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

Yes, it IS about the science

Behind-the-scenes I’ve heard the line this “isn’t about the science”. I said that myself back in 2007: it’s not about the science, it’s about power and money. But it’s a dangerous meme. In the long run, it IS about the science.

While people think a carbon tax is bad, but believe that “carbon is pollution”, we have won a battle but lost the war.

Many new folk are appearing on the anti-carbon tax team, and here’s the weird thing for we seasoned skeptics, some of these oppose the tax, yet “believe” the science (?!) “It’s too hard” they say. They seem to think if we just beat the tax, we can ignore the reason the tax is supposedly there in the first place.

The science is the whole official reason for the tax, and if we don’t force the crowds to notice the corruption, the cheating, and the way science is exploited, then we are asking to be bludgeoned with it again. We are letting the most outrageous scam-meisters leave the room with their reputations intact and asking to be victims of the next invented crisis.

Some anti-carbon-taxers say, “Don’t confuse the punters”, just stick to the economics. And don’t misunderstand me, that’s the top-ranking point, and I’m the one who posted the definitive IPCC most generous temperature calculation, and said this is a knockout blow. But the war on our civilization is so much bigger than just one battle over one piece of legislation.

Science might seem hard to explain, but you don’t need a PhD to understand cheating. People know that publicly funded scientists ought not hide publicly funded information, and dodge FOI’s. They know that thermometers don’t measure global warming when they’re five feet above concrete, or next to warming air conditioner exhausts. They know that if carbon rises after temperatures, Mr Al Gore was not giving them the full story.

They need to know they are being deceived

While people think a carbon tax is bad, but believe that “carbon is pollution”, we have won a battle but lost the war. It’s not much of an achievement to stop this tax, but leave intact the infrastructure, the departments, the associations, and the dismal standards in our schools, newspapers, and ABC. As long as enviro-activists-masquerading-as-journo’s are the only ones explaining “science”, the West will be weakened and real environmental problems will go ignored. Until we get logic and reason into our universities and public discussion, the bullying, name-calling, distracting, and intimidation will still win debates before they even begin.

And besides, it allows the taxers to argue “we’re doing it to save the planet”, which is a powerful argument unless you are aware that their “science” is corrupted. The hip-pocket argument ignores the fact that many good citizens want to do the right thing — even if it costs them.

Highlighting the costs will catch people’s attention, but the outrageous lies and deception of the science will make them angry. If the public are furious, they’ll be motivated to act to stop the next scam, the next scare, to clean up the corruption of the peer review process, and watch out for the next scam from the political and banking elites. We need people to understand that only fakers say “the science is settled” on a complex topic.

Nothing makes people more angry than knowing they’ve been deceived.

The scientific method, free speech, democracy and rule of law are pillars of Western Civilization. When the scientific method is abused by people who suppress free speech with bullying, democracy can’t work, the free press becomes a tool of propaganda, and cheats remain above the law.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 1.0/10 (2 votes cast)
Yes, it IS about the science, 1.0 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/4tohy2v

274 comments to Yes, it IS about the science

  • #
    Siliggy

    This is one of my favorite links for a quick understanding of one of the real causes of the now ending warming:
    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/17jan_solcon/

    Danish Scientist Henrik Svensmark has a different theory on Global Warming. He does not think that CO2 is the main cause of Global Warming. This is a link to the first in a three part video about Henrik Svensmark and the cloud albedo effect (The cloud mystery).
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1qGOUIRac0

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Part of the deception is the claim that the little ice age was not a global event. Here is an interesting link showing how the Maunder minimum (little ice age) affected China:
    http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2005ScienceMeeting/presentations/fri_am/Hameed_China_Drought.pdf

    Here is a link to some very up to date data from Dr Roy Spencer:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/

    The warming has ended and cooling is beginning. Here is a link from NASA that shows the relationship between the very recent “deepest solar minimum in nearly a century” and Cosmic Rays hitting a Space Age High:
    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/29sep_cosmicrays/

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Jo,

    Now you’re talking a whole different problem. And solving it will take remaking your government with people who know what their job is and will do it. Can Australian voters do that?

    We have the same problem here. The first round has been fired but it turned into political cowardice of the old guard in the House. There’s one more chance and if they capitulate to the fear of being accused of shutting down the government then we’ve lost the first round. If so, I worry that there may not be a second one.

    The left has been absolutely ruthless in the use of its power. If we now have some power what should we do? I’d say use it to full advantage. This is a war with the future of the Republic at stake. If we lose, the rest of the world may fall along with us.

    It took me some time to realize that the problem is bigger than climate change. It’s just a wedge issue used to pry open the front door in the middle of the night so the real devil can come and go unhindered. The greater enemy is the United Nations, not the IPCC. And we can’t fight the UN directly. We can only fight our own governments. And we better get going on that as fast as possible.

