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

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

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



Suing the skeptics

Guest post by Anthony Cox on the legal side and on ABC bias

Anthony Cox and David Stockwell sent the letter below to the ABC in response to the article Climate change ‘brown wash’. They wrote:

“Dear sir, On the 27th July I sent you this e-mail:

“Dear sir,

On the 26th July, on Unleashed, an article by Kellie Tranter was published;

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2962929.htm

Since the article was very critical of the sceptical approach to anthropogenic global warming [AGW] it would be reasonable for a sceptical view to be published in response, especially in this election period. Accordingly I have attached a response entitled “suing the Sceptics” which was the theme of Ms Tranter’s piece. Details of the authors of the submitted article are here:

Anthony Cox, lawyer and secretary of The Climate Sceptics.

Dr David Stockwell, environmental scientist.

Regards

Anthony Cox”

I have yet to receive a response from you. The article, with some small typo corrections, is again attached. I can only repeat that, since Ms Tranter’s article was critical of the sceptics’ position, a reply is justified in the name of balance which is part of your Charter. Could you please acknowledge this e-mail and whether you intend to allow a response to the Tranter article.
Regards,
Anthony Cox Secretary, The Climate Sceptics.”

[Note from Jo - I've added the subheaders below, and a couple of comments [...] inline. ]

Suing the Skeptics

In her ABC Unleashed article Kellie Tranter recommends litigation under the Trade Practices Act (TPA) and its state equivalents against sceptics. This is a novel suggestion. Generally litigation under Part V of the TPA requires two things: firstly the creation of a perception of expertise, and secondly, the use of that perception of expertise to promote a product which people rely on to their detriment because it is defective. The novelty here is that it is the believers in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) who are promoting the product not the sceptics. And it is the general public who are being forced through their power bills and the cascade throughout the economy of the cost of the AGW ‘measures’ to rely on the product of AGW to their detriment.

Civil or criminal?

Still, we should be thankful for small mercies. Other AGW believers want to by-pass the civil litigation and take a more summary approach to sceptics. Prominent AGW believers like James Hansen, Joe Romm, Al Gore and Paul Krugman want sceptics to be charged with criminal offences including but not limited to “treason against the planet”. Other AGW believers like Clive Hamilton want the democratic process to be suspended while erstwhile Senate candidate, Lee Rhiannon runs workshops training people in how to break the law and be civilly disobedient. Robert Manne just wants us all to do what the clever AGW scientists tell us to do.

Legally speaking, skeptics are winning

Ms Tranter may not be aware but there have been several prominent law cases where AGW was put under legal scrutiny. The most infamous is the case against Al Gore’s pro-AGW film, An Inconvenient Truth. The 2007 case was brought by a parent who objected to the screening of Gore’s film. The English High Court found the film had at least nine inaccuracies, that the film was a political work and if shown without warning of its inaccuracies would be political indoctrination. Closer to home in 2007 the Queensland Land and Resources Tribunal dismissed action brought by the Queensland Conservation Council against Xstrata in relation to the CO2 emissions which would be caused by its Newlands coal mine expansion. The Tribunal dismissed the case because it found that the evidence supplied by the Australian Conservation Foundation was exaggerated. Recently, in the NSW Land and Environment Court an action brought by members of the green group, Rising Tide, had its first stage thrown out. The Court ruled that Macquarie Generation had an implied authority rather than just a licence to emit CO2 during the production of electricity, much of which was no doubt used, along with taxpayers’ money, by the NSW Environment Defender’s Office (EDO), which ran the case. Not content with this failure the EDO is now pursuing the novel approach of seeking a limit be placed on the CO2 emissions; in effect, a limit on the amount of electricity. [Ed's Note: For more EDO handiwork check out the Thompsons story -- JN]

Can’t win debates either

As well as being unsuccessful in litigation AGW believers are also very unlucky in public debates. In a famous 2007 debate, the world’s leading climate scientist, Richard Lindzen and his team of Philip Stott and the late, lamented Michel Crichton, on the basis of audience vote, defeated the AGW team of Richard Somerville, Gavin Schmidt and Brenda Ekwurzel. Lord Monckton had several debates while he was in Australia in February of this year. He and Professor Ian Plimer debated Professor Barry Brook and reporter Graham Readfearn and then Lord Monckton debated prominent alarmist Tim Lambert in Sydney. Monckton won both of his Australian debates as well as a subsequent debate at Oxford in July of this year. It is no wonder that Al Gore will not engage with such leading sceptics as Lord Monckton.

[And if I do say so myself, Dr Glikson may have instigated our Great Debate but after my fifth round response, he asked if he could post again, and two months later ... nothing yet -- JN]

The bulk of Ms Tranter’s article concerns itself with casting aspersions on the motives of sceptics. The idea of self-interest is disingenuous because the AGW position is the one which has enormous funding supporting it as well as attendant status, economically, politically and academically. Given that AGW is the Zeitgeist it is bizarre to even suggest that sceptics are motivated by money, glory or status. Most of them have the seat out of their pants and operate on the smell of an oily rag. The motivation of most sceptics is that they dislike and oppose the fundamental untruth of AGW and the great detriment the proposed remedies will have on human society. They are also concerned about the effect that AGW will have on the integrity of science as an honest, transparent broker of evidence and information. The University of East Anglia e-mail scandal and the deficiencies of the three enquiries have greatly eroded public trust in science.

Where’s the evidence?

Ms Tranter lists the usual suspects as evidence of AGW: the poles melting, the warming ocean, the enhanced greenhouse effect, “consistent global scale temperature trends”; none of these are evidence of AGW, even if right.; for instance the ocean heat content has fallen since 2003 and the Arctic was warmer and had less ice in the 1930’s. As for the enhanced greenhouse, in 2007 Ferenc Miskolczi showed that the greenhouse had not changed in the 60 years of NASA measurement. Miskolczi’s peer reviewed papers have not been rebutted because they are based on real measurements not computer programs like AGW.

Ten reasons why the theory has failed:

  1. Previous levels of CO2 were much higher than today and correlated with temperatures higher, the same and lower than today.
  2. Movements of CO2 do not correlate with movements in temperature; during the 20th Century from 1940-1976 CO2 increased but temperatures dropped; the same from 1998. Generally, throughout geologic history CO2 follows temperature movements.
  3. According to the IPCC the Climate sensitivity of a doubling of CO2 will result in a temperature increase of 3.2C. Since 1900 CO2 has increased 40% which should have produced a temperature increase of 1.3C. However temperature has only increased by 0.7C. Of that 0.7C increase solar influence has been 0.1-0.4C and natural variation at least 0.3C.
  4. The mechanism by which CO2 causes heating has never been adequately explained.
  5. Optical depth, which is as good a measure of the ‘greenhouse’ effect as any, has not increased in 60 years of measurement.
  6. The amount of radiation leaving from the top of the atmosphere has increased which means CO2 is not trapping heat.
  7. Solar radiation at the surface increased during the crucial period of AGW warming from 1983-2001 and this by itself can explain the warming which took place during this period.
  8. Clouds are a negative feedback which means they are a brake to any warming.
  9. Water vapour has not increased as required by AGW theory.
  10. The Medieval Warming Period was at least as warm as today which means that the centre-piece of AGW, the hockey-stick, is wrong.
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
Suing the skeptics, 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

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

125 comments to Suing the skeptics

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Another occasion for global warmers to ruin my day; Kellie Ranter is a fool.

    I don’t see any evidence that Kellie was particularly miffed by Al Gore forcing some innocent woman upon his motel room bed, fondling her against her protests and …


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Hanrahan

    Surely legal action can go both ways. Perhaps wealthy corporations like WWF and Greenpeace who attempt to destroy our modern society and cause widespread stress should be made to pay compensation.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave N

    Actually, there was an attempt to rebut Miskolczi’s papers, however they failed dismally, as (at least to the best of my knowledge) Miskolczi’s reply to the rebuttal has gone unchallenged.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    A Court case on this matter would be most interesting, warmers would have to prove their case to be without any doubt, using only ‘models’, and skeptics just need to show Miskolczi’s paper falsifying the catastrophic effect of CO2 on climate using real measured data.
    I know that this is too simple but the courts may be the only way to put an end once and for all to the AGW hypothesis.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Dave N; as far as I know while Miskolczi has been subject to intense and some interesting blog analysis and criticism, there has been no peer reviewed rebuttal; Miskolczi’s second paper has in effect responded to some of those blog criticisms by removing reference to some of the more contentious aspects of the theory he generated based on his empirical findings; so in the second paper there is no reference to the Virial Theorem or Kirchoff [except to by pass it];

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf


    Report this

    00

  • #

    This doesn’t surprise me. My comments on AGW don’t get through moderation on the ABC website. They are a bit like RealClimate. Any devastating comment gets canned. Only uninformed sceptical comments get through.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    That was my difficulty with Miskolczi’s analysis, Cohenite; he wrote an approximation for an (impossible) equilibrium condition, but as you say he removed it.

    digression: Note that the Clausius-Clapeyron equation d(log[P(sat)]/dT=ΔH/RT^2 applies at equilibrium only, but it really doesn’t matter because it is an inequality always

    skip it


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Brian; the thing about Miskolczi is that he brought attention back to water, relative and specific humidity, and its role in climate; in this respect he has more runs on the board than AGW.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Yes that’s true Cohenite; my interpretation is this: Water vapour will always be present in the atmosphere at varying humidity because, the ocean isn’t in equilibrium with the atmosphere (so evaporation is possible); over various regions of the Earth, convection distributes water vapour giving a difference in diurnal temperatures about 8 Kelvins smaller than would be observed without water vapour’s presence. This is wrongly termed a “greenhouse” effect.

