JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

We are being deceived

Perth Protest Anti Carbon Tax Rally

Perth Protest Anti Carbon Tax Rally

My speech at the Anti-tax Carbon rally, Wednesday March 23rd.

I used to be a Green. I used to think Carbon dioxide mattered. I still worry about falling fish stocks, old growth forest and erosion, but wind farms won’t help the fish, and solar cells won’t keep the top soil from blowing away. Real environmental  problems are being sidelined by fake ones.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I thought I was well informed, but I was shocked when I found out how what was going on behind the scenes. Everything you may have heard about carbon dioxide can be turned inside out.

How many excuses does it take?

  • CO2 feeds plants. It’s the only” pollution” pumped onto farms to grow food. Did you know plant life goes dormant if CO2 falls too low? Farmers don’t just pump in an extra 5 or 10% either, they ramp up the concentration 4 or 5 fold in greenhouses. Did the government scientists forget to mention that?
  • Australia is the largest exporter of coal in the world. But did they say that China digs up nearly 10 times more coal than we do?
  • The famous ice core graphs of Al Gore — expanded to 20 meters square — turned out to show the opposite of what he claimed. Temperatures drive carbon and lead it by 800 years. Worse,iIt was well known, and not contested two years before he made his movie.
  • Global warming stopped, and none of the models predicted that.
  • The endless droughts — ended.
  • All that CO2 and Global storms hit their lowest level for 30 years.
  • And you have to wonder: nearly 90% of the thermometers in the US are too close to artificial heat sources. 90%. How much do the climate science team care about the science?
  • 75% of thermometers used in the 1980’s have dropped off the official record. All that money, and less instruments to measure with…
  • They adjust the data — sometimes 50 years after it was recorded. Think about that. The 1970’s kept warming for the next 30 years.
  • 3000 ocean buoys looked and couldn’t find most of the missing heat that our planet is supposed to be storing.
  • 6000 boreholes tell us the world was warmer 1000 years ago, and even warmer again 5000 years ago. None of the models can explain that.
  • all the models predict a hot spot, and 28 million weather balloons can’t find it;
  • 31,500 scientists don’t think we need a carbon tax. That includes 9000 phd’s. There’s a grassroots revolt going on out there. This was done by volunteers, and done twice. There’s never been another petition like it in science, ever. Did the media forget to tell you that too?
  • For every dollar paid to a skeptic, big government paid 3500 to global warmers.

It’s a topsy-turvey world out there:

We all have better things to do than come along today, but when the people who represent us call fertilizer “pollution”, and label the volunteers “stooges”, while they call the paid hacks “independent”; when they look at a color chart and say yellow is red, … and they call us “deniers”… we know things are running of the rails. When they ask us to pay billions to change the weather, then we know the train’s off the cliff. And when even they admit the results will be too small to measure (how many thousandth of a degree will that be, Julia?) sometimes we just have to do something don’t we?

We can act now or pay the cost for years to come.

Each time we let them get away with an untruth they grow stronger. Each time we ignore the Orwellian perversion of our language, we feed the parasites who want our freedom and our money, and that hurts us, our children and the environment.

They call themselves modern “scientists”, but break laws of reason known to ancient Greeks. They tell us there will be endless droughts, and then when people drown in floods, they say “we told you the rain was coming”.

They want us to emit less CO2, and tell us we need a free market to do it, (if they only knew what that was) then they do everything they can to fix that market – they fix the price and compensate the “voters”. Isn’t one of the most basic things about the free market, that we are free to chose what we buy? Isn’t the idea — that anyone has the opportunity to buy at the best price? Will the masses have a choice? No. And will we all have a chance to pay the same for the carbon tithe? No, they’ll give breaks to trade- exposed exporters, and to domestic-exposed employers, and to low-income earners, and to medium-wage holders, and “to our friends, our fans, and our favourite marginal seats”.  It’s another chance to crony up the country.

Speaking of corruption

Like any human endeavor, science can be corrupted, and sadly it has been. Billions of dollars was poured into one side of the scientific equation. Monopolies don’t work in business, and they don’t work in science either. But these foreign science committees have so much say over our economy — who audits them?  No one.  It was ripe for the picking. Big-government paid $79 billion to find a crisis, and what a surprise… we got what we paid for. They found one.

In fairyland greenomics, everyone gets jobs, and no one has to pay

Only the evil polluters will pay.

If you’re a low income earner, you’ll pay more for your petrol, so in theory, you’ll use less of it, right? But wait, the government says it will compensate you too, so it doesn’t cost you more, which means you’ll use just as much as ever… oh, doesn’t that muck up that plan… but here’s the catch, even if you get compensated, someone somewhere will have to pay the tax. It’s not just the tax either, but paying for a whole class of people: the auditors of the tax, and architects of the corporate renewable plans, and the renewable energy certificate schemes, and the brokers to buy the credits, and the marketing gurus to sell the schemes, and the government departments to manage the rules.

They want us to think it’s just the nasty big polluter will make less profit, … but corporations are groups of people. Groups of owners, groups of people who want their product, groups of people who need the jobs. When greens strike down the evil polluters, they are striking down everyone in that chain.

And some people might still think that they won’t pay, but we are all consumers, employees, or stockholders with one degree of separation. When the corporation loses income, they have to cancel your son-in-laws job contract, reduce the dividend on the shares to the shareholders and the stock price falls in your super plan. The compensation won’t cover that. That’s when you know that no matter who you are, the person who pays for the “tax” is still the same schmuck who pays all the other taxes. You.

They want us to pay billions to change the weather. It’s time to tell them: No.

No thank you, No, we don’t want to!

Ladies and Gentlemen, the tribal witchdoctors are at work. For tens of thousands of years they have been saying “Pay us your tithe — we will stop the storms.” Nothing has changed. They swapped the rune stones and tea leaves for simulators and models. They still can’t predict the weather three weeks from now.

There are white lies, and big lies, and lies that matter:

Back in August 2010 Julia Gillard obviously thought the Australian people would not have wanted a carbon tax, or she would have run her campaign on it. Instead she thought we’d want an ineffectual climate committee and the certainty of knowing a carbon tax would not be imposed before another election. This was an election that went down the line: 72 – 72. Seven ALP seats were won with less than a 2% margin.

In Corangamite, a mere 400 voters who didn’t want a carbon tax could have changed the leadership of the nation.
This is not just a “lie”, it’s deception writ large. The Australian public were never given the chance to vote on this issue. There was never a discussion about the benefits. It was not a debate topic. The commentators and opinion writers did not thrash out the costs and risks.

This is not how democracies are supposed to work.

This is so much bigger than just “climate change”.

Government is a self-propagating organism. It will grow until something stops it growing. What stops it growing? Us. The government will get as big as we let it. They will take as much as we will put up with: as much as they can get away with.

If we don’t say NO. They will just ask for more.

We don’t just need to pay tax. We need to pay attention.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.4/10 (7 votes cast)
We are being deceived, 8.4 out of 10 based on 7 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/473cqnh

No comments yet to We are being deceived

  • #
    cleanwater

    This artical is right on!!! Here is some reference material that proves that the “greenhouse gas effect” is a political fairy-tale just like the fiction of Avatar.
    List of references:
    The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
    Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
    B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
    Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
    Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

    Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
    that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
    R.W.Wood
    from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
    The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
    By Alan Siddons
    from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST

    The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.

    “In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”

    After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.
    Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.

    University of Pennsylvania Law School
    ILE
    INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS
    A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
    and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
    at the University of Pennsylvania
    RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-08
    Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
    Jason Scott Johnston
    UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
    May 2010
    This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
    Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:
    http://ssrn.
    Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: ‘There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming’ link to this paper on climate depot.
    Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory [Kindle Edition]
    Tim Ball (Author), Claes Johnson (Author), Martin Hertzberg (Author), Joseph A. Olson (Author), Alan Siddons (Author), Charles Anderson (Author), Hans Schreuder (Author), John O’Sullivan (Author)

    Web- site references:
    http://www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder
    wwwclimatedepot.com
    icecap.us
    http://www.stratus-sphere.com
    SPPI
    many others are available.
    The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.
    The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
    —Albert Einstein
    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb.”
    Benjamin Franklin

    00

  • #

    Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

    These ‘warmist’ people need to be stopped or they will destroy the Australian economy.

    00

  • #

    Apparently we are extremists. We expect and demand our politicians to be honest, open, knowledgeable, to follow actual empirical science, respect our individual rights, to understand that they exist in their positions by our permission but not we theirs, and that they have no powers beyond what we voluntarily grant to them by contract (aka constitution). It looks as if we are going to have to teach them that lesson again.

    00

  • #
    Mike Baker

    If julia always believed in climate change as she is saying now then she tricked rudd into dropping it so she could stab him the back and get the top job, also if she has always believed then she got into power by telling us no carbon tax before the election at the same time as she was planning it, The lie was premeditated. this tax will raise the cost of everything from toothpicks to toilet paper there should be a plebiscite.

    00

  • #
    Cookster

    Jo,I am sure if every Australian read this excellent summary (including references), public support for the carbon tax would collapse and Julia Gillard would be out of a job! Thank you for your work.

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    I guess the legal experts are the ones to slice & dice the semantics but there has to be some angle for a challenge in the Oaths of Office which our politicians make to the Governor General & I guess thereby to the Australian people.

    Surely to continue to act in concert to promote one of the largest economic & social changes in our modern history in the face of popular dissent & on the back of un-verified arguements constitutes a gross failure of office. I my opinion, with the pre-election platform statements & the subsequent reversals, the current government has abrogated any claim it could make to the trust & confidence of its electorate & citizens.

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Jo
    I have decided to click the “Print This post” button above and put this in a few random letter boxes today.
    Please do not tell me to stop!

    [Good on you Sliggy :-) !]

    00

  • #
    Rodzki

    I attended the Brisbane rally. Apart from a “Ditch the Witch” sign, all was very civilised, except for a warmist heckler who accused us of being “child haters”. Being labelled an “extremist” or an “oddball” by senior ALP politicians, frankly does not go down particularly well with me. I’ve been a swinging voter over the past few elections, but while the AGW issue remains current, my vote is now locked out from Labor party. They have shown themselves to cynically and unapologetically abuse the democratic process, and ride AGW fears to drive their socialist agenda.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Terrific expose of the CAGW position Jo, in which you cover all the bases.

    00

  • #

    Rodzki-the rally was good…”Is this the Australia you want? I can’t hear you!”

    The big one is in May and we need as many as possible to turn up.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    The Hockey Stick cops another flogging courtesy of Steve McIntyre:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/steve-mcintyre-uncovers-another-trick/

    Original article:

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/23/13321/

    Junk science doesn’t even begin to describe it…

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Just when you thought it couldn’t possibly get worse, it does. More “hockey stick” tricks uncovered.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/steve-mcintyre-uncovers-another-trick/

    00

  • #
    Mark

    I’ve been scooped by Bulldust in between coffee sips. That’ll “learn” me to check before submitting!

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Just listened to the Bolter tease the revelation of all time out of silly Flannery.

    What a whacko this bloke is pushing this whacko religion, but let me explain.

    He now says the whole world could cease emitting co2 today and it might not make any difference to the climate for a thousand years.

    Please read Bolt’s column tomorrow for a transcript of this bizarre interview or listen to the interview on his site later today.

    So the world spends countless trillions forever and not even a dozen generations into the future would notice the difference in the climate. You’ve heard it from silly Tim our INDEPENDENT climate commissioner

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Doesn’t hurt to emphasise that article Mark :)

    I was just wondering if the Minnesotans for Global Warming would be interested in doing a song for the Australian carbon tax scene. With all the characters we have here (Gillard, Brown, Garnaut etc) they could have a field day. They could even pick an Aussie tune… Land Down Under perhaps? or perhaps something by Rolf Harris?

    00

  • #
    Andy G

    The Labor Party in general is being deceived.

    Up until now I have always voted Labor, but seeing them taken over by the Green agenda, and going so much against what I thought they stood for, is very disappointing.

