JoNova

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Thousands of angry ordinary Australians turn up and alarmist smears begin

In Canberra today over 3,000 people went out of their way, coming in on 30 buses from more than 1000 km away, to let Julia Gillard know that Australians do not want her Carbon Tax. The news made every major broadcast for several minutes. Protesters were referred to as “climate skeptics” (mostly).

Other rallies around Australia got hundreds of people even though they were organized in a hurry, with no advertising, and with no pre-formed coalition of networked groups. There was a very good crowd at the Perth rally on a hot day during business hours, and one heckler (John Brookes). The mood was striking.

This is random shoe-string grassroots action at the last minute and look what it can achieve. It’s just beginning.

The photo gallery at the Australian makes it clear how decidedly normal most people were and what their main messages are.

This is mainstream Australia rising up, yet already the Big-Green-PR machine is at work, doing all it can to deny the undeniable. As I drove home in Perth after our rally, ABC news-radio didn’t mention that 3,000 people had gathered, nor that protests had happened all over the country, they may have said that earlier, but all I heard was how Tony Abbot was under a “cloud” for having spoken at a rally with “extremists” — The Telegraph headlined it too. Labor MP Nick Champion, Labor Party backbencher, gets press time for for his free shot at calling them “extremists“. It’s just another form of name-calling, and if the media had any standards they would not propagate the namecalling without demanding he substantiate it. (Do write and tell me if any journalist asked Champion to explain why it’s extreme to ask for major policies to be put to an election first, or why we ought to expect some achievable outcome when we pay billions  — other than earning brownie-points for the UN). Does the word “extreme” mean anything?

Fans of the big scare campaign are masters at avoiding the substantive issues, and filling the available media time with trivialities and name calling.  The protesters are obviously angry ordinary Australians. That there are a few odd people or marginal hanger-on-ers among thousands is predictable, and Green rallies have their own variety.

The “witch” and “bitch” signs were unfortunate. The un-statesmanlike anger expressed in those messages is a byproduct of the long suppression of these voices. That anger needs better direction. That will come.

But as much as Labor might wish that today’s rally was a minority group of extremists, this is near the start of the pendulum swing. I stopped to shop at a butchers on the way home inadvertently wearing a No Carbon Tax shirt, and the business-man’s eyes lit up “Were you at the protest?” He’s angry and he’s one of tens of thousands who couldn’t be there today. Many people I spoke to after the rally were keen to help. We need to start networking, with lists. The message was that many people wanted to put posters up and spread the word.

On another front, many businesses are still afraid to speak out against the Carbon Tax (what business — apart from solar and wind — would benefit from it?). But Bluescope Steel’s Graham Kraehe is pulling no punches. Finally, at least some businesses are stepping forward. If they all said the obvious, the carbon tax would be dead tomorrow.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.0/10 (3 votes cast)
Thousands of angry ordinary Australians turn up and alarmist smears begin, 7.0 out of 10 based on 3 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/6y45x84

236 comments to Thousands of angry ordinary Australians turn up and alarmist smears begin

  • #
    Cookster

    Jo, I posted a few comments on the rally to your previous article (Was 2010 the hottest ever). Slightly off topic but in relation to attacking the junk CAGW science I think the approach needs to be a simple as possible, quoting reputable sources. Based on my understanding (I have little science training) the focus needs to be on the Hotspot issue (or lack thereof). I believe this is where NO empirical evidence exists to support the theory or climate models? In other blogs warmists have claimed that either the hotspot had been ‘found’ or that the existence of hotspot can be due to any warming (not just due to man made CO2). Appreciate a ‘refresher’ on the Hotspot science and/or a rebuttal of the above claims?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    Gillard and her warmist friends are con-men and crooks and should be treated as such.

    Go for the jugular or don’t bother.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Way to go!

    All revolutions start with ordinary people getting fed up with the elitism crap being forced down their throats. It starts small and builds with each insult from the other side. All it takes is about 10% of the people to move the center and change the outcome. Interestingly, that 10% is made up of the people who make things that work and keep things working (aka the doers). First they say NO! If that doesn’t work, they stop making things that work and stop their efforts to keep things working. The other 90% who are in it for a mostly free ride have to get out and push or stay stuck in the muck.

    One might argue that it’s 20-80 rather than 10-90 but the point is, it is a minority who finally say no to being consumed by the majority. The majority no longer has a free lunch taken from the hides of the minority. THAT is the real tipping point rather than the mythical one caused by a over hyped increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Ultimately reality is what it is and no amount of propaganda and Orwellian New Speak can change that fact. That is what the power/wealth grabbing political elite are desperately trying to hide from us. It’s no longer working.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    Loved Terry Mcrann’s article at: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/carbon-not-the-same-thing-as-co2/story-e6frfig6-1226017312737

    Carbon not the same thing as CO2

    ASTONISHINGLY, the PM, the Cabinet and members of the Canberra Press Gallery don’t know the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide.

    There are two great lies told about the need to “put a price on carbon”. Lies which I can’t recall a single member of the gallery ever confronting the liars with — far less the prime liar herself.

    And it’ll be a cold day in hell before you see a critical commentary from any of the supposed leading lights of the gallery such as Fairfax’s Michelle Grattan or Peter Hartcher applying a critical analysis to the claims.

    Now these two lies are in addition to Julia Gillard’s “there will be no carbon tax” lie. They precede it and will be told again and again after it.

    The first is that “climate change policies” are aimed at “carbon pollution”. No they are not; they are aimed at reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.

    Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

    End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

    There is neither the need to abbreviate carbon dioxide to carbon; and the exercise of abbreviation renders it inaccurate. A bald-faced, quite deliberate lie.

    For if carbon dioxide can be called “carbon pollution”, in this or any other universe, in this or any other reality, well then rain has to be called “hydrogen pollution”.

    The reason the term is used by Gillard is an exercise of quite deliberate despicable dishonesty. It is the modern political form of those subliminal advertisements that are banned.

    To suggest that it is about stopping dirty bits of grit — the very real carbon pollution of yesterday’s coal-burning home fires which gave London its sooty smog and killed thousands every year.

    The real carbon pollution which no longer exists in modern developed economies, mostly precisely because of clean coal-fired power stations. And which does exist — and kills — in developing and third-world countries, denied centralised power generation.

    The great sick irony is that to the extent we do cut our emissions of CO2, it will merely relocate those emissions in developing countries where they will be accompanied by bits of grit. Most notably and significantly: China.

    Indeed, those supposedly virtuous Europeans might have cut their CO2 emissions they produce in Europe. But their consumption of CO2 emissions has increased by 44 per cent since 1990. It’s just they are now being emitted in China.

    Every time Gillard or Climate Change Minister Greg Combet mouths the term “carbon pollution”, a competent journalist would ask questions like:

    Do you understand that you are referring to what you are breathing out? Please explain how this is pollution? How are you going to stop personally polluting? Why don’t you use the accurate term carbon dioxide?

    The second great lie is that so-called “de-carbonising our economy” as a consequence of “putting a price on carbon” is the 21st century equivalent of the tariff reforms of the 1980s.

    In fact it is the exact opposite: it is the equivalent of imposing tariffs on the Australian economy. This is true whether or not the rest of the world follows. It’s just that much worse if we do it solo.

    This lie has been peddled not just by the government but also by Treasury. Be afraid, be really afraid that we have a Treasury which is that incompetent.

    Cutting tariffs and other forms of protection removed artificial costs that were imposed on both producers and consumers. It enabled them to buy especially goods but also services at the lowest competitive price.

    The carbon tax or an ETS (emissions trading scheme) does the exact opposite. It imposes a totally artificial additional cost, in its case, on everything consumers and business buy.

    It forces us to pay — totally artificially — higher prices for energy than we could otherwise, like right now, pay for it.

    You’d think this would be obvious to even the most junior reporter in Canberra. But even the most senior, such as Grattan, are apparently oblivious to the obvious.

    Again, I’ve never seen a Canberra commentator respond to the PM or the treasurer or the treasury secretary spouting this nonsense with a simple comparison.

    Tariff cuts reduced the price of things. The carbon tax/ETS will increase the prices.

    All to utterly no point. We ain’t going to get so-called alternative energy. Treasury can assume a million can-openers. It doesn’t and won’t exist in any meaningful form.

    And our pain will make zero difference to any climate outcome. Welcome to Julia and Wayne’s world. Their policy pollution is your pain.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    I stopped to shop at a butchers on the way home inadvertently wearing a No Carbon Tax shirt, and the business-man’s eyes lit up “Were you at the protest?”

    I explained to two customers that I would be delaying things a bit because of going to the protest. Rather than being upset about jobs for them not being done, both customers (who do not know each other) thanked me for protesting!

    The Canberra crowd seemed to be at 3000 a bit after the start. Angry Anderson announced and estimate of the crowd several times as it grew. A lot of people turned up later than the start time. People were still arriving after his last estimate.

    It was a pity that the times needed to be cut down so short for all the speakers. David Archibald condensed his points down so much that it may have gone over a few heads. His words were very well chosen to raise eyebrows. I hope people will have a better look at what he has to say.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Oh and the last crowd estimate I heard from Angry was 5000.
    They even had a plane write “NO TAX Juliar” in the sky.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    In an article in the SMH Julia has stated that she will take her science from the CSIRO instead of from Shock Jocks.

    Perhaps it’s time to call the CSIRO out on their claims and ask them to produce their evidence of climate change being caused by us mere mortals.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    It was entirely appropriate that our Prime Minister chose to do a “Hair Gel/Buzzword Sound Bite” in an eco-bling stand of windmills a couple of days ago.

    They are big, noisy & in your face & the best output you can realistically expect from them is around 15% of their capacity (by their promoters)

    With any luck JG will still use them as a backdrop at the next election.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Coochey

    I attended the Canberra Rally for a short time I was badly parked because of the number already there, I estimated over 2,500 with people still arriving. Later the Greens smirked there were only 1,500 so numbers do matter. She clalimed this was official police figures I am going to ring up today and see uf such a figure exists. The police presence was drawn up in a line between the demonstration and Parliament House and there is no way that they could have seen the extent of the crowd from that angle. But I will find out. The local ABC 666 was smearing the rally almost before it had finished with one interviewer acting as an advocate for the Greens rather than interviewing the rally organiser, I tried to get on but to no effect


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Colin Henderson

    Jaymez at #5

    Because carbon dioxide is only one part C and two parts O perhaps it’s short name should be oxygen ;) Would the public accept a tax on oxygen pollution?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    We forever hear spruikers talking about “the multiplier effect” of government spending programs. It would be entirely appropriate to get a handle on the “multiplier effect” which a carbon tax will have slowing the Australian economy.

    Where will the nations GDP end up with this tax in place?

    What interest rates will be necessary to bring foreign money into the country?

    Who will end up owning Australia’s resources (for a song)?

    Who will be our overlords?

    Go Julia, just go


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter Walsh

    Good luck to Jo Nova and all supporters of the stop the climate madness brigade, juli-liar in particular.

    Peter walsh, Dublin, Ireland


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    This from the Adelaide Advertiser, one of the links above.

    Professor Garnaut said innovation was “inherently risky” and value-for-money investments in new technologies were difficult to pick.

    To alleviate the challenges, Professor Garnaut called for a “well equipped independent body” to identify research areas where Australia had a comparative advantage.

    I’m wondering who this “well equipped independent body” might consist of. Perhaps Ross himself and Flannery of course. Obviously they could pick winners for the government to fling funds at. Like geothermal for example.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    July

    The sort of language used at yesterdays rally was typical of the redneck ferals who try to take over this debate. It reminded me of the shameful abuse of Murray-Darling basin commission officials at meetings in NSW. You guys need to clean up your act if you are going to get any traction on this issue.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    My reply to Shanahan this morning.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/no-doubt-about-it-julias-a-believer/story-e6frgd0x-1226027038168

    She’s a believer alright; she has conviction that this tax will generate the billions needed to bail her Govt out of debt. As someone who has an advanced education and is a professional, I find her nasty labels offensive. I will be at a protest, and I am neither a One Nation supporter or Anti-Semitic or a conspiracist. I am, however, quite capable of understanding the science and my conclusion is that the science behind the theory of dangerous global warming is incomplete and problematic at best. Australia is about to embark on a course of action that will be difficult to unwind, will result in the loss of industry and jobs (I am seeing the beginning of this first hand already) and hardship. It will not change the temperature of the planet. In coming to this conclusion, I and many others are copping some pretty nasty labels. Julia Gillard’s behaviour in this is disgraceful and offensive, and resorting to personal attacks on any who have the temerity to question, is not what one expects from a Prime Minister (this IS still a democracy). The science aside, I have always known that those who resort to this kind of tactic are usually trying to hide a poor/unsupported argument!

    This is also personal for me, as since Gillard announced the tax my partner’s business has dried up – no sales! There is a severe loss of business confidence and he’s getting desperate as he sees 15 years of 18 hour days go down the drain. He’s on the cusp of making 27 people unemployed!!!!! His business is one of the stronger ones, on which many smaller business rely! It is truly heartbreaking.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    MAJORITY VOTE “NO” TO A TAX ON CARBON DIOXIDE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Poll on http://ninemsn.com.au/

    Do You Support the Carbon (DIOXIDE) Tax ?

    Results as at 24/03/2011 08:30 :-

    yes 25660
    NO 124317


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    There was a very good crowd at the Perth rally on a hot day during business hours, and one heckler (John Brookes). The mood was striking

    ROTFL. You go, Johnny! Whoo Hoo! Go, Johnny, Go!

    Hey, mate, what happened that that “overwhelming consensus”, Johnny?

