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



How many tax dollars have you paid towards climate PR or research?

Richard North has picked up the ABC Drum article “The Money Trail”, and wonders about the total value of financial contributions towards carbon related research or PR from the UK and EU. I’ve wondered the same thing. Indeed, I tried to find answers for other nations and to add to the USA figures I put into Climate Money, but rapidly discovered, as he has, that it’s a hideously complex task. It’s a Ph.D size project, and there are no grants available to fund this kind of Ph.D.

Five times the cost of the Manhattan Project

Spending is hugely fragmented, between several departments of state, including DEFRA and DECC, with contributions from government agencies and quangos, including the Carbon Trust.

Then there are the devolved governments, the regional development agencies and local authorities, plus a very considerable input from the European Union, through the Framework research programme and also via direct contacts issued by the various Commission DGs.

Among the big spenders, though, are the seven UK research councils, which collectively dispense billions into the research community each year. You might think that each of these would be able to pinpoint the amount dispensed on climate research, but that it very far from the case.

The thing that made my analysis of the US climate funding possible was that there were bragging rights in spending big on climate research. Naming a department and printing annual reports made it possible. North is dedicatedly going through individual reports:

“That said, I have been trawling through some of the more obvious funding agencies. We already have a figure of £243 million for the Met Office Hadley Centre and recently I looked at the Engineering and Physical Science Council (EPSRC). Its database records 114 university projects, dispensing a grand sum of £63,245,372. And then there are the 912 grants from the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) on climate change, at £166,500,521.

Another big spender is the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), but to describe its database as shambolic is to pay it a huge compliment. There is no mechanism for extracting themes, global costs or even refining searches. Entries are duplicated, with different headings, and many “climate change” entries are falsely labelled, completely unrelated to the subject. Furthermore, details can only be obtained by opening each project file, individually.

Thus, I have been reduced, laboriously, to reviewing those individual files and so far have been through about 200 of over 5,000 files, finding details of 50 projects and research centre funding.”

And for all his work, the total he found is about £500 million.

Along with Richard, I’m not sure a meaningful definitive number can ever be found. How do you define climate research? Do you include all the alternative energy research, or only some of it?  There are no borders on a map defining science topics.

When I looked at projects funded under the CCSP or CCTP banners or the Australian climate science programs, there were several that didn’t seem very related at all. Back when these things were worth boasting about, governments might rope all sorts of marginal projects under the one banner to pump up the total–We Are So Green We’ve Spent More Than The Other Guy (I can’t see that happening anymore).  Arguably, someone could go in and diligently excise all these marginal projects, but this ignores the marketing impact of  “branded” funding in creating a larger team.  How much effect does it have on a researcher to know that his money comes from the Department of Climate Change or the Climate Change Science Project, when climate change is synonymous with “the role of carbon”? It’s impossible to know. But, there is a whole branch of scientific research into the effect that “gifts” and indebtedness have.

How much impact would it have on a researcher to know his work is supported by a theory? More than just a “warm glow”?

This soft marketing is one of the factors that helped create a passive consensus. No, the payments didn’t “find” fake results (not in most cases), but their influence spread through institute cafeteria’s, school p&c’s, university administrations, and, importantly, into countless press releases issued from marginal projects that all paid lip service to the assumption that carbon was a pollutant.

The bottom line: It’s a travesty that accounting for taxpayer dollars is so UNtransparent (pun intended).

*No Ph.D Funding, at least not yet. I hope this changes, and expect it will one day as courses start up in The History, Promotion and Politics of The Big Global Warming Scare.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
How many tax dollars have you paid towards climate PR or research?, 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/y8s3zoh

104 comments to How many tax dollars have you paid towards climate PR or research?

  • #
    pojie

    How many dollars did G.Bush spend on the war in Iraq was it2.3 trillion on a war for oil how many American have died because off this war? How many G.Bush’s buddies became bilionaires because off this war if you are going to write something be neutral and not one sided What industries would profit the most if Global Warming was untrue?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave N

    pojie:

    With global warming alarm, people that weren’t able to profit by it *before*, are now, and will continue to into the future if the scare continues. Those who are profiting from the consumption of fossil fuels aren’t going to be profiting any *more* than they are now, or were before, if there wasn’t any alarm.

    How’s that for balanced?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    pojie:

    At #1 your question is ambiguous. You ask:

    What industries would profit the most if Global Warming was untrue?

    Many industries could be said to “profit” if AGW were untrue: e.g. sea-side holiday industries would continue in business to make profits without their businesses being submerged by postulated rise in sea level.

    But if you mean businesses that would increase their profits by virtue of AGW being untrue, then none are identified in the literature.

    Of course, the major beneficiaries from AGW being true (or being thought to be true) are the banks and energy industries (notably oil and gas) which is why they have been funding pro-AGW research in hope of bolstering the AGW scare.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    *No PhD Funding–At least not yet. I hope that changes, and expect they will one day as courses start up in The History, Promotion and Politics of The Big Global Warming Scare.

    That actually needs to happen, more than you perhaps meant.

    This whole affair has to be dragged into the open and every tawdry detail laid bare.

    Forgiveness is all very well, but it should not be allowed to just skulk away and be forgotten, lest we forget how easy it was to dupe us all the last time.

    The forces behind this will not go away but just bide their time awaiting the next opportunity, to wrest sovereignty from us in the name of saving us from ourselves, once agsin.

    It’s can be difficult to forget disasters that happened, but how much do we ever learn & remember from disasters averted ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    What industries would profit the most if Global Warming was untrue?