    I hope they wake up soon and realise just how much damage the dangerous link between Gillard and Brown is doing to the future of the Labor Party, otherwise they will be going the way of the NSW Labor party.

    They MUST rid themselves of this poisionous asp that is currently their leader if they want any future.

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Dane-Geld

    It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
    To call upon a neighbour and to say:-
    “We invaded you last night – we are quite prepared to fight,
    Unless you pay us cash to go away.”

    And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
    And the people who ask it explain
    That you’ve only to pay ‘em the Dane-geld
    And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

    It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
    To puff and look important and to say:-
    “Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
    We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

    And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
    But we’ve proved it again and again,
    That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
    You never get rid of the Dane.

    It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
    For fear they should surcomb and go astray;
    So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
    You would find it better policy to say:-

    “We never pay any-one Dane-geld
    No matter how trifling the cost;
    For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
    And the nation that plays it is lost!”

    Rudyard Kipling

    00

  • #
    wes george

    “If you’re a low income earner, you’ll pay more for your petrol, so in theory, you’ll use less of it, right? But wait, the government says it will compensate you too, so it doesn’t cost you more, which means you’ll use just as much as ever… oh, doesn’t that muck up that plan… but here’s the catch, even if you get compensated, someone somewhere will have to pay the tax.”

    It’s actually far more sinister than that.

    The Greens/Labor machine plans to use the billions collected from a “carbon” tax to create whole classes of people and industries totally dependent on government welfare.

    Fran Kelly gave the plot away on Radio National yesterday when she asked the opposition Minister for Industry this Orwellian question:

    If the Libs/Nats evntually win back power would they “raise people’s taxes” by ditching the redistribution of carbon tax wealth to various groups! Talk about chutzpah!

    The insidious tax and redistribution creep of Green/Labor’s political machine has already corupted whole segments of our society forever by joining them at the hip to Green/Labor patronage– the trade unions, our universities, The ABC, the CSIRO, the BOM, all alternative energy industries and the Centerlink dependent, etc… The unmentionable ideal is to reduce just enough of the electorate into a “bread and circuses” class—paid for by a minority of wealth creators, ie people who actually work for a living—to guarantee that the Green/Labor machine dominates national politics forever.

    What a clever idea to extend the dependences upon government funding to any battlers in the middle class who buy petrol or have electricity.

    The goal is a one party political system!

    Of course, as Jo points out, the “bread and circus” corruption can only continue as long as there remains someone out there to steal the money from to pay for it.

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Re Bulldust at #10

    In similar vein I posted at http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/willis-was-right-and-ncdc-agrees-no-wild-adjustments-at-darwin/

    “Another Ian says:
    March 1, 2011 at 10:33 am
    Verity,

    Not quite off thread

    Do you recall the chorus of a not quite Sunday school song that went

    Old soaks, young soaks, everybody come
    To our little Sunday school and have a tot of rum
    Park your toffee apples and sit down upon the floor
    And we’ll tell you bible stories like you’ve never heard before

    In the course of some jobs where thinking is an option to boredom I’ve imagined this adapted to climate science, which could go something like

    Old folks, young folks, everybody come
    To our little climate school and we’ll give you the drum
    Grab your cup of cool aid and sit down upon the floor
    and we’ll tell you climate stories like you’ve never heard before

    And, with appropriate characterization – maybe like a poeticising of Josh’s cartoons – verses could be added to make, say, “An Ode To UEA”, A Lauding of Al Gore” etc. The potential seems to be vast.

    Except that I’m basically not a poet, so I’m putting up the idea – maybe blog-coordinated poetry?”

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Andy G:
    March 25th, 2011 at 7:57 am

    The Labor Party in general is being deceived.

    Up until now I have always voted Labor, but seeing them taken over by the Green agenda, and going so much against what I thought they stood for

    I also for many years was a stuck on laborite, even had an invite to assist with Combet’s campaign in 07. That was the last time I voted labor all though I had stopped voting for them religiously some years before, and only voted for them that year because as a blue collar worker Howards work choices were on the nose and regardless of any productivity improvements that may have been gained on the wharfs his attempts at Patricks to destroy the water side unions was positively barbaric and bordered on criminal.

    I will not consider them again until they clean house. These days they have become a self centered club, no longer are those elected chosen to stand for office by the branch members, but rather those groomed from within the executive to serve the wishes of the inner click, they no longer serve the community.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    I should add to my post at 20, my parents and grandparents will be turning in their graves.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Jo

    When I read your excellent post (again, thank you), I am amazed at the contempt with which the voting public is being treated.

    At the end of the day, no matter which way the cake is cut or the taxes are drawn up, the climate will keep on doing what it feels like.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    Ross

    I trust the NSW voters will send the Fed. Govt a message tomorrow. Something along the lines of ” this is a sneek preview of your future”. Giving the Greens an “Irish message” might help as well.

    00

  • #
    Mack I Avelli

    Neville@14, I too heard Flannery on Bolt and Price this morning. Apparently he only agreed to be interviewed on the basis he could not be asked questions about his flawed past predictions of perpetual drought in Australia. When pressed by Andrew Bolt about Ms Gillard’s claim that there were no reputable climate scientists who disagreed with “the Consensus,” he reluctantly conceded that Lindzen was in fact a reputable scientist, that Pielke snr and jnr were not and bizarrely claimed that John Christy,at one stage I believe a lead author of the IPCC, was disreputable. It would be wonderful if Professor Christy would be bothered enough to bring a defamation action against the “accurate prognosticator.”
    Flannery also tried to avoid Andrew Bolts favourite question “By how much will the world’s temperature fall by Australia’s proposed Carbon dioxide tax.” In the end he said words to the effect that even if all human emissions through out the world ceased now it would take a thousand years to have any effect. That made this “denier” recant immediately and apply to become a member of the watermelon party.
    I live in regional NSW so I cannot attend the Climate Change Commission in Geelong this evening ( 25 March).I hope some of you fellow bloggers, J.Brookes excepted, can attend and seek enlightenment from Messrs Flannery and(“this is a battle between knowledge and ignorance”)Garnaut.

    00

  • #
    vess

    “…the Orwellian perversion of our language…”

    My favourite one is “Carbon Price”.

    Hey, carbon already has price. Just walk into a jewelery shop and head to the diamonds section. Yes, diamonds are 100% pure carbon and are quite pricey indeed.

    00

  • #
    Supanova008

    Jo,
    Have you seen the results of the Channel Nine carbon tax news poll?
    It is running 83% against the tax! If Australia was a democratic country,
    this tax would never even be considered. They will never allow the
    Australian citizens to vote on this, because they know they would lose.

    Here is the web page link:

    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/vote-archive.aspx

    00

  • #
    manfred listing

    It’s too late now but maybe next year a concerted effort to use electricity seriously during earth hour and blow the generators could be worthwhile. Run the aircconditioner, run the heating, boil the jug, make a cake, do that welding job you have ben putting off, turn the water heater off in the morning and on again when the clock strikes earth hour.

    It would probably only work if industrial scale users joined in and even then only if the generators were taken unawares, but I love the idea of the the alarmists and feelgooders wanting to turn on the lights after an hour in the dark and finding they couldn’t.

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Neville @ 14 and Mack @ 24,
    Beat me to it but for those who want confirmation of what our illustrious Tim said

    http://www.mtr1377.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8273

    This is getting out of hand. We have a government sponsored propagandist dissing a bunch of scientists who hold senior positions in distinguished schools and having control of the most accurate temperature sensing, namely satellites.

    There was an “expert” on John laws moments ago telling him and his audience that temperatures were rising at an alarming rate and that now was hotter than at any time since humans have been on earth.

    These people have no shame which matches their knowledge.

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    More uncovered criminal activity by the chief WARMISTS!
    http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/23/13321/
    Arrest the IPCC!
    I agree with the first comment I have posted this reference myself! Thanks Cleanwater for another post on falsification of the green house effect.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Another Ian @ 17

    Taking your idea of the Climate “Sunday School”

    We’re burning all these fossil fuels, we’re burning quite a lot,
    The gas goes up all in the air, and now it’s getting hot.
    But can we prove our story, oh prove it, yes we can,
    So here’s our first narrator, let’s here it, Michael Mann…

    I have a second verse but it’s mildly obscene.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    July

    Oh dear, here we go again, Nova the Fred Singer of the Australian climate debate arguing black is white again.
    Every tired old argument you use here has been debunked again and again. Cherry picking and strawmen are your stock in trade. Try something new.
    By the way, why do you think 31000 scientists and 9000 phd’s means anything?(how many scientists in the world are there anyway, would this be a tiny fraction?) That wouldn’t be an argument from authority would it? Tut, tut. If it is I’m not sure what a phd in macrame means in terms of climate science. Talk to the experts in climate science and get the real story, not some cherry picked rehashed hogwash.
    I don’t mind so much that you bitch about the policy issues, that’s reasonable in my opinion, but to argue that the science is at issue is just crap.
    You and your spiritual leader Pauline need to find something useful to do in your twilight years, try pottery perhaps.

    [Ho but we're not the ones saying we're right because 31,500 scientists agree -- it's only you grovelling servants of authority that do that -- we're showing how almost all the news we are fed is propaganda. Prove us wrong by showing how the media and government institutions broadcast this info widely. The bias is blatant -- JN]

    00

  • #
    Neville

    So July Phil Jones isn’t credible when he says there has been no SS warming for 16 years, from 1995 to 2010.

    I’m sure he’s correct and rather buggers up your stupid religious con trick as well. Oh yes and stuffs up the climate models and the science along the way.

    00

  • #
    feddup

    I’ve been ‘stalking’ this site for some time now looking for information (as well as others, on both sides of the debate) This is my first post, driven by the rubbish July posts.

    July, you contribute absolutely nothing to the discussions. Of course, you may think the insults and put downs are contributing, but they say more about you and the state of your mind than anything else. Also, for anyone coming here to find out more about the issue, you do more to drive them to the skeptics camp than anything or anyone else posted on this website.

    Maybe I should say – Keep up the good work!

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Watchout here comes the new twist in the words.A comment on Andrew Bolts blog in response to his interview with Flannery –this is the first part of the comment on the MTR thread

    “Andrew, very interesting discussion with Tim Flannery this morning. I actually tried calling in to have a chat but the line was busy. The point I was going to make was that I think you’re misrepresenting the intent of emissions reduction strategies. The point is not to reduce global temperatures. As Flannery correctly pointed out, any reduction in mean equilibrium temperature would take hundreds of years and would require a net draw down of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The point of emissions reduction is to reduce the rate of accumulation of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, eventually stabilising atmospheric concentrations and thereby limiting the rate of increase in temperature. …… “

    Clearly this is the ALP response to the basic questions raised by opponents — How much will it cost ? and How will global temps. drop ?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Pardon Ross? Just because you’ve never bothered to find out what the IPCC or warmist scientists are saying doesn’t make this a new twist in words. Sad that is takes science being on Bolt comments for you to learn about it. Tried books much?

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Hey Julya,

    If you wish to defend the science then by all means do it but defend it with science not gibberish.

    We can start with Briffa’s tree ring study…we all know the story Briffa used tree ring data as a proxy for historical temps but found there was a divergence between the proxy and the temp record starting around 1880 so rather than throwing the study in the bin he simply deleted the proxy record from 1880 on ward and stitched on the temp record and did not tell anyone.

    Now some might see this as scientific fraud of the highest calibre but i would be interested in hearing your views on his actions.

    TIA

    crakar

    00

  • #
    janama

    Jo – can you please ban July – I’m sick of his arrogant and rude attitude. He never adds anything except taunts and innuendo.

    00

  • #
    overseasinsider

    Janama @34

    I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY!!!!

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    If memory serves there is much debate about the “residence time” for CO2 in the atmosphere. Just another thing that is definitively unsettled in this very young science.

