificance thereof. A good scientist should remember that.

    As to Mssrs Clarke and Dawe – I’m only trying to make up for the opportunities they are missing. Perhaps, one day, the ABC will be relevant. Thanks for your posts and kind comments.

    Regards,

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Wow Louis – if I felt like that I’d deny AGW too!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Louis

    I think our main weapons are honesty and common sense. Humour and ridicule are powerful to the extent that they make people think for themselves. The warm side of the argument does have a verbal vertuosity but it relies on shoddy logic and bland assertions in place of reasoned logic. Have a look at James Hansen’s piece today on the ABC – the first 3-4 paragraphs were nothing but unsupported assertion and the rest of it was speculation for future policies.

    I always maintain that if mankind was charged in a court of law with, say, “criminal damage”, allegedly by increasing the earth’s CO2 atmospheric content, then there would be no court of law in this country that would find us guilty. It’s a different story, of course, if the trial is carried out in some dodgey media or “peer reviewed” documents…

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    george

    Speedy

    I noted with interest that Mr. Hansen used the dreaded “N” word, more than once as I recall.

    I wonder whether Chrissie Milne will respond to that with the same vitriol she utilised in relation to Maurice Newman`s pronouncements yesterday, given the Aus Greens stance on that particular “N” matter…?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Louis Hissink:
    March 11th, 2010 at 11:50 pm #113

    You’re partly right about China. It is without a doubt a totalitarian state and it is indeed under the control of the Communist Party.

    That said, they’ve diverged from the old-style communist economic model. There are private companies in China and the natural entrepreneurial habits of humans took over once the government opened the economy to real competition. While the government does provide broad national goals, they’re pretty much letting private companies drive the train.

    And seeing what that train has brought them in terms of wealth and international influence, they aren’t about to jeopardize that and cut their own CO2 emissions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tony

    People get very spiteful and aggressive when they are shown to be wrong or begin to doubt their own beliefs. There will be a period where the AGW enthusiasts will become deniers not of global warming but of the position that they have held for so long. It will take time and they will fight like cats until dawn breaks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    Baa @ 94:
    That was an interesting account of the surface cooling effects of water vapour.
    What happens to all that heat once it’s been carried up there , after it gets released by the water falling back to earth ?

    Is that what should cause the Hotspot, and if it’s not, then what ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    DougS @ 105: What about Prince Charles? I’m sure he’ll want to come too … And Cate Blanchett, and Leo di Caprio … and all the other luvvies.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DougS

    Baa Humbug:
    March 11th, 2010 at 11:03 pm

    Baa:

    Too warm in the Galapagos, besides I don’t want them living it up with coconuts and fishes.

    With rocketing temperatures and 100m sea level rise they’d soon be boiled alive. I’d rather see their Bronze age credentials tested somewhere cold and miserable, but I’m still open to other (location, location, location)suggestions!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DougS

    Anne-Kit Littler:
    March 12th, 2010 at 1:52 am

    Anne-Kit:

    Like I said, the list of possibles is almost endless.

    Incidentally, the ‘Wales’ on my short list was Prince Charles, I’m sure he’d love It!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mattb, paid? C’mon. Unlike other regular trolls we had last year, he’s not posting in business hours.

    Mattb – thanks for being good humoured.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Paul

    Speaking of the evidence, I have a question about using tree-ring data as a proxy for temperature, especially in the context of AGW, that I would really hope the helpful folks here could help elucidate things for me.

    I have read that in addition to temperature there are many factors affecting tree ring widths, including CO2. I was curious as to the extent of the correlation between CO2 levels and tree ring growth vs. the correlation of temperature levels and tree ring growth, and so did a quick search for studies on the subject.

    An article that appeared in Science in 1984 noted the following: “The greatly increased tree growth rates observed since the mid-l9th century exceed those expected from climatic trends but are consistent in magnitude with global trends in carbon dioxide, especially in recent decades. If correctly interpreted, these findings have important implications for climate studies involving tree ring observations and for models of the global carbon dioxide budget.”