    All of them except banking.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Ultimately it would be a trivial task to secure a PhD grant in Australia for such a study if you were a top notch 1st class honours student with the appropriate background degree. My guess is that the $$$ that a decent PhD came up with would be far less than those hypothesised in “The Money Trail”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    So Tel do you genuinely think banking will massively profit from sending the global economy back to the dark ages? Or will banking profit most from a booming global economy on the back of fossil fuels which only emit a harmless gas (sic).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Poji@1,

    How many dollars did G.Bush spend on the war in Iraq

    So what has that got to do with the price of fish?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] green gravy train continues Jo Nova continues to pick up on the massive funding the green industry lavishes in. EU referendum goes shopping in the green department with a credit card paid by our [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Mattb@7,

    So Tel do you genuinely think banking will massively profit from sending the global economy back to the dark ages?

    Just in case you haven’t been following what has been happenning in the financial world over the last 18 months, I will state the bleeding obvious.

    Banks and financial institutions are concerned about short term gains over and above long term viability. The GFC is a prime example of this.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Williams

    Sad to think that those research billions could have been put towards researching a cure for cancer, motor neuron disease, huntingdon’s chorea etc etc.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    The big issue is the sheer volume of money that is being spent on gratuitous guff. Researching “possible” effects of climate change. Where a scientist simply says ‘what if’ the temperature changed by X amount in a certain area. And then writes a scientifically valid but purely fictional novel on the outcome. They might as well say ‘what if’ we were invaded by an alien species, and then write a scientifically valid but when purely fictional novel on that outcome.
    Recently the CSIRO published a book saying that we might all have to get used to eating yellow tomatoes! Because under higher temperature the skins of tomatoes turn yellow. Apparently Australia’s entire agricultural output occurs in just one climate zone somewhere near Canberra. And if the temperature in that zone changes we’re all stuffed.
    The thing is, This sort of drivel is funded under climate research and touted as a part of the valid science regarding climate change. While the relationship between tomato skin colour and temperature might be scientifically valid. The book itself is a pointless waste of money.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    savannan

    Ah Yes – The carpetbagging CSIRO. From Handmaidens-of-Science to Prostitutes-of-Politicoscience in one generation.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    pojie:
    In regard to your comment on the Iraqi war, this is something that is often trotted out about oil, people go to war over oil, therefore oil is evil, if we weren’t depended on oil we wouldn’t go to war.
    A nice thought, but the fact is that humans have been fighting over resources ever since we were smart enough to stand on our hindlegs and throw rocks at each other.

    AGW people like they’re ‘what ifs’ so here is a ‘what if’ for you.

    What if – Half the world’s nations gave up CO2 in order to ‘save’ the planet. But their efforts to ‘save’ the planet were thwarted by the other half of the world’s nations who increased their use of CO2.
    What do you think the outcome would be?
    Do you think that the half of world who is trying to ‘save’ the planet should stand idly by, while the other half of irresponsible idiots destroyed it? Or do you think they would be justified in going to war in order to stop the irresponsible idiots from destroying the planet?

    Make no mistake this is potentially a very real outcome from the hysteria surrounding AGW.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    I grow yellow cheery tomatoes because the birds haven’t learnt they are ripe when yellow. :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    $801,000,000 on research this financial year funded by taxpayers Australia, according to an article on Bolt’s blog. Bob Greenelsh

    I voiced my disgust when the previous Liberal government announced supporting “carbon capture and storage” to the tune of $500,000,000.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Binny@12:

    Of course you realize that all the CSIRO (and BoM) publications carry disclaimers saying that what is written shouldn’t be used without further consulting real experts. :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    You cannot expect to change the minds of socialist warmers. Give them facts, they give you ‘blame Bush’. Tell the truth, they hit you with a hint of truth wrapped in a lie. These people can’t be reasoned with, they can’t have a conversation because they are programmed to counter you no matter what. We can thank God for Climategate. Before then, we were beaten back time after time. Now they are on the defensive. We have them in our sites and they can’t escape. The gig is up people.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    How many dollars did G.Bush spend on the war in Iraq was it2.3 trillion on a war for oil how many American have died because off this war? How many G.Bush’s buddies became bilionaires because off this war if you are going to write something be neutral and not one sided What industries would profit the most if Global Warming was untrue?

    How many wars have been fought over religion (and I consider AGW a religion) so can we move to ban them all as well??


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    In regard to your comment on the Iraqi war, this is something that is often trotted out about oil, people go to war over oil, therefore oil is evil, if we weren’t depended on oil we wouldn’t go to war.

    … because oil is evil we must find a “scientific” reason to dislike oil so we conclude that CO2 must be causing Global Warming!

    Hating George Bush is (for some) sufficient empirical evidence of Global Warming as Pojie has happily demonstrated. Perfectly logical in the fairyland world where wishing hard makes things come true.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    Binny: @14:

    What if – Half the world’s nations gave up CO2 in order to ’save’ the planet. But their efforts to ’save’ the planet were thwarted by the other half of the world’s nations who increased their use of CO2.
    What do you think the outcome would be?

    Make no mistake this is potentially a very real outcome from the hysteria surrounding AGW

    …which is a very insightful & pertininet observation Binny.
    Had nations been entered into binding committments at Copenhagen and failures to comply were subsequently detected or even suspected (as with WMD), how else would compliance ultimately be enforced.
    Even before a non-compliance a nation might perceive the cost of continuing obligation to comply, in the face of other economic difficulties, as a tyranny too great to bear, as was the case with punitive reparations imposed after WWI, that were largely responsible for the even greater conflagration that was to follow.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    pojie:
    March 6th, 2010 at 6:13 am
    How many dollars did G.Bush spend on the war in Iraq was it2.3 trillion on a war for oil how many American have died because off this war? How many G.Bush’s buddies became bilionaires because off this war if you are going to write something be neutral and not one sided What industries would profit the most if Global Warming was untrue?