    Maybe it died from catastrophic political climate change! Warning Tipping Point Ahead!

    ROTFL!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    July

    @4
    Oh dear, Lionel’s been at the post-modern generator again. I suspect you might be the prize winner on this toxic waste site for mindless drivel Lionel. Really mate it’s time to retire the old Commodore 64 and hang the mouse up.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Well done to those who took part. You achieved a first step by getting good coverage in the MSM. Hopefully it is just the first step in a successful journey for you all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    July @ 15

    I usually ignore you also, as you are merely a waste of time. Others deal with you better than I.

    I find your comments incredibly offensive and ill-informed. You’re not even mildly funny. I have no idea why you contribute here other than to piss people off. You are a nasty little brainwashed ideologue. Get real or get off!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Labor goes the giant sneer to those who do not support their global warming FRAUD!!

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

    How dare this communist federal government Insult, Denigrate and Slander the MAJORITY of Australians!!

    They are there to represent the wishes of Australians and NOT dictate to them!!!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    A lot has been made of Unions presenting the Government with over 12,000 signatures supporting action on climate change.

    These names were obtained via the following appeal via the “Your Rites At Work” newsletter.

    Taking action on climate change

    At the moment there is a lot of misinformation about the proposed price on carbon.

    Unfortunately there are reports of threatening emails being sent to a Member of Parliament. However, the proposed mechanism for a price on carbon pollution is a vital step forward in taking action on climate change.

    Unions representing workers in all sectors and industries are more than willing to make a strong start on the transition to a low pollution economy as long as the requirements for a ‘just transition’ are identified, examined in detail and properly addressed. This includes investment in new industries and compensation for households.

    Addressing these fundamentals will help maintain living standards and social cohesion for workers, particularly in industries such as mining and manufacturing that rely on carbon-intensive processes. Their communities, a number of them in regional areas, have local economies that have been built around these industries over decades.

    Climate change is one of the most pressing economic, social and environmental challenges we face, and Australians will be hit hard if we do not respond with urgent and decisive action to reduce carbon pollution, improve energy efficiency and support the transition to a low pollution economy.

    Right now is a crucial time to tell the government and the opposition that we support a price on carbon.

    Sign our petition to let our politicians know that Australians want action on climate change.

    I am a recipient of the news letter through my attendance at a rally protesting John Howard’s work choices policy. I don’t have any real knowledge of how many people signed up for these newsletters, but my guess would be in excess of 100,000. So my estimate would be the 12,000 that signed the petition would be no more than 10% of those solicited.

    Rather than sign their petition I sent the following reply.

    At the moment there is a lot of misinformation about the proposed price on carbon.

    Yes I agree at the moment there is a lot of misinformation on the need to price carbon. It’s all coming from our government, Ross Garnaut, Tim Flannery and the IPCC etc…

    For some accurate information please see the works of Richard S Lindzan, MIT, Bob Carter, James Cook University, Willie Soon, PhD, Physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, or spend some time at http://www.joannenova.com.au, http://www.wattsupwiththat.com or any of a multitude of similar sites.

    That a trade union organisation would promote corrupt scientist and support a scheme that could only further burden Australian Industry and cause energy poverty for those on pensions and low income earners is nothing short of deplorable.

    Yours
    Bob Malloy.

    PS. the following paragraph from your email is total B.S.

    Climate change is one of the most pressing economic, social and environmental challenges we face, and Australians will be hit hard if we do not respond with urgent and decisive action to reduce carbon pollution, improve energy efficiency and support the transition to a low pollution economy.

    PPS. I in no way endorse any abusive or threatening emails to politicians, however while wishing someone would die, is regrettable, it in no way is a threat on ones life.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    As an addendum to my above post I’m wondering if I’ll still be on their mailing list ne4xt month.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andy G

    The shill July is right about one thing, (weird concept, I know, but it is the only thing he/she is right about)

    The organisers of these rallies need to get a bit more control and make sure people are “on task”.

    Those organising the “CO2 jihad” rallies are very used to the organisiation require, it is afterall, mostly the same people that for years have been doing other green rallies.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Yup, Fran Kelly spent the best part of an hour this morning on Radio National lamenting the sexist, racist behavior of the Canberra protest. Played sound bites of Abbott whipping up a Christianist hate frenzy with a cackling and obviously dangerously armed mob roaring their approval. Thank God, the riot police where there or the Denialist Skinhead punks would have burnt the Parliament building to the ground!

    Fran Kelly and Michelle Gratin of the Age, noted that anti-Semitic hate groups and One Nation elements, including Pauline were prominent agitators in the radical mob which number between 40 and 75 people in total. Michelle said that these climate denier extremists and sexist Papists conspiracy freaks already form the core of Lib/Nat voters so Abbott gained nothing by appearing with them. Normal, nice, true blue Aussies will surely be put off by this outrageous display of hateful climate denialism.

    Fran interviewed Climate Change Minister Combet to find out if he now has 24/7 police protection after the Canberra riot. Combet said that in a proper Labor/Green regime people will probably be extended the right to vote, but not allowed to protest vociferously, unless they are a mob of trade unionists armed with clubs or Bob Brown’s Greens hurling feces, nail blocks and urine at public officials. He warned that it’s only legal to burn Liberal PMs in effigy according the constitution.

    Then Fran moved on to Robert Fisk, the moonbat ex-Saddam supporter who’s on the payroll of various Arab dictators. He assured listeners that the revolutions sweeping the Arab world have nothing to do the democratic example of Iraq and that Palestinians blowing up buses in Israel don’t matter because only Jews were killed. Oh, and Sharia Law isn’t nearly as bad as it’s crack up to be.

    All in all, it was just another sunny bright & cheerful morning on Your ABC Radio National with your host, Fran Kelly!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    July:@15
    It’s the feral Greens and hard left, who have demonstrated the thing most effective way to get media attention at protests.
    The Conservatives have simply learnt what you have to do.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Congrats to all those who protested.
    As a side note, we have a new poster (a new electoral office employee?) who attempts to downgrade the tone of the posts on this blog, by responding to July you fulfill the aim. It makes the comments look like a personal spat. Please ignore, not even liked it clicks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter Walsh

    Andy G @25. Your “shill” July in just another irksome, bothersome troll as we call them on the top of the world. They are totally loathsome but as we say, “don’t feed the troll”, so it is better to ignore them, not reply or comment on them.

    No, they won’t go away but they hate being ignored. We have the truth on our side and IT has no argument to offer, just disruption and lies.

    Peter Walsh, Dublin


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jeremy C

    I think you all have a got a bit of work to do to match the 8,000 people in Treasury place in Melbourne. 8,000s’ a lot when people are supposed to be apathetic about doing something about AGW.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    More confirmation that wasting billions won’t work, how much longer can they get away with these lies and fraudulent nonsense.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/12_billion_spent_for_next_to_no_cut_in_emissions/#commentsmore

    BTW Mattb I see you couldn’t answer my comment on the last topic, but I’m not surprised really.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    July – or should I say Luke – which is more offensive

    1 – the sign – “Juliar, Bob’s Bitch”

    2 – “Mr President you are a murderer” (Bob Brown in 2003 in federal parliament heckling George Bush.)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    When you are dealing with Conservative mainstream people. For very 1 that attends a protest rally 100 more, have job commitments and couldn’t get there on the day but support the protest.

    When dealing with left-wing rent a crowds for every 2 at a rally 1 doesn’t really care and is only there because they had nothing better to do.

    Political advisers are very much aware of this fact. To get any Conservative mainstream people AT ALL attend a street protest, means there are a LOT of very pissed off people out there.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Yet more insults from the Despicable Anti Australian federal “government”……..

    The demonisation of the anti-Gillard protesters

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


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Harry The Hacker

    Years ago in England there was a proposal to introduce a Poll Tax. I can’t even remember if it was done. The stink was huge. Businesses everywhere, as well as homes, had big signs in their windows “NO POLL TAX”. Perhaps its time for the little people like the butcher to do this, and see if it spreads.

    Of course, their businesses would probably suffer as the ignorant and the greenies took umbrage, and their business elsewhere.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Thumbnail-thanks for the link to the photos as we forgot to take our camera. The video of the rally will be posted on Youtube soon.

    Imwd-my business has come to a grinding halt since the announcement. Everyone I know in business is pretty much in the same boat too. Some will go to the wall on this as this is the worst year since I commenced business.

    No tax from me this income year!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Silligy @ 6

    David Archibald has a lot of informative and readable material at

    http://www.davidarchibald.info/

    Peruse at your leisure.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    derspatz

    Our green-shirted bike-helmeted lone heckler at the understandably well-behaved “No Co2 tax” Perth gathering, apparently ceased with his impoliteness and headed off on his bike about half way through the event because he wanted to join up with the strange collective who actually WANT a Great Big New Tax on everything.

    If you’re really interested, you can read his account of both rallies here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/23/photos-no-carbon-tax-rally-in-australia/ (do a search for “brookes”) where even he notes how polite us caring conservative types are … and how polite he wasn’t. :-)

    I suspect John kept his bike-helmet on coz he was a little bit worried about how some of our more senior but no doubt newbie protesters might choose to deal with his impertinence, and despite my efforts to generally keep my own person between him and the few he managed to troll into mis-directing their enthusiasm for the occasion. ;-) :-)

    regarDS


    Report this

    00

  • #
    G/Machine

    Instead of the government trailblazing to the world their stand on a
    carbon price, why don’t they do it on honesty in government ? In a
    dignified manor, Gillard, Combet, Brown and co. could answer the
    questions…
    Do you believe human CO2 is a catastrophe ?
    Will a tax do anything to fix it ?

    … while attached to a polygraph.

    Apart from being a TV ratings blockbuster, it would show the world just
    how honest in government we are down under


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Smith

    I’ve got another way to get our message across.
    We use Youtube to make videos using the “Edward Current formula” except we use to parody common arguments made by man-made global warming alarmists instead of religion.
    Here is a model video we can use to base our own satire on man-made global warming.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVUfLJVSdjg


    Report this

    00

  • #
    July

    Me, a shill? Goodness that would be some double bluff. I thought I was being very open about my views.
    Maybe Nova is a shill, drawing out all you rednecks to show the world exactly how loony your views are?? That would be a laugh, no?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    GBees

    If an ‘extremist’ means you want to stop a socialist/communist coalition government from destroying our good country then I must be an extremist …….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Interesting to know that the tool was John Brookes. He was as arrogant and rude in person as he is on the web. Good to know. My tolerance level for him is now zero.

    Mr Brookes … I have sat through the ad hominem abuse Oreskes spouted and said not a word. I sat through the garbage of the BZE, which even green groups criticise, and listened politely. Yet you, with arrogance unparalleled, heckled continuously (and pathetically I should add) throughout our rally. You are a particularluy low form of vermin. It is time to stop tolerating this kind of behaviour IMHO.

    As for July … obvious troll is obvious, stop feeding.

    What I find most disturbing is the “blue shirts” in the following picture from the gallery link:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/gallery-e6frg6n6-1226026865863?page=3

    This is the face of the climate change youth brigade … and they wish to associate us with the dark days of Germany? I find the amount of projection from the AGW mob quite alarming.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    PS> I shall be very disappointed if Abbott makes any form of apology for things he did not say or write. He was directly ad hom’d by Labor, so if there is need for apology it is on the other side of the House.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Maybe Jo could find a guest post by an historian.
    The AGW cult has some worrying similarities with the 1930s.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Jo, (and all my Friends down under) VERY impressive! The photo’s look oh so similar to the Tea Party rally photos I have seen (and been to) here in the US. You are on your way! Don’t let up either.

    Personal favs: “Burn the witch” (sorry Julia you don’t look like a witch) and:
    “you can pry my carbon from my cold dead hands”……OH I didn’t actually see that in a photo……
    But YOU CAN USE IT!!!!! (with credits)

    .
    .
    .
    :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    The serious question is just how many “ordinary Australians” :-

    a/. have some idea that they are being fed propaganda by the government/BoM/CSIRO/Greens?

    b/. believe that anything the government can do or will do could possibly have any effect on the level of atmospheric CO2 or the climate?

    I belatedly got on a soapbox ~2007 after a reading a couple of books, checking a few facts from them & a few web searches. I have been staggered by the continuing campaign of mis-information/non-information waged in the name of what I can only see as history’s biggest fraud.

    However in my rants to all & sundry, I can honestly say that I have only struck a few true believers. (but succeeded in boring many to the point of distraction)

    Power price rises have finally opened a few eyes & more are now willing to continue the discussion.

    Most regular visitors on this site could be classed as sceptics, deniers or cynics and most would appear believe the developed world is being railroaded.

    I put the question to all from the venerable heavy hitters down to the cranky pessimists: -

    What do you perceive the real support level for the concept/hypothesis of anthropogenic CO2 causing the actual /real change in the climate?

    In my case I would rate firm support for the government’s campaign @ ~ 5%. I do however live in a mining town surrounded by government protected woody weed choked un-economic grazing land.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Binny @ #33:

    “When you are dealing with Conservative mainstream people. For very 1 that attends a protest rally 100 more, have job commitments and couldn’t get there on the day but support the protest.

    “Political advisers are very much aware of this fact”

    You are exactly right! Working for an MP I can absolutely confirm that. Take heart, sceptics! There are many more of us than appearances would suggest.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I Julia is coming out with guns blazing in retalliation in the Age:

    http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/reject-the-climate-extremists-20110323-1c6pa.html

    WARNING: This article is full of the D word and ad homs calling the ralliers extremists. She is digging in and it is time to make her pay.

