JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

Key Tool for the Scare Campaign: Censorship. How bullying critics keep editors from straying.

A very curious thing happened on Saturday.

There’s a media war going on here in Australia. At stake is free speech — but the discussion about it is completely disguised and parades instead as a debate about “balance” in science reporting.

It’s reached the point where our national masthead felt the need to issue a whole feature article rebutting their critics (Climate debate is no place for hotheads) which includes quote after quote of The Australian’s pro man-made-global-warming editorials. But why under the Goddess of Free Press should any serious newspaper feel required to declare their belief in a particular scientific theory?

“The Australian ‘s editors are being attacked for questioning authority. They’re supposed to be journalists who investigate everything, not a PR agency who promotes an ideology. In reply the Australian could have been roasting the other media agencies…”

The Australian has been taking heat from the rest of the Australian media (notably Fairfax and ABC employees, and a couple of book writing academics). It’s not that The Australian has held back on publishing the illogical, unreasonable PR, and baseless posturing of vested-carbon-scare-interests, no sir. They are just as ready as anyone to publish the unscientific Lomborgs, Orsekes, and Hamilton’s.  The real issue at stake is censorship. The rest of the media thinks The Australian should do more of it. They disparage The Australian in scathing terms, not for what it won’t publish, but because it does not shield the dumb punters enough. The Australian commits the sin of giving some column space to people who don’t hold UN-approved-views.

Censorship is the single most important tool of those who want to scare the masses. (Money, of course, would trump that, but there is no shortage of whole government departments devoted to pumping the climate gravy, so while money is theoretically vital, in this case it’s guaranteed. Censorship, though, is an entirely different story: it could “disappear” in an instant, and once gone, it’s hard to get back.)

So the climate-establishment and their willing minions crave censorship — and why wouldn’t they, they’re practical people. They know that if skeptical writers were allowed to publicize their opinions along side the professors who keep spouting logical errors and baseless insults, then the grand facade of the carbon scare would be cremated by Christmas, captured in comedy by New Year, and forgotten by Australia Day.

You can hardly fault them. They have their priorities set exactly straight — the single biggest threat to their shaky supremacy is the danger that a few large media outlets would start to run photos of Anthony Watts Surface Stations project, or do a serious documentary with Steve McIntyre.

Figure it out, if 60 Minutes ran a story which gave exactly equal time to Michael Mann and Steven McIntyre, would the public become more, or less, convinced about the dangers on offer thanks to carbon? Precisely. If the Climate Establishment thought Michael Mann would win that debate, they would have organized it years ago. Likewise Gore and Monckton. If Al Gore rang the executive producers, offering to go head-to-head with a skeptic on camera, do you suppose they would turn him down?

The fragile facade only survives through bluster and repetition

There’s no conspiracy among editors, but there’s not much courage either. No one wants to be pilloried among their peers so the threat of being called a denier, or a “right wing extremist” is enough to keep most editors in line. Bullying works — at least in the short run. And this article by The Australian reveals how effective it is.

The campaign against The Australian get’s under the editors skin –  and Chris Mitchell and others are right to protest that they have been mislabeled. But by putting so much effort into claiming they really truly do believe in Climate Change — they’ve fallen into the Orwellian trap of stating the blindingly obvious, as well as playing on the enemies turf… it’s like saying “I’m not four headed monster”, or “I’m not an alcoholic”. (So you’re just a three headed, heavy drinker, with a problem on weekends right?)

Everyone believes the climate changes.

“those who ask the questions control the conversation”

The English language and rational thought is being destroyed by these kind of conversations. Do you believe 1+1 = 2? The inanity is the point. Is blue, blue? Why the heck is anyone asking? Because those who ask the questions control the conversation. That’s why the second point on page two of The Skeptics Handbook told skeptics to ask the questions. When alarmists reduce the conversation to “Do you believe in climate change” they control the dialogue, they are keeping it far away from scientific points, from the evidence, and close to their home turf — instead it’s the club handshake, the tribal headdress, the secret password.

Instead of saying the password, the Australian could be mocking the gatekeepers.

This is supposed to be about the science fergoodnesssake. Not about “believing”.

The Australian ‘s editors are supposed to be journalists who question everything, not a PR agency who promotes an ideology. In reply the Australian could have been roasting the other media agencies for not covering the photos of Anthony Watts surface stations project, and not exposing the missing ARGO results, and for not printing the worst of the climategate emails in full, in context, and with the job descriptions of the emailers for everyone to see. But then, The Australian, as good as it has been (in comparison), hasn’t  printed those things either. The field of blind parrots pecks the one-eyed.

Instead of saying the password, the Australian could be mocking the gatekeepers.

If The Australian wants to control the dialogue instead of responding to the cat calls, there are many simple, probing, unasked questions they could start with in the Corruption series here, with The Skeptics Handbook (and part II), or the Climate Money paper.

The claims against The Australian are not just baseless, they’re claims any half decent rag ought to be ashamed for even mentioning. Golly, The Australian not only prints baseless smear articles in favor of establishment opinions, they sometimes print rational dialogue in response. The crime! The saddest thing is that that places the lonesome Australian closer to the center, but far to the right of all the rubber-stamping PR machines who only put out the government approved propaganda.

Clive Hamilton — who breaks tenets of science, good manners, and any semblance of reason — spins up a preposterous claim that The Australian is “attacking science”, and strangely the national masthead almost seems to be hurt by it.

The charge against The Australian is summed up by Clive Hamilton, who has accused the newspaper under the leadership of Mitchell of “running a virulently anti-greenhouse line, allowing the news pages to become a parody of dispassionate journalism, verballing scientists and attacking science in pursuit of a larger ideological battle”.

Hamilton dutifully says science is all about evidence, not opinions, but he bows to the fake UN Gods of climate,  and doesn’t seem to notice the irony that the “evidence” he cites is just a consensus of climate scientists. Somehow it escapes him that a consensus is made of … opinions?  Hamilton rages about the “War on Science”, but doesn’t acknowledge that he’s the one who wages it.

But the baseless bullying apparently works. People like Flannery and Hamilton use it against everyone who dares speak against the reigning cult. The term “denier” is not scientific, not good English, and not even appropriate name-calling, but every news outlet repeats it, as if it were a term of taxonomy.

I applaud Chris Mitchell for fighting back, and not caving in to the bullies. I don’t think defamation threats are as good as getting even, but it’s much better than letting them get away with it.

