JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

I’m speaking on GlobalCooling Radio Saturday morning (US time)

Get all the information on his main Global Cooling Radio Page

The clocks above are central daylight savings time USA, so you can figure out what the time will be in your own zone. The interview starts at 10am (and a copy will be available on the site later). You  can send in questions to Mark, or phone in 646-727-3170 and ask a question. Mark and I had an animated conversation a month ago, I can’t exactly remember where it took us, but it flowed quickly…and covered unfamiliar ground. Suggest some questions or topics here. What is on your mind…

How will the unravelling paradigm pan out?

What are the key things Skeptics need to focus on…

How do skeptics compete with billions of dollars / entire UN agencies /government departments & journalists who think they are PR agents or worse, policy makers?

Why do so many people follow “authority” with an unholy conviction?

I don’t claim to have all the answers here… I’m just thinking out loud.

UPDATE: A copy of the interview is here http://www.blogtalkradio.com/markgillar.rss or this one http://johnlsayers.com/mp3/Jo.mp3 (thanks John).

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
I'm speaking on GlobalCooling Radio Saturday morning (US time), 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2f6owb5

77 comments to I’m speaking on GlobalCooling Radio Saturday morning (US time)

  • #
    Len

    Jo
    I was able to download the MP3 file of Christopher Monckton on Dial up. I burnt it to a CD and play it often. Looking forward to be able to do the same with your radio interview. Any news of Prince Charles and the Cambridge Push?

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    Too bad you can’t get the BIg Oil dollars for an appearance. Can you get a GE hat, visor or jacket? You do raise some questions. You do not need all the answers.
    example.
    What does it mean that the World Bank approved a 4 billion dollar loan to build a new coal powered electric plant in South Africa? Would we have seen that before Climate gate?

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Oh dear, you have asked for my THOUGHTS! So here we go …

    But firstly, the following is based on an analysis of the intelligence that I (and some others) have been undertaking. I can only speak for myself, and these are my opinions. I do not speak for my partners.

    Why do so many people follow “authority” with an unholy conviction?

    It is interesting to look at the geohistory of the alarmist movement, which appears to be strongest in Western Europe, and particularly Germany.
    We need to remember that a significant proportion of the population of Europe spent their formative years under communist rule. Growing up in that system, they would have learnt how to cope, and even how to game the system for advantage. These are the rules they know. The more lassiez faire attitude (in relative terms) of western democracy is alien to them.

    These people want rules, and they want them enforced – hence their propensity to follow “authority”. This is where the push for “one world government” is coming from, and environmental scares are a convenient vehicle.

    Europeans who grew up under the shadow of Acid Rain in the Black Forest and the Chernobyl disaster are sympathetic to the cause, and will support it as the easiest option.

    How will the unravelling paradigm pan out?

    If you have a commercial market where the amount of money invested is more than the value of the commodity traded, it is a bubble.

    Emissions Trading is a bubble.

    The usual pattern is for some smart investors to put a lot of money into something (let’s say future trade in the “South Seas”) and start trading for “shares” in the pot. Lesser investors come along and want a piece of the action, so they put their money in as well. This creates profit for those already in the market. Once the overall pot is significantly bigger than the original “investment” by the big traders, they all take their profit and pull out, leaving the smaller traders to try to survive the crash.

    In the case of emissions trading, the smart investors are the Merchant Bankers, and the “lesser investors” happen to be various first world governments, and people like Al Gore. When this paradigm does start to unravel it will not be pretty.

    Perhaps we will end up with a One World Government through the indebtedness of the member nations?

    What are the key things Skeptics need to focus on…

    “Yes, the climate is currently warming.”

    “But if you discount the discredited science behind the ‘hockey stick’, the climate always has warmed and cooled in cycles that we still don’t adequately understand”

    “So how much – what proportion – of the current warming cycle is anthropogenic? To claim that it is ‘man-made global warming’ implies that there is proof of the anthropogenic component, where are the peer reviewed papers that contain that proof?”

    “How will forcing enterprises in the western world to purchase carbon credits reduce the level of global CO2 emissions, and how will the financial transactions be translated into tangible remediating activities?”

    How do skeptics compete with billions of dollars / entire UN agencies /government departments & journalists who think they are PR agents or worse, policy makers?

    We can’t. We are up against two forces: the merchant banks (as described above); and the bureaucrats at both the international and national levels. These forces will not go away, and they are self-replicating – you knock one down, another will spring up in its place.

    The majority of politicians are irrelevant in this game – the science and the financial dealings are just too complex, and the vision required is to long-term to fit within the scope of an election cycle.

    The majority of mainstream journalists are also irrelevant – they write what they are told to write (or rewrite what the press release says). Most have masters in the form of Editors, who in-turn are answerable to the media outlet owners – this is why the “Public” news channels are the worst at telling this particular story – they are answerable to the bureaucrats.

    What we can do, is to keep being sceptical and try to identify what the alternative end-game scenarios might be.