    Meanwhile I see there is a paper being touted in the West that wind speeds over the oceans have been increasing for the last 30 years:

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/9073596/wind-and-waves-are-getting-bigger-study/

    I think the classic quote is the one at the end:

    “I don’t think these results provide a clear contradiction to our findings of declining wind speeds over land, since measurements are made in different environments,” said Takle.

    Hang on… so the above average speed winds over the oceans suddenly drop to below average when they make landfall. I can’t wait to hear their “scientific” explanation for that one. These guys would be great recruits for the Hockey Team…

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    MattB,

    Lets apply logic to this, the latest theory is that rising CO2 causes the temp to rise therefore if you want to drop the temp then you need to drop the CO2. Still following MattB? OK so the government wants to introduce a TAX to drop the CO2 so we can drop the temp. But now you are saying the whole point of the TAX is not to stop CO2 emissions thereby reducing temps back to the stone age but to merely reduce them so CO2 does not rise as much. Therefore the temp wont rise as much and you support this policy? You lambast the Libs policy on this?

    Since we began unlocking the carbon trapped by plants the temp has risen by about 0.7C in the NTH Hemisphere and has hardly changed in the STH Hemisphere and you think a 13 billion dollar TAX to reduce warming is the best we can achieve? I pity you Matt i really do.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Janama:

    Are you sure July isn’t a sceptic plant set up to make the warmists look like idiots? Based on all of July’s contributions to date it is difficult to imagine someone on the CAGW side being so deliberately stupid.

    It is possible that it is a common garden-variety troll trying to fuel foul banter to degenerate the content on this site, of course…

    So difficult to know these days when people hide behind the veil of internet anonymity.

    PS> Before someone jumps up and down and claims Bulldust is an anonymous handle :p Hundreds, if not thousands of people know me by that handle. Chances are more people IRL know me as Bulldust than by my birth name. Heh, just noticed one site has my old university email address.

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    July #29

    July – you should stick to the science, and be polite. If you can find a dataset which disproves low sensitivity for CO2, which from the ERBE and CERES data falls in the range 0.4-0.6C per doubling of CO2, I might be willing to debate with you. No models were involved in this determination – it is direct measurement. If you know logarithms you can see no amount of human generated CO2 can do much – even a 10 times increase in atmospheric CO2 would give no more than 2 C rise on these measured values.

    This is the problem for the ALP – if they go forward with the tax, when the science already shows that catastrophic human caused warming is not possible, then people will give them a very hard time indeed. I’m surprised intelligent and pragmatic people like Mr Combet doesn’t seem to understand the danger he is putting the ALP in.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Crakar: The govt is introducing a tax, with a modest target of CO2 emission control. You still with me? The hope is that internationally a larger target will be agreed with countries working towards a rate of emissions that will limit Temp rise ro 2degrees C.

    Actually lowering temperatures within say 200 years is pretty much beyond the wildest dreams of even the most optimistic scientist.

    You don’t seem to understand the difference between lowering emissions and lowering atmospheric concentrations. The latter being far more difficult.

    What do you mean by “unlocking the carbon trapped by plants”?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Also, just casually FYI, I come here day in day out trying to point out the basic flaws in a range of truly amateur statements about climate, because your smarter mates are happy to gloss over them as you are on the same side of the fence generally speaking. There are some grey areas and I’m happy to accept that, and in the end the policy choices to address the level of scientific certainty are where we differ. But please read rthge frigging skeptics handbook… anything else is scattergun rubbish that leaves you open to ridicule.

    Not really referring to Jo, but honestly Jo a lot of your speech surprises me. Thre CO2 is plant food is a nice appeal to ignorance, but it is absurd in reality.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Just a small comment about the carbon tax and income redistribution.

    Right now we live in a world where there is no charge to pump CO2 into the atmosphere. The government wants to decrease CO2 emissions, so it is going to charge people for the privilege. However, there is no need for the government to keep the money it collects. Simply having the charge there will change the behaviour of the producers and consumers of power (the principal product responsible for CO2 in the air).

    If I had my way, that money would be returned equally to everyone. An acknowledgment that everyone has an equal right to pump CO2 into the atmosphere. If you choose to pump less, you may come out ahead financially. If you choose to pump more, you pay more.

    So I don’t agree with the government plan to return the money to just the lower income group. As above, I think that all the tax collected should be returned equally to all Australians. And this will in no way subvert the ability of the tax to reduce the amount of CO2 emitted.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I guess JB the portion not returned will be used to help industry and invest in energy alternatives… the “direct action” component of the deal. Given Abbott’s only action is this “direct action” the he will be faced with the same costs but this will have to come from govt revenue which means less expenditure on the things we need govt to provide.. .roads, ports etc.Wealthier folks, like me, are more able to make economic decisions on efficiency etc (like a better fridge) so they should be able to incur practically very lost cost increases anyway… like they are good at tax avoidance… carbon avoidance should be right up their alley.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Good point MattB. Some of the carbon tax will have to go to trade-exposed emissions intensive industries, otherwise we would just be exporting emissions. Of course if there was international action, this would not be necessary….

    00

  • #
    July

    Nev (32) old mate you are having a bit of trouble getting up to speed with longer term trends which is where climate is at, not short term year to year fluctuations. That’s why the real scientists use moving averages as opposed to cherry pickers here who consistently pluck out short term trends. It’s amazingly simple really.
    The problem with all of this crap on this website is that it overlooks one important point and that is that the burden of proof has shifted. It is now up to the anti-enlightenment mob to debunk the current state of climate science (which of course is not complete, it never will be just like any field) which of course it has failed spectacularly to do.
    If you have the data to refute what we know, then (here I go again) publish it and be world famous. Please don’t repeat mindless things like “it’s plant food blah, blah, blah”, because you only make yourself look really stupid.
    Only creationists argue that evolution is a myth, we seem to be going through the same process now with climate science. Old stagers like Fred Singer beaten to a pulp by the tobacco and sulphur dioxide debates now are having a go at climate science (good luck with that one Freddy). If you want to be on the right side of history I wouldn’t be backing that old donkey to run so good.

    [Ha ha. You mean, you really wish the burden of proof "had shifted" and you hope we are dumb enough not to see through your shameless attempt to stop us asking you questions you can't answer. You want our money. Get cracking on finding a reason. -- JN]

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    This is slightly O/T, but nuclear is never far from the climate debate so I thought I’d post it:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45612.html

    This is the latest anti-nuke rant by an advocate for Friends of the Earth (read Enemies of Humanity). The classic paragraph has to be:

    The particular moral problem concerns the disproportionate impacts of the nuclear industry on indigenous peoples. The nuclear industry’s racism is grotesque. Regardless of all the other debates surrounding energy options, it’s difficult to see how this pervasive racism can be reduced to being just another input into a complex equation, and tolerated as a price that must be paid to keep the lights on.

    Baseless meet rhetoric. Crap like that has me in stitches… and yet it is fit to publish at the ABC. Perhaps it was meant as a comedic piece… hard to know really. Kinda smacks of Composta.

    I posted some facts in response, so let’s see if it gets up.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    JB @ 45:

    Perhaps you would be OK with the government charging you to breath. (It’s only a short step from what you already believe.)

    Apparently, you look on “the government” as a sort of super-nanny to prevent you from doing bad. You must see yourself as a worthless serf, whose only value is whatever the “government” says.

    Myself, I go with the philosophy expressed in the US Declaration of Independence: Governments are instituted by the governed to supply services of general value to everyone (collective defense, maintaining rule of law, etc). The people retain unalienable rights that the government is not allowed to obstruct. If a government overreaches its legimate bounds, it is the right of the governed to dissolve that government and institute another.

    It is not necessary to force your nanny government on all of us, just to save yourself from the frightening experience of freedom — you can easily emmigrate to China or Cuba and live your dream.

    (You won’t succeed in imposing your dreamed of tyranny on the rest of us, anyway.)

    00

  • #
    brc

    Don’t ban July, just ignore it.

    Banning is the ultimate success for a troll – they can then tout how they were censored for telling the truth or some other rubbish.

    Just continue to ignore, trolls feed on attention like plants feed on co2. Take away the attention and it will shrivel and go away.

    This latest fascination with a failed politician is a clear pattern of trolling. Trying to flush out some stupid comments to gloat over.

    Just ignore, and perhaps snip any particularly spiteful or nasty attacks. It will lost interest and go away of it’s own accord.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    brc, I agree with you. Much better to abuse the trolls.

    00

  • #
    July

    Nova I would suggest that 97% of climate scientists all in agreement is probably unprecedented in history. If you knew anything about science you would know that trying to get a group of scientists to agree on anything is like herding cats. The fact that 97% of real climate scientists all agree on this issue is absolutely a shift in the burden of proof. A few squawking recalcitrants don’t debunk it especially when they can’t back up anything they say.

    By the way, just because you can parse a question doesn’t mean it makes sense.

    The whole tax debate as far as I’m concerned is the democratic process in action and I don’t necessarily disagree with everything you say incredibly enough but you gotta quit on this anti-science stuff. It’s embarrassing for our country to be seen to be hijacked by a few Luddites/Creationists, what ever you want to call them. More importantly it’s a distraction to the real debate which is how we deal with it.

    [ still using argument from authority eh? A born sheep. 97% of climate scientists equals 75 people. It's irrelevant every way I look at it. Try to lift your standards, if you keep doing the authority fallacy or ad homs, you'll be snipped --JN

    00

  • #
    Ross

    craker @ 40 thanks, you have put it better than I could.

    Matt @ 35. We have been told by all and sundry that we have to reduce C02 emmissions to stop global warming and the carbon taxes and /or ETs schemes is the way to go. Very simple BUT now we are told that the point is not to reduce temps. but stabilise them. So by that logic all the warming that has occured to date is OK–we don’t have worry about it. So maybe it hasn’t caused all these terrible things, we are bombarded with, after all.

    00

  • #
    Macha

    The logic that Australia is too reliant on its energy from Coal and gas is entirely different to emitting CO2 into the atmosphere and entirely different to any aspiration to be more efficient and environmentally friendly.

    As for using “penalty” to encourage a change in behaviour – since when has that EVER worked.! Capiltal punishment has not stopped murder. Longer goal term threats have not stopped criminals engaging in illegal drug trafficing. Even double demerits don’t stop people speeding.

    Taxes and rebates are not effective behavior modifiers nor free-market actions. Other governments are not truly free marketeers either. The real fear for Australia is that oil prices go so high that we have no alternative – none other than our coal and gas of course – but we export so much of it there is not much left for domestic use. A simple government edit to ensure adequate is retained for Australians will solve that risk entirely.

    Example of poor wealth distrubution and how supply-demand has little to do with “whats right” or “job complexity” was heard on 6PR today – the drill-rog dishwasher and cooking staff (off the northwest shelf) have EBA wage agreements that provide them with ~$400,000 per annum income. How about that for re-distribution of wealth for a job that soooo worth doing?! Why not pay a teacher or a nurse or a decent climate scientist that much?

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Interesting how the troll posted it’s first fact and it is the infamous 97% of scientists agree… yes that was 55 of 57 scientists. How does that compare to the 31,000 that disagree? But somehow that 31,000 is insignificant compared to a cherry-picked 55 of 57?

    Care to play again?

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    @Lawrie (28)
    Ref:”
    There was an “expert” on John laws moments ago telling him and his audience that temperatures were rising at an alarming rate and that now was hotter than at any time since humans have been on earth.”
    .

    Is Get Up playing with a with Loaded Gun

    Get Up are launching proceedings with the Broadcast Watchdog to effectively try and stop one sided debates by radio ‘Shock Jocks’.

    The upshot of this action, to force broadcasters to present a balanced program, with both sides point of view, could well prove to be the equivalent of shooting themselves in the foot.

    Can you imagine it? Alan Jones presents his new show “Carbonated” with special guests – Tim Flannery and Bob Carter.