    Typical green blathering non sequitur?

    How many people did Saddam Hussein murder? If Saddam Hussein had conquered Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, how many people would have died from starvation, hypothermia, hyperthermia, disease and war on a global scale? If George Bush would have followed through on his promise to attack anyone who supported terrorism then Iran, Syria and Yemen would be pacified and the world would be a lot safer! Yep, a lot of how many’s and what ifs!

    Without oil, the world as we know it would cease to exist and we would be living in something akin to the stone age. Even the greens would grow weary of it in a short while.

    Hey Poljie, even if you are living a green lifestyle you would have either directly or indirectly used several petroleum products before you took a lunch break. If there is a war and the oil is cut off to the civilized world the greens will, just like everybody else, be forced to deal with the ensuing anarchy. Wake up and smell what you’re shoveling!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    charlesd

    It seems very difficult and painstaking to identify the vast number of projects being run in the name of climate change. This certainly raises the possibility that no one anywhere, including in the government, knows how much public money is being spent on climate change research.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    ANGRY

    SUBJECT: NASA World Temperature Measurements

    On the subject of surface stations, at http://data.giss.gov/gistemp/station_data one can click

    anywhere on a world map and bring up temperature graphs of the surface stations in that area

    used by NASA’s GISS to help calculate global mean temperature.

    For Tasmania it appears that up until 1993 there were 25 stations being used. At the end of

    1992 most of those stations were dropped for data gathering purposes, leaving only the ones at

    Launceston and Hobart Airports for the next six years. This wiped out many rural areas, all our high

    stations and also those on the colder, more exposed West Coast.

    Two coastal stations appear to have been resurrected around 2008 – Eddystone Point on the

    warmer north-east tip of Tasmania and Cape Bruny on Bruny Island south of Hobart in the

    D’entrecasteaux Channel. They are probably now automated.

    I have no idea why so many stations were dropped all at once, but interestingly, in examining the

    charts I found that almost all had recorded a sharp drop of between 1.2 to 1.4 degrees Celsius in

    the four years from 1988 to 1992, which of course would have been a rather uncomfortable fact

    for those pushing the AGW theory. Without the colder areas and combined with the known UHI

    effect at airports, Tasmania would presumably have been contributing warmer mean temperatures

    to the global calculations after 1992.

    However, at the risk of being accused of “cherry-picking”, Launceston Airport may still be an

    inconvenient truth for the AGW lobby, particularly Tasmania’s “catastrophic man-made global

    warming” alarmists, Christine Milne, Bob Brown and the Greens. The trend line has been

    remarkably stable and refusing to record any local or global warming in that area. The first

    recorded annual mean temperature was 12.1 degrees in 1939 and 70 years later in 2009, 11.8

    degrees. The 1939 mean temperature has only been exceeded five times in that 70 years and

    only twice with any significance – by 0.4 of a degree in 1962 and 0.6 in 1988.

    A brief look at other parts of Australia show that many stations were dropped after 1992.
    It would be interesting to see the results if other posters here checked the stations in their own

    areas. Any takers?
    =================
    I have also noticed that the NASA GISS website has 2 data sets for each station. One set is ‘after

    combining sources at the same location’ and the second set is ‘after homogeneity added’.
    The first data set seems to be close to the original raw data but the second data set is their

    adjustment to the first. In many cases, the second set has the earlier temps decreased so that the

    warming looks worse than the original data set.
    However, sometime in the past month or so, I noticed for many Australian stations the second data

    set has been changed to reflect the first set.
    Try this. De Bilt in Holland is the only station used for that country. Check the ‘adjustment’ from

    data set 1 to data set 2.
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=633062600003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=633062600003&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter of Sydney

    What’s even more shocking is the fact we are still coming our of the previous major ice age so it’s normal to see a slight increase in the very long term temperature trend. What evidence is there that AGW is causing any of this very long term temperature rise, which started many thousands of years ago? If the money spent so far could answer this question it would be a start. Yet we haven’t even gone this far! What a waste. How many millions of lives could we have saved instead? People should go behind bars for this. The AGW hoax is a crime against humanity.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Angry – yes the global temp chart is the next gate!

    I would be interesting to see the results if other posters here checked the stations in their own

    areas. Any takers?

    yup!

    http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Aussie_Temps.jpg


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter of Sydney

    While on the topic of money, here’s a thought. If we are to believe that AGW is true then why don’t we sue the oil companies for trillions of dollars? That would wake them up and they will make a serious attempt to prove that AGW is indeed a fraud and a hoax to escape paying the money! But if in fact it’s true that AGW is correct then they should be sued, just like the tobacco companies were some time ago. They can’t have it both ways.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    The idea of suing companies that make legal products in a lawful way that meets the standards of the time they are produced is nihilistic and immoral.
    We are all here because of the benefits of oil, coal and high tech and heavy industry.
    Now, because some fear mongers have said that part of what they do will cause a climate catastrophe we are going to sue them out of existence?
    Even when most of the oil in the world is not even owned by oil companies, but by governments that make hundreds of billions selling oil?
    What a foolish, immature, unreasonable and self-destructive meme this is for our world culture.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    pojie:
    March 6th, 2010 at 6:13 am

    How many dollars did G.Bush spend on the war in Iraq… Blah, blah, rave, rant, blather, blah.