    00

  • #
    Sean

    I am a Ph.D and a business owner. I understand your point about the science but the economics (cost) is also a key ingredient. If you are selling something to the general public, many people may come look at what you have to offer. The most agreeable people will likely be the the casual shopper not interested in making a purchase. The people who are ready to lay their dollars on the table for your product are the ones that will grill the sales person the most intensely.
    Climate science and climate catastrophism has focused for a long time on what other people should do to save the planet except for a few bulbs that might be replaced. It was easy to be on the band wagon when you didn’t have to spend your own money. A carbon tax now makes everyone a purchaser of the climate science consensus. Now they are interested and asking the hard questions that real customers demands answers to. So a serious promotion of a carbon tax is actually very good news for skeptics. The casual climate consensus supporter now asks hard questions of the science and if the climate skeptic community has honest straightfoward answers, the public will support the position in its best interest.

    [Yes, I agree: if we only have one point it's the economic cost benefit, but my concern is that some conservative political hopefuls don't want to even look at the way science is being exploited, manipulated and they are willing to let cheats go unpunished. We can't let Gore, the scientists, the UN get away with the deceit.- JN]

    00

  • #

    Jo:

    Until we get logic and reason into our universities and public discussion, the bullying, name-calling, distracting, and intimidation will still win debates before they even begin.

    Yes. That is the ultimate solution. It will take an intellectual and philosophical revolution followed by a political and economic revolution to make it happen. Most of the current crop of politicians and educators are not up to the task and are in on the take besides. Replacing them will likely take generations.

    As they say we are living in interesting times. Hang on, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

    00

  • #
    Cookster

    There is still a large body of “educated” Australian Voters who believe in the need to tax CO2 emissions (Malcolm Turnbull’s position being case in point). Only through debunking the Positive Feedback science beyond all reasonable doubt (or exposing the corruption of this science) can this group be forced back to reality. Climategate did much damage to this groups arguments but the outcomes of the 3 resulting whitewash enquiries did much to neutralise the effects of climtegate in exposing the corruption. I also believe it would assist the sceptics cause if the motivations of this corruption was made plain for all to see. Alarmists still scoff at the suggestion that the dubious motivations of a relative handful of climate scientists outweighs the collective money and influence of the fossil fuel industry (Big Oil).

    00

  • #
  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Roy Hogue: #3

    The greater enemy is the United Nations …

    Absolutely right, Roy.

    When you look at the UN as a whole, its growth pattern is endophytic – it grows in the same way a cancer does.

    It started off as a General Assembly of Nations (with Ambassadors and their staffs).

    The nations who were victorious in the Second World War also got the privilege of forming a separate Security Council as a sort of international police force. It has never worked as intended. But, I digress.

    The combined staffs of the member nations were insufficient to do all of the work required, so the UN set up various administrative bodies to focus on particular goals – famine, poverty, etc.

    Over time, these administrative bodies have become more autonomous, and less answerable to the General Assembly.

    We now find that some of these administrative bodies are spawning sub-bodies of their own. That is endophytic growth. It is a cancer in the world social-economic system.

    Question: Who elects people to positions of power in the UN? Answer: People in positions of power in the UN.

    This is how it appears to work:

    A political movement (a party or a faction within a party) want to achieve something on the grand scale. They also want to have access to international funding to make that happen. So they manoeuvre their man or woman into a prominent position in the ruling party in national politics. They also ensure that the national politics reflects and supports the desires of the UN.

    The UN then reciprocates by firstly making funding available for whatever it is that the political movement wanted to achieve, and secondly opens a door to future funding by appointing the “anointed” man or woman to a plumb job in the UN when one becomes available once the politician quits national politics.

    This is the means whereby the UN controls governments at the national level.

    In Australia, Labour wants to have that conduit into the UN, and they will do whatever the UN asks to achieve that. It matters not if the man who woman who gets the job is Rudd or Gillard, as long as they remember who their friends are once they are in New York or Geneva.

    This is not new. It is exactly how the politics of the medieval Royal Courts operated. It is tried and tested, and would be very obvious to everybody if they only taught the social history of medieval Europe in schools. But of course, they don’t.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Sean: #4

    It was easy to be on the band wagon when you didn’t have to spend your own money. A carbon tax now makes everyone a purchaser of the climate science consensus.

    Sean is right! The message has to be two-pronged: “This is gonna cost ya heaps – and it’s Bullsh*t anyway!”

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Rereke @8,

    Just so!

    Now how do we deal with it?

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    Thanks Thumbnail @7. I enjoyed watching that speech. Lots of common sense there.

    00

  • #
    Peter Walsh

    I came across the item below my comments on Marc Morano’s Climate Depot blog.

    Now, I live back in Ireland (having also lived for 21 years across the pond in Wellington NZ) and I have to say that the Catholic church and it’s bishops are the last people from whom I am going to take advice. No, I am not going to re-hash all the scandals about you know what and Catholic priests you will be pleased to hear. We all know those horror stories.

