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

Lewandowsky bitten by a hoax

Professor Stephan Lewandowsky may not understand much about the climate, but he is a professor of psychology — so satire, humor, and hoaxes ought to be right up his alley, right?  He’s realized he fell for the brilliant Alene Composta (a master satirist) replying to her and even sending her fake request for advice to fellow blogger John Cook (who fell for it too).

Alene ticked all the headline stereotypical victim-leftie boxes, her interests included “christine milne”, “organic gardening” and “batik hangings” and lets face it, “Composta” is a red flag, rather. So she wrote to Lewandowsky begging for advice in dealing with monster commenters from Bolt and Blair, and notably pointed to him surviving my scorn and ridicule:

I recently began blogging, especially about climate change, and after a month my site was noticed. Noticed by the wrong people, sadly. Readers of Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt have swamped my site with genuinely abusive comments, many relating to my disability, which I find very hurtful.

So my question to you is this: How do you deal with monsters like this?

I have read and savoured every column you have published at Unleashed, and I have read the hateful comments that, even with an ABC moderator to vet them, still make it up on the site. The worst charge is that they simply do not take me seriously, which diminishes me in my humanity. I must confess that, after the latest round of abuse, I hugged my little cat and cried for an hour.

You have not only shrugged off that abuse, you have also survived the scorn and ridicule of your fellow West Australian Joanne Nova (I found that while googling your email address). It is a species of bravery I do not know if I can tap.
I’m a fragile woman and I thought my blog, Verdant Hopes, might be a force for good in the world. Instead it has made me a victim once again.

He replied, soaking it all up. In a bold twist reminiscent of Soviet psychologists, he called the skeptics “bullies” and the attacks “orchestrated”:

Bear in mind that a proportion of those comments is orchestrated and for all we know there are only a handful of people with multiple electronic “personas” each, who are paid to create disproportionate noise.

He believes that the attacks are “paid for” and denies that thousands of real people disagree with him. Which means he’s shielding himself from the awful truth, that he might be a deluded puppet of big-carbon-finance and an apologist for big-government, which aims to trick the public out of it’s money by distorting science. Who, with any conscience or pride, could live with that?

Let’s be straight, I don’t doubt for a moment that he is acting out of genuine belief. If someone with money was going to pick a front man for the carbon campaign, they’d pick someone with more PR nous and human savvy than Stephan Lewandowsky.

Having been embarrassed, instead of just quietly vanishing, he thinks it helps his activist cause to parade his gullibility on Ad Hominem Unleashed (the ABC Drum), to show how it’s really just more evidence that humans really are changing the weather. If you can figure out the logical chain in that, do tell us.

Here’s his analysis (sic) where he struggles for the word “satire”:

This raises some interesting questions: Why would anyone go to the trouble of creating an artificial persona, only to engage in correspondence under the pretence of being a real person?

And why, once having obtained a reply, would they post it on “Alene’s” blog, as happened with the above exchange?

There are presently no definitive answers to these questions…

He has so much trouble with logic and reason (and human behavior!) that he thinks those mocking him for his gullibility are using that to “prove man made global warming is fake” when instead they are just enjoying the comeuppance of a pompous fool who lauded himself over them, called them names, and then was tricked by pandering false flattery.

There is also something unfunny about this issue, which has now been taken up by a tabloid blog. There is much hilarity among commenters there about how anyone could be gullible enough to believe that a seemingly troubled and challenged person was actually, well, a troubled and challenged person. By some leap of logic this “gullibility”, in turn, somehow disproves the science underlying global warming.

But wait, despite his confusion,” there is much that we can learn” (he says). He thinks there is a propaganda war against him when he’s the one on the team with billions of dollars, government ministries, a UN agency, major financial houses, and university “authority” (though he appears to be working to destroy whatever is left of that last one).  Albeit unwittingly, it is he who is part of the propaganda team with the big bucks.

First, the use of sock puppets has demonstrably become a tool in Australia in what has often been described as a propaganda war on science and scientists. Second, there are surely ethical issues that arise when someone impersonates a distressed and disabled person for their own purposes, be it juvenile amusement or a failed attempt to cause embarrassment.

And here’s the logical clincher… the use of sock puppets supports the argument that climate sensitivity to CO2 is high: ( h/t Mattb) Here’s the grand irony, the man who stoops to ad hominem attacks (“they’re paid hacks”) and denies 850 peer reviewed papers (“skeptics don’t have evidence”) and 28 million weather balloons (“the science is unassailable”) thinks sceptics are the ones seeking refuge from reality.

Finally, it amplifies yet again what is obvious to most of us: the fact that the climate is changing and that human CO2 emissions are causing it is now unassailable by conventional scientific means, forcing some of those who cannot accept this discomforting fact to seek refuge in the ethical twilight of internet warfare.

Stephan thinks it’s a “fact” that CO2 is to blame, but the only fact he provides is, as usual, the opinions of a committee.

We know the US government uses sock-puppets, one fan of the Big Scare admitted to using spam bots to generate fake comments, and though I can’t prove anything, there have been plenty of anonymous commenters here who returned with different names to write hate-filled messages with unsubstantiated insults. There was also even one commenter who wrote 440 comments on this blog under his real name, in business hours, from a government office.

- -

I presume Prof Lewandowsky did not mean to forget the original link to the Alene gotcha page he is referring to: http://verdanthopes.blogspot.com/2011/03/tomorrow-belongs-to-us.html

And since he knows the “deniers” are misinformed, “anti-science”, and confused, it seems odd that he also deleted the link in the quote from Alene’s original article (the one his whole article is about) that shows just how nasty those vile people can be. (It’s tricky to cut and paste directly isn’t it?)

The source of the scorn and ridicule that he bravely withstood:

- -

John Cook of un SkepticalScience quotes Ghandi, and feels like a victim too:

… deniers attack everyone indiscriminately from the lowly blogger to the most imminent climate scientists in the world. In fact, the level of attack that the climate scientists receive are the greatest – death threats, dead rats left on their door, legal harassment from conservative lawyers and ad hominem attack after ad hominem attack.

Has anyone ever seen a verified threat from a real skeptic? (And was it anything more than an angry commenter mouthing off, which no publicly known skeptic encourages.)

Remember, it was the bully believers  of the AGW faith (mostly with salaries too) who threatened skeptics, “we know where you live”, they’re the ones who have paid up attack sites to smear respected scientists, and made a  movie blowing up our children. The real bullies cry victim, but are happy to let their own attack dogs run.

My brief comment was sent in at 12.26 WST to the ABC site…  The moderators must be overwhelmed coping with all the comments, I’m sure they’ll put one up soon.  ;-)

UPDATE: The ABC are running scared from real debate again. My polite comment with links to the original Composta article, and links to my analysis of Lewandowsky is another ABC_Reject. (My comment was essentially the words between – - and – - above.)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (11 votes cast)
Lewandowsky bitten by a hoax, 9.2 out of 10 based on 11 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/4pm79g9

170 comments to Lewandowsky bitten by a hoax

  • #
    MattB

    This has to be the most boring blog entry ever on this site! Someone pretends to be a stupid and mentally unwell blogger, writes to professor, receives polite reply, publishes it. Wow.

    04

  • #
    MattB

    The following is simply not correct:

    You say Jo:
    “And here’s the logical clincher… the use of sock puppets supports the argument that climate sensitivity to CO2 is high:

    Finally, it amplifies yet again what is obvious to most of us: the fact that the climate is changing and that human CO2 emissions are causing it is now unassailable by conventional scientific means, forcing some of those who cannot accept this discomforting fact to seek refuge in the ethical twilight of internet warfare.”

    But he has not said that at all. He has said that the use of sock puppets forces those who cannot accept this to seek refuge in the ethical twilight of internet warfare. His understanding of global warming is completely unrelated to the existence of sock puppets.

    03

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    His understanding of global warming is completely unrelated to evidence as well.

    30

  • #
    Llew Jones

    ha ha ha. We know uncle Tim is bonkers. That’s a no brainer. Looks like young Stephan is not far behind him.

    Think he would have done more for the alarmist cause by shutting his loose gob. He lends credence to the axiom that “only the gullible swallow the CACC yarn “

    00

  • #
    Andy G

    “… deniers attack everyone indiscriminately from the lowly blogger to the most imminent climate scientists in the world. .”

    is that really what he wrote ??

    imminent -> to happen soon … seems he is not there yet !!

    and this guy is a Professor ??

    00

  • #
    Andy G

    “legal harrassment”

    is he referring to FOI requests ?

    00

  • #
    Binny

    As gratifying as bagging some of these pompous fools is. “He started it!” Didn’t wash with my mother 40 years ago. And really it is still not acceptable behaviour for grown-ups.

    00

  • #

    Add to the list that alarmists have no sense of humor. Ive seen dead rats on my drive too, but I think it might have been the neighbour’s cat Sparkles.

    00

  • #
    manfred listing

    Another blog entry- the keyboard drained of drool- MattB ready to go into action again.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    …….it amplifies yet again what is obvious to most of us: the fact that the climate is changing and that human CO2 emissions are causing it is now unassailable by conventional scientific means

    This bit rings true. A bogus notion will always be “unassailable by conventional scientific means” so the proponents of it must eventually resort to unscientific means if the notion is to be perpetuated.

    Although that those means need to be quite so irrational in this case highlights the maxim “better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt”. Not easy for a professor granted, but best heeded when one’s speciality has been breached.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    “… deniers attack everyone indiscriminately from the lowly blogger to the most imminent climate scientists in the world. .”

    I’d never do such a thing to Richard S Lindzen, wrong again Stephan.

    00

  • #

    Welcome to the world of new media. Unlike media of a by-gone era, new media does not rot the brain or dull the senses. Sure, there’s plenty of base consumption to be had. But, everyone who has engaged with new media from their teenage years on, will tell you how sceptical they are of random people’s motives. The only way to cut through is to attack the argument. The web ;) of lies does unravel and the persona falls soon thereafter.

    I feel in some respect there is hope for the next generation who are forced to think for themselves when navigating both welcome and unwelcome social advances over our beloved inter-tubes.

    00

  • #

    Hey Mattb, thanks. Congrats, you score a point. I’ve rewritten that paragraph:

    Here’s the grand irony, the man who stoops to ad hominem attacks (“they’re paid hacks”) and denies 850 peer reviewed papers (“skeptics don’t have evidence”) and 28 million weather balloons (“the science is unassailable”) thinks skeptics are the ones seeking refuge from reality.

    Stephans errors of logic are too many to remind everyone of. See these posts:
    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/05/name-calling-fairy-dust-conspiracy-theorist/
    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/11/the-death-of-reason-at-uwa/
    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/05/the-hypocrisy-of-the-annointed/

    10

  • #
    Siliggy

    Bob Malloy:
    March 28th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
    and
    Andy G:
    March 28th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
    Yes the most eminent would be Richard S Lindzen but the most imminent could be Sari kovats.
    http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/the-strange-case-of-sari-kovats/

    00

  • #
    manfred listing

    While you are in humble mode Jo- I see from the original documentation that Lewandowsky is an expert on the distinction between scepticism, cynicism and denial. Nothing about satire, humor or hoaxes. How could he have suspected Alene Composta? tut tut!

    Perhaps Lewandowsky has more future as a climatologist.

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    OT
    We need to Act now to warm this planet up! Global cooling is now threatening cute cudly looking pandas:
    http://www.iceagenow.com/Heavy_snowfall_in_SW_China-Panda_food_shortages_feared.htm

    00

  • #
    Joe

    11Bob Malloy:
    March 28th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
    “… deniers attack everyone indiscriminately from the lowly blogger to the most imminent climate scientists in the world. .”
    I’d never do such a thing to Richard S Lindzen, wrong again Stephan.
    Liked it? 6  0

    Presumably because he is emminent, and not just imminent like his imminence the good Dr.