    There should be some Fizz in that one ;)

    00

  • #
    Cole

    Hey Joanne

    Great work keep it up.
    I’m trying to do my part to spread everything internationally but am running into a huge problems. A lot of non-English speaking countries are being left out and subsequently preyed on. They don’t even know that the 20 foot instant sea level rise from Gore’s movie has been debunked and abandoned. We need a way to communicate all of this stuff to them all of them. Is there any way to get it all the blogs translated? Any suggestions?
    Please E-mail me back

    Thanks
    Cole

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    @July (53)

    Ref:
    “The whole tax debate as far as I’m concerned is the democratic process in action”

    .
    July, I totally agree with your statement above, and I thank you for your new found support for the ‘No Carbon Tax Rally’ as an example of this democratic process in action.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Cross-post:

    The basic science that is generally accepted is very easy to explain. I can do so in short dot points:

    1) CO2 concentrations are increasing in the earth’s atmosphere.
    2) CO2 is a GHG (GreenHouse Gas).
    3) Mankinds CO2 emissions are increasing and contributing to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
    4) The direct temperature increase from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 1C.
    5) The climate changes naturally, has done for millenia and will continue to do so.

    There, not so hard really … all sensible scientists agree on these basic scientific concepts.

    Here’s the rub… in order to have a scenario that is worthy of climate (sic) action, one needs to paint a picture of dramatic climate change and resulting catastrophes. What scientists do not agree upon:

    A) That feedbacks within the climate system are positive or negative, let along their magnitude.
    B) The overall impact on the climate system of a doubling of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
    C) The effects of other exogenuous impacts on the climate system such as cosmic radiation and solar activity let alone endogenous variables such as clouds.

    Points A, B, and C are all interlinked to a degree and the relationships are NOT understood. Without understanding those relationships policy is being drafted in a vacuum of ignorance.

    I put it to you that it an obligation of the ABC to clearly explain the basic science as I have done, but the ABC seems to be far more focused on advocacy rather than science.

    At: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/25/3173608.htm

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Much has been made of the fact that the U.S. uses 25% of the world’s oil. True, but the U.S. is 25% of the wolds GDP so it makes sense. Until 1970 the U.S. was energy independent. Then, we started importing oil. The American dream was built on cheap and abundant energy. The green’s attempt to replace oil with supposedly cleaner, sustainable and environmentally friendly energy is a canard and a red herring. The whole point of a carbon tax is to make alternative sources of energy (windmills, biomass, ethanol, etc.) more competitive with hydrocarbons. Taxes and subsidies are the only thing that will sustain sustainable energy. Without picking the taxpayers’ pockets alternative energy as we know it would be consigned to the dustbin of history. The subsidizing of alternative energy will only decrease global energy security and create untold misery and suffering for the world’s poor. If these alternative sources of energy could compete with hydrocarbons the market would already reflect that reality. The United states has enough coal (which can be converted into oil or gas) petroleum and natural gas to be energy independent for centuries if the energy production from hydrocarbons was augmented with electricity from thorium nuclear reactors and coal burning power plants.

    Even if CAGW was a reality, and it isn’t, reducing anthropogenic CO2 to preindustrial levels would reduce by a mere fraction of a degree any warming that would occur. We would wreck the world economies, reduce the global standard of living and reduce the lifespan of all humans for no tangible gains. To do so would be insane. A lynchpin tenet of the theory of evolution is the survival of the fittest. Humans are the fittest and our first priority should be ourselves and nature’s interests should be subservient to ours. The greens believe it should be the other way around.

    If I were a green or a climate scientist I would put a bumper sticker on my bicycle or Prius which read, “What would Machiavelli do?”. The greens are an intolerant group of petty tyrants and hypocrites that would gladly trade a democracy for a dictatorship if it meant that their green animist religion would be recognized as the sole religion by the state. In essence, the green movement is an insidious abomination whose misanthropic leaders have committed heinous and wonton crimes against humanity and they must be held accountable and brought to justice. Unfortunately, the guilty sometimes go unpunished. I hope this is not one of those instances.

    00

  • #
    Elore

    Cleanwater #1

    - THAT IS A BRILLIANT POST – I highly recommend it.

    ‘FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS’
    International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275-364 , World Scientific Publishing Company,

    http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/23/2303/S021797920904984X.html

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Here is a transcript of that Bolt interview with the Flannery fool.

    You don’t have to be mad to believe in this green religious cult I suppose, but it certainly helps.

    Anyhow here it is a thousand years and counting folks, a mad journey with mad delusional Tim,July, MattB, Brookes etc.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mtr_today_march_25/#commentsmore

    As mad as hatters the lot of them.

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Taxing coal-based energy without first ensuring that there is a viable alternative source. Is like fineing people for not wearing seat belts, without first mandating that all cars must have seatbelts fitted.

    The tax won’t reduce CO2 emissions because there is alternative energy source.
    The energy companies have no serious reason to look for alternatives because they can pass the full cost of the tax on their customers.

    The customers have no reason to reduce energy use because the government is going to compensate them for the full cost of the tax.

    So who benefits?
    Mainly lots and lots of bureaucrats who the tax will churned through, as they administer the tax and compensation.

    Who will be the big losers?
    Mainly the salaried lower-middle-class, tradespeople and self-employed.
    Who won’t quite make the cut on compensation.
    In short the middle ground of the voting public, and Julia really believes they’ll stand idly by and allowed her to do this.

    00

  • #
    Binny

    NO alternative energy source

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    @ July 53

    July I would suggest that the claim that 97% of climate scientists are in agreement is probably the biggest lie in history. If you knew anything about science you would know that science is not done by consensus and that many scientists are afraid to speak out for fear of becoming unemployed and blackballed. The fact that you would employ the bandwagon fallacy absolutely does not shift the burden of proof which always rests on the proponent of a hypothesis. Thousands of skeptical scientists oppose the CAGW juggernaut and they back up what they believe with peer reviewed literature (despite the efforts at censorship), common sense and logic .

    By the way, just because you can’t make an intelligent argument doesn’t mean you are a complete idiot, just a troll.

    The whole effort to foist a carbon tax as far as I’m concerned is a blatant attempt to subvert the democratic process in action and I necessarily disagree with everything you say. Incredibly, you cannot make an intelligent argument but you ramble on with this anti-science stuff. It’s embarrassing for any country to appear to be hijacked by a few Luddites/Climate Catastrophists or what ever you want to call them. More importantly, it’s a distraction to the real debate which is how we deal with real problems such as hunger, disease and injustice.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Think that annoys me July is that when Abbott wins the next election on this carbon tax it will be used to say most aussies thing AGW is crap, wheras reality is the way she has introduced it is crap. I mean it is a big political risk to so blatantly reverse a clear election promise, and she will find it difficult to demonstrate that it is essential for Australia to act alone right now especially when pre-election she didn’t think that. I also don’t buy that Bob Brown has forced her in to anything, and even it he had then it is pathetic that she’d be so swayed just to stay in this tenuous government arrangement.

    I find it very frustrating that the ALP has been quite pathetic in implementing what was a bipartisan supported policy when Rudd won. It’s not Abbott’s fault for kicking Turnbull out and removing support, it is Rudd’s fault for pushing Turnbull so hard with the attraction of double dissolution. Totally lost the plot, to the extent that they will likely lose government and deliver us an equal turkey in Abbott as a PM.

    Sad times indeed in Oz politics. The lunatics really are running the asylum.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Hey Eddy, have you come round to being totally pantsed by me the other day?

    00

  • #
    John F

    Jo keep up your great work, finally Flannery has made a monumental gaff, this one will be hard to hide, I have been waiting, willing a blunder to come and I thing we have just heard it, It might just be the start of the end, might just start people to question, the US groundswell is huge against the scientists, I travel there regularly, Europe is wobbling, now calling it “Global Weather Extremes” dropped the warming as its now cooling, the CO2 is now causing the weather to heat and then suddenly cool What!!! We now need trillions to work out why its cooling. Trust Me.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    MattB

    The carbon tax is not about mitigating the earth’s future surface temperature, it’s all about destroying capitalism, or what’left of it.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    We now need trillions to work out why its(the Earth) cooling.

    What better way to get that money than a carbon dioxide tax?

    Sure CO2 is irrelevant but we need the money to research and publicize ways to manage the potentially catastrohpic cooling of the earth!

    00

  • #
    MattB

    As a capitalist I’m sorry to hear that Louis. I don’t agree. I do think that your opposition to the science is based on your belief that capitalism is the target, and that no amount of science would override your percieved threat to capitalism.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Finally Troglodyte Tim has come with a falsification for AGW. Too bad it will take a thousand years to confirm or rebut. In the meantime suckers, just keep on paying the imposts. It will come to pass, honestly…really….trust me on this, I’m staking my reputation(?) on it…would I lie to ya baby?

    00

  • #
    John Van Krimpen

    What I have never understood, is how abusing people some more qualified in science expertise was going to win an argument on measurement.

    This whole debate on one side is the most hate filled rubbish I have ever heard.

    We are watching the credibility of some of the most prestigious scientific organizations in modern history being destroyed.

    If this was a science fiction story I would just close the book as just too depressing.

    00

  • #
    brc

    MattB – you and others keep saying things like ‘the majority of Australians believe in human-caused catastrophic global warming’ and ‘the majority of Australians want action on climate change’.

    However I have not seen or heard any evidence to back this up. It might have been true after an ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was out and about. Rational friends of mine were having doubts at the time, even John Howard revoked his long-held skeptic tag. But that was definitely the high-water mark. Current polling shows it to be less than a third of Australians, and I think this is probably overstating it given the ‘fashionable’ stance of belief in CAGW and the crowds of greenshirts willing to yell at you if you state otherwise. The young greens/left movement has co-opted the union movements love of violence and intimidation so it’s easier to keep your trap shut and remain silent on the matter.

    And that’s just for the belief. As the recent polling shows, support drops off even more when people are asked to put their hand in their pocket and back their belief up with their own dollars.

    The fact is there has never been a widely distributed, correctly executed poll on the matter. Every single poll I have ever seen has had confusing/broad/leading questions, and is done either online (biased depending on site) or on a small sample size.

    So to me the question remains unanswered. But all indications are support for either the idea or the policy to address it is neither large, nor broad. If it was popular, Gillard could have announced an ETS or Carbon (sic) Tax at the last election and sailed home. Instead she promised a peoples committee and no carbon tax and squeaked home because of independents support.

    00

  • #
    Michael R

    @July – I note that you have bandied a term (97% of scientists) as a basis for the diatribe that follows and yet it appears that you have made no effort to actually look at that figure or where it came from. You may wish to follow this link that descibres the source of this claim and you can see – no matter which glasses you have on – that you may wish to not rely on this figure in any form of actual promotion of AGW.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/97-consensus-is-only-76-self-selected.html

    Most notably the following statement from the actual article itself:

    “(79 individuals in total)”

    That is you have 97% of 79 climate scientists agreeing. Considering that the estimate of how many climate scientists there are in the world range from 15,000 – 40,000, 77 odd people agreeing in one room would seem to have a lot more to say about who put the paper together because you could not get a much better example of using statistics to suit your own goals.

    Incidentally there is also a lot of confusion over the decision of many mainstream news outlets and politicians to refer to the whole argument as “climate change”. If you are talking about reducing CO2 emissions you are talking about preventing CAGW not preventing climate change. Consequently the term Climate Change Sceptic (or denier -.-) is meaningless.

    00

  • #
    Mack I Avelli

    July @53 As a regular reader of and infrequent contributor to this blog I am so grateful that you have graced us with your contributions. Your width of knowledge, grasp of Science and your wisdom ,not to mention your civility and manners, are breath taking to say the least.
    Just one point ,if I may, it is not unprecedented to have such a Scientific Consensus, as Copernicus and Galileo would attest to if they could.Nevertheless, welcome aboard and keep up the good work. It’s always interesting to listen to an organism whose age aligns with its intelligence quotient.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Another poll here for a week.

    http://www.ntnews.com.au/

    “SHOULD we have a carbon tax to help combat climate change?”