    You never know, we might just be able to steer the train-wreck onto the least damaging siding.

    Sorry about the size of the comment – but you did ask …

    00

  • #
    Treeman

    Jo, the big question for me is how do school children decide what is propaganda and what is fact in their curriculum? It’s not just climate alarmist propaganda being taught. Politically correct historical opinion is being served up across the globe as fact. Whitewashing history has become an art form in academia today. Teaching sceptical enquiry at school might give the next generation a chance to unravel the paradigm!

    00

  • #
    papertiger

    I found a new political term being used by the alarmists today.

    Carbon credit is old hat. The new evil is feed in tariff
    Feed in tariffs is the government method of arm twisting electric companies into 20 year contracts with solar and windfarm companies to buy their exorbitant electricity and pass the bill onto the consumer at a rate set by bureaucrats.

    Feed in tariffs are necessary because no utility company in it’s right mind would buy solar or wind mill power for (x) amount when they can buy the same electricity from coal or natural gas providers for less (x minus the cost of windmills).

    This is what the government is doing while we are worrying over carbon credits.

    00

  • #

    Folks I think we need a catchy new term to describe the junk that is climate “science” and associated financial and political scams.

    Science fiction fans know their genre is called “science fiction ” or “SF” and shudder at the term “sci-fi”

    I hereby propose the term “Cli-Fi”.

    We can use this every time some second or third rate climate “researcher” issues a press release which is uncritically regurgitated by the mass media – “oh that’s just another piece of Cli-Fi”, “more Cli-fi from ****(insert name of scammers here)”.

    Ridicule is our best weapon in influencing public opinion but we need something catchy.

    00

  • #
    Professor Daddabha Jataka

    Where are the actual generation details of the various wind and solar schemes the governments have either paid for or heavily subsidized? I haven’t seen any actual production figures to compare with the sales pitch when the politicians announce the various schemes.

    If carbon is to be the new economy, we should have the full carbon accounting details for everything that we buy since everything uses carbon during manufacture, distribution and disposal/recycling.

    Given the amount of money that has been pumped into the global warming proponents by various governments, I think too much has been invested for them to accept that they are wrong or things will not be as bad as they predict.

    The real fight for sanity is yet to begin.

    00

  • #

    papertiger: Yep that is what is happening, along with the coming rolling blackouts so I’ve taken advantage of the scams on offer and am installing a 1.5KW peak solar grid connected system which will protect against the incompetence caused electricity price rises to some extent and when the blackouts start I’ll add a deep cycle 2.7KW-hr battery to get me through several hours of no mians power.

    The economics is rather good for me and utterly and completely hopeless for the country but if the Bogans want to vote for incompetent government I’m going to protect myself as much as possible.

    00

  • #

    Jeffrey Glassman has just posted up a highly significant extended analysis of some issues I have been exploring with him off and on for quite some time:

    http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html

    The AGW cabal’s attempts to understand the global heat balance are shown to be deeply flawed with respect to TSI and Bond albedo simply by their own ‘evidences’. To use one of my favourite Shakespearian phrases – ‘hoist with their own petard’.

    As the great Global Warming Crisis bandwagon rumbles on towards – the abyss (?) or more likely a long drawn out saga of weasely squealing, such nit picking will simply be ignored as usual.

    00

  • #
  • #

    [...] I’m speaking on GlobalCooling Radio Saturday morning (US time) « JoNova [...]

    00

  • #

    “How will the unravelling paradigm pan out?”

    Such is the size and momentum (of its ‘gods’, devotees, reputations, mony-making opportunities etc) it will be (as Steve Short @ #9 said) “….more likely a long drawn out saga of weasely squealing,…”

    What are the key things Skeptics need to focus on…?

    The ‘science’ of ‘global warming’. We may now see that modern science as such wasn’t up to the challenge of being overwhelmed by a quasi-religious movement with lots of good intentions but, like all faith-based movements, offering fertile ground for sophistry. It is up to us to make sure real science wins the day. The alternative is simply a long Dark Age little different from the last one….

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Jo,

    Nuts! We’re in near crisis mode and I’ll be working on Saturday. Wouldn’t you know it?

    Will transcripts or replays be available?

    Roy

    00

  • #
    Len

    In relation to Prince Charles’ Push, I received the following reply from the person who sent the link:
    “It’s all about lowering the carbon omissions (sic)

    It’s an initiative of the Prince of Wales corporate leaders group on climate change”

    The idea is to sign their petition.

    00

  • #
    Cement a friend

    The discussion about methane rises and falls. Methane maybe the backup when the the belief in CO2 causing a problem falls to unrecoverable lows.
    It is supposed to be 24 times (and rising to 30 in alarmists comments)the effect of CO2. However:-
    1/ If one only looks at the wavelength absorption spectra it should be about one fifth of CO2
    2/ If one considers combustion without accounting of water vapor it should be equal to CO2
    3/ If one considers combustion & takes into account water vapor saying that H2O is 10 times CO2, then it should be 21 times CO2.
    But! hey, that would mean that burning methane or natural gas is much worse than burning coal for the same energy input. The oil and gas companies would not like that- look at the billions $s in gas sales from Russia to Europe; from Australia to China and Japan; and the pipeline system in USA.
    May be attacking methane is not creditable but is a diversion when the alarmists want to paper over failings in their theory about CO2.