    Miskolczi provided an analysis of the distribution of water vapour for which that measurement would be consistent


    Report this

    00

  • #

    People, please cut and paste your comments on the ABC site to here, and we’ll see what “qualifies” for the ABC-Grade.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cementafriend

    Miskolczi has a new peer reviewed paper which will be published in the August Edition of Energy & Environment. Somewhere I have posted a link to a preprint which I think it is the following http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B74u5vgGLaWoNDFjODAwMWMtNmNmYS00NDhmLWI3NjItMTE0NGMwNWMxYjQ2&hl=en

    In Queensland there is a Professional Engineers Act which requires anyone providing an engineering service in Queensland (including public servants) to be registered.
    Thermodynamics, Heat Transfer, Fluid Dynamics, Evaporation, Condensation and many more are ENGINEERING subjects.
    Anyone giving advice or even expressing an opinion, which could be influencing any person in Queensland, on engineering matters could well be breaking the law unless they are registered. Further, if they are registered they need to uphold the IEAust or AusIMM code of ethics which have tenets about competency.
    Certainly it can be said that Kellie Tranter is neither a registered Engineer nor has any competency in subjects such as heat transfer.
    I would like to see someone take Prof Flannery (who is an advisor to the Queensland Government) to court in Queensland. Maybe someone could persuade Clive Palmer to do that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    At school the other day we were teaching children about Fact and Opinion- even 11 year olds can understand that facts can be checked; they must be based on evidence. Unless a statement can be checked and verified it is just an opinion. And new discoveries can contradict what was previously learnt as fact e.g. “Pluto is the 9th planet”. If we could only get this through to journalists…. Maybe a court case would be a start.
    Ken


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    OT _ Talking of facts Ken – I returned to this page at the USGS today

    http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

    It originally had a looped link to the Gerlach 91 paper which is the only paper that states that man’s emission’s of CO2 are 100 x that of volcanoes. The link has been replaced with a reference to Gerlach 2010! A search finds NO Gerlach 2010 reference except the USGS page.

    It’s a Fraud!! perpetrated by the USGS.

    BTW I was at Unleashed today and there were 17 articles on the main page – not one of them related directly to either the Liberal Party, Tony Abbott or the Nationals. They were all about Julia, Kevin and BobB.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    here’s my post to Kellie Tranter.

    so a lawyer and writer knows all about climate science and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a climatologist and a Principal Research Scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and science Team Leader of the Aqua satellite that measures global temperature doesn’t. Yeah I get it.

    Typical emotional BS from the ABC.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Wayne, s. Job

    Threats of court action on the warmist side have always come to nought. Funny about that, proof and proof of consequences are required, they have non. The time is approaching whereby a challenge in court against the already applying impositions on our freedom of choice, would be beneficial.
    Start small, a simple challenge about the white ghost lamps filled with mercury. Increased power to manufacture them, the complexity of their make up, the resultant down stream pollution, and the energy needed to ensue their safe disposal or recycle. In a court of law this mandate would be overturned by the facts, a simple demonstration of their wonderful capabilities and dangers, would send a court into panic mode.
    Get this nonsense thrown out in court and overturn the law, and the entire edifice would crumble, besides my old eyes would be able to read again, without the aid of a quartz halogen death ray lamp.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Here is my post.
    “Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1987 provides that a corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.”
    It is good to see the Australian Broadcasting CORPORATION. Is still selling this DVD:
    http://shop.abc.net.au/browse/product.asp?productid=747520
    It is also good to know that most of the attemps to discredit this dVd have failed. It is a breath of fresh air on the subject.
    Keep up the good work!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    elsie

    I have said this before on other sites. The AGW believers point out that GW caused by Man is so serious that it should be treated with the same urgency as war. Not just local war but global war as in WW2. Let us suppose they are correct for the sake of the argument. In any major war great casualties are expected by both sides. You would not have expected General Eisenhower to have postponed D-Day because many GIs would die on Ohmaha Beach and during the following months. The same sense of gritting the teeth should apply to reducing CO2. Thus, you would think that building Nuclear power plants, especially in Australia, would be a top priority. Ah, but the Greens and environmentalists immediately harken back to 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl. Yet no one was hurt in the former event and the latter was almost caused on purpose. But even if the worst case occurred and a nuclear plant did kill thousands somewhere would it not be simply a small cost to pay in order to win the major objective of saving millions, nay, billions of people? If Nuclear power is always going to be rejected then I reject any sense of fervent urgency that we should do “something” to reduce CO2 emissions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Thought I may as well review the DVD while on the site:
    The Great Global Warming Swindle
    “Don’t let the name calling, accusations and abuse from the Gaia religion zealots and big green buisiness interests stop you from watching this one. Check the facts most do stand up. The savage attacks on this DVD have not stood up to the test of time. Truly one of the best documentaries ever!”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Atomic Hairdryer

    About 7.7 million hectares of public land in Victoria is managed by DSE. This area includes national parks, state forests and reserves, of which a large portion is forested and prone to bushfire. DSE burns only 1.7 per cent (or 130,000 hectares) of this public land each year. This is well below the amount experts and previous inquiries have suggested is needed to reduce bushfire and environmental risks in the long term.

    The Commission is aware of the unresolved tensions between mitigation of bushfire risk and environmental conservation in the approach to roadside clearing and the legislative complexities to do with road safety, biodiversity and bushfire risk mitigation that affect roadside management. These concerns would be reduced if the State’s planning provisions were amended to facilitate a broad range of roadside works to reduce bushfire risk, if municipal councils received better guidance to help them resolve competing environmental and bushfire management objectives, and if VicRoads implemented a systematic statewide assessment of bushfire risk for all roads.

    Other recommendations that should receive particular attention are those that governments have previously shown reluctance to implement (such as increased fuel-reduction targets) and major recommendations that will require substantial implementation effort (such as replacing ageing electricity distribution infrastructure).

    From the VBRC report into the Victoria bushfires. 173 deaths, some avoidable if conflicting demands between environmentalists and humans could have been better managed. From a legal perspective, land management and bushfire control seems an area where there are clear conflicts of interest in safety of life issues, and existing policy fails to recognise a right to life for humans. I don’t know if Australia has a class action system, but litigation against environmental lobbying groups opposing fire safety could send a message that bad policy costs lives.

    The report makes some intersting recommendations:

    RECOMMENDATION 41
    The State:
    amend the Victoria Planning Provisions to require that, when assessing a permit to remove native vegetation around an existing dwelling, the responsible authority and the Department of Sustainability and Environment, as referral authority, take into account fire hazard and give weight to fire protection purposes develop guidelines for determining the maximum level of native vegetation removal for bushfire risk mitigation, beyond which level the application would be rejected.

    RECOMMENDATION 42
    The Department of Sustainability and Environment develop and administer a collective offset solution for individual landholders who are permitted to remove native vegetation for the purpose of fire protection.

    I’m not sure if 42 was added as a political gesture to appease the carbon industry. One offset method may be to calculate the carbon footprint of vegetation removed vs the potential carbon release when it burns, plus burning property and carbon emitted by firefighting. Vegetation after all only absorbs carbon when it’s alive, when it burns, it releases it along with other potentially harmful AGW effects like black carbon.

    It also adds some other useful, pragmatic recommendations such as providing free public access to AS 3959-2009, Construction of Buildings in Bushfire-prone Areas so the public can help themselves. It also seems to question biodiversity justifications for preventing fuel clearing by pointing out biodiversity data is poor. So perhaps there is little justification in preventing people protecting their lives and property. It does though recognise the conflicting demands between environmentalists and normal people:

    The State and Commonwealth provide for municipal councils adequate guidance on resolving the competing tensions arising from the legislation affecting roadside clearing and, where necessary, amend environment protection legislation to facilitate annual bushfire-prevention activities by the appropriate agencies


    Report this

    00

  • #

    DSE comes in for a drubbing, reading between the lines. However, while the fire experts recommended 10 percent per year for fuel reduction, the report only recommended 5, which sounds like a needless concession to greens. WA is cited as an example where they have their problem under control and they do 20. The significant risk reduction effect lasts about 5 years so 20% would be right. The irony is that the destruction of important habitat by hot fires is far greater than cool burns, also noted. Throughout DSE did not provide the funds, the leadership, the permits, to mitigate the risk.

    But I think its pointless to expect DSE to be funded to do all the burns. Its a shared responsibility of all agencies with assets at risk. The power authorities, DSE, CFS, Councils, landowners, VicRoads, and they all need to pull their weight.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Treeman

    Jo

    As citizens of nations under common law (U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada, NZ) our benchmark is always going to be the English High Court decision The Court found that the Gore film was misleading in nine respects upholding claims of political propaganda in the film. Be assured that no court of any common law nation is going to controvert ANY of these findings of fact. Australia’s Robert Carter and the UK’s Christopher Monckton helped prove in a court of law nine inaccuracies in Al Gore’s film. My thanks to John OSullivan.

    Gore’s NINE OFFICIAL inaccuracies are:
    The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
    The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
    The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
    The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
    The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
    The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
    The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
    The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
    The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim

    In the face of the legal precedent against Gore, it would appear that Kellie Tranter’s hot wind approach to legal matters is not even worthy of reporting by the ABC. Based on facts there appears to be a better case against the ABC for failing in its duty of care to present balanced reporting than for litigation against sceptics.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    This is the ABC bias

    The stories for today on the Drum and Unleashed.