    Results as at 25/02/2011 15:30

    yes 17%

    NO 83%

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Pedant’s soapbox.
    MattB and anybody else (even JN!): i before e except after c.

    That clanking and rattling is me now putting on the Ned Kelly clobber! Oh crap, legs are exposed.

    00

  • #
    blackregiment

    Watch out for governmental laws such as “fair and balanced”, they normally silence the people’s voice. Freedom of press should also apply to the airways. We all Know ABC is fair and balanced [sac].
    America had the “fairness doctrine” for radio/tv but Reagan got rid of it, but progressives try to bring it back continually.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Mark if you were a pedant you’d have pinged me for starting with Think not Thing. Or any other flaw in my typo riddled entries of late:)

    00

  • #
    blackregiment

    Ooops! My above post was in reply to truenews(57)

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Are you correcting my spelling of science? Lol.

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    MattB:
    March 25th, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    Hey Eddy, have you come round to being totally pantsed by me the other day?

    You are a legend in your own mind, MattB. Your opinion is shared by two people, July and John Brooks. Although you are entitled to your opinion almost anybody who followed the thread will see that, as usual, when your feet were put to the fire you dodged the questions, contradicted yourself and and came off looking like a typical warmist. Maybe that would explain why I had so many thumbs up and you had so many thumbs down?

    00

  • #
    Gregg

    July,

    When people bring up the 97% of climate scientists statistic, all they are really saying is that they have no idea what they are talking about. Do you even know what questions the survey asked? They were so meaningless that over 97% of the commenters here would most likely have answered the same way. Don’t take my word for it. Actually look it up. I’m surprised that they found 2 climate scientists to dissent.

    I’m sure you’ve read and tried to understand RealClimate, SkepticalScience, and An Inconvenient Truth enough to think that you know what is going on. But you have no clue the vast amount of information that is out there. Since you have managed to find a site like JoNova, you should try to read and understand rather than just seeing everything as “blah, blah, blah.” Then you will be informed enough to make a comment.

    00

  • #
    July

    MattB @ 67. Spot on again MattB, can’t find anything I disagree with you there. A beacon of cool reason in a sea of unsubstantiated sludge.

    Eddy,Eddy, Eddy, so where is it? And please no more fake moon landing conspiracy theories.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    These warmist promoters of the global warming FRAUD make me laugh !!!

    They want to demonize Carbon yet their bodies and all other human beings as well, consist of between 18% to 19% of CARBON !!!!!!!!

    What a joke!!!

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Nice to see the two lovers “July” and “MattB” making kissy kissy posts to each other!

    How Sweet !!!

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    July:
    March 25th, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    MattB @ 67. Spot on again MattB, can’t find anything I disagree with you there

    id·i·ot noun \ˈi-dē-ət\
    Definition of IDIOT

    1
    usually offensive : a person affected with extreme mental retardation
    2
    : a foolish or stupid person
    3
    a troll named July

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Tim F has made WUWT – as “Quote of the Millenium”!

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    MattB @ #72

    It isn’t my opinion, it has been categorically stated so by politicians – it’s all about redistributing wealth of the west to the rest.

    And as far as the science is concerned, I am a professional scientist, well versed in the scientific method and I can tell you that CAGW is pseudoscience – and with the latest analysis by Steve McIntyre on Briffa et al, its now clearly fraudulent as well.

    00

  • #
    Alan

    Leave July alone, he/she can’t help it as you need a level head to dribble out both sides of your mouth at the same time and gives us all a laugh.
    By the way July is not one of the Lukes is it?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Damian your body overwhelmingly consists of water and I’d be more than happy to lend you some concrete shoes to you can spend some quality time getting to know yourself.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “It isn’t my opinion, it has been categorically stated so by politicians”

    lol. wow IT MUST BE TRUE. Can I guess who? Sarah Palin?

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Concrete shoes? Wouldn’t that increase your carbon “footprint”, Matt? ;)

    00

  • #
    John Smith

    Lets be clear here
    1. The Greens have very dangerous plans which include de-industrialisation of Australia.
    2. The Lamestream (is that right?) media are just cheerleaders promoting the fake scare called AGW.
    3. The environment is being used as a prop to implement Agenda XXI (21) which would literally mean tyranny.
    4. AGW is a giant fraud just like organised religion.
    In technical terms it is called a ‘Big Lie’.
    To quote a famous TV producer “Organised religion is a sham & a crutch for weak minded people who need strength in numbers.” Of course I’m referring to the false AGW religion.
    We have one insurmountable advantage that we need to use to the utmost if reason and logic are to prevail. The truth always wins over falsehood as long as we use it.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Not in the long term Eddy:)

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Ya Matt, who cares? After all, CAGW is a scam!

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    MattB

    How about the Canadian Environment minister of the socialist party?

    Incidentally who are the largest CO2 emitters in Australia? The state government power utilities. So what are you lot going to do, tax tax?

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    John Smith

    “The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.” – J. Goebbels

    That just about sums up the CAGW campaign.

    00

  • #
  • #
    MattB

    Louis the point is you’ve said it must be true a politiciam said it. Funny.

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    July #53

    July – Thanks for ignoring my comment to you about science at #42. Can you justify a carbon tax when the science shows no warming? And in case you didn’t believe the data about low CO2 sensitivity, how about looking up at the Sun then? If you graph any long term temperature dataset against the solar cycle length (SCL), and correct for volcanic cooling effects, you see a big correlation. You can try it yourself like I did, don’t even need to factor the volcanos, the relationship is strong even without the correction. Or you can read a peer reviewed paper instead, if you like.

    And what happened in the last 50 years, the Sun got all hot and bothered in SC22 and SC23 she did. So the temperature record peaked about the end of SC23, it did. And now, SC24 is the weakest solar cycle since the Dalton Minimum, and if you apply the same correlation you’ll see about 1 C of cooling coming along, you will. Amazing how cold and snowy it has been in the Northern Hemisphere these last 3 winters. All time cold records beaten, even. And snow records.

    Tell me this, will people vote for a political party who ignores the science to bring in a carbon tax to fix global warming when they have to trudge through unprecedented snow to vote?

    00

  • #
    connolly

    MattB @ 67
    You are having a rough couple of days. At the next Federal election the ALP/Greens axis will be thrown out of office. And the Carbon (sic) Tax will be as dead as a dodo. Basically the warmists are politically inept. Must be horrid for a warmist Thatcherite to see coal miners and their communities have a win?

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Though the various trolls here have nothing to contribute in terms of the science I think Jo having taken a democratic stand, contrary to the usual CAGC blogs including the ABC which exclude opposing viewpoints, gains merit by not removing these rather dull repetitive characters from this site.

    Of course Jo may be providing therapy for those like MattB and JB who it appears come here primarily to get put down with red ticks. Do these two trolls suffer from a masochistic disorder? Masochists may also have a grovelling respect for authority figures eg. the practitioners from the alarmist sect of climate science.

    Here is another authority on the subject who comes from a more rational position on climate science:

    “….And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.

    With all this at stake, one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased and that the case for such warming as was seen being due in significant measure to man, disintegrating. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, for more serious leaders, the need to courageously resist hysteria is clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence.”

    http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2229-richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action.html

    00

  • #

    So our Climate Commissar & eminent palentologist Tim Flannery say it will be 1000 years before any significant temperature change is noticed.

    First let’s just discount how much a chaotic system like the global climate system will change in 1000 yrs.

    Lets also discount how much our primary will change in 1000 yrs.

    And let’s discount how the geological structure of the planet itself will change in 1000 yrs.

    After all none of these factors could possibly effect natural variance in a cataclysmic climate shift driven by anthropogenic emissions of the most chemically available molecule of the element that is the building block of all life on this planet, that is only a trace gas in the composition of our atmosphers.

    Instead let’s look a a couple of salient points.

    Apart from the fact that computer models are analytical tools not empiracle evidence, we have only been collecting comprehensive data on climate for around 100 years. So we are using 100 yrs of data to proove a theory that will not see any effect for 1000 yrs due to the supposed slow rate of CO2 absobtion or conversion. It would seem to me that there is a serious flaw in this rationale, the MWP was alot less than 1000 yrs ago and the CO2 levels & temperatures were at times both higher & lower than what they are today in the interim, without the industrialisation that supposedly drives climate change. This would indicate the premise of the CAGW argument is seriously flawed. A computer model based on data spanning 10% of the expected change cycle is junk of the same grade as software packages you can purchase to help you predict lotto results.

    The other consideration is human development. We have developed alot in 1000 years and that expansion in knowledge & development continues to accelerate with time rather than in a linear progression. I would suggest, that within the next 100yrs we as a species will have solved the riddle of fusion power, if the advances being made at Livermore Labs & other research centres are anything to go by & would expect there is a fair chance that by the 1000yr mark cold fusion will have been prooven or diprooven, let alone the possibility that by the 1000yr mark we will have advanced enough in technology & knowledge to actualy be able to control climate & terraform not only our own solar system but we will have possibly journeyed to see what lies beyond our solar system and established our species beyond the bounds of our primary star.

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Bruce of Newcastle:
    March 25th, 2011 at 4:18 pm

    July #53
    July – Thanks for ignoring my comment to you about science at #42. Can you justify…

    Justify? July can’t even tie his own shoes! ;)

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    MattB

    And what makes you think the politicians are not running the CAGW agenda. Do you really believe that the scientists discovered this CO2 heating effect and who then went to the politicians to advise them we need to act on it?

    Heavens, if you believe in this then you’ll believe in anything.

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Wow, this debate is still going on?
    It must be just on the net and in the heads of the catastrafarian fan club, because almost everyone I’ve talked to about the. Carbon tax sees it for what it is – a money grab being pushed by bobs’ …self censored – no need to get down to mr brookes level…

    00

  • #
    Richard

    Hello Jo, I’ve been referring to your site for a while and trying to get a few people to understand what is actually happening, most sensible people seem to appreciate the links and information you post. When I referred the speech to one particular post this is what came back. It seems that not only are we deniers but you, and I presume the rest of us, are also in the same league as those that deny the moonlanding and 9/11. Is this the new mantra that AGW supporters have been given.
    See quote below:

    Can you do nothing other than cut and paste from a dodgy blog site?

    With all due respect it is my deeply held opinion that 99% of what is published on the JoNova Blog is a steaming a crock of stimpy. The site is about as reputable as all those websites that state that the airliner which was crashed into the Pentagon on 11 Sept 2001 was a hoax and that the 1968 Moonlanding was filmed on a Hollywood sound stage.

    Of course I know you are so firmly wedded to your view that no evidence, however compelling. will change your mind.

    If you feel the need to reply here is the link.

    http://www.ourpatch.com.au/australia/forums/environment/topics/1179-merchants-of-doubt-v-real-science?page=3

    00

  • #
    Popeye

    I find it VERY interesting to look at the timing of the two trolls (MattB & July) on this forum.

    They often respond within two minutes of a posting that they need/want to denigrate.

    Goes to show they have a lot of time on their hands so this must be a paid profession for them – but they won’t be in MacQuarie Street for much longer (teh heh) – they’ll have to move back to Canberra. I’m sure they also appear on other “Truth” sites such as Bolta and Piers etc trying the same stunts there under different names (maybe TBK, AS, Polyaulax, admiralcrazyhorse or any of the other trolls over there).

    Across all of these sites and for a long, long time I have yet to see ANY OF THEM answer the question so often asked of them (by a lot of people besides me)- so I’ll ask it YET AGAIN.

    July, MattB and anybody who thinks AGW is true – PLEASE PROVIDE PEER REVIEWED PROOF THAT MANMADE CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2)OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF CARBON DIOXIDE CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING!!!!

    We’re waiting – zzzzzzzzzz

    Cheers,

    [Don't lump Mattb with July. One is a real person. And anyone can set up a google alert to pick up new posts. Sorry I should send our more emails eh! -- JN]

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Andrew Bolt attempts to find out how much the Earth’s temperature will fall as a result of a carbon DIOXIDE tax……….