    I hope that the population of Australia has learned it’s own messages from the Trotskyite agenda of the universal Green Parties.

    Here in Ireland (and I posted a short message a few weeks ago on Jo’s blog celebrating this) we managed to remove all 8 sitting Green MPs (we call them TDs)and it is my sincere hope that they are gone forever. However, their departure was probably linked more to their association in Government with the Fianna Fail party rather than to their politics. In our particular electorate which is part rural and part urban they were particularly unpopular with, A: ME and B: the farming community as they had brought in an anti stag hunting law. Now, the stags are not hunted for killing and to be quite honest I don’t like the idea of stag hunts. But an upset farmer is a thing to BE SCARED OF, VERY SCARED! I still am of the opinion that most people here see the Greens as sort of cuddly people who want to save things. Cuddly Things like polar bears. Personally, I would like to see all greens let loose on a few ice floes in the Arctic surrounded by a group of very hungry PBs!

    Bet that would turn the ice floe a certain shade of brown. (and I am not talking of ale!)

    Remember, greens like windmills, so why not tie one greenie to every “rotor blade” and throw parties under them until they scream for help. Then turn up the speed a little bit more and when they have ceased to moan (probably making more noise than the actual rotating blades which would be very difficult believe me) put them through a swill mixer and feed them to your pet pigs.

    But, don’t tell the pigs what is in their swill that day.

    Aussie Aussie Aussie OI OI OI and please get rid of that awful thing who calls herself the Prime Minister.

    Thank you for listening.

    Now I am going back to my glass of Wolf Blas chardonnay.

    Love y’a Aussie. Jo, you are brilliant.

    Peter Walsh,
    North County Dublin
    Ireland

    A two-page document entitled The Green Agenda is being circulated by Catholic agencies and through schools. It states the party’s human rights and social policy areas are in direct conflict ”with the beliefs and values of virtually all religious people, and the beliefs of many other people as well”.
    Advertisement: Story continues below
    ”Greens who are elected will bring a whole set of policies. You cannot pick and choose. They are not only concerned for the environment,” it reads.
    It also warns about voting for candidates who might share similar views, pointing out that some MPs in the main parties had voted for ”bad legislation” such as same-sex adoption.
    The document was signed by 10 NSW bishops including the Sydney Archbishop, Cardinal George Pell. The Bishop of Bathurst, Michael McKenna, and the Bishop of Broken Bay, David Walker, did not sign the statement.
    But the Greens said the document was at times ”profoundly misleading”.
    ”The bishops have misrepresented both our polices and the facts in order to attack the Greens,” the MP John Kaye said.
    The letter outlines six areas of ”grave concern”, including the Greens’ treatment of personal drug use as a health and social issue ”and therefore acceptable”, and its efforts to legalise gay marriage.
    ”Changing the law on marriage would expose churches and schools to coercive pressures from the state to cease teaching their beliefs about marriage and family,” it reads.
    Echoing the sentiment of a letter posted on the Christian Schools Australia website this week, it also criticised the party’s commitment to remove religious exemptions from the Anti-Discrimination Act, and warned funding cuts to non-government schools would force fees to rise, ”possibly by as much as $1500 a year”.
    But Mr Kaye rejected that the Greens would slash school funding by anything like the 85 per cent the bishops’ letter claimed.
    The NSW Greens’ education policy, launched yesterday, calls for the transfer of $780 million a year from state and federal funding of non-government schools to public education. It argues the shift would not cause any Catholic or independent school to need to raise its fees or close its doors.
    Mr Kaye said non-government schools have enjoyed a decade of ”ever-increasing public funding”.
    The Greens policy includes proposals to boost the number of public school teachers by 6000 (12 per cent) to reduce class sizes and provide more time for professional development.
    An extra 2100 teachers would be hired in 581 public schools that serve the most disadvantaged communities. Funding for these extra teachers would come from stripping the 79 wealthiest private schools of government funding to raise $204 million a year.
    The finance for the 6000 new teachers would be found by freezing state and federal funding of all other non-government schools at their 2003 level plus inflation. This would raise $576 million.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The NSW Greens’ education policy, launched yesterday, calls for the transfer of $780 million a year from state and federal funding of non-government schools to public education. It argues the shift would not cause any Catholic or independent school to need to raise its fees or close its doors.
    Mr Kaye said non-government schools have enjoyed a decade of ”ever-increasing public funding”.

    This from Peter Walsh @12 is a good lesson on why you don’t want to depend on the government for anything you don’t absolutely have to depend on it for. Government is also fickle!

    Gerald Ford once said, “A government powerful enough to give you everything you want is also powerful enough to take it away.”

    He wasn’t our brightest president but let’s take wisdom from wherever we find it.

    00

  • #
    Binny

    In the same way that Islamic terrorism must be defeated by the Islamic religion, and Arab dictators must be ousted by their own people.