    00

  • #

    Ridicule is our best weapon in influencing public opinion but we need something catchy.

    Fail. We need patience, respect and well thought out discourse.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “The AGW cabal’s attempts to understand the global heat balance are shown to be deeply flawed with respect to TSI and Bond albedo simply by their own ‘evidences’. To use one of my favourite Shakespearian phrases – ‘hoist with their own petard’.”

    But its not even really a model of heat balance is it. Its a model of black body surface temperature. Got not the least bit to do with atmospheric air temperatue. Its so silly its disgraceful. Plus they base their sissy-boy fears on the idea that back-radiation is the entirety of the alleged heat anomaly. In other words their logic is classic bad thinking. To whit:

    Backradiation can cause some increase in average surface temperature…….

    ERGO….

    Only backradiation can cause some increase in average surface temperature.

    Straight logic fail.

    For starters temperature isn’t about any radiative heat balance based on watts. Temperature is about joules caught in a specific strata. Its not about otherworldly flat planet surface temperature, its about real world air temperature.

    Then secondly the energy from the sun and the rest of the galaxy is not just transmitted via radiation from the sun. But there is straight electrical energy transfer. Which could be the greater part of the transfer. Thirdly and somebody stop me if I’m wrong. But if we were to accept their silly alleged average temperature still even in their own terms they would be wrong. Under a static model the temperature would be much more to make up since heat differentials involved with night and day and other non-aggregated real factors would mean radiation disproportionate outwards.

    I wish there were more simplified models as a ballpark. But with reference to their model the earth ought to be even colder then what they say. Hence that may be evidence for the energy in the straight electrical transfer, as Louis tends to emphasize. In any case their own model would imply this. Consequently if less of the energy is coming from back-radiation then when the dynamics affecting back-radiation change on the margin, the marginal difference will be less so. Even less so again when the marginal approach is taken consistently.

    It would be OK if their mathematical model was one of three, each taking totally different angles. But for them to be so fixated with these silly calculations is beyond an embarassment.

    00

  • #

    Treeman: @4
    April 10th, 2010 at 7:09 am
    “Jo, the big question for me is how do school children decide what is propaganda and what is fact in their curriculum? It’s not just climate alarmist propaganda being taught. Politically correct historical opinion is being served up across the globe as fact. Whitewashing history has become an art form in academia today. Teaching sceptical enquiry at school might give the next generation a chance to unravel the paradigm!”

    (Sorry for not being familiar with the text editor here)

    Unfortunately public education really does serve it’s own purpose in that it was concieved and and has been perfected over the years to mold our children into useful followers and trainable labor. Schools(at least those stateside)do not teach how to learn. They simply pound the current dogma and PC propaganda by rote. We as parents have to take on the responsibility of teaching our children to question everything and think for them selves.

    Academia in general tends toward the left and the higher the degree and/honors the further left they seem to lean. It also seems that in order to be a good left wing liberal you must disengage the logic centers of your brain and swallow “koolaide” by the gallon. I see this from several different view points politcally here in the States. The instant one starts to argue from logic and point out facts to support your views their eyes glaze over and the ad hominem attacks and argumentum ad verecundium begin to flow.

    Jo,
    I can’t wait to hear this broadcast!

    00

  • #

    Sorry for the spelling and punctuation errors above. I guess I have come to rely on spell check a bit too much!

    I wanted to add the we in the US Pro 2nd Amendment arena have a word for the blind followers of anti gun dogma, Sheeple

    I think it is equally descriptive of most of the AGW alarmist flock.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Treeman: #4; Richard Schaefer #18

    I agree with you both.

    It strikes me that we live in a world of specialisation – people are valued for how much they know about a given subject – we are expected to venerate the “experts” in any field.

    But you know, an expert is actually somebody who knows a great deal about very little, and often nothing about other fields – even if they might be closely related.

    Everybody is expected to fit in a nice tidy box, as decided by the bureaucratic establishment.

    Thirty years ago, I could have written the above to describe the planning philosophy in Soviet Europe. Now the philosophy appears to be global.

    00

  • #

    Waffle, most of the “public” who make up public opinion are utterly innumerate (as are the promoters of solar and wind as anything other than hobby energy sources). They don’t, can’t and won’t understand “patience, respect and well thought out discourse”. Unfortunately they vote.

    Look how far rational argument has got the scientists and others who have stood up to the scam. All that has happened is public denigration of their views and persons.