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mtr_today_march_25/

    Just like our Warmist friends on this blog, no answers are forthcoming!!

    What A Surprise!!!

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Richard@107

    I think the correct term for that one is deflection. Just ask them for their views on nuclear power or old growth forests, sit back and enjoy the show

    00

  • #

    Just a quick observation for everyones edification.

    Have a read of MattBs response at #72 to Louis Hissinks comment at #70.

    From that, you can deduce MattBs belief, that is, the Politicians of the UN and their beurocrats are so honest, forthright and dilligent that they have come up with not a 5 year plan, not a 10 year plan but a 100 year plan to take the globe into the next century.
    And here is me thinking most politicians were short sighted and only interested in getting elected at the next election.

    How does the UNs 100 year plan work? Give them about $220 billion per year and give them the power to control via regulations almost every single modern day activities of mankind.

    What’s there not to be sceptical about?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I honestly have no idea what your post has to do with my reply to Louis sorry Humbug.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Carbon not the same thing as CO2……..

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/carbon-not-the-same-thing-as-co2/story-e6frfig6-1226017312737

    JooLIER doesn’t seem to realize this important point!

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    The real agenda of the IPCC is Wealth Redistribution!!!!

    An interview by one of the top IPPC men given to NZZ am Sonntag on November 10 2010.

    Ottmar Edenhofer is a German economist who deals with climate change policy…….. He is currently professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Technical University of Berlin, co-chair of Working group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and deputy director and chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research…… In 2004 he was a lead author for the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President of the United States Al Gore.

    In the interview Edenhofer freely admitted that the goal of Climate Policy is to transfer wealth from the West to the Third World by imposing economy eviscerating carbon caps on the West.

    http://www.libertarianadvocate.blogspot.com/2010/11/ottmar-edenhofer-co-chair-of-uns-ipcc.html

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”

    http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html

    00

  • #
  • #
    connolly

    Matt @ 111
    You really are having a shocker. The key word in Humbug’s post is “deduce”. I know that you and July are clueless when it comes to critical thinking as distinct from arguing from source and authority but Humbug reasonably deduced, that is drew a conclusion from your statement (ie premise,) in your reply that you actually believe that carbon dioxide pricing will have some effect in mitigating global climatic temperature. A reasonable question. How about having a crack at answering it? Or perhaps in the absence of the inevitable obvious answer we can simply apply deductive logic whereby your inferred argument cannot possibly be valid because your conclusion is false ie. a carbon price will mitigate climatic warming.Is this too difficult for you petal?

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Richard @ 107:
    This is a common approach … to attack one’s enemies by ad hominem attacks. Oreskes is the most prominent of the ad hom front guard. It is what people do when they can’t answer your pointed questions about their “science”… like “show us the hot spot please.”

    In response to the hot spot debate it goes something like this:

    Us: Your models predict that surface warming will show even greater warming in the upper troposphere but none of the direct measurements (weather balloons or satellites) show this to be the case. Therefore your models are wrong.

    Them:
    Option A: The weather balloons were never designed to measure such subtle variations in temperature. Here’s a paper on wind shear that shows the hot spot.
    US: Next you are going to show me tree rings as evidence of the hot spot… Why on earth do you think wind shear is a better way of measuring temperature than thermometers?

    Them:
    Option B: No that’s wrong … here’s a paper that clearly shows the hot spot.
    US: You merely took a red crayon and re-coloured the non existant hotspot by tweaking the scales. Sorry but no amount of wacky weed can make me see what isn’t there.

    Or they start crapping on about how the hot spot is not a dedicated figerprint of AGW because any warming at the surface would generate a hot spot because of the adiabatic laps rate (sorry about the tech jargon). To which we say, but it simply isn’t there, so either your model is wrong, or your surface temperature measurements are wrong. Please feel free to pick one.

    And so it goes on…

    When the AGW models aren’t validated by the measured data they always look at the data first, because there is no way, no how, that their precious models could possibly be wrong. It is an arrogance that cannot be measured.

    Fact is, you can tell a good scientist because they are general humble folk. The humility comes from having their theories proven wrong through years of discourse in the arena of science. Whenever someone arrogantly profeses that the science is settled and beyond doubt, you know you aren’t talking to a scientist but an advocate. At that point it is a good idea to check for your wallet.

    00

  • #

    MattB: #111
    March 25th, 2011 at 4:52 pm

    I honestly have no idea what your post has to do with my reply to Louis sorry Humbug.

    I know you don’t MattB, I know you don’t.

    Hey, one day if we get a chance to have a beer together, I’ll explain it all to you.

    00

  • #
    July

    Re Mack @ 76.
    Well I’m not sure I’m any less civil than most others on this sludge site but frankly I don’t give a stuff about that. Those of a delicate disposition should probably take up knitting for the next few years because as someone said in the media the other day “this is gonna get brutal”. You know why? Because a lot of people (me included) have a lot of skin in this game and I am damned if I’m going to sit by and watch a bunch of ignorant cretins destroy the future of my children, grandchildren and the long term viability of my business (which is a farm, very climate sensitive they are). So, Mack old mate, if you are fragile & thin-skinned this is not the place to be. At least Nova, for all her faults, has the guts to slug it out and can take it on the chin. I suspect old Eddy might be a bit of a brawler as well. You might be best sitting this one out.
    (PS: you picked an odd name for one so delicate).

    (Your insults and your snotty attitude are wearing out our patience) CTS

    00

  • #
    Popeye

    July @53

    “You sir are a JOKE!!!”

    “Nova I would suggest that 97% of climate scientists all in agreement is probably unprecedented in history. If you knew anything about science you would know that trying to get a group of scientists to agree on anything is like herding cats. The fact that 97% of real climate scientists all agree on this issue is absolutely a shift in the burden of proof. A few squawking recalcitrants don’t debunk it especially when they can’t back up anything they say.”

    Now here’s a test for you!!

    Tell us exactly the number of climate scientists in the world and then tell us how many agree with AGW and how many don’t (That part’s just simple maths).

    Then you can enlighten us all with the names of all of the denialists and that numbe should match the “don’ts above.

    Think of it as just a bit of homework – you may even get paid overtime for it.

    Clock’s ticking!!!

    Cheers,

    00

  • #
    Neville

    July I find it hard to believe that you are a farmer, perhaps you’re a hobby farmer on half an acre or so?

    BTW you don’t have to worry about your kids or grand kids according to silly Tim because you have to look forward a 1000 years or more.

    I’ve never met a real farmer who believes in CAGW, some good conservationists for sure, but I’ve never met one with your stupid fanatascism and need to belong to a mad religious cult.

    Oh well some weak minded fools will believe in anything I suppose.

    I think Sam Harris says it best when he says you shouldn’t believe in anything without sufficient evidence.

    00

  • #

    July: #123
    March 25th, 2011 at 5:47 pm

    long term viability of my business (which is a farm, very climate sensitive they are).

    Growing 4 heads of lettuce and a half a dozen cucumbers in your inner city balcony planter doesn’t qualify as a farmer.
    No farmer I know is as rude and obnoxious as you. They tend to be humble people because nature periodically knocks the stuffing out of them despite technologically advanced farming practices, machinary etc.

    Also, most farmers (old ones especially and generational ones) know from experience that weather conditions change periodically over the decades and nothing they’ve seen recently is unprecedented.

    And being down to earth people, they tend to have well calibrated bullshit detectors.

    Somewhat akin to climate science, I’d hazard a guess that you July, are a pseudo-farmer.
    JULY YOUR A WOMAN

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    Just watched the Geelong love in.If that is the level of debate then what is the point.

    00

  • #
    G/Machine

    OMG
    “July” is talking of having children. And grandchildren.

    From the tone of it’s posts, the internet would be the only forum in
    it’s sad life where anyone listens or reads anything it says

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    July #123

    Glad to see you are still with us. I’m glad also that you are not interested in the science, since that means you must adhere to the catastrophic anthropological global warming (CAGW) hypothesis for ideological reasons, or perhaps religious ones? I would be pleased for you to show I am wrong by citing some science (hint: RealClimate, SkepticalScience and Deltoid don’t cut it, but Geophys. Res. Letts., and the like, does).

    While you are thinking about this you may want to look at the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which being cyclical are estimated to swing global temperature by about 0.27 C on a sinusoidal 65 year wavelength. Are you aware these peaked close to 2000 AD? And because of their 65 year cycle time they previously bottomed out in 1900 AD? So that 0.27 C of the apparent warming in the 20th Century was illusory due to the endpoints of the sine wave? You can easily test this by fitting a sine curve to HadCRUT v3, should you desire.

    As mentioned, I await your reply to this science, which suggests that taxing CO2 to save the world will have the sole effect of trashing jobs, the economy and the ALP in that rough order.

    00

  • #

    Neville.

    “I’ve never met a real farmer who believes in CAGW”

    I have, and one thing stands out about them all, they have no connection to the land, they are all first generation farmers who got sick of the grind in the city & farming isn’t in their blood or part of their nature. You will find them in the cocktail bars of country pubs rather than in the beer gardens or public bar with those who have worked the land for generations. July strikes me as one of those.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Those farmers need to elect better representatives:
    http://www.nff.org.au/read/1204/climate-change-threat-must-be-tackled.html

    Serioulsy what a couple of bogus sentimental hogwash posts about farmers from Paul and Bah.

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    @Baa Humbug: (114)

    Ref:
    “How does the UNs 100 year plan work?”
    .

    The UN’s 100 year plan was developed so that they could accurately measure global warming. Apparently the thermometers they have at the moment can’t measure in 1/1000′s of a degree so they are going to take temperature readings every 100 years and measure the change in 1/10′s of a degree instead.

    I think Kevin Rudd suggested the plan to them last year when he was looking for a ‘job with prospects’.

    I don’t know whether the UN thought his additional $4 billion contribution to foreign aid was enough to buy the job, only time will tell.

    I hope they employ him soon so we can have a ‘bye bye’ election and change the face of this government.

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    @MattB: (131)

    Farmers eh!

    Did you know that before the ETS was introduced in New Zealand, the Farmers had worked out that a Sheep would cost them Carbon Credits, and planting trees would earn them Carbon Credits.
    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out what was about to happen.

    To avoid the mass slaughter of sheep, the NZ Government temporarily exempted agriculture from the ETS.

    I think Gillard is going to do the same and exempt agriculture from the Carbon Tax – at least now you know WHY.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    This is a great read. Got from a comment on Milne’s piece at abc.

    http://grogsgamut.blogspot.com/2011/03/on-qt-i-am-confected-with-outrage.html

    also the Milne opinion piece:
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45620.html#comments

    00

  • #
    July

    Well the farmer thing has certainly touched a nerve. I’m genuinely puzzled, what’s that all about? I only mentioned it so you might understand my motivations.
    You lot only ever met the rednecked feral variety of farmer? There’s plenty of them I know but we’re not all like that thankfully. Some of us can look beyond our next can of VB.
    Like I said before I got skin in this game so I’m going fight my corner.
    Nev @ 125. Glad you mentioned Sam Harris, I’m a great fan, read just about every book he’s written. Which is partly why I swing the way I do. Mountain of evidence all pointing towards AGW on one hand. Junk science on the other. Go figure.
    Nev, you need to get out there in the country more old mate, they are there.
    For what it’s worth PaulM, 5th generation and hoping to pass it into the 6th and 7th. If there’s anything left to pass on. The greed, selfishness and downright stupidity of some of the current generation sometimes make me want to weep. You lot wouldn’t give up anything would you to ensure the future has some hope of prosperity?