Miranda Devine covers the ugly tweets that brought on the defamation suit from the Editor Chris Mitchell. She’s nailed it: the journalists have become activists. And they’re so far from being journalists, they’re actually proud of their partisan activism.

So if you are an outside observer here, not sure who to believe, what’s the dead give away clue?

One side of this debate wants a debate, and the other will do anything to avoid it.

Only one side wants to censor the other.

We skeptics are not afraid of anything the Big Scare Campaign Team can say, because we’ve got the evidence that they don’t (see my debate with Dr Glikson). We don’t ask that anyone censor the anti-science team. (Yes, let the Hamilton’s and Flannery’s speak, but please don’t use my tax dollars to support their stone age reasoning.)

——-

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.0/10 (4 votes cast)
Key Tool for the Scare Campaign: Censorship. How bullying critics keep editors from straying., 7.0 out of 10 based on 4 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/29zqtcv

71 comments to Key Tool for the Scare Campaign: Censorship. How bullying critics keep editors from straying.

  • #

    One side of this debate wants a debate, and the other will do anything to avoid it.

    That pretty much says it all. And is one of the main reason the movement (AGW, AGCC, Global Climate Disruption) is losing. You can only fool all of the people some of the time.

    00

  • #
    David, UK

    Amen. Any group that fears debate is inherently weak. As Jo said, all it takes is just one MSM outlet to open up the debate with some serious questions, and the first domino will fall.

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Thanks, Jo, for another superb article that “tells it as it is”.

    Of course, the extreme bias of the mainstream media has been obvious forever. On the question of the CAGW debate, I have never really fully understood the tenacity of this bias. I still don’t, to be honest.

    00

  • #
    treeman

    Jo, censorship rares its ugly head in Sweden of all places. With the Australian populace 50/50 divided on carbon we can look forward to more of it. Censorship after all is the hallmark of a socialist state!

    00

  • #
    MalO

    Good on you Jo. I saw this artical and almost puked. I wrote to the Australian and asked “why do you have a position at all”.
    I am still gobsmacked when the ABC was forced to put to air The global warming swindle. I can still hear Tony Jones going to great lengths to make sure that all the viewers understodd that “This show does not represent the views of the ABC” Well well well. So everything else they show with out this disclaimer DOES represent the views of the ABC. What a joke!.
    Jo, run this by the next scare mobger you come across. Ask them if they would prefer to be right or wrong about their dire predictions. Watch the instant flicker in their response that betrays them… Most of them, at least the hard liners WANT their dire predictions to be born out. Some of them are BAD people.

    00

  • #
    Jim Barker

    Great article. I’m still baffled by those who seem to be upset that anyone Could question science. Science is all about the questions (and answers, not opinions). Can’t be science if the experiment can’t be duplicated, definitely not science if there wasn’t even an experiment conducted.

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    There’s a surprisingly Balanced MSM article on the Science Museum’s new found Balance in the Independent today.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    “Three in four Australians believed climate change was occurring, with 77 per cent convinced and 18 per cent not. Twenty-three per cent believed climate change was caused entirely by human activity and 71 per cent said it was “partly caused” by humans.

    But when it comes to putting a price on carbon, which will put up the price of petrol, electricity and gas, Australians were evenly split over whether they would be in favour of paying more for energy to slow global warming.

    Those against paying more were 49 per cent, those in favour 47 per cent.”

    The poll in the Australian is possibly not so much an indication that Australians are overwhelmingly warmists. Only 23% seem to be rank ignoramuses. 71% accept that global warming is a combination of anthropogenic and natural factors which would include most skeptics.

    The question it seems was loaded for who in their right mind would not be willing to pay to stop the horrific outcomes the IPCC global warming fraternity promotes. Perhaps the question “will reducing CO2 emissions have any significant impact on global warming”? would sort out the warmists from the skeptics and perhaps indicate a better informed public than The Australian realises exists.

    All round not a bad poll that indicates skepticism is alive and well in Australia with plenty of potential for healthy growth, given the right diet is provided.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Someone who knows the right people at the
    ” Australian “might like to “try them out” and see if they’ll report on the following given Australia is discussing setiing up a carbon trading scheme of some sort.

    http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/ECE1129571/dk-centre-for-co2-fraud/

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    How about some balance in goverment water related websites and TV adverts. Now that our dams are 100% full every drop of water we save is on its way to Wagga Wagga.
    http://www.thinkwater.act.gov.au/water_savingtips/water_saving_tips.shtml

    00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    The above link to the Australian article currently doesn’t work. It can be accessed here:

    http://tinyurl.com/3a8pw7u

    It annoys me when newspapers waste people’s time by inviting comments and not posting any. This is especially so when I have written in and have been quite sure that scores would have done likewise. The few times I have seen a newspaper post comments to articles about Global Warming, the comments have been mostly sceptical and inconvenient to the Gospel.

    How pathetic that the Australian felt the need to defend against charges of heresy, by reasserting its faith. When will the MSM properly realise that its job is to not censor, advocate or offer apologetics? With their declining sales, the newspapers especially would do well to quickly rediscover their legitimate role. You are quite right, Jo, that if the media started seriously and honestly reporting what is going on in the climate industry, the game would be quickly over. So when the media writes (The Australian) that “The nation, however, overwhelmingly believes climate change is caused by mankind”, they are really only reporting (probably with exaggeration) on the efficacy of their own program of censorship and misinformation.
    http://tinyurl.com/2a3ev4b

    They can’t get away with it forever, though. The day is approaching when they’ll be held to account. The Australian’s editors might not be as guilty as the others, but they are still guilty.

    [Thanks Sean. Link fixed-JN]

    00

  • #

    Llew Jones:
    December 7th, 2010 at 6:17 am

    “Three in four Australians believed climate change was occurring,

    Which means the other one in four are either stupid, don’t care or didn’t understand the question.

    Climate isn’t just temperature or how much CO2 is in the air. Climate is a combination of the flora and fauna of a given area, It’s prevailing wind patterns, it’s precipitation patterns, it’s seasonal variations etc, and they change, sometimes slowly, sometimes relatively quickly. And all without the aid of SUVs.

    The Sahara is a desert climate. The region surrounding the sea south of Europe and north of Africa is called a Mediterranean climate. Siberia is dominated by a Tundra climate, there are tropical climates and so on.
    A change of 0.7DegC in temperature hasn’t and will not change these climates. And nor will a doubling of CO2, and no amount of computer model runs will convince nature to behave differently.