    Climate science must be called to account by the scientific community in general.

    Science stands at the crossroads it must choose which path that will follow, the pursuit of money and political influence or the pursuit of knowledge.

    It was the rejection of the IRA by the average Irish Catholic person that eventually led to their downfall.

    In the same way universities must decide. Will they reward ‘grantmanship’ or scientific endeavor?

    Only scientists can insist that other scientists stick rigorously to the scientific method and call out when they don’t.
    The rest of us can do little more than offer encouragement from the sidelines.

    00

  • #
    Andy G

    And now Garnot and Julliar want to buy us off with a tax cut. Will the deceit never end !!

    00

  • #
    Treeman

    Jo

    This Climategate ‘hide the decline’ speech by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller demonstrates clearly how we’ve been deceived.

    The whole presentation can be seen here.

    Professor Muller is to lead a new study to look at the Hockey stick trick in a “totally transparent way”

    The clip should be shown on widescreens at the protests to drive the point home.

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Below is a comment I submitted recently to an Ergas article. Needless to say, it didn’t get published, and it wasn’t because I made strong statements as that’s what tends to get published as opposed to a rational discussion of the science or lots of scientific facts (although sometimes these get through).

    It’s like the media commentators want to ignore the science part altogether. ‘Controlling emissions’ has become an unquestioned assumption (and therefore almost an undiscussable), after years of brainwashing. The bravest media article I’ve seen was by Pearson last weekend. Not sure how we cut through this, short of another ClimateGate type scenario blowing up right when we need it to.

    To Ergas I replied:

    And here is the biggest assumption being made by all those who talk about energy policy “the investment currently required to achieve atmospheric stabilisation”. It is all about a perceived need for atmospheric stabilisation, but this is the very thing over which there is the most scientific contention and no matter how hard all the commentators try to avoid dealing with the most basic facts, it needs to be addressed. Anything other is putting the cart before the horse. Where is the scientific and empirical evidence that our atmosphere has been ‘destabilised’? According to the world’s leading atmospheric physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology, Professor Richard Lindzen there is NO empirical (observational) evidence to date that small increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are having a negative impact. Let me repeat. NO EVIDENCE – it just isn’t there. The ‘heat’ required for the theory to be correct, is missing. This is all about climate sensitivity. That needs to be considered BEFORE we head down the path of economic and social upheaval.

    And another comment submitted, but didn’t get up. This was in reply to the guy saying he thought the Govt could win the debate.

    Yet another person prattling on about the policy of a carbon dioxide tax, but neglecting to mention one glaring little problem! Before this tax on plant food makes any sense, Gillard needs to prove with empirical evidence that the percentage of man-made CO2 in our atmosphere is causing global warming beyond natural variation, and that this will lead to catastrophic climate change (as distinct from historically evidenced natural climate variability). I know the answer to that question because, fortunately, many of the world’s most eminent climate scientists already know the answer to this question. No empirical evidence and we have policy being implemented on the basis of computer modelling, that hasn’t predicted anything accurately in 20 years, despite billions being spent worldwide. How foolish can you get? This answer is exactly why the focus is on policy, with the idea of letting people assume that the science is actually settled. Not only is this like putting the cart before the horse, it is lying by omission! How can you win a debate based on multiple deceptions?

    00

  • #
    macha

    Binny @14.

    This is so true. Take a look at Libya for how difficult and painful an uprising can be from ‘the masses’ outside the purple-circle.

    Influencing others is about perception – hence the CAGW team focus on media and salesmanship. Dare I say most scientists are too self-absorbed in their research to confront media extrovertly.

    It takes some other conduit – a front man or two. (sounds like Al G’s gig for the cagw team?). All anyone on the other side (the “carbon not a pollutant or main driver of climate change” side) can do is to keep finding public/popular faces.

    This is why Lord Monkton is so welcome. But we need more than he, and Carter,or Plimer, etc. Its like a car-crash – lots of rubber kneckers slow down to have a look. Or the recent Charlie Sheen antics.

    This cause needs someone in a visual and publically renowned position to take up the Australian or global role that Al G. has. Preferably someone apolitical. Who is that? If I can’t easily think of them after several years following this sham, then what chance does Jo Citizen off the street? But I bet he knows Al for his inconvenient truth.

    Maybe a modern day movie star, like Sam Worthington or Hugh Jackman.
    Get my drift? Put out a Hollywood version of ” a convenient absolution”.
    ha!

    00

  • #
    Carl Chapman

    The abuse of the word Science isn’t new. Until recently, I assumed that Nature Magazine, which is central to the peer review process for so many of the CAGW papers, had been pure until recently taken over. Then I read Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom. He wrote it during the Second World War and quotes from an editorial in Nature:

    “The contribution of science to the war effort should be a major one, for which the Scientific Advisory Committee may well be largely responsible. Moreover, the work must not cease with the end of the war. It does not follow that an organization which is satisfactory under the stress of modern warfare will serve equally well in time of peace; but the principle of the immediate concern of science in formulating policy and in other ways exerting a direct and sufficient influence on the course of government is one to which we must hold fast. Science must seize the opportunity to show that it can lead mankind onward to a better form of society.”