    00

  • #
    July

    Baa Humbug @126.
    WTF!!?? “JULY YOUR A WOMAN”
    I’m no fan of Julia Gillard, believe me, but that might be a case of “gross sexism”? What difference does it make, unless of course you are a sexist bogan feral? Come to think of it, now I see why it matters!
    Beat you to it G/Machine, already got em.
    Once again MattB is right on the money. Yes we certainly do need to elect better reps. We’ve got Bananaby who occasionally has a fit of inspiration and makes sense but is pretty loopy. Then there’s Mad-Bob Katter, the second most brainless politician ever elected to an Australian parliament. Guess who’s first?? Well it’s a no contest I know, you guessed……..Steve Fielding. Guess what, Steve also thinks AGW is a communist plot. But then guys he is also a creationist, bible bashing…….. My case rests.
    (you’ve got some talent on your side with Pauline and Steve, the dream team of cretinism.)

    00

  • #
  • #
    David

    July, MattB and JB – Thanks Jo for the new internal blocker of comments – now I don’t have to view the garbage that these three deal out every second of the day on your blog site!

    Back to “We are being Deceived” – great article!

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    July #135

    Are you thinking you might discuss some science yet? Twenty years ago did you think, like I did, that ulcers were due to stress? And they could be controlled using magnesium carbonate and milk? And that pretty much everyone including most medical scientists did too?

    Note now how much money the pharmaceutical companies make from ulcer medication, and the vast number of patentedTM ulcer cures on show in your local pharmacy. They make nothing because of one Aussie who ignored the “Mountain of Evidence” and tested his hypothesis, which was that bacteria were the cause. That entire industry of quack ulcer cures has disappeared because one guy did not keep to the consensus for the sake of money or prestige or tenure, but was a scientist, a real one.

    Now read Spencer & Braswell 2010 and consider that CO2 is a warming gas in the same way that an millipede is a very powerful creature. You will need some effort, the paper is not for the faint of heart.

    00

  • #
    Cookster

    Neville@#125

    Yes, I noticed the 1,000 year claim from Flannery. I guess he’s just publicised yet another unfalsifiable aspect of western climate science?

    00

  • #
    Mack I Avelli

    July,@123
    Kind person,you denigrate me when I shower you with praises. What oh what could I have done to earn your displeasure. I seek not confrontation but courteous discourse. Whilst I sit here with my Knitting,as the tumbrills roll by, Galileo and I are wondering what was the point of your,dare I say,aggressive comments,especially when you did not adress the problems he and Copernicus had with the “Scientific Consensus.”Perhaps we are all thin skinned Cretins that struggle to cope with your unbounded stunning genius.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Friends:

    Please stop responding to the “July” spam bot. “July” is probably one of the Luke Cabal who have made an art of destroying rational discussion on blogs.

    In his/her/their/its posts in this thread “July” has demonstrated no manners, no sense and no understanding of climate science. So, let “July” spew his/her/their/its bile but ignore him/her/them/it. A return to discussion instead of flaming can then occur.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Flattery’s admission that it would take about 1000 years for the temperature to start dropping if humanity ceased it’s CO2 emissions now confirms that CAGW isn’t a scientific theory. Scientific theories have to be testable and CAGW theory can’t by assertion by one of it’s more famous proselytizers.

    Stupid is as stupid does.

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    What I’d like to know, is:-

    How does the eponymous Al get him name on just about every scientific paper ?

    Could it just be the luck of the Irish – et al et al ?

    00

  • #
    Mack I Avelli

    RSC @ 141 I respect your contributions all over the blogosphere, I will accept your advice even if I thought I was having some fun teasing a thick headed troll.

    00

  • #

    July:#136
    March 25th, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    unless of course you are a sexist bogan feral?

    haha haha amazing how sensitive you are sweetheart. fancy you accusing others of being fragile and thin skinned.

    Throughout these threads you’ve been rude and abusive, you’ve accused people of being luddites and creationists, accused Jo of bitching and stated that Pauline Hansen might be her spiritual leader. In short you’ve been nothing but an obnoxious a$$hole.

    Yet I say “July you’re a woman” and you get all sensitive and call me a bogan feral hahahahaha

    By the way, google Pat Boone and July you’re a woman. It’s quite a good song. Every time I read your name, I recall that song, so I thought I’d test you out just a little by adding it to the end of my post.
    As expected, you immediately jumped to self preservation with accusations.

    If you’re a 5th generation farmer, then I’m the King of England.
    I’d suggest you’re a 5th generation lemming wanker.

    JULY YOU’RE A WOMAN Thanx for the entertainment

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    On brc ‘s excellent suggestion on troll handling. @

    51brc:
    March 25th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
    Don’t ban ‘em. just ignore ‘em.

    Might I suggest taking it slightly further.
    When the volume of troll contribution interferes with the flow , the Moderators might just highlight it as such, with eg. Troll Markers, for the benefit of everyone. Of course ridicule is a dangerous form of censorship, like shouting down, and you can just imagine it in the hands of some warmists, but ultimately it’s fairer & more transparent than simply deleting and allows the
    alleged troll’s message be seen but flagged as such, so we dont all have to read numerous posts to work it out

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    I learned long ago that temperature data is NOT science.
    It is a man made concept for creature comforts of knowing when to wear shorts or dress warm. It still will not predict precipitation or weather fronts.
    So, while scientists are on this folly, I’m looking at real physical evidence from the past. This is a great deal of unpublished material due to the way our system has generated the peer-review system of following a criteria and a mathematical formula. Also a man made concept.
    Since no one has followed this route, I have made great stride in understanding this planet and solar system without the assistance of peer-reviewed material. The problem with this route, is that I have a great deal of new research material that will NOT be publishable due to the system in place.

    00

  • #
    howdumbareyou

    CO2 feeds plants.

    You fail to consider the effect of increased flooding, higher temperatures causing drier soil, increase in insects that thrive in higher temps and and increase in weeds.

    So yeah, we are being decieved – by you!

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Original Author unkown:

    Imagine 1 kilometer of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon dioxide in it created by human activity. Let’s go for a walk along it.

    The first 770 meters are Nitrogen.

    The next 210 meters are Oxygen.

    That’s 980 meters of the 1 kilometer. 20 meters to go.

    The next 10 meters are water vapor. 10 meters left.

    9 meters are argon. Just 1 more meter.

    A few gases make up the first bit of that last meter.

    The last 38 centimeters of the kilometer – that’s carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot.

    97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.

    Out of our journey of one kilometer, there are just 12 millimeters left.
    Just over a centimeter – about half an inch.

    That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the
    atmosphere.

    And of those 12 millimeters Australia puts in .18 of a millimeter.

    Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometer!

    As a hair is to a kilometer – so is Australia’s contribution to what the PM calls Carbon Pollution.

    Imagine Brisbane’s new Gateway Bridge , ready to be opened by the PM.
    It’s been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that the PM says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted – there’s a human hair on the roadway.
    We’d laugh ourselves silly.

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    How could 97% of real scientists be in agreement about anything so unpredictable ? Such claims just show themselves up to be little more than slogans, contrived to have an effect, while they betray either the guille or gullibility on those espousing them.

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Joe V 149,

    It’s called government grants and the more exposure, the bigger the grant to the institution. This is why institutions back up these guys.

    00

  • #

    The Carbon tax is a bitter pill we are all being asked to repeatedly swallow for all time to ‘cure’ a otherwise unknown disease… Its the ultimate snake oil.

    The acid test of if they can get away with this will be the vote in NSW tomorrow. Firstly Labor look likely to find out their new direction is down and out. Good riddance; the only good they have done is clearly defining the type of government people do not want.

    Secondly, the percentage vote the Greens end up with will be most telling. I’m personally just itching to tear a metaphorical strip out of any Green party hacks at the voting station tomorrow.

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Re:
    150Joe Lalonde:
    March 25th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
    Joe V 149,
    It’s called government grants and the more exposure, the bigger the grant to the institution. This is why institutions back up these guys.
    Liked it? 1  0

    Do you mean that Scientists
    aren’t the free-thinking
    pursuers after truth
    I Imagined them to be?

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Maybe I’ll have to change my mind…… The trolls have taken the helm.

    If you haven’t noticed already take a read of how many times they have slipped in comments about 911, moon landings and other stuff Jo has NEVER posted on!

    All in favor of moderating “July”, vote thumbs up here:

    (lets see democracy in action)

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    I think July is an aid in exposing the cause of the CAGW scam.
    It is my long held theory that CAGW did not come about because of corruption, graft and dishonesty.
    Public acceptance arrived solely because of stupidity.

    You have a demonstration of my theory in action.

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    @153Mark D.:
    March 25th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
    Maybe I’ll have to change my mind…
    ………All in favor of moderating “July”, vote thumbs up here:
    (lets see democracy in action)
    Liked it? 2  0

    Much as I’d like to see all July’s posts & all references to them, removed:

    Beware the dictatorship of the majority.

    Let the nutters speak themselves into oblivion (unless they’re OT , of course).

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    154incoherent rambler:
    March 25th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
    ……..
    Public acceptance arrived solely because of stupidity.
    ……..
    Liked it? 0  0

    No, the CAGW hypothesis may have come about because of genuine concern, but too many interests are now hooked on it’s seeming limitless capacity to garner tax dollars.
    Indifference has probably more to do with it than stupidity, & steal th taxing is about maintaining indifference.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Another Ian @ 16

    It’s mildly obscene but the AGW’s abuse of science and logic is more so. Continuing from your poem:

    We’re burning all these fossil fuels, we’re burning quite a lot,
    The gas goes up all in the air, and now it’s getting hot.
    But can we prove our story, oh prove it, yes we can,
    So here’s our first narrator, let’s hear it, Michael Mann…

    You heard the Vikings went to Greenland, and stayed on there for years,
    But the climate went all chilly, and it ended all in tears.
    “Which isn’t true”, says Michael Mann, “Just check my hockey stick”;
    A most dubious assertion, from a mann who couldn’t find his dick*…..

    * Dick (aka dique) – an obscure scholarly term, original unknown, referring to an academic’s supporting documentation and data in support of their thesis*. A necessary tool.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    * I might have just made that bit up…:)

    00

  • #

    July.

    “You lot wouldn’t give up anything would you to ensure the future has some hope of prosperity?”

    As I have stated before on this blog, amongst the studies I have done in my life I studied Horticulture & worked as part of the national team developing predictive software to assist farmers in decision making.

    I also gave up 8 years of my life to serve this nation as a military officer to help secure our freedoms & prosperity.

    For many years I gave my weekends clearing noxious weeds from riverbanks & replanting native grasses & trees native to the area and am a firm believer in conservation, better land use practices and better cropping practices/stocking practices to reduce environmental damage & help reduce the intervention needed to maintain productive land.

    In my current business I give up my time free of charge to provide IT support for community centres & disadvantaged schools as well as running free training courses in computer maintenance, and the use of word processing & email applications.

    I understand full well the dictates of duty & service, as they are examples set for me by my parents and garandparents. I am always willing to sacrafice my own comfort & forgo my own pleasures to help others who have asked for my assistance & have never asked for anything in return. I do these things because I can, not for what I can gain from it.

    The last thing anyone who knows me would accuse me of is greed, selfishness or stupidity. And the one thing that they would is my willingness to accept the validity of anothers viewpoint given there is no details that invalidate their viewpoint.

    The proof of CAGW is garnered from computer models, and as I have stated before, a computer model is an analytical tool not empiracle evidence. I know this because I have programmed computer models. The single truth in modelling is that the more assumptions that are put in to the model, the less valid the projections they produce. Professor John Christie (a lead IPCC author) recently admited that the climate models exagerate the warming trend. Our own scientists on expidition in Antarctic waters have reported their surprise at the occurence of plankton blooms & many other occurences in areas where great chunks of ice had broken away because their models didn’t predict the occurences. Providing more proof that the models are based on incomplete science & assumptions based on this incomplete knowledge. As a modeller I class them as junk models because of the fact they are based on assumptions that show how little they understand about the systems they study. Scientists aren’t infalible & science is never settled. If a scientist says there is certainty they cease to be a scientist & become an advocate. Science is based on skepticism not consencus, and proof of a theory is based on empiracle observed data and must be able to be replicated & open to falsification. Any scientist that refuses to acknowledge that uncertainty exists in any field of study isn’t a true scientist, merely a rentseeker with an academic background.

