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



The climate industry wall of money

This is the copy of the file I sent the ABC Drum Unleashed. I’m grateful they are allowing both sides of the story to get some airtime (though Bob Carter’s , and Marc Hendrickx’s posts were both rejected. Hat-tip to Louis and Marc). Unfortunately the updated version I sent late yesterday which included some empirical references near the end was not posted until 4.30pm EST. (NB: The Australian spelling of skeptic is “sceptic”)

Somehow the tables have turned. For all the smears of big money funding the “deniers”, the numbers reveal that the sceptics are actually the true grassroots campaigners, while Greenpeace defends Wall St. How times have changed. Sceptics are fighting a billion dollar industry aligned with a trillion dollar trading scheme. Big Oil’s supposed evil influence has been vastly outdone by Big Government, and even those taxpayer billions are trumped by Big-Banking.

The big-money side of this debate has fostered a myth that sceptics write what they write because they are funded by oil profits. They say, follow the money? So I did and it’s chilling. Greens and environmentalists need to be aware each time they smear with an ad hominem attack they are unwittingly helping giant finance houses.

Follow the money

Money for Sceptics: Greenpeace has searched for funding for sceptics and found $23 million dollars paid by Exxon over ten years (which has stopped). Perhaps Greenpeace missed funding from other fossil fuel companies, but you can be sure that they searched. I wrote the Climate Money paper in July last year, and since then no one has claimed a larger figure. Big-Oil may well prefer it if emissions are not traded, but it’s not make-or-break for them. If all fossil fuels are in effect “taxed”, consumers will pay the tax anyhow, and past price rises in crude oil suggest consumers will not consume much less fuel, so profits won’t actually fall that much.

But in the end, everyone spends more on carbon friendly initiatives than on sceptics– even Exxon: (how about $100 million for Stanford’s Global Climate and Energy Project, and $600 million for Biofuels research). Some will complain that Exxon is massive and their green commitment was a tiny part of their profits, but the point is, what they spent on skeptics was even less.

Money for the Climate Industry: The US government spent $79 billion on climate research and technology since 1989 – to be sure, this funding paid for things like satellites and studies, but it’s 3,500 times as much as anything offered to sceptics. It buys a bandwagon of support, a repetitive rain of press releases, and includes PR departments of institutions like NOAA, NASA, the Climate Change Science Program and the Climate Change Technology Program. The $79 billion figure does not include money from other western governments, private industry, and is not adjusted for inflation. In other words, it could be…a lot bigger.

For direct PR comparisons though, just look at “Think Climate Think Change“: the Australian Government put $13.9 million into just one quick advertising campaign. There is no question that there are vastly more financial rewards for people who promote a carbon-made catastrophe than for those who point out the flaws in the theory.

Ultimately the big problem is that there are no grants for scientists to demonstrate that carbon has little effect. There are no Institutes of Natural Climate Change, but plenty that are devoted to UnNatural Forces.

It’s a monopsony, and the main point is not that the scientists are necessarily corrupted by money or status (though that appears to have happened to a few), but that there is no group or government seriously funding scientists to expose flaws. The lack of systematic auditing of the IPCC, NOAA, NASA or East Anglia CRU, leaves a gaping vacuum. It’s possible that honest scientists have dutifully followed their grant applications, always looking for one thing in one direction, and when they have made flawed assumptions or errors, or just exaggerations, no one has pointed it out simply because everyone who could have, had a job doing something else. In the end the auditors who volunteered—like Steve McIntyre and AnthonyWatts—are retired scientists, because they are the only ones who have the time and the expertise to do the hard work. (Anyone fancy analysing statistical techniques in dendroclimatology or thermometer siting instead of playing a round of golf?)

Money for the Finance Houses: What the US Government has paid to one side of the scientific process pales in comparison with carbon trading. According to the World Bank, turnover of carbon trading reached $126 billion in 2008. PointCarbon estimates trading in 2009 was about $130 billion. This is turnover, not specifically profits, but each year the money market turnover eclipses the science funding over 20 years. Money Talks. Every major finance house stands to profit as brokers of a paper trade. It doesn’t matter whether you buy or sell, the bankers take a slice both ways. The bigger the market, the more money they make shifting paper.

Banks want us to trade carbon…

Not surprisingly banks are doing what banks should do (for their shareholders): they’re following the promise of profits, and urging governments to adopt carbon trading.7,8 Banks are keen to be seen as good corporate citizens (look, there’s an environmental banker!), but somehow they don’t find the idea of a non-tradable carbon tax as appealing as a trading scheme where financial middlemen can take a cut. (For banks that believe in the carbon crisis, taxes may well “help the planet,” but they don’t pay dividends.)

The stealthy mass entry of the bankers and traders poses a major force. Surely if  money has any effect on carbon emissions, it must also have an effect on careers, shareholders, advertising, and lobbying? There were over 2000 lobbyists in Washington in 2008.

Unpaid sceptics are not just taking on scientists who conveniently secure grants and junkets for pursuing one theory, they also conflict with potential profits of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Barclays, Morgan Stanley, and every other financial institution or corporation that stands to profit like the Chicago Climate Exchange, European Climate Exchange, PointCarbon, IdeaCarbon (and the list goes on… ) as well as against government bureaucracies like the IPCC and multiple departments of Climate Change. There’s no conspiracy between these groups, just similar profit plans or power grabs.

Tony Abbot’s new policy removes the benefits for bankers. Labor and the Greens don’t appear to notice that they fight tooth and nail for a market in a “commodity” which isn’t a commodity and that guarantees profits for big bankers. The public though are figuring it out.

The largest tradeable “commodity” in the world?

Commissioner Bart Chilton, head of the energy and environmental markets advisory committee of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), has predicted that within five years a carbon market would dwarf any of the markets his agency currently regulates: “I can see carbon trading being a $2 trillion market.” “The largest commodity market in the world.” He ought to know.

It promises to be larger than the markets for coal, oil, gold, wheat, copper or uranium.  Just soak in that thought for a moment. Larger than oil.

Richard L. Sandor, chairman and chief executive officer of Climate Exchange Plc, agrees and predicts trades eventually will total $10 trillion a year.” That’s 10 thousand billion dollars.

Only the empirical evidence matters

Ultimately the atmosphere is what it is regardless of fiat currency movements. Some people will accuse me of smearing climate scientists and making the same ad hominem attacks I detest and protest about. So note carefully: I haven’t said that the massive amount of funding received by promoters of the Carbon Catastrophe proves that they are wrong, just as the grassroots unpaid dedication of sceptics doesn’t prove them right either. But the starkly lop-sided nature of the funding means we’d be fools not to pay very close attention to the evidence. It also shows how vapid the claims are from those who try to smear sceptics and who mistakenly think ad hominem arguments are worth making.

And as far as evidence goes, surprisingly, I agree with the IPCC that carbon dioxide warms the planet. But few realize that the IPCC relies on feedback factors like humidity and clouds causing a major amplification of the minor CO2 effect and that this amplification simply isn’t there. Hundreds of thousands of radiosonde measurements failed to find the pattern of upper trophospheric heating the models predicted, (and neither Santer 2008 with his expanding “uncertainties” nor Sherwood 2008 with his wind gauges change that). Other independent empirical observations indicate that the warming due to CO2 is halved by changes in the atmosphere, not amplified. [Spencer 2007, Lindzen 2009, see also Spencer 2008]. Without this amplification from water vapor or clouds the infamous “3.5 degrees of warming” collapses to just a half a degree—most of which has happened.

Those resorting to this vacuous, easily refutable point should be shamed into lifting their game. The ad hominem argument is stone age reasoning, and the “money” insult they throw, bounces right back at them—a thousand-fold.
———————————————————————————————-

My reply to comments on the ABC post:

“References for scientific assertions would make the argument on those points look…well, more scientific, no?”

Actually I advised the ABC when I sent them that draft that I was going to add references, which I sent late yesterday, but the final version has not been posted yet unfortunately. I guess things were a little rushed presumably because they decided not to post Bob Carter’s article.

I’ve discussed many peer reviewed papers on my site. As it is, I went 500 words over the recommended length. Start here with the missing hot spot.

—————————————–

“If you’re going to argue that amplification from water vapour “simply isn’t there”, you have to explain why these empirically and theoretically based results are all wrong, or at the very least mean something other than they appear to.

Go look at the radiosonde graphs:
Squint hard and pretend that the graph of the data and the model predictions are really the same. Radiosondes are calibrated to 0.1 of a degree. They are looking for something much larger. There’s no hint it was found.