    This isn’t about science. It never was. Those of us with some science training and knowledge know about the scam but the results of it will be foisted on us unless we influence public opinion. The CRU scandal has given us an opportunity. We should make the most of it. Cast doubt on all the pronouncements of the Gore’s, Hansens, Joneses and Santers. Keep calling it fiction at every opportunity. There’s plenty of truth in what we say after all but we need to get through to the innumerate so that when their electricity bills rise because of a proposed ETS it raises a little doubt in their minds “isn’t the whole CO2 thing a scam?” “why do I need to pay more?”

    00

  • #
    janama

    catch you tomorrow as a download – unless of course I wake in the middle of the night like I usually do :)

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Graeme Bird: # 17

    But if we were to accept their silly alleged average temperature still even in their own terms they would be wrong.

    What I don’t understand is why we need to have a single average global temperature on an annualised basis. Why not acknowledge that the two hemispheres have different weather systems, and analyse them accordingly?

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    papertiger # 5 and Mike Borgelt: # 8

    I hope you guys realise that it is technically feasible to have an electric motor tightly coupled to an electric generator, and attach both to the electricity network.

    If the feed-in tariff is higher than the supply charge, you could make a tidy little profit right there.

    I am not saying it is legal, mind. But it is an interesting example of “unintended consequences”.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    You’ve got to go further than that Rereke. Because these bozo’s average out water vapour, and in their model molecules are phantom molecules and stay fixed in the air. Hence their thinking that water vapour is this monstrous warming agent. But it all depends on context. And it is precisely averaging and aggregation that takes all the context out.

    Because if its down in Sydney a parcel of water-vapour saturated air coming off the harbour is going to be very buoyant. They used to use a wet blanket in a windy location as the old-fashioned refrigeration. This refrigeration effect is going on in our oceans all the time. So long as the water vapour rises quickly the basic function of it ……. is as regrigerant.

    But then think up in Darwin in the summer. The air already saturated. Or like Singapore. Well new evoparation may not be that buoyant under this circumstance. Now its the opposite effect. A night and day difference. The water vapour dithering about between being microscopic liquid water. All night releasing latent energy. Keeping you sticky around the clock, and indeed absorbing some of the IR or at least scattering a portion of it down again.

    So you see water vapour can be a refrigerant or it can be something to keep you near 30 degrees C around the clock. Totally dependent on context. But you are going to lose all context if you average and aggregate all the context out of it.

    The absorption spectrum is such that in the humid air CO2 is pretty much entirely pre-empted. But to have a cumulative heating problem you need the extra joules being lodged in the ocean. If you have an aggregated and averaged model, well you do the maths its a big problem. But how can it be the reality? When its precisely over the ocean that extra CO2 can have no serious effect at all, the water vapour rising off the sea the whole time. But these Rainman characters like doing maths problems I guess.

    I mean sure. Maybe there is a little bit more backradiation over the drier Northern Europe area when the days are long during that summer. But it isn’t going to amount to much because any joules that merely hang around in the air are ephemeral. They aint the stuff of which nightmares could be built upon. The delta-joules won’t take up in the ocean. Since water vapour will have pre-empted any effect in pretty much any area wherein they could.

    And this merely one problem with their model, with myriads of others. Pretty much all of these problems seem to work to knock out most of the difference that they are assuming the extra CO2 would make.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “It strikes me that we live in a world of specialisation – people are valued for how much they know about a given subject – we are expected to venerate the “experts” in any field.”

    Its precisely for this reason that we never need to take static from science workers. Its because they are specialists, that they only way to get the best out of them is to attack the doctrine of peer review. Its got to be laity review since thats the only way to break down the Chinese walls between the disciplines. Its not a matter of dumbing down. Its a matter of logic up. If they cannot express themselves clearly such that they can be audited for logic and reason by outsiders, then the more specialised science gets the more useless it will becomes. Since any problem to solve rests on holistic thinking.

    What I found utterly shocking was how useless the economists were in analyzing the climate scientists. Then they would just dutifully take the bad science and overlay their crap economics on top of that. As if it were all kind of object oriented. Above their pay-grade to question the logic of pre-fabricated unit that came their way. Rather they just had to graft their nonsense onto it and send it along the conveyor. We have this sort of creeping public service and big dumb corporate greyness invading everywhere.

    Like I could not convince these Pigouvians that they had to treat any minor warming, and certainly the CO2 per se, as a positive-externality. But they could not grasp such a heresy. Like its just not their department to check the work of whoever had the module before them. There is no fixing this but through mass-sackings. People might think they can fix it through some other mechanism. But they have no believer in me at least.

    00

  • #

    I would like to focus one very simple question, in the hope that this question has the catalytic effect of seeding question marks around the fatherly authority, the IPCC and it’s co-workers like Wikipedia, WWF and Greenpeace. My question is: What is the proven theoretical effect on global temperature if all 194 nations in Bonn right now agree on 20% reduction in man made CO₂ and are there other answers to this question than: not measurable due no noise from general variability?