    In other words, it would seem to me that the results of the study (conducted by the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona) show that atmospheric CO2 plays a larger role in tree-ring growth than does temperature. The important implication for climate studies would then seem to be that tree-ring growth is useful for measuring the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/225/4666/1019

    I also found a very interesting somewhat hockey-stick like graph, although this one from a study on a sceptical site. What the blade of the hockey stick shows is how there is a large spike in tree ring widths at the end of the 20th century, likely due to higher levels of atmospheric CO2. In other words, the growth in tree-ring width correlates more strongly with observed changes in CO2 levels than it does with observed changes in temperature.

    See figure 12 of:

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

    And so it would seem to me, logically-speaking, that if you use tree-rings as a proxy for temperature, given the strong correlation between tree rings and CO2 levels you will necessarily find that there will be a strong correlation between temperature and CO2 levels.

    If I can employ symbolic logic, temperature (A) is estimated by looking at tree ring density (B). However, tree ring density (B) also correlates strongly to CO2 levels (C). As a result, using tree ring density as a proxy for temperature will necessarily correlate temperature and CO2 levels, it’s tautological. A therefore B, B therefore C logically results in A therefore C, true by definition, no research required. If you wish to link temp to CO2, using tree rings as your proxy for temp is guaranteed to do it every time, and this has been known for over 25 years.

    Is there anything to this, or am I completely out to lunch?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Bob: #97

    Interesting that all of the commentators to the Express article were from the sceptical viewpoint – we are winning the debate it seems.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    ABC used the “D” word Chinese climate official didn’t. Check this audit of ABC’s dodgy reporting of comments made by Chinese Climate negotiator and see for yourself how comments were selectively quoted or cherry picked to suit a particular line. Why was the ABC the only news service to run the story this way? The reports here were published following Maurice Newman’s comments. No bias at Auntie! I think the facts speak for themselves.

    http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/03/cherry-picking-season-was-chinese.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Baa Humbug: #111

    NO, No, no … save the duck!

    Sorry. There used to be a very good jazz group in Sydney (Aus), by the name of Galapagos Duck.

    Oh well. I guess you had to have been there …


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @JLKrueger 118

    Hey, good to see you still breathing, it has been a while since you’ve been here!

    Regarding China, there CO2 cuts will probably be “paper” cuts. As they modernize their coal burning power plants will become more efficient and produce less pollution, and less CO2, than the obsolete equipment that they scrap. They really aren’t giving up much, if anything.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Paul 125
    Speaking of the evidence, this just in; Climategate Stunner: NASA Heads Knew NASA Data Was Poor, Then Used Data from CRU. Three of four data sets used by the IPCC now unreliable http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-three-of-the-four-temperature-datasets-now-irrevocably-tainted/ Also NASA knew the data was poor and then used CRU data! http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-stunner-nasa-heads-knew-nasa-data-was-poor-then-used-data-from-cru/

    Yeah, just a poor bunch of honest scientists trying to eek out a living and help better the lot of the average Joe! In a pig’s eye!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    MarcH – good article mate – keep up the good work.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    There’s a certain consistency in their approach. First they say, “I’m not an expert and I’ll leave the science up to the experts.” Then they decide that they have the mystical ability to know who is an expert and who is not, based on their own complete lack of knowledge. Lastly, belittle anyone with a contrary opinion, “You can’t be an expert so you don’t get to say anything.”

    Needless to say, some people see the broken logic and some don’t.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Louis Hissink: #113

    You can add my name to your list Louis. Watching China is, shall we say, a professional interest of mine (among others).

    But in understanding Chinese politics, you need to take a very long term view.

    It is incorrect to think of China as being “Communist” in an absolute sense.

    The purpose of China is to keep the ruling elite in power. The philosophy of this elite changes in response to need.

    Coastal China (the area occupied by the Han people) goes through cycles of slow expansion into neighbouring regions and countries to meet both economic and military imperatives. To control this vast expanse of territory, it is necessary to devolve power to the bureaucracy in the “provinces”, the more this occurs, the less control the ruling elite have, and the more exposed they become. Eventually, a provincial leader arises that will challenge the ruling elite, and power consolidates into the centre again.

    The history of the Roman Empire is a parallel, although in that case it collapsed rather than consolidated.