    Actually on reflection, given what she wrote there, which is thoroughly unbecoming a PM of this country, I think that the placards were a touch too friendly. What is most remarkable is that she has completely alienated me from the policies of a party that I voted for 4 years ago (albeit that was mostly to get rid of Howard).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    AAAH July @41…..What shall we do with you……..”Rednecks”! Is that the new code word since denier has failed to work?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Binny and in agreement with Ann-Kit, I think it is well OVER 100 to 1 for these mid-day events. Most people do have to work and this tax will keep them working even longer to maintain their lifestyle.

    I don’t know for certain about you but I like my lifestyle to be IMPROVING!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    G/Machine

    Mark D
    ‘Redneck’ was a word he overheard his mum using, as she prepared
    his work lunchbox


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    G/Machine @ 39:

    BRILLIANT!

    I think this should become the standard retort for “has it been published and peer reviewed”

    “Have they submitted to a polygraph?”

    Absolutely BRILLIANT


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    In response to The Age’s rant by Julia I felt obliged to respond:

    I feel obliged to comment, but this piece is so fraught with inaccuracies, outright disingenuous lies and deceit it is hard to know where to start. This is conduct unbecoming of a PM of this country.

    It is interesting that you chose to embrace the word “denier” and “extremist” when addressing those that disagree with you. I believe the condition is called projection by those in the psychologist trade.

    Can you deny that you said “there will be no carbon tax under any government I lead”? Can you deny that according to the IPCC estimates, if Australia stopped all carbon (that’s dioxide BTW) emissions today the net result for global temperatures would be a drop of 0.0154C by 2050 … an amount that would not even be measurable? Can you deny that the carbon (sic) tax is a magic pudding that can save jobs, cause green investment AND will leave most people better off through tax cuts? Can you deny that a $20-30 per tonne carbon (sic) tax will cause no change in industry behaviour because coal will still be the cheapest fuel available?

    That seems like a lot of denial to me … and it isn’t coming from Tony Abbott.

    Source: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/reject-the-climate-extremists-20110323-1c6pa.html?posted=successful


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Bulldust @49

    Those words are exactly the words used by Democrat politicians in reference to Tea Party rally goers. It didn’t work very well for them and I expect it will work about the same for Julia and the Followers.

    Sorry MattB and John Brookes, you’ll be disappointed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manfred listing

    I think Abbott should apologise to Princess Combet forthwith. Although well fed on the best bullshit she is clearly a fragile flower in need of nurture.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    pattoh#47 -

    The view of AGW from my circle of acquaintances -

    1) The ALP say, so it must be true
    2) The Liberals say, so it must be true
    3) The television/newspaper says, so it must be true
    4) My teacher/lecturer says, so it must be true
    5) I am too busy to care about GW
    6) There could not be that many corrupt people/organizations. Could there?
    7) It is true, the summer last year was hot.
    8) I don’t care
    9) Who knows? The bitch is a liar
    10) I ignored the issue for years and when I read up on it, I decided it was a scam.
    11) I have invested my career in AGW. What do you expect my opinion to be?

    The most common views I encounter are items 4,5,9 and 10.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Your not going to get far with accusations of name calling when a sign “Juliar is Bob Browns BITCH” is waving around Tony’s head. Or – GENOCIDE.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    IR #57

    Do you really think the western suburb McMansion dwellers will ignore the power bills & interest rate hikes which will come?

    There will be a lot of giant flat screens on eBay soon.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    pattoh#59

    No, they won’t ignore the power bills, but they will not make the association between bad science and their power bills. The power bills will be because of greedy multinational power company.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    As we know yesterday there were people who couldn’t or wouldn’t attend a rally.
    So maybe we could look at a day were people wear something to show their disgust.My thought was to wear a big green letter D.As people may remember from their childhood the saying “sticks and stones will brake my bones but names will never hurt me”.There is nothing like using their slurs as a badge of courage against them.I am sure that if a large showing of the letter D occurred the government would drop the slur like a hot potato.
    To those people from Perth here on Jo’s blog.Does anyone think it would be a good idea to meet somewhere to discuss plans to fight this insidious TAX


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    IR @ 59

    Sooner or later the MSM will bottle out in the face of the market research & we will have to see the long overdue public airing of the other side of the science. Hopefully we will see some debates between the likes of Carter & the yes-men from the CSIRO. Can you imagine a public debate between somebody like Leon Ashby & Bob Brown? I’d pay good money to see it.

    Although some of the elements of arrogant disdain could be parallelled between the psyche of some of our pollies & a few reigning (tenuously) in the Middle East, we still live in a democracy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    The greehouse effect had been falsified by German physicists
    Gerlich and Tscheuschner. There are NO laws that satisfy it, no calculations to give an averge surface temperature of a planet and thermodynamic laws have been used incorrectly, there is no back-radiation it is un-phyical. Co2 does nothing to the climate. End of argument.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    if a single placard could be used to demonise the anti-carbon tax rally, it would have been. the demonisation is prepared in advance by the laborites, greens and the MSM. there was no possibility the reporting and comments would be straight up.

    here’s Murdoch Media with the AAP spin, complete with an anonymous Liberal quote:

    24 March: News Ltd: AAP: Tony Abbott under dark cloud after political talk on the wild side
    Abbott admits carbon tax protesters went too far
    Lib leader under fire for attending right-wing rally
    Calls for more respect over carbon tax debate
    “The ALP website right now is comparing Tony Abbott with a Nazi war criminal,” climate change spokesman Greg Hunt told ABC Radio…
    But privately several Liberal MPs were shocked by Mr Abbott’s appearance at the rally.
    “It was not a good look at all,” one Liberal MP said.
    http://www.news.com.au/national/tony-abbott-under-dark-cloud-after-political-talk-on-the-wild-side/story-e6frfkvr-1226027244232

    and most of the comments criticise abbott. funny that. and want turnbull back. funny that.

    having voted labor all my life, til i voted for the Greens one time and then began life as a Donkey Voter, i am finally sick and tired of australian politics altogether.

    who are these australians who would want their government to tax carbon dioxide? to be honest, i don’t know any, but i guess we are supposed to believe they are many. pull the other one.

    as for the Unions, they have lost my respect completely.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave

    I haven’t seen any mention of the effect of the GST on the implementation of the Carbon Tax and I haven’t seen any modelling of the compounding effect of the GST as it is passed through to the final consumers.

    If the government gave all of the tax that it collected from the “polluters” back to the consumers, it would still make at least ten percent of the total Carbon Tax.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I’m one – there ya go Pat.

    “The ALP website right now is comparing Tony Abbott with a Nazi war criminal,”
    Greg Hunt
    http://www.alp.org.au/home/

    I gotta say I was a 1st time visitor so may not know my way around… but I can’t find anything to back up this claim.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Ruddking… a T-shirt will get lost in the crowd. COuld I suggest a cone shaped hat with a letter D on it. To mass your numbers you could all stand in the corner.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    The nation or personal ambitions in play ?????

    . Rudd & the UN: Putting personal gain before the nation Aug.10, 2010
    http://ozsoapbox.com/rest-of-australia/rudd-the-un-putting-personal-gain-before-the-nation/

    JULIA Gillard on Wednesday looked journalists in the eye and told them yet another lie. March 13, 2011
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/rudds-flying-solo-but-may-crash-land/story-e6freomx-1226020408513

    Maybe Julia is working hard toward getting her name added to this list ?
    Women Candidates for United Nations Secretary-General September 13, 2006
    http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/global/060913women_candidates.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    $12 billion spent for next to no cut in emissions.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/12_billion_spent_for_next_to_no_cut_in_emissions/

    It just goes from bad to worse from joo LIER and her communist federal “government”!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    I’m still waiting for an answer Matt B, so here it is again.
    Hey silly Matt, Australia is in the southern hemisphere and the sea level was 1.5m or 5 feet higher 4,000 years ago you dummy.

    http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2278381.htm

    Also the temp rise after the end of the younger Dryas was a staggering 10C in just 10 years, or an average of 1C per year for 10 years. (CSIRO scientist Barry Pittock’s claim. )

    The temp has increased by 0.7C over the last 100 years or 0.007C per year, a bit wimpish by comparison.

    Also that 0.7C came at the end of the coldest period for thousands of years i.e. the little ice age.
    Some of that rise in 100 years must be due to the earth’s natural recovery from that cold period.

    Also Phil Jones has admitted that there has been no “statistically significant warming” since 1995 or 15 years.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Having uploaded the videos to Facebook, I’m in the process of uploading raw video footage from the Perth rally to a Vimeo Album.

    Share and enjoy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    What’s the matter MattB ? Is something “getting under your skin” ? You used to contribute to reasonable debate on this blog but in the last few days you have lost the plot.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    This “Greg Hunt” who is a BELIEVER in the global warming FRAUD has absolutely ZERO SCIENTIFIC QUALIFICATIONS!

    Have a read of his background!

    http://www.greghunt.com.au/Pages/AboutGreg/biography.aspx

    With people like this it’s no wonder the Liberal Party are CLUELESS about the global warming FRAUD being perpertrated on the world!!

    UNBELIEVABLE!!!

    PS He has never, ever answered ANY of my questions regarding the so called “science” behind his BELIEF in global warming………


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Neville “I’m still waiting for an answer Matt B, so here it is again.
    Hey silly Matt, Australia is in the southern hemisphere and the sea level was 1.5m or 5 feet higher 4,000 years ago you dummy.”

    Umm… that’s not a question. It’s a statement. If I felt compelled to answer every dumbassed question it would take a long time.

    Since you think it is a question, even if poorly formed and incoherent, I’ll give you an answer, in the form of something that will get your brain working.

    If you have a swimming pool, and add 100L of water to one end… well you tell me what happens Neville. Does one end get deeper. I’ll help you out – no it doesn’t.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Maybe the alp has docked the pay of “MattB” for not being able to CON people here in believing in the global warming FRAUD???


    Report this

    00

  • #
    July

    Woo hoo guys!! Just when I thought this freak show couldn’t get any more hilarious you have come up trumps! You know what I’m talking about don’t you!?? Yes you do, come on now, I’ll say it for you! PAULINE!! Yay!! What a masterstroke! The mother of all red-necked cretins has emerged from her cave to lead you to the promised land! Well I gotta hand it to you, I might as well run up the white flag now cos I just couldn’t top that. What a way to add razor-sharp, incisive, intellectual comment to the anti-science debate. You can throw in racism /xenophobia as well and really make a hash of it.
    Man, jonova dot com , the gift that keeps giving! My sides hurt, stop it now! Enough, wooo………..!

    [July, mindless posts are not popular here. Do you have a point?] ED


    Report this

    00

  • #
    July

    Pauline, Pauline, Pauline, (come on guys join with me), Pauline, Pauline!!
    The chip monkey, leader of the Anti-Enlightenment, yay!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Neville: “Also the temp rise after the end of the younger Dryas was a staggering 10C in just 10 years, or an average of 1C per year for 10 years. (CSIRO scientist Barry Pittock’s claim. )”

    Can you link to a reference here. Given Pittock is a quality scientis who deomonstrably through his publications is what you may term a warmist, I’m 99.99% confident that whatever it is you’ve read (1) you don’t understand, (2) Pittock does understand and (3) doe snot make Pittock agree with your thoughts on AGW.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Yes Pauline… hmm I recall a post on here suggesing the libs had the right flank under control…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manfred listing

    MattB (No66) yes- a cone shaped white hat like the inquisition used to make their victims wear as they were being led to the stake to be burned for their errors. Let’s reclaim the origin of this honorable tradition. The first conservative idea I have liked in a long time!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “July” and “MattB” are you two lovers engaged?
    Get A Room!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Hmm I was referring to a Dunce’s hat at school… I guess I gotta hand it to you Manfred you clearly know a lot more about extremist regimes than I do. Special interest area for you?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    July

    Fair go Nova (or is it Pauline, who can tell?). If you stop mindless comment on this site it’d be a pretty lonely place. Apart from my own witty repartee and some good stuff from MattB that is.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Stop the Carbon Tax Petition – BARNABY JOYCE

    Barnaby Joyce has a petition to Stop The Carbon DIOXIDE (plant food) Tax here:-

    http://www.barnabyjoyce.com.au/Issues/StoptheCarbonTaxPetition/tabid/103/Default.aspx

    I urge everybody to sign it if you care about your future and that of your family……..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    So the one that cant be trusted looks to the CSIRO for advice on AGW, lets have a look at what the CSIRO say….

    http://www.csiro.au/files/files/p3ct.pdf

    Now after you wade through the photos of water vapour rising into the air and the less rain/more rain conundrum and all the other double speak you arrive at the bottom of the last page which is where you find this:

    Disclaimer

    The impact assessments summarised here are based on
    results from computer models that involve simplifications of
    real physical processes that are not fully understood.
    Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO for
    the accuracy of the assessments inferred from this brochure
    or for any person’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions
    or actions in reliance on this information.

    So the one who is so crooked she has to screw her socks on every morning relies on a department that needs a legal disclaimer attached to every prediction they make because by their own admission they have no idea what they are talking about.

    By the way the 24 in my name is the day i was born and no you dont havetoo wish me a happy birthday if you dont want.

    Cheers

    PS thanks to all who went to protest on my behalf it was very much appreciated.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    G/Machine

    July
    “Fair go Nova (or is it Pauline, who can tell?)”

    You aren’t clear if you’re Julian or Julie. But you’re
    a Green. Enough said


    Report this

    00

  • #
    brc

    Regarding Pauline Hanson. I’m not a fan but it is still a free country. She can turn up to things if she wants. It’s not like she gave a speech or anything. She’s certainly not a figurehead for the anti-carbon dioxide tax movement.