    With the above question, which Lord Monckton has answered in many forms, could we hope for the media, and thereby the general population, to ask themselves if what the “authorities” say, is for the sake of the climate or eventually for jobs, grants, feel-good and big time trading?

    As you, Joanne Nova, so clearly states, keep it simple, mass-hysteria is created by a few phrases and so it shall be cured – what do you think?

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    Nothing. No proven effect at all. Where is their accurate CO2 record? Where is their air temperature record? Where is them putting the two together to show something far exceeding mere correlation?

    Its a simple task. Data and attribution. They are not interested in doing it. Worse still they don’t do the basics like define an hypothesis, the positive proof of which, would justify this racket. Doesn’t matter who you are and what you’ve done in the past, if you don’t define clearly the hypothesis, then you aren’t involved in the scientific method at all.

    00

  • #
    Cement a friend

    Graeme (26) some economists have sense take Ross McKitrick (see Comments On “Circling the Bandwagons: My Adventures Correcting the IPCC” By Ross McKitrick) at http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/ , or Dr Alan Carlin ( PhD economics and degree physics) see here http://www.carlineconomics.com/publications Please note publication 1 which is a very good summary of research opposing the IPCC report and the basis of the US EPA endangerment determination. This internal EPA report was originally suppressed and then leaked (I first saw it in comments on the New York Times website in Oct 2009). It seems it has now been officially allowed on Alan Carlin’s website (see here.) . The Australian press is condemned for not picking this up.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Why do so many people follow “authority” with an unholy conviction?

    From my point of view the question is the answer. It’s basic human nature. When someone with “authority” — or even just the appearance of “authority” — says something and keeps saying it then people believe it. How many have we seen come and go on this site trying to justify AGW using proof by authority? We can’t get rid of our built-in need to follow the “strong man” and stay safe. The strong man is the scientist, the president, the PM, the successful executive…on and on. It just needs to be someone who seems to offer a safe path forward.

    The average man on the street was never trained to take a skeptical view of anything and we might as well face it. Not many ask questions or look for the other side of an issue.

    How do we fight it? I think we keep pointing out the severe harm to society and every individual if these policies are followed. When all is said and done, people look to their own good interest. This is exactly why they follow the “authority” and nothing undoes an authority any better than finding out he has no cloths on and there’s a better authority.

    Skepticism is growing here in the U.S. Today (Saturday) Jo will keep the fight going. It’s not going to be instant but sooner or later we’ll get the chance to present our case against AGW in MSM. They can’t keep ignoring something that’s chopping the legs out from under what they’re saying with ever increasing intensity.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Hi everybody

    I’d like to invite everyone over to Donna Laframboises weblog to take part in a guessing competition.

    We’ve recently finished auditing all the 18,531 references in the IPCC AR4 to see how many are NOT peer reviewed. (how many do you think?) The results may surprise you.

    Results will be published at the Citizens Audit website in a few days.

    Please tell others.

    Thankyou in advance

    00

  • #

    Hi everyone, I’ve only just finished the interview with Mark Gillar. He has a lot of editing to do. There is so much to say. It may be a little while before that post-edit version is publicly available.

    I’ll be posting-lite the next week (like this week). It’s school holidays. There are other important things I need to attend too :-)

    00

  • #
    Frank Brown

    Heard the whole thing, unedited for over an hour. You covered just about everything which couldn’t have been easy. You sounded very real, very honest. Good job.

    00

  • #
    Grego99

    Joanne,

    Just finished listening to the entire show – Bravo! Bravo! Keep up the good work getting the truth out I can’t thank you enough for all your fine work.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Graeme Bird: #26

    Its not a matter of dumbing down. Its a matter of logic up. If they cannot express themselves clearly such that they can be audited for logic and reason by outsiders, then the more specialised science gets the more useless it will becomes. Since any problem to solve rests on holistic thinking.

    Yup, couldn’t agree more. You have summed it up nicely. I will probably quote you on this (non-attributed, of course) ;-)

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Jo it was nice to hear an Aussie accent talking “logic”. Only heard some of it so looking foward to the rest. Those $ figures boggle the mind!
    What do the clever people who gather here think of this.
    I wonder if we will soon need to push the case that the cooling has been natural. The scammers will no doubt try to take the credit for it. By the time cooling becomes obvious, if they are not established and entrenched in power then the scam will collapse. Part two of the scam will be the delusion that things have been brought under control or that it is only a tempory delay. We need to delay the phase of the scam to see it extinguish itself. The “ACT NOW” mentality has led to the insulation fiasco in Australia and no doubt similar problems all over. This is fertile ground in conversation and the flow of thoughts for the ‘just slow down and think’ mentality to be encouraged. Each delay allows more cooling, more logic and less people fooled. However as it is seen to be a non problem the the behind the scenes activity could continue. So these activities need to be slowed and derailed by exposing them. My plan is to click on that “Buy me some choclate” link because I know who will do that!