—————————————

[A commenter claims a NASA link shows the models were right]

That NASA page refers to Dressler 2008. Spencer points out that Dressler focuses on only one part of the picture, and when Spencer studies the total SW and LW feedback his results showed  negative feedback (but that they wouldn’t publish Spencers more comprehensive work, even though the half-picture of Dressler was acceptable).

“The other half of the feedback story which Dessler et al did not address is the reflected solar component. This feedback is mostly controlled by changes in low cloud cover with warming. The IPCC admits that feedbacks associated with low clouds are the most uncertain of all feedbacks, with positive or negative feedback possible…although most, if not all, IPCC models currently have positive SW feedbacks.

But I found from the CERES data a strongly negative SW feedback during 2002-2007. When added to the LW feedback, this resulted in a total (SW+LW) feedback that is strongly negative.

Is my work published? No…at least not yet…although I have tried. “

———————————

“McIntyre’s found nothing of significant consequence”

McIntyre destroyed the hockey stick graph — feed in random data and get the same shape. Hundreds upon hundreds of empirical studies show Mann was wrong as well.

———————————–

“It’s a lovely irony that almost the entire piece argues that skeptical science isn’t getting funded. And then it ends with…(unreferenced) claims referring to (presumably) published scientific work that disagrees on some level with the current consensus.

You don’t have to “be paid” to do published research (though it’s hard to get time for free at  say, the large hadron collider). McIntyre and McKitrick worked pro bono and were published for example.

I reference Lindzen and Spencer. So there are still two sceptical scientists who haven’t been sacked yet and this somehow disproves my point about the imbalance in funding? List the grants specifically available for people who are looking to investigate non-carbon causes for the recent warming?


But I can agree with Ms Nova on the broad point – more science is better than less. Science after all proceeds through skepticism (as distinct from what most AGW “skeptics” demonstrate). I look forward to Ms Nova calling for more government funding of climate science, and I will gladly join in.”

Yes, I want funding for climate science but not packaged in grants from a government department that wouldn’t exist if the results of the study go one way rather than the other.

Let’s fund research into solar-magnetic effects on the climate, or the PDO? It would help our farmers far more than throwing more money at falsified models which work from the assumption that carbon is very influential.

UPDATE:  Twawki has been asking questions about free speech, and protesting at the rejection of Carters article at the ABC and the Australian Press Council with interesting results.

UPDATE 2: More of my comments posted at #26 below


VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
The climate industry wall of money, 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post:

119 comments to The climate industry wall of money

  • #
    Michael not Mann

    It probably wouldn’t go anywhere, but an equal protection suit demanding that government fund the skeptical community on par with the funding they provide the AGW community would be interesting.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Jo,

    If the number of comments are anything to go by, it looks like your article may have resounded well with all but the few regular AGW trolls over at the ABC.

    Oh, wait, I just saw sphaerica get over there and make a posting. Wow, she finally got to use the “D” word, after all.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Jo Nova – Climate industry wall of money [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    Jo

    I noticed on Jack Herman’s (Executive Secratary of the Australian Press Council) profile he has won awards debating. Maybe then as the so called watchdog of the Australian MSM it would be a good challenge for him to debate the likes of Christopher Monckton! Would he rise to it?

    http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/about/office.html


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Jo,

    I am going to refrain from writing what I am thinking because you would have to snip it.

    The next time Sphaerica drops by this site I am going to logically tear her into itty, bitty pieces. What I did to Ed Darrel is going to look compassionate in comparison. I am so mad I could explode. She is singing a different tune at
    ABC than she does when she is here. Needless to say, I replied to her post and I restrained myself so it wouldn’t get censored. I called her out on her disingenuous, dishonest, deceitful lies. She has no class. She has no decency.

    Their posting rules say that the posts may seem one sided because thats the way the traffic floes. They also state that they can censor people for dominating. Translation: it is a rigged game to favor their side of the debate.

    Well, I am headed back over to the Den of iniquity. Anyone else who has the time to spare get your ass over there, please, with sugar on top!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Eddy I can’t find any comments between you and sphaerica on the site?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Jo,

    I would never presume to be capable of giving you advice. May I offer the following for your consideration.

    The drum site has a very long delay between post times making a debate nigh on impossible. So, rather than respond to commenters like lotharson, why not point this delay out and invite them here to your blog if they wish to debate the contents of your drum article?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    MattB:
    March 4th, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    Matt, you have enjoyed the hospitality of Jo Nova for many months now. You would have also read some of the disparaging comments at the Drum.

    I’m looking forward to seeing you defend(where appropriate) at the drum site, your long time host. (sort of like bringing a bottle of wine and a plate to the bbq)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    To be honest Baa the Drum is not really my cup of tea. I have posted a couple of things there but the arguments on either side are so predictable. You’ll note I said a kind word about you lot on one of Clive’s topics last week.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @MattB

    I am referring to her post at the ABC that I responded to, not here.

    I saw a cartoon on youtube that reminded me of our back and forth banter and yes, I am the sheepdog! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjRZpl_XU0M&feature=PlayList&p=CCBCA5121EF9DEE7&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=33

    Well, it is midnight here in Northern California and I got to get to get some sleep. I hope your child is letting you get your forty winks Matt!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Sorry Eddy I meant over at the drum too. I did a search for sphaerica and could not find a reply by yourself. Ahh well – it is all fairly tame over there anyway.

    That link sounds like it may be humorous… shame I’m going to ignore it;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    last night was a good night Eddy. The night before I got crowded out of bed by a 2 and 4 year old and slept in the oldest’s bed after a few hours of getting kicked and gently pushed out of bed. Thanks for asking.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @MattB

    My comment is being held in the queue awaiting the approval of the moderator, it may not get published.
    Now, for some sleep!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @That link sounds like it may be humorous… shame I’m going to ignore it;)

    LMAO Don’t worry, Baa and the rest of the gang will probably view it and give you the details:)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Jo Nova. Somehow the tables have turned. For all the smears of big money funding the “deniers”, the [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Michael not Mann

    McIntyre destroyed the hockey stick graph — feed in random data and get the same shape. Hundreds upon hundreds of empirical studies show Mann was wrong as well.

    I wonder how did those studies get past Penn States whitewash?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    janama

    they are editing Joanne’s comments at the ABC Drum.

    check it out for yourself.

    here is the documentation.

    http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Joanne_edited.doc


    Report this

    00

  • #

    As I see you are mentioning statistical research: I have put one of the most comprehensive link lists for hundreds of thousands of statistical sources and indicators on my blog: Statistics Reference List. And what I find most fascinating is how data can be visualised nowadays with the graphical computing power of modern PCs, as in many of the dozens of examples in these Data Visualisation References. If you miss anything that I might be able to find for you or if you yourself want to share a resource, please leave a comment.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Big Oil’s supposed evil influence has been vastly outdone by Big Government, and even those taxpayer billions are trumped by Big-Banking.

    Big oil IS government.

    National, Sovereign and State owned oil companies account for 80% of the world’s oil supplies.

    Fourth, that oil from non-OECD countries already accounts for almost 80% of world reserves and production, with most of this from state- owned or state controlled exploration and production facilities. Even the remaining four largest multi-national oil corporations already appear unable to secure significant new production rights, except as minority partners in state-run systems. This process is unlikely to be reversed, as all the large oil consuming nations of the developing world view self- sufficiency as a prime objective and will feel assured of this only in the context of nationally owned and operated companies.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    The link to the source I linked above isn’t there!

    :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    janama

    please don’t ignore my previous post. It’s serious. I want you all to download and save the file.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Frank Brown

    Janama #24
    I see your original at the ABC site but the replies are not the same as you have recorded. The comment flow is really difficult to follow, it’s like dozens of discussions (if you can call them that) going on at the same time. Seems like you have to start at the start everytime. How did you manage to keep track of your thread?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Frank, it appears that 20 replies in the Janama thread have disappeared. Odd?


    UPDATE
    – more comments (and answers from me) I know this is “indulgent” but it was sort of interesting at the time, and if you can’t be bothered trawling through the comments at the ABC you can come here. Eddy, Baa Humbug, Co2isnotevil, there are excellent responses over there (much more entertaining than mine) – cut and paste them over here (you never know which ones will disappear eh?)

    ————————————————————–

    Lotharsson : on Lindzen

    04 Mar 2010 5:43:49pm
    Ah, now we have some references for Ms Nova’s claims. That’s good – thanks for the update!
    IIRC Lindzen and Choi 2009 was panned for (a) using equations in their atmospheric model of questionable provenance if not outright incorrectness, and (b) looking at the tropics as if they were a closed system, and presuming that the results hold globally, when there are reasonable grounds to doubt that. But this is just from memory, so apply suitable skepticism.