    Communism is a recent expedient as far as the ruling elite are concerned. Mao Zedong used his thoughts on communism (the little red book) as a focus for the latest in a long line of “revolutions” that changed the ruling cadre. With the exit of Mao, his form of communism in China reached its use-by date, and is mostly ignored. Since then, the devolution of power out to the provinces has resumed again, and the cycle repeats.

    The Han, as a race, are natural traders – and they are very good at it. China will naturally regress into commercialism, rather than any other philosophy. It matters not what the current political label is. The Chinese people will not risk commercialism to simply change a political philosophy. What would be the point?

    Well, they are my views … people are welcome to disagree.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    My last comment should reference Louis: #113, rather than Louis: #133

    What are the chances of making a self-referential comment? … duh.

    ____

    Fixed it. — Ed.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    ” Never underestimate MattB who has adopted Ali’s rope a dope. He lets everyone tire themselves out flailing away with logic and evidence while Matt covers himself well with endless appeals to authority.”

    Yeah but they all do that Eddy. This is not special to Matt B. This global warming racket is the biggest filibuster in history.

    But on the other hand filibusting like this appears to be standard now. Like the kids (under 40′s) version of wishing upon a star. They seem to think that they can filibuster their preferred version of reality into existence.

    Even nominal neoclassical rightists seem to go in for this flim-flam.

    Over at Catallaxy we would have these “threads of doom.” They could be about monetary economics, global warming science, about trying to get people to appreciate the predictive value of the peak oil model, (as it related to traditional oil-wells……) it didn’t seem to matter what the subject was. The kids born after (lets say) the mid-70′s seemed to go in for the technique that you describe Matt as going in for.

    You can google “Graeme Bird” and “MattB” and go to Jennifers place. And like sure its me yelling at him. But he doesn’t care that he’s got nothing. He didn’t care then and he doesn’t give a damn now. Few of the kids seem to care.

    Like I’ll tell these people “Why don’t you just find evidence for the Keynesian multiplier or admit its a silly idea” and they will use the exact same tactics as we see from the global warmers.

    Peak Oil is an abused concept. And I know Louis would say it was rubbish. But thats probably because he’s seen so many people misusing it. Over at Catallaxy I was treated to a years-long filibuster of people refusing to lock in what the concept was IN ITS OWN TERMS.

    Like one minute they would be talking as if peak oil was peak energy. Then the next minute they would be talking as if peak oil meant that we would run out of oil. Then if I said that it was a usable model when it came to “daily output of oil from traditional oil-wells and nothing else” …… Then when I would tell them the model was totally silent on substitutes and the deep sea stuff ……..

    Well the dumb bastards, who were alleged rightists (but CO2-bedwetters), would say: “What use is a model that doesn’t take into account substitutes”

    And yet these were extended arguments, the whole point of which, was me trying to patiently explain how devastating any carbon-tax would be to substitutes.

    I swear I went over and over and over this for like 3 years. Sometimes getting banned. And the filibuster is still fundamentally current. We cannot get the kids to think. I don’t know what it is. If good evidence came out saying that too much fluoride before the age of ten did grave damage to some facets of long-term memory that might ring a bell. But it feels bad. It feels like we are going into a new dark ages.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Malcolm Miller

    I don’t listen to commercial radio. So I am rather locked in to the ABC. I have been very disappointed in recent times with their sycophantic worship of the IPCC and its nonsense. Their bias against debate or dissent about climate is obvious and disheartening. The Chairman’s statement is a breath of fresh air. But the barbarians are very well entrenched in the system, just as they are in Nature and Science. I have noticed that New Scientist has moved very slightly away from the extreme position. I hope this is the way of the future.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter of Sydney

    Why would any thinking person listen to the ABC? They provide such a biased view of the world it’s almost criminal. Commercial stations are not much better but I find a few that are much much closer to the truth. 2GB is one of them.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    ABC’s response to Maurice Newman:

    on ABC Homepage
    Drum Unleashed
    Poll: Do you agree with China’s view that man-made climate change denial is an extreme stance? VOTE NOW
    (71% agreeing with China when I just voted out of 1359 votes counted)
    http://www.abc.net.au/