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    These are nice quotes:

    “Banks want you to trade carbon.”
    “Science was ripe to be exploited ….. It had such a great brand name.”
    “…This has become outright fraud. This is malicious.”
    “We need the public to read those emails..”
    “If a used car salesman said to you… ‘I’m just using a trick to hide the decline in this cars performance….’”

    The series of snippets is likely to turn out awesome.

    The only problem with that interview is it wasn’t long enough.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Any economist that assumes costs, rather then gains, from ambient CO2 is irrational. Simple as that. So pretty much all the work is hopeless. But I will have a look at Carlin and McKitrick.

    So far I haven’t seen anyone bringing the exponential series into matters. So the economists are not fully figuring the potential costs. There is no upper limit to the potential costs.

    Growth rates when talking about a period of 93 years.

    1% 2.5
    2% 6.3
    3% 15.6
    4% 38.4
    5% 93.5
    6% 225.7
    7% 540.4
    8% 1283.5

    00

  • #
    janama

    Baa Humbug: @31

    the sheer fact that the options stop at 8000 out of 18500 is interesting ;)

    00

  • #
    Amr

    Just heard you Radio talk ,and have passed the link to all and sundry .
    Pity about the first 5 minutes , I blame the greenies ??
    You did a great job .
    Amr Marzouk
    Manly Beach

    00

  • #

    [...] the skeptics ; Science policy ; Pachauri cancels US tour ; Wrestling with the warm mongerers ; Global cooling radio with Jo Nova and Andrew Bolt ; Life cycle of climate [...]

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    janama:
    April 11th, 2010 at 6:50 am

    Narrows down your options ha mate? lol

    Whats the matter? 8000 not enough?

    I thought you were going to say “IT’S WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT”

    00

  • #
    janama

    haha Baa

    the mp3 of Jo’s is now available here

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/markgillar.rss

    00

  • #
    Feersum Endjinn

    janama #42

    Neither the .mp3 or .wma files download properly. What little can be heard doesn’t inspire confidence in GlobalCooling Radio, that is for sure.

    I sure hope the quality of sceptical science proves to be much better than this!

    00

  • #
    janama

    try this

    http//johnlsayers.com/mp3/Jo.mp3

    00

  • #
  • #
    janama

    yup that works.

    00

  • #
    Ronnell

    I’m sure that the Australian Taxation Office has indicated that there are TAXATION IMPLICATIONS for individuals who gain an advantage by selling self generated electricity back to the power companies…..

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    Steve Schapel

    I have just listened right through to this interview. Brilliant. Congratulations, Jo, and thanks a lot for doing it. I guess at the moment it’s the choir who are getting it, but hopefully there will be ways to move this information “out there”.

    Towards the end of the interview, there is talk about bumper stickers. I have just received some from the Climate Realists in New Zealand. Mine say:
    – I CO2
    – CO2 is good for you
    – Axe the Climate Tax

    00

  • #
    janama

    how about:

    I’m a Polluter – I breath out.

    I could go on ;)

    00

  • #
    Ronnell

    Bonn or bust – The UN’s last, desperate bid for unelected world government

    http://sppiblog.org/news/bonn-or-bust-the-uns-last-desperate-bid-for-unelected-world-government#more-1481

    00

  • #

    Bumper sticker suggestion.

    I DO NOT believe
    CO2 Cli – Fi

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    27Karl J. Hansen:
    April 10th, 2010 at 8:25 pm

    I would like to focus one very simple question, …….: What is the proven theoretical effect on global temperature if all 194 nations in Bonn right now agree on 20% reduction in man made CO₂ and are there other answers to this question than: not measurable due no noise from general variability?

    You are quite right Karl.

    That piece by LM certainly put things in perspective.

    The Climate bandwagon however is already giving the impression this is necessary to achieve the objective of limiting the rise to 2 C degrees. People therefore (are left to wrongly ) deduce that that is what it will achieve.

    LM of course based his illustration not on the proven theoretical, but on the IPCC’s own figures. That very cleverly dissociates it even from considerations of the IPCC’s credibility – which will allow a lot more ‘believers’ sit up & take notice.

    Apart from just highlighling the ineffectiveness of such measures ‘though, that now needs to be translated into how much it’s going to cost and indeed is already costing, each and every citizen.

    Demonstrations of ineffectiveness are often answered to the effect:- “maybe so, but surely it’s better that we’re doing something”. That’s when you need to quantify just how much this ineffective something is costing every man, woman & child in your audience, already – without them having realised.

    I’m sure there are ably gifted communicators among us who could help put it in such terms.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Just finished listening to your interview Jo. Well done, nay, exceptionally well done.

    But boy you sure can speak fast. I bet there is lots of the “yes dear, no dear” happening at your place lol

    I hope lots of people get to hear it.

    Yes, people don’t have the time to get into the science, but their ears prick up when their hip pockets are involved.