    Unfortunately it does seem as though any sort of conservative action brings out all the fringe dwellers that like to attach themselves to any popular movement in the hopes of hitching their wagon. As has already been said, this happens on both sides of politics. Labor should be embarrassed by student union type groups who openly call for communism – even when their former members have to renounce their views in order to have a shred of a chance at being in government.

    It’s my belief that you have to play the cards you have been dealt. People against legislation based on bad science have been dealt a heavily stacked deck of cards including a hostile media, a name-calling government and an army of know-nothing trolls and hecklers who cling to their co2 phobia as a religion, as if proclamations of a coming armageddon gives meaning to their life. It’s no good complaining about these cards, the argument has to be pushed forwards and questions relentlessly asked of what the benefits of this tax are going to be. It’s still a secret ballot system and there’s only one vote that counts. The majority of Australians don’t want this, and calling groups of people names is a bad error by the Labor government, certainly a much bigger mistake than the badly chosen placards in Canberra.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    G/M

    Maybe she dropped the “a” ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    brc

    I get the feeling Damian Allen is Percival Snodgrass recreated. Feel free to correct me if this isn’t true.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Ross:
    March 24th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
    What’s the matter MattB ? Is something “getting under your skin” ? You used to contribute to reasonable debate on this blog but in the last few days you have lost the plot.

    MattB (and July) like the political threads — they get to supply pure opinion without being held to any connection with reality. Their kind of world.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I made the same comment myself yesterday brc.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    MattB@77:

    I think the younger Dryas may be one of those times when northern and southern hemisphere temperatures went in opposite directions. So while there was very rapid regional temperature change, the global temperature change was less pronounced.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Its a good day. It even got better when I read this in my local paper.

    In other words here in Newcastle our lonely and much loved windmill is about to pay the ultimate price – be knocked down and rebuilt as a coal loader. Oh, the shame.

    If you are feeling annoyed with the world, just send this story to Mr Brown, Mr Combet or your nearest Green Party member and you’ll be guaranteed to feel better.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manfred listing

    Matt (No81) of course I knew what you were referring to, and I reminded you of the origin of this tradition- they’re dumb- they don’t believe the pope. Of course too, I worry about repressive regimes, the catholics would still nail you to their crosses if they could, and there is enough disturbing comment from global warming alarmists to suggest they are keen to do the same.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    connolly

    It is really important we dont fall into the trap set by the ALP. Not all opponents of the warmist fallacy and the carbon dioxide tax are political conservatives. I and many of my friends in the Wollongong community are implacably opposed to the tax on the basis it will destroy our steel industry and is based on a fallacious hypothesis. The local ALP ers are trying to silence us. The ALP are traitors to their own supporters and communities who have voted for them for generations. Dont let the ALP play the red neck card. Many of us are trade unionists and on the left.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    July

    Oh yes she is brc, well she is now, you got her you deal with her toxic politics. She’s the perfect figurehead for this movement.
    You gotta admit though it is pretty funny!!
    Q: Pauline, what is your understanding of the significance of stratospheric cooling in regard to the CO2 signature of AGW?
    A: Please explain??
    Hah, you couldn’t make this stuff up!


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    Now, what is this?

    http://www.2ue.com.au/blogs/2ue-blog/found-footage-of-parliament-riot/20110324-1c7qq.html

    I suppose the left would argue that this is not extreme extremism?

    Hypocrites!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Indeed JB. Check another recent thread for leghty discussions with Eddy Aruda on the Topic. Eddy of course will continue being assured he is correct of course:)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    MattB I don’t know why I or anyone would bother trying to explain anthing to you or July but here is a reference to the post younger Dryas warming.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data4.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Dunce’s hat… I also note that the Spanish Inquisition was set up in 1480, whereas Duns Scotus (whi did influence the church btw) lived from 1265 to 1308


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I was very proud of the Perth event yesterday! We had a great crowd (heckler included…very cute!) and fantastic speakers. We got lots of radio coverage that morning. For the first time, media were ringing us rather than us ringing them.

    I agree with Connolly at #95. These taxes Gillard and the Greens are proposing are fundamntally anti-labour. Every worker in this country should be complaining to their member.

    We had two ex-Green members attend yesterday, both lovely young women who finally saw that it wasn’t really about the environment. My heart went out to them. It’s piercing to find out that something you believed in and supported is hollow and full of vested interests who are simply using you.

    We must keep in mind that most people are just people. Most of us want a happy family life, and are quite happy to work hard and play hard and enjoy a BBQ with friends. While the extremist environmental movement has been vocal and well-funded, the true believers there are tiny in number. We must not get cynical about the inherent goodness in people. I know it’s there.

    So, our biggest task is to get as many of these every-day people to hear simple, excellent messages like Joanne Nova’s and David Evans’s yesterday. Honestly, they were two of the most concise, hard-hitting, convincing speeches I’ve ever heard. We also had fantastic speeches from Kaz, Michael Kile, David Archibald (thanks to Steph Goodlad and Lazar Provdich for reading it), Leo Killigrew and Leon Bradley. VERY, VERY well done.

    Thank you for standing on the side of Truth — against the tide.

    Warmest Regards,
    Janet H. Thompson


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Lol Neville you should show that link to Eddy Aruda – In fact that’s just what I did yesterday.

    That was a 10C rise IN GREENLAND… wheras when you presented it earlier you made not reference to such a limited extent. That’s why I asked you about Pittock as you cited him and I was interested in what you thought he’d said.

    I note you onstead linked me to NOAA which is consistent with my own understanding of the Younger Dryas.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    pattoh @ #62

    “Sooner or later the MSM will bottle out in the face of the market research & we will have to see the long overdue public airing of the other side of the science. Hopefully we will see some debates between the likes of Carter & the yes-men from the CSIRO. Can you imagine a public debate between somebody like Leon Ashby & Bob Brown? I’d pay good money to see it.”

    ‘Fraid not pattoh – this CAGW agenda is not about the science – it never was from day 1 despite insistence that it is by the intellectual dwarves here.

    Science is being prostituted for political ends, that explicitly enunciated in Agenda 21 by the UN.

    The problem is that so many are used to getting sustenance from the teat of the welfare state that they can’t see the wood for the trees. If peopl want free health care, unemployment benefits, minimum wages and all the rest of the unaffordable entitlements that comes with a welfare state, then keep voting for the incumbents.

    What we should pray and hope for is the economic collapse of Europe and the US before we have to go to the polls again.

    (and nice to that we now have a diversion in Libya to keep the MSM focussed on anything than the proposed CO2 tax).

    Oh and for us in the west, the West Australian News seems to have ignored yesterday’s protest. I wasn’t there, I was in a helicopter east of Newman, but when the MSM and government attack us, you know it has diddly squat to do with the science. It’s us versus the state, and, when we are right on matters about which the state is wrong, be very, very careful, for we are fighting a totalitarian mindset that it totally ruthless in implementing its agenda.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    connolly

    July @ 96
    On the basis of your infantile logical genetic fallacy you as a global warming alarmist are stuck with guess who? She was the first prominent politician to accept the global warming hypothesis and she ruthlessly more than decimated the coal mining industry and its communities. Maggie Thatcher. And she is drooling into her brekkie in a senile haze now. Most appropriate. Your argument and undergraduate sniggering is a nonsense. Take it somewhere else.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “And she is drooling into her brekkie in a senile haze now.”

    wow… you should go in to sign writing for the anti-carbon-tax movement.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    July @ 96

    How long do you think Gillard, Combet or Brown could retain their gloss of superior knowlege if they sat down to an open debate with any of the serious sceptics?

    You may be able to have a bit of childish fun recycling the old “Fish Shop Lady” lines, but she had her day & her problems & even if you don’t agree with anything she says or stands for she has the balls to come back & face her detractors.

    How much parliamentary superannuation do you reckon Adam Bandt will accumulate?

    Do you believe he would ever run again if he gets the Vic State treatment the next time he faces the vote?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Pattoh how long do you think Abbott would last if he sat down to an open debate with Barry Brook and James Hansen for example. Lamb to slaughter.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Louis @ 104

    Today’s situation in Portugal can’t be too far off for Spain in more ways than one.

    HerRanganus should send a fact finding tour there to see how it’ really done ( Badly)

    As far as Agenda21 stalking horse for the whole NWO bit goes I agree. Perhaps the US moves will slow that a bit. (pray!)

    As a amateur student of Aus history I still have hope that enlightenment & the natural cultural cynicism towards authority (see Eureka) will turn the tide. (EITHER THAT OR A TAX STRIKE)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    brc

    Come on, show a bit of respect for Mrs Thatcher. You mightn’t like her, but you can’t erase her place in history by taking shots like that.

    It is indeed ironic that the coal miners unions are now delivering signed petitions to in complete agreeance with the movement that Margaret Thatcher started 30 years ago as a way of trying to get rid of coal miners. Turkeys voting for Christmas.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Mr B

    I get the feeling that the “Crap” reference would at the very least have him amongst the many who could raise the basic un-answered questions.

    He is a politician & has a web page. Try him.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    connolly

    Matt B @ 106
    Churchill once said that a lie gets half way around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. Well the truth is just getting its pants on and mate once the rank and file of the trade union movement whose livelihoods are being put in the gun by their so-called leaders in Canberra begin to move against the carbon dioxide tax those of faint heart and tender sensibilities, such as my old finch rearing mate Greg Combet, better retire from the field. It wont be polite.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Yet more stupidity from this Pachauri character, the Head of the IPCC.

    Climate Craziness of the Week: IPCC’s Pachauri claims 17cm of sea level rise made the Tsunami worse, but let’s check

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/23/climate-craziness-of-the-week-ipccs-pachauri-claims-17cm-of-sea-level-rise-made-the-tsunami-worse/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Louis Hissink #104

    CAGW agenda is not about the science – it never was from day 1 despite insistence that it is by the intellectual dwarves here

    Correct.

    As a side note: Judging by the intensity of troll attack, I guess this means that they are worried about the CAGW scam falling apart. It is ironic that they help demolish any credence their cause may have.
    Remember folks, connolly #95 is right, CO2 taxes offend the unindoctrinated from all sides of politics (read people who might change their vote).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    MattB the younger Dryas event and post warming were found at exactly the same time in Greenland,western Europe, tropical Nth Atlantic, south America, so it was not just a Greenland event.

    See Barrie Pittock’s book and fig. 10 graph on page 34 ” Climate Change”

    The Antarctic cooling started earlier ( called Antarctic cold reversal) about 14,000 years BP and lasted longer but warmed up at about the same time but not as abruptly as Greenland or south America.

    Also what caused the higher sea level around Australia 4,000 years ago, ie 1.5M higher than today?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    MattB @ 108:

    What a ridiulous retort … it may have escaped your attention but it is Labor proposing the tax, not Abbott. He does not have to answer questions, Julia does.

    Speaking of Jooolya, I notice she said in question time that she wasn’t criticising the people who rallied, but rather Abbott for appearing in front of the banners. Is this the same Joooolya that this morning wrote in The Age when referring to the rallies:

    Reject the climate extremists

    This is an important policy debate that should not be distracted by extreme views.

    He has called for a ”people’s revolt” and is courting climate change deniers.

    Neither of the extremes should be allowed to hijack the debate.

    Source: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/reject-the-climate-extremists-20110323-1c6pa.html

    I have only selected a few … call me old fashioned but I object to be categorised by the PM of this country as an extremist and a climate change denier. The latter doesn’t even make any sense but is clearly derogatory.

    So this time she has lied, in Parliament under the shield of Parliamentary priviledge, clearly indicating that the vast mojority of people who said they do NOT support the tax on the recent poll are all extremists.

    I defended the broken promise as being that, and not a lie, but this is an egregious lie. So from hencforth the Juliar tag is appropriate in my book.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    At last one thing is well established – that our government and MSM need to vilify us as “deniers’ simply means that they have no argument left to counter our argument – that CAGW is based on pseudo/junk/cargop-cult/science.

    We might have won this battle but the war has still to be played out.

    I was in the car just then listening to Jenny Seton interview some academic who was focussing on the carbon tax and specifically mentioned that an email in the Wikileaks issue mentioned that Saudi Arabia over estimated its oil reserves by 40%. I’m not going into the stupidity behind peak oil views but I have always wondered whether Wikileaks was deliberately engineered as a release, hiding among the deluge small bits of misinformation.

    Remember that the Fabians have stated explicitly that their agenda is very long term and will be implemented incrementally when it’s possible to do so. Remember that all the CAGW proselytisers in Australia have addressed the Australian Fabian Society and/or are members of that society. Deceit is their principal means of implementing their agenda, and the Rhodes Scholars are part and parcel of that agenda.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bulldust you’ve mistakenly linked to holocaust denial, not climate denial in your link there.

    Julia Gillard could not be expected to be able to answer the range of issues a decent sceptical scientist could come up with – especially because many of them are not in the realms of science. There is always some other bluster or false graph they can point to. At least Abbott would have the advantage of knowing that everything that the mainstream scientist is in the realms of mainstream science.

    I mean how would any pollie hold up if Louis started asking about the electric universe or abiotic oil?

    Anyway Tony would also have the advantage of him agreeing with the mainstream scientist. As the alternate prime minister however I think it is totally relevent to hold him to the same level of expectation. Also the questions would not be about the tax, but the science, I got from the post I answered.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    MattB@108
    About as long as Julia would if she sat down with Richard Linzden or John Christy.
    More interesting would be how long Brook and Hansen would last with Linzden and Christy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manalive

    MattB @ 118:

    ..Tony would also have the advantage of him agreeing with the mainstream scientist..