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


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    DSE burns only 1.7 per cent (or 130,000 hectares) of this public land each year.

    hairdryer – I gather the recommendation in the report is 5%


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian Mott

    The really serious gap in the new fire recommendations is the lack of provision for felling trees as the fire approaches. Any tree in the path of an approaching fire is “a dangerous thing” as defined in the criminal codes. And under those codes every person in control of said dangerous thing has a duty of care to take all reasonable and practical steps to minimise harm. By far the most reasonable and practical step to minimise the potential harm from a standing tree is to cut the damned thing down so the flames from it will not reach anywhere near as far. A tree thus cut, just moments before it is about to be completely destroyed by the fire anyway, could not possibly constitute environmental damage. Indeed, the survival and recovery of the cut tree, by way of coppice growth, would be far more certain than the survival chances of the burnt tree. A court case to determine who is actually in possession of such a tree near one’s house, ie the local Council or the property owner, would fry some serious legal fish. And the council goon that had the gall to lay charges after the fact may well need the assistance of the witness protection program.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Janama @ #22. Did I miss it. I’m sure there must have been a photo of a conservative politician on the ABC board.

    I make that gillard 9, rudd 3, abbott 0, bishop 0, …

    It must be just a sigma-3 kind of day.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adolf Balik

    Of course, disbelieve used to be a felony at each theocracy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    With all the loose “unsettled science” behind AGW, I should think lawsuits would end up in favor of skeptical thinking.

    I think this is a scare tactic they are just trying to silence free speech. Perhaps we need to dare them to proceed. It would be a huge gamble for them to take the bait and they (should) know it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    It’s fun to read these responses to Kellie Tranter.

    Do you think any of this would motivate her to reconsider her advocacy?

    Nada – even though

    “Since establishing her own legal practice seven years ago she has dedicated much of her time to promoting social, environmental and political responsibility, to calls for government and business accountability, and to speaking out for the underprivileged and voiceless.”

    It is PRECISELY the last sentiment listed here that AGW sceptics speak out – but leftist doctrine has become distorted in such a way that “poor and under privileged” advocacy has become inverted


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    Notice the AGW promoters are too cowardly to debate the issues. Too cowardly to actually ask skeptics what is on their minds when they hold their faux reviews of climategate. Too cowardly to actually even review the science or the e-mails when they do their alleged reviews of Mann and climategate etc.
    But they are happy to explore ways to manipulate the system to simply shut skeptics down.
    AGW is an hysterical social movement that uses science to justify the taking of power.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Reading Kellie Tranter makes me want to violate my own standard and wax crude and vulgar. But if I’m any judge of the way it will go, this is just one more truckload of bluster.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Go to any Democrat party convention in the USA and you can find anywhere between E+02 and E+04 Kellie Tranters

    who work for the leftest NGO’s that demand the government to “act” “against” “climate change”

    For what? Because of the guilt these people suffer over owning an automobile? A computer?

    For not having to live like Australopithecus afarensis with a mean lifespan of some 18 years in the midst of unspoiled “nature”?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Atomic Hairdryer

    Ms Tranter, the NGO’s and the politicians are playing a very dangerous game though. She says

    Now suppose you’re a “brown washer” and you put yourself up as an expert on the issue of climate change. You knock up a book on the subject. You’re paid to deliver lectures, and you’re using the lectures to promote your profession or trade as an author.

    Suppose instead you’re a “green washer” and you put yourself up as an expert in land or forest management, as environmentalists have done. You spend money lobbying for policy, you may be paid to consult or advise policy makers. Your policy recommendations may arguably have killed people, and demonstrably cost them money as this showed-

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/11/weve-lost-two-people-in-my-family-because-you-dickheads-wont-cut-trees-down/

    Current policy failed to protect people and property. Current policy failed to protect escape routes. In light of the recommendations by experts contributing to the VBRC report, it would be a brave and probably criminally negligent person that disagreed with them. And, as David Stockwell points out, it does little to encourage or protect biodiversity because the hot fires leave fire tolerant or dependent species, and can make the impacts more severe. It’s crazy and it kills.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gabe

    IT IS THE GREEN COMMUNISTS WHO ARE PROMOTING THIS MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX THAT MUST BE CHARGED WITH FRAUD AND SENTENCED UNDER RULE 303!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    Bad diagnosis followed by bad medicine. Poison actually.

    Mercury has been used in treating illnesses for centuries. Very large numbers of patients were admitted decades ago to insane asylums and diagnosed as having syph. They were forced to take mercury. Bad diagnosis many times. Bad medication and a horrible prognosis.

    This is an example why we don’t force ideas on people nor force solutions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Henry Chance @34,

    Downright rotten medicine since it didn’t work either. But common sense and good judgment will never bother the likes of Kellie Tranter. The self-righteous know only their own self-aggrandizement.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    janama:
    July 31st, 2010 at 4:51 pm
    here’s my post to Kellie Tranter.

    Your Up!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    I just got sucked in and had to respond on their ABC to the following:

    Lord Jim@ 27 Jul 2010 7:49:55pm

    Sure Mulga, and how about we have corresponding trials for deaths caused by CAGW fanaticism: people of the first world freezing to death due to no adequate/too expensive power supply, third world deaths death due to lack of industrialization, further third world deaths due to “food for biofuel” driving up prices – all in the name of an unproved hypothesis of CAGW that is simply not supported by the empirical evidence.

    Reply From Carolus Linnaeus @28 Jul 2010 11:10:51am

    “third world deaths death due to lack of industrialization”
    It’s amazing that humans managed to evolve at all really… I think I might die if I can’t stop laughing.

    My response @ 31 Jul 2010 4:46:32pm

    Carolus Linnaeus 28 Jul 2010 11:10:51am
    Regarding “third world deaths death due to lack of industrialization”
    Stated “… I think I might die if I can’t stop laughing.”

    What a Cold, Callous and ignorant comment to make. Seriously, your ideology obviously overrides any empathy for your fellow human being.

    It’s just incredible the callousness of these people, honestly, they really do appear to hate their fellow human being.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Malcolm Miller

    So the Fire Commission reccomends that 5% of forest should be burned every year, instead of the 1.7% burned annually in Victoria. Eat your hearts out, Greens!
    But I’m guessing that the greens will make such a fuss that the 5% will be quietly dropped by nervous politicians. Anybody care to bet?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Just added to the ABC thread:

    Any discussion of a year or a few years in the data is pointless… the fluctuations month-to-month are of the order of a sizeable fraction of a degree C. With data this noisy any short term trend is completely meaningless. It is therefore also very disingenuous for GISS to make a fanfare about it being “the hottest year on record” and they know it.

    It is 100% correct when Prof Jones said there had been no “statistically significant” warming in the last (was it 15?) years.

    Speculating about a few months, or even 15 years worth of climate data and stating that climate is warming or cooling is showing a disingenuous bearing or a lack of statistical understanding.

    On that basis you can toss out commentary of anyone who makes reference to such short periods of data without making reference to the statistical qualifiers. It becomes clear that the commentary is aimed to influence, not to inform.

    Kellie is as guilty of this as many of the respondants here…

    PS> The GISS data set is the most suss of the lot because they fill in temperatures where there are no thermometer readings and generally paint in those grid squares with red (for warming). Anyone basing their science on thermometer readings needs to think about switching to satellite data (either set), because thermometers are so very last century.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Malcolm Miller @ 38:

    I have often wondered about the question of controlled burns. It is a very complex issue. There must be a cycle of burning that would minimise or maximise various parameters, but which are the ones we seek to optimise? Minimise CO2 emissions? Minimise severe fire risk? Maximise species survivability? etc… I imagine there are many more.

    This is much like the issue of mining rehabilitation in the Darling scarp… put too many stems per hectare and the rapid regrowth sucks water out of the system. Put too little and/or too little variety and you may be depleting species richness. I am no environmental scientist, but as an economist consideration of such of problems is second nature.

    There is much university/company funded research in WA about the effects of bush fires (controlled or otherwise). One paper was going to examine a controlled burn by using strategically placed thermometers above and below ground. If you really want to blow your mind start reading about karrikinolides (C8H6O3). This is the component in smoke that massively stimulates germination in our native species (vegetation). There is a really good slide show here:

    http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.feelthevibe.com%2Fagriculture%2Fseedsmoke.ppt&ei=tK1UTOHqJIySuwOr_N0Z&usg=AFQjCNFXn0nFW4yyeWpPP677FuOyr4utbQ

    It took the scientists years to narrow down which components in smoke caused the germination response.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    News flash

    We have a court case. Not only a case, but a class action case. Multiple defendents.

    http://blog.builddirect.com/greenbuilding/climate-change/

    These questions might sound like fodder for grad students or pundits, but they could soon be explored in a court of law, thanks to a class action lawsuit filed by a group of Mississippi residents victimized by Hurricane Katrina.

    They’re going after the big guns, too, seeking compensation and punitive damages from the likes of Shell, Exxon Mobil, BP and Chevron.

    A group of Mississippi landowners can pursue their lawsuit against more than 30 major oil, electric and coal companies they say have created global-warming pollutants that contributed to rising sea levels and increased Hurricane Katrina’s destruction.

    An intermediate court said they didn’t have standing. That was over ruled by an appeal and they have standing. The right to sue. It doesn’t mean they have a case.
    I own a company and have all kinds of insurance over the years. The expression “acts of God” comes up in writing. This area was hit by hurricanes before refineries were built.

    The advantage of this case is the investigation and the testimony.