    00

  • #
    brc

    For a start, it’s not a sock puppet if it has a blog, writes emails to scientists and editors and posts comments elsewhere. That is a real person doing a hoax – completely different to a sock puppet. Sock Puppets aren’t created to perpetuate hoaxes, they are there to try and influence people by appearing to be more real people supporting a position, or to provide several opposing points of view.

    As usual, the first casualty in this way is the english language as people try to hijack words for their own purposes.

    Personally this episode isn’t as funny as the stitch-up of Jonathan Green, who couldn’t resist the urge to ‘help win the election, or at least stem the losses’. But still, it shows everyone that the enemy of your enemy isn’t necessarily your friend.

    Seriously though, the ‘deniers are vicious destructive extremists’ is fairly wide of the mark and a strange new twist in the saga. I don’t think it was a bunch of climate skeptics who recently smashed up central London. All those vicious extremists that voted in the NSW election on the weekend probably take a dim view of being typecast by the ALP central spin department.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    OT, but a must read summary

    00

  • #

    brc: That is a good point. Now that Lew. verified that the exchange between Arlene and himself as reported on her blog was true, I am more inclined to believe Arlene’s version of the disturbing Johnathan Green affair. The idea that the ABC is enlisting left-wing commentators to bolster the ALP’s election chances is a bit to much for this tax-payer!

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Maybe he should deconstruct this?

    “Warming Temperatures Expose More Beaver

    Posted on March 28, 2011 by stevengoddard

    Beavers are among the unwelcome changes associated with climate change, said Michael Brubaker, lead author of reports documenting how two northwest villages have been affected. The appearance of North America’s largest rodent was a signal that a traditional water source had changed.

    http://www.adn.com/

    “Ward, don’t you think you were a little hard on the beaver last night?”

    - Mrs. Cleaver ”

    At http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/warming-temperatures-expose-more-beaver/

    00

  • #
    David

    Totally OFF Subject – Late News – Pauline Hanson was just elected?
    And beat the Greens Candidate
    http://www.abc.net.au/elections/nsw/2011/guide/lc-results.htm
    Good Grief!!
    MattyB you call!

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Andy G @5:

    You should be well aware that in post-normal science, it is sufficient to be an authority to be correct.

    Deification is quite popular as people struggle to replace unfashionable Judeo-Christian beliefs.

    00

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    …he is a professor of psychology — so satire, humor, and hoaxes ought to be right up his alley,

    No — Green/Leftists as a group completely lack a sense of humour; a true sense of humour requires that you can laugh at yourself, and the hallmark of Green/Leftists is how seriously they take themselves and how closely they protect their lofty view of themselves.

    A Green/Leftist who acquired a sense of humour would cease to be a Green/Leftist.

    00

  • #
    Joe

    This little escapade was a useful exercise in something no doubt. Someone clearly put a lot of work into it. Is that really what greenie lefty bloggs look llike (i’ve never looked at a real one – appart from the more hysterical Monbiot’s , Deltoid & the Drum etc.).
    Reminds me of a similar stunt Dellingpole pulled on Monbiot last year.

    And what does it prove ?

    That supporters of AGW are gullible , don’t have a sense of humour & take themselves too seriously ? Or that these denieralists are deceptive, duplicitous , cann’t be taken at face value ?
    If one feared it might be used for the latter, would I be taking things to seriously ?

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    David #21 – none of the MSM seem to think that this is news?

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    A word of caution here – the political left, in general, do not believe in the existence of objective facts, and thus believe,sincerely one has to add, that any sceptical, or dissonant, view is a strict, biassed, personal narrative.

    A second word is that the academic progressives, one whom is the object of Jo’s post, recognise one reality – that of a consensus of what reality is by their peer group.

    Such individuals should not sit on shiny railway lines.

    00

  • #
    Quasimado

    There has been a plethora of reports recently into the psychological make up of sceptics/ deniers concerning global warming/ climate change/ climate disruption etc.

    In the light of this Drum article and his own writings on the above, as a presumably objective psychologist, one would imagine that Stephan would seize this opportunity to investigate the fertile psychological field inhabited by warmists and alarmists.

    My condolences to the unfortunate Alene’s many bereaved. One can at least hope for a second coming…

    00

  • #
    Joe

    Ah yes, here is Monbiot bleating about his similar

    Takedown by the Telegraph
    last year.

    00

  • #
    Alexander K

    Jo, you are obviously bothering the tripes out of this self-important, humourless pratt. The funniest part of the entire article is John Cook’s mistaken use of ‘imminent’ when reading his statement in context tells one that he actually meant ‘eminent’. I socialised in a university common-room years ago with an American-trained Sociologist from Mongolia; a lovely chap whose doctoral thesis was on humour, but the most unfunny man I have ever met. The more rarified reaches of the Social Sciences is a weird habitat

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Louis Hissink:
    March 28th, 2011 at 10:04 pm

    A word of caution here – the political left, in general, do not believe in the existence of objective facts, and thus believe,sincerely one has to add, that any sceptical, or dissonant, view is a strict, biassed, personal narrative.

    A second word is that the academic progressives, one whom is the object of Jo’s post, recognise one reality – that of a consensus of what reality is by their peer group.

    Louis, you seem to be describing lemmings — too bad there isn’t some way we can let them go over the cliff without taking us with them.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    ….to seek refuge in the ethical twilight of internet warfare.

    Well now that is an interesting comment……

    Is he impugning the internet or warfare, internet warfare or is he simply offering that ethics are in their twilight?

    And how does one find “refuge” in warfare?

    Rereke, and/or Wes care to comment?

    00

  • #
    Larry N

    When I was in high school the science was pointing to a new ice age coming soon. Alarmists have been choking on this problem for a while now but one guy decided to clear it all up now with a new book. CBC Radio in Canada had him on. His message is …Due to CO2 warming we have managed to change the climate and avert that Ice age which is good but we will pay dearly in a few thousnd years. I had a good laugh…

    00

  • #
    Cookster

    OT, but I think this post by The Australian’s environment editor deserves some comment. Mr Lloyd seems to hope Australia will be more successful in leading the world on climate action than we have been in for example free trade. Hopefully they post comments, I’ve already left mine.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/millennium-bug-melee-misses-true-challenge/story-e6frgd0x-1226029661002

    00

  • #
    Binny

    David @22
    Now just watch the ABC turn an independent no body in to front page news.

    00

  • #
    Neville

    The idiocy of Flannery has finally hit the fan in the MSM.

    The Australian today has an article quoting Abbott talking about their problematic milleneum bug.
    AT LONG BLOODY LAST, this should thoroughly wreck this corrupt and fraudulent mad cult and with it the hopeless labor govt.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/year-vision-fuels-climate-fight/story-fn59niix-1226029695904

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Siliggy:
    March 28th, 2011 at 7:19 pm

    Yes the most eminent would be Richard S Lindzen but the most imminent could be Sari kovats.

    That will teach me to read more carefully, I missed the distinction completely.

    Thanks also to Joe at 17 for pointing out that imminent doesn’t equate to eminent. Richard Lindzen is obviously eminent. as for Stephan the jury’s still out.

    Siliggy, I read Donna’s piece on Sari Kovats. It didn’t surprise.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    OT but interesting……..

    Latest paper – not on ocean warming but on Sea Level Rise:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/28/bombshell-conclusion-new-peer-reviewed-analysis-worldwide-temperature-increase-has-not-produced-acceleration-of-global-sea-level-over-the-past-100-years/

    Bombshell conclusion – new peer reviewed analysis: “worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years”

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Totally off topic:

    Mr Combet said through a spokeswoman that the Gillard government believed in the science of climate change and was determined to act.

    My question to all here, is there anyone out there that doesn’t believe in climate change science? it’s the warming religion and the need to do something that raises questions.

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Here’s the letter Flannery sent to the Australian proving what a liar he is, but he also states that stopping every kilogram of co2 entering the atmosphere is so important.

    Then why do we behave in such a bi-polar fashion and increase exports of coal? In fact we are striving to open new mines and export more coal to any country willing to buy.

    This is what Abbott has to hammer them on, do they really believe their science or not.

    Do they really care, of course they don’t?

    Is this the most important moral challenge in our lifetimes? Of course that’s BS as well.

    http://climatecommission.gov.au/2011/03/28/letter-to-the-editor-of-the-weekend-australian/

    00

  • #
  • #
    lyle

    Get this. Stephan says:

    There is much hilarity among commenters there about how anyone could be gullible enough to believe that a seemingly troubled and challenged person was actually, well, a troubled and challenged person.

    He seems to think this is a devastating putdown, as if commenters were making fun of the poor seemingly troubled and challenged woman. He still doesn’t get that she doesn’t exist, and that they were making fun of people like him. The ‘seeming’ in ‘seemingly’ is all in his head.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    MattB:

    This has to be the most boring blog entry ever on this site! Someone pretends to be a stupid and mentally unwell blogger, writes to professor, receives polite reply, publishes it. Wow.

    LOL. Wow. The minion Matt exhibits the same morbidly impaired sense of humour and irony combined with an inborn affinity for hypocrisy and a total lack of self-awareness that are the hallmarks of all Greens Alarmists.

    Buffoonery begets hilarity and scorn.

    Morally superior Buffoonery performed while attired in the regalia of state authority and drenched in the medallions of professorial honorifficalismo begets truly great satire on a Monty Ponthonesque scale.

    The artist behind Alene Composto is truly one of the great poets of our Internet age! A harbinger of a whole new genre of digitally networked satire. Pure genius.

    Lewandowsky’s self-righteous laments serve only to provide insight into the psychologically morbid state of our Alarmist elites….the poor hack has no sense of irony and thus cannot begin to grasp how humorous his predicament is to us mere mortals watching this ridiculous tragicomedy unfold on the public stage.

    It’s much like the self-righteous Alarmists who vociferously clamoured for courageous acts of civil disobedience then were so outraged at the liberation of the Climategate emails! Hypocrisy, hubris and lack of a sense of irony rolled into one nasty, rather dim-witted cultural phenomenon. You gotta admit it’s the stuff of great comedy!

    Hypocrisy is second nature to those who lack conscious self-awareness. And you know what they say about a life lived unexamined…

    Deadly serious Climate wowsers have no place anywhere near the levers of real political power, that would be to run the risk that the hilarity at their expense could become a national tragedy at ours!

    No, the real stage for Alarmist clowns is from whence they have come— manning the protest barricades at the next WTO summit armed with faeces and paint bombs to hurl at the poor riot police.

    Now that’s funny!

    00

  • #
    lyle

    Note again Stephan’s difficulty in understanding that Alene is fictional:

    …there are surely ethical issues that arise when someone impersonates a distressed and disabled person for their own purposes, be it juvenile amusement or a failed attempt to cause embarrassment.

    The word ‘impersonates’ suggests that he believes there is an actual real-life Alene, and someone else is pretending to be her. He writes about her distress and disability as if she really exists.

    No doubt Stephan is grief-stricken for her two gay sons. Perhaps he should send them a card.

    00

  • #
  • #
    MattB

    Wes – maybe bum and boob jokes are more my thing?

    00

  • #
    Denis of Perth

    GO JO

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Bob in 39,

    Role of the commission

    http://www.climatechange.gov.au/media/whats-new/climate-commission.aspx

    Yes i read that somewhere, what i find strange is that Julya gave 1000 years the job and if you look at the above link you can see that he is doing just that, What he has basically said is that what ever we do we will not effect the march to destruction one iota. But now it appears Julya is ignoring the very man she entrusted to give her the advice she so desperately wanted.