    THE BANKS WANT YOU TO TRADE CARBON. Says it all really.

    p.s. I was shocked to hear that you were once an alarmist. Welcome to the fold. (with a vengence) :)

    00

  • #

    @ Mike Borgelt

    This isn’t about science. It never was.

    I agree with you. The politics was prior to the science. Science is simply being used to replace the lack of moral authority in our leaders. However, I don’t think the political argument is advanced by the misanthropy that you’re expressing. It is this very worldview that enables CAGW to fester in academia and be adopted by our classe politique.

    00

  • #
    Zepp

    As I type, the sound files are not there, I keep getting a 404. I’ve followed as many links as I can and haven’t been able to hear Jo’s interview.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The MP3 here is all fixed up and I had no trouble with it.

    http://johnlsayers.com/mp3/Jo.mp3

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    58 Roy Hogue:
    April 12th, 2010 at 2:02 am

    The MP3 here is all fixed up and I had no trouble with it.

    http://johnlsayers.com/mp3/Jo.mp3

    Good one Roy.
    Is there a similar .mp3 somewhere of Lord Monckton’s transmission last week ?

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Joe,

    Last week’s is probably out there but I didn’t go looking for it. I’ve read LM quite a bit and am familiar with his arguments and his style.

    Sorry.

    Roy

    00

  • #

    Baa humbug, high praise indeed. Ta.
    “I bet there is lots of the “yes dear, no dear” happening at your place lol”

    LOL. I’m married to a man with six degrees in maths, stats and engineering. I don’t get away with anything.

    Thanks to John for helping with the audio quality. I’ve posted that link up the top.

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    Karl @ #27:
    It looks like Lord Monckton may be getting your point across, to at least the Chinese media.
    Re: The Chinese Xinhua News Agency
    One wonders whether they might end up teaching the free Western media a thing or to about journalism.

    00

  • #
    Messenger

    Treeman on schools propaganda
    This is what is happening in the UK.

    Note the Royal Society box and sceptic refutations on the right hand side

    http://www.lowcarbonday.com

    00

  • #

    @62-Joe Veragio

    I hope LM is getting some insight through to the Chinese and the rest of the Bonn delegates. But till me one thing: you say in your link that it is in a Chinese news media, however when you look at the page, it appears to be a western blog. Do I miss something?

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    Messenger: @63
    April 12th, 2010 at 6:20 am

    Treeman on schools propaganda
    This is what is happening in the UK.

    Note the Royal Society box and sceptic refutations on the right hand side

    http://www.lowcarbonday.com

    I suppose that’s what they consider “putting both sides”
    Having the Alarmists put the Skeptics case.
    Clever use of the Skeptical of Skeptics website, to confuse anyone who strays into it, into thinking the Skeptics are shooting down their own arguments.

    What they really need is a link to the Skeptics Handbook, but not much danger of that.

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    64Karl J. Hansen:
    April 12th, 2010 at 6:35 am

    @62-Joe Veragio
    you say in your link that it is in a Chinese news media, however when you look at the page, it appears to be a western blog. Do I miss something?

    The link is to LM’s account of the Bonn conference. His encouraging encounter with reporters from The Chinese Xinhua News Agency – is about half way down. Of course it remains to be seen if it will translate into anything in the Chinese Media, though it’s perhaps more important that the Chineses Administration gets the message.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “LOL. I’m married to a man with six degrees in maths, stats and engineering. I don’t get away with anything.”

    One can be in wonderment how the girl can be so valuable to us. Like in military terms a one-woman special forces unit. But it may be less mysterious if we remember that what we are seeing is likely really the visible half of a formidable duo. More akin to a heavy armoured division, with the girl the sharp end of the spear.

    People hate and are embarrassed by mixed metaphors. I kind of like them.

    00

  • #
    Brett_McS

    Great to see and hear Joanne, even if just on youtube. Came across very well, but why was the video of the talk cut short?

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    I don’t think I’m making a slight carping criticism. Or if I am it is pretty slight. But I did notice the fear factor when the topic of Intelligent Design came up.

    I try to separate my own beliefs out some of the time and just listen to the quality of the arguments. So I was surprised at one stage when I was finding that as a rule things had changed with (for example) the abortion debate. I’d seen Ayn Rands screed on the matter and considered it pretty superior. But I did notice that her argument didn’t really hold up for later term abortions. It was predicated on the idea that these abortions were early term.

    In any case I started noticing that the pro-abortion types had become typically hysterical and evasive. And the anti-abortion types has gotten their act together and were using pretty strong arguments. I can say that without regard to my own beliefs. I believe argument-quality to be a technical matter.

    Likewise with the pro and anti Israel arguments. And this is probably a function of our leftist secondary school teachers cherry-picking the footage. But I had seen all these examples from the early seventies of these rational Arab intellectuals dealing with hysterical Israel supporters, and they just couched it in terms of diposession and property rights, whereas when I (it now seems a bit shameful) sided with the other side, I found pro-Israel types to be kind of crazy. Talking about Moses and all that. But later on the quality of the argumentation flipped and I feel the pro-Israel position is usually argued convincingly. I don’t think its any point me trying to hide that I’m a fervent supporter of Israel now.