    No one has ever proven under oath that certain sources of CO2 are more detrimental than others. No one has ever been forced to prove that a storm is worse because of CO2 level increases.
    We have more CO2 this year than last and the hurricane season is just dissappointing. No action.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    August 1st, 2010 at 9:20 am
    Malcolm Miller @ 38:

    I have often wondered about the question of controlled burns. It is a very complex issue

    Controlled burns are great climate classrooms. In the Flint Hills in the Kansas Prairie, spring time burns kill dead grass, weeds and greatly increase growth of new grassies.
    as the smoke goes up, it can block vision and make driving dangerous when driving thru smoke. It also can elevate pollution readings in nearby cities. As the smoke rises, it acts in a seeding way for condensation on the soot particles and at high levels we get the pretties white clouds above the lower level black smoke. This can rise and as a thuinderheadm create rainfall. A Perfect picture of heat rising, heatloss by radiation and condensation and rain.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    RobJM

    Hey Joe, Have you had a close look at climate4you.com. Ole Humlum has all the cloud data up there, which shows a 5% decrease in cloud cover during the 90s, the obvious cause of the recent step increase in temp. You should have a look at the updates. The comparison between tropical cloud and global temp (UAH) is rather revealing


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gabe

    Subject: A VERY SCARY EXPOSE OF THE ECONOMIC PLAN OF THE GREEN PARTY AND MOVEMENT

    The watermelon party:-
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/the-watermelon-party-20100730-10zsb.html

    Some highlights:

    Scientists would calculate sustainable levels of resource consumption, economists would establish systems to meet those levels.

    Socialism goes PC! Nomenklatura become “scientists” and “economists”, a command economy is a “system to meet (planned) levels”.

    Single-use products would disappear, as would short-lived tech products.

    No new iPhones? iPads? Or any mobile, TV or computer or piece of rapidly updated technology that consumers so love?

    Expensive consumer items are leased and their owners responsible for recycling or reusing their raw materials.

    No private ownership of any expensive consumer item, i.e. cars, computers, big screen TV’s etc you merely lease a centrally planned allocation from the state.

    Those on lower incomes would be subsidised to compensate for the higher cost of products and services. The range of incomes would be shrunk to “reward contributions” rather than “multiplying privilege”.

    An enormous and permanent redistribution of wealth, capped and heavily regulated/centrally planned incomes.

    I haven’t quoted the parts about no economic growth, no air travel, lower incomes, coercive population control (all advertised as features not bugs). It’s a must and very scary read of the watermelon dystopia that threatens to destroy our basic freedoms and way of life, beginning with an ETS and a Green Senate balance of power.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Yep; “Scientists would calculate sustainable levels of resource consumption, economists would establish systems to meet those levels.”
    Says it all; sustainable is a meaningless word in objective terms because the whole universe is winding down and entropy is increasing; in the shorter term enough solar energy passes the Earth every second to power any human population for ever. Sustainable simply is Malthus repackaged; Malthus is the philosophy of negativity and misanthropy, especially when combined with a worship of nature; for Malthusians and Brown and the Greens are at heart Malthusians, humanity has reached its peak and must now retreat from any expansionary ambition; it is a remarkable turnaround from the can-do attitudes which existed for most of the 20thC. The Greens are really small people who have insinuated their way into power and influence; they would hamstring and indeed geld humanity; for them there is no sky above or universe beyond.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    elsie:
    July 31st, 2010 at 6:48 pm
    I think the predetermined acceptable casualty rate for D-Day was set at 20,000. Any more than that an the invasion would have been deemed to have failed, and a retreat would have been ordered.
    This highlights that there was a precise and definite plan even for the possibility of failure. Rather than just a ‘we must do something’ tokenism.
    I agree wholeheartedly with the nuclear issue.
    The day I see a scientist, politician, journalist, or green activist, openly calling for a debate on the use of nuclear power.
    Is the day I will believe, that they believe, that climate change is a serious threat.
    I would also like to see a list of the names of scientists, journalists, and green activists, who have sold up and moved to safer locations.
    Actions speak a louder than words. If they were walking the walk, as well is talking the talk, they would have a lot more credibility.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Gabe:
    One thing I am starting to see ever more clearly with age, although I am hardly ancient, is that there will always be doomsayers in society regardless of how well we are progressing as a species. Anyone that doesn’t see humans as a truimph of evolutionary progress is in denial IMHO.

    Just as an example watch this video:

    http://www.gapminder.org/videos/200-years-that-changed-the-world/

    The poorest countries of the world today are healthier than the richest countries 200 years ago. If that isn’t progress, I don’t know what is. 200 years is a blink of an evolutionary eye and we have already doubled our life expectancies! Have a look at some of Hans Rosling’s other videos… they are quite exceptional.

    As for the zero growth models… they are merely advocating things that will happen naturally anyway. Economies naturally use resources at a lessor rate as they progress… that is called “Intensity of Use” and was first popularised by Malenbaum with some brilliant empirival research. Yes, he used hard data :)

    Single use is starting to fade to some degree… who buys new detergent containers rather than the less (package) resource-intensive refills? Who doesn’t recycle if it is easy? If it pays, i.e. if it is economic to do so (with or without legislation), it will happen anyway. Aluminium recycling is a classic example.

    As for travel … technology is likely to diminish the need. Why travel to a meeting if you can have a comparable meeting in virtual reality? It is not that far away. When I was a teen I visited the Evoluon a few times. It is Philips’ high tech showpiece museum. They had this amazing contraption called a video phone which allowed you to talk and see the person you were talking to live over a short distance in the mueseum. Now we take 5 minutes to install Skype and you can talk to anyone in the world with live video over the net… technology is the circuit breaker… not legislation.

    Many of these things will come to pass naturally and economic forces provide the incentive to happen, but there is no point trying to force something to happen before it’s time unless there is massive market failure.

    Population growth naturally decreases as health and economic prosperity increase in nations. Again, this is a natural outcome of progress. No need to tamper with it.

    I could go on ad nauseum… as I said at the start, there are always nay sayers amongst us. This probably started the day we learned to communicate, with soothsayers and witch doctors interpretting portents and signs from the heavens and earth as omens of doom. More recently we had Malthus (population alarmist), The Club of Rome (resource alarmists), Peak Oil (oil alarmists), and AGW (climate alarmists). I am sure I have skipped many, but they are probably the most notable.

    They all share one thing at least three things in common:

    1) They used models to predict the future;
    2) They all forecast doom and gooom;
    3) They were all wrong with respect to their forecasts.

    Me? I m a glass half full kind of guy. Technology will overcome anything mankind cares to turn it’s mind to. Take the upcoming flu vaccination as just one recent outcome… astounding, and it will save millions of lives. We can do this and will continue to do this.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Dang I should proof read.. but I’m lazy >.>


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Siliggy 16:

    IIRC, that DVD was the last thing that I ever bought at an ABC Shop.
    It’s been several years.
    And up to about 2005, I used to spend well over $1000 a year there.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    I would LOVE to be on the stuff these people are smoking!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian Mott

    Well said, Cohers. I think you are on to something here, Binny. We should set up a scheme where green voters can set an example by their “leadership” on these issues. We should start a scheme where green voters can pay the full price of solar/wind etc as a voluntary surcharge on their power bill. This additional money should be held in trust against future price rises so they won’t be disadvantaged against those who don’t pay. And for the next few years they can show the rest of us how they can lead by example. We can then tally up all the households that opt to pay the added cost and then compare this with the percentage green vote in each electorate. And IF and ONLY IF, the uptake of extra payers is generally consistent with the respective green vote, then the new Abbott government can implement measures consistent with the favoured emissions target of the Green Party.

    If, for example, the green vote in this election is 10% and the uptake of additional payments is only 1% of households then the official emissions target should be set at 1/10th of the greens target.

    Of course, we all know, don’t we, that the target the greens are willing to put their money where there mouth is, is probably in the order of 1/50th of what they claim is absolutely necessary for the rest of us.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Bulldust:
    August 1st, 2010 at 12:32 pm
    Dang I should proof read.. but I’m lazy >.>

    I bet you job is “Peer-Reviewer”, eh?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Brian G Valentine #28:

    speaking out for the underprivileged and voiceless.

    I take that very literally: To perpetuate and to increase those parts of society.

    Consider also that Tranter wasn’t elected to represent those people. So it’s either a Machiavellian exploitation of the people or simply arrogance to speak for them.

    This is a democratic society. People elect representatives to speak for them in Government. Their vote and “pestering” of their elected representatives is their voice.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gabe

    Hi Bulldust,

    I would NOT be getting any SWINE FLU vaccinations if that is what you are referring to.
    I am of the opinion that the alarmism over SWINE FLU is yet another case in point.

    http://www.independentweekly.com.au/blogs/dr-brett/my-concerns-about-the-swine-flu-vaccine/1633359.aspx?storypage=0

    I personally don’t wish to be a lab rat for some drug company…..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gabe

    I think that these GREEN COMMUNISTS have to demonstrate that they are sincere themselves otherwise they can only be seen are hypocrites!

    Have a read of this article…..

    Live Green before you vote it:-

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_live_green_before_you_vote_it/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gabe

    Subject: Yet another green con unravels

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/yet_another_green_con_unravels/

    Nothing about green schemes is real – whether is the good they allegedly do or the harm they allegedly confront. So why the big surprise that one more such scheme turns out to be a joke:

    LABOR’S push to cut greenhouse gas emissions through the use of energy efficiency schemes was yesterday dealt another blow when building industry heavyweights discredited the star ratings being applied to hundreds of thousands of homes.