    … and now Iraq is holding free and fair democratic elections and is an ally in an unstable region, Pojie.

    But you are trying to deflect… How is this pertinent?

    At least the Iraqi’s have a democracy to defend and protect now… We have spent billions on a political fraud that has not furthered science one bit… Indeed it has corrupted science and set the standard back into the dark ages.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    I have not had time to visit for some time, so it’s possible someone else has already posted this speech by Ann McElhinney (of Not Evil Just Wrong fame) from the CPAC Convention. This is one gutsy lady!

    Avatar: Beautiful but dangerous


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    An absolute SHAME and COLOSSAL waste of money

    All spent on behalf of some OUTRAGEOUS egos

    Don’t you agree, Judith Curry?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ janama #27

    You make a very good point! I believe when the statistical methods the scientists used are audited and examined massive fraud will be uncovered. I believe that is the primary reason they do not want to release their raw data. I guess as hard as they try they cannot hide the decline!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    Peter of Sydney: @ #28:

    “……… why don’t we sue the oil companies for trillions of dollars? That would wake them up and they will make a serious attempt to prove that AGW is indeed a fraud and a hoax to escape paying the money! …………”

    Don’t forget who produces the CO2. The oil companies only sell you the oil.
    You burn it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Jo@34,

    Don’t forget who produces the CO2. The oil companies only sell you the oil.
    You burn it.

    Bravo, well said. I think I’m gonna use that one moving forward.

    BTW : I heard they found WMDs in Iraq they were Ude, Kuse (Saddams Sons) and Chemical Ali.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Eddy Aruda: Post 22,

    Hey Poljie, even if you are living a green lifestyle you would have either directly or indirectly used several petroleum products before you took a lunch break. If there is a war and the oil is cut off to the civilized world the greens will, just like everybody else, be forced to deal with the ensuing anarchy. Wake up and smell what you’re shoveling!

    Eddy, there’s a Web Site that states there are 3,500 different products from oil….This site gives a few examples….

    http://www.energy4me.org/questions/products_from_oil.htm

    People take soooo many things in their Lives for granted…It’s like electricity…If you loose power, how many in the household hit a light switch and “nothing” happens within the first ten minutes? I do it all the time…If you had a flashlight and shined it on my face, it would be “red” as a beet! In the U.S., it’s only a matter of time when “brownouts” will start to occur. Powerplants take time to build, ten year average is one estimation, to complete…That is a nuclear plant I’m referring to… And,hence, my “frustrated Monkey’s” look for He can’t believe it either… :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Eddy, there’s a Web Site that states there are 3,500 different products from oil

    That’s why the CIA factbook lists Australian oil figures as:

    Oil – production:
    586,400 bbl/day (2008 est.)

    Oil – consumption:
    953,700 bbl/day (2008 est.)

    Oil – exports:
    332,400 bbl/day (2008 est.)

    Oil – imports:
    687,200 bbl/day (2008 est.)

    Oil – proved reserves:
    1.5 billion bbl (1 January 2009 est.)

    the 332,400 bbl/day we export is super high grade oil that’s too good to burn in cars, as the Caltex ad used to say – oils ain’t oils.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    If George Bush went to war for oil, how come it is that none of that Iraqi oil is flowing directly to the U.S.? We’re still competing for it on the open market at speculator prices. So don’t come to me with that argument because you’ll get told your pedigree and you won’t like it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Jo, I’m afraid to even ask how much of my money has gone into this mess.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I’d like to see the costs in terms of the 50 year tax exemptions that could have been made for nuclear and carbon-solids-liquification. Or 50 year tax exemptions on wharf-building.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Isn’t that interesting. A climate empiricist blog gives me a chance without putting me on moderation. And hopefully might edit my act after the fact. But a climate-hustle blog, will always have you on moderation first up no matter what.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Graeme, your picture reminds me very much of a certain (former) junior senator from Wisconsin.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter of Sydney

    Joe Veragio:

    Don’t forget who produces the CO2. The oil companies only sell you the oil.
    You burn it.

    You miss my point. The tobacco companies used the same argument to excuse themselves of any wrong doing selling a substance know to cause cancer, which initially they said was not true but later admitted it was. The smokers knew the problem but it was their choice to die. No, if AGW is true (which it isn’t) then the oil companies should be sued given the “official consensus” is that AGW is true. Either the governments and the people sue the oil companies for allowing the destruction of the climate to continue, or they admit that AGW is a fraud. They can’t have it both ways.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Right. Its about time we got rid of that Roosevelt memorial and had a statue of that Senator put up in its stead. 100 million ghosts, victims of communism, who have not been given a decent Christian burial, scream out at us in pain, and will continue to do so, until we put these matters to rights.

    We walk through them. We step over them. We look past them. But we must never forget them. We must not allow the wicked leftist version of history to prevail.