    The definition of climate has been changed by alarmists to suit their agenda. IT’S THE ONLY THING THATS CHANGED ABOUT CLIMATE IN OUR LIFETIME. Maybe they can tell us what the mediterranean climate will change to if we don’t stop driving our SUVs mediterranean mark 2? What will a Tundra climate change to? And don’t we all know what a cock-up they made of trying to tell us what the Amazon tropical climate will change to. It’s embarrassing.

    Until MSM journos understand these fundemental facts, facts which most of us learned in primary school, they’ll never be able to formulate the right questions when challenged by chicken little wannabe world savers like Glikson, Flannery, Karoly et al

    And the embarassingly pretend journos of OUR ABC can take special note.

    00

  • #

    The crew that backed the AUS into a corner last Saturday haven’t woken up yet: they cannot kill this story.
    It won’t go away if the mainstream media ignore it. They’ve been trying that for a year now and still they don’t understand.
    The MSM’s cred was already dwindling – the citizens know now that they have been actively pushing one side and trying to suppress the other.
    Thoughtful folk are looking for alternative sources of information, and in the age of the internet they have plenty of choice.

    00

  • #
    Jay

    “But the baseless bullying apparently works.”

    Also, it is remarkable projection, in the Freudian sense. Best example:

    “running a virulently anti-greenhouse line, allowing the news pages to become a parody of dispassionate journalism, verballing scientists and attacking science in pursuit of a larger ideological battle”.

    “line”…”ideological battle”…sound like old Marxists looking in AGW for a template to place themselves in the forefront and the battle lines. A replacement for the loss of the Soviet Union, and the increasing untenability of anti-Semitism cloaked as anti-nationalism, serving as class glue for the control freak elements and their pseudo-science religion.

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Gregoryno6 (#13): “… in the age of the internet they have plenty of choice”

    Let us hope that continues to be the case. Or else, as the freeedom of the internet becomes shackled, that other options will evolve for the free exchange of information.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Jim Barker @ 6:

    Yes, you nail it there… science is about questions. All a PhD thesis is, after all, is a very well put question and a reasoned answer based on scientific evidence. The real trick is to find a question worth asking.

    What is alarmingly evident is that the advocates of climate don’t want to know about questions… they simply want to tell you what is and how much you are going to have to pay in taxes for your sins against Gaia.

    Science is about questions, religion is about dogma. The two are mutually exclusive domains, and hence it is often appropriate to think of AGW advocates as members of the Church of Climatology. They like associating us with Holocaust deniers… well then I shall associate them with religious crackpots*, should the mood take me there. Fair go.

    Of course, in the rare event that they are willing to avoid saying denier and mount a serious, polite debate, then I shall meet them on like terms. The closest thing you will get to a polite debate, however, is some stooge copy-and-pasting responses from ClimateSkeptics. Independent, critical thinking is foreign concept to these folks.

    * I will not apologise to anyone silly enough to follow Scientology… I even tried reading one of Hubbards sci-fi novels back in the day… for a sci-fi writer he makes a good religious crackpot. Maybe I should qualify that… he did set about starting a religion for tax evasion purposes, which is not so much silly as cunning. I keep hoping they will approach me when they are out on Murray Street (Perth), but for some reason they never dare. Maybe I should stop giving them menacing stares :D

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Peter Lewis has an article at The Drum today ‘Scepticism becomes mainstream’ – two of the reasons he cites for this dreadful calamity is
    Sceptics given a platform – the nature of the media is to present balanced news. The difficulty occurs when more than 95 per cent of the world’s scientists agree that climate change is real and action is needed urgently while a tiny rump of gold-diggers say its overblown hype. Should media give the two sides equal airtime, or weight the time to the relative strength of the scientific cases? Most media outlets, including the ABC, went for the straight ‘two sides to a story’ approach. This had the affect of inflating the deniers’ case and reducing the import of the international consensus. (did any of you notice this balanced approach to reporting? …. um err … Thought so)

    Scientists caught flat-footed – The scientific community was then caught flat-footed, when a handful of minor errors were identified in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report. The science community failed to explain these errors as well as build understanding of the scientific processes of peer review. This means each time an error is identified it becomes a ‘gotcha’ moment, rather than part of the process of building understanding. It created more fuel for the deniers’ fires. By failing to consistently state that the science of climate change is in, science itself was exposed to attack and, along with the impenetrable explanations offered by then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, was further undermined by sceptics as being elitist and therefore suspicious. (Don’t you love “the failure to consistently state that the science of climate change is in?” Like in where … limbo, flux, a state of denial that it’s become so politicised?)

    Go leave a comment http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41870.html and we’ll see how balanced the moderators are

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    The Australian protesting that they believe in AGW is a bit rich. They have been the climate contrarians greatest friend. Sure they sometimes appear to “toe the party line”, but it is always grudgingly and highly qualified. Ever heard some say, “I’m not a racist but…”? Well that is The National Tabloid on climate change, “We believe in climate change but…”, and then they start spouting some regurgitated rubbish that you guys would approve of.

    Its funny reading this blog. You guys take it for granted that you are correct on global warming (or rather, since you guys have a very broad range of opinions (and I use that term loosely), you take for granted that AGW is incorrect). Still, I guess I take it for granted that the AGW scientists who think that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to temperature increases of 2 – 5 degrees are correct. So maybe I’m the conspiracy theory nutter and absolute dimwit….

    Go Eddy! Go!

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    I agree with many of the foregoing posts. The critical essence of not just science but progress generally is the ability to ask questions. As a farmer I was always asking questions; why was this crop better than the last? why was this calf better than that one? As an Army officer it was asking questions about the enemy, the weather our resources. Questions are vital if one is to arrive at a logical solution and importantly to continue to question even as the solution is implemented.

    Reading Roy Spencer’s “Blunder” I was reminded that good news does not sell newspapers. The reason the warmers get the press is because they are selling fear and disaster to a very comfortable public. The poor of Calcutta are affected by far worse daily than the prophets can predict. They are not worried by CC. We are because it could mean a decrease in our comfort.

    A suggestion. Instead of telling the believers that their science is wrong and they won’t fry we should be telling them what the cost of “combatting dangerous climate change” is going to cost them. Not just in terms of dollars but also in terms of restrictions to their life styles. How many will voluntarily take their families on holiday by train to the limited number of holiday places with public transport? How will they afford it after paying for their windpower electricity?

    In support of the Australian (it is after all the only media that challenges government on anything) it recently ran an expose of the scam that is wind power. The Australian needs our encouragement not our censure.

    00

  • #

    BTW major trashing of the AGW party line going on in the comments..