    Top Environment story on ABC News Page
    11 March: ABC: Scientists urge water allocation reduction
    Despite the rain over much of the north, the Murray Darling is still in trouble and scientists say the Government must make the environment a priority..
    The CSIRO says climate change will reduce water in the southern basin by up to 14 per cent and the scientists say the Government has to factor that in.
    “As things change with climate change and other users in the system, we need to be able to reflect that in the water allocation policy as well,” Flinders University’s Rebecca Lester said.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/11/2843591.htm

    bottom of homepage, under previous link:
    11 March: ABC: Independent body to review UN climate panel
    He (Robbert Dijkgraaf) says the review will focus on what procedures were used.
    “It will definitely not go over all the data, the vast amount of data in climate science,” he said
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/11/2843268.htm
    (Related stories: Climate change is a fact, says China; Climate science alive and well, say experts)

    gave up on Lateline long ago, but heard a one-liner by Jones at the start of the program, merely stating UN had announced a review, nothing more, and thought he was going to cover the story, give context, etc but didn’t hear it mentioned again. on their website, it has:

    11 March: ABC Lateline: Errors prompt review of UN climate panel
    Transcript
    TONY JONES, PRESENTER: The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has announced that an independent review of work carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will take place.
    The IPCC has been under pressure over errors found in its last comprehensive climate report, including an unsubstantiated claim that Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035.
    BAN KI-MOON, UN SECRETARY GENERAL: Regrettably, there were a very small number of errors in the fourth assessment report.
    Remember this is 3,000-page synthesis of complex scientific data. I have seen no credible evidence that challenges the main conclusions of that report.
    TONY JONES: The review will be carried out by the Inter-Academy Council, a body made up of representatives of science academies from around the world.
    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2843589.htm

    went to bed and ABC radio news at 11pm. not the top headline, but there was an item which began with Ban Ki-Moon defended the science, but had announced a review, no details, no context, no nothing.

    to be cont’d


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    cont’d

    attacks on newman:

    11 March: SMH: Janet Lee Marketing Manager: ABC head wants fair go for sceptics
    It is not the first time that Mr Newman, who describes himself as a climate-change agnostic, has provoked controversy. Nearly three years ago the ABC board pressured the broadcaster to show a controversial British documentary questioning the science behind climate change…
    At the time of the 2007 film The Great Global Warning Swindle, Mr Newman’s board, which included sceptics such as Janet Albrechtsen, pushed for the program to be aired against the advice of journalists such as the science reporter Robin Williams. Mr Newman’s tenure ends on January 1, 2012.
    Last night an ABC spokesman said Mr Newman’s views were always forthright.
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/abc-head-wants-fair-go-for-sceptics-20100310-pze6.html

    11 March: Crikey: Kim Serca: The REAL Newman bio … getting the ad/subs mix right
    News that Maurice Newman, chair of the ABC, has broken, oooh, about every rule of protocol and instructed staff to play the climate change debate “even-handedly”, whether the evidence is equally there or not presumably, sent people scurrying to his CV.
    Readers of it might assume that he’s just another business stooge who lives off anecdote and says things such as “year 10 is all very well but I went to the school of life, lad” etc, and whose “agnosticism” on climate change is the common-or-garden stupidity of someone who are so used to not being contradicted that they can’t tell their own vague opinions from received truths. They would be wrong, as this version of the CV with the modest man’s relevant experience added back in bold:…
    He retired as Chairman of the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX Limited) on 24 September 2008. to complete his PHD in climatology.
    His career spans forty years in stockbroking and investment banking, including as Managing Director in 1984, and Executive Chairman from 1985 until 1999, of what is now the Deutsche Bank Group in Australia, during which busy time he studied climatology in the evenings…
    research assistant to James Lovelock (1998-1999) …
    Mr Newman’s extensive scientific experience includes time being chair-stooge of was the Chairman of Acrux Limited (1999 – 2003), a pharmaceutical company doing actual science which is kinda scary…
    Civil Patron, Royal Australian Naval Reserves, Professional Studies Program (2005 – 2009) at a time when the force was pioneering its “combat climate change” operational program, which he undoubtably chided them on.
    He served as Chancellor of Macquarie University from 2002 to February 2008 where he once spoke to some scientists in the caf and as a Director of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation from 2000 to 2004..
    In 2002 Mr Newman was appointed an Adviser to the Marsh Group of Companies on climate change…
    http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/03/11/media-briefs-the-real-newman-bio-getting-the-adsubs-mix-right-googles-advice-to-papers/