    Sixty seven years ago Nature Magazine was advocating the use of science to impose rule by the elites.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Jo you are spot on. The carbon tax per se will not really hurt anyone financially at the level proposed and if it were to become law would soon be forgotten by the voting public. What it represents, namely a turning away from coal as our main energy fuel will have progressively devastating financial consequences for everyone in terms of jobs, lifestyle and personal wealth. Maybe much of the voting public is already on to that outcome.

    If the Coalition focuses solely on “Gillards carbon tax” then it will quickly have egg on its face if the carbon tax becomes tax cuts for the middle class and if that does not occur, more slowly by the voting public’s loss of interest in “just” another tax.

    That is why it is important to show that the carbon tax is not only unnecessary but is futile in its proposed objective. That requires, as you say, not only emphasis on the tax but more importantly for the longer term, emphasis on the uncertainty and flaws in CAGW science.

    You won’t change the minds of the committed educated and environmental classes, as prejudice is not confined to any class. Fortunately they do not represent the mass of voters, they have little interest in arcane ideas so that exposure to the science needs to be at a fairly rudimentary level. What I’m finding most in talking to strangers in places like shopping centres and on my daily jog is that most have no sense, from their memory of the past that the climate is changing. That is but one area where the scientific understanding of natural climate variability may be used to show the Gillard promoted mantra that we need to believe in climate change can have a real basis in credible science that leads to a totally different conclusion.

    Though this is a fraught area where care needs to exercised it also seems that given the Japan experience with nuclear power and its likely residual negatives in Australia, coal should be seen as a vital fuel source that will guarantee our great, great, great grandchildren a prosperous financial future that none of the so called renewables ever will be able to do. In other words mounting a bit of a scare campaign based on phasing out the fuel source that has made many Western nations, including our own, so prosperous and also is the path China, India and others are actively pursuing in pursuit of the same goal.

    At the political level it of course is probably a good tactic to show that some of the scientists that promote the danger of anthropogenic CO2, given their record, aren’t the sort of people you can trust to tell the truth about the fragility of their science.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    The science is the whole official reason for the tax, and if we don’t force the crowds to notice the corruption, the cheating, and the way science is exploited, then we are asking to be bludgeoned with it again.

    Yes we’ve been there before – it was the whoring of religion to politics. Now we have the whoring of a religious science to politics.

    And the result?

    Why tithes and offerings of course….

    We need a scientific Martin Luther!

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    You mean like this LD?

    Unless I am convinced by the testimony of Science or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in Al Gore or in the IPPC since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Science I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Science. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. Amen.

    00

  • #
    Treeman

    Jo

    While Mann and Briffa hid the decline GISS have been cooling the past. The deception has been happening at many levels and like the poorly founded high rise, CAGW credibility collapse will be quick and catastrophic. In brief…..QC CAGW CC. Now that would make a trendy numberplate for an F750!

    00

  • #
    Cookster

    lmwd@#17:

    “Gillard needs to prove with empirical evidence that the percentage of man-made CO2 in our atmosphere is causing global warming beyond natural variation, and that this will lead to catastrophic climate change”

    Unfortuntely I don’t think Gillard is up to it. We need those political leaders in US and even better China do this for her.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Llew Jones:

    Testify!

    00

  • #
    Don Wilkie

    AGW – a Hidden Agenda?

    Until about three years ago I was not particularly interested in the subject of global warming. I tended to accept that a problem probably existed but left it to the experts to sort out what should be done.

    Then I was challenged by a Green friend to state where I stood on the global warming issue. I told him that I didn’t know enough about it , but his challenge determined me to start learning. The more I delved and read books and IPCC reports etc. the more I felt that the demonising of CO2 was illogical and that somehow we were being conned. A bit like being forced to listen to a cracked bell, but I couldn’t work out why so many people should be so apparently dishonest and, if it was in fact a con, who ultimately stood to gain.

    At the risk of being accused of being a conspiracy theorist, I am now rapidly coming to the conclusion that the global warming/climate change argument that has been raging around the world for years now is really just a means to a very different end. Now that the original arguments have largely been discredited, the persistence in the pushing of the warmists’ wheelbarrow looks very much like a diversionary tactic, while the main objective is still being pursued. There is increasing evidence that the real aim has been to scare the world into accepting something that in normal circumstances they would have nothing to do with. That “something” is the proposition that a New World Order or system of World Government should be imposed.