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Lawrie:
    I agree wholeheartedly I don’t bother discussing the science behind climate change (or lack of it)
    But I continually point out how baseload power works and the fact that it takes 24-48 hours to bring a power plant online after a shutdown.
    And how a baseload power plant must be running at all times in order to provide instant backup for solar or wind power on a cloudy or still day.

    Then people very quickly realise that wind and solar are a con and that any carbon price is not going to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    At this point they usually interrupt to say quite indignantly “So really this whole thing is just another tax”
    I then reply “How else do you think all the borrowings for the GFC are going to be paid back?”

    00

  • #

    John Brookes: #17
    December 7th, 2010 at 9:37 am
    Hi John. In this reply, my use of the word YOU is collective, i.e. all those who are proponents of AGW.

    You guys take it for granted that you are correct on global warming (or rather, since you guys have a very broad range of opinions (and I use that term loosely), you take for granted that AGW is incorrect).

    I take nothing for granted. there is one fact not even you (John) will refute, and that is I DON’T HAVE MY HAND IN YOUR POCKET. YOU HAVE YOUR’S IN MINE.

    Therefore, I don’t even have to debate/discuss the science. That I do for fun and knowledge gained along the way. But you; you who has his hand in my pocket against my will need to prove to me that you are right. Where is your proof that you are right?

    But you just take it for granted and then have the temerity to comment about ONE FRIGGING NEWSPAPER all the while conveniently ignoring all the other MSM, not to mention the marketing/communications power of every single major enviro group and also not to mention nearly EVERY SINGLE GOVERNMENT IN THE WORLD and their public service arms thereof.

    Not satisfied with all that, you (John)comment about one paper “begrudgingly” toeing the party line.

    Open your eyes John, despite the above mentioned overwhelming numbers on your side, nothing substantial has been achieved regards the greatest moral challenge of our time, the livelihoods and lives of our children at risk no less. Why? You don’t have the proof to convince the voting public, period.

    Prove me wrong and I’ll buy you a beer.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    John Brooks:

    Its funny reading this blog. You guys take it for granted that you are correct on global warming (or rather, since you guys have a very broad range of opinions (and I use that term loosely), you take for granted that AGW is incorrect).

    This John,is where you and others like you are missing the point, while some sceptics might point to it all being the sun, others may believe ocean currents and upwelling to be the main driver of temperature fluctuations, however the vast majority of us, as well as the latest proclamation from the Royal Society, numerous opinions put forward by independent scientist, all maintaining that there are still too many unknowns on what drives climate over decades, centuries and millenniums for the world to castrate itself on still unproven theories from a cartel of scientist that obstructs and delay any independent attempt to repeat and verify their work.

    While we may differ in our conviction on any one or combination of alternative causes of Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate disruption, doesn’t matter, what matters is that we don’t close our eyes to alternatives to CO2 as the culprit.

    I believe it is the John Brooks of this world that acknowledge CO2 could not or was not the driver of past climate events, then claim that the modest warming at the end of the last century can only be explained by an increase in CO2 that are taking things for granted.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    If you ask the following questions of politicians and senior bureaucrats:

    “Why is it that so many logical, erudite, rational, and well educated people are sceptical about climate science? What is it, that they see with clarity, that the rest of the population does not?”

    The answer you invariably get (somewhat paraphrased) is, “It is because they do not understand the wider economic picture, and only focus on the narrow scientific issues” [my emphasis].

    Inside the political bubble, Climate Science is viewed entirely in economic terms: “What is the economic costs of taking action now, under the precautionary principle?” versus “What are the likely future economic costs in terms of trade, and other sanctions, if we do not take action now?” Note: this is a comparison between costs – no mention of benefits.

    This is why I have always maintained that Climate Science is no more that sub-branch of Political Science, which is itself a branch of Economics.

    The problem that the politicians and activists (and the media) face, is that the sceptics insist on trying to assess Climate Science in terms of Physics and Chemistry and Biology; and that is just not playing very fair at all. Children have been thrown out of kindergarten for less – you have been warned.

    00

  • #
    tertius

    John Brookes:
    That was a juvenile and insulting post.

    Skeptics do not represent a totalitarian lock-step block. They tend to be free thinkers, libertarians, individualists and rationalists.

    It is you who are in lock-step with a totalitarian ideology seeking to impose mass conformity and control over individual lives. It is you who appeals to authority and demands censorship of the mass media and the stifling of alternate viewpoints. It is you who believes in utopian dreams of creating a paradise on earth under the auspices of universal governance. It is you who believes in conspiracy theories about how skeptics are controlled and funded by “Big Oil”.It is you who can see into the future with absolue certainty. it is you alone who knows what is right and good.

    So maybe I’m the conspiracy theory nutter and absolute dimwit….

    No “maybe” about it…You are.

    00

  • #
    GBees

    They (The Australian-Tues Dec 7th 2010 pg 6) are at it again! Major articles on the BS coming out of Cancun and an unscientific poll which shows ~94% of people interviewed think Climate Change is caused by Human Activity. But look closer. 71% think its “Partly caused by human activity”. Just what does partly mean? The question “Is Climate Change caused by human activity?” should read ” Is runaway catastrophic global warming being caused by human CO2 emissions?”. If 90% of Australians would answer yes to that question I’m living in a country full of imbeciles ……. Jo is correct, our press is being hijacked. Its the beginning of the end if our press cannot stand up for everyday Australians against the fools in power who would destroy our economy, transfer wealth overseas and put policies in place which harm every Australian.

    00

  • #
    davidc

    This (Australian) article surprised me as the Australian has been the only MSM (that I’m aware of)in Australia to give skeptics a voice. They’ve also published some of the scare stories too, as they should. Being accustomed to activist journalists in this area I assumed that the editor was a skeptic; but maybe he’s just practising balanced journalism (which is, of course also a crime to activists).

    Mitchell should listen to Bob Carter.
    1. Climate changes (of course)
    2. Humans influence climate (we burn things etc)
    3. The magnitude of human influence is uncertain but seems to be small (certainly no evidence that there is catastrophic warming being caused by humans)

    00

  • #
    Tim

    So the ABC is not simply content to be the PR arm of the Australian Government and it’s global policy-captains. They now want to reach out, censor and bully other media to stifle debate on government policy. I don’t think that’s in their charter somehow.