    The social ostracism that someone may cop in support of these screaming ghosts, by way of supporting the Wisconsin Senator, might seem to high a price to pay. But I don’t look at it that way. I think these victims are worth it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Peter of Sydney @ 43

    But government is ~ 95% of the oil industry – how can it sue itself?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter of Sydney

    Of course that’s another reason why governments won’t sue the oil companies. The main one being they don’t want to because the AGW scam is a money spinner for them. However, people can sue. It has happened with the tobacco companies. All I’m saying is if we attack the oil companies, it may make them turn around and come to our side and help us prove that the AGW thesis is a fraud and a hoax. We need all the help we can. Otherwise, we will lose out to the big 3 – governments, business and fraudsters. That’s too strong a force to win I think even if the majority of the people understood it’s a fraud.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Albert

    It was recently reported that the Australian Government spends $800,000,000 on climate change research.
    If the Government accepts the IPCC statements like the 11th commandment, as statements of proven undisputed scientific fact and they tell us the Science is settled, why do we spend any money at all on “settled Science”?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Albert @47

    Now, now, as Sir Humphrey would aver, that is a truly courageous statement.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    excellent article in the Weekly Standard sums up the whole debate as it stands today.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/denial


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    ONe poster here (I only read it 15 minutes ago and now can’t find where it was posted – arghhhhh) suggested we look at the GISS world wide temperature datasets for the area we live in. The link is this one (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/findstation.py?datatype=gistemp&data_set=1&name=&world_map.x=614&world_map.y=305) and I find it intriguing that many rural stations stopped producing data after 1992, the year during which the Kyoto Protocol was signed.

    The poster here described his search for Tasmania which also had many stations stopping at 1992.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Anne-Kit @31

    WOW she is really what you write – which reminds me I still have to get her latest DVD! And why indeed are there too many people but never too many elephants…..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    To Peter of Sydney:
    who says, @43

    You miss my point. The tobacco companies used the same argument …. No, if AGW is true (which it isn’t) then the oil companies should be sued given the “official consensus” is that AGW is true. Either the governments and the people sue the oil companies for allowing the destruction of the climate to continue, or they admit that AGW is a fraud. They can’t have it both ways.

    Peter, the notion you are promoting, albeit hypothetically, is much more insidious than you imagine.

    If AGW is given any credence, it is developing countries who are already being lined up to pursue Your government (among others) for compensation – which means You.

    Oil companies are only agents of government energy policy.
    Any parallel with tobacco (or you might say the same of alcohol) companies is misleading.

    Haven’t you seen the notions underpinning the binding agreements that were being sought at Copenhagen ?
    From the draft negotiating texts, to :-

    Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees;

    and:-

    Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources and transfer technology to developing country Parties to make full and effective repayment of climate debt, including adaptation debt, taking responsibility for their historical cumulative emissions and current high per capita emissions.

    yet no mention of compensating your own countries nationals for their loss of land rights already, in satisfying the Kyoto process – presumably because it’s all their (& Your) countries fault.

    Very little might have been achieved at Copenhagen, but make no mistake, these ideas have not gone away…
    & Mexico is only 8 months away .


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @Graeme Bird:

    Hey I just wanted to tell you how much I respect you for the comments that you posted at the ABC drum unleashed. Great work!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Roy Hogue:
    March 7th, 2010 at 9:42 am
    If George Bush went to war for oil, how come it is that none of that Iraqi oil is flowing directly to the U.S.? We’re still competing for it on the open market at speculator prices. So don’t come to me with that argument because you’ll get told your pedigree and you won’t like it.

    Hey Roy, I am not getting the last part of your post, could you pleas expand upon your last sentence so that I can comprehend what you are trying to state. Thanks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Eddy in #53 thought I’d bring you up to speed with your new found blogger-crush;)

    http://notahedgehog.wordpress.com/2008/12/25/the-christmas-spirit/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Albert in 47 – because the cash is spent on research on adaptation/reduction strategies, not just research in to whether it is happening or not.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @matB #55

    As you should well know everybody is entitled to freedom of speech. The link you provided appears to be to a left wing fanatic’s site. That being said, I do not know the context of the alleged quotes so I will give him the benefit of the doubt. The fact that the left wing dislikes him so much actually makes me like Graeme Bird even more. What I know of him is what he posted on The Drum Unleashed and it was impressive.

    At least he defended Jo against some vicious Ad Hominem attacks. I am sure your defense of Jo, being the loyal friend you are, are probably being held in moderation! If I was you, Matt, I would avoid tangling with the guy. But then again, Matt, you seem to enjoy learning the hard way;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Louis – those station that stop at 1992 only stop at GISS – they are still operating in Australia and their data is on BoM.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/weather-data.shtml


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    If George Bush went to war for oil, how come it is that none of that Iraqi oil is flowing directly to the U.S.? We’re still competing for it on the open market at speculator prices. So don’t come to me with that argument because you’ll get told your pedigree and you won’t like it.

    What I notice is that the news reports regarding Iraqi oil contracts rarely give details of the contract itself, frequently conflict with one another, and provide no reference allowing independent verification. I regularly read reports that the Iraqi Oil Ministry is corrupt, and that the Kurds still claim to own the oil they are sitting on. Sometimes your read about auctions, sometimes about individual negotiations, but never can you see the actual picture.

    Naturally, there will never under any circumstances be an audit trail going from drill head to dollars spent (and it would be a dream to expect such a thing). If even 50% of the market price of that oil actually goes into schools, hospitals, and civilian infrastructure then I would expect to see some very impressive and obvious results — but it hasn’t happened yet, and I’ll believe it when I see it. Lots of empty promises going around right now, very few results.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Janama,

    Thanks for that – go the AGW Priesthood prefer only PC data, hmmmm. The stench is palpable with this lot.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    MattB:
    March 7th, 2010 at 1:50 pm

    LMFAO that was sooo funny. It just shows that or new found blogger can box in any weight division an cage fights and illegal back street prize fights.

    Now, on the matter of the substance of his posted comments at the Drum……Matt?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    ooops my post #61 needs proof reading.