    Investigations by the building industry have found that the mandatory star ratings scheme is inaccurate and fundamentally flawed.

    The Housing Industry Association and Master Builders Australia yesterday joined scientists in calling for urgent action by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency to resolve problems that are potentially having an impact on more than 100,000 houses built each year.

    They said owners were not aware that mandatory software tools—used to calculate whether a planned new house could achieve the minimum five-star energy efficiency rating necessary to obtain approval for construction—gave vastly different results for the same house under identical conditions…

    The results show that the three software tools, including the original model designed by the CSIRO, were inherently unreliable.

    The star ratings system was rolled out nationally several years ago and recently extended to older houses.

    The findings mean that in some cases houses that should be failing the energy efficiency test are being approved and built, while identical houses are going back to the drawing board for changes and costing their owners more time and money to get right.

    It also means the stated objective of the federal government to cut greenhouse gas emissions in houses is in serious question.

    UPDATE

    Terry McCrann says another “green” scam proves that Julia Gillard could one day challenge Gough Whitlam for incompetence:

    It would be premature to conclude that Gillard is up there with Rudd as not merely the worst prime minister since Gough, but worse than Whitlam.

    Obama’s cash-for-clunkers was unabashedly all and only about stimulus. It failed on those “merits” alone: simply and expensively and so disruptively, bringing forward some new vehicle purchases. Albeit, thank-you-very much, on the taxpayer’s dollar.

    It didn’t even try to make the ludicrous pretence of being “green.” Whereas Down Under, it’s a case of: sorry, we won’t give you a real climate change policy, so here’s a meaningless cash-for-clunkers substitute.

    I have to say I’m conflicted. A symbolic waste of $400 million seems a reasonable price to pay, if that’s the case, for meaningful inaction on the climate change charade.

    In this same category is Gillard’s perfectly secular but Augustinian coal-fired power policy. Lord, or perhaps Gaia, give me carbon-less purity, but just not yet.

    In short, it’s an announcement of a government that hasn’t got a clue.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Gabe:

    Nah I was talking about the universal flu vaccine (inoculation) being reported in the news this week:

    http://www.dotmed.com/news/story/13389

    Joe:
    I presume you are simply trolling, but no I don’t peer review nor proof read in my day job. I leave that task to those who have the discipline to do it. But yes, I do proof my own work at work for basic typos etc…

    If the implication was me with respect to smoking something… negatory again. I stay abreast of technological developments when I have the time. As for virtual worlds… I have plenty first-hand experience and know their potential and limitations with current technology. In 10-15 years? That is a different kettle o’ fish.

    Take the film “Minority Report” for instance. Tom Cruise was manipulating files of information and graphics with waves of the hands and wiggling of the fingers on a large screen. No reason we couldn’t make that system now. Game stations have the ability to sense body and limb movements. We might not even need the finger gadgets Tom had to use if the technology is sensitive enough in future releases (i.e. pick up individual finger motions).

    Another step would be to include voice recognition (tricky one that… I wonder if Kurzweil is still working in this space), and then getting away from the constriaints of a typical projection surface somehow. At this stage you would be manipulating virtual objects, files, information, with movement and voice alone. What is that if not virtual reality? Imagination is the only limitation in virtual reality.

    We have gadgets that can be manipulated (mostly binary states) with the power of the mind alone… i.e. you think state 1 (maybe playing a piano) and the objects switches on and you think state 2 (something radically different to piano playing) and it reads your mind and switches off. This is already possible – actually was demonstrated on Top Gear a few weeks back with a wheelchair guidance system.

    I ain’t smoking anything to get high off those tech advances.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    To perpetuate and to increase those parts of society.

    I’m referring to people in lesser developed countries and people with a lower status in developed Western countries such as immigrants sans education who may or may not be aware that people with considerable political clout

    - would indeed reduce an already low standard of living to near or nonexistence, all for the deeply misguided compulsion to protect the “planet” from delusional “threats.”

    This is not consistent with perpetuating or increasing the fore referenced parts of society and in fact the opposite is consistent.

    The arrogance and stupidity of such “planet protectors” makes me sick by the day


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Thanks to Gabe for speaking out about the COMMUNIST MENACE that threatens to demolish Western society

    - exactly as the Soviet communists promised to do sixty years ago.

    Remember the Soviet Communist response to the “kulaks” who weren’t quite convinced that collective farms weren’t the greatest thing since dialectical materialism?

    Well, folks – guess what – it’s coming to that


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ravensclaw

    Hi

    Point 6 stated “The amount of radiation leaving from the top of the atmosphere has increased which means CO2 is not trapping heat. ”

    This is interesting. Can anyone tell me a peer reviewed source that confirms this. I could not find it on the website showing 800 peer reviewed papers supporting climate scepticism.

    Yeah I know the “peer review” thing is not the be all and end all, but it would be the first question I would be asked.

    Cheers


    Report this

    00

  • #
    WillR

    There is a Canadian Court Case. I reported it here previously — but here is the link again.

    It is all you could ask for based on what I read here… Look for the link to the statement of Claim. These guys believe that they can win in court…

    http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-scientist-sues-national-post

    Suit Could Hold Paper Responsible for Comments and Internet Repetitions

    Dr. Andrew Weaver, one of the most respected climate scientists in Canada and one of the best climate modellers in the world, has launched a libel suit against the National Post newspaper and its publisher, editors and three writer: Terence Corcoran, Peter Foster and Kevin Libin.

    In the words of a news release broadcast today, the suit is for “a series of unjustified libels based on grossly irresponsible falsehoods that have gone viral on the Internet.”

    The 48-page Statement of Claim (download the PDF version here) sets out a National Post pattern of reporting critical and erroneous material about Weaver and, in recent times, refusing to retract or correct when inaccuracies are brought to the paper’s attention. An obvious example was an allegation that Weaver had (or was about to) quit his Nobel-winning role in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – an allegation Weaver dismissed out of hand.

    etc.

    The statement of claim is a MUST READ for sceptics.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    60:

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf

    Page 17 is interesting; some say Lindzen and Choi has been rebutted?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    #60

    see Gerlich & Tscheuschner.

    This is a necessary consequence to an observed cooling stratosphere, as their analysis points out.

    Moreover, it must be what prevents a “hot spot” from forming (and thus observed) near the tropopause between Tropical latitudes


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Ravensclaw:
    August 1st, 2010 at 2:31 pm
    Hi
    Point 6 stated….

    This is a good read and mentions a lot of relevant stuff.
    No problem, we’ll adjust the data to fit the model


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    slightly off topic but well worth a read a piece published today on Quadrant Online and reprinted on SPPI’s blog pages.

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/08/closing-out-dissent or http://sppiblog.org/news/closing-out-dissent#more-2278

    Closing out dissent

    by Bob Carter

    August 1, 2010

    The phenomena of disinvitation and the brotherhood of silence

    Scientists who venture to make independent statements in public about environmental myths soon come to learn about two post-modern-science tactics used to suppress their views – namely, disinvitation and the application of a brotherhood of silence. How these tactics work is explained in this article.

    In his conclusion he includes the following.

    The historical development of these phenomena has been described succinctly by Doug Edmeades, a senior New Zealand agricultural scientist, in the following statement.

    In brief, from the age of enlightenment we have emerged into the philosophy of post-modernism which sets aside evidence as the authority and asserts that the ‘truth’ is what you believe – if you believe it, then it is your ‘truth’. Importantly all opinions are to be given equal authority irrespective of the where the evidence may lie. These ideas have progressed to what is now called ‘Post Normal Science’. This holds that science is subservient to the story that must be told. The role of science is no longer about discovering new ‘truth’ but supporting the ‘story’ which is perceived to be the truth. This gives rise to the notion of “noble-cause science”, which allows scientists to ignore contrary evidence, or worse, manipulate the evidence, if the cause is noble. We have seen evidence of this in the climate change debate.

    It doesn’t have to be so. But nothing much is going to change until we have a science minister with the courage, and the support of his or her government colleagues, to radically restructure the way in which science is performed and funded in Australia, within both government and university research institutions.

    We have to find a way to get stories such as these to the populous in general.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Binny

    Bulldust:
    Regarding your post about technology. It’s not only how quickly technology changes that is amazing, but also how quickly we get used to it.

    I’ve just finished pregnancy testing my cows. While the method used for the pregnancy testing hasn’t changed in a century,(hand up the cows backside see if you can feel a calf)

    I have been using a nice little piece of kit to record the results.
    Each cow has a unique electronic ear tag (National Livestock Identification System)
    When the cow enters the crush a tag reader automatically reads the tag, bluetooths to a laptop and that cow’s record comes up on the screen. I wear a bluetooth headset and boom mike, the screen defaults to a list box with a choice of either empty or pregnant I say out loud what the result is,and it’s entered in the appropriate space, I then say “press F5″ and the screen resets ready for the next cow. It is no problem to test 300 cows in afternoon, and record the results while having instant access to the individual history of each cow.
    I can edit other records for the cow by voice navigating around the screen if necessary. (You can’t use a mouse when you are up to your shoulder in a cow’s backside)

    This is all happening in a cattle yard, in the remote Australian outback 20 km from the homestead.
    As little as 10 years ago I couldn’t imagine technology like this, and it’s beyond my father’s wildest fantasies.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Bob Malloy:@65

    Thanks for the link Bob. Amazing article.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    #65 Bob Malloy

    Easily done to disseminate it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robert

    POEM FOR JULIA GILLARD

    All alone in her parlour, the devilish dervish La Joolya looks in to the mirror and starts to sing and spin..
    I feel giddy,
    Oh, so giddy,
    I feel giddy, and petty and fey,
    And I pity
    Any PM who isn’t me today.