    There have always been people who believe that those with differing views are flawed and need to be told what to do. Whether the changes to be imposed are based on religion or political philosophy or just plain greed is irrelevant – the root cause is always the “we are right and you are wrong” mentality. Such people are themselves flawed, of course, and so far no group has ever succeeded in the imposition of a New World Order although some have come close – the Roman and British Empires and also the Catholic Church come to mind. Now, however, with the vast improvements in communications and technology, these would-be dictators are able to think and act globally, which gives them a greater chance of success. They also have learned that they need to be more subtle than their predecessors..

    The present New World Order movement seems to have coalesced from the demise of the League of Nations and the establishment of the United Nations after the end of World War II. The chosen vehicle for furthering the aims of the movement presently appears to be the U.N.’s IPCC.

    A variety of groups, “think tanks” and organizations exist around the world which share similar views. Examples would be:

    The Bilderberg Group, an association of leading North American and European progressives which was established in Holland in 1954 with the aim of furthering the notion of World Government

    The Trilateral Commission, an offshoot of the Bilderbergers but with the same overall aims, set up in 1973 by David Rockefeller following a difference of opinion over possible expansion of membership to include Japan.

    The Club of Rome, set up in Italy in 1968 but now based in Switzerland, whose aim was “to counter the short-term thinking in the conduct of international affairs”. Presently environmental consultants to the U.N.
    The Fabian Society, which promotes international socialism.

    These are not secret societies – they all have their own websites setting out their aims and ambitions.

    Bilderberg members include many of the leaders of political, commercial and media organizations and even Royalty.

    George Soros (also a Bilderberger) has for many years been a proponent of a “new world order”. He is getting a bit long in the tooth but is very wealthy and influential.

    The Canadian, Sir Maurice Strong, who was instrumental in the setting up of the UN’s IPCC, has always been in favour of some form of world government under the auspices of the UN. He is also ageing but no doubt still influential, despite having been obliged to quit his UN position after being accused of taking bribes in the UN’s Iraqi Oil for Food program.

    Linking them all is the common goal, becoming known within the IPCC as “transnational perma-socialism”.

    One fundamental step in the world government direction would have to be the undermining of the existing free-market systems in the developed countries. What better way to distract people from the main game than to run a global scare campaign, particularly if in the process the economic implosion can be accelerated? The job gets easier if most of the media are on side to ensure that the dissenting voices are kept muted.

    It is interesting to note that it was two American academics, Cloward and Piven, who put forward the theory in the 1960s that the best way to bring about a revolution was not through armed insurrection but by “collapsing the system”, i.e. getting as many people as possible hooked on welfare and entitlements so that the system eventually cannot cope and implodes. Under the present administration the USA seems to be well on the way to achieving this implosion and the countries making up the EU and not faring much better. One would have to be blind not to see the same worries in Australia, bearing in mind that Julia Gillard is not only a Fabian but appears also to be a devotee of Cloward and Piven and has had a leading role in the Government since the ALP took charge..

    The role of many Bilderbergers in the current woes of the American economy – the Clintons, Greenspan, Bernanke, Rumsfeld, Powell, Soros, to name a few – cannot be ignored. Hard to believe that people of this calibre would actively work towards bankrupting their own country, but their eyes are no doubt on a greater prize.

    The following quotes from some leading lights from the world scene are instructive:

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong.

    “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill”. Club of Rome.

    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony – climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world”. Christine Stewart, fmr. Canadian Minister of the Environment.

    “It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government”. David Rockefeller, Club of Rome, in a speech thanking the main-stream media for their support.

    “The goal is now a socialist, redistributionist society which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope”. David Brower, founder, Friends of the Earth.

    “A total population of 250/300 million, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal”. Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor.

    “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it”. Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier.

    “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated”. Ottmar Edenhoffer, German economist and IPCC official.
    “The world’s current economic model is an environmental “global suicide pact” that will result in disaster if it isn’t reformed. We need a revolution”. Ban Ki Moon, UN Secretary General at World Economic Forum, Davos, 2011.
    “The system we have now has actually broken down, only we haven’t quite recognized it and so you need to create a new one and this is the time to do it”. George Soros 2011.
    When the last two climate change “debates” were held at Copenhagen and Cancun, the draft agreements that the UN hoped delegates would accept were quite open about world government and global wealth redistribution being the ultimate aim. They even went into much detail about the extent of the bureaucracy which would have to be established. These matters were either ignored or glossed over by the main-stream media.
    Fortunately the IPCC did not succeed at either Copenhagen or Cancun but they will be trying again at the next gathering in Durban later this year.
    Perhaps the most astonishing aspect of the whole situation has been the ease with which so many people of all political persuasions (other than the Greens, for whom this is manna from heaven) have allowed themselves to be taken in by the main players There might be some excuse for the average man-in-the-street, but not for the politicians, journalists and academics who are supposedly where they are for their critical thinking abilities.
    The challenge for people in all of the democracies of the developed world now is to insist that their elected representatives realize, before it is too late, that the so-called global warming debate is nothing more than a fraudulent distraction to the main objective. Under no circumstances should they be allowed to sign away any more sovereign rights to an unelected and unaccountable body such as the IPCC or the UN itself.