    Could you remind me what “mainstream scientists” agree on (climatewise)?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    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…….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bunny

    Bulldust @ 116

    call me old fashioned but I object to be categorised by the PM of this country as an extremist and a climate change denier

    I agree wholeheartedly with you! I was at the Canberra rally and I was struck by the number of very ordinary people there. None of us could be classified as extremists and I am disgusted with the PM for making such a comment. I have written a letter to her telling her in no uncertain terms that she has no right to smear the good people at the rally simply because they disagree with her and her deceitful actions.

    BTW, it seems that the trolls are getting very desperate at the moment judging from the constant, unrelenting, infantile abuse appearing here and on Bolt’s blog. The more of these abusive comments I see, the more convinced I am that the left are getting very worried. And so they should be.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Bulldust

    MattB:
    Are you deliberately making no sense whatsoever? Are you so obtuse as to not recognise the obvious dog whistle w.r.t the word denier? You know as well as anyone here that the word denial is deliberately chosen in an Orwellian attempt to smear anyone who dissents with the CAGW mantra. So much so that even 46% of the Drum regulars find it offensive:

    http://www.abc.net.au/thedrum/polls/

    The link is not mistakenly linked, you know it, I know it, the rest of the readers here know it. The rest of your post is so far beyond arrogant it isn’t funny. Talk about opening your mouth and removing all doubt…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    July

    Well said brc, Maggie is a personal heroine of mine. She might be getting on in years but you can hardly hold that against her. What’s Pauline’s excuse though? Answer: Congenital bogan-ness.
    I think I like you brc, you might be the most sane doubter here. We could be friends, whadya reckon?

    Conolly(105)- WTF!?? “infantile logical genetic fallacy” Que??!! You swallow a dictionary? Or in the words of your esteemed leader, “please explain?”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    manalive:
    I shall save MattB the effort and break it down for you. Most mainstrem scientists would agree:

    1) CO2 concs are increasing in the earth’s atmosphere.
    2) CO2 is a GHG (GreenHouse Gas);
    3) Doubling CO2 concs will cause a direct temperature increase of around 1C, ceteris paribus (all else being equal).
    4) The earth is round(ish).

    What they heavily debate is the feedbacks within the climatic system. That is to say, when CO2 concs increase does this reult in:

    a) >1C warming
    b) 1C warming
    c) <1C warming

    CAGW is in camp "a" and most skeptics are in cap "c". I think that reasonably sums up the majority of positions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    PS> I should have said CO2 concs double (not increase) for scenarios a, b, c.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I’d say most mainstream scientists are in camp “a”. Not to say they are right, but most in “a” would reflect the actual situation.

    Also “how long Brook and Hansen would last with Linzden and Christy” absolutely it would be a far more interesting scenario.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Percy Snodgrass in #121
    “Please post at least one Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper which PROVES, Beyond A Shadow Of A Doubt, that mankind is responsible for global warming.”

    You’d be amazed how many everyday items that you use only exist because of science that remains unproven beyound a shadow of a doubt. Absurd request.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manalive

    Thanks Bulldust (126), but you’ve let MattB off the hook.

    I would have liked to have seen his version.

    Now he will probably ignore it and continue his puerile sniping as usual.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    July

    Hear hear, well said young MattB. Couldn’t have said it better myself.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    How did you type that on a computer to the internet July… quantum mechanics is not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Crakar24 @ 85

    It’s an interesting disclaimer isn’t it? Here we have Govt building major policy on the basis of this type of data and CSIRO saying their results are simplifications. I’ve always wondered about the possibility of legal action against these institutions and scientists caught fudging the numbers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    I’ve just watched the Sky News showing the “debate” in parliament , part of the Canberra demo yesterday and interviews with Labor & Green MPs. I know politics can be a dirty game but the comments from the MPs just about sets a new low in my experience. As the saying goes “if they had a brain in their head, it would be lonely”
    Call it conspiracy thinking if you like but I’d love to see if a good journalist could find out more about the guy holding up the infamous placard — I would not be surprised if that was a setup.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manalive

    MattB (128):

    …I’d say most mainstream scientists are in camp “a” [>1C warming]…

    What empirical evidence do you (and your putative “mainstream scientists”) have for that estimate?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matt

    Thanks to all who supported the rally in Perth. The speakers were absolutely fantastic. I’m told we are going to have good video of them. Some will be perfect for Youtube if the quality turns out ok. Fingers crossed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matt

    Ross,

    When they accuse the average Australian of being crazy right wing nutcases, they are not making a wise career move.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Matt@137:

    When they accuse the average Australian of being crazy right wing nutcases, they are not making a wise career move.

    I’m sorry, but it didn’t look like a mob of average Australians to me. There is something weird about the pro and anti environment groups. Each seems to have so much more than just the environment on their agenda. At the anti-tax rally, the consipiracy theory, low tax, anti-government forces were out and about. At the pro-tax rally, people wanted us to save parrots, trees and various other things not terribly related to climate.

    The two poles of this debate seem to attract certain types of people, and I suspect the great majority of Australians are actually not engaged, or (horror of horrors) even interested.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Matt – I’m an average aussie and I’ve been labeled every lefty insult under the sun. Water off a ducks back.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    So John was that you scampering away on the bicycle after I asked you not to be so rude? Perhaps you can confirm for MattB’s benefit that I am not a “fatty booba (sic)”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Actually that reminded me of a personally amusing moment at the rally yesterday. At one point a gent shouted “Bulldust!” in agreement with one of the speakers, at which I shook his hand and said “pleased to meet you.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Bulldust

    Must have been a fat finger typo on my side no doubt….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    indeed:) my typing is terrible at the moment new workstation is v.cramped typos everywhere even with my skinny warmist fingers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    matty

    Gillard looks a bit rattled I’d say. She had a go at Abbott today over “gross sexism” and the demo probably was in places. But so is going on and on about Tony Abbot’s bathers, and various other stuff. She better not act too precious because PM’s are meant to be able to wear anything. I just heard that Australian soldiers in Afghanistan are on the mat for using derogatory and affronting terms about her on video. She must handle with care.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Climate commissioner Flannery will be talking to the Bolter tomorrow morning after 8 am.

    Geezzz must be a hog for punishment, he certainly copped a belting last time, didn’t have a bloody clue.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mtr_today_march_24/


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bulldust @141…LOL! Awesome!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    It just occurred to me that cultures based on proselytising religions tend also to be periodically captured by doomsday cults. Centuries ago we had the Jansenites, and today various cults which believe in “ending days” and the CAGW cult seems to be the latest manifestation.

    Interesting and the wisest action for anyone is to let the CAGW herd play itself out, making sure that one does not get in the way of the spooked human herd.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    MattB @ #139

    Matt – I’m an average aussie and I’ve been labeled every lefty insult under the sun. Water off a ducks back.

    So you have been labeled with every lefty insult under the sun?

    As only lefties can utter lefty insults, obviously you have been labeled by your own mates here.

    But I am sure that is not what you mean, since most average aussies are pretty clear about what they mean, to the point of vulgarity.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I mean insults towards lefties, not by lefties Louis.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Bulldust @ 55

    To quote our illustrious PM

    “there will be no carbon tax under any government I lead”

    There’s your answer. She’s not leading the government. Bob Brown is.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Time for a quote from Winston Churchill:

    “We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle”

    Perhaps Julia can explain what is smart about taxing a nation’s industry out of existence ? Don’t hold your breath…

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Crakar24

    Happy Birthday – I hope you don’t get a carbon (dioxide) tax for your birthday!

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Louis Hissink:

    At #148 you suggest:

    the wisest action for anyone is to let the CAGW herd play itself out

    Oh dear, NO!

    Yesterday here in the UK, the budget announced that UK government (a Tory-led and Thatcherite crowd) is imposing a Carbon Tax this year, and that the Carbon Tax is intended to increase with each following year.

    Australia could also adopt this damaging policy if its population is as docile as the British have been in response to this attack on the security and prosperity of our nation. Indeed, as the posts on this thread by John Brookes, Matt B and July demonstrate, there is a deranged few who promote the pointless self-flagellation of Carbon Taxation.

    So, I suggest that Australians need more rallies to oppose the madness of Carbon Taxation or Australia could copy the self-destruction the UK adopted in yesterday’s UK budget.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    connolly

    July @ 125
    A genetic logical fallacy is an ad hominen argument. Not all ad hominen arguments are fallacious but genetic ad hominen arguments are. To give an example you can relate to. When your Mum told you that Santa was real you believed it because your Mum told you (you may still but thats another fallacy)because you regarded your Mum as a good honest person. This is is called a genetic fallacy in logic. This fallacy is committed when an argument is believed or advanced or alternatively not believed or advanced because of its source rather than its merit or factual basis. Of course most of us develop critical facility in reasoned rational thinking and move beyond an acceptance of arguments dependent on source somewhere around the age of twelve. You clearly havent. The arguments expressed by yourself and your troll mate Matt on this blog in support of carbon dioxide caused catastrophic global warming hypothesis are genetic fallacies. I can tolerate an ignoramous. I can even tolerate an opinionated ignoramus. But I cant tolerate an arrogant opinionated ignoramous. You are out of your depth here. Push off.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bon Foffy

    To all the moaning Tories, here is the news. You LOST the election. Get over it. You are the worst losers ever. For all Labor’s faults, the majority couldn’t come at that [snip] Abbott, so [snip]. The reconciliation rally during the Howard era attracted more than 100,000 people in one city – 30 to 50 times the number at the rally in Canberra. 2000-3000 people out of 22,000,000 after all that free publicity is PATHETIC. [Err. What publicity? A few radio hosts vs all the government millions spent over the last 2 decades ... JN] A rag tag of xenophobes, bad losers, pensioners left terrified by Alan Jones, conspiracy theorists, haters, One Nation leftovers and the thick. Labors gets things done – The Coalition does nothing. As ever.

    [It hurts eh? We can reason, and all you can do is throw names? -- JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Climate Change Science is not the battleground of choice to fight the Carbon Tax on. It is not a level playing field, and it is stacked with self interested parties (The UN, Federal Government, Market Makers and 13 major Investment Banks,) that stand to make billions of dollars from its introduction in Australia. (and Trillions Worldwide)

    By not providing any detail, dates or figures for its Climate Change Policy and UN contribution commitments, the ALP is leaving itself wide open for a major Spin Attack.

    If most Australian’s are like me, then they will read the Headline of a news article, click on it if it is of interest or concern to them, but skim the content if it is long or overly complex.

    Collectively we need to get rid of this Carbon Tax and I don’t think that trying to explain the science is the answer, I do think that spinning the negatives of the Carbon Tax more than the ALP can spin its merits might be a winning tactic.

    The following two Headlines have been designed to attract attention.

    Australia reduces CO2 emissions by over 9% in 2010-2011.

    No need for a Carbon Tax, if the UN accepts that Australia can account for CO2 emissions using the same method and formula as China (% GDP) then we have already reduced emissions by 9.25% this year according to Treasury.
    (Source) http://www.budget.gov.au/2010-11/content/economic_statement/html/economic_statement-03.htm

    CHINA to Increase Carbon Emissions by 30% – Australia will pay them to do it.
    China will increase CO2 Emissions from 7 billion metric tons CO2 to 9 billion metric tons CO2 by 2030. They will receive UN subsidies, partially paid for by Australia, to do it.

    Q. Did the headlines grab your attention and make you want to read more ?
    (All the headlines are based on facts that can be verified.)

    ALL feedback is good feedback, even insults, let me know what you honestly think.

    Silly, but food for thought bit:
    If the UN are moving from a volumetric measuring system for CO2 emmissions to a ‘per capita’ measiuring system, do you think that Kevin Rudd was smart to consider a ‘Big Australia’ policy.
    Double the Population = Half the Emmissions per capita (Job Solvered)

    Jo
    After meeting you briefly at the rally Jo, I would like to help out in any way I can, please Email me if you think I can help.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Bon @ 156

    You seem to be a very smart chappie, so I’ll ask your opinion.

    1. Do you think that labor would have won the election if they had a carbon tax in their platform?
    2. If governments have the right to claim a “mandate” on their platform, do they not also have a “responsibility” to keep to the policies they made ahead of the election?
    3. Do you think Julia Gillard lied when she promised no carbon tax?
    4. Do you think that we should believe her in the future when she promises that the carbon tax (that she wouldn’t impose) will be good for the country and imposed to the benefit of the country?

    Call me an extremist if you like. But please don’t be surprised if I call you a sheep.

    Cheers,

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Richard Courtney @ # 154

    Richard, to stand in front of a stampeding herd of Wildebeest and shout, Stand Firm Lads! might be viewed, as Sir Humphrey might put it, being courageous beyond the point of duty.

    Principle is one thing, stupidity another.

    Let’s therefore, allow, the stupids to do their thing.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @Bon Foffy
    I am not surprised you got over 100,00 to your Demonstration.
    Unionists are just like Sheep – easy to lead and predominantly just dumb animals.
    However, unlike Unionists, Sheep don’t go round smashing in windows at Parliament house
    :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Connolly:

    I write to add a (hopefully) clarification to the excellent illustration you provide at #155; i.e.

    When your Mum told you that Santa was real you believed it because your Mum told you (you may still but thats another fallacy)because you regarded your Mum as a good honest person. This is is called a genetic fallacy in logic. This fallacy is committed when an argument is believed or advanced or alternatively not believed or advanced because of its source rather than its merit or factual basis. Of course most of us develop critical facility in reasoned rational thinking and move beyond an acceptance of arguments dependent on source somewhere around the age of twelve. You clearly haven’t.