    00

  • #
    pat

    The Australian is doing what all Murdoch media is doing worldwide. the odd sceptic viewpoint amidst a chorus of alarm.
    until the words “climate change” are no longer used to mean AGW or CAGW, until “carbon” is no longer used to mean carbon dioxide, i will happily find my own news online and in books of my choice.
    we cannot be forced to listen to, watch or read garbage. the MSM cannot fade away too quickly for me. the clincher is, there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming for 15 years, according to Phil Jones himself. in other words, it ain’t happening. and the best they can give us for hottest year is 1998 at the peak of an El Nino event. give me a break.

    for example, how insane is it that the British Govt sent us a special envoy for climate and energy security, who got his bachelor of science degree from the University of East Anglia, think Climategate, and no-one in the Australian media even bothered to tell us?

    Wikipedia: Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti
    Morisetti was educated at the City of London School, and subsequently joined the Royal Navy in 1976. After initial training at Britannia Royal Naval College in Dartmouth he held shore postings and attended the University of East Anglia and graduated with a Bachelor of Science…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Morisetti

    what a spook Morisettie is:

    24 Nov: Sydney Morning Herald: Climate change could add to global stress
    Max Blenkin, AAP Defence Correspondent
    Australia has no directly comparable official to Admiral Morisetti, who represents the UK Ministry of Defence, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department of Energy and Climate Change…
    Admiral Morisetti said that on a map of global troublespots there was an uncanny correlation between areas of stress over water, food, health and demographic challenges, where conflict had occurred in the past two decades, and where climate change would have its greatest impact.
    Those areas also correlate with globaltrade routes…
    As nations take action against climate change, the military will also have to adapt, he said.
    “We are the great gas guzzlers of the world. My aircraft carrier did about 12 inches to the gallon and burnt 20 tonnes an hour to launch and recover jets,” he said.
    “That was sustainable costwise when it was $US30 a barrel. It would not be sustainable at $US250 to $US300 a barrel.”
    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/climate-change-could-add-to-global-stress-20101124-186a5.html

    beware the WARmongers/WARMongers. they are looking for that price of $300 barrel which would make renewables affordable.

    as for half of aussues being willing to pay higher energy bills, let’s just say that poll is as suspect as so many others that are used to manipulate public opinion.

    now it’s back to the rain and cool weather in SE Qld.

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    A day late. Busy on the web and in the shed. The Australian has a Cancun story regarding the serious thought being given to geo engineering. Not satisfied with humans being able to cook the Earth now they believe they can use mirrors in space to reflect sunlight or grow algae in the sea to absorb CO2 in such quantity as to change the climate. These people are truly sick with their own egos.

    If I was a newcomer to this story I would think Cancun was a convention for fiction writers.

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Lawrie:
    you’re looking at that one from the wrong angle. No one has any intentions of doing any of this sort of stuff.
    But just think of all the lots of lovely grant money that can be obtained to research the plausibility of these were ridiculous ideas.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Brookes @ 18

    Its funny reading this blog. You guys take it for granted that you are correct on global warming (or rather, since you guys have a very broad range of opinions (and I use that term loosely), you take for granted that AGW is incorrect). Still, I guess I take it for granted that the AGW scientists who think that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to temperature increases of 2 – 5 degrees are correct.

    Then:

    So maybe I’m the conspiracy theory nutter and absolute dimwit….

    Go Eddy! Go!

    Notice how I try very hard to not quote you out of context……

    John, in spite of our previous run-ins that may have caused me to believe otherwise, today I think you are a nutter. A nutter and a dimwit just like you admitted.

    I still like you but who could know you better than you?

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Sorry Eddy I had to jump in!

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Baa Humbug @ 12

    I’m an engineer so I’m interested in quantifying things. In fact it is essential if engineers want to design and build things that don’t blow up, fall out of the sky or just fall apart. Importantly that is the area where the professional warmists central hypothesis and their vital associated assumptions at most at risk. From that perspective it simply doesn’t add up and that was my path to skepticism.

    Don’t know much about climate systems but when I thought about it a day or so ago, while the missus was getting breakfast, I realised, as you have pointed out, that there is no such thing as a world climate, hence the complete irrelevance of the warmists “average global temperature”. It seems axiomatic that there are many different “climates” around the world that produce local and regional weather.

    The interesting part is that there is a multiplicity of factors, which themselves are not independent operating in each of those local or regional climate systems around the world. Many of these must be thought to act randomly, at least until we find causal links, at different times and in different ways to produce weather patterns over time that are most likely never exact repeats.

    That is another area where an attempt at the quantification of outcomes seems to make the postulate, that present and future anthropogenic CO2 emissions act as a significant driver of climate systems, reveals a kindergarten level understanding of how climate systems work.

    I think that is probably what Roy Spencer, along with John Christy, have in mind when they talk about the climate being a little more complex than the alarmists (their word) imagine.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    re 34.

    Delete reveals.

    …systems, reveals a kindergarten…

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I just keep being amazed that the likes of John Brookes refuse to see that they are the ones pushing a party line of CAGW. The only place, repeat only place, in which you see a 2-5C warming for a doubling of CO2 is IPCC models that incorporate assumptions.

    But somehow John Brookes is quite comfortable with unproven assumptions when it comes to making trillion-dollar global economy-changing policies.

    Simply wow! It boggles the mind how someone can be so blatantly oblivious to the obvious lack of facts and still dogmatically convinced that the assumptions are true. Gaia forbid that anyone question the science or the assumptions.

    Just … to … say … it … again …. slowly (for John’s benefit)… the … warming … forecasts … are … based …. on … assumptions … not … fact.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Bulldust @36

    In the best AU/UK voice I say HERE HERE or is that HEAR HEAR?
    Bloody hell….. I can’t seem to get the vernacular quite right….

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Llew Jones:

    Thanks for the engineer’s view on complex systems. As part engineer (first degree in bucket chemistry) and economist (MS), I have a similar perspective on the science of climate.

    Firstly I recognise that the climate system(s) are complex and there are likely far more unknowns than knowns given the youth of the science. I don’t doubt for a second that GHGs have some impact on the climate system(s) but then so do a myriad of other variables. some of which are partially understood, many of which aren’t, and some might not even be identified yet.

    This leaves us with a “wicked problem” and I am inclined to think of Rumsfeld with his known unknowns and unknown unknowns etc… much like the global economy, which no one in their right mind claims to have modelled accurately. The main difference being that we have a far better knowledge of what drives economies than we do climate ststem(s). On the flipside climate system(s) are not susceptable to unpredictable human frailties… but I digress.