    (nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more!)
    11 March: Crikey: Eric Beecher: ABC chairman gives editorial independence a kick in the groin
    http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/03/11/abc-chairman-gives-editorial-independence-a-kick-in-the-groin/

    11 March: Glenys Stradijot: ABC Chairman Maurice Newman must Explain
    Should problems arise with the ABC’s reporting on any matter, it is the managing director who should raise them with staff. The MD is the editor-in-chief and responsible for the ABC’s journalistic standards, not the chairman.
    “Mr Newman needs to explain why he took the step of criticising the media’s coverage of global warming and why he addressed that criticism to ABC staff.
    “It is difficult not to consider Mr Newman’s comments in the light of him being a former director of the right-wing Centre for Independent Studies. Together, they most certainly highlight the importance of legislation presently before the Parliament for a new transparent and merit-based process for appointing the chair and members of the ABC Board,” said Glenys Stradijot.
    http://australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1451:abc-chairman-maurice-newman-must-explain-&catid=97:news-media-releases&Itemid=161


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Pat,

    That second link to me looks like Kim Serca should be taken to court for libel.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Paul @ 125

    You have a point. In fact, the source of the information that Michael Mann used for his “hockey Stick” was from a paper pointing out this very correlation between CO2 levels and tree growths in marginal alpine regions.

    The surprising thing is that people don’t seem to get this, or that Mr. Mann hasn’t come clean with it.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Is the James Lovelock quoted as wanting more caution in climate research the same one who reckoned a while ago that we’d be down to one breeding pair of humans in the Antarctic by 2100?

    Seems he might be having second thoughts.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Lovelock is a cool guy. But he’s in his 80′s. So he got gypped by his younger colleagues. He’s alright. He’s not to blame.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Further to my post very early this morning (on a previous thread)reporting comment that some climate scientists appear to be “Weather Cycle Deniers”. Whilst browsing through the late John L Daly article “What’s Wrong With The Surface Record” at
    http://wwww.john-daly.com/ges/surftemp/surftemp.htm I followed a link to the Alaska Climate Research Center. At http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrens/Change/TempChange.html there is a very interesting figure on “Mean Annual Temperature Departure For Alaska” and accompanied by the following text which I offer with full acknowledgment and thanks to the ACRC.

    “This page features the trends in mean and seasonal temperatures for Alaska’s first-order observing stations since 1949, the time period for which the most reliable meteorological data are available. The temperature change varies from one climatic zone to another as well as for different seasons. If a linear trend is taken through mean annual temperatures, the average change over the last six decades is 3.0 degrees F. However, when analyzing the trends for the four seasons, it can be seen that most of the change has occurred in winter and spring, with the least amount of change in autumn.

    Considering just a linear trend can mask some important variability characteristics in the time series. The figure shows clearly that this trend is non-linear, A linear trend might have been expected from the fairly steady observed increase of CO2 during this time period.

    The figure shows the temperature departure from the long-term mean (1949 – 2009) for all stations. It can be seen that there are large variations from year to year and the 5-year moving average demonstrates large increase in 1976. The period 1949 to 1975 was substantially colder than the period from 1977 to 2009, however since 1977 little additional warming has occurred in Alaska with the exception of Barrow and a few other locations.

    The stepwise shift appearing in the temperature data in 1976 corresponds to a phase shift of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from a negative phase to a positive phase. Synoptic conditions with the positive phase tend to consist of increased southerly flow and warm air advection into Alaska during the winter, resulting in positive temperature anomalies.”

    I found the comments on linear and non-linear trends, CO2 and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation very enlightening. I’ll be interesed to hear what others think.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    janama

    The ABC has taken Maurice Newman’s speech out of context. Climate change was only a part of the speech he made to journalists.

    http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2842177.htm Listen for yourself.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    DougS: #122

    I have a luverly location for you to consider Doug: The Antipodes Islands.