    In the first line replace “or” with “our”,


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Thanks for that – go the AGW Priesthood prefer only PC data, hmmmm. The stench is palpable with this lot.

    yes Louis – it’s about to blowup at last.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Baa Humbug,

    Don’t worry about proof reading – you should read some of the corkers I manage to have editing AIG News! One issue last year went through the usual proofing process, then to the communications committee for further proofing and it got published with the lead article on the front missing the list of the authors. So it happens to the best of us :-)

    I should go and read what Birdie wrote on the Drum – should be edifying.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    BTW Louis – I had my electro dermal therapy done yesterday – now there’s an interesting interpretation of the electric universe.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Baa Humbug

    G’day M8! I hope Matt learned his lesson from his run in with Mt. Courtney. I like Graeme Bird. I would hate to see Matt get hurt. Then again, it is the painful lessons that are remembered best!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    G’day Eddy Lou Janama.

    Ed I doubt Matt learnt anything. he certainly hasn’t demonstrated that he has. lol
    Louis do read the Birds posts. He often made me “wish I had said it”.

    Janama from where did you get hair removed? mmm? Do tell. Brazilian?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    By the way, if you have 5mins to spare, an excellent read in THE WEEKLY STANDARD titled:- In Denial: The meltdown of the climate campaign.
    BY Steven F. Hayward


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Baa Humbug # 68

    Great link! ILMAO! Poor Al Gore! He looks so cold holfing his groin he probably has an “inney’!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Typo, “holfing” should be “holding.” Time to get some sleep!

    BTW, I just got back from the Drum Unleashed and I was proud to see so many posters from here doing a terrific job of backing Jo and standing up for the truth! Most impressive! Of course, we are all paid exorbitant amounts by big oil…NOT!


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Baa Humbug

    janama:
    March 7th, 2010 at 7:09 pm

    Lol Learn something new everyday. I had in mind my beautician partners use of “laser hair removal” at her salon. :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Janama

    ;-) Hmmmm,


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    If I were a scientist (which I am) that wanted to get into climatology (I’d rather have my leg chewed off by ants) then I’d write an application to the ARC or the Aust. Greenhouse Office for a grant.

    I write that I want to collect temperatures from AMO website to falsify AGW hypothesis. Nooo, I don’t think I will get money for that, they only back 1 project proposal in 10.

    Hmmm, how about I do a project on ice melting in Antarctica, get a nice trip out of that. Hey I can present a paper in San Fran AGU meeting too! Yay, AGO gives be 50 grand. Off we go.

    Soon we get to $800M of AGW loving warmista researchers who know which side of bread has butter on.

    If you think I’m wrong I well recall grant proposals in chemistry, my field, in the ’80′s. If you weren’t producing a compound which could cure cancer, forget it. You had no chance of a successful grant application. So all chemical compounds were ‘thought to have anticancer properties’ in grant proposals. Now all project proposals are saving the world from AGW. Scientists would like to eat, I grant us this fact.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Eddy Graeme and I have tangled before, a bit briefly, and Marohasy. I must admit most of what I sadi was just trying to get more explosive answers:) Thought it was here, may have been deltoid or BNC, but I did comment that hell was freezing over as at The Drum G. Bird was the only one sounding like a reasonable moderate! I think he is good value to be honest, and I’m buying an extra coat to prepare me for the worst of the brutal and pulverizing ice age we are in the middle of.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    at not and Marohasy (sp?)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Global Warming not to blame for toad extinction

    El Niño and a pathogen killed Costa Rican toad, study finds

    “They expected to see global warming manifested in the form of a long-term warming or drying trend, but instead discovered that the forest’s dry spells closely tracked El Niño, the periodic and natural warming of waters off South America that brings drought to some places and added rainfall and snow to others”.

    Mmmm I wonder how much the earlier study cost, the one that said “t’was Global Warmin whot did it gov”

    Lately it’s becoming like watching a game of tennis, back and forth..
    Global warming did it..thud….Natural variation did it…bang…AGW did it…smack…NV did it..smash


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    MattB:
    March 7th, 2010 at 8:15 pm

    Eddy Graeme and I have tangled before, a bit briefly

    So you didn’t make to end of round one with the Bird ha Matt? lol


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    I’ll tell you a sad tale. Years ago we had electric light bulbs. They cost a few cents or a few dollars you remember
    those that were called bayonet or screw it in species. Then
    the AGW got busy. I went to buy a yellow light globe last week from Coles for my light outside the laundry. The only one I found that was yellow, was one of those things called climate savers, you know twirly low wattage. Mercury ridden things.

    Cost $10.95 fair dinkum. Non of the traditional type ones for sale. They reckon they last for 15,000 hours though.(Whose going to count them eh?) If they think using them will help the climate, it is just like throwing a sugar cube into Loch Ness hoping to make the water sweeter.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Baa I distinctly remember posting on this site that I’d just tangled with Bird. Jo did mention that she wouldn’t have him here with his standard behaviour so we’ll have to see how it pans out I guess. Must be more than a year ago. Lets just say there is not much room for rapport or discussion of viewpoints. I did alright :)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I’d like to see the costs in terms of the 50 year tax exemptions that could have been made for nuclear and carbon-solids-liquification. Or 50 year tax exemptions on wharf-building.

    Agreed. I’d also like to see three charts, in gross dollars and as percentages:

    1. Government tax revenue by power generation type.
    2. Government subsidies by energy generation type.
    3. Government research grants by energy type.

    I would also like to see a hypothetical treatment of AGW as a government sector and see a what percentage of government expenditure goes into AGW. It would help to get a sense of perspective, to use a Moncktonism. Using raw dollars is not the best way to frame an argument. Saying millions and billions only serves to create an emotional response, as that is alot of money for one person. But, in reality, it may only be a drop in the ocean when compared to a nation’s GDP, or yearly tax revenue.