    The main problem with the fervent CAGW crowd is that they insist that the problem has been solved, CO2 is the culprit and we’d better start paying taxes for our CO2-emitting sins ASAP. To me it seems that such advocacy long since drifted off the common sense reservation. It’s a rare day when you can get any CAGW supporter to admit to the uncertainties, let alone the unknowns, of climate science, and hence the fickleness of any model projections.

    I know you can “predict” just about anything with a model, because I have done so myself as a university course exercise.

    Lies, damned lies, statistics and econometrics*.

    * Makes the rest look like Gospel truth.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I think you’ll find it is “hear hear.” You hear it quite often in government institutions when colleagues agree with the speaker.

    Ah here we go:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear

    00

  • #

    AGW belief, at its peak, was an intelligence marker. Those people who feel a need to be first in with a cultural or political notion embraced it. It’s a bit like embracing wooded chardonnay, Ken Done and Mozart in the eighties…or poo-pooing wooded chardonnay, Ken Done and Mozart in the nineties.

    AGW is the domain of the educated but weak-minded. Sadly, these are the very people likely to be in charge of media and information. The luvvies will move on to something else and only be left with a toilet that doesn’t flush properly, a Prius full of aging batteries, some black balloons…and maybe Rob Oakeshott as Governor-General.

    They’ll prosper in the next fad because it’s what they do. It’s all they can do.

    The great mass of Australians, who have never believed any of it, will be decades paying the bills for mothballed desal plants and dismantled wind turbines. Oh, and there’ll be a tax that used to be called “carbon” for some reason but has been renamed “sustainability”. Like a GST, but won’t require state approval. It’ll certainly be sustainable. Just try getting rid of it!

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Hear Hear makes better sense thank you, the biblical reference was also interesting.

    So for 36: Hear Hear!

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I see Wikileaks/Assange is becoming the number one story of the momment, especially after the outrageous comments from some of the US politicians:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/07/3087189.htm

    Here’s the open letter to Julia:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41914.html

    Where’s Kerry O’Brien when you need him? I would love to see him grill Julia over the “illegality” comment. Note that there are over 1,000 responses to teh open letter on Unleashed already.

    00

  • #
    Warren

    Only trouble with your assessment here,Jo,is that the transcript of the event proves Mitchell’s critics case. Mitchell attempted to censor by suing for defamation,using the very laws he’s on the record as decrying. Don’t try and paint Mitchell as the victim when he so clearly is not. Let a little reality sometimes color your world :)

    00

  • #
    manalive

    Warren (43), how does a defamation suit censor (presumably meaning gag) plaintiff or defendant?

    Rather it gives both parties the opportunity to substantiate their claims in open court under oath.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Warren @43

    You seem, Warren, to have trouble following what is going on.

    Mitchell sued a second party not to shut the grandstanding ex Australian reporter up about her take on AGW. His intention was to publically reject the second party’s claim that he was at heart a climate skeptic or at least in bed with them. I don’t think too many here, including Jo, were concerned with Mitchell as the victim but rather disappointed that he used this episode to trumpet his CAGW credentials. (Catastrophic because that obviously is the only sort of AGW that requires the sort of carbon tax that Mitchell has been advocating for some time).

    If you read more extensively I think you will find that Jo criticised Mitchell for not adopting a neutral public stance on climate change which could hardly be called empathy with him as a “victim”.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Mark D:

    At #41 you state an interest in the Biblical origin of the phrase, “hear, hear”.

    It derives from the words of Jesus translated in the James Version of the Bible as being,
    “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”
    (Matthew 11:15)

    In the 17th century staunch Protestants used the phrase “Hear him, hear him” as a shout of agreement with a statement made in the UK Parliament. Shouting this phrase had the implication that they thought the statement was similar to Gospel truth while emphasising their belief in use of the James Bible (i.e. not a ‘Papist’ Bible written in Latin).

    “Hear him, hear him” became shortened to “Hear, hear” when the political importance of using the James Bible faded away.

    Richard

    00

  • #

    Steve @ 15 – Quite so. And that reminds me, what’s the current status on Senator Clodroy’s internet filter? Seems to have fallen by the wayside recently.
    Has he ‘put it aside’, or is it being introduced by stealth?

    00

  • #
  • #
    Pete Hayes

    Does the Australian media not allow someone like Delingpole? Surely they must allow someone to blog with a contrarian viewpoint!

    Anyway Jo, I had a little fun in a bar here in China on Sunday. Some little backpacker (sneaked in to watch the cricket) was listening in to me observing that the Aussie weather was a bit …wet!

    Boom! He set of on a rant about AGW and how it was all explained by AGW theory.

    The three guys with me all took deep breaths and a gob full of beer and sat back.

    I only asked two questions!

    How many PPM is produced by humans.

    Where is the hotspot….

    Total blank (as usual) and one of the guys who used to be a believer burst our laughing and gave him the answers….

    To be fair, the lad was around 20 and the product of the indoctrination of the school system.

    To be fair, he has returned tonight and has been asking for the answers….

    Dam! Another denier turned over by someone who will not be brow beaten by the group thing!

    [Onya Pete :-) Good story.]

    00

  • #
    Pete Hayes

    By the way, does anyone know the final result of the test match?

    00

  • #

    Mark @ 48 – uh, that reminds me of the final scene in Knowing. Hope the aliens consider me worthy of a ride…

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Climate science is strictly pushing math and manipulated temperature data as pure science.
    Pure science is looking at all the factors to a changing planets climate and asking questions of why this is happening.
    Just jumping on a single gas(CO2) to the exclusion of all other factors and blaming all the changes to “Global Warming” is bad science practise.
    The science is so bad, the planet need not rotate as all the science is settled to how weather is created.

    If you don’t investigate ALL the factors to determine what is wrong then there is definately a prejudice to only one outcome.
    Why? Funding and “peer review” come to mind. Governments are paying for only one outcome that they want. Pushing new innovative products to push the economies. But you need companies to do this. Which is very few and the technology is not very good.

    The U.S. is vertually bankrupt, spending Trillions of dollars with very little to show. The economy is still in the toilet.

    Global Warming is still far better to push even if the tides of the planet are turning around. The alternative is absolute disaster with many lives at stake including the U.S. debt to the world that is impossible to pay back.