    All day sun (especially in the summer months), lots of clean fresh air, and lots of natural and interesting wildlife.

    And if people are wrong about global warming, and correct about a new ice age, they will be able to walk to the mainland with ease.

    Apply to: The Hon. John Key, New Zealand Parliament. No stamp required.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Pat: #138

    Poll: Do you agree with China’s view that man-made climate change denial is an extreme stance?

    Is that a leading question, or what?

    I have never seen such an awful question in a survey.

    What are the ABC doing? Do they spend all day playing “pass the brain cell”?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    I still want the ABC disbanded and its spectrum sold off to private enterprise….

    To have a government funded media outlet in this day and age in a modern democracy, is an obscenity…….. The ABC must be abolished.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    I would be interested to know if ABC staff are allowed to post on the unleashed forums. If they do, surely their rel names should be revealed?

    I really get the impression some of the scientology trolls over there are ABC staffers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Philip Adams avoided Lord Monckton, Ian Plimer etc but naturally he gives us a full hour talk with James Hansen.

    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2010/2839864.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Wow imagine giving time to the world’s leading climate scientist! It’s an Outrage!

    I’m pretty sure Tony Abbott has not made any time for Hansen, however.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Albert

    Christine Milne should remember that the freedom and democracy that we enjoy was paid for by the blood of our ancestors and that gave all of us the right to be heard.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JeffT

    Wow MattB, you are listing James Hansen as the world’s leading scientist?
    Wow MattB, I’m impressed that your still so gullible.
    Where did you get that information ? Real Climate ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Paul

    @ Eddy and Speedy, thank you for the replies.

    Eddy #130 ‘NASA knew the data was poor and then used CRU data’

    Speedy #141 ‘The surprising thing is that people don’t seem to get this’

    This is what I really have a hard time grasping. I was initially somewhat sceptical of the whole idea of AGW, first and foremost because I recalled from high school history and geography (many moons ago) that we were coming out of an ice age (the LIA), and so what else would one expect? Various other things didn’t add up, and it quickly became very obvious in which direction all of the financial, etc., incentives lay. If as a layman I could discern some sneaky inconsistencies, how could the scientists involved not do so? The monetary aspect, peer recognition, professional advancement, in other words normal human pride and greed, pretty much seems to explain most of it to me.

    While climate science is not my area, economic analysis is, and I have performed projections for regulated industries in Canada. Industries who were required to report their results in great detail, such that the historical data which formed my starting point was actual data, not inferred from proxies. In addition, the impacts of environmental factors, i.e. GDP growth, etc., are also well known. Nevertheless, it’s still essentially an educated guessing game. I have never understood how ‘climate science’, with its proxies, inferences, etc., for a far more complicated system with many more unknowns could ever be ‘rock solid’ or ‘settled’ science, given that as a discipline it is younger than I am.

    Plus, I also studied calculus for several years, and I judge the ‘hardness’ of a science by the amount of calculus one has to perform as opposed to using statistical methods. From everything that I can tell, ‘climate science’ is a softer science than the social science of economics.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Wow imagine giving time to the world’s leading climate scientist! It’s an Outrage!

    I’m pretty sure Tony Abbott has not made any time for Hansen, however.

    I have no problem with him interviewing Hansen, it’s that he didn’t interview Plimer or Monckton – clearly biased. I assume you support that bias MattB.

    You should listen to it – it shows they are both fawning over each other with little reference to the actual science and what reference they do make is exaggerated or just plain wrong.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Watt

    Maybe the ABC bosses had forewarning of the UN announcement of an independent review of the latest IPCC report?

    I thought peer review was independent!

    How do you hand back a Nobel?

    Is Gore going to be independently reviewed also?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Many people would like to spend an hour with James Hansen.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    As China is now the leading manufacturer of solar and wind technology why would they want the scam to end.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Paul: # 155

    From everything that I can tell, ‘climate science’ is a softer science than the social science of economics.