    00

  • #
    John Watt

    PM Julia Gillard seems happy enough for the public to be advised by Prof Garnaut that carbon taxes/prices are good climate policy despite the fact, as admitted by Garnaut, that he is an economist and not a scientist. Is this simply because he can point out that such a tax can be used to redistribute wealth from rich to poor and this is a “good” thing? Maybe any one of a number of taxes could achieve the result Garnaut promotes and Gillard desires? So how is this a justification for a climate policy based on a carbon tax? Clearly it isn’t! It’s time Gillard, Abbott and the long-suffering Australian public got some advice on the real impact of CO2 on climate. It is also clear that the relevant advice is best obtained from scientists who specialise in the behaviour of CO2 ie not necessarily climate scientists and certainly not economists!
    How do we get mainstream media to pick up on this message?

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    “Yes, It is about the science” – as is this!

    “An Open Letter to Google
    Posted on March 19, 2011 by Willis Eschenbach
    Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach”

    “Man, Google doing PR work shilling for the CO2 hypothesis. I thought I’d never see the day.

    It’s not even disguised as a scientific effort. It’s a sales job, a public relations push from start to finish, no substance, just improved communication. I’m surprised that you haven’t brought in one of the big advertising agencies. Those mad men sell cigarettes, surely they could advise you on how to sell an unpalatable product.

    The problem is, now Google has a dog in the fight. You’ve clearly declared that you’re not waiting until the null climate hypothesis gets falsified. You’re not waiting for a climate anomaly to appear, something that’s unlike the historical climate. You have made up your mind and picked your side in the discussion. Here’s what that does. Next time I look up something that is climate science related, I will no longer trust that you are impartial. No way.

    Let me make it very clear what I object to in this:

    GOOGLE IS TAKING SIDES IN A MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR POLITICAL/SCIENTIFIC STRUGGLE”

    Read in full at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/19/an-open-letter-to-google/

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Don Wilkie: @26

    That just about sums it up nicely Don, people need to get educated…

    Have you checked out “Share International”?

    As in, “sharing” the worlds wealth via UN perhaps?

    Yes, there’s nothing like a new age “spiritual dimension” to add to the cake mix.

    http://www.share-international.org/ARCHIVES/political/po_bsfuture-UN.htm

    Maitreya and his group of spiritual co-workers have designed a plan that is brilliant in its simplicity and insight. They visualize a world organization, administered by the United Nations, which will completely restructure our economic systems.

    and more here:-

    http://www.share-international.org/ARCHIVES/political/po_true-soul-un.htm

    So cosy……

    00

  • #
    elsie

    I too believe there is bullying by the government and its members. First though, I am amazed how the semantics have changed. It used to be Anthropological Global Warming AGW, then global warming, then climate change, then climate disruption. The use of the term Carbon Dioxide has been dropped to just Carbon. The Carbon Tax has been interposed with the term Emissions Trading Scheme. I wrote to an important MP. I was very polite and not adversarial. Here are some of his replies.

    This is an essential economic reform, and it is the right thing to do.

    We have always been clear – before, during and since the election
    campaign – that we want to tackle climate change.
    We have always been upfront with people that the best way to do that is
    through putting a price on carbon.
    The Prime Minister could not have been clearer about that during the
    election campaign.

    We have been talking about action on climate change for decades – it’s
    time to stop talking and get on with the job.

    There has been too much uncertainty for too long – businesses need
    certainty so they can get on with making plans for the future.

    The Government will not shy away from this difficult but vital economic
    reform to move Australia to a clean energy nation.

    A carbon price is a price on pollution. It is the cheapest and fairestway to cut pollution and build a clean energy economy.

    00

  • #

    Elsie,
    Your correspondent wasn’t Kevin Rudd by any chance? That comment about “The Government will not shy away” etc etc sounds like him. Recalls his “we won’t shirk the tough decisions” line.

    00

  • #
    Andy G

    If the Lab/greens TRULY BELIEVE that it is the “right thing to do” they SHOULD PUT IT TO AN ELECTION.

    They are just a bunch of COWARDS, absolutely NO spine or integrity at all !!!

    00

  • #
    BLouis79

    I couldn’t find the Gerlich/Tscheuschner paper on this site on the falsification of the CO2 greenhouse. The comment was in the “10 worst AGW papers” page.

    Full text pdf articles via second links

    Original
    http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/23/2303/S021797920904984X.html
    http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161

    Comment
    http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/24/2410/S021797921005555X.html
    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/upload/2010/05/halpern_etal_2010.pdf

    Rebuttal of comment
    http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/24/2410/S0217979210055573.html
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.0421

    This segment from ABC radio presented a warmists view of the futility of the current carbon approach. Highly recommended.
    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2011/3160416.htm

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    I suspect the NSW elections may yet send a message to the Feds.