    One of the critics was Spencer (of Spencer 2007 and Spencer 2008 fame):

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/some-comments-on-the-lindzen-and-choi-2009-feedback-study/

    He says their claimed results do not seem to be substantiated, although he tends to think climate sensitivity is low.
    It was also rapidly pointed by others that their results were not robust:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/

    If you make small adjustments to some relatively arbitrary choices for where a cooling or warming period ends, the whole effect disappears. There are several other serious criticisms in that post. There have also been a couple of published responses:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/first-published-response-to-lindzen-and-choi/…which all casts significant doubt on the work as it stands.

    Lindzen and Choi are apparently working on an update/revision to address the critiques. Let’s see what they come up with. As I said in other posts they are part of the scientific process, and should continue to push their particular angle as hard as they can to see if they can come up with something robust. It would be good for the climate if they were right, because it would mean that sensitivity is near the bottom end of the uncertainty range.
    ———————————————————-

    JN:

    You’re very fast to brush off a paper that even Real Climate et al took months to point out some critiscms of, and announced that they were decidedly “not obvious” errors. High praise from them.

    Jan 8 2010 RC
    “It will take a little time to assess the issues that have been raised (and these papers are unlikely to be the last word), but it is worth making a couple of points about the process. First off, LC09 was not a nonsense paper – that is, it didn’t have completely obvious flaws that should have been caught by peer review”

    And that Spencer (and Lubos Motls) were both critics before RC only suggests that the sceptical end of the spectrum is where the sharp end of the climate stick lies eh? This is cutting edge debate. You can bet the RC guys wanted to bust that paper from Day 1. After months they’ve made a contribution, which is useful and Lindzen has done some recalculating and we look forward to his tighter work.

    Lubos Motls gives a good run down on which of the points matter in the new Trenberth paper, and describes how influential they are. Lindzen may well have found major flaws in the models, and after the recalculations to include the missing black body radiation the revised climate sensitivity shift up from 0.5 to 0.82 degree C, still negative feedback.

    Hence I daresay that when top climate scientists on both sides are seriously still analyzing Lindzens method (months later), it’s a bit soon to claim that that therefore it’s a given, that all of humanity needs to up-end it’s economic and energy base for the sake of the models that still can’t predict anything significant.

    BTW The tropics are where the major feedback effects are supposed to be seen, and Lindzen was looking in …the tropics. It’s not that unreasonable to start there.

    Yes, there are points to be resolved, but it’s obvious that climate models are inadequate, climate science is struggling forth to figure things out, and the debate is running strong. And yes actually Lindzen 2009 is worth paying attention too, even if the last word is not in.

    ———————————————————–

    Lotharsson : on Spencer

    04 Mar 2010 6:06:14pm
    So, that suggests Lindzen and Choi 2009 does not provide strong empirical evidence for low climate sensitivity. What about Spencer?

    As far as I can tell Spencer’s work is largely being ignored by the climate science community (perhaps because he’s considered to have degraded his reputation by publishing dodgy papers – but I’m not a climate scientist, so take that observation particularly skeptically. His belief in Intelligent Design which was a considered assessment of the issue back when it was called Creationism has probably not helped either.)

    At the very least Google Scholar suggests that no other scientist has cited his 2007 paper (which I presume is this one – http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf), which likely means they either found it unremarkable, unimportant, unworthy, or weren’t aware of it. Of course they could be boycotting him, and the paper could have merit even if not cited by others.

    I recall seeing one commentary on his 2007 paper saying that he was drawing steady-state equilibrium conclusions from a carefully chosen point in time in a dynamic event, and these conclusions were not warranted. I have no particular deep insight into how accurate this assessment is, although I note Spencer’s paper points out he’s studying short term dynamics which one cannot assume translate to climate:

    “While the time scales addressed here are short and not necessarily indicative of climate time scales, it must be remembered that all moist convective adjustment occurs on short time scales.”

    He also sees applicability of his results to the testing of climate models.
    You might find some analysis of another Spencer presentation in 2008 (which is probably not the same as Ms Nova’s Spencer 2008 – his website lists three papers that year so I don’t know which one she means) at

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/spencers-folly/

    and IIRC some commentary on Spencer 2007 (“Cloud and radiation budget changes….”) buried deeper in the comments.>
    ————–

    JN: Seriously? You use argument from authority, and ad hominem attacks, and then google searches and then cut n pasting links from sites and you can’t explain the “flaws” yourself…

    (BTW As far as irrelevant google searches go, I suspect that other scientists might cite his original GRL paper and not just the pdf stored on his site. I linked to it so you could read it in full.)

    I also included a link to Spencer 2008, but somehow mysteriously it disappeared from the ABC update, but you can see it on my site.
    —————
    MJMI :
    04 Mar 2010 3:43:52pm

    For my sins I used to be associated with the Science Communication course at ANU, as was this author. But I stopped reading this article when I reached the meaningless phrase “carbon friendly initiative”. Science communication? – I don’t think so. How much glib drivel and how many empty statements are we to be subjected to in the name of balance when it is science which is the issue?

    I am concerned that there is global climate change and that the release of carbon from the consumption of fossil fuels over a comparatively short time is a factor. Despite all the huffing and puffing and the many claims of the sceptics and deniers, the view of the vast majority of informed and reputable climate scientists is that this is a serious problem for the planet.

    —————————–

    I loved that Science Communication course, except that like most science courses in Australia it doesn’t teach logic and reason, and that’s a travesty. If it did, the anonymous commentor above would realize that huffing about “vast majorities” of scientists is a logical fallacy, and rather unscientific.

    This is why we got into so much trouble. If science communicators had been trained to think instead of just rubber stamping UN press releases they would have busted this debacle of science back ten years ago. Right about the time people started throwing insults instead of evidence, science journalists would have started asking hard questions instead of nodding as if “denier” were a scientific term.

    Science communicators have let us down.
    (So carbon friendly initiatives is “drivel” but “denier” is ok? really?)

    ——————————————————————

    Lothar…
    By that logic, Exxon with a 2008 annual *profit* of $45 billion USD and $19 billion in 2009 (let alone US taxpayer subsidies also in the billions) has far more motivation that the WWF & Greenpeace put together. After all, Exxon’s business is almost all based on fossil fuels, whereas Greenpeace & WWF address other concerns too.
    —————–

    JN:
    No Exxon makes a product millions of people voluntarily hand over money for, and apparently keep handing over money for it even if the price rises.

    WWF and Greenpeace sell non-essential products based on their reputation for achieving something useful. If they turn out to be exposed as gullible fools who backed a scam (or worse), they “go out of business”.

    ——————————————-
    Commenter? on Venus
    Actually, Venus is about the same size as Earth and is known as our “sister planet”. Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulphur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C.

    This makes Venus’s surface hotter than Mercury’s which has a minimum surface temperature of −220 °C and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C (Mercury has very little atmosphere and rotates very slowly – 176 Earth days), even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury’s distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury’s solar irradiance.
    —–

    JN: Venus’s atmosphere is 90 times denser than Earth’s. That all by itself pretty much explains the heat.
    Mars BTW also has high CO2, but is frigid. Thin atmosphere eh? See Here.
    —————
    Sorry this all seems so long….


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] The Climate Industry Wall of Money « JoNovarel=”nofollow” [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] The Climate Industry Wall of Money « JoNova [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Baa Humbug

    Thanks for watching my back over at the drum. I actually sent two replies when I was asked for links to support my post, and then had two references suggested that I should check out at Deltoids Blog. I replied in both that I give Deltoid no credence. Funny neither have yet made it onto the site, I can’t work out whether they didn’t want to publish my links because they supported my post and couldn’t be rebuked, or whether saying he has no credence, maybe when in my second attempt to uphold my rite to reply I went too far when I suggested Deltoid’s vision was impaired, that he couldn’t see past his own reflection.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Bob/Baa Humbug/Janama,

    I noticed that the Warmist posts were getting up much more rapidly than mine. Can’t prove it though.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    @Bob #30:-

    With the delays to posts appearing, the inability to display basic formating or make clickable links, maybe all the losing of whole blocks of posts & references, is just down to it being a rubbish site – and nothing more sinister.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Michael not Mann #17: PSU did not look at the hockey stick since:
    1: It predated his tenure
    2: They were not investigating the science, only obstruction.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Jo,

    Most of my posts got published at the Drumline. The reason the activity is slow here today is because a lot of the regulars are busy over there. I hope Krueger is okay, we sure could use his help.

    @ MattB

    Joe has been extremely gracious and tolerant. You may be a proponent of AGW but I am sure you are busy posting on Jo’s behalf at the ABC to defend her against the ad hominem attacks, aren’t you? That would explain your absence from posting here today. I am sure your posts at the ABC are just awaiting moderation! Never let it be said that MattB is an ingrate!