    This problem is also known as “painting yourself into a corner”, when you make statements as if they were true and hang a TAX on it after you lie yourself into office only to find you self appointed puppet gets his strings all mixed up.

    If Hansen can get elected above a green then they wont last much longer, i must say i always new it would unravel but not this fast.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Added to the Drum link:

    Am I the only one thinking Lewandowsky is another Composta imposta? Surely no real person would be so extremely paranoid and still hold down a full-time professorship at what should be a leading Australian university. It beggars belief.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Not sure if it has been linked before, but this is well worth the read:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/27/an-opportunity-for-online-peer-review/

    Anthony Watts concisely draws together the “hide the decline” graph, the IPCC report, the resulting modelling and bogus science around feedbacks in one single article and manages to do so without resorting to obscure language.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Crakar… the greens have secured 2 seats, possibly 3. If Hanson sneaks in good on her, but she’s not got elected above a green any more than elected above a lib or a labor if you are ignoring all the people they already have quota for, as you are.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Bulldust@47:

    So Lewandowsky is paranoid? So paranoid that he thinks “skeptics” are posing as non-existent bloggers to try and trick him into looking stupid?

    Boy, that sure is paranoid. Of course “skeptics” would never stoop so low….

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    MattB in 51,

    I do believe there was a Greens candidate running against Hansen? So therefore my statement

    “If Hansen can get elected above a green then they wont last much longer, i must say i always new it would unravel but not this fast.”

    Stands up to your halfwit scrutiny

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Brookes re @ 52, would I believe you are here for a sincere discussion of the science?
    Lewandowsky appears to me, to need some of his own “professional” help and he doesn’t need a skeptic to make him “look” stupid. You on the other hand, can’t be helped.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Bulldust in 50,

    Yes i have read that story, i think it shows quite well the scientific fraud conducted by the team over a number of years with the sole purpose of unfluencing political thinking.

    I would ask the resident morons to rebut what Watts says but alas name calling, claims of cherry picking and strawmen or even appeals to authority are not considered rebuttals so i will not bother.

    You cannot convince someone out of their position using logic and common sense when they themselves did not use logic or common sense to arrive there in the first place.

    Or to put it another way, you can lead a horticulture but you cannot make her think.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Crakar – mate it’s up to you if you want to understand the election in NSW I guess.

    Here is the ABC’s NSW election results for the Upper House (Legislative Council): http://www.abc.net.au/elections/nsw/2011/guide/lc-results.htm

    The upper house is just one big voting pool, and parties, individuals look to achieve quota… you can see that the Greens got 10.88% of the vote for 2.3933 quotas, and Pauline got 1.88% of the vote for .4140 quotas.

    So greens get 2 seats automatically, then the person with least votes drops out and the preferences get redistributed to other candidates, this continues until someone reaches quota… then they get the spot and any extras they got get redistributed… this continues until all the spots are filled and any remaining votes are exhausted.

    So Pauline looks like she may get a spot, and yes ahead of a 3rd greens candidate. but also ahead of a 12th Lib or a 6th ALP and so on and so on.

    I’m sure the greens would love that 3rd spot… but the swing to Libs was on after years of growing community feeling that the ALP govt was incompetent… and the Libs were presenting as a genuine strong alternative government… there is no reason for a massive swing to greens in those circumstances, in fact they are probably happy that they’ve held on to dissaffected ALPers who previously would have protest voted greens due to the lack of competent alternatives at the basket case lib/nats in NSW over the past decade.

    So yeah Pualine getting a seat will worry the Greens far less than say the Libs or even ALP as they don’t like unpredictability.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    The interesting part is that Libs don;t have a majority in the upper house so they are going to have to get votes from Shooters/Fishers, Fred Nile or Pauline Hanson. None of those groups is going to endear them to the average punter. The alternative is the Greens… could work out you never know, or with ALP for some biopartisan support – could work as ALP will not want to get any more on the nose with the punters.

    But the spectre of courting right wing parties looks likely to be an issue, and that is a risk to retaining the swinging centrist vote.

    The last issue is that when you have a massive swing to your party, you end up having some real turkeys getting elected who at time of preselection would not really have been given a chance… often these people fly under the radar and may have some extreme views or simply mean that the elected party’s internal factions are not in a natural balance with the new Premier’s policy preference…. all good early on but cracks do and will show up (happened here in WA a few elections ago when ALP had a big swing to them).

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    A new medical term coined under the DRUM Lewandowsky article

    “Climochrondriacs”

    JM 29 Mar 2011 1:19:18pm

    Credit to gippslander who kicked off with: Climate Hypochondria is a condition in which a person believes that the world is ill when no objective signs of illness can be observed. It has an obsessive as well as a delusional component. Sufferers from climate hypochondria, or, to use the clinical term, climate hypochondriasis, remain convinced that the world is ill despite reassurances, and often present the world to others over a long period of time as suffering from a series of different symptoms and diseases. The onset of climate hypochondria is frequently in the 30s in men and 40s in women who have only a superficial understanding of the sciences. Those in sedentary occupations are notoriously liable to it, and, whilst some scientists usually suffer only a transient bout of climate hypochondria, some remain climate hypochondriacal throughout their career. Depression and alcoholism exacerbate the condition.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Mark D@54:

    You are just so witty! I only wish I was half as smart as you….

    But about the science? This blog seems to be about politics and conspiracies, and compared to science, these are easy, which is why someone as dumb as me hangs around here…..

    00

  • #
    wes george

    John Brookes:
    March 29th, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    So Lewandowsky is paranoid? So paranoid that he thinks “skeptics” are posing as non-existent bloggers to try and trick him into looking stupid?

    And it was soooooo easy! ;-) Johnny, you have to be more than just look stupid to fall for stuff like this:

    I have had some turmoil in my private life lately, but when I think of the great strides we are about to make with Julia and Bob’s carbon mitigation scheme all my troubles fade and I realise that, with our planet’s future on the line, there is reason for hope – and, just for once, pride in being Australian.

    The fact that Australia, a rich country, is about to lead the world in restricting the use of carbon pollution sources is fair and just. We have the wealth to afford a pay a little extra for petrol, food, electricity and cooking gas. The cost is insignificant in comparison with the what it will cost if we DON’T do something.

    One area where Sarah and Bob and Julia can go further, however, is the threat posed by carbonated drinks. Every time we open a bottle of soft drink, drink a beer or pop the cork on champagne, we release another jolt of invisible CO2 poison into the ecosphere. In addition to the proposed measures, this threat needs to be addressed in a responsible and appropriate way.

    —Alene Composta | Seddon – March 15, 2011, 7:39AM

    Lewandowsky thought he was offering kind words of support to nutters who would ban carbonated drinks because they contain carbon poison. LOL!

    Alene took down a whole ship of maliciously invidious fools, not just clueless Lewandowsky. She proved that the ABC Drum was looking for something, anything no matter how dodgy to smear Barry O’Farrell’s campaign. She showed how moonbat howls to censor free expression find a friendly, thoughtful ear among authoritarian Alarmists and at the ABC.

    Alene Composta is a piece of avante garde art, a pioneer work of sly Internet satire based upon the networking of useful idiots into something like crowd-sourced content providers whose innate humor is their own unconsciously hilarious vile behavior. Think of it as a post-modern, digital-age “Candid Camera” where people when they don’t think anyone is watching perform truly gut-splitting antics before a national audience of millions.

    Of course, Johnny’s right. This would be a cruel joke, but for the fact that it is directed at corruptible public and media figures who are running a major scam on the Australian people. The climate change sting just got stung. Again.

    It won’t be the last time!

    ROTFL!

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Bulldust in 50,

    As i suspected the Watts article is ignored as if it never existed.

    Wes above,

    you forgot to mention CO2 fire extinguishers, dry ice, green houses (the real kind not the computer version), the co2 that is used to assist the production of red and white wine not just the fizzy end product and much so much more.

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Amazing the fraud and corruption you can uncover when you actually look for the real numbers of Australia’s coal production and exports from 2000 to 2009.

    In 2000/01 Australia mined a total of 258 million tonnes of coal and exported 193 M tonnes, but in just 9 years this had risen to 487m tonnes mined and 261m tonnes exported.

    Therefore in just nine years Australia’s coal exports increased by 68 million tonnes per year.
    Australia currently exports 75% of the coal mined per year, but how does that fit with the nonsense promoted by the Rudd and Gillard govts.

    Rudd, Gillard, Swan, Wong, Combet, Gore, Suzuki etc etc have all told us AGW is the most important MORAL CHALLENGE of our lives. Yet we continue to mine and export more coal every year and 75% of that is sent overseas for profit and to produce more co2 emissions.

    If this really wasn’t a CON why wouldn’t they be demanding we stop all exports and only mine 25% of that total to service Australia’s needs?

    Of course it’s a con, when they say they believe the science they are either fraudsters and liars or stupid fools.

    But so far we are the only ones who will suffer the penalty of a co2 tax while the importers of that 75% of our coal can do as they please, no questions asked.

    When Flannery and his mob of liars and fraudsters comes to your town and claim that we must have a co2 tax to fix the climate you are entitled to stand up and ask how this can possibly be accomplished?

    Simple primary school maths proves that their argument is a total fraudulent lie.

    If this isn’t a corrupt fraud or a severe bi-polar disorder then what is it?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Australia#Major_export_markets_for_Australian_coal

    00

  • #
    wes george

    These assaults on our PM are nothing but sexism and woman-hatred. The outpouring of Tea Party-style hate could easily lead to violence, sooner or later. If our PM introduces the licensing of commentators and a peer-review panel of media professionals (Laura Tingle, Phillip Adams, Virginia Trioli, Mike Carlton, Hartcher, for example) to determine what constitutes “fair” free speech and to stamp out the noxious, inappropriate variety, I would support her 100%.

    Alene Composta’s call for limits on free expression was what immediately attracted the attention of the ABC. They recognized in Alene a true ideological soul-mate. Within the week Jonathan Green, editor of the ABC Drum, gives her a platform on the ABC website!

    Later, the ABC national news editors adopted Alene’s talking points to smear the carbon-tax protests in Canberra and Perth as “sexist” and “Tea Party style hate.”

    Here’s Andrew Bolt’s time line of the brilliant digital-age satire that has changed the face of Australian online humor forever.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/composed_an_alene_composta_timeline/

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    But…..but…..but…..MattB’s climate sources told me AGW will lead to less snow

    Record Snowfall:

    766 inches to dateMiracle March of 2011 has placed Boreal at a record level snowfall. Over 200 inches has fallen during March alone. Come ski/ride the best snow on earth!

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Neville in 62,

    You raise a very good point, this TAX will not stop the amount of coal being dug up but merely increasde its cost in a vain attempt to make us use less.

    A better idea would be to allow the coal companies to dig up only so much coal. If you limit the amount of coal that can be dug up then you will drive up the cost (just like a TAX) and obviously you will burn less coal and reduce emissions.

    Some may think this is a bit harsh but after all we are saving the planet from a thousand year warming trend.

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    BobC:
    March 29th, 2011 at 1:33 am

    Louis, you seem to be describing lemmings — too bad there isn’t some way we can let them go over the cliff without taking us with them.

    Better yet, send them to Jonestown and serve the kool-aid!

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “Alene took down a whole ship of maliciously invidious fools, not just clueless Lewandowsky.”