    00

  • #
    Patrick

    Re: Treeman, post #4: Having lived for several years in Sweden, being married to a (rational, skeptical) Swede and continuing to follow events there on a daily basis, I am not in the least surprised. Sweden is in fact a very conformist society where only a narrow spectrum of “correct” views are expressed publicly (with a few notable exceptions – including Henrik Svensmark, Nils Mörner, and Prof. Johnson). I am a regular follower of a blog by one of Prof. Johnson’s colleagues at KTH – Tanja Bergkvist – and it would be interesting to hear her take on this affair. She is a Mathematics lecturer with a PHD in Maths and Astronomy, and though she does not blog about climate, she regularly skewers another pseudoscientific area that is prominent in Swedish academic and official circles – gender studies.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Hey Pete! Good question. I reckon a lot of Aussies don’t find cricket interesting any more!

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes:
    December 7th, 2010 at 9:37 am

    Its funny reading this blog. You guys take it for granted that you are correct on global warming (or rather, since you guys have a very broad range of opinions (and I use that term loosely), you take for granted that AGW is incorrect).Still, I guess I take it for granted that the AGW scientists who think that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to temperature increases of 2 – 5 degrees are correct.

    What I find “funny” (and sad) is your inability to engage in (or even recognize) logical discussion. This statement makes it perfectly clear (if it wasn’t before) that you only want to conform and believe in what you are told by “authorities”. You are uncomfortable with anyone who would upset your faux certainty by daring to voice criticism or argument, no matter how logical or fact-based, and you mask your unease with pretend amusement.

    To you (judging by your words) the question of the truth of CAGW never arises — it is only a question of to whom you should give your allegiance. Logic and reason never enter into it.

    I wouldn’t care, particularly, except you and others like you are trying to force the consequences of your vacuous decision-making (which you are also unable to logically assess) on the rest of us.

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    Here ya go Jo…. A story to warm th’ cockles of yer ‘eart:-)

    “Turn out the lights, the party’s over”. By Wesley Pruden of The Washington Times

    “Scams die hard, but eventually they die, and when they do, nobody wants to get close to the corpse. You can get all the hotel rooms you want this week in Cancun.”

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    BobC@55: You do know that Jo believes (more or less) that doubling CO2 will lead to a 1.2 degree celsius rise in temperature? That CO2 will cause temperatures to rise is not sensibly disputed. What is argued is how much temperature will rise by in response to increases in atmospheric CO2. Most climate scientists are in the 2 – 5 degree range for a doubling of CO2. Do you, as a skeptic, support Jo’s 1.2 degrees? Or maybe you want 0 degrees?

    I see lots of people arguing for a range of climate sensitivities, and then I see some people saying, “Its all a fraud”. Compare with tobacco. Plenty of people saying, “It is bad for you, but we aren’t sure how bad.” Some people saying, “We can’t be sure its bad for you, so don’t worry. If you are worried, here, have a cigarette, it will calm you down”.

    Its pretty obvious who is interested in getting to the truth, and who (to use a phrase I coined) find the truth to be inconvenient.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    But the baseless bullying apparently works. People like Flannery and Hamilton use it against everyone who dares speak against the reigning cult. The term “denier” is not scientific, not good English, and not even appropriate name-calling, but every news outlet repeats it, as if it were a term of taxonomy.

    I dunno, Fairfax sales aren’t looking good, they are slowly but surely going broke. The more Flannery and Hamilton mention “The Australian” and how terrrrrible it is, the more people might just feel the need to read it themselves. Murdoch has an incredible ability to make money, Flannery and Hamilton have the ability to make squawking noises.

    Think about it this way; The Australian is gently playing both sides, just enough kowtow to government to keep them in the corporatist good books, just enough “edgy” reporting of the other side to ensure a bit of liveliness here and there. Fairfax stays on message all the time every time — even their core readers find it’s getting boring. So long as The Australian can maintain it’s position as the place where serious debate occurs, Murdoch has won that game. Thank you for playing, the rest of you guys can go home.

    00

  • #
    davidc

    #49 Peter

    In 2009 CO2 production (from fossil fuels) actually fell due to the worldwide recession. But no sign of any impact on atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Lao. So it must be a pretty small %.

    00

  • #
    davidc

    #57 John

    “that doubling CO2 will lead to a 1.2 degree celsius rise in temperature?”

    You mean doubling the CO2 produced in the burning of fossil fuels, or in the atmosphere? And how do you relate the two?

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Richard S. Courtney @ 46

    Thank you for the added history.

    Audite audite seems not to have the same ring does it?

    00

  • #

    Critics of AGW are surprised when, in good faith, they try to discuss its scientific validity and meet with abuse rather thn argument. It is not a scientific theory, it is a marching song like “Onward Christian Soldiers” or Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto. It is a waste of time to criticise a marching song; to do so is a mark of disloyalty to the Great Cause. Such disloyalty must be silenced.

    “Climate Science” is not science. It is a kind of priesthood. Real scientists use the scientific method to rigorously test theory against observation. Climate “scientists” set up arcane predictive numerical models tuned to fit past observations and which are merely “verified” but never tested. No other branch of science and engineering uses numerical models in this way, as a form of witchcraft.

    00

  • #

    @Bulldust 16

    * I will not apologise to anyone silly enough to follow Scientology… I even tried reading one of Hubbards sci-fi novels back in the day… for a sci-fi writer he makes a good religious crackpot. Maybe I should qualify that… he did set about starting a religion for tax evasion purposes, which is not so much silly as cunning. I keep hoping they will approach me when they are out on Murray Street (Perth), but for some reason they never dare. Maybe I should stop giving them menacing stares

    Sorry, I have to pull you up there. I have every bit of respect for Scientologists. Believing in Thaetons and engrams is just as far fetched as believing in someone who comes back to life after being dead for three days, who can walk on water and turn water into wine. Or, those who want to believe that the earth is one big organism and we are just a virus. Whatever helps people make sense of the cruel randomness of life is OK by me.

    What we need to do is impart onto our next generation a wariness of those who will not have a open and honest discussion of their beliefs and opinions. Be it, religion, science, history, politics, etc. AGW will no doubt be used in schools as a cautionary tale in the generations to come. “The debate is over!” Not.

    And yes, I did the Scientology test. After which, I decided to share my opinion about how flawed it is. Without any response to my talking points they proceeded to rush me out the door. :) ‘Nuff said.

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    John, re 57

    My best guess is closer to 0.75C +/- 0.2C. The net gain of the climate system is dependent on the average atmospheric opacity. For example, it takes 1.6 W/m^2 of surface power for 1 W/m^2 of power to leave the planet to offset the 1 W/m^2 received from the Sun. This dictates that the average atmospheric opacity is only about 37.5%, since 37.5% of 1.6 is 0.6, allowing 1.0 to escape. The 1.6 comes from the ratio of surface power of 385 W/m^2, at an average temperature of 287K, and the post albedo incident solar power of (1-.3)*341.5 = 239 W/m^2 corresponding to 255K, where 385/239 = 1.6. It’s important to point out that this is a multi-decade average which varies little on a year to year basis so includes the effects of any feedbacks which act on time scales of decades or less, which includes the ebb and flow of ice and snow.