    The purpose of parents’ claim that ‘Santa Claus is real’ is profound. The claim is intended to teach that all sources of information should be distrusted so all information shold be checked. Aftr all, nobody can be afforded complete trust if even Mum and Dad can lie to you and take actions (e.g. providing presents) to bolster the lie. And – as with Santa Claus – the distrust needs to be greatest when those providing the information assert that it is “for your own good”.

    It seems that the trolls posting here had incompetent parents who were incapable oftaching this profound lesson.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Louis Hissink:

    In response to my assertion at #154 saying:

    So, I suggest that Australians need more rallies to oppose the madness of Carbon Taxation or Australia could copy the self-destruction the UK adopted in yesterday’s UK budget.

    You have replied at #158 saying:

    Richard, to stand in front of a stampeding herd of Wildebeest and shout, Stand Firm Lads! might be viewed, as Sir Humphrey might put it, being courageous beyond the point of duty.

    Principle is one thing, stupidity another.

    Let’s therefore, allow, the stupids to do their thing.

    You, of course, are entitled to your opinion. But I thank God for the countless numbers who did not share it. For example, I would now be speaking German, clicking my heels and making straight-arm salutes if my fellow countrymen had adopted your attitude in 1939.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Colin

    July is obviously a very poorly programmed cyber-troll (is MattB an amateur programmer?)
    Why do we waste time trading insults with a computer?

    I would like a T-shirt that showed the word game:

    CAGW
    CAGP
    CAAP
    CRAP

    Does anyone silk screen T-shirts?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @Ben Foffy (156)
    Just thhought I’d send u a link (from my generation) to show you a real rally.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBdeCxJmcAo
    Be prepared – The Government caved in.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MikeO

    I have not read all the comments so sorry if I repeat what someone else said. I am Canberran and attended the rally. The last rally I attended was the moratorium rallies for the Vietnam war. How long ago that was! I am 67 retired and there were many of my age group, there were also younger and older. I saw the attendance as a cross section of society who by the placards are concerned more than anything else about the personal cost. Industry is saying electricity costs will double. The miserly $300 expressed by the Polies, (liberal/Nation as well) is not believable. On the day, being members of the National Art Gallery we parked there and walked across. Under a tax on CO2 our membership will rise also the meal we had later at the gallery will also rise because they also will have to pay more. It is very unlikely anyone in our under $60000 income bracket will be compensated for all these rises, if they are it makes no sense. The aim must be to reduce the energy consumption by making it cost more, and I am sure that realisation is what prompted the majority to attend the rally. The catch cry make the polluters pay, means either the cost will be passed to the consumer or finance will move elsewhere as is already happening.

    A final note which may be of interest is this http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_news/Daily/2011/Mar11/032111/032211-01.shtml A Californian judge has halted their Cap & Trade law a link to the judgement is about midway. The law is administered by the Air Resource Board, this reminded me of “Total Recall” pay for it or it will be cut off! Hmmm Arnie was involved with that too.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Our friend Luboš Motl says:

    Australian prime minister Ms Julia Gillard suffers from a Messiah complex.

    and about her hypocrisy:

    She will stop calling Tony Abbott a denier when he stops being a denier … I guess that people will stop calling her a bitch when she stops acting as a bitch. :-)

    How’s that for transparency: People can see right through Julia from the other side of the world.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @MikeO 165
    Climate Change in USA ia a basket case.
    New Hampshire is leaving ‘The 10′ – not surprised, with Co2 at $1.86 per ton. (minimum price undepinned)
    Watch this, it will bring back memories, and hopefully visions of what is achievable.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBdeCxJmcAo


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bon Foffy

    To answer your questions Speedy:
    1. Do you think that labor would have won the election if they had a carbon tax in their platform?
    A: Fact is, we will never know.
    2. If governments have the right to claim a “mandate” on their platform, do they not also have a “responsibility” to keep to the policies they made ahead of the election?
    A: Yes they do, whenever possible. Over the last 100 years both sides have broken promises. I recall Mr Howard saying he wouldn’t touch Medicare, the ABC, universities, training programs etc in 96 and the first thing he did on being elected was to savage the latter three and cut dental for pensioners. I recall Mr Howard’s core and non-core promises. I remember mr Howard promising to lower foreign debt (it ballooned under the Coalition).
    3. Do you think Julia Gillard lied when she promised no carbon tax?
    A: Of course she didn’t, and it’s insane to suggest otherwise. Julia Gillard planned an ETS, but was forced to negotiate with rural independents, Andrew Wilkie and the Greens. The result is a carbon tax leading to an ETS. How could she have known there would be a hung parliament? Governments have often had to negotiate and compromise with the cross benches (Democrats, Family First etc) so please don’t pretend this is something new. If you want to see lying in action Google the Lateline interview with Abbott with Tony Jones where he lied twice about meeting Cardinal George Pell, and then only admitted the truth when confronted with the facts.
    4. Do you think that we should believe her in the future when she promises that the carbon tax (that she wouldn’t impose) will be good for the country and imposed to the benefit of the country?
    A: I think she believes she had an option between a carbon tax leading to an ETS or nothing, so she did what she had to do to get moving on transforming the economy.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] election first, or why we ought to expect some achievable outcome when we pay billions…" Thousands of angry ordinary Australians turn up and alarmist smears begin « JoNova . __________________ . …just some thoughts from a nomadic plebeian Bio – [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Bon

    1. It may be a hypothetical, but if julia gillard had thought it was a vote winner, why did she deny it as a policy during the election campaign. The margin, from memory was about 0.12%…

    2. Poor logic in your case I’m afraid.

    3. So you’re saying that lying is OK, if julia does it, I suppose. Sorry I asked. By the way, do you think she is likely to do it again? Maybe told a few porkies today, perhaps? Who could tell? Certainly not you…

    4. You didn’t answer the question, but your silence speaks volumes. Obviously, julia gillard is not to be trusted. Ask Kevin Rudd…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    @Ben Foffy (168)
    Bring on the ETS mate.
    Gillard’s Australia would be broke – just like the Chicago Climate Exchange.
    UK. today set minimum price for CO2 – WHY? (Google CCX)
    USA. 10 9 State Carbon Price at $1.86 a ton (Minimum price – See UK above)
    EU. asked Germany to consume more power to support what? (Thier carbon Exchange) + do you think that will help the Planet or the Bankers?

    Google Greenx and you might become a convert :) (look up resourses).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Just want to note… a post up there that ridicules Thatcher for suffering multiple strokes gets 10 thumbs up. My immediate post suggesting that is a bit harsh gets 10 thumbs down. No wonder Tony Abbott is squirming to disassociate himself from placards!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Hey Damian in 69,,, you do realise that the article you link to is in fact proof in the pudding that Abbott’s “Direct Action” is tried, tested, and failed policy. Random investments by govt in random initiatives is a waste of money.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    @Mattb (173)
    Re: Abbott’s “Direct Action” is tried, tested, and failed policy. Random investments by govt in random initiatives is a waste of money.

    So why is Gillard supporting it via UN ??

    Why is China held up as an example of DIRECT ACTION ??

    Time to read the REAL NEWS not the COMICS mate :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Lilley

    I think in combatting the Carbon Tax legislation the campaign needs to be more tightly focussed. Issues about whether and how the climate is changing are interesting but they tell us nothing about the causes of climate change. Carbon taxes, their costs and effects are important but would be worth the sacrifice if the CO2 theory were correct. Overwhelmingly, the key issue is whether humans are causing the problem. The campaign therefore needs to point out that CO2 alone does not cause much warming and it is the strong positive feedbacks from water vapour assumed by the climate models which take warming to allegedly dangerous levels. Without these feedbacks from water vapour there is no human-caused climate crisis. Then, it should be explained that the empirical evidence shows water vapour feedbacks to be negative and thus they mitigate the effect of CO2 rather than amplifying it. The evidence includes weather balloon observations which show specific humidity at greenhouse gas altitudes to have fallen when the models say it should have risen. There is the absence of the tropospheric hotspot. There is the linkage between outgoing long wave radiation and surface temperatures – both Lindzen and Choi and Roy Spencer have shown in a number of papers that whereas the models predict a relationship implying positive feedbacks the actual satellite data demonstrates negative feedbacks. Then there is the work of Ferenc Miskolczi who showed that the optical depth of the earth’s atmosphere has been, to all intents and purposes, constant for 60 years. This implies that as man pumps CO2 into the atmosphere, Mother Nature takes out an equivalent amount of water vapour to maintain a constant greenhouse effect. If all of this was explained to the public I don’t see how anyone could continue to believe in AGW.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Cookster

    There has been a lot of one sided, biased rubbish written in the Australian MSM on the rallies but this effort from Phillip Coorey of the SMH must surely take the cake? It was truly a struggle to read it through.

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/abbott-forced-to-prove-that-hes-revolting-too-20110323-1c6uk.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike Baker

    the easiest way to show the public what a carbon tax will do is the following. The rise in energy bills has partly been driven by the requirement by the energy companies to purchase clean energy windmills and so on, if you were able to find out how much our bills on average have already risen due to this requirement then you could make the following statement. If you want to know what a a carbon tax will cost you then look no further than your energy bill you are already paying ? extra due to so called clean energy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MikeO

    @David(175) the masses are driven by a belief in authority and their own physical circumstances. In the main they do not have time for complex (requires thought) argument and that covers most journalists as well. So it comes down to who says we should and how will that affect me. I have been toying the idea of a website that does not oppose what the activists propose but goes with it.
    To be a self sustaining household with electricity what is needed is an installation which delivers about 27Kwh per day per person. Since there is no sun at night time (something a lot people do not seem to have noticed) you need to have a lot of batteries and an array able to generate the power in 5 hours. The grid is not a battery what is being done at the moment destabilises it. So that could be the first thing, advocate with argument as to why anyone who cares must install such a system after all that is the moral thing to do! Then there is saving, most proposals are ineffectual jokes energy saving lights indeed! I would propose an end to night time sporting events, regulation of television screen sizes, street lights of at 9am and so on the possibilities are endless.
    The really good one though would be how a financial war could be mounted against energy industries. Industry typically is built on large amounts of debt, so if you decide you want to build a large power station to supply cheap power and undercut your competitors you need money and stability of your market. This will take many years for completion and lots of money. There is the weak point, attack fuel that will make such a power station possible and create political turmoil to destroy stability. That way the money will go elsewhere because there is too much risk. It would even influences existing power stations like the Victorian very large brown coal power stations if the cost of the fuel can be raised enough then value of plant decreases such that it no longer covers the debt. So goody goody they will go in administration and the plant sold of as scrap. This would close a lot of other industry as well won’t that be great! Hell that is not a new idea it is happening now and the result is about to become very evident.
    My prediction is that in the in the near future (about three years) there will be blackouts on the eastern seaboard of Australia and electricity costs will double. The reasons are that demand is increasing and new plant is not being built. It is too risky to invest money in power stations that deliver cheap power. When the public realises why I hope they want blood, it means annihilation of the Greens and end of Labor for a generation. The working classes and unions should see it as a betrayal and oust anyone who supports such ideas.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    To the Boofhead “Bon Foffy” (156),
    There are no such things as “Tories” in Australia.
    Please use correct and relevant terminology in the future………


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    I see that “MattB” (129) admits that he is UNABLE to provide even one peer reviewed scientific paper which proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, than humans are responsible for global warming.

    Note his deflection of my challenge……..

    “You’d be amazed how many everyday items that you use only exist because of science that remains unproven beyound a shadow of a doubt. Absurd request.”

    So on this basis Australians are supposed to sacrifice BILLIONS of hard earned taxpayer dollars and reduce our standard of living back to the 19 th century due to unaffordable electricity and goods and services????

    You Have Got To Be Joking !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I say again to all the warmist trolls who inhabit this blog.

    Quote at least one Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper which PROVES, beyond a shadow of a doubt, than human beings are responsible for global warming.
    Show us the justification for your hypothesis.

    All I hear are crickets chirping……….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MikeO

    Damian 179 and they must also show that any warming produces “Climate Change”. Most of the time the Earth is very cold place that has a short interglacial every 100000 years. The peak of our current interglacial is well past and the descent to cold times has begun. The future of the human race is coping with an ice age. Heat is future problem but too little rather than too much!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    connolly

    Matt B at 172
    You really cant be this obtuse? The post was intended to show that argument by analogy as used by July is a shabby propoganda tool. July had argued the following:
    1. Hanson who is a stupid reactionaty racist opposed to global warming theory and carbon tax (premise)
    2. You are opposed to carbon warming theory theory and carbon tax (premise)
    3. You are a stupid reactionary racist Hansonite (conclusion)
    I attempted to show July the staggering fallacy in this argument by reversing the premise

    1. Thatchter who is a senile reactionary accepted the warmist myth (premise)
    3. You accept the warmist myth (premise)
    3. You are a senile reactionary Thatcherite (conclusion)
    You are just a troll but do try and keep up. A bit of rigor is applied and you curl up into the foetal position whining about poor Maggie Thatcher. Old dogs for a hard road and pups on the pavement.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Theres so much information on the net that DISPROVES AGW the politicians are either dumb, bloody minded or part of the criminal IPCC conspiracy which has been PROVED.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Connolly you just don’t get it do you. Your post was a disgrace and you are a fool.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    We need to understand the depths of religious belief Mattb et al has, only then can we begin to show them the errors of their ways. This will not be easy because they are bombarded by bullshit 24/7. For example this is an excerpt from an Asian paper:

    23 Mar 11 – “Weather Department on Thursday said that the global warming is the major cause of dropping of temperature in Thailand,” says this article on nationmultivedia.com.