    Bolt included! But rather than be nice and polite he was a right wanker.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Thank god your here Ed i am getting tired of lambasting MattB, its your turn now coz i need a rest.

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    MattB:
    March 29th, 2011 at 10:56 am

    Wes – maybe bum and boob jokes are more my thing?

    I don’t know Matt, your Charlie Sheen Joke was great! At least people were laughing with you! ;)

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    crakar24:
    March 29th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
    Thank god your here Ed i am getting tired of lambasting MattB, its your turn now coz i need a rest.

    Hey Crackar! All that greased weasel wrestling will make you tired! ;) Remember, Matt sees himself as the “professional wrestler” of the site! You know, the one everybody boos (as in thumbs down). Oddly enough, despite all the thumbs down, Matt actually thinks people will “vote” with him to settle an argument. Matt does love to appeal to authority as it relieves him of the difficulty of thinking!

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Mark D.: # 32

    And how does one find “refuge” in warfare?

    The textbook answer is, “You find a large hole to crawl into. And if a large hole is not manifest, you dig like hell.” :-)

    … seek refuge in the ethical twilight of internet warfare.

    I think the concept he was groping for is catharsis – a state where you are participating in something (usually horrendous), and you are simultaneously observing your own participation in a detached, almost critical, way. Usually depicted in the movies as action in slow motion with the edges blurred.

    On the other hand, he could have been watching too many vampire movies …

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Damian Allen: #38

    I had a conversation with somebody at a function, a few months ago, who was pontificating about sea level rise.

    I pointed out that although there was a rise, it was really too small to be noticeable without specialised equipment.

    Their response was that the measurements were only being done on the surface, but all of the current rise in the sea level was actually taking place in deep water, so was not yet apparent.

    This person held a PhD apparently …

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    You are not wrong Ed, MattB is a slippery little sucker.

    Rereke,

    So the rumours that PhD stands for piled higher and deeper (shit that is ) is true? How could any sane person think sea level rise……..ah forget it.

    Not only do we have to fight corruption but stupidity as well.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    wes george: #43

    Buffoonery begets hilarity and scorn.

    Lovely turn of phrase, you’ve got there Wes … You could have written Shakespeare, if he hadn’t already gone and done it.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Rereke are you sure he didn’t mean sea level rise in the deep waters of the oceans due to temperature rises there… and commenting that most temperature measurements are taken on the surface, not in the deep oceans. I only ask as it immediately reminded me of this 2011 piece:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/deep_ocean_warming.html

    I am wondering if between a PhD pontificater and yourself there could have been some crossed wires.

    My response to your comment would have been “Indeed, lucky we have that equipment available.”

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    I got this one ED,

    MattB i will type this very slowly so you get the problem Rereke was alluding to.

    The PhD holder claimed sea levels were rising, Rereke pointed out that the rise in sea levels were very, very small and only detectable by using precision measuring equipment (suggesting sea level rise was very, very small).

    The PhD holder then stated that that was only at the surface but at lower depths (below the surface)the sea level rise was far greater.

    Listening for the sound of a penny dropping……………………

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    PhDs are woefully easy to obtain these days.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Good News regarding the NSW State Election!!!!!!!!!

    The Greens have flopped again, after failing to win a single one of the four seats they thought they’d win last year in Victoria!!

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

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    The new Premier of NSW is ready willing and able to deal with the communist witch joo LIER……

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

    00

  • #
  • #
    MattB

    Crakar – indeed – and I have replied with a link to a comment on a recent paper that discussed the issue of deep-water expansion due to temperature rise, wheras it appears previously it was believed that only the surface expansion was a factor.

    I do this to indicate to Rereke that maybe that is what he was talking about, and there was just confusion. Or possibly that Rereke is veraballing some unidentified random supposed PhD guy.

    In short – Rereke was possibly out of depth, had no idea what was going on, blurted an assinine comment, and got a reply he/she didn’t understand.

    Heck 30,000 phDs have apparently signed the anti AGW petition so certainly they are a bit easy to get hold of.

    00

  • #
    David

    MattyBee 207 in “David Evans, Carbon Accounting Modeler, Says It’s a Scam” you are not aware of whether it’s Carbon or CO2 – you say – It is totally irrelevant to me to be honest?

    As you are part Carbon and many other mixed up atoms – you MattyBee will get taxed on CO2 – not Carbon.

    The Global Groups involved with IPCC and at the Kyoto Protocol and since ratified) agreed that the basic unit of measurement will be CO2 and was given the value of 1.000 – now called a Carbon Dioxide equivalent (CO2-e). This is the standard measurement against which all other environment or global impacts are measured. The CO2-e is set as 1.0 and currently is on the Standard of GWP (Global Warming Potential) scale that everything else will be measured. Similar to the freezing point of water is standardised in the Celsius unit scale and is set at 0.00 degrees Celsius. Using this GWP scale they can include other molecules like methane, to give a measurement on the GWP scale. Once CO2 is taxed – they will have many other potential GHG’s to tax once a value is allocated! The start is CO2 as 1.00 and now they have already included methane as 23.00 and Nitrous Oxide as 296.00 on the 100 year GWP estimates of Greenhouse Gases (EIA 2009). This information can be found at http://www.itea.org/ .

    As part of the IPCC Kool-aid Lemmings (thanks Eddy), MattyBee – you should study the Koyoto Protocol.

    Maybe GHG Lucy could help you out to understand that Globally it is a CO2 Tax? If it was Carbon only my little MattyBee – the IPCC would loose the income from the weight of two Oxygen atoms!!

    Now are you in the picture MattyBee.
    Have a nice evening WittyMatty?, WalterMitty?, – OH sorry MattyBee!

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “crakar24″ (76),

    That is an absolute GEM!

    It makes me despair for our future if this is the IQ and calibre of so called “PhD” holders these days!

    Talk about Dumbing Down!

    I wonder what type of cereal box this “PhD” holder got his/her “qualifications” in????

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Shredding the “climate consensus” myth: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore……….

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/shredding-the-climate-consensus-myth-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore/

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Damian “That is an absolute GEM!

    It makes me despair for our future if this is the IQ and calibre of so called “PhD” holders these days!

    Talk about Dumbing Down!

    I wonder what type of cereal box this “PhD” holder got his/her “qualifications” in????”

    Your post proves my point. You now get to laugh about how dumb PhD types can be based upon an unsubstantiated claim from Rereke about a chat at a function with someone unable to defend themselves. It is pretty clear to me Rereke got the wrong end of the stick as yes clearly the comment as relayed to us is absurd. My bet is it never happened.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    My bet is infact that Rereke bumped in to Alene Composta at the conference.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    MattB in 81 (where is Ed when you need him most)

    Lets get this straight once and for all MattB, if we measure the sea level at the surface and the sea then warms and expands then we shall see a rise in the sea level at the surface.

    If we measure the sea level at the surface and the sea does not warm then we will not see a rise in the sea level surface etc.

    Rereke stated to this PhD holder that sea surface levels have hardly risen (very very small rise) but the PhD holder counted this by stating that the sea level was was taking place in deep water.

    It does not matter where the sea level is rising, if it is rising then it is rising unless you know of a physical process were sea level can actually rise without being measured………………oh of course how silly of me Santer can calculate a temp rise in the hot spot where no rise can be measured and Trenberth can simply change his theory when he cannot measure OHC rising as predicted.

    So of course using your logic the oceans are rising we just cant/dont have the expertise/our equipment is no good to measure the rise.

    00

  • #
    David

    MattyBee in 85

    You quote My bet is it never happened
    How about Lucy never happened?? Nice evening MattyBee

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes:
    March 29th, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    Mark D@54:

    You are just so witty! I only wish I was half as smart as you….

    But about the science? This blog seems to be about politics and conspiracies, and compared to science, these are easy, which is why someone as dumb as me hangs around here…..

    Science is easy, John: You just (1): Keep trying to figure stuff out, and (2): Continually check your ideas against the real world. (You should try it sometime — I’ll be glad to engage you in a discussion of science and facts anytime you want.)

    It’s politics and conspiracies that are hard, as the crucial second step above is illusive.

    The reason why Climate Science has gone off the rails is that they ignore the second step. If they were aeronautical engineers, all their airplanes would crash (with high probability).

    I had a friend who became clinically paranoid (by which I mean delusional) — all it took was for him to quit making reality checks and the passage of some time.

    Don’t neglect to make reality checks.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Its been 40 posts (41 if you include this one) since Bulldust posted the link to Watts (post 50 for those who dont like math)and as i predicted not one of the resident believers have gone near it. No they are content to just clog up the thread with gibberish.

    It is sad really when you think about it, we might as well be debating the subtle differences between Islam and Christianity.

    00

  • #
    Kozlowski

    Despite Lewandowsky being wrong on issues of science, I found him to be a sympathetic character. He did reach out to a stranger in good faith and genuinely tried to help her. He asked his fellow friend at Skepticalscience.com for suggestions – and passed those along as well. In what world are these actions wrong or to be criticized?

    It does not help the cause of science to prank people or to act as children. I found the “suicide” of the fake blogger to be especially disturbing.

    This does not:

    1) Refute either position in any way
    2) Address issues of science
    3) Prove the professor is _____.
    4) Do anything to bolster anti-AGWers credibility in front of any audience
    5) Appeal to a persons intellect

    OTOH, its very instructive how easily Composta was able to gain ‘admission’ to their clique simply by riffing on the usual green garbage. If you just take that part of it, remove the personal appeal for help, and drop the fake suicide at the end, this story could have been an “investigative” piece but it degenerated into a prank which I think reduces its potential to impact in any meaningful way.

    Richard C (NZ): Climochondriacs – priceless! That is way too funny. BTW you spelled it wrong. Just one “R”.

    Cheers!

    Kozlowski

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    So who is Alene Composta? Prof Bunyip? Wes?

    In the mean-time MattB is proving a capable replacement for that July character when he says this:

    “Crakar – indeed – and I have replied with a link to a comment on a recent paper that discussed the issue of deep-water expansion due to temperature rise, wheras it appears previously it was believed that only the surface expansion was a factor.”

    Maybe MattB is Lewandowsky?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Nah cohenite you shoudl check the paper. Summary: Measurements indicated more sea level rise than expected due to runoff from ice melt and expansion of the upper ocean waters. Turns out the deep waters are expanding too, as the timescale for warming of the deep waters is a lot shorter than previously expected (that latter bit may not be a finding of this study but something being built on).

    But it proves my point – easy to misunderstand… as Rereke probably has.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Crakar sorry no time today to look at WUWT – will have a look in time though, and I’m sure WUWT has his own warmists having a go. It is a WUWT post why would someone go there, analyse it, and post comments here?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Crakar in #87 – you are completely missing my point. I understand exactly what you are saying. What I am saying is I don’t believe the conversation took place, and if it did then Rereke misunderstood.

    I then linked to a commentary on a paper that identifies that increases in temperature of the upper regions of the ocean do not explain the rate of sea level rise (which is larger than temp would suggest), and they have discovered that there is also expansion due to T increas in the deep waters, as the transfer is quicker than previously expected!

    PLease please please don’t yet again repeat your post and use it to say I’m wrong. You simply are not following.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    MattB in 92,

    So are you adding remote sensing to your repertoire?