    Atmospheric absorption simulations tell us that the clear sky absorbs 62% of the surface emitted power, the cloudy sky absorbs an average of 82% and the Earth is 66% covered by clouds. The atmosphere radiates half of what it absorbs up and out into space and half back to the surface, thus the average opacity is computed as, 0.66*0.82/2 + (1-0.66)*0.62/2 = 0.376 and is close enough to the expected value of 0.375 as to survive falsification of the premise that the atmosphere radiates half into space. The IPCC fails to recognize this fact which introduces significant error in their conclusions.

    Measurements also show that the incremental gain is actually a little smaller then the absolute gain of 1.6, yet the incremental gain required to achieve the mythical 3C rise is over 8. The 3.7 W/m^2 of incremental forcing predicted by the IPCC is the incremental atmospheric absorption at the top of the troposphere. Since half is radiated into space, only 1.9 reaches the surface. A 3C rise must be concurrent with a 16 W/m^2 increase in radiated surface power, thus a gain in excess of 8 is required to amplify the 1.9 W/m^2 of incremental surface forcing from doubling CO2.

    Doubling CO2 increases the total CO2 absorption by about 4.5%. Since CO2 accounts for less than 1/3 of the total absorption, the total is increased by about 1.5% and the opacity increases by half this amount, or 0.75%. An 0.75% increase in gain, from 1.6 to 1.612, increases surface power by 4 W/m^2, increasing the temperature by 0.75C.

    George

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    J.Hansford: @56
    December 8th, 2010 at 1:03 am

    Great link, thanks.

    00

  • #
    wendy

    This is an interesting article about this Cancun “meeting”…

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/cleavage-research-in-cancun/

    00

  • #
    Mark

    And once again, that naughty weather is misbehaving.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/gore-effect-strikes-cancun-climate-conference-3-days-in-a-row/

    Record low temps for the warmista. Ya just gotta laugh!

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Oh, silly me. It’s just “weather”, not climate when things go against the mob, isn’t it?

    00

  • #
    Patrick

    Re: Bulldust@16,

    I do believe we have a winner for the best new term for the AGW true believers – “Climate Scientologists”!

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes:
    December 8th, 2010 at 11:33 am

    Its pretty obvious who is interested in getting to the truth, and who (to use a phrase I coined) find the truth to be inconvenient.

    If you’re the one interested in getting to the truth, you could do a lot worse than engaging George (@ post 64) in discussion. He has gone to a bit of trouble to try to explain the physics of climate sensitivity to you.

    We all know, however, that you are only interested in conforming to the dictates of those you deem to be authorities, and in no way will you engage in actual discussion that might result in heresy.

    The rest of us here, John, are not interested in “revealed truth” on the subject of climate — we still think that the scientific method is useful.

    Why don’t you try telling us the “truth” about some of the following?

    1) Why should we give any credence to the predictions of the AGW hypothesis and models when they have shown no predictive skill at any time scale that is distinguishable from chance?

    2) Every weather anomaly from heat waves to floods, to snowstorms is blamed on Anthropogenic CO2. A theory that claims to explain everything, but can predict nothing has no information content.

    3) The claims of high CO2/temperature sensitivity are all based on models (or, in Hansen’s case, simply assuming the conclusion before you start). Measurements of the Earth’s climate sensitivity give much lower values (0.1-0.5 deg per CO2 doubling equivalent forcing). What reason is there to believe the models above the measurements?

    4) Claims of long atmospheric lifetimes for CO2 (100s to 1000s of years) are ALL based on models. ALL actual measurements of CO2 lifetime give half-lifetimes of 5 – 10 years. What reason is there to believe the models over the measurements?

    5) The claims that Human use of carbon fuels is responsible for the current increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration over the last 50 years are falsified by the CO2 lifetime measurements — and also fail simple observational tests, as davidc points out in post #59.

    There is a lot we don’t know about the Earth’s climate system, and I’m not bothered by differences of opinion about it. I am bothered by those who claim absolute knowledge but can produce no evidence. I’m not likely to join your cult anytime soon.

    00

  • #
    wendy

    Subject: IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT CANCUN – The abdication of the West – THIS MUST BE STOPPED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    THIS IS VITALLY IMPORTANT TO EVERYBODY WHO VALUES FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    =============================

    From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

    Cancun, Mexico

    I usually add some gentle humor to these reports. Not today. Read this and weep. Notwithstanding the carefully-orchestrated propaganda to the effect that nothing much will be decided at the UN climate conference here in Cancun, the decisions to be made here this week signal nothing less than the abdication of the West. The governing class in what was once proudly known as the Free World is silently, casually letting go of liberty, prosperity, and even democracy itself. No one in the mainstream media will tell you this, not so much because they do not see as because they do not bl**dy care.

    The 33-page Note (FCCC/AWGLCA/2010/CRP.2) by the Chairman of the “Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Co-operative Action under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”, entitled Possible elements of the outcome, reveals all. Or, rather, it reveals nothing, unless one understands what the complex, obscure jargon means. All UNFCCC documents at the Cancun conference, specifically including Possible elements of the outcome, are drafted with what is called “transparent impenetrability”. The intention is that the documents should not be understood, but that later we shall be told they were in the public domain all the time, so what are we complaining about?

    Since the Chairman’s note is very long, I shall summarize the main points:

    SORRY THE ARTICLE WAS TOO LONG TO POST IN ITS ENTIRETY.

    READ THE REST HERE.

    http://sppiblog.org/news/the-abdication-of-the-west

    “……………………How can we, the people, defeat the UN Secretariat and keep the democracy we love? Simply by informing our elected representatives of the scope, ambition, and detail of what is in the Cancun agreement. The agreement will not be called a “Treaty”, because the Senate, particularly after the mid-term elections, will not pass it. But it can still be imposed upon us by the heavily Left-leaning Supreme Court, which no longer makes any pretence at judicial impartiality and may well decide, even if Congress does not, that the Cancun agreement shall stand part of US law on the ground that it is “customary international law”.

    What to do? Send this blog posting to your legislators. It is their power, as well as yours, that is being taken away; their democracy, as well as yours, that will perish from the Earth unless this burgeoning nonsense is stopped.”

    00