    I got to get some work done. I will be back ASAP!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    G’morning all

    Unfortunately I had broadband problems last night so couldn’t log on.
    I haven’t sensed any concerted censoring at the drum. I doubt censors care who or what comments so long as they’re not liabelous.
    I had about 12 of my comments not posted at all. But that’s just the way it is.
    I invited lotharsson to Jo’s site for a debate. He may not post here but I guarantee he peruses our comments.

    So what about it Lothar, up for a debate in real time? Get all your deltoid and realclimate quote cut & pastes ready.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    CyberForester

    It is worthwhile making the point that the Carbon Market is not a “free” market. It is/is to be legislated for by many Governments. Emitters will be forced to purchase units and as such they are not “free” to act. Yet another erosion of freedom/alienation of personal property.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Frank Brown

    Copied from the ABC drum site as follows…
    How to cool the planet :
    05 Mar 2010 12:03:09am
    What Australia really needs, is a scheme for farmers who could be subsidised to grow native bush instead of sheep. Subsidised oxygen farms, instead of subsidised livestock.

    I am sure farmers would welcome a subsidy to clad their land in cooling ground cover, over having to raise dying flocks on dry barren land or shear in sweltering woolsheds as temperatures continue to soar.

    Farmers are already heavily subsidised to help them survive Australia’s harsh climate, so a change of focus from raising sheep and cattle to growing environmentally suitable ground cover would mean that Australia’s farming subsidy budget could remain within the same monetary range. Not a penny extra need be spent to reverse damaging land management practice.

    If oxygen farms in Australia were successful, Australia could even sell “oxygen” credits to international emission traders.

    Reply Alert moderator

    I thought I would remind this person of the case of Mr. Spencer that JN detailed. Time and space is not me so I think everyone is asleep..so I figure it didn’t make the cut. Still 493 comments pro and con are just amazing considering the reception the earlier scient sceptics had. keep pounding JN et all..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Jo,

    Your comments on Venus are opinions, not scientific facts based on measurements. 5 space probes sent to Venus to measure it’s various physical properties showed that it’s surface radiated more energy than it received from the sun. The scientists who reported on that reckoned this was due to instrument malfunction as the results were too high.

    This approach to real measured data is no different to Kevin Trenberth’s response to measured temperature data conflicting with his presumption, or belief, that increased CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere will raise that atmosphere’s thermal state.

    In Venus’ case the prevailing view is that it is 4,500 million years old (based on what measurement of its age, and if that is possible in the first place), and until the space probes reached it, asserted to be our sister planet with an equitable climate much like Earth. That earlier view was based on what scientific established data? None, just wishful thinking by intellectuals.

    I put precedence to the space probe measured data that shows Venus emitting more radiation that it emits from the Sun, especially the measurements from various probes, of very high upwelling radiation from from its surface as summarised by Ackerman’s paper on Venus (and criticised on Lambert’s blog). (The rest of the conclusions made by Ackerman are controversial and irrelevant to this particular comment, though his argument that Venus’ atmosphere might be made of sulphur than CO2 seems plausible).

    Venus’ elevated thermal state is not due to a runaway greenhouse effect, since that mechanism has not been demonstrated to be possible from physical experiment, It is, however deemed plausible by intellectual argument, much as Creationists argue similarly. These are arguments based on intellectual authority and verbal virtuosity, not from observed and measured objective facts.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    I owe the drum an apology, still no sign of my first reply but the second is now up. It only took 4+ hours.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I have to admit, I really enjoyed reading the alternative venus theory. I hve no idea if it is plausible but just form an interst point of view I thought it was a great read.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    They’ve pulled in Garth Paltridge to write an article instead of Bob Carter.

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2837328.htm

    BTW – Bob Carter’s article is here

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/03/hansenist-climate-alarmism


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hey Matt,

    i hope you got a good nights sleep. I was thinking of youn this morning as I wanted to go back to sleep but duty called.

    So, how many posts did you put up at the ABC to help Jo? A lot of mine are still in the queue. They sure were nasty with those vicious personal attacks they were making on Jo! What did you think when you saw them, Matt?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Eddy I really didn’t notice anything that jumped out at me and made me think of chipping in sorry.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    on unleashed front page they have a section called hot topics – Jo has 580+ comments yet Bob Ellis rambling on about Fraser with 289 comments is classified as Hot and Jo isn’t :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ANGRY

    Bali-Hoo: U.N Still Pushing for Global Environmental Control

    Despite the debacle of the failed Copenhagen climate change conference last December, the United Nations is pressing full speed ahead with a plan for a greatly expanded system of global environmental governance and for a multitrillion-dollar economic transfer scheme to ignite the creation of a “global green economy.”

    MORE:-
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587426,00.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Lol Eddy and all I’ve ended up doing it commenting on your posts trying to keep you in check;) Sorry!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @MattB

    This site wouldn’t be the same without you!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I think that’s why Jo lets me stay – I’m good for business. I’m the wrestler you get to boo.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @MattB

    LMAO! You ever think about doing stand up comedy?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Baa Humbug #9 Eddy # 34
    Does the fact that I failed to post on the ABC make me an ingrate along with MattB.
    If you feel that getting into circular arguments and cut/paste wars with AGW supporters is supportive of Jo’s efforts that’s fine but your comments presume that people like myself who refuse to waste their time in futile exchanges with the opposition are in some way letting Jo down and that is not acceptable.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Allen, In the most humble and respectful way I ask: what are you doing then?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    allen mcmahon:
    March 5th, 2010 at 3:53 pm

    May I suggest Allen that you try not to take mine and Eddys comments personally. In the context of the long ongoing to and fro between Matt and us, our comments are quite acceptable.

    Certain “relationships” develop between long time bloggers. I have one with Matt where I would slam Matt at every opportunity with gusto and pleasure, (and he me) but if someone was to attack him personally I will be the first to defend him vigorously.

    A suggestion I make to someone “I know” should not be interpreted as a suggestion to all and sundry. So please do not take offence, none was meant.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Mark D
    Lets see ,working on the farm, spending time with family, perusing various personal interests, enjoying life. How about you?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kilted Mushroom

    I have only visited this site six or seven times, mainly because it is Australian based. I think that Jo is up there with the best but badly let down by her contributors. Perhaps when the Australian MSM gets more involved [with the program} more intelligent discussion will take place. At present it seems more of a chat room. Not too surprising really given the level of debate, or lack of, here in Australia at all levels.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter of Sydney

    I hear Katrina victims are suing oil companies for causing the hurricanes due to global warming. LOL. If it’s true oil companies are funding much of the AGW fraud then it’s sweet justice. Perhaps that’s what we need. Let’s all sue the oil companies for trillions. Watch them turn around and not only rubbish AGW but prove this it is a hoax, scientifically and in the courts. With all their resources it wouldn’t be that hard.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Baa Humbug
    I was merely joining in the game,just playing for the opposite team. I have been told that sarcasm will be the death of me.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    MattB:
    March 5th, 2010 at 10:17 am
    I have to admit, I really enjoyed reading the alternative venus theory. I hve no idea if it is plausible but just form an interst point of view I thought it was a great read.

    Matt, you don’t seem to understand the scientific method – measured data are primary, and in Ackerman’s paper he writes that the source he cited, attributed the anomalous readings to instrument error etc.

    I had a similar experience last week during a consultation with my geophysical contractors who, when informed of the in-situ measurements of the earth’s gravity field derived from a downhole surveying instrument, pointed to a mass in the air above the instrument. Reality was that the instrument was overloaded with the gravity field (ie, it was not designed to cope with gravity fields of that magnitude).

    The lesson this example shows is that mainstream science, dominated by academics/intellectuals closeted in offices, and disconnected from physical reality, quickly dismiss contradictory data as nonsense. They do this because their views are not accountable to real world facts. The geophysicists I have to deal with cannot comprehend this intellectually, sad to say.

    It is on this experience base that I also reject the AGW hypothesis, since it is, when all said and done, a political contrivance to extract more money from the private sector to fund the public. It exists because all socialists don’t understand human action, and the role money plays in achieving the goals which acting humans aim at.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    This new post at WUWT is a must read.

    The uber alarmists are really circling the wagons. They want to take out full page newspaper ads to denugrate sceptics.

    Read here


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Jo you get an honorable mention from Richard North
    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/five-times-cost-of-manhattan-project.html
    had to smile at the ‘understatement’


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Peter of Sydney:
    March 5th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
    I hear Katrina victims are suing oil companies for causing the hurricanes due to global warming. LOL. If it’s true oil companies are funding much of the AGW fraud then it’s sweet justice. Perhaps that’s what we need.