    MattB in 93,

    Bull dust posted it here about 4 hours ago, i can understand your reluctance to respond your excuses are a little revealing though. But sure take your time to read it and repsond on WUWT and then let Bulldust know about it so he can respond over there to your comments oh and let Ed know as well just for kicks.-))

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Woot! My first thumbs down in a while. Clearly someone with a PhD was cheesed off ;)

    I started a PhD under the US system, which is far more rigorous than the typical thesis-only system. In the US system you generally do a couple years worth of post-graduate courses (or more if you have no prior credits in the field) after which you sit a comprehensive written exam. In the case of the University of Arizona and Colorado school of Mines (where I completed a Masters and started PhD coursework, respectively) the comprehensive exam was a three (consecutive) day, 6-8 hours a day, written examination – a memory dump of what you had learned.

    After that you start a thesis document. Most PhD students will spend at least another 2 years working on that as well. A PhD is required to be two things:

    1) original; and
    2) significant.

    Two simple words but so very important. I read a fair few PhDs as background reading for my thesis (which was on embodied energy trade), and I can tell you first hand that few PhD’s met one of those criteria, let alone both IMHO.

    After moving to Australia with virtually all my PhD coursework completed in the US (almost ABD to those in the trade) I found out that Aussies do a thesis only for PhD’s. So I started the first couple of chapters (see subject above) but the internet came along and I got distracted…

    Based upon some of the theses I have read, PhD’s are woefully easy to obtain. Hence my somewhat flippant comment above, but I have been there, done that, and you don’t need exceptional wit or talent to get one. That is not to say there aren’t some excellent academics with said qualification out there, but there is a lot of mediocrity out there as well. To many academia is simply a career, not a calling. I was more interested in teaching than research.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    JB has got me thinking about science:

    I think many people think that “Science” is just about understanding and being able to use current scientific theories. This can be a very complex subject (depending on the level and the particular theories), and is essentially what is taught by a science education.

    Really, though, “Science” is the application of the Scientific Method, in which empirical validation of theory is a key component. It is this kind of Science which has advanced our knowledge of the Universe so far and had such a profound effect on Human welfare.

    I understand that the majority of physicists nowadays go into fields in which empirical validation is not currently possible, such as String Theory. I would say that these people are not “Scientists”, but a species of mathematician. In a similar vein, “Climate Scientists” who deal in computer modeling but never test their models against the real world are also not doing “Science”. Perhaps they are exploring “virtual worlds”, but the relationship to our world is tenuous at best.

    The physics department at the University where I got my math and physics degrees believed in exposing students to serious experiments in their undergraduate laboratories. As a upper-classman, I graded many labs in which the students measured things like the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the elementary unit of charge, or the magnetic moment of the proton, for example.

    At first, almost all students acted as if the purpose of these labs was to get the “right” answer, even if they had to cherry-pick the data or fudge the analysis. After a few lectures (and sometimes a failing grade on a lab or two) I managed to convince most everyone that the purpose of a lab was to measure the data as accurately as you could and draw conclusions from that data, including your estimated error limits. (At least, I convinced them that they had to do this if they wanted a passing grade from me.) If they wanted to further hypothesize on the difference between the “right” answer and theirs (perhaps trying to identify likely sources of systematic error), they could get extra credit.

    The idea that you are supposed to get the “right” answer seems to be particularly strong in Climate Science (no doubt encouraged by the desire to continue getting grant money). The “Hockey Stick” episode, for example, is just a complicated form of circular argument in which the analysis procedure is designed to produce the desired answer. McIntyre and McKitrick demonstrated that by showing that the analysis algorithm would produce a very nice “Hockey Stick” graph when fed random “data”.

    It is probable that the “adjustments” made to the raw temperature data have a similar effect — they certainly completely change the conclusions from what would be deduced from the raw data itself (see here and here).

    So, by all means John — let’s discuss the science. Maybe we can get beyond your quaint belief that “they must be doing science, since they are scientists” into actual logic, theory and data.

    00

  • #

    BobC @89: Don’t neglect to make reality checks.

    I wholeheartedly agree and do it almost constantly while I am awake. Neither of us need anyone else to check reality. We simply look, measure, test, and verify. Then we know. Sadly, they have a problem with doing that.

    A reality check for them is to check what significant others think. Especially the others who check with other significant others who do exactly the same thing in an endless regression. A believes what B believes because B believes it. B believes what C believes because C believes it. So also with D and E and F and similarly for for each and every member of the hive mentality. Likely until the last person believes what A believes because A believes it. An infinite summation of zeros is still zero.

    The notion is founded upon Kant’s epistemology: If it is known to be true, it cannot be about reality. If it is about reality, it cannot be known to be true. The best one can do for knowing actual truth is to acquire social knowledge. One must accept consensus because it is a consensus.

    To state the case bluntly, the lights are on and the radio is playing but nobody is home. There is no I in any transaction. The focus is on an endless and sacred other.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    BobC @ 96:

    Thanks for a touchstone piece… it certainly helps to take a step back from time to time and ask the question, what is it we were doing again?

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Bulldust;

    I agree with your comments on PhDs. (The Colo School of Mines, BTY, is known as one of the tougher schools in the US.)

    One point I’ve noticed about PhD candidates — many of them are simply “indentured servants” to their advisor’s for 2-3 years, doing exactly what they are told and mostly advancing their advisor’s own research. (Often, the thesis work will result in a patent application in which the advisor’s name will appear as the primary inventor.)

    Exactly how this teaches anyone how to do “original scientific work” has never been clear to me.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Crakar… just had a squizz at WUWT… I note the following that Watts starts with:
    “Now, about the climate science:

    ‘‘It’s unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth and that burning fossil fuels shoves billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere,”

    “But where you can get challenges is on the speed of change.”

    – Professor John Beddington”

    So maybe Richard S Courtney has a bone to pick with Bebbington, and also Watts?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    re: my post in 102: I see Louis has picked up on that also over at WUWT:) Epic lulz @2ndLoT.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MattB:
    March 29th, 2011 at 5:21 pm

    Crakar… just had a squizz at WUWT… I note the following that Watts starts with:
    “Now, about the climate science:

    ‘‘It’s unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth and that burning fossil fuels shoves billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere,”

    “But where you can get challenges is on the speed of change.”

    – Professor John Beddington”

    So maybe Richard S Courtney has a bone to pick with Bebbington, and also Watts?

    You’re really a one-trick pony, MattB — you don’t seem to be able to make an argument that isn’t some form of “argument from authority”.

    Besides, your ability to spot a controversy is seriously lacking:

    It’s unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth

    I don’t know anyone who challenges that concept — the data, however, strongly implies that it is a trivial effect; certainly less (perhaps much less) than 1.5 deg C for a CO2 doubling. Since CO2 concentrations are on track (and have been for 50 years) to double in 140 years, it’s hard to see that there is a problem.

    burning fossil fuels shoves billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere

    Where else would it go? You have noticed, I presume, that smokestacks tend to go up “into the atmosphere” rather than down into the ground? Actual measurements of the behavior of CO2 in the atmosphere (as opposed to unverified models) show that it doesn’t stay very long, and hence Human activity has very little effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    I don’t expect anyone to agree with me on this out of some misguided sense of consensus — I am perfectly willing to discuss the data and logic that leads me to these conclusions and let others make up their own minds.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    BobC, couldn’t agree more on science. The trick to doing science, as you so rightly point out, is that your actual results are what matter – not what you might or might not like them to be.

    Any experimentalist worth their salt would love to get results which disagree with a theory. But they would be mortified to later discover that they had made a mistake. Getting results which differ markedly from an established theory means you have to be hyper-critical of your own experiment and analysis – because you can bet your bottom dollar that everyone else will be.

    The process of change in science is fascinating. Scientists can’t go changing their ideas every time an experimental result contrary to a theory comes out. So much energy would be wasted, only to discover later that there had been an error in the experiment. Instead, its more like a weight of evidence over an extended period of time is required to change existing ideas. It appears entirely typical that 20+ years will pass from an initial discovery until its general acceptance. Plate tectonics and stomach ulcers being two relatively recent discoveries which met with huge initial resistance from geologists and medicos respectively. From memory, I think the initial discoverer of the kinetic theory of gases didn’t get anywhere against the 19th century establishment until after his death.

    So our understanding of climate will settle down, until, like plate tectonics, everyone roughly agrees. It just hasn’t got there yet!

    01

  • #
    wes george

    cohenite:
    March 29th, 2011 at 4:18 pm

    So who is Alene Composta? Prof Bunyip? Wes?

    Yes, Cohenite, would I have been so clever to have concocted such a gorgeous bit of rhetorical machinery, I would indeed have been proud to have done so. Alas, I’m but a lowly art critic. The Alene project is so profound a revolutionary breakthrough in the use of language and networks to bait out the secret agenda of elitist asses that we can barely comprehend the paradigm shift in online hilarity it presages. A whole new era of creativity beckons us!

    Obama was right—We are the ones we have been waiting for!

    If the liberation of the CRU emails had occurred as an act of civil disobedience against, say, my employer, the Single Flush Toilet Cartel, the whole Green/Labor coalition would have hailed it as the most courageous act of heroism since Bob Brown saved Tasmania from whatever to become the beautiful welfare state it is today.

    “Toiletgate” would be a household meme ready for inclusion in standard dictionaries.

    If the high jinks of Alene Composta had befallen The Australian or Fox News, the ABC would be analyzing the implosion in conservative integrity and credibility for years. Alene would be recognized as the greatest work of political satire since Johnathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.”

    Instead, we witness the amazingly geriatric dance of hypocrites lit only by the “ethical twilight of Internet warfare.”

    The ABC can’t bring itself to even mumble the word “Climategate.” Other Alarmists, such as the Realclimate mob believe Climategate is an international war crime worthy of a trial at the Hague… if only they could catch the bastard…

    And now Alene Composta reveals the corrupt underbelly of ABC and its connexion to the whole climate scam.

    Those the Gods wish to destroy are first bequeathed hubris.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “I don’t know anyone who challenges that concept ”

    Um try Richard and Louis.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes: @105

    So our understanding of climate will settle down, until, like plate tectonics, everyone roughly agrees. It just hasn’t got there yet!

    For once I totally agree with you! (I gave you a thumbs up, BTY — hope it doesn’t ruin your record ;-) )

    I would add a couple of points, however:

    1) There was a relatively large amount of geological and biological evidence for Continental Drift for a long time before the physical scientists accepted it. Their main objection was the lack of an explaining theory. (This attitude was exemplified by Arthur Eddington, who once famously said that “Data must never be accepted until it is confirmed by theory!”). Experimental scientists and engineers are much more willing to go with the data and let the theory catch up later.

    2) Making decisions which can have serious consequences on the basis of data without an underlying theory is an often accepted necessity. The converse — making consequential decisions on the basis of unconfirmed theory is a prescription for disaster, as history has often demonstrated (just look at how Communism turned out).

    Since the AGW hypothesis has yet to show any significant predictive skill, it is way beyond foolish to be making changes in the global economy and governance based on it.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Just to repeat. You guys can’t deny that Bolt was caught out too:) I also note that many posts assume the Prof knew about all the other articles and comments (that tax on carbonated drinks example), when he probably jsut politely answered an email.

    Just on carbonated drinks, however, if CO2 is an input then indeed I’d assume it will be taxed:)

    00

  • #

    Over the years, I’ve enjoyed a number of genuinely pleasurable (conversations with a variety of people who understand that Prof. Lewandowsky’s allies are grungy at best, and the downfall of society at worst.

    In one such conversation, someone pointed out to me that if we let Prof. Lewandowsky resort to ad hominem attacks on me and my family, all we’ll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization.

    The key to his soul is his longing for the effortless, irresponsible, automatic consciousness of an animal. Prof. Lewandowsky dreads the necessity, the risk, and the responsibility of rational cognition. As a result, his beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) are not on the up and up. If you don’t believe me, see for yourself.