    It is. I am aware that the chairman of the IPCC, who holds a PhD in economics, has publicly used the phrase “voodoo science” on at least one occasion. ;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    allen mcmahon: #159

    Good point Allen!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    george

    Pilfered from a blog comment elsewhere by my dishonourable self – hope some here may find it of at least generic relevance. Was aware of the last quote but not the historical background…and the 2 degs was derived via what methodology back then? Richard, Louis, etc, any thoughts…

    Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141?
    Where it says:
    “…..
    We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.
    …..”

    This is the same Dr Stephen Schneider who is currently a major IPCC lumiary, and who is also well known for his seminal comment on the integrity of climate scientists:
    “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have.
    Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “Wow imagine giving time to the world’s leading climate scientist! It’s an Outrage!”

    Hansen isn’t any sort of scientist. He’s a nut who at least used to simply add alleged forcings together. I remember going around to his website and he’d just thrown all these forcings together in one big stew and added them up. I couldn’t believe the crudeness of his outlook.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    MattB:
    March 12th, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    Wow imagine giving time to the world’s leading climate scientist! It’s an Outrage!

    Bwahahahaha Bwahahaha Bwahabwahha Oh please stop bwahaha Worlds Leading bwahaha(pee pee) haha Climate bwahahhh Scientist gulp gulp hehe hahahe ohhh i cant breath, that was sooo funnnny
    Now I gotto change my shorts


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    george:
    March 12th, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    That was back in the days of the “Coming Ice Age” scare. A scandinavian bloke (I think) went on tv suggested we pump lots CO2 into the air to stop the ice age. He’s on youtube somewhere, one of the very first telly envirogelists.

    I posted a few days ago a quote from Schneider saying something like (I can’t be wrong again, I get reminded of the 70′s daily)

    The man is a professional catastrophist. A chef does more science in the kitchen than this twit


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    James Hansen
    Eons after we mere mortals are forgotten history will remember him. Cassandra or Don Quixote de la Mancha?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Hey everybody. I just figured out why MattB loves James Hansen.

    If the image thingy doesn’t work, CLICK HERE

    See who he looks like? Works at a Nuclear Plant too. MattB loves nuclear (or Nukilar for our US friends)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    george

    BH, you really need some serious help – and ta for the Schneider info snippet.
    g.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    george:
    March 12th, 2010 at 6:35 pm

    here you go George, I found that schneider quote.

    From: “Stephen H Schneider” <XXX@XXXXXXXX.XXX
    To: SECTION63@XXX.XXX.XXX
    Sent: Monday, March 1, 2010

    Will the media have the fortitude to take this on–I’m betting a resounding “yes!”. Please don’t make me miss yet another prediction!@#$% I have to live with cooling to warming “flipflop” every day, phony as that frame is given the history in Chapter 1 of my book.

    From the ClimateGate2 Emails


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Baa You are too funny!

    Doh!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    I think in regards to scientific credibility, we can apply a rule of measurement that will quickly sum up the credibility quotient of a given scientific issue:
    The credibility of a science is inversely proportional to the number of fear mongering headlines it generates.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Humbug

    You Mongrel! Here am lined up for the sleep of the innocent and the just, and you’re thusting images of your shorts (in a less than pristine condition) at me? I followed the words, and laughed, but then I started thinking and I’m sure that there’ll be some nightmares and serious mental trauma to come…

    Ye gods! Jim Hansen – “Leading climatologist”!!! What was he thinking? Undoubtably a case of the blind “leading” the blind! No reference to MattB intended.

    BTW – anytime I hear Jim Hansen’s comments they bring to mind a quote. To paraphrase: “It is better to maintain one’s silence and be thought a fool than to break one’s silence and remove all doubt.”

    Cheers!

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DougS

    Slightly off subject:

    Anybody know what’s happened to CLIMATEGATE>COM ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    he closed it down – it’s all explained over at WUWT


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce

    Here’s the link.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/12/climategate-com-shuts-down/#more-17280

    Someting doesn’t add up to me when such a great site (highest google search result for climategate) suddenly shuts down???


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Try this link and see if it satisfies your needs: http://www.climate-gate.com/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Girma

    Thanks charman Maurice Newman.