    Peter, Governments control 95% of the world’s oil via outright control or qangos.

    Sue government, the state?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jaytee

    I’m an avid reader of this blog, and a sometime poster. So, tell me, is everything OK??? Addy A and Matt B having a cuddle??? That can’t be right.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jaytee

    I guess I meant Eddy A, but you knew that, Didn’t you??


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    allen mcmahon:
    March 5th, 2010 at 8:47 pm

    Allen the link doesn’t work

    Jaytee, yes you’re seeing things. Not so much a cuddle but you know the touch of gloves before each round? More like that lol


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    I vaguely mentioned the “missing” advertised articles by Carter and Hendrickx as a reason for Paltridge’s rather light-weight contribution on The Drum.

    My comment was censored.

    Their ABC: Rewriting today’s history, as it happens.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Baa Humbug.
    use this link to reach the article Allen mentioned. Five times the cost of the Manhattan project. It’s the second article on the page.

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    dave ward

    Jo, You will no doubt be aware of the pro AGW bias of the BBC, so I was rather surprised when I spotted a 20 minute programme entitled “Our World – The Rise of the Sceptics” hidden away on BBC2 at 4am this morning. It features Australia, opening with a view of parched farmland, and talking about the long running drought. It then cut to a clip filmed at one of Lord Moncktons lectures. Prof Ian Pilmer is also interviewed.

    Various clips feature farming communities which, it is claimed, are “hotbeds” of climate scepticism. Senator Barnaby Joyce is shown addressing local communities about the ETS. The rest is filmed in Canberra and discusses the recent political developments.

    I know this won’t normally be viewable outside the U.K. but maybe you can use a proxy? It does show the tide is turning, but it’s rather shameful to hide it away when only a handful of viewers will see it.

    The link is here:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00r9pxf/Our_World_The_Rise_of_the_Sceptics/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Louis in #57 – don’t be so quick to snipe. I thought it was a very interesting article. I’d need to devote a lot more time to really get the whole thing. Would you rather I just called it loony tunes science?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    @ Dave Ward #66:
    Ha ha. That must be the BBC’s token attempt at balancing the biased reporting .

    It must be from the film crew that were shadowing Lord Monckton’s tour of Aus. I’m sure he’ll be pleased.

    Like the Draft Text for the Copenhagen Agreement for the new World ‘Governance structure’, being ‘published’ as an addendum to a note & burried deep on some obscure UN website – Plausible publishing.
    Now we have plausible balance by plausible broadcasting, at 4am in the morning indeed. That’s not even Open University time.

    Anyway thanks Dave for pointing it out. Now we know it’s out & the title we can try searching for it being scheduled at some more godly hour.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Dave Ward, Thanks for the BBC link. Unfortunately we can’t see it here.
    Is it possible for someone to You tube it the way the UK parliamentary panel was done? (Is that legal?)

    I’m keen to see it. The word I heard was that the people filming it spent quite a lot of time doing it and it promised to be a real documentary. Hearing that it’s published with a low profile does (like Joe) remind me of the Copenhagen Text. When someone asks the BBC in ten years time why they let down the taxpaying public, they will be able to point to it and say “We were one of the first to cover skeptics”.

    And to the earlier commenter who said this was like a chat room, – many serious commentors are “off-site” (at the ABC) and we’ve discussed the money at length before on this blog. The ABC article is essentially a rephrasing of the paper I put out in July, not news to regular readers here.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Louis #38 – I’m not sure what you are referring too regarding Venus. I didn’t describe much about Venus– just atmospheric density and lapse rates (thanks to Maurizio Morabito: http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/venus-missing-greenhouse-warming/#comments). Yes, he’s just doing calculations, but it seems to add up consistently.

    I didn’t mean to infer anything about underground warming. I steered clear of that because it’s not something I have looked into. I wasn’t aware that recordings show Venus emits more energy than it receives. That is a very interesting story… another tip-off that there is more going on underfoot than we realize?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    To be scrupulously fair to the Beeb ( & why not), we would seem to have been missing it on a regular basis, from their past schedule of transmissions, on BBC World:

    Sat 27 Feb 2010 05:30 BBC News Channel
    Sat 27 Feb 2010 14:30 BBC News Channel
    Sun 28 Feb 2010 03:30 BBC News Channel
    Sun 28 Feb 2010 10:30 BBC News Channel
    Sun 28 Feb 2010 14:30 BBC News Channel
    Sun 28 Feb 2010 23:30 BBC News Channel
    Fri 5 Mar 2010 03:30 BBC News Channel

    Apparently we have 6 days left to see it at I-Player, if anyone can find a way … – http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r9pxf#broadcasts


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    There’s a link to this:- The Rise of the Sceptics, film on BBC World News at the bottom of this article on your very own favourite ABC Drum site:-
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2833577.htm
    does it work for any of you ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    canadian

    It is interesting that for some odd reason, you lump all funding given to scientific research into climate change as somehow “funding the warming business”. Seems to me that the funding of research could easily be allocated to the “skeptics” column as it is research aimed at determining the causes of climate change and global warming.

    Allocating all of the research to the “warming” side is an absolute admission that rational and dispassionate scientific research will inevitably support the case for anthropogenic global warming.

    The single best source for completely unbiased purely science-based research into climate change will be found via various Naitonal Academies of Science. As you should be aware, membership in the National Academies is through a rigorous election process involving peer review from fellow scientists. Thus, members are completely impartial and actually are “eminent” in their field as chosen by their peers. I trust you have read much of their published work?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Someone has already youtubed the rise of the skeptics – parts 1 and 2.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYT7XzmVk9c

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D62KlTp9kCg


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Canadian:

    You are joking at #73, aren’t you?

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    Canadian @ #73 Certainly had me rolling in the aisles


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    canadian:
    March 6th, 2010 at 5:01 am

    ??????
    Are you OK canadian?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    canadian

    Yeah, Veragio, I guess the concept of science is funny to those who choose not to believe it when it gives answers we don’t like.

    “Good luck with all that” as Seinfeld said. LOL

    To those just as slow as Veragio, the point is that the funding is predominately for scientific research, which determines its own answers. Calling it innately supportive of the “warmists” is a tacit admission that science and scientific inquiry clearly favour and support the argument that AGW is real and significant.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    george

    Canadian @ #73
    “Allocating all of the research to the “warming” side is an absolute admission that rational and dispassionate scientific research will inevitably support the case for anthropogenic global warming.”

    Correct – unfortunately it is a classic manifestation of the principle of Reverse Engineering to support a pre-determined contention. One of the cornerstones of the facilitation of Comrade Lysenko`s approach to science, for instance.

    And that is assuming, of course, the caveat of a genuinely “rational and dispassionate” process – which then generates an obvious conundrum in relation to the particular contention being held in the first instance…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Joanne @ 70

    The reason I emphasise Venus is because it is the basis for Hansen’s AGW belief. Demonstrate that Venus’ thermal state is not due to a runaway greenhouse effect and we take the wind out of the AGW sails. Hence my reference to Ackerman’s paper and his summary of the “measured” data from the various Venus probes sent by the US and the USSR over the years.

    The reason Sagan and Pollack proposed the runaway greenhouse effect was to counter a previous hypothesis put by Velikovsky from his understanding of Middle East history, that if his interpretation of that history was correct, then certain tests could be made, including the idea that Venus would be intensely hot because it was a recent addition to the solar system as inferred from our ancestors beliefs recorded as myth. He also proposed that Jupiter would emit radio signals, etc.

    The geophysicist Harry Hess, of Princeton University, wrote Velikovsky a letter pointing out that each and every hypothesis put for scientific testing ended up being in his favour once science had the means by which to test those hypotheses.

    But as Ackerman’s summary shows, and it happens often in mainstream science, preconceptions, here that prior to the probes Venus was similar in climate to Earth, seem to dictate what data are accepted and not accepted. Notice that despite the probes showing increasing radiation as the probe was getting closer to Venus’ surface, that data were unexpected and rising to quickly and therefore had to be faulty. Huh?

    Notice that the same approach is taken in climate science when Kevin Trenberth started questioning the measured data that wasn’t fitting into the AGW hypothesis.

    It is this rejection of data that contradicts the prevailing hypothesis that is the root problem – it’s blatantly unscientific.

    How science got into this state has to be traced back to the 19th Century when Lyell and the Whigs used geology for political purposes to eject the Tories from government. What Lyell did profoundly affected since ever since – Lyell’s method was the application of verbal virtuosity to convince his opponents of the truth of his statement without needing to back it up with empirical fact. Basically we can’t in geology because the past cannot be changed, though the post-modernists have no difficulty rewriting history, including geology.