    Einstein said it best “It doesn’t take 100 opinions to proove me wrong, only a single fact”. That is supposed to be at the heart of all science, not certainty & consencus & most certrainly not computer models.

    Will Stephen came out with the BS analogy of air travel, if 98 of 100 engineers said a plane wouldn’t fly would you get on it, my response would be, what do the rest think, what is the basis of your assumption & can I have a look at your data and analysis methods including assumptions & levels of uncertainty to make a fully informed decision.

    All such attempts to obtain these exact things from climate scientists about their models & projections have been rejected rendering their opinions null & void. You may be willing to accept their word & their models as proof of concept, myself and a large proportion of others are not.

    In a court of law this would be called the assumption of facts not in evidence & would result in the case failing. So it is with true science.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Paul M

    You are right – a frighteningly high proportion of the IPCC “science” is based on computer modelling. Disturbingly, a lot of people are gullible enough to be sucked in by this stuff. As you mention, a computer model is only as good as its basic assumptions – otherwise it becomes no more than a mathematical expression of the author’s ignorance and bias.

    The story I like most is the quote about the UK Met office wanting a bigger supercomputer. The justification for this was so that they could get wrong answers, faster.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    PaulM:@160 says

    Will Stephen came out with the BS analogy of air travel, if 98 of 100 engineers said a plane wouldn’t fly would you get on it,

    It was the woman not Stephen who made the analogy and a more stupid one you could not get.Aircraft engineers do not make statements about aircraft crashing.They use their training and experience to determine if an aircraft is fit for flight.It just showed how little the woman new about aircraft.Aircraft engineers don’t use computer models to determine aircraft crashing the use observation something that seems to be sadly lacking in the climate science.Oh and you only need 1 aircraft engineer to say the aircraft won’t fly it is not done by consensus .

    00

  • #
    Cam

    July, if you’re goal is to “educate” people on AGW, I strongly suggest crafting comments with maybe a little bit of wit, instead of blurting out insults and false statements. “Junk science”? You might as well said “if you don’t agree with me, then you’re wrong.”

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Jo

    Just a query. Your comment back at 111 to Popeye draws a distinction between 2 of our resident trolls. You mention that one of them is a real person – which one? And what is the other?

    Cheers,

    Speedy.

    00

  • #

    Speedy: Mattb is one of the rare breed – John Brookes being another — of AGW fan who use their real name. Both of these two earn some respect for that. I welcome their comments (mostly) and defend them here. I have no respect for the cowards who toss trash from behind a vaporous moniker.

    July is anonymous (obviously and with a gmail email) — which begs the question, if AGW is the dominant paradigm, right, true, and favoured by the government, bureaucrats, bankers and fashionable politically correct people everywhere, is there any incentive at all for people to hide behind pseudonyms? Answer – yes, if they work for big-renewable, or say, CSIRO, or the BOM, (less likely with those who just throw cheap insults like July does) or possibly they are the $7/hour kind. He said he was a farmer…

    July, if you really believe what you say, you can reveal your real name. Otherwise, expect your posts to get snipped a lot — but we’re good sports — we’ll leave in all the factual polite material, and just delete the unsubstantiated insults, OK?

    But if it gets too boring for the volunteers who are moderators — rest assured, I have no fear at all of being called “biased” by a no-name coward. Please lift your standards.

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    July:
    March 25th, 2011 at 7:30 pm

    I suspect old Eddy might be a bit of a brawler as well.

    Yep, and you are now my site bitch! Don’t worry July, I will “protect” you from the other commenters and make sure they don’t “hurt” you! ;)

    00

  • #

    Speedy.

    In general I wouldn’t say they are gullible. Not fully informed & lacking an understanding of science & the scientific method, most deffinitely. If on the other hand they have training in science and accept the word of scientists & the projection of their models or the prognostications of economists then they are most surely gullible.

    When they trot out terms like denier, extremeist, disreputable and all the other ad-hom attacks because others don’t agree with them, then they show themselves to be intellectualy barren & morally bankrupt. When the best defence of their views they can muster are personal attacks & insults they have already lost the argument and simply want to shout down opposing views. They aren’t concerned about logic, reason or science based on observation, they simply want to force their belief on others because of their own flaws & insecurities & the more strident & viscious their attacks the greater their flaws & insecurities. Those that use the Lovejoy defence are the worst as they abandon any semblence of logic & reason and base their opinions on emotion & project base motives & assumed guilt on their opponents. They think they are clever when in fact they are sad & pathetic. There are no insights to be had & nothing to be gained by engaging with these type of people.

    It is a sad day for our nation that such people now occupy the highest offices, the treasury benches and walk the halls of academia in this country.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    MattB @43.

    The govt is introducing a tax, with a modest target of CO2 emission control. You still with me? The hope is that internationally a larger target will be agreed with countries working towards a rate of emissions that will limit Temp rise ro 2degrees C.

    Actually lowering temperatures within say 200 years is pretty much beyond the wildest dreams of even the most optimistic scientist.

    You don’t seem to understand the difference between lowering emissions and lowering atmospheric concentrations. The latter being far more difficult.

    What a waste! Mushy words like hope and beyond wildest dreams don’t strike me as having anything to do with science. It’s just wishful thinking.

    If the latter (reducing atmospheric concentration) is not the goal of the former (reducing emissions) then why do the former? It has no purpose.

    And are you aware that if Australia sank into the ocean tomorrow and disappeared, there would be too little impact on the CO2 level to make any difference? And are you aware that most of the world is not willing to go along with Australia?

    It’s the same old junk science as before. But you’re more loquacious than ever.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    I vote against snipping July, the troll formerly known as Luke.

    We all know who he is. He’s the authoritarian face of orthodoxy, intolerant and full of hatred for anyone who dares to engage in rational inquiry. He’s the darkness that has descended upon our a nation. He’s a measure of how far we have fallen as a people away from the ability to think and express ourselves freely. He’s what this debate is really all about. He what we have to prepare ourselves to confront in the real world.

    He’s less a troll than a messenger from our future bearing extremely bad news. Not about weather, but about where we could end up as a nation.

    We don’t need to be protected from arguments for climate orthodoxy… By definition, anyone who now passionately embraces CAGW has no rational argument left. If you snip all their arguments from fallacy or bile, there ain’t gonna be nothing left, folks. Better to study how to deal with bile and intolerance directly rather than to delete it and pretend it doesn’t exist. It’s only going to get much worse before it gets better.

    Read anything from Tim Flannery lately? Can’t snip Tim! What about Ross? Can’t Slip Ross. Combet? Please Snip him if you can! But you can’t.

    Besides…

    Why would anyone wish to help conceal the most egregious Warmist bile from public display? Don’t expect the favour returned from the Warmists!

    One dumb ass turns up at anti-carbon tax rally with a stupid sign and the ABC spends the next two days making it the top story, smearing the protest as sexist extremist scum before a national audience of tens of millions of listeners and viewers…

    Yet when some ignorant Warmist shows up here to document and exhibit the intolerance and mindless hypocrisy we face daily, you people want to help cover it?

    Please, spare us the favour.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “If the latter (reducing atmospheric concentration) is not the goal of the former (reducing emissions) then why do the former? It has no purpose.”

    Roy, have you ever used the brakes in your car… hint they don’t make you go backwards.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Guys – I STARTED that moon landing thing the other day, but it was a JOKE taking the proverbial about the non-regular probably warmist poster.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    MattB

    Seems the joke backfired?

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Another Ian (again)

    Continuing on from your 16, and my 159

    Thankyou Mr. Michael Mann, and now we’ve got some more,
    Here he is, the man himself, (almost) President Al Gore.
    A most distinguished person, with the talents he brings here;
    He’s got mental constipation and some verbal diahorrea.

    And now, it’s very serious, so promise not to laugh,
    The Man is showing us a big enormous graph.
    The Vostok data clearly shows, we should be all aware,
    That CO2 makes things warmer – even when it isn’t there!

    Parody of the warmists is pretty easy – you just have to quote them.

    Cheers,

    Speedy.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    ….

    And here’s Professor Flannery, who knows without a doubt,
    That CO2 makes floods and fires, pestilence and drought.
    It’s CO2 that did it all, and will do it all again;
    “The worst is yet to come”, he says – he just can’t tell us when.

    00

  • #

    MattB said

    Sad times indeed in Oz politics. The lunatics really are running the asylum.

    I don’t think you’ll hear any disagreement from any side of the debate or political leaning on that one!!

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    @wes george: (169)

    Spot on

    Remember the old adage – Keep your friends close but keep your enemies even closer.

    00

  • #

    Slightly off-topic, but at Chris Uhlmann’s article about the protests I spotted a familiar phrase.
    (Screen shot just for posterity, you know.)
    Last I heard, the AGW supporters were trying to dissociate themselves from those four inconvenient words.Could be someone’s fallen off the mailing list.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Reference 173, 174 and “Another Ian” at 16”

    And here is Doctor Hansen, with his latest, baddest news,
    All in strong but strange conformance to the latest, trendy views.
    Now, I wouldn’t ever, ever call him wrong, or say his judgement’s incorrect -
    It’s just his calls are always better, when they’re made in retrospect…

    Ian – if it’s OK with you I’ll collate these and we can post them later in one piece.

    Cheers,

    Speedy.

    00

  • #
    David

    Jo – please come and help us out here in the UK – we of the 1.84% of total global CO2 emissions – because our ‘greenest government ever’ is still blundering on with windmills; ‘base price for carbon’; and all the other drivel.
    You really covered all bases in your article/speech – so why aren’t the pollies LISTENING..??
    There’s a wonderful quotation attributed to Richard Burton, which I reckon could equally apply to the whole AGW movement:
    ‘Show a Welshman 1001 exits, and he will take the one marked ‘self destruction’…

    00

  • #

    Reason for hope: the Greens took a whacking in the NSW election yesterday.
    From Andrew Bolt:
    The swing to the Greens, even when Labor voters deserted their party in their hundreds of thousands, was just 1 per cent.

    00

  • #
    Connolly

    Gregoryno6 @180
    In the steel and coal mining regions it was a Green slaughter. They lost votes. And so did the ALP in the coal and steel heartlands. Hey Greg was that a wake up call?

    00

  • #

    Connolly, forgive my lack of subtletly, but…

    00

  • #
    Elore

    Having managed to obtain a copy of the paper

    ‘FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS’
    International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275-364 , World Scientific Publishing Company,
    http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/23/2303/S021797920904984X.html

    I would like to make a disclaimer/insert a caveat on my comment in #62.
    This paper is big (120 pages), and while the title sounds very interesting, I am still working through the content to verify the accuracy of its argument.

    00

  • #
    Gbees

    Rodzki:

    Run that by me again. The Brisbane rally had a ‘Ditch the Witch’ sign? I know there was one in Canberra. So were these signs planted?

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Another Ian – you’ve created a monster I’m afraid…

    It’s hello Comrade Gillard,and another tax you’ll see
    She’s sadly mostly bankrupt, and not just moral-ly.
    She’s clueless how this tax would work, that that’s no cause for fear
    To quote the late great King Canute – “It’s still a bloody good idea.”

    00

  • #
    Mark

    There’s a witches brew a’happening in Canberra and it’s hard to tell where it’s gonna lead.

    Joolya is now trying to make us think that she doesn’t really like her political bedfellows. Bob Brown (the Green who’s really “Red”) is making veiled threats.

    Tony Windsor has told Joolya that he won’t have a bar of her poker machine bill. Reckons it’s unworkable, which is true. Wilkie from Tassie will chuck a “wobbly” about this.

    Wonder if the political implications of the NSW slaughter is hitting home with some of her backbenchers. We truly live in “interesting times”.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Simmo

    i’ve had it as well – used to recycle – now i’m paying for CO2 i’m going to get my money’s worth – i’m burning everything flammable in my recycling bin and the rest can got into landfill.

    00