    I may now start to call “YOUR ABC” “OUR ABC” when I soon start to see there no more “ABC VIEW” on CO2 driven global warming.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    George:

    At #162 you say:

    Was aware of the last quote but not the historical background…and the 2 degs was derived via what methodology back then? Richard, Louis, etc, any thoughts…

    I do not understand the “thoughts ” you would like me to present. Please be more specific and I will then consider the matter.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    George #162

    I’m with Richard on this one – not sure what you want.

    LH


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    george: #162
    March 12th, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    and the 2 degs was derived via what methodology back then?

    I hope Richard and louis won’t mind, I’ll take a stab. Nothing specific.

    The methodology used (my assumption) was no different than those used today, i.e. CO2 is a GHG, has radiative properties causing “X” amount of forcing, coupled with the (then) known feedbacks helped Schneider to conclude that an 8 fold increase in CO2 would yield a 2degK of warming.

    Funnily enough, his hypothesis in the 70′s is probably more closer to the truth than that of todays IPCC.

    Why not try googling some papers from the 70′s? You may find some calculations.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Bruce: Post 175,

    Someting doesn’t add up to me when such a great site (highest google search result for climategate) suddenly shuts down???

    Bruce, what part of the article you didn’t understand?…The person who owned the site explained “perfectly” what was the problem..and a very important problem when your married! I wish him well and happy to see he gave it a shot.I was there daily. In fact towards the end he tried letting others post articles there.I posted articles there. Good site! I’ll miss it! I’m sure his wife stated either it or the family…which is it??? Good choice as always!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    george

    Richard and Louis (and any other science people reading)…BH @ #180 has possibly given me the requisite hint when he refers to “the (then) known feedbacks”. BH, was that a discrete way of saying “the then utilised feedbacks”?

    This was where I was coming from with my query, ie what changed with the modelling presumptions between then (Schneider suggesting 2 degrees warming) and more recently (1-2 degrees all the way up to “pick a number”).

    Just intrigued guys, don`t bust a gut, a couple of sentences in summation more than adequate.

    Ta all. Google time…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce

    Hi Denny,

    It’s not that I didn’t understand anything in the WUWT post.

    What I meant was that it seems strange that the author of such a committed and informative blog would suddenly close down for family reasons. Wasn’t this the guy who used to write legal analyses?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Richard S Courtney:
    March 13th, 2010 at 10:15 am

    Hi Richard

    I have an OT question you may be able to help me with.

    IPCC AR4. Do you know when(month in 2007) this report was finalised? I’m especially interested in WG2 date.

    I’m chasing up a couple of references in WG2 which cite papers accepted by journals in July and August 2007

    Thnku in advance


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Bruce: Post 183,

    What I meant was that it seems strange that the author of such a committed and informative blog would suddenly close down for family reasons. Wasn’t this the guy who used to write legal analyses?

    Bruce, that was the problem, he was so involved that his site became a “high” rated site! This is a problem with the self employed. They average around 60-80 hour weeks! Do you expect a warning from someone who is having problems in their lives?? I think it was very polite of him to “explain” why he had to shut down…He didn’t have to say anything! It’s was none of our business why he bailed out. All he had to say, “I quit because of personal problems”. He was good, his commitment had shown his results! I will miss him…Nothing really strange if you “put yourself in His shoes”…so to speak! Besides, what is “strange” about saving one’s marriage?? Hopefully he did it in time, that she didn’t leave with the kids, if they have any, which forced the issue. I have a number of his articles at GWH.com He presented them very well…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Well, after all this we already knew we were unpopular. For myself I say good, I’m being heard and the enemy (and that’s what they are) doesn’t like it. So the message is hurting them in their own opinion. Otherwise why bother?

    If they ever get the nerve to come for me (doubtful), let them come armed and ready for a fight. I’m now too old to tolerate playing games with anyone. There are things worth standing up for at any risk!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Baa Humbug:

    At #184 you ask me:

    IPCC AR4. Do you know when(month in 2007) this report was finalised? I’m especially interested in WG2 date.

    Sorry, I do not know. It was bad enough being involved with the science fiction in WG1. I am pleased to say I was not involved with the pure science fantasy of WG2.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Richard. Thanks anyway. I’ll try the 2nd order draft comments from the Harvard site. Cheers


    Report this

    00