    Hence the Sagan/Pollack method of countering Velikovsky was to propose an alternative physical explanation that to this day has not been experimentally verified in the laboratory, (though it should be easily done), a runaway greenhouse effect. Notice that Sagan/Pollack used argument from authority as well.

    The data shows that Venus is hot because most of the energy being radiation comes from it internally, as the probe data suggest. If that is the case then a runaway greenhouse effect on earth is equally impossible.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    Dear canadian ,

    If you were indeed being serious @73:, your faith in the purity of the process is endearing and as you say it may be, the best we have.

    Recent inadvertent insights to the inner workings, may have made some of us rather sceptical and forgetful of the diligence & enthusiasm with which the overwhelming majority of scientists undoubtedly pursue their professions.

    Please accept my sincere & humblest apologies for misunderstanding your serious point.

    Joe


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Thanks Janama for the link above.

    Just had a look, Found it pretty well balanced. Not that I’m against minimizing all forms of pollution. Contrary to how others view us we’re all green within reason, and that’s where the problem starts. Just like religion when zealots become involved reason is left outside.

    I was disturbed by what Nick Rowley had to say, he still thinks the drought, Gores film and Hurricane Katrina are reason for us all to convert and join his faith. He also says Australia and Asia should de-link from energy growth, industrial growth and economic growth or we’re doomed. He then says green infrastructure and technology will lead us back to economic growth. He’s relying on the punter not knowing how much subsidies green energy needs to become competitive.

    Here’s a passage from Nine Lies About Global Warming.

    http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/lav2006-forWeb.pdf

    Shutting down coal-fired power stations and replacing them with renewable energy sources such as windmills and solar panels (or even nuclear power plants) will not cause unemployment or economic deprivation. The Environmentalists persist in denying the economic consequences of decarbonisation. In one particular sense they are theoretically correct. If we were all to give up our motor cars and ride bicycles instead; if we were content to use electricity only when the wind was blowing; if we were prepared to give up the use of fertilizers and tractors; in effect if we were prepared to accept a standard of living similar to that of our forebears of the early nineteenth century; we could still all be employed, although working at night would be difficult in the absence of electricity. In the early 1990s Aaron Wildavsky noted the implications of decarbonisation: Global warming is the mother of environmental scares. In the scope of its consequences for life on planet Earth and the immense size of its remedies, global warming dwarfs all the environmental and safety scares of our time put together. Warming (and warming alone), through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption, is capable of realizing the environmentalist’s dream of an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favour of a smaller population’s eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally. The costs of abandoning coal-based electricity in Australia would result in the demise of most of our export industries, namely, mining, metals processing, agriculture, and food processing, which are highly energy intensive and thus benefit from low-cost electricity. The numbers are important. Coal-based power in Australia costs about $30–$40 per Megawatt hour (MWh). Nuclear power, the only practical alternative to coal, costs $70–$80 per MWh, about twice what we now pay. Windmills, which generate electricity when the wind is blowing, cost about $80–$130 per MWh, but require backup from reliable sources which makes them completely uneconomic. They are currently being built on pristine coast lines and mountain ranges because of the substantial subsidies which electricity consumers provide to the operators of these behemoths. The burning of fuels such as bagasse, straw, sawdust, to generate electricity is commercially attractive when the fuel is essentially a waste product (eg bagasse), with a negative value. This happens without the need for legislation or subsidies. Solar power costs anything between $300 and $500 per MWh and is available when the sun is shining.

    I’m not going to call John Conner from the Climate Institute a liar for saying we are one of the worst polluters and in-efficiant economy’s in the world but I do know when it comes to producing cement Australia emits .8 tonne of co2 for every tonne of cement, China on the other hand produces over one tonne of co2 per tonne of cement. I believe but don’t hold me to this China emits between 1.2 and 1.4 tonnes of co2 per tonne of cement. Whose the most efficient here but when the ETS makes production in Australia too expensive we’re not doing the world a favor by sending production to CHINA.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Canadian@78

    Calling it innately supportive of the “warmists” is a tacit admission that science and scientific inquiry clearly favour and support the argument that AGW is real and significant.

    I have to disagree. In the case of AWG the science has been subverted by the opportunism of a small but influential number of scientists, politicians, extreme environmentalists and a plethora of ‘green’ parasites. No big conspiracy, just human nature at play when there are inadequate checks and balances.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    NB: The Australian spelling of skeptic is “sceptic”

    Wrong, wrong wrong. The CORRECT spelling of the word “skeptic” is “sceptic,” and it is pronounced, “septic,” as in “septic tank.”

    sorry I’m in a wacky mood today


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    When we talk about the IPCC (the definitive climate science reference according to them) we’re not really talking about real science are we? We’re talking more about politics.

    Donna Laframbois of no frakking science fame has been at it again exposing more of the “peer review not” of the IPCC

    Seems chapter 11 of WG3 cites 330 references to support their case. Of these, 139 were NOT peer reviewed or were from grey literature. That’s 42% of the cited papers.

    Read more here


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Canadian:

    At #78 you say:

    I guess the concept of science is funny to those who choose not to believe it when it gives answers we don’t like.

    I agree. So perhaps you would like to comment on these “answers” that science has given.

    1. The anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and global temperature do not correlate.

    2. Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration follows change to global temperature at all time scales.

    3. Recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.
    Global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose to 1998, and has fallen since. That’s 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming. Global temperature is now similar to that of 1990. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940. It has increased by 8% since 1990.

    4. Rise in global temperature has not been induced by anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide.
    Over 80% of the emissions have been since 1940 and the emissions have been increasing at a compound rate. But since 1940 there have been 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming. There’s been no significant warming since 1995, and global temperature has fallen since the high it had in the El Nino year of 1998.

    5. The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent.
    The hypothesis predicts most warming of the air at altitude in the tropics. Measurements from weather balloons and from satellites both show cooling at altitude in the tropics.

    So, the normal rules of science say the AGW-hypothesis is completely refuted.
    Nothing predicted by the hypothesis is observed, and the opposite of some of its predictions are observed.

    Then, in the light of these “answers”, perhaps you would care to read the ‘statements’ on AGW by the UK’s RS and th USA’s NAS, and explain how they can be equated with your assertion at #73 that says:

    The single best source for completely unbiased purely science-based research into climate change will be found via various Naitonal Academies of Science. As you should be aware, membership in the National Academies is through a rigorous election process involving peer review from fellow scientists. Thus, members are completely impartial and actually are “eminent” in their field as chosen by their peers.

    National Academies exist to represent the interests of their Members. As you say , they are ‘closed shops’ with self-selected Members. And many of their Members are riding on the AGW gravy train, so the National Academies have to stoke the fire of scaremongering which powers that gravy train.

    If you want science then read scientific papers. If you want political spin then read statements of National Academies.

    As always, follow the money.

    Richard

    PS I will not be able to respond to comments for some time because I am chiring a Conference. I will reply to any responses when I can (probably in a few days)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    MattB:
    March 6th, 2010 at 12:20 am
    Louis in #57 – don’t be so quick to snipe. I thought it was a very interesting article. I’d need to devote a lot more time to really get the whole thing. Would you rather I just called it loony tunes science?

    You just have, and I have to agree with Steve Short, you really are a twit, perhaps a (ni)twit.

    All it shows is that for your camp debate is the deciding factor, whether put crassly as coarse statements, or speciously when cloaked in scientese or mathematics. Yet you seem not to have taken on board the basic observation that the various scientists that Ackerman cited, who wrote the papers, generally dismissed the probe measurements as “erroneous”, or not possible.

    Compare that with Kevin Trenberth’s much publicised statement that they can’t explain the lack of warming, and that it’s a tragedy they can’t. Again, physical measurement of data results in unexpected results and the DATA is questioned instead of the hypothesis under test.

    The AGW people are not doing science, they are doing advocacy using the scientific method.

    But as posted above, the WHOLE AGW hypothesis is founded on Hansen’s belief that Venus is hot because of an unproved, in a scientific sense, runaway greenhouse effect. If that idea is wrong, then AGW has to collapse.

    (And I won’t even bother with the nonsense posted by Lambert’s thread wrt to this issue).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Andrew Bolt reports that Australia will spend 800 million on climate change research this year.

    If the image thingy didn’t work link here

    Bolts article here


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Louis Hissink @87:

    The AGW people are not doing science, they are doing advocacy using the scientific method.

    It would be difficult to explain it more simply than this sentence!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I had to post this here as a lot of my posts didn’t get published at the ABC Drum unleashed. I got the idea from a poster on Jo’s website. Thanks, whoever you are!