    I feel alarming,
    Not, so charming–
    It’s alarming how uncharming I feel,
    And so giddy
    That my spinning makes me believe I’m real.

    See the giddy girl in that mirror there:
    Who can that giddy girl be?
    Such a preening face,
    Such a pret-a-porter dress,
    Such a petty smile,
    Such a giddy me!

    I feel cunning
    And enhancing–
    Feel like running a political ploy,
    For I’m unloved
    By a rat fu@#king blond haired boy!
    For another weird take on it try

    (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmv3WlKa6U8&feature=related)


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Binny @67

    I’ve just finished pregnancy testing my cows. While the method used for the pregnancy testing hasn’t changed in a century,(hand up the cows backside see if you can feel a calf)

    We have been using an ultrasound unit for the last three years and can confirm pregnancy as early as 45 days.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Bulldust:
    August 1st, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    Relax, you obviously mixed the postings to look like an attack was made against you.
    Troll? Hardly!!!

    You stated “Dang I should proof read.. but I


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    I go after physics as they have made the type of mistakes that AGW have for not including speed from planetary rotation and experiments that failed to include that we are in a magnetic field and hense, objects contain energy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Binny:

    You remind me of the “Did you know?” videos. If you’ve never seen them, here’s the last two:

    Did You Know 3.0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv8pmIr3a7k&feature=related

    Did You Know 4.0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ILQrUrEWe8

    What’s not to get excited about? While being shoulder deep up the backend of a cow must certainly have its rewards, I imagine future farmers may use inexpensive real time blood stream monitors* to tell them when the stock is sick, pregnant, etc. Though I am sure some will still prefer the pragmatic approach ;)

    * we have these for humans with diabetes already (for blood sugar), but that is already old tech. It’s impractical to run around a paddock chasing livestock methinks – much better to get a livestock live feed to a base station. This reminds me of another place I am keen to see – Rio Tinto’s new remote mining centre near Perth Airport. I have been told it looks like something out of the old Wargames movie – think the military command control centre with 100′s of screens and a few massive ones for the whole operation in the Pilbara.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    Climate Skeptics get vast amounts of coverage on the ABC unleashed website. I am sure if Anthony comes up with an intelligible well written argument he’ll get it published however this article is just poorly written drivel.
    Skeptics bring little new evidence to bear, because there is none, and endellsly repeat the same tripe we see here.

    Why don’t you just get the facts from a body that knows what is talking about rather than regurgitating mindless drivel from blogworld
    NOAA
    http://topnews.net.nz/content/26624-noaa-report-global-warming-undeniable-and-happening-fast
    or New Scientist
    http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/05/climate-myths-special.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    DavidR; drivel yourself; the recent NOAA report supposedly justifying the conclusion that AGW is worsening is contradicted by their own evidence! Here are the 7 increasing factors from the report:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/images/soc-obs.gif

    Of the seven 6 have been either flat or declining from at least 2003 and in most from ~1998; the 7th, sea level increase, has been at a declining rate of increase for the last 7 years as the Cazaneve and Ablain papers show. OHC is particularly interesting; since 2003, with the introduction of the ARGO floats, OHC has been decreasing; at the time of the transition there was an enormous and statistically improbable spike in OHC that represents ~40% of the OHC increase since 1975; David Stockwell analyses this error here;

    http://landshape.org/enm/possible-error-in-ohc/#more-3180

    In 2010 NODC was forced to revise its OHC measurement downwards; an almost unique event:

    http://i48.tinypic.com/14e6wjn.gif

    As for saying this: “Climate Skeptics get vast amounts of coverage on the ABC unleashed website”; all I can say is that you have not been taking your meds or you’ve been taking too much.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Bernd Felsche:
    August 1st, 2010 at 12:33 pm
    Siliggy 16:

    IIRC, that DVD was the last thing that I ever bought at an ABC Shop.
    It’s been several years.
    And up to about 2005, I used to spend well over $1000 a year there.

    Here is a not very handy dead link:
    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/swindle/
    So sad!
    This works: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Gabe 66

    That’s pretty cute.

    Make an addendum to the petition: Force K Rudd to finish his term AND make it it rain, as he promised to do


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    allen mcmahon:
    August 1st, 2010 at 8:14 pm
    We will get shot for going off thread here.

    But how quick is that ultrasound? The main reason why I have stuck to the manual method, is speed it means I can get a reasonable size mob of cattle through the yard on a 24-hour turnaround.

    P.S. I don’t actually feel for a calf I feel for an empty uterus, 90% of the time if the cow is empty the uterus is sitting right there just on the pelvic rim.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Gabe, I supported the petition. Kevin should serve his whole term. Twenty to Life, no parole.

    Misappropriation of several tens of billions of taxpayer funds, attempting to defraud by promoting the ETS.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tony Hansen

    #80 Binny,
    So you are empty testing?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    You could say that Tony it’s the empties that I’m culling.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Courtesy of David R

    Why don’t you just get the facts from a body that knows what is talking about rather than regurgitating mindless drivel from blogworld

    David, why don’t you go scratch your back end


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Binny @80
    IMO slightly less time and as our pregnancy averages has increased the accuracy is greater. The ultrasound unit is light and runs off of a battery pack so it is easy to use in a remote location.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Thanks Allan I will have to look into that.
    Now I guess we had better get back the purpose of this site.
    Unfortunately I find that there is only so long that you can bash your head against AGW without getting a headache.
    Jo must have a metaphorical crash helmet, either that or she bulk orders Panadol.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Pete H

    Treeman:
    July 31st, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    I an sure I read somewhere that there were more than 9 problems with Gore’s film but lack of court time led to only those 9 being used for a verdict.

    Anyway, the missing MWP in Mann’s stick really buried the piece of junk!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    So in response to the suggestion that you guys examine the evidence and not resort to blogworld I get a graph from Hadley showing seven graphs, all showing clear global warming over the past 50 years, a couple of blogworld references and a comment from some one who thinks medications are a normal part of the world. And some one who thinks I should scratch my head and wonder where all the fruitloops here come from.

    You guys can’t even come up with a good argument for your own position.

    Pete,
    it was nine errors in the Gore film, all the claims were examined. Almost all of which were of the form that the claim was not provable, not that it was wrong.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    DavidR: (@88)

    The rather dismissive response you have gotten here is due to the obvious “drive-by” nature of your participation. For example, you said:

    Skeptics bring little new evidence to bear, because there is none, and endellsly (sic) repeat the same tripe we see here.

    This site is packed full of evidence (some from peer-reviewed sources, if that satisfies your itch for “authority” — other evidence expects you to be able to think), easily accessible from the home page. It’s clear that you haven’t even glanced at it, much less understood anything.

    It also doesn’t help that the only thing you have to “offer” is a classic logical fallacy.

    People who disagree (even very strenuously) are welcome here — but those who only throw insults without attempting a logical argument don’t last long.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    DavidR:

    A suggestion: Try commenting again when (at a minimum) you understand the difference between “evidence for global warming” and “evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    DavidR, examine the evidence?

    Well this Fruitloop has been unable to find enough evidence to support AGW.

    Yet you and your warmist friends have little empirical evidence to support your Co2 AGW hypothesis. So why don’t you take a look at the blogworld and see if you can drum some up?

    I am sure you’ll go away from here mad, raving and indignant. If you find some common sense along the way maybe it will assuage your unfounded guilt that man is doing damage to the goddess Gaia. If you can’t find any common sense, go to where ever it is that you can lose sleep over your inability to save the world. (that doesn’t need saving)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    DavidR:
    August 3rd, 2010 at 11:13 pm

    it was nine errors in the Gore film, all the claims were examined. Almost all of which were of the form that the claim was not provable, not that it was wrong

    Actually, the judge called them errors. http://www.nzcpr.com/dimmock.pdf

    The ‘Errors’

    1. ‘Error’ 11: Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.

    2. ‘Error’ 12: Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.

    3. ‘Error’ 18: Shutting down of the “Ocean Conveyor”.

    4. ‘Error’ 3: Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs.

    5. ‘Error’ 14: The snows of Kilimanjaro.

    6. ‘Error’ 16: Lake Chad etc

    7. ‘Error’ 8: Hurricane Katrina.

    8. ‘Error’ 15: Death of polar bears.

    The burden of proof is upon the proponents of the AGW hypothesis. Can you cite empirical evidence that proves that man is causing anything but an inconsequential influence on the climate? Please, nothing based on models as models are not empirical evidence.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    and of course

    9. ‘Error’ 13: Coral reefs.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    And some one who thinks I should scratch my head and wonder where all the fruitloops here come from.

    Does this mean that your head is your behind? That’s probably the most plausible thing you’ve stated.

    You’ve been had! I would estimate that you have gathered all you think there is to know about AGW from a few programs on the telly and a couple of reports prepared by Government agencies that ingratiated a Labour-style government.

    Had you been following Joanne’s columns for any length of time – instead of stumbling in and Bible-thumping a couple of reports that all here are all too familiar with – then at least your criticism wouldn’t sound quite so shallow


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    Bob C. What is my logical fallacy?

    Brian G. Sorry if I didn’t take you infantile suggestion as a serious comment. Generally Scratching one’s head is taken to mean thinking.
    Having been following the AGW debate for more than 20 years I can assure you that that i can tell the difference between the rubbish presented here and real science.