    “Temperature on Thursday has dropped across the country, with that in Bangkok dropped to 19 Celcius and that in northern province of Loei went down to 6.12 Celcius.”

    When people beleive this crap then you know they will beleive anything.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Damian Allen – you do make it hard, but what should I expect from a scientific pea brain.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    connolly

    Matt B @ 183
    This is a site for adults willing and capable to exercise rational thinking processes. You have shown yourself incapable of rational critical thinking. You have exposed the warmist counter attack againbst the rising tide of popular opposition to warmist propaganda better than I could. Stay here and keep it up. Res ipsa loquitur.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “This is a site for adults willing and capable to exercise rational thinking processes.”

    How did you slip past security?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    apollo

    READ THE CLUB OF ROME PUBLICATION ENTITLED : THE FIRST GLOBAL REVOLUTION: WHERE THEY ADMIT THAT THE WHOLE GLOBAL WARMING AGENDA WAS DREAMED UP TO UNITE MANKIND TO ACCEPT A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT. JULIA “THE FABIAN LACKY” GILLARD KNOWS WHO SHE WORKS FOR AND IT’S NOT MY DEAR AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    MattB:

    Re Damian’s challenge at #180. As usual, challenge sidestepped with an insult. And the crickets are still…cricketing!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Deadset Mark you are a troll and a moron. He has not set a challenge at 180. It was a repeat of a question I’ve answered accurately and correctly. He does not like the answer so has asked agin, with the tone of an incredibally stupid person, so I’ve ignored it. That chirping is coming from your vacant skull numbskull.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Again with the insults when you’re lost for logical and thoughtful answers MattB. I know (again) that you don’t have an answer.

    Damien’s second last paragraph looks like a challenge to you MattB to rebut the null hypothesis. The only reason it doesn’t look like a challenge to you is that you can’t rise to it!

    If this wan’t such a challenge MattB, why do you think Kevin Trenberth made such a strenuous effort recently to try and reverse the burden of proof? He can’t provide the rebuttal and nor can you!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Mark – you blockhead. The final paragraph of the post in question is a repeat of the one I’ve already answerd. IT IS ANSWERED. How about you satisfy the burden of proof that you are not an intellectual flea.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Insults, insults MattB. All you are good for.

    Don’t seem to be very good at handling stress there MattyBoy, desk job getting too much for you? Might have to find something commensurate with your abilities. See that broom and dustpan…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    You bring out the Graeme Bird in me Mark. Maybe it is because you are a blockhead.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Well, I could say it takes one to know one.

    Nonetheless, seems it doesn’t take much to get under the skin of a “warmer” before they start flinging insults and inferring omniscience on their side.

    I’ll just be content to include you in the ranks of the more mediocre and pretentious acadamia nuts that have crossed my path. And I’ve reconsidered your suitability for the broom job; it might test you too much.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    No response from the Warmists to my challenge at (121)!

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

    QED


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Hey there Damian:

    You wanna watch it, MattyBoy might call you a blockhead too!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    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!

    Blockhead.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bon Foffy

    Speedy
    To answer your points:
    1. It may be a hypothetical, but if julia gillard had thought it was a vote winner, why did she deny it as a policy during the election campaign. The margin, from memory was about 0.12%…
    A: It wasn’t her policy, she was forced to negotitate. Which bit of this are you incapable of comprehending?
    2. Poor logic in your case I’m afraid.
    A: Um, no. It all makes perfect sense. If you cannot understand the concept of negotiating with the cross benches then I can’t help you any further. ALL political parties do it when they don’t have the numbers.
    3. So you’re saying that lying is OK, if julia does it, I suppose. Sorry I asked. By the way, do you think she is likely to do it again? Maybe told a few porkies today, perhaps? Who could tell? Certainly not you…
    A: Did you read my response? She didn’t lie. She was forced to negotiate and compromise with the cross benches. Welcome to politics.
    4. You didn’t answer the question, but your silence speaks volumes. Obviously, julia gillard is not to be trusted. Ask Kevin Rudd…
    A: The answer is yes, of course. I didn’t answer because it was an stupid question. As for trust, ask former Tory leaders Abbott, Turnbull, Nelson, Hewson, Peacock, Downer etc about trust when they were all busy kniving each other to get to the top. It’s politics, it’s a brutal business. The Tory crocodile tears for Kevin Rudd are laughable.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    We can now all see, as demonstrated by “MattB” that there is therefore NO JUSTIFICATION for a Carbon DIOXIDE tax since there is NO PROOF…

    Thanks “MattB” for clearing the debate.

    QED


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Oi dunderhead, read this:

    “There can never be “proof” of human-induced climate change – and we shouldn’t look to science to provide that. Science is about the estimation of likelihood based on available evidence. There will always be uncertainties because the earth-atmosphere system is too complicated to be understood in intimate detail. So judgement is required.”

    You are blowing out of your ass.
    http://www.crikey.com.au/2006/09/05/the-proof-about-climate-change-it-doesnt-exist/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Ah, I get it! The tired old IPCC line of all these “uncertainties” yet the “science is settled” and we must move quickly to fix this “uncertain” yet “settled” problem by bringing down the industrialised West.

    Science is NOT just about available evidence. It is certainly not about ignoring awkward or contradictory evidence.

    In short, weasel words. “We don’t need no stinkin’ proof!”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Matt B:

    Your series of posts up to and including #202 show you are floundering, so let me make it easier for you.

    I tell you that humans affect local climates in many ways (e.g. it is warmer in a city than its surrounding countryside) but
    there is no empirical evidence of any kind – none, zilch, not any – that human activities are discernibly affecting global temperature.

    To prove me wrong all you need to do is to provide one solitary piece of evidence that a human activity is discernibly affecting global temperature. Please provide that evidence.

    At present, you and your ilk are making astonishingly improbable assertions of the anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) glbal warming (AGW) hypothesis.

    The AGW hypothesis is that a trace atmospheric gas which is the very stuff of life itself may – if it increases its atmospheric concentration – become Shiva, the Destroyer of Worlds. In fact, it’s worse than that. Nature emits 34 molecules of CO2 for every molecule of CO2 emitted by human activities so AGW suggests that a minute increase to the annual emission of this essential trace gas could cause Armageddon. Furthermore, in the geological past and during ice ages the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been more than ten times greater than it is now.

    If you had never heard of AGW and somebody came in off the street and tried to sell it to you would you say, “Oh dear! Of course, we must change the economic activity of the entire world”?

    So, give us one piece of evidence that human activity is discernibly affecting global temperature or go away.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andy G

    “Nobody wants global warming to be a reality and neither Gore nor Flannery is involved in “forecasting the apocalypse”.

    But forecasting apocalypse is exactly what AGW is all about, hence the word “tipping point” etc The word “catastrophy” and similar words are also used often.
    They know its not a reality, but you can bet that Gore and Flannery want this to play out as long as they can possible make it play out.

    “On the other hand, the fossil fuel industry is looking more lucrative by the day.”

    That’s because they actually produce something useful !!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bon Foffy

    Mark:
    Nobody can “prove” what’s going to happen tomorrow, the day after or in 100 and 1000 years. The climate is not a mathematical certainty. Meteorologists sometimes get tomorrow’s weather wrong, but more often than not they get it right. From my reading over recent years there seems to be a consensus among many, many well-known scientific bodies around the world that “on the balance of probabilities” we should reduce co2 emmissions. They’re not saying it’s certain, they seem to be saying nobody knows for sure, but the balance of evidence leans towards doing something. That’s all.
    What is more interesting is why this whole “scientific” debate is split along political lines. Why do people on the left believe the CSIRO and people on the right prefer to take their cues from Iam Plimer and Professors Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt? Let’s be honest here – 99.99 per cent of people haven’t the faintest idea of the science, or how to weight and evaluate the millions of pieces of data that go towards building a scientific argument – so why is every second person these days an expert on carbon emissions? Please explain.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Bon Hoffy:

    At #206 you ask:

    why is every second person these days an expert on carbon emissions?

    Sorry, but nobody is an “expert on carbon emissions” because the carbon cycle is far, far too complex and far, far too little understood for anybody to be an “expert” on it.

    In one of our 2005 papers
    (ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005))
    we considered the most important processes in the carbon cycle to be:

    Short-term processes

    1. Consumption of CO2 by photosynthesis that takes place in green plants on land. CO2 from the air and water from the soil are coupled to form carbohydrates. Oxygen is liberated. This process takes place mostly in spring and summer. A rough distinction can be made:
    1a. The formation of leaves that are short lived (less than a year).
    1b. The formation of tree branches and trunks, that are long lived (decades).

    2. Production of CO2 by the metabolism of animals, and by the decomposition of vegetable matter by micro-organisms including those in the intestines of animals, whereby oxygen is consumed and water and CO2 (and some carbon monoxide and methane that will eventually be oxidised to CO2) are liberated. Again distinctions can be made:
    2a. The decomposition of leaves, that takes place in autumn and continues well into the next winter, spring and summer.
    2b. The decomposition of branches, trunks, etc. that typically has a delay of some decades after their formation.
    2c. The metabolism of animals that goes on throughout the year.

    3. Consumption of CO2 by absorption in cold ocean waters. Part of this is consumed by marine vegetation through photosynthesis.

    4. Production of CO2 by desorption from warm ocean waters. Part of this may be the result of decomposition of organic debris.

    5. Circulation of ocean waters from warm to cold zones, and vice versa, thus promoting processes 3 and 4.

    Longer-term process

    6. Formation of peat from dead leaves and branches (eventually leading to lignite and coal).

    7. Erosion of silicate rocks, whereby carbonates are formed and silica is liberated.

    8. Precipitation of calcium carbonate in the ocean, that sinks to the bottom, together with formation of corals and shells.

    Natural processes that add CO2 to the system:

    9. Production of CO2 from volcanoes (by eruption and gas leakage).

    10. Natural forest fires, coal seam fires and peat fires.

    Anthropogenic processes that add CO2 to the system:

    11. Production of CO2 by burning of vegetation (“biomass”).

    12. Production of CO2 by burning of fossil fuels (and by lime kilns).

    And we said:

    Several of these processes are rate dependant and several of them interact.

    At higher air temperatures, the rates of processes 1, 2, 4 and 5 will increase and the rate of process 3 will decrease. Process 1 is strongly dependent on temperature, so its rate will vary strongly (maybe by a factor of 10) throughout the changing seasons.

    The rates of processes 1, 3 and 4 are dependent on the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The rates of processes 1 and 3 will increase with higher CO2 concentration, but the rate of process 4 will decrease.

    The rate of process 1 has a complicated dependence on the atmospheric CO2 concentration. At higher concentrations at first there will be an increase that will probably be less than linear (with an “order” <1). But after some time, when more vegetation (more biomass) has been formed, the capacity for photosynthesis will have increased, resulting in a progressive increase of the consumption rate.

    Processes 1 to 5 are obviously coupled by mass balances. Our paper (4) assessed the steady-state situation to be an oversimplification because there are two factors that will never be “steady”:
    I. The removal of CO2 from the system, or its addition to the system.
    II. External factors that are not constant and may influence the process rates, such as varying solar activity.

    Modeling this system is a difficult because so little is known concerning the rate equations.

    So, anybody who claims to be an “expert” on this is either a liar or a fool.

    However, qualitative considerations suggest the carbon cycle cannot be very sensitive to relatively small disturbances such as the present anthropogenic emissions of CO2, but the system could be quite sensitive to temperature.
    (Please read the paper for an explanation of this).

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    So experts limited to fields of basketweaving and panelbeating then Richard?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Matt B:

    At #204 I wrote to you saying and asking:

    I tell you that humans affect local climates in many ways (e.g. it is warmer in a city than its surrounding countryside) but
    there is no empirical evidence of any kind – none, zilch, not any – that human activities are discernibly affecting global temperature.

    To prove me wrong all you need to do is to provide one solitary piece of evidence that a human activity is discernibly affecting global temperature. Please provide that evidence.

    At #208 you have replied to me saying (in total):

    So experts limited to fields of basketweaving and panelbeating then Richard?

    I understand that to be your agreement that you do not know of any evidence of any kind that human activities are discernibly affecting global temperature. Please confirm that this understanding is correct.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Sorry Richard it was a flying visit I was responding to your post at 207. Just put the kids to bed, checking how the kiwis are going in the cricket, a quick comment here than off to watch a couple of 30 rock episodes b4 an early night. Busy weekend may not have time to answer (thanks for pointing out I’d missed a post of yours)… in the mean time you may like to read the IPCC volumes. YOu know I k=have no additional magic science.

    Unlike you, I don’t pretend to be a research scientist publishing on my own toilet roll.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Or this if you struggle with the IPCC language. bit technical.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

    p.s. I KNOW YOU DON’T THINK THIS IS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    sorry wrong thread:

    p.s. if he has time maybe bulldust can argue with you as he agrees with the whole thing other than the feedbacks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Matt B:

    Thankyou for your clear statement that you have no evidence of any kind which shows a human influence on global climate.

    I will remind people of this whenever you make future posts.

    Richard

    PS I am surprised that you put your children to be. I assumed your Mummy would put you to bed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Bon Foffy #206

    Thanks for your civil comment.

    I can’t speak for others but I suspect that if it wasn’t for the potentially disastrous effects on the economy and individual lifestyles this subject would be left like many others to moulder in purely scientific journals read by a bunch of bearded blokes with unkempt hair and moth-eaten cardigans with leather elbow patches.