    While he might not carve out space in the mainstream for meretricious politics per se, the virus of priggism took control of Australia’s political life long ago. Now, thanks to Prof. Lewandowsky’s histrionics, that virus will continue to spread until no one can recall that I’ve heard Prof. Lewandowsky say that children should belong to the state. Was that just a slip of the lip, or is Prof. Lewandowsky secretly trying to make widespread accusations and insinuations without having the facts to back them up? Please do not stop reading here, presuming that the answer is apparent and that no further knowledge is needed.

    Such is honestly not the case. In fact, I’d bet no one ever told you that while we do nothing, those who put laughable thoughts in our children’s minds are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we fight for our freedom of speech.

    Who is Prof. Lewandowsky to decide what is morally acceptable for us and what is not? He swears that our only chance of saving the planet is to accept unending regulations and straightjacket “reforms” from his habitués. Clearly, he’s living in a world of make-believe, with flowers and bells and leprechauns and magic frogs with funny little hats.

    Back in the real world, Prof. Lewandowsky has come up with proven methods to overthrow all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drag people down into the sphere of his own base nature. All you have to do is let your guard down. In closing, all that I ask is that you join me to stop him and direct your attention in some detail to the vast and irreparable calamity brought upon us by Prof. Lewandowsky.

    I thank you.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MattB:
    March 29th, 2011 at 6:54 pm

    Just on carbonated drinks, however, if CO2 is an input then indeed I’d assume it will be taxed:)

    Carbonated drinks might be excepted since, by the IPCC’s model of CO2 absorption, they can’t be made.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Thats GOLD Bob

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Johnny@105…

    The trick to doing science, as you so rightly point out, is that your actual results are what matter – not what you might or might not like them to be.

    Not in climate science! The only results that matter are those which confirm the CAGW hypothesis, anything else is obviously a measurement error or a conspiracy. That’s why all temperature data has to be adjusted to conform with the CAGW hypothesis. Testing the results against the climate models is a proven method of sorting out error in your measurements. Oh, and all data and methods should be kept secret or else some bastard might just try to use them to prove you wrong! (Channeling CRU’s Phil Jones)

    Any experimentalist worth their salt would love to get results which disagree with a theory.

    What’s an experimentalist? Is that like a circus act? …Oh, you mean researcher! Johnny, I think you been experimentalizing with the bong again.

    By definition, researchers always perform experiments or collect data in order to confirm their hypothesis. Maybe their hypothesis is that their observations will disagree with a theory. It’s called the Scientific Method.

    But they would be mortified to later discover that they had made a mistake

    Of course, that’s what the CAGW climate models are there for, to double check those kinky experimentalistic experiments against. When your data shows no troposphere hot spot or that the oceanic heat content contradicts orthodox theory, obviously your data is rubbish.

    Getting results which differ markedly from an established theory means you have to be hyper-critical of your own experiment and analysis – because you can bet your bottom dollar that everyone else will be

    Hell, yeah! And you’ll damn sure not get publishing in a proper peer reviewed journal as long as the climate good ol’ boys have any say on it. Then the good old boys will say… pffft, you’re work isn’t even peer reviewed!

    The process of change in science is fascinating.

    ROTFL! Hey, I’m all ears, tell us about how science evolves, Johnny!

    Scientists can’t go changing their ideas every time an experimental result contrary to a theory comes out. So much energy would be wasted, only to discover later that there had been an error in the experiment.

    Oh, no. Mustn’t fall for the illusion that empirical observation trumps ephemeral theory. I mean, like that might be the way one navigates the highway system, by responding to the observations made through the windscreen rather than relying on some theory about what the road ahead should be like. We should hold science to a higher standard than simple common sense! Some precious theories have “so much energy” invested in them they deserve insulation from the vicissitudes of empirical reality.

    Instead, its more like a weight of evidence over an extended period of time is required to change existing ideas. It appears entirely typical that 20+ years will pass from an initial discovery until its general acceptance.

    To further quicken the progress of science, I’d recommend the privatization the ABC, disbanding the Ministry of Climate Change and tossing the Green/Labor coalition out of power.

    Plate tectonics and stomach ulcers being two relatively recent discoveries which met with huge initial resistance from geologists and medicos respectively. From memory, I think the initial discoverer of the kinetic theory of gases didn’t get anywhere against the 19th century establishment until after his death.

    So skepticism of CAGW is like Plate tectonics? It’s nice that Johnny is slowly coming over to our side. Although, I, for one, don’t welcome him. Anyone who is as ignorant of the philosophy of science and the general methodology of rational inquiry, yet feels compelled to broadcast his ignorance on the WWW is probably better as a rhetorical opponent rather than to have onside.

    So our understanding of climate will settle down, until, like plate tectonics, everyone roughly agrees. It just hasn’t got there yet!

    Yes, Johnny, we ain’t there yet and for God’s sake, let’s hope that science never gets to where it is determined by roughly whatever everyone agrees!

    How many times do we have to point out that consensus science is anti-science?

    * * *

    I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

    In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

    Michael Crichton in a Caltech Lecture.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    In reality – this is such a bullshit statement from Crichton:
    “In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

    00

  • #
    MattB

    That being that any consensus in science is built on reproducible results that most people think are produced using quality science. Everyone wants to find the reproducible results that shatter the consensus. When those are found the consensus moves on because everyone can see the breakthrough and celebrates those responsible.

    Consensus just means that at a certain point in time when there are competing theories, well which one has convinced most scientists. Of course it is always open for change and challenge, but at the end of the day when a decision has to be made you can;t rationally go with the fringe science that most scientists can poke big hairy sticks through (like bogus claims that AGW breaks the 2nd law of Thermodynamics).

    The demonisation of “consensus” is a strawman.

    01

  • #
    MattB

    I’d say it is as often the case that crying foul of consensus is the scientist’s last refuge against the reality that his theory is crap.

    00

  • #
  • #
    MattB

    Thing is Damian it would take Bolt about 30 seconds to answer the question “How much extra will a can of coke cost.”

    He himself quotes 170gCO2e. So just like any product you apply a price per tonne CO2e. Lets say $30 for want of a better number.

    $30 per tonne = 3c per kilogram. Lets call cokes footprint 200g CO2e per can. So the whopping imposition of a carbon tax on a can of coke is 3c x 0.2 = 0.6c

    Wow – stop the frigging press!

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    MattB@118
    Take that equation and apply it to a house brick and tell us how much it will add to the price of a new house.Then you can work out how much the steel will cost,how much the cement will cost how much the tiles will cost how much the glass will cost how much the aluminium will cost.Then tell us people are going to get compensated for that.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    MattB,

    Thats is not the half of it.

    Can you calculate the TAX applied to the:

    Manufacture of the coke itself

    Manufacture of the can/plastic bottle/glass bottle

    Bottling of the product

    Cost to shelve product in shop

    Transportation of all components from digging raw materials out of the ground to being placed on the shop shelf

    TIA

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Rudkidding in 119

    I might be showing my age here but i seem to recall Keating beat Hewson due to Hewsons inability to explain the true cost of the GST in a similar way you have described.

    Credit where credit is due though, Hewson did take his TAX to an election.

    00

  • #
    brc

    Crichton is spot on and you know it.

    The list of invalidated theories that never actually fitted with data is long and illustrious. All of which had widespread consensus at the time of their demolition.

    - stomach ulcers caused by stress. No actual data to back this up but kept going for centuries and built a massive industry around it. Consensus busted by actual data and provable results.
    - plate tectonics and continental drift. Prior to this the consensus was that the features of the earth were from cyclical heating and cooling of the crust. Obviously the data didn’t fit with this theory because it didn’t explain earthquakes or why fossils turned up in opposite sides of the world. The ‘heating and cooling’ consensus was busted precisely because people took a good look at the data and found it didn’t fit.
    - miasma theory of disease. The consensus was ‘bad air’ (literally what malaria means, incidentally) caused disease. This theory was developed because disease seemed to follow stench around, in a classic mistake of conflating correlation with causation. Even when germ theory was proven, people were still needlessly dying in hospitals because doctors refused to wash their hands.

    That’s before we start getting into pseudo-science with public policy overtones like Eugenics, which once had ‘the support of all major national science institutions and policy responses from governments around the world’.

    The fact is any scientific theory is more likely to be wrong than right over time.

    You might say my above examples prove that co2-caused catastrophic warming is the one true theory of global climate. I would say, however, that we have reached the point where clearly increasing levels of co2 in the atmosphere are not causing catastrophic warming as predicted. There is no geological evidence that runaway warming caused by positive feedbacks has ever happened in the past. The models have predicted data outcomes that haven’t been found, either in raw temperature increases, in extreme weather events, or in signatures like the hot spot. Increasingly the theory is looking very vulnerable to a tectonic-plate theory coming along and making it look stupid. I would say the balance of evidence is that co2 is actually a bit-player in warming at current and projected future concentrations, and that other, larger forces are around.

    I think the future will look back on the late Michael Crichton as a very early proponent of the problems with the co2 phobia that gripped late 20th/early 21st century societies. His lectures on the subject should be required reading for anyone who grapples with the inherent contradictions and problems with co2-based climate science, and the floundering attempts at public policy responses from the same. Crichton was a very successful and deep thinking guy, and wasn’t adverse to some unconventional thinking and acceptance of alternate theories on things.

    In a word, his discussions on the problems with global warming theory were deadly accurate. And that’s what makes so many people uncomfortable and prone to trying to posthumously decry his talks as ‘bullshit’. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to slander him without a shred of actual argument apart from the fact his true statements makes you feel uncomfortable. Consensus is an artefact of proof, not a proof in itself. And co2 based climate change theory has no proof, just a bunch of proponents arguing about balance of probabilities concocted from their own self-affirming modelling.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Crakar in 120 – I have no reason to believe that the CO2e footprint of Coke as quoted by Bolt is not accurate. As it it includes all those things. In Australia could be higher as transport and refrigeration costs are likely higher but I’m happy to use Bolt’s figures as presented.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Mattb you fail again i am afraid,

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

    The only things included in your figures are the amount of CO2 used to package the product and the product itself, we still need to include the cost of making the product minus the CO2 injected, the cost of producing the aluminium/glass or plastic, the transports costs of all these components and of course the electricty used by the shops to run their fridges/lighting. There are more costs of course but these are the main ones.

    Nice try though :-

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “The only things included in your figures are the amount of CO2 used to package the product and the product itself”

    Who says. I can’t actually get to the link to the source of the 170g CO2e (blocked) but I’d have thought a site like “consumer activist” would be including all they can to make it look worse. So yeah can you back up your statement as Bolt doesn’t say that. I think you are making it up, if I had to put money on it.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I’ve found another link to the same 170g:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/09/coke-carbon-footprint-innocent-smoothie

    “Coca-Cola has become the biggest global brand to publish the greenhouse gases produced by making, packaging, transporting, chilling, and disposing of their most popular products.”

    so stick that up your crackar and smoke it.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    This, Crakar, is how I can tell you’ve never looked at the science of AGW with a discerning eye, as you can’t even look at basic every day stuff and get it right! Credibility – zero, or Coke Zero should I say?

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    No cigar for “MattB” again!!!

    Please share with us all here why you feel the necessity to follow up sombody questioning you with THREE posts?

    Does that somehow make you feel more important, or is there some deep underlying Psychological reason????

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    MattB in 118

    “Thing is Damian it would take Bolt about 30 seconds to answer the question “How much extra will a can of coke cost.”

    He himself quotes 170gCO2e. So just like any product you apply a price per tonne CO2e. Lets say $30 for want of a better number.