    Mark D . If you can’t find evidence for AGW then you ain’t looking. Follow my first two links and you’ll find plenty.

    and Eddy; there are thousands of empirical studies showing that global warming is occurring. Not models, but real long term studies showing the early onset of spring, increased average temperatures, etc, etc, etc, THAT’s why the IPCC was set up, which Brian would know if he had been following the debate long enough to grow up.

    To quote from the Gore courtcase judgement:
    “The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
    (1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise (climate change);
    (2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide greenhouse gases;
    (3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
    (4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects.
    In The court case against the film the judge acknowledged the scientific evidence as correct even if the film was exaggerated.”

    A recent study showed that 97% of (~ 900) Climate Scientists who have published 20 or more papers accept that AGW is occurring.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    For Heaven’s sake, don’t you think all your points have been addressed on these pages in the past, including the figure “97% of scientists” [on the dole]? Name one of them who have nothing to gain by endorsing AGW.

    You’ve stated you have been following this for more than 20 years.

    That puts us at least 1990. Tell us what projections based on the idea of AGW that were made at that time have MATERIALISED.

    Go ahead, show us how the Hansen scenarios have matched reality

    In 1988, a lot of the modelers were still convinced of an aerosol-bourne looming “ice age.” Evidently they concluded that the gravy train associated with THAT concept had already left the station


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I’ve worked for the US DOE since 1986.

    Here’s an account of AGW science at DOE of the time:

    In 1987 I was asked to report on the AGW idea to my director. My conclusion in 1988: no evidence, was debunked since 1910, physically impossible.

    Clinton administration was elected in 1992; Will Happer of Princeton was appointed director of Basic Energy Sciences. DOE National Labs had new computer capability, and the labs wanted to know what DOE thought they should do about AGW modeling.

    I sat in meetings with Will Happer, listening to labs explain to the director, “tell us what you want to hear.”

    Labs thought that since AL Gore was Vice President, the DOE would want the labs to get on board with AGW.

    Happer told the labs, “the idea of AGW does not look like it has merit because you can take it as a starting point to project whatever you want. This is not objective science.”

    People at labs were offended by Happer’s candour and they had him fired (via Al Gore).

    Since then a FEW people at DOE labs have stuck to their convictions of impartiality. Witness Schwartz from BNL – he measured the climate sensitivity and the result surprised him – he had initially believed the value was as large as climate modelers had assumed it was


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    DavidR @95

    Your two links are not impressive. The first is a news story with no actual evidence, and chock full of BS about glaciers, polar ice etc. The second link babbles on in the same fashion as all warmists. “ever since Arrhenius blah blah”……

    Recall that there has been quite a bit of study since then. Notably, that the observations don’t fit the hypothesis. The solution warmists came up with for the lack of empirical evidence, is to “hide the heat in the ocean” (smart too because we have even less data from the oceans than we do the surface).

    It is almost laughable what the warmists have fallen for. It would be truly funny if the “solutions” weren’t so devastating. (and by the way won’t actually work IF Co2 is causing warming.)

    Of course like all warmists you run the “97.4%” report up the flag pole as a sort of “Argument from Authority coup de grâce”. Again if you were skeptical you’d have a problem with a poll of the very same people that are bringing you the “evidence” whether their evidence is correct? C’mon! Sort of like what result would you expect for a poll of skeptical scientists asking whether they were skeptical?

    So DavidR, you’ll have to try harder to move me from my skeptical position. A position backed by a reasoned overall observation that we still, in 2010, are not able to measure, understand, forecast, or predict climate. We are, however, still able to manipulate the minds of entire masses of otherwise capable humans. That, you can measure, forecast and predict! Read some history


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    Brian
    Let’s avoid the painfully obvious fact that the temperature has been going up as CO2 levels have increased as predicted, the 1990.s being hotter than the 1980′s and the 2000′s being hotter again.

    Try googling “hansen model climate volcano”.
    Follow the link “G. Tyler Miller, Scott Spoolman – 2008 – Science – 832 pages
    To make his forecasts, Hansen added the estimated amount of sulfur dioxide released by the volcano’s eruption to a global climate model and then used the …”.

    In one of his very early models Hansen assumed that a significant volcanic eruption would occur in the 1990′s. When Mt Pinatubo did erupt he fed data about that eruption into his model and it accurately predicted climate changes over the following two years.

    As Mark D says their has been a lot of science since Arrhenius and it overwhelmingly points to the reality of AGW. Mark is of course confusing weather with climate however even our weather predictions are much better than they used to be because of the modelling done by climate scientists.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Let’s avoid the painfully obvious fact that the temperature has been going up as CO2 levels have increased as predicted, the 1990.s being hotter than the 1980’s and the 2000’s being hotter again.

    Let’s avoid the painfully obvious fact that they have levelled for 15 years

    When Mt Pinatubo did erupt he fed data about that eruption into his model and it accurately predicted climate changes over the following two years.

    The very same volcano from which Schwartz concluded that lamda=about.037K/W and thereby imperceptible on a decade basis of natural variation?

    and it overwhelmingly points to the reality of AGW. Mark is of course confusing weather with climate however even our weather predictions are much better than they used to be because of the modelling done by climate scientists.

    That is horses hit and you know it. These models including “greenhouse effects” can be made to force fit the natural world, and they come out as good a fit as a size 18 woman in a size 4 dress. Polite people say, “that dress looks great.”

    Global warmers react the same way


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    Brian,
    Lets ignore that since 1995 the average global temperature has risen by
    0ver 0.2 degrees according to Hadley:
    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html
    Around 0.3 according to the Giss land measurement
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
    Around 0.3 according to the GISS land ans se data
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
    And about 0.2 according to the satellite data.
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

    You asked for an accurate scenario based on the early models and Mt Pinatubo was one as described.

    And as all the models are now show very similar temperature patterns, and are all predicting very similar rates of increase over the next century we can have increased confidence in them. Unlike the unsubstantiated stuff on this blog.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Sir, has it occurred to you that these temperature “rises” are dependent solely upon the polynomial fit of the data, and that I can provide equally justifiable (from the standpoint of residual error) constructs of the history that demonstrate that temperatures have decreased over the period?

    Do you really believe that polynomial spline interpolation is something that is God-given, all else the work of man?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    AGW has exactly the same epistemological basis as ESP.

    AGW exists by ignoring all that is contradictory to it. So does ESP.

    AGW exists in the physical world only for those who want it to be there. Contradictions are explained as “consistent” with AGW routinely.

    To the unbiased perception of the observer, there is more evidence to say AGW is not present than to say it is present.

    Over the course of some ten to the 12th epochs of ten to the fifth annual epicycles with the presence of CO2 in the air, it is not possible that CO2 influence could not be discerned amidst the natural variation of climate and I am sorry to say, that any belief to the contrary amounts to psychotic delusion


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    There are some E+02 blogs out there populated by people convinced as you are of the importance or existence of AGW as you are, and why not go chime in with them?

    Because your efforts here are wasted, you can not and you will not offer a shred of evidence that will convince anyone of AGW because there is none, and your possible feelings of isolation or futility will be ameliorated promptly by disparaging the sceptics who populate “blogworld” as know-nothings who have an axe to grind with anything or anyone who presents itself as an “authority”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    DavidR #101

    A rather prominent chappie in the AGW ranks disagrees with you. Phil Jones agreed with his interviewer that “there has been no statistically significant warming in the last fifteen years”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    Brian,
    You are quite right there is no evidence anyone can provide that will convince a denier they are wrong. That’s why they are called deniers. They deny all the evidence they disagree with.

    Who cares if there is clear scientific evidence that increased CO2 causes warming. Anthony Cox can just state that it’s never been reasonably explained.

    Who cares if the Medieval Warm period was local and not actually as warm as today. Anthony Cox says it was warmer and that therefore refutes the dozens of scientific studies that confirm the hockey stick model.

    Even if Loehle’s paper claiming that the hottest 30 years of the MWP was slightly hotter than the past 30 years was correct when it was written 3 years ago; it is now out of date because the last three years have been so much hotter than 30 years ago.

    I can’t give you any evidence that will convince you of AGW because you refuse to accept the evidence of the E+04′s of scientific papers out there confirming it.

    If you choose to bury your head in the sand and ignore the science what can I do?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    Mark,
    There is a vast difference between something not being statistically significant and something not occurring. Jones was referring to one set of data that from CRU, however when you consider all the different studies showing the same thing then the figures probably are statistically significant.

    Anyway you look at it an increase of 0.1 – 0.2 degrees per decade is not insignificant.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    Stop The Press!!
    The standard science says that if you increase C02 in the atmosphere then the temperature will increase. No one has been able to provide any evidence to refute that. CO2 is increasing and so is the temperature.

    However there may be another explanation just as valid. Has anyone considered the exponential increase in sinners burning in Hell over the last century. With the rapidly increasing population the Fires of Hell must have been working overtime all last century, fires ==> heat ==> global warming.

    Who needs science when a simple explanation like this explains it all. Hallelujah.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    You’re grasping st straws David. Statisically insignificant means just that. What part of it don’t you understand?
    Is your figure from the IPCC? We’ve seen how good their “science” is lately. There is nothing happening warmthwise, sea-levelwise, icewise or any other wise that hasn’t happened before.

    So many of the leading figures have been making outrageous statements for so long that they don’t know how to do anything else. They have admitted that they have to do this to get attention. I take it you support this course of action.