    Stormboy :
    05 Mar 2010 8:10:46pm
    Jo Nova, you certainly have a gift at sleight of hand with the truth. As a scientist working in a climate related field and using all that dirty research money, I can tell you straight that at no time ever has my funding been dependent upon a belief in AGW. I am completely free to research something and come up with a finding that says CO2 emissions are not causing the current climate change, that the climate is not changing or that if it changes it would not cause any problems. You can use that money to show that carbon trading will destroy the economy or that it really all is just a communist plot if you like. The money you talked about is not there to prove AGW, it is there to investigate it and educate people how to deal with what the evidence has shown. The fact that the number of peer-reviewed papers refuting AGW is so very low is because there is no evidence.

    On the other hand – oil & coal fuel our energy and transport, which undergird our economic growth. The population is convinced that cutting emissions cuts the economy – we’re in exactly the same position as the British Empire was when William Wilberforce challenged slavery. Slavery was believed to carry the economy just as oil and coal are believed to now. But they found a way then and we can find a way now; we just need the spine to stand up to charlaitans and self-interest.

    My reply:

    Stromboy,

    You certainly have a gift at sleight of hand with the truth. As the President of a well service company working to squeeze the last drop of oil out of every existing well and earning an honest living and helping to provide the base load energy necessary for our society to exist , I can tell you with a straight face that at no time ever has my livelihood been dependent upon a belief in AGW, a falsified theory that a small cabal of so called scientists use to milk the taxpayer and keep the gravy train rolling. Climate scientists are completely free to research something and come up with a finding that says CO2 emissions are not causing the current climate change, that the climate is not changing or that if it changes it would not cause any problems. However, as the climate-gate emails leaked by someone at the CRU with a conscience show you will be blackballed and ostracized and your funding will probably dry up. If you use that grant money to show that carbon trading will destroy the economy or that it really all is just a communist plot if you like then you will be unemployed and your family will suffer. The money you talked about is there to prove AGW, it is not there to investigate it and educate people how to deal with what the evidence has shown. In fact, there are numerous peer-reviewed papers refuting AGW and despite the overwhelming evidence falsifying the theory it is amazing that so many of these papers were published in peer reviewed journal,s considering the conspiracy led by the climate cabal at the CRU to obstruct the publication of anyone or any paper that disagreed with their bogus, falsified theory.

    On the other hand – oil & coal fuel our energy and transport, which undergird our economic growth. The population is convinced that cutting emissions cuts the economy – we’re in exactly the same position as the British Empire was when William Wilberforce challenged slavery. Slavery was believed to carry the economy just as oil and coal are believed to now. Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin and made slavery uneconomical. However, there were southerners who held on to their falsified belief despite the evidence to the contrary and this caused the bloodiest war in the history of the United States. But they found a way then and we can find a way now; we just need the spine to stand up to charlaitans and self-interest who are producing nothing of value for humanity and waisting funds that could have been spent on the betterment of humanity or reducing budget deficits while providing relief to the taxpayer which would have benefitted the economy and further improved the standard of living for everyone.

    Lets end this insanity and drive the AGW scam off the cliff of existence and consign it to the dustbin of history.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Kilted Mushroom:
    March 5th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
    I have only visited this site six or seven times, mainly because it is Australian based. I think that Jo is up there with the best but badly let down by her contributors. Perhaps when the Australian MSM gets more involved [with the program} more intelligent discussion will take place. At present it seems more of a chat room. Not too surprising really given the level of debate, or lack of, here in Australia at all levels.

    Wow! Thank you for condescending to post here. Besides a sycophantic ranting and a few ad hominems aimed at the people who post here, could you please enlighten us with your wisdom! Or, were you just here to “chat”?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ canadian 73 and 78

    Do you live in a parallel universe where everybody is honest and nobody suffers from the human condition!? In your universe is everything on the internet true and the tabloids print only the unvarnished truth? I sure hope it isn’t one of those matter canceling out antimatter situations because it sounds like a wonderful place and I want to move there!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB:
    March 5th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
    Lol Eddy and all I’ve ended up doing it commenting on your posts trying to keep you in check;) Sorry!

    Matt, you can combine stand up comedy with a ventriloquist act as you have the ability to keep talking even after you stick your foot in your mouth!

    Allow me to illustrate:

    Peter Pan :
    05 Mar 2010 9:29:51am
    You are not a top climate scientist either yet you are prepared to write off the whole of climate science on the strength of a supposed missing hot-spot when the uncertainties are so large.

    Do you not see the gaping flaws and inconsistencies in your logic?

    eddy Aruda :
    05 Mar 2010 11:19:30am
    Wow, another appeal to authority. Where is it written that only a climate scientist can speak the truth about AGW? Do they have a holy of holies in the AGW church where only the chosen few are alowed to view the texts containing the sacred knowledge? Is that why the climate scientists are loathe to reveal and share their raw data?

    Sounds more like gnosis than science to me!

    Mattb :
    05 Mar 2010 12:58:41pm
    Eddy he/she did not say you needed to be a climate scientist, rather that he/she is as entitled to their opinion as Jo. There was no appeal to authority

    What part of:

    Peter Pan :
    05 Mar 2010 9:29:51am
    You are not a top climate scientist either yet…

    don’t you get, Matt? Peter Pan is saying that because Jo is not a “top climate scientists” her argument has no weight. There are legitimate appeals to authority (e.g. your doctor prescribes medicine so it is okay to accept him as an authority) However, if you go to a doctor and later find out he lost his license for malpractice I would get a second opinion before taking the medicine that the unlicensed doctor recommends. In the case of the IPCC, so much of their literature is grey, non peer reviewed that it beggars the imagination. Their theory is so falsified that it defies imagination.

    I think you are a good man MattB and someday you will come around. I am confident that you will react with the fervor of most converts at that point. i didn’t post a reply to you at the drum because it would take hours, if at all, to get posted. instead, I replied here where I could get it posted immediately!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David S

    Here’s a thought: why do big energy companies pay for research that apparently clashes with their interests? Could be because the biggest risk to their business is that the oil and gas will run out, and the insurance against that is to build a viable business in alternative energy. Only trouble is, the economics don’t stack up, at least for the present – the medium-term revenues are not enough to justify the development costs. So here’s a wizard strategy: they encourage people like Hansen, Mann and Al Gore to whip up hysteria about CO2, so that governments will tax the citizens and give them subsidies for their alternative energy development work. Suddenly the economics stack up, and the energy companies have their get out of jail card, paid for by you and me.
    The whole “ExxonMobil funds deniers” line is a deliberate smear, and is the opposite of the truth. Whether they like it or not, RealClimate and DeSmogBlog are in bed with big oil. Funny, really.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Richard S Courtney @86,

    That’s it in a nutshell. They can’t find their own predicted phenomena.

    One need not wonder why that doesn’t bother them. They are simply dishonest about it.

    Still wish you could come to California. Alas!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Louis @38,

    I’m glad you posted that about not believing their instruments on the heat radiated away from the surface of Venus.

    I see so many failures to believe what’s actually happening in favor of what someone “knows” must actually be happening. Does politics come to mind? The AGW fight isn’t over yet!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    David S:

    You are partly right – big oil is government, and no we are not going to run out of oil any time soon – I suggest you familiarise yourself with the Urkrainian-Russian theory of abiotic oil – http://www.gasresources.net. The belief that petroleum is derived from buried biomass was on a logical fallacy that because it contained biomass remnants, then it had to be derived from that.

    No one has ever spontaneous produced high Dalton number hydrocarbons from subjecting biomass to pressures and temperatures thought to exist under sedimentary basins in which oil is routinely found. However researches have produced those hydrocarbons by putting marble (CaCo3) iron oxide and triple distilled water to pressures and temperatures of the mantle. Yet most oil geologists rely on geochemistry to validate the biotic oil belief, but that is also a logical fallacy since oil is a superb organic solvent an incorporates the biodebris within the sediments that the oil invades.

    But Biotic oil theory is an entrenched western world belief, and as I have mentioned above western science seems reluctant to peform experiments to validate hypotheses. Much of what passes for science is actually pseudoscience – and scientific theories that are validated become engineering problems, and no longer routinely requiring validation. Scientists are not, for example, doing experiments to validate Ohm’s or Maxwell’s laws.

    Modern science for most part suffers from the Lyellian legacy – the lawyer who wrote Principles of Geology during the 19th century without ever mentioning the word stratum! Lyell used verbal virtuosity to convince doubters that his version of geology was correct, and it is this intellectual approach to science that is the present problem, for in this methodology the scientific method is used to validate the rhetoric, not as it should be, to falsify it. It’s pseudoscience, and that’s what AGW is for most part.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Roy #96

    Luboz Motl put a link to a 1 hour video presentation by the John Birch Society about the Council of Foreign Relations on his blog – rather unsettling information if true. Henry Ford was also reputed to have said that once the American people discover who is really behind Wall Street, there will be another revolution.