    $30 per tonne = 3c per kilogram. Lets call cokes footprint 200g CO2e per can. So the whopping imposition of a carbon tax on a can of coke is 3c x 0.2 = 0.6c

    Wow – stop the frigging press!”

    Myself in post 120

    “Thats is not the half of it.

    Can you calculate the TAX applied to the:

    Manufacture of the coke itself

    Manufacture of the can/plastic bottle/glass bottle

    Bottling of the product

    Cost to shelve product in shop

    Transportation of all components from digging raw materials out of the ground to being placed on the shop shelf

    TIA”

    MattB in post 123

    “Crakar in 120 – I have no reason to believe that the CO2e footprint of Coke as quoted by Bolt is not accurate. As it it includes all those things. In Australia could be higher as transport and refrigeration costs are likely higher but I’m happy to use Bolt’s figures as presented.”

    Myself in post 124

    “The only things included in your figures are the amount of CO2 used to package the product and the product itself, we still need to include the cost of making the product minus the CO2 injected, the cost of producing the aluminium/glass or plastic, the transports costs of all these components and of course the electricty used by the shops to run their fridges/lighting. There are more costs of course but these are the main ones.

    Nice try though :-

    I also included the Bolt article which MattB was basing his whole argument on which MattB now claims he cannot access so instead links to another site because this supports his argument, MattB then has a melt down in posts 125, 126 and 127 because i have the termerity to question him.

    Here is what bolt said in the link MattB is blocked from viewing

    “Most of the emissions caused by a can of Coke come from the packaging, of course:

    Working with the UK Carbon Trust, Coke says that a 330ml can of ‘Coca-Cola’ sold in Great Britain has a carbon footprint of 170 grams Co2 equivalent…. Coke says that packaging accounts for the largest single impact, 30 – 70 per cent, depending on the type of container.

    But the drink itself is carbonated:

    Carbonation creates bubbles and fizzing in a carbonated beverage due to the presence of the carbon dioxide gas.

    And what does Julia Gillard call that gas in your Coca Cola?

    … carbon pollution …

    Hmm. So with so many Coke drinkers drinking “pollution”, it’s clearly sound public health policy to whack a great tax on this dangerous product, much as we do with cigarettes.

    But I digress. Back to the question.

    With Julia Gillard taxing the emissions caused by the packaging and gas in the drink itself, as well as on the petrol used to bring the Coke to you and the power to cool it, how much more will a can of Coke cost?”

    Typical bullshit from a believer, constantly moving never settling as it is hard to hit a moving target.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Crakar you are full of it. The link I can;t access is not Bolt, but the link he gives as a cite for the 170g… which I’d need to access to find out whether they do or do not include all the things you say they didn’t. I fiound another link, have shown you they did include it. You are flat out WRONG on the one and nothing can save you, yet still you flail around. And I bet you sometimes call AGW scientists the Blick Knight.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    unless you’re not south Africn, then you probably call them the Black Knight.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    MattB,

    A couple of things first

    I wish Ed was here,

    Whats with the multiple posts, do you a character limit or is it a Sth African thing?

    And for the last time you cited a Bolt story to back up claims that a can of coke would increase by only 6 cents, lets not lose sight of that fact, this claim was made in post 118 highlighting the 170grams of CO2.

    I then questioned you on your claim of a 6 cent increase, you then responded by saying you believe Bolts figures where accurate.

    I then produced Bolts figures he does quote the 170grams of CO2 but nowhere does he claim a can of coke will increase by 6 cents in fact he states the cost a coke would increase quite a bit due to transport, lighting and refridgeration etc.

    You then change tack by producing another link in a pathetic attempt at self preservation. You quoted Bolt and you got it wrong so stop drinking the holy water and put down your rosary beads and get a grip on reality.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    That’s 0.6c per can Crakar. Not 6.

    Fact – the 170g is a cradle to grave life cycle analysis of a can of coke, as per my guardian link, and is the same 170g used by Bolt. 1 tonne of CO2 = approx $30. 1 kg of CO2 = 3c. 200g CO2 = 0.6c.

    There is nothing extra, no transport, refrigeration etc, this is all in the 170g, as per my link (I can’t access Bolt’s source link for the 170g but I found a different one).

    Quote from my link “Coca-Cola has become the biggest global brand to publish the greenhouse gases produced by making, packaging, transporting, chilling, and disposing of their most popular products.”

    Geddit?

    Multi posts. I made a post, went away and researched an answer, made a post, then made an unrelated comment. 2nd time I addressed a typo – maybe you have to have seen Lethal Weapon to get my reference to Blick Knight as a saffie.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    P.s. Damian in #128…

    Hey have a look at Posts 78, 79, 80, all by you. Seriously you must be just about the dimmest blockhead on this site.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    MattB,

    So what you are saying is Coca cola or who ever from another country can sit down with a calculator and calculate that the cost of a can of coke will increase by 0.6 cents (i assume you are using australian dollars at the current exchange rate) even though they have no idea what the cost per ton will be, they have no idea whether it will a straight out TAX or an ETS, they have no idea how that ETS will be structured, they have no idea how many companies will be exempt, partially exempt or fully exposed, they have no idea about the internal transport costs or costs of running the shop which sells the product.

    But yet despite all this they can tell you a can of coke will increase by less than one cent and whats more you accept this as fact? You are truly delusional MattB.

    Enough of your stupidity i will no longer reply to your insane ramblings and i would appreciate it if you no longer reply to my posts good day MattB.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Hey Damian i noticed you had 15 thumbs up from posts 78, 79 & 80, keep up the good work.

    Crakar

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Crakar in 135 what are you talking about.

    The footprint is 170g per can of coke – Source – Bolt.
    The cost of a tonne of CO2 in australia is mooted to be $20-$40 – I’ve just taken $30 as a number that is often bandied about.

    $30 per tonne… how hard is it to convert that to the cost of 170g! Not hard at all. Well too hard for me so I made it 200g for math’s sake and that gives 0.6c per can. You you get it – Tax mooted to be $30 per tonne, CO2 footprint of can of coke = 170g… DO THE MATHS!!!!

    No exchange rates, no Coca-cola gussing about aussie dollar, or ETS structure, or tax. It is just a simple calculation from the carbon footprint as provided by Coke. I’ve even said it would probably be a bit higher here as we probably have more transport costs and refrigeration costs since we are a vast and hot land, but it is there or thereabouts.

    Look – I’m pleading here – Bulldust, Jo, someone anyone! PLEASE confirm that $30 a tonne for CO2 means something with a CO2e footprint of 170g would cost an additional 0.6c there or thereabouts. One of you guys could say Elephants are the size of gnats and like to dance the tango and Crakar would believe you.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Come on MattB, you know the motto here, “Never concede anything, in case it is used against you later”.

    But yes Matt, your calculation is good, and Crakar is, well, crackers….

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bloody useless – your word is as much good as flyscreens on a submarine around here John! ;)

    10

  • #
    crakar24

    Crakers…trust me John i have them all next is “crackpot and crackhead” i have even been called “arsecrack” which i thought was thinking out side the box a little.

    What it comes down to is this, anyone can pluck a figure from the internet and do some simple maths to come up with an imaginary cost increase which is what you and your colleague here are suggesting.

    So we simply take cokes word for it at 170 grams of CO2 and times it by the assumed cost of a ton of CO2 and as if by magic we can calculate the cost increase of coke. Using this logic we should be able to identify the costs of all products and services across the board. If it was so simple then why are we not told this, for example i did a little google searching in an effort to show you just how wrong you are and i did not find what i was looking for simply because the information does not exist !!!! although i did find this which proves my point.

    http://www.industrysearch.com.au/News/Carbon-price-policy-to-be-explained-over-time-Gillard-50115

    Qoute from Gillard

    “Gillard said the federal government proposed a carbon tax without many details so the policy could evolve and be properly explained.

    “One of the reasons we’re doing it, the way we’re doing it in releasing the mechanism first is so I can have this conversation with the Australian people,” she told ABC Television on Monday.

    “So that there is time to explain.

    “It is a big change and it’s going to require a lot of explanation.”

    So the PM has no policy to describe how much a can of coke is going to increase because she has no policy to describe it but yet you and your cohorts can by the use of a simple mathematical equation (no policy needed) tell me to within a cent the exact cost increase.

    The PM states this is a big change that requires a lot of explaining, apparently not Julya.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    MattB @134

    Seriously you must be just about the dimmest blockhead on this site.

    Clearly you haven’t been reading your own posts then MattB…

    00

  • #
    brc

    Fine, I’ll play the game. Let’s say the sums are correct and the cost of a can of coke goes up by 0.06 cents.

    That is the cost. Now we add the retailers margin – lets assume a corner store owner. The retail price is going to go up a bit because he has to pay for the fridge which runs on more expensive power, and he needs to pay himself a bit more salary to afford the other increases in his cost of living. He’s an evil capitalist corner store business owner, so he’s not going to get a red cent in compensation. Besides, he doesn’t use a cost-plus calculation for retail price, he just goes for double the margins. Let’s assume the retail increase is a further 0.6 c – plucked out of the air, but let’s not quibble when the whole argument is based on guesses about carbon price anyway. Finally the Fed Govt gets their final share and puts GST on the increase, so we’re up to about 1.3c increase in the retail price.

    So what, I hear you say? 1.3c on a can of coke – who cares?

    Now look in your cupboard. There’s at least hundred items in there. We could repeat the exercise for each one. So what? I hear you say – the inventory of your cupboard now costs an extra dollar. Note none of these items are directly produced by ‘big polluters’, and some are from ‘exempt’ agriculture.

    And it’s true, this is a small amount.

    But let’s look at what we get for this small amount? What’s this? A couple of thousands of a degree of warming saved by 2050 for all this carbon counting, taxing, shuffling and adjusting? A totally unmeasurable result.

    There is no point to putting on the tax. It is pointless, meaningless, gesture politics with a side dish of wealth redistribution.

    I defy anyone to justify the tax even if they are a paid up, self diagnosed carbon dioxide phobic with a sheaf of Phd papers about polar bears under their arm. There is no point, so let’s not do it.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    This “MattB” must be either:-
    1 A dole bludger.
    2 An extremely unproductive employee using his employer’s time and resources to post here instead of working. (Does the boss know what you are up to?)
    3 Old and senile and retired.
    4 A PAID employee of a pro grobal warming propaganda organization and THIS is his job.

    Can I draw people’s attention to the time that this “MattB” posts comments.

    These times are normally when people are working………

    Food for thought!

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    One of our regular Warmist Contributers “MattB” actually stated the following admission in post (199) of this discussion

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/thousands-of-angry-ordinary-australians-turn-up-and-alarmist-smears-begin/comment-page-5/#comment-244212

    …………++
    The words of MattB;-

    “Therefore we can only logically conclude that there is No Proof, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that mankind is responsible for global warming”

    THAT’S WHAT I SAID!!!
    THAT’S THE ANSWER!
    ……………….

    That response was in relation to my challenge at post (121) of the same discussion

    My Words (and challenge):-
    Simple question for you characters “MattB”, “John Brookes” etc..

    Please post at least one Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper which PROVES, Beyond A Shadow Of A Doubt, that mankind is responsible for global warming.

    I await your responses with baited breath…….
    …………

    Well there you have it!

    The warmists admit that there is No Proof and thus No Justification for a carbon DIOXIDE (Plant Food) Tax!!

    I rest my case.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Wendy,Percival Snodgrass, William Wallace, Damian Allen.