    Go bury your head in your beloved models if that’s what you want. Just don’t ask us here to impoverish ourselves for your cause. You belong to a set of Luddites who think that the Earth’s temperature/time graph was a straight line before the present. It wasn’t and won’t be, so live with it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    Mark,
    If you read your own post Jones said “not statistically significant”. This is not the same as statistically insignificant a nonsense expression. See: http://oldprof.typepad.com/a_dash_of_insight/2006/10/statistically_i.html to learn why.

    The models which you keep referring to are not the science. They are designed to allow us to make predictions of the future based on the evidence from the past. The science, the evidence comes from longitudinal studies of nature not computer models. The models aren’t even considered worthwhile until they can accurately predict the past. Once they can be correlated with the known science then they can be used to make predictions. As the predictions are tested the models are improved so that now after twenty years they are all saying pretty much the same thing. AGW is REAL.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    And I’ve read enough of the mendacious behaviour of some leading lights of AGW to know that there is little happening today that hasn’t happened before and will happen again. And that includes the 0.7 deg. warming since 1880.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Let’s look at David’s claims at 106;

    MWP was local: wrong:

    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N30/C3.php

    David thinks the hockeystick has been confirmed and refers to “dozens of scientific studies that confirm the hockey stick model”; this is hubris indeed; ratbaggery even; quote one David.

    David attacks the Loehle’s paper as being out of date because “the last three years have been so much hotter than 30 years ago.” That is spendidly dumb:

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1974

    As for the mechanism by which CO2 causes heating; David, explain it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    DavidR you have slipped to a disappointing low suggesting that I am confused: @98 I say to you:

    So DavidR, you’ll have to try harder to move me from my skeptical position. A position backed by a reasoned overall observation that we still, in 2010, are not able to measure, understand, forecast, or predict climate. We are, however, still able to manipulate the minds of entire masses of otherwise capable humans. That, you can measure, forecast and predict! Read some history

    and @ 99 you reply

    Mark is of course confusing weather with climate however even our weather predictions are much better than they used to be because of the modelling done by climate scientists.

    You apparently do not read well. I chose the words I typed carefully and they are not representing confusion. that we still, in 2010, are not able to measure, understand, forecast, or predict climate.

    It is you that are demonstrating confusion.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    You are quite right there is no evidence anyone can provide that will convince a denier they are wrong. That’s why they are called deniers. They deny all the evidence they disagree with.

    David, you’ll need to back up or retract that. Do tell, exactly what empirical evidence do we deny? Please name and explain that paper, or admit we don’t deny anything, and apologize for baseless namecalling.

    No more comments from you until you do this.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    @ DavidR #110:

    DavidR:
    August 5th, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    Mark,
    If you read your own post Jones said “not statistically significant”. This is not the same as statistically insignificant a nonsense expression. See: http://oldprof.typepad.com/a_dash_of_insight/2006/10/statistically_i.html to learn why.

    You proudly point to a definition by an author who admits that 96% of others in his field disagree with him!

    “…96% of the articles in the leading economic journal misused statistical significance during the 80′s…”

    So, perhaps we could say that there is “a 96% chance that other statisticians would disagree with you. Is that statistically significant?

    Since a common definition of “insignificant” is “not significant” (see here), I think you (and your ‘authority’) are fighting an uphill battle.

    Re: post # 106: Oops! I think you wanted to submit that post to The Drum — it’s pretty standard fare for you over there. Baseless name calling with zero logical content gets you banned over here, however. I tried to warn you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denis of Perth

    Speaking of legalities,
    1. Can the ACCC legislation be used to stop pricing support for AGW; and
    2. Can Trade Practices legislation be used to stop unfounded claims being presented by ‘shills’ for AGW?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denis of Perth

    Hi Jo,
    How about putting up an AGW Electricity Costing Barometer?

    Here in Perth we are blessed with an Electricity ‘authority’ that will pay 7 cents per KW as an economic price they will pay for non system generated electricity but they will top that up with 40 cents per KW for ‘renewable’ generated.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    David, you’ll need to back up or retract that. Do tell, exactly what empirical evidence do we deny? Please name and explain that paper, or admit we don’t deny anything, and apologize for baseless namecalling.

    I can hear the yelping now:

    “Unfair! Unfair! I have been treated unfairly! I call people ‘denier’ because that’s what they are, and then I’m prevented from explaining myself, and I’m forced to ‘apologize’ for being honest! This is completely unfair treatment by anyone who advertises themselves as ‘open-minded’! This is just another example of the ‘denialist’ mentality that doesn’t want to hear any truth but their own version of it”

    He had a lot better treatment here that I have had at Climate Progress or Deltoid, to whom he can deliver his sorrowful tale about the behaviour of “deniers”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Denis of Perth #117:

    Here in Perth we are blessed with an Electricity ‘authority’ that will pay 7 cents per KW as an economic price they will pay for non system generated electricity but they will top that up with 40 cents per KW for ‘renewable’ generated.

    (It’s per kWh – kilowatt-hour being equivalent to an electical load consuming 1 kilowatt for an hour)

    The larger error is in the thinking of those who seek to benefit. They accept the 47 cents/kWh (as well as the other subsidies in installation and capital costs) but they will never pay 47 cents/kWh for electricity off the grid. Yet they expect others to pay that amount.

    They say that they do it for the environment. To save the planet. Well; why not be content with the 7 cents per kWh that other co-generators receive?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidR

    Cohenite @ 112
    provides a graph showing global warming of about 0.15 degrees per decade over the past 35 years.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1974

    It also shows cooling trends from 1980 -1986, 1990-1997, 2001-200. This is empirical evidence that global warming is occurring. Do you Accept this graph?

    There are four other references on this page to tables or graphs showing the same thing.

    And he wants an explanation of how CO2 causes global warming, so here’s one:
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#S3

    There are many measurement sites around the world showing CO2 is increasing here’s a compilation of a few:
    http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/other_stations/global_stations_co2_concentration_trends.html

    Ther you are Joanne @ 114; three separate sets of empirical scientific evidence:

    1. Chemical explanation of why increased CO2 in the atmosphere will cause warming.
    2. CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.
    3. Global warming is occurring.

    So Joanne do you accept or deny this evidence???

    [David, we accept all the above and discussed it years ago. I have never said that GHG's are not GHG's, nor that the world has not warmed since 1800, nor that CO2 has not increased. This "evidence" suggests nothing more than 1.2 degrees of CO2 (see Hansen 1984 and IPCC Ar4) and largely rests on a weak recent correlation that is not supported by longer term graphs. You don't seem to realise you are about 200 posts behind the rest of us. Obviously you have no reason to call skeptics "deniers" and after you have apologized and agreed not to throw names that are baseless you may post again. --JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lord Jim

    Well, the ABC has refused to put up 3 (probably 4 I suspect they won’t publish the last one either) of my posts.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Mark D.:
    August 5th, 2010 at 10:36 pm

    DavidR you have slipped to a disappointing low suggesting that I am confused: @98 I say to you:

    So DavidR, you’ll have to try harder to move me from my skeptical position. A position backed by a reasoned overall observation that we still, in 2010, are not able to measure, understand, forecast, or predict climate. We are, however, still able to manipulate the minds of entire masses of otherwise capable humans. That, you can measure, forecast and predict! Read some history

    and @ 99 you reply

    Mark is of course confusing weather with climate however even our weather predictions are much better than they used to be because of the modelling done by climate scientists

    You apparently do not read well. I chose the words I typed carefully and they are not representing confusion. that we still, in 2010, are not able to measure, understand, forecast, or predict climate.

    It is you that are demonstrating confusion.

    The algorithm DavidR uses for distinguishing weather from climate is quite simple — if we all just remember this, we won’t become “confused”.

    1)Any “predictions” that can be verified as wrong = “weather”
    2)Any “predictions” that can’t be currently verified = “climate”
    3)Any “predictions” from point 2 that slip into point 1 become “weather”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Good one BobC, I think there might be additional parts too:

    4)Any observed weather event that is within averages = weather
    5)Any observed weather event that is outside averages = climate
    6)Any observed weather event that ends with a human death = CLIMATE CHANGE
    7)Any observed weather event that ends with multiple human deaths
    = CERTAIN evidence of CATASTROPHIC MAN CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE!
    8)Any event with tragic loss of life = CATASTROPHIC MAN CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    You don’t seem to realise you are about 200 posts behind the rest of us.

    He doesn’t care because he doesn’t listen. He has no clue that everyone here has already heard everything he has to say about AGW – twenty years ago. He thinks he’s going to waltz in and “set the record straight” for the “clueless.”

    David, you were told to go scratch your rear end. Go!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Not standing up against nonsense is what brought on misery from Communist regimes in East Europe – and party bosses were only too happy to have some Davids around to spread it around.

    I don’t think David has the imagination to figure out what the consequences of his fantasies about CO2 in the air would bring about for everyone – including himself.

    By and large, though, the Davids are going the way of the dinosaur but none too soon. Despite continued attempts to keep AGW going by artificial respiration ordinary people are coming to understand what a colossal farce AGW is – just as people did in the 1920′s when it was rather chi-chi to believe in this nonsense for a while.

    Thanks to a pile of Government money back in the 1990′s, however, this idiotic Ponzi scheme better known as AGW reappeared and took hold somewhat deeper than it did in the 1920′s.

    All JoAnne or anyone here can do is help eliminate the delusions associated with AGW perhaps a little quicker and with less potential damage than would happen otherwise.

    Believe it or not, David – we’re on your side: you, as a free individual in a free society that is not compelled by Government fiat to make an atavistic retreat to the stone age


    Report this

    00