    For my part, the well documented actions and attitude of the main players of this rort have been nothing short of deplorable, and most unscientific. Projects funded by taxpayers money are regarded by them as personal property. They fight FOIA requests, they fudge data and even manufacture data. They have totally perverted the review process. Their arrogance and hubris knows no bounds.

    As for the real players in the smoke filled back room. Do you really want to align yourself with the likes of billionaire Maurice Strong who has declared his intention to bring about the ruin of the West?

    I’ve seen and read enough to know what camp I’m in. A few of these characters have let their guard down at various times and stated that it didn’t matter about the science, the real goal is purely political.

    Once again, thanks for your comment.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Oh this time zone thing is fun! MattB goes to bed angry and beaten and moments later I wake up to read about it (which will make my whole day happy)! :)

    Thanks Richard S Courtney!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bon Foffy:#168
    March 25th, 2011 at 12:23 am

    You replied to Speedy thus…

    3. Do you think Julia Gillard lied when she promised no carbon tax?
    A: Of course she didn’t, and it’s insane to suggest otherwise. Julia Gillard planned an ETS, but was forced to negotiate with rural independents, Andrew Wilkie and the Greens. The result is a carbon tax leading to an ETS. How could she have known there would be a hung parliament? Governments have often had to negotiate and compromise with the cross benches (Democrats, Family First etc) so please don’t pretend this is something new.

    You need some facts before making up your mind.
    Juliar made a written agreement with Rob “look at me I’m famous” Oakshott in september 2010. She had ALREADY made an agreement with the Greens by then.

    In defending her “change of mind” about introducing a carbon dioxide tax, she said the circumstances had changed and she had to work within the new paradigm. You’ve obviously swallowed that.

    Here is a part of her written agreement with Oakshott as he provided to his local media the Manning River Times

    “Dear Mr Oakeshott THANK you for signing an agreement on September 7 for a government to be formed based on support for confidence and supply. The agreement recognises your continued status as an independent Member of Parliament and your ability to determine your vote on all legislative matters, except confidence and supply. Pursuant to the agreement that you have signed, which includes a much stronger governance framework for regional policymaking, I can confirm that in addition to the Australian Labor Party’s 2010 election commitments and the matters outlined in agreements with the Australian Greens and other independent MPs, a new government will pursue the following policy program during the term of the 43rd Parliament to advance the interests of regional Australia, including the interests of the constituents of Lyne.”

    etc etc the rest is the details of her pork barreling for the electorate of Lyne.

    Do you see the highlighted section? She gave a written commitment to Oakshott that she would honour her election commitments. And what was one of the more salient election commitments that helped her get over the line?
    (c’mon, read it in your best Strayan ranga accent)
    “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”

    So knowing that she had promised a no carbon dioxide tax to Australians, knowing that she had ALREADY backtracked on that when she went into an agreement with the Greens who demanded a carbon dioxide tax, she told Oakshott in a written agreement that she would honour her election commitments.

    How many lies do you need man?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    IMO an ETS introduced by Gillard would also have been a broken promise. quite clearly to me she was using carbon tax to mean price on carbon at the time she made that promise. She dumped the ETS that much is crystal clear.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    No Richard, I just gave you the empirical evidence. It is now your job to tell me why that is not empirical evidence, as I know you will try to do.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    MattB:

    At #218 you assert to me:

    No Richard, I just gave you the empirical evidence. It is now your job to tell me why that is not empirical evidence, as I know you will try to do.

    That is a lie!
    You have NOT provided any empirical evidence.

    The most you have done is (at #211) to write (in total):

    Or this if you struggle with the IPCC language. bit technical.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

    p.s. I KNOW YOU DON’T THINK THIS IS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

    So, you have set me homework by needing to study a propoganda blog. If you think that propoganda blog has any empirical evidence for a discernible effect on global temperature then quote it or – preferably – state it in your own words.

    Your refusal to provide any empirical evidence for a discernible effect on global temperature proves you have no such evidence (and nor does anybody else and that includes the IPCC).

    Lies, links to propoganda blogs and setting me homework are only evidence of your lack of knowledge and of nothing else.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Way to Go! Keep pounding at them, Australia!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Richard in 219. What a cop out. I’ve not just given you a couple of paragraphs of what I reckon, I’ve given you the full official warmist version for you to pick apart at your leisure. See I have to work on your paragraphs, as there is nothing in the scientific literature to back you up. I however can refer to actual science (surely that is preferable to just my personal opinion… I mean SURELY!!!). How many times have I been asked to use actual science not just my ability (debatable/limited) as a wordsmith.

    Richard here is a deal, I’ll never refer to Skeptical Science and you never refer to E&E… deal?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bon Foffy

    Baa Humbug:
    From the ABC website.
    ‘Like the Prime Minister, Senator Brown will not say who came up with the carbon tax idea, insisting discussions in the Multi-party Climate Change Committee remain confidential.
    “No-one’s forced anybody into anything. There’s been mutual agreement here,” he said.’
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/17/3166455.htm
    The CCC contains Labor, Greens and Independents, including Oakeshott. The Coalition, whose position on climate change seems to swing between outright denial and doing something but not much, chose not to represent their constituents at this round table. Too bad, so sad.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Connolly

    Bon Foffy @ 222
    “No-one’s forced anybody into anything. There’s been mutual agreement here”just happens to be one of the most risibly unbelievable statements ever made in Australian politics ( a big call admittedly). So the Greens hold the balance of power that keeps a deeply unpopular government clinging to power and they dont use their leverage to force through their carbon dioxide tax. Well have you heard the one about a trace gas that will cause . . . . O sorry forgot. You believe that as well.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    ALP politicos will deny any national implications of course, but many of them will be checking their underware after today’s NSW election.

    There hasn’t been a rout like this for decades. It exceeded Neville Wran’s demolition of the coalition back in the ’80s.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    MattB:

    Let me give you some free advice: i.e.
    it is better to let people think you are a fool than to say something which proves you are.

    At #221 you say to me:

    Richard in 219. What a cop out. I’ve not just given you a couple of paragraphs of what I reckon, I’ve given you the full official warmist version for you to pick apart at your leisure. See I have to work on your paragraphs, as there is nothing in the scientific literature to back you up.

    Say what!?

    I never “cop out”, and you have not given me anything except excuses for your not knowing any empirical evidence for a discernible human effect on global temperature. This is not surprising because there is no such evidence: none, not any of any kind.

    All I asked is for you to provide one, solitary piece of evidence.
    Could you? No.
    Will you? No.
    Can you? No.

    And your flannel merely points out to others that you have not and will not because you cannot.

    I repeat, it is better to let people think you are a fool than to say something which proves you are. You really do need to learn that.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bon Foffy

    Connolly:
    Good to see you falling in line behind Professor Alan Jones and calling it a “carbon dioxide tax”. Funny how all the Tories and deniers changed from “carbon tax” to “carbon dioxide tax” on the same day, as if reading from the same propaganda memo.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Wow Richard I take your dodge as admission you’ve nothing to counter what I have posted.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    MattB:

    Your post at #227 is beyond stupid. It says;

    Wow Richard I take your dodge as admission you’ve nothing to counter what I have posted.

    You have not posted anything in response to my call for a piece of empirical evidence a discernible human effect on global temperature.

    I have not dodged anything because you have failed to provide anything to dodge!

    I repeat, provide any item of empirical evidence for a discernible human effect on global temperature.

    State one single piece of evidence. No excuses, no insults, no anything except the evidence.

    Alternatively, admit that you know there is no such evidence because it is now clear to all that you do know there is none.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes: (@92)
    March 24th, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    I think the younger Dryas may be one of those times when northern and southern hemisphere temperatures went in opposite directions. So while there was very rapid regional temperature change, the global temperature change was less pronounced.

    Well, good for you, John! An argument based on data (although, the issue is somewhat more complex, as the link provided by neville @ 100 shows). I take back what I said (about you, anyway) at post @90.

    However – this reliance on “global temperature” is something of a red herring. As this post shows, the “global temperature change” currently touted by the government sources is completely the result of the proprietary “processing” algorithms applied to the raw data (thermometer readings). The raw data itself tells a completely different story. (BTY, the linked site gives you all the information you need to repeat their analysis, if you wish to check it — unlike NOAA, GISTEMP, HADCRUT, etc.)

    A typical argument from the CAGW side goes like this:
    The global temperature is rising at an unprecedented rate, and is the highest in millenia. Therefore, (for example) Greenland is warmer than it has ever been and is melting at an unprecedented rate, risking all sorts of very bad effects.

    This argument absolutely ignores a number of indisputable facts which falsify it:

    1) Viking farms from 1000 years ago are still locked in permafrost and unusable. Also, more farms and villages are still emerging from the ice. How is this possible, if Greenland is warmer than ever?

    2) Ice core data from Greenland show clearly that Greenland was warmer for most of the last 10,000 years than it is now. This, also, is in complete disagreement with warmist claims.

    The logical fault here is using a manufactured, arbitrary figure (average global temperature) to draw conclusions contrary to actual data (Viking farms, the GISP2 ice core). The amazing thing, to me, is that there are so many people who can’t see that this is bunk. (Maybe most aren’t aware of the actual data — the warmists certainly don’t advertise it.)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Vince Whirlwind

    BobC, again some extremely shoddy analysis.

    1/
    Viking farms exist in two localities, covering a tiny fraction of Greenland. “Locked in permafrost” is a poor description for their burial by blown ice and sand. The reason they remain “unusable” today would be because they were never better than marginal in the first place, their exploitation had detrimental effects on their productivity, and few modern-day humans would have a standard of living low enough to make exploiting depleted farmland in Greenland appealing.
    One thing is for sure: your anecdote about two very small areas in Greenland certainly does not falsify the data collected from a number of weather stations around the island and from satellites.

    2/
    Again you use the “warmer than *today*” assertion in relation to ice cores. This is a false assertion which I have caught you making before. Please point me to the ice core analysis that says anything about temperatures in 2011. Or 1990 even.
    The problem here is one of lack of understanding on your part: ice core analysis typically looks at various proxies for delivering a long-term temperature series, where the word “today” merely stands for the early 20th Century, from which time actual records are available. The atmospheric nuclear explosions conducted by many nations starting in the 1940s render many of those proxies unusable and useless beyond that time. Since the “today” of ice core analyses, actual records show very steep warming, including in Greenland.

    Thank you for illustrating a logical fault, the explication of which may help clarify things for some of the readers previously confused by the misinformation of which you are responsible.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Vince, you are persistent but more important; misleading. You are in denial and have created a spectacular if not hilarious Straw man and/or red herring. This link should fill in nicely where the ice cores leave off. Are you in denial about Greenland temperatures?
    http://www.astro.uu.nl/~werkhvn/study/Y3_05_06/data/ex6/gl.pdf

    Where is your “steep warming” Vince?

    Even this graph is not showing “steep Warming” nor does it appear to be warmer today if you splice on the Ice Core data and look back for a very long time. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/Greenland_temps2.JPG

    You didn’t “catch” BobC. The data and graphs at WUWT come from J. Storrs Hall here: http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553

    You might appreciate this: http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/splice.png

    (J. Storrs Hall) Sam: here with instrumental record spliced on where they match 1850-1900 (the ordinate scale is delta T from HADCRUT, celsius):

    … this is very ad hoc and can’t be taken as anything but suggestive, but it suggests that the 19th and 20th century rises were the same trend — and that trend looks like the fourth very similar uptick in a pretty straight line of them going back 3500 years, against a secular decrease of half a degree/millennium.

    Is this the best you have? or can I ask: when are you going to stop drinking the coolaid?

    Of course if you are able to produce new incontrovertible evidence regarding Greenland temperatures I’m all ears.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MarkD;

    Vince’s MO is becoming clear — he waits for a thread to die, then slips in with a post containing nothing but unsourced claims, and pretends that he has demolished all arguments. He probably hopes that he can avoid any reply to his B.S. this way.

    More disturbing (for what it says about Vince’s mental state) is that he apparently thinks that his rantings also demolish all empirical data and evidence to the contrary. Talk about living in your own world! Earth to Vince, come in Vince!

    Contrast your reply (#231) to Vince’s ravings (#230):

    1) You link data and published analyses showing that, indeed, there is nothing special about Greenland’s temperatures, currently and in the recent past.

    2) Vince links to no data, but simply makes claims in clear contradiction to the empirical records. He then claims that we are the ones trying to deceive people!

    Thank you for illustrating a logical fault, the explication of which may help clarify things for some of the readers previously confused by the misinformation of which you are responsible.

    So, you call linking to official data sources “misinformation”.
    And what do you call making claims about data (that you don’t link to) which are contradicted by that same data?

    I call it lying.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    BobC, I think “Vince” is a robot. He may be real some of the time but the last few posts here are beyond lame. I believe Jo or the moderators should watch closely.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    A friend of mine has forwarded to me emails she received from the Labour Party asking her to come to Pro Carbon Tax Rallys and take lots of photographs and to bring friends as well— to show how much support this initiative has amongst the general population. Reading MSM you would be led to think all these so called ‘pro rally’s’ were spontaneous acts….. this is all a totally staged event and reeks of stink from the L/G parties…. who are desparate to get this thing in, passed and into law in Australia….. wake up people you are being led by the nose up Gillards garden path. Personally I would term this as EVIL…. I will work with those emails later today an put up a blog…… JustMEinT


    Report this

    00

  • #

    BOB MALLOY

    I have included your information about the union movement’s 12,000 signatures at my blog today…. I thank you for posting it here.

    http://justmeint.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/media-is-biased-towards-gillard-and-browns-carbon-tax/


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Australian Carbon Tax Protest: Thousands of angry ordinary Australians turn up and alarmist smears b… [...]


    Report this

    00