    As you wrote, the AGW battle is far from over.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    American insurance companies are now under pressure to impose green conditions on policy holders as a back door measure on climate change.

    Since the beginning of the climate debate, environmental lobbies such as Ceres (a coalition of activists and investors that pressures companies to go green) have expressed particular interest in insurers. Rather than nitpick every company to adopt climate-change policies, these organizations realized it would be more efficient to target a gatekeeper. Everybody needs insurance. If insurers could be bludgeoned into requiring policyholders adopt carbon-mitigation practices as a requirement for insurance, the activists would have imposed their will widely and quickly.

    read more. http://www.luxlibertas.com/carbon-caps-through-the-backdoor/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Bob Malloy:
    March 7th, 2010 at 10:21 am

    Hi Bob. I’m not so sure it’s as simple as that. Many insurance policies include “act of god” clauses. These will need to be changed if “acts of god” are suddenly attributed to humans.

    Also, how will oil and motor vehicle companies acquire insurance? It’d be like insuring tobacco companies agains people contracting cancer due to smoking their product.

    There is also the time lag problem. Example, the current floods in queensland, man made or natural? What of droughts and floods in 5 or 10 years time.
    The complexity alone would need decades of study and unravelling before any coherent policy could be formulated.
    By then, we should have COOLED substantially. What then? Refunds or payouts to those refused insurance in the years prior?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Vincent

    Jo

    And as far as evidence goes, surprisingly, I agree with the IPCC that carbon dioxide warms the planet.

    Forgive me for nit-picking but isnt carbon dioxide in its pure form a coolant? (e.g. fire extinguishers). If it only represent only 0.0365% of the earth’s atmosphere how is it then responsible for warming the planet? From where it stands carbon dioxide does not have the ability to force the planet to warm.

    Your concurrent statement with the IPCC gives me a mental picture of you sawing off the branch the rest of us skeptics are sitting on. Or am I just missing something somewhere down the line of reason?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Baa Humbug @ 100.

    I don’t know if you followed the link but the following paragraph would suggest Obama might be trying a similar ploy to the EPA’s finding co2 a pollutant.

    Activists groups have meanwhile sought to further spin this victory. Ceres went to Washington last year and made the argument to new Obama Securities and Exchange Commissioner Mary Schapiro that if even state insurance regulators were willing to act, surely so must the SEC? In January the agency issued new regulation requiring publicly listed companies to disclose their “climate risks” to investors.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Bob Malloy:
    March 7th, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    Sorry for the slow response, am at work.

    many ways to skin a cat isn’t there. They can try as many backdoors as they wish. These things take time. Governments change with time.
    I can’t imagine how a company can possibly assess risks attributed to perceived future climate change. On a simple level, a soft drink or ice cream company may project higher sales due to higher temps, but on any other more complex level??? I say good luck to them, they have no hope. Eventually and inevitably these companies will lobby future govts to rescind these laws. The added costs will make them uncompetitive.

    The bloodymindedness of the EPA is astounding. Talk about being on a politically charged mission.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Baa Humbug:

    Your probably right, it wont be a stroll in the park for them. Some states are already refraining from participation, though ultra leftist government e.g Australia, U.S and Great Briton seem hellbent on destroying their own economies. Court challengers against the U.S EPA’s implementation of co2 laws might bring it all to a head.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Vincent, this is why this issue is so badly misunderstood. There is a part truth to what the alarmists say, but they slap a falsity on the end. Then they defend the part truth to try to make us look silly. Until skeptics become au fait with the way the two separate issues are conflated, the alarmists win through confusion.

    I’m strategically picking targets. Doubling carbon causes 1 degree of warming (ie from 1780 – circa 2070), the rest is due to feedback, which collapses in a hole as soon as you look closely at it. Hence if we let the world know that large positive feedbacks are responsible in IPCC world for 1.2 —> 11 degrees of warming (depending on which model you pick) and that there is no evidence that supports them, all that’s left is 1 degree. Who cares? (most of that has already happened).

    http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/the-one-flaw-that-wipes-out-the-crisis/

    PS: Co2 is not a “coolant” – it puts out fires by blocking O2 from the flames.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Jo @105

    “Doubling carbon causes 1 degree of warming (ie from 1780 – circa 2070), the rest is due to feedback, which collapses in a hole as soon as you look closely at it.”

    Doubling human emitted CO2 also means increasing the number of humans emitting that CO2 on the surface of the earth, which, because of the increase in heat produced by human metabolism, is another source of heat not factored into the climate models. (The IPPC only models bureaucratic stupidity, and in that it is nearly perfect).

    As an organism of the Lovelock Gaia type, increasing the number of life forms on the surface emitting heat metabolically, should increased the measured surface temperature.

    When the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley visited Perth recently and addressed the audience the Parmelia Hilton, the localised global warming from the catastrophic increase in human metabolism was palpable. I know, I was there.

    But that locallised increase in heat would have been balanced out by the drop in heat from people leaving their normal places of location to the Parmelia Hotel.

    But as the human population has literally exploded, so too the metabolic factor and that alone could explain the increased temperatures without even considering climate effects.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Appropos #105

    Humans must affect the climate siimply by the metabolic heat factor, yet on one hand AGW proponents insist we affect the climate from burning coal and oil, but then on the other completely ignore the thermal output from metabolism. of billions of humans on the land. This is a rather clear example of AUHI – anthropogenic urban heat islands.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    george

    Sorry for the levity, but Mons Hissink started this…

    INSPECTOR HISSINK “Madame, do your camels…feert?”

    MADAME WONG “No Monsieur, my camels, zey do not feert”

    [1 million outback camels flatulate]

    INSPECTOR HISSINK “But Madame, you said ze camels do not feert”

    MADAME WONG


    Report this

    00

  • #
    george

    …”Aah, but Monsieur, zey are not my camels”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    George,

    very good and I’m surprised the factor of human body heat hasn’t been invoked by the environmentalists or the AGW panic merchants – after all it’s real, and, and….

    Much more interesting re-reading Tommy Gold’s Deep Hot Biosphere book – and watch out for my next Henry Thornton article – should be up during the next day or so. Should put a lion among the camels here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Eddy in #93 – I just noted a twisted post of yours. Pleas re-read the Drum and note that the comment “You are not a top climate scientist either” was made in response to a skeptic saying so and so was not a climate scientist. Note the word “either”. Miond you after your agreeing with the distorted version of Pinker then I’m not surprised you choose the distoted version here too.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Louis, since a human body is a wet body, the water evaporated is part of that cooling hydro vapor cycle. Should be a net 0 forcing.

    Well it sounds good anyway……


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Al Gore was quoted as saying, “In my country, the oil and coal companies spent $500 million last year just on television advertising just on these questions. There are now five anti-climate lobbyists on Capitol Hill in Washington for every member of the House and Senate. So it’s been a very massive, organized campaign.” in an interview with a Norwegian talk show described in the following article, http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/03/al-gores-climate-groups-unite-as-he-sees-massive-opposition/1
    This seems to be in conflict with the 23 million that Exxon spent. Maybe he is confused with the 600 million Exxon is spending on biofuels research.
    Any Comments?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Erik

    Very good article, but I think you may want to dig even deeper. A good friend and coworker of mine consistently uses the argument of “trusted advisor” and falls back on the Union of Concerned Scientists. I have seen references that this particular organization has been funded by competing oil companies and industrialists to provide a “trusted” group to discount or fight the use of nuclear power and the “evils of Exxon.” BP is after all one of their backers, so they might as well get something out of it. ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gary

    If you want to “follow the money” or apply the Cui bono” test then you need to move well beyond the Warmists and their fellow travellers who are but mere puppets in the scheme of things. Look to those who would “hide in plain sight”…

    Crashing Towards a New World Social Order 2012


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Saint

    “In my country, the oil and coal companies spent $500 million last year just on television advertising just on these questions.”-Al Gore
    Al Gore, you’ve spent a similar mass of money on Seaside real estate. Don’t make me laugh.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] DeSmogBlog blames Big Oil for the increase in public skepticism.  That argument used to work well, until the lid was blown off Big Green and the megabucks behind the scaremongers. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    [...] also have a stake in global warming) which utterly dwarfs relatively tiny Big Oil.  Nova notes at http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-climate-industry-wall-of-money/ deep-pocketed Greenpeace searched high and wide for Big Oil money, and found $23 mm paid by Exxon [...]


    Report this

    00