    For example, the $US79 billion over 10 years as cited in the Skeptics Handbook is really chump change for the US government. Seriuosly, that figure doesn’t impress politicians. We need to frame the argument properly for law markers and big businesses who have been de-sensitised to talking about money in large dollar amounts. Any stock, bond or derivative broker can tell you about the ridiculous amounts of money which go through the markets on an hourly basis.

    In fact, maybe we should even be talking about it in terms of how many dollars you, that tax payer, spend on AGW a year. That would be more direct and personal.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Oh, and just for fun. Maybe a comparison should be done of tax exceptions across the major religions, AGW being the nest kid on the block.

    Maybe AGW is a pretty cheap religion compared to, say, Catholicism.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Left……..Right (USA measure)
    MattB,…G. Bird
    MattB,…G. Bird
    MattB,…G. Bird
    MattB,…G. Bird
    MattB,…G. Bird
    MattB,…G. Bird

    I don’t know, no matter how many times I weigh it, I seem to still come up right….. :)

    Thanks for the rabid Left link MattB. It makes it easier for me to establish my opinion.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Bush Bunny said:

    The only one I found that was yellow, was one of those things called climate savers, you know twirly low wattage. Mercury ridden things.

    Cost $10.95 fair dinkum. Non of the traditional type ones for sale. They reckon they last for 15,000 hours though.(Whose going to count them eh?)

    BB, I have a bin full of those things that didn’t last 3000 hours. (and watch out they sometimes fail with a cloud of foul smoke!) With all the mercury they should be the bane of any True Greeny.

    Notice which Asian country manufactures them???


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter of Sydney

    Joe Veragio onMarch 7th, 2010 at 12:20 pm:
    Peter, the notion you are promoting, albeit hypothetically, is much more insidious than you imagine.
    If AGW is given any credence, it is developing countries who are already being lined up to pursue Your government (among others) for compensation – which means You.

    You still miss my point. By attacking the oil companies hard enough they will turn around and really join the fight against the AGW scam, and then we stop the suing. Anyway, as you say it’s a hypothetical exercise as it won’t happen. No one has the guts to turn the heat on (no pun intended) to stop the AGW fraud.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Cost $10.95 fair dinkum. Non of the traditional type ones for sale. They reckon they last for 15,000 hours though.(Whose going to count them eh?) If they think using them will help the climate, it is just like throwing a sugar cube into Loch Ness hoping to make the water sweeter.

    I was buying those things regularly for a while and they do NOT last 15,000 hours. I’ve had some that lasted only a few days. I took a bunch of the dead ones to the local “e-recycling” center and they said they would not take them. They take computer parts, copper wire, laser printers… but not CF bulbs. I asked how to get rid of them he said talk to council, they have one day a year were they accept these things and you have to know where and when. I’m not making this up.

    For the householder those tubes are a complete rip off. Regular straight stick flouro is more cost effective but not when you consider the price of changing existing fittings over. I have completely given up buying CF bulbs due to repeated bad experiences and the high price, I’ll wait until LED technology becomes widely available.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sydney Sceptic

    Has anyone else drawn a connection between AGW and the Nigerian email scams/ advance fee fraud?

    I was having a conversation with someone about AGW who argued that if you were building your house at the bottom of the hill and had been told that there was a less-than-5% chance of landslide – would you do something about it?
    I replied that when you receive an email that claims you are the sole beneficiary of US$20,000,000 from the late Price Nahrim Maktoum and you think there is a less-than-5% chance you might be related – would you give them your full name, DOB, and bank account details?

    The net result is the same – the amount in your bank account drops and no benefit! =)
    Post-normal ‘anything’ is just an excuse to gouge cash.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sydney Sceptic

    (Typo on Prince/Price retained for authenticity to Nigerian emails) =) LOL


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    Peter of Sydney:

    By attacking the oil companies hard enough they will turn around and really join the fight against the AGW scam, and then we stop the suing. Anyway, as you say it’s a hypothetical exercise as it won’t happen. No one has the guts to turn the heat on (no pun intended) to stop the AGW fraud.

    Attacking the oil companies would be pointless. It would not have the effect you suggest & quite apart from the fact , that they are not the problem.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    To all skeptics and Warmmongsters.

    AN ODE FOR ALL SEASONS

    ‘When I was young and flighty
    I rarely wore me nighty.
    Now I’m old ‘n failing
    My dollars are not sailing?

    This got me thinking ‘n thinking,
    I’ll invent a ship that’s sinking!
    Called HMS ‘CO2′ is warming – effing shocking!
    Rescuers never saw it and me docking?

    They traded in all their carbon credits,
    Transferring trillions to the masses debits,
    When ‘something’s wrong’ cried some boring sage,
    It’s friggin snowing – cometh another ice age?

    “So wot! We made a little error”, I replied,
    Be grateful now – you ain’t all died!
    As temps plummet, you just close the door,
    I’m flying – to warmer climes with Mr Al Gore!

    Bye You All – Have fun in the snow.

    (c) Bush bunny 2010

    Believe it or not mates, I am a published writer of fiction, non fiction and poetry? Forgive me please.

    Feel free to copy and send to friends, or make up your own?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bunny

    Robyn Williams has posted an article on The Drum titled “Climate Change Science: the evidence is clear”, and he is calling for urgent action to combat this serious threat before it’s too late.

    He doesn’t actually discuss any science, but instead he attacks the extreme minority groups who have hijacked the science and who are dedicated to a smear campaign against the “passive, restrained and much too polite” climate scientists.