    This long-winded intro comes because I know intelligent design is a very sensitive subject. I myself am an atheist. I do expect to be believed when I say this. But recently the better intelligent design people have emerged as the more serious and committed scholars. The usual suspects simply refuse to take on their objections in a serious way.

    Now the thing is you have people like me and this Berlinski fellow. And I’m certainly no intelligent design person in any sort of supernatural sense. I’m not necessarily an intelligent design person in the Von Daniken sense either, though a few matters have come to light recently which brings this possibility higher in the plausibility stakes in my view.

    I’m looking for another paradigm. I don’t pretend to know what the answers are. But the road that leads to the answers is paved with the objections of the intelligent design people. These are pretty damn strong.

    What I was going to say about Berlinski is I IMAGINE he’s coming from a similar point of view to me. I imagine he just want science to prevail. Personal belief ought not be important to science, properly considered, which ought to be all about method and process. Its that the process has fallen apart; this is why I find myself provisionally siding with the I.D. people these days.

    The intelligent design arguments are better arguments, in all likelihood, for some more enhanced and sophisticated view of natural history, then for any idea of supernatural intervention. Lets get back to the science. If the bully-boys refuse to recognize the mystery, then you’ve cut off the scientific method at the knee-caps. Where do you go from there?

    For the moment, until such time as a revamped paradigm of evolution is on the table, I will put about the tentative conclusion, that the universe is not big enough for Darwinism and the Big-Bang-Both. Because the sophistication of the individual cell is just astonishing. And until we have much better developed theory we have to assume there is a lot of extra-Darwinist mechanisms involved or else a lot more time involved. For the moment we have to downgrade the idea of evolution being a one-planet young-universe sort of deal. And the rejection of the Big Bang for this reason is not a bad thing its a good thing. Since the Big Bang is one of the most illogical, unscientific, and embarrassing theories on the books. The consensus science-maffia bully-boys ought to decide which theory they want to abort.

    The reason why I bring up this powder-keg Joanne, is that it may not be a strategic thing to offend our natural allies. None of the smarter ID people would ever likely fall for this trace-gas-hysteria. And all of the smarter ID people are coming up against this totalitarian streak in the world of public sector science worker nastiness.

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I am sorry that my daughter, especially, missed listening to this.

    She needs to listen to the message from a reliable source such as Joanne –

    “Feminist” liberal media in California has unfortunately tainted her (views)

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Graeme, following you is like a very bumpy ride on a Tilt-A-Whorl” You might get sick or you might have a blast!

    I’m not necessarily an intelligent design person in the Von Daniken sense either, though a few matters have come to light recently which brings this possibility higher in the plausibility stakes in my view.

    Pray tell what is it?

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Graeme, Mark,

    I would ask a different question. Why? Why should there be so much as one of the most fundamental and simple sub-atomic particles or a single photon, much less all this universe that we see and marvel at?

    Big-Bang, Intelligent Design, Evolution – take your pick and tell me why it happened.

    And then there’s another question waiting for some sharp mind to explore. Where was it all before whichever of those origins, Big-Bang or Intelligent Design that you want to choose?

    But the why of it is not a trivial unimportant question. It defines the very heart and soul of who and what we are.

    Frankly I don’t know any of these answers and all the theories leave a bad after taste. And in spite of all the high-powered experts looking into them, I don’t believe they know either.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    The Big Bang didn’t happen. Bad science. Some examples of intelligent design come to mind. The dog for one. We cannot rule out the idea that there aren’t examples we don’t know about. The concept of the photon is pretty daft and unsupported.

    The thing about evolutionary theory is that the supporters now think that they don’t have to respond to criticisms. They merely have to harrass the critics. But the best way of gaining inspiration for generating hypothesis to do with natural history is to listen to ones critics and overcome their objections.

    You are asking “Why is there something and not nothing.” or “How come existence exists.”

    Beats me. Thats a tough one. Actually I think new matter is being created all the time. But even so that wouldn’t answer how it got started in the first place.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “Pray tell what is it?” I don’t want to sound evasive. But these more contentious matters ought to be dealt with on my site.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Graeme, on your blog, have you ever thought of just leaving in the comments you don’t like and replying to them. Rather than writing in your reply to the comment in place of the comment.

    eg:

    Graeme Bird: This is what I think, so and so such and such etc etc.

    Blog Poster: YOU BLOCKHEAD!

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    No. Because the hostility level is so high that these guys will just try and dilute away any idea I’m trying to communicate. Since I accidentally dragged the PZ Myers blockheads over to my site I’ve been forced to moderate about 100 IP addresses to stop the vandalism. But no-one is banished in reality. If they decide they want to put their thinking camp on, their argument will get through no problem.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Fair enough.

    00