    You make many valuable contribution here and at other sites, however you let yourself down when you attack the man and not the argument.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Damian: “The warmists admit that there is No Proof” the point is there is no such thing as PROOF – that is a mathematical construct so I’m told. That is why I agree with you… iof there was PROOF there would be zero debate. Case closed.

    Also – are you suggesting that everyone else here IS in fact unemployed or a paid employee of the skeptical movement. I put it to you that if I wasn’t a useful employee I’d be sacked. Some folks soend 5 mins an hour having a quick ciggy, I post on global warming blogs – sue me.

    Your threats to out me are strange indeed.

    I do also note the following statment in the OP
    ” There was also even one commenter who wrote 440 comments on this blog under his real name, in business hours, from a government office.”

    If that refers to me then low blow jo… or is it Brian G Valentine? I mean your getting a bit SS or Brownshirty oe secret police with this kind of language. If you’d rather I wasn’t here no dramas, just say the word and I shall be gone.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    440 comments in work time! That might be me. I’d better check with my employer that its ok. In fact, I’m doing it now. Except that work was supposed to finish 20 minutes ago, but there is still stuff to do, so I’m still here (only waiting, but it isn’t what I’d choose to do!).

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    And sorry, Damian (or whatever your name is) for not taking you up on your challenge. There is no proof, just a lot of things all pointing in one direction.

    But if there was a proof, and it contained the statement 2+2=4, then I’m pretty sure there would be people here who would suddenly develop an abiding interest in the foundations of mathematical theory, and find unsung mathematical heroes who had proved conclusively that 2+2 doesn’t have to equal 4 all the time……

    00

  • #

    Percy, you really need to work on your social engineering skills. It’s almost as though you learnt your approach on a green blog…

    Please come back when you’ve figured out a better way to play infiltrator. Take a tip from a professional like me. My handler at Big ‘ol Oil is going to have a chuckle at this one.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Actually, you really do need an economist to explain the price of things. Otherwise how can you explain the cost of bottled water? I defy any of you to explain why anyone would pay $3 for a litre of stuff which basically comes out of the tap for free. If the price of water is so weird, what chance have we ever got of understanding the price of coke?

    BTW, you shouldn’t drink carbonated drinks. A weird but true fact is that teenage girls in the US who don’t drink carbonated drinks have a lower rate of bone fractures.

    01

  • #
    Speedy

    Alene Composta really is a gem. Link is here…

    http://verdanthopes.blogspot.com/

    You don’t need to parody the warmists – you just need to quote them.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    John Brookes: @150

    BTW, you shouldn’t drink carbonated drinks. A weird but true fact is that teenage girls in the US who don’t drink carbonated drinks have a lower rate of bone fractures.

    Yes, CO2 is a diabolical gas isn’t it..

    I look forward to the Utopian day when it’s outlawed by a worldwide nanny state and we can all celebrate its demise with a toast of flat warm champagne.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    MattB, We’ve already beat this up on beer. Why would I want to do it over Coke? I don’t even drink the stuff. Besides that Jo should be getting a “Tip” from Coke every time their name is typed here.

    BRC nails it. I don’t need to know the exact “carbon cost” of Coke. (I don’t believe that number either)

    ANY carbon tax on ANYTHING is OUTRAGEOUS!

    If you still want to play with the maths, work backwards from the larger numbers:

    How many tonnes of carbon circulate per year in AU?

    You know Damn well that tax will show up in the cost of nearly everything including food, clothing, shelter, as well as fuel. Besides that, what will stop them from raising the percent of tax once the system is built to collect it?

    You won’t care, you like the idea of a carbon tax. This is why I think you are limited in cognitive skills, and are a fool.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Brookes @ 150

    BTW, you shouldn’t drink carbonated drinks. A weird but true fact is that teenage girls in the US who don’t drink carbonated drinks have a lower rate of bone fractures.

    John, If you research the matter, you’ll find co2 is not the problem. The problem may be the things added to soft drinks. Phosphoric acid for one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphoric_acid and there is much on the subject of high fructose corn sugar.

    But in case no one has noticed we are gravely off-topic from Lewandowsky

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    P.S. John, I’d like to hear from you about the prevalence of high fructose corn sugar use in AU food production. (for that matter the growing of corn in AU)

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Mark D, I’ve heard that high fructose corn sugar is very bad for you, but I haven’t heard enough to have any idea if it really is or not. Good news on the carbonated drinks though – if its the phosphoric acid which is doing it, then beer drinkers can enjoy their tiny bubbles without fear.

    But back to the carbon price rises. They don’t matter as much as people here make out. Even if a can of fizzy drink goes up by 10c, who cares? Just don’t drink the stuff, if it upsets you too much.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    High fructose ANYTHING is bad for us, JB. It’s a sugar which needs insulin to “burn” it in the body and is thus just as much a diabetes factor as any other sugar.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Well it’s way off topic but what the hell:

    From: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/index.xml?section=topstories

    The first experiment — male rats given water sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup in addition to a standard diet of rat chow gained much more weight than male rats that received water sweetened with table sugar, or sucrose, in conjunction with the standard diet. The concentration of sugar in the sucrose solution was the same as is found in some commercial soft drinks, while the high-fructose corn syrup solution was half as concentrated as most sodas.

    The second experiment — the first long-term study of the effects of high-fructose corn syrup consumption on obesity in lab animals — monitored weight gain, body fat and triglyceride levels in rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup over a period of six months. Compared to animals eating only rat chow, rats on a diet rich in high-fructose corn syrup showed characteristic signs of a dangerous condition known in humans as the metabolic syndrome, including abnormal weight gain, significant increases in circulating triglycerides and augmented fat deposition, especially visceral fat around the belly. Male rats in particular ballooned in size: Animals with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained 48 percent more weight than those eating a normal diet. In humans, this would be equivalent to a 200-pound man gaining 96 pounds.

    My wife and I have been following this for many years. Our children drink very little soda pop because of the HFCS. It is a highly modified “simulated natural” sugar that tricks the body. this last excerpt should cause some discomfort:

    “Our findings lend support to the theory that the excessive consumption of high-fructose corn syrup found in many beverages may be an important factor in the obesity epidemic,” Avena said.

    The new research complements previous work led by Hoebel and Avena demonstrating that sucrose can be addictive, having effects on the brain similar to some drugs of abuse.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    MattB: #95

    What I am saying is I don’t believe the conversation took place, and if it did then Rereke misunderstood.

    And where is your evidence to support that belief?

    Are you calling me a liar? Are you implying that I would report something that was not factual?

    Or are you implying that I was too stupid to clarify the statement made by the learned Doctor, who was, by the way a University lecturer in Economics?

    Also, if you had been paying attention to my previous posts, you might have realised that I am a specialist in information dissemination – propaganda in lay terms, or rather the debunking of propaganda in my particular field of interest. From that basis, you may have deduced that I was quoting the incident a) because it was amusing; and b) because it demonstrated that even University lecturers in economics (a supposedly scientific discipline), are not immune to the copious propaganda that has been produced around climate change.

    It may interest you to know, that when I attempted to clarify the statement, my conversant immediately resorted to an appeal to authority.

    Can you see through all the propaganda, do you think? I would guess not.

    00

  • #
    Matt b

    Ahh rereke, so the guy had a PhD in nothing to do with climate change I see, or even remotely scientific. One would never have deduced that from your original post, one may have assumed that the guy’s PhD had something to do with the issue at hand. Propaganda you say?

    Anyway I retract my accusations of your not quite understanding the conversation… there is no doubt in my mind that you may have had a conversation with someone with zero relevant qualifications who may have misunderstood something himself. Not really hold the front page news is it?

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    I am a bit behind in my reading but I have to post on this one.

    The fact is that Alene Composta proved that Prof Lewandowsky is prepared to ignore letters and emails to him which ask him to prove his statements of faith or which point out his many lapses in logic. The only way he takes on those who disagree with him is through his vitriolic letters in places like ABC Unleashed or when talking to the trusting, susceptible minds of university students. He will not engage with anyone with any real knowledge on the topic. He has avoided responding to my detailed correspondence many times. Yet it took one ego stroking sycophantic letter from Alene Composta posing as a somewhat unbalanced individual who demonstrated no knowledge on the subject yet claimed she was running a blog, and Professor Lewandowsky finds time to respond. And when he did, he filled her, (the characters) corruptible head with outrageous, unjustified claims. It is hardly appropriate for Lewandowsky to be complaining about the ethics of the sting when his own ethics of spreading untruths are so lapse.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Jaymez above,

    Exactly right. One other point.

    Notice that our local troll population amounts to 2. That’s 2 climate trolls on what is probably the mostly widely reading climate blog in Australia…. Just 2?

    Ya’da thunk what with the death of Gaia imminent and the “consensus” of science settled, the great moral challenge of our age would generate a bit more moral outrage. Instead, all we get is two semi-illiterate fools with a grade school grasp of how science is conducted.

    So when the comforting screech of Alene Composta’s moonbatry reached Prof Lewandowsky’s mail it must of been right at the top of his pile of positive responses along with MattB and Johnny.

    What we are witnessing here is the very bottom of the barrel. There isn’t anyone left but Alene Composta, MattB and Johnny. And at least one is a fictional character! LOL.

    Sad, really. I loved the good old days when bullhead, but well-versed Alarmists would come out to engage in rational debate. The intelligent ones are all gone now.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Crakar… from #53 and earlier… well whaddya know Hanson lost and the Greens got 5 upper house seats not 3:)

    00

  • #
    MattB

    oops I’m wrong… 5 in total… 3 seats this election.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MattB @ 160:

    My God man! Don’t engage Rereke in a battle of wits unarmed!

    “It is better to say nothing and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”
    Abraham Lincoln

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    BobC,

    You get that type of behaviour from Mattb just like now he is trying to goad me into an argument about the Greens sweeping victory in the latest state election, so well done to the greens who be achieving less than 10% of vote got a few extra seats on the back of labor preferences whoopy f%$$#@*ing do.

    Bob did you notice how Mattb brushed aside the incompetence of the PhD holder by claiming the title was earned in a non important field and yet still finds the temerity to lecture all and sundry about his faith as if he is an expert?

    If you asked Mattb to explain why the temps have been stable for 15 years yet mans CO2 emissions have gone through the roof he would retaliate with “Aw gee shucks thats just natural variability”, if you then asked him to explain what is natural variability he would retaliate with an appeal to authority because that is the depth of his knowledge on the subject the rest is just belief.

    Dont be too harsh on the simpleton, every village needs its idiot.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Crakar… no goading. But I felt that your post:
    “If Hansen can get elected above a green then they wont last much longer, i must say i always new it would unravel but not this fast.”
    Deserved to have that loose end tied up now the results are in. So 3 greens, in fact, got elected about Hanson.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Hanson just missed out by 1,300 votes, officially, that is. The last place is decided by an arcane method of random sampling. The votes are not all counted. As suggested by the name, it is a calculation based by counting a set number of votes then extrapolating that result over the whole.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Mark:
    April 12th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
    Hanson just missed out by 1,300 votes, officially, that is. The last place is decided by an arcane method of random sampling. The votes are not all counted. As suggested by the name, it is a calculation based by counting a set number of votes then extrapolating that result over the whole.

    You’re not kidding, are you? Do you know what an invitation to corruption this is? Has this method ever been validated by actually counting all the votes?

    Imagine Michael Mann making this calculation — he could probably design a “statistical” proceedure that would always give a Green victory, regardless of the sampled input.

    Someone needs to take this to court.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    BobC

    That is the state of affairs even for our national Senate. AFAIK, for the last one or two places the votes have never actually been counted. This method has been enshrined in legislation so a legal challenge is pointless.

    00