    He’s not getting it all his own way though.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Hi bunny: I posted two sardonic messages including my ode that I retitled ‘Ode to a carbon whore’

    I put a softener in before hand, the best denier response yet.
    It’s true too! A fundimentalist group said. Dr Patchauri, a hindoo,
    is a vegetarian and pagan (multiple gods) and wants us to give up meat
    to save methane emissions. We know the IPCC is lieing as everyone knows these graphs are wrong, going back tens of thousands of years,
    when God only created the world 6,000 years ago…

    They might print that? Then – my poem follows with the sub not.
    Bring on those carbon credits so we can make money. That’s if they
    introduce cap and trade schemes? I reckon they will see through my
    sardonic view point, eh? Tell me if they publish it? I doubt it
    as so far they haven’t on any of their blogs.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Lets change the title of my poem to ‘ODE TO A CARBON WHORE’

    AND LAST LINE FIRST VERSE

    ‘MY BANK BALANCE IS ALSO AILING!’

    LOL DE BUSH BUNNY FROM OZ.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bush bunny

    Robyn is a ‘she’ bunny. I tried to respond but the blog closed on me
    I have never been able to get anything published there.

    Cheers, best luck next time eh?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mick

    Tel: I was buying those things regularly for a while and they do NOT last 15,000 hours. I’ve had some that lasted only a few days.

    Apart from the obvious fact that they’re mainly cheap, crappy, toxic Chinese junk & that’s not likely to change anytime soon in the future, Australian Govt officials & Chinese manufacturers sat down together in Shanghai to pollute Australian Standards. They worked out between them that the new standard would be measured at 1000 switch cycles per 6000 lamp hours. So they’re pretending that the average domestic globe only gets turned on & off on average every 6 hours burning to make the claims they do. I suppose you can legally get whatever numbers you want on the box when you’ve got big Govt behind you… you can read the seminar if you’re interested:

    http://www.iesanz.org/media/docs/phase_out_seminar/dewha_presentation_lc_ies_seminars.ppt

    It’s highly offensive as well as utter bs. And just to tie it into the funding & PR topic, how much ‘rollout’ propaganda like this is lurking beneath the surface?

    PS And they’re all going in future – halogens, fluoros, floods, fancy rounds, pilot lamps – you can kiss your straight sticks goodbye in the next round they reckon.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “I did alright…”

    You did alright? Yes it is more than a year that has passed. You going to make me wait another year for evidence relating to the three specific hypotheses then?

    I’ll put it on hold for five years and get back to you. You did just magnificent. No make that ten years. Thats how well you did. You were going to get back to me in a week or two. But you’ve now got ten years since you did so well. Being as one year has already passed thats 11 years total. This is how brilliantly well you did.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Graeme I was more referring to surviving impact. BUt to be frank it was more an “I’ll call you, honest.”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I don’t know what to make about that last line? Are you trying to gross me out by showering me with your gayness-vibes? I was expecting you would pull that so with malice-afforethought I suggested that you don’t have to get back to me with evidence for ten years.

    Clearly all my efforts were for nought and you still managed to slime me with these horrid, shall we say “ambivalent” vibes.

    I’m going to have to take a shower with the breadknife and try and get all this slime off of me. There is nothing you people won’t try on to avoid the simple task of specifying the hypothesis, marshalling the evidence, and formulating the reasoning that you contend links the one with the other in a convincing way.

    Ten years Matt.

    Really.

    There is no rush.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    The last line was a polite way of saying “Graeme (SNIP) I see (SNIP) value in holding a discussion with you other than the humour value involved.” You are like the cranky old man that has kids throw rocks at his window just to watch him come and shout at them from the veranda in his dressing gown, waving his clenched fist in the air.

    (SEVERELY Edited to keep the reasonable tone here at JN)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Ten years is fine Matt. You do what you people do until then. Who am I to judge? If thats the best person you can be its up to me to use zen thought control to block the visuals out of my mind. But you go on with my blessing, be careful, and don’t take undue risks. I’m trying to insist to you that I don’t require the evidence from you for another ten years. I want you to take this seriously and get off my case. Ten years is good enough. Pass a message on if you need twenty. Take care.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    KIDS!!!!

    “You are like the cranky old man that has kids throw rocks at his window just to watch him come and shout at them from the veranda in his dressing gown, waving his clenched fist in the air.”

    Don’t the internet kids just make you laugh? Not ever suspecting the great valence of the protection they get from anonymity?

    Matt aint so bad. Generally speaking he was a lot less abusive and insulting of honest scientists then most of the people I encountered at Jennifers place.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    I rang my cousin in Eire last night. And she was telling me the UN
    job her naval officer son (The Irish Navy) had been put on hold. Seems he went to antarctica some years ago, and actually saw ice break
    off (not unusual. Its also got a active volcano ‘Big Ben’) and Cobh had flooding that hadn’t happen before. The seas are rising she told me. It’s because of all the rain we have had? I didn’t argue. Well if that’s the case the UN job is no longer happening so I wonder why?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Eddy @54,

    Sorry for not being able to look in for a few days.

    I presume you mean, being told “…your pedigree…” It’s a metaphor for being told off in very personal terms. My fault. I expected that it would be more widely understood.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    SPAM ALERT: I don’t know about you all, but I am getting emails not only from the above, but also checking the header is from nova@cp.owire.net. Often advertising stuff but
    under the return path to them. I haven’t had a fair dinkum email from Jo’s site for ages.

    They offer the option of cancelling my subscription to this site. Greenies at work eh.

    [Ignore the spam, we are having more than usual but we're removing them as fast as we can.]ED


    Report this

    00