    Perhaps if the Greens get a Vic(state) like result HerRanganus & the Brown thing from the nether regions may have to re-assess their power sharing.

    00

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    If you’re going to say that it’s all about the science, you have to incorporate the fact that you can ask a completely non-scientific question and expect a totally different answers from skeptics, and alarmists.

    The question: “In your opinion, which of the issues surrounding the ClimateGate e-mails do you believe to be more important — the fact that private e-mails were hacked and made public, or what the contents of the e-mails revealed about the working of these academics?”

    I don’t think it is so much about the science as the belief in the science. And that in turn raises questions about belief systems, personalities, and so on.

    00

  • #
    davidc

    #26 Don Wilkie:
    March 20th, 2011 at 9:38 am
    AGW – a Hidden Agenda?

    Don, I think there are multiple agendas behind AGW. I think most can be captured with a combination of the following:

    1. Political: all the way from your local member to the world govt you discuss. Politicians first want to get elected, then choose policies they think will lead to that. And CO2 is perfect because control of CO2 has the potential to deliver total control of every aspect of everyone’s lives.

    2. Money: For Big Money the total prize is the sum of oil, coal and gas; not bad even if you can’t manage to get 100%. For Small Money it’s mostly their job (climate scientist, any other scientist who can get a grant on “Effect of Global Warming on …”, bureaucrates in govt departments, solar panel installlers …)

    3. Religion: some literally followers of pagan cults of various sorts but others who feel valuely guilty about not being impoverished while others are. They like to be told they are sinners and are happy to pay money in the form of indulgences (carbon taxes)to allow them to keep on living with their sin.

    00

  • #
    Mack I Avelli

    Don Wilkie @26 Well written and succinctly put. I’ve travelled the same path over the last few years. The problem I had and expect most of the general public would have is that initially you refuse to believe it and don’t want to because of the frightening consequences that logically follow. Nevertheless that’s what confronts us in the future. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Keep up the good work.

    00

  • #
    BLouis79

    Note that Gerlich and Tscheuschner have this in the acknowledgements of their paper:
    “The authors express their hope that in the schools around the world the fundamentals of
    physics will be taught correctly and not by using award-winning “Al Gore” movies shocking
    every straight physicist by confusing absorption/emission with reflection, by confusing the
    tropopause with the ionosphere, and by confusing microwaves with shortwaves.”

    I have read Al Gore’s “Our Choice” and must say that it was the most unscientific piece of political spin I have ever read – written by a team of dozens of writers and spun by Gore himself.

    00

  • #
    Paul

    I want to throw into the mix this YouTube video, which shows the thinking behind the EU moves in the last decade.

    Jeremy Rifkin: The Empathic Civilization

    Right near the end of the interview he talks about his influence with European leadership and their buying into his philosophy. Then he tells us how this has been sold to the masses, ‘empathetically’.

    Of course this has nothing to do with science, which is just assumed to support Global Warming.

    Paul

    00

  • #

    Don Wilkie @ 26:

    I agree that there is an agenda to promote the UN. But, it’s not ideologically driven. The people involved like Maurice Strong and George Soros are robber barons. Just like Rockafella and Rothschild in times past. They are indignantly noble. Having achieved all their dreams and desires through theft they find they’re lives still hollow. No-one looks at them as great men and they will not be discussed kindly in any history books.

    So, they create a false cause and use the only means by which they understand how to achieve what they want. Theft.

    A similar situation exists in the climate change establishment science. Hanson, Jones, Mann, Schmitt, Briffa, et al, are robber barons of the scientific world. They believe themselves great men when the truth is they are nothing more than con artists who have taken advantage of the dysfunctional administrations of their respective universities to create esteem and authority through fraud.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Agreed Waffle, it’s a whole mish mash of corruption at so many many levels..

    But I think you’ll find ideology is big part of that “mish mash”.

    ie – some may only be in it for the money and power, but there are many other who’re in it because they’re the “true believers”…

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    No progress can be made until the insane idea that coal and petroleum are fossil fuels is refuted – and that is precisely the scientific approach – both coal and petroleum are primary hydrocarbons sourced from the earth’s mantle – you cannot spontaneously form coal from compressed vegetation nor can you spontaneously form petroleum from buried biomass to pressures and temperatures similar to the deepest sedimentary basins. It’s thermodynamically impossible.

    The whole belief of the fossil fuel is unscientific, so the goal is to show that coal and oil are not fossil fuels – yet none of sceptics are focussing on this basic scientific error that is the root cause of the whole CAGW belief.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Louis Hissink: @42

    What, you mean like this….and this?

    00

  • #
    July

    Re Louis H at 42: Well that really does prove what of bunch of nutters inhabitat this toxic waste site. Are you serious mate?? Surely you’re joking?! If not book yourself into see a shrink. Don’t take my word for it, I doubt even the others on this site would back you on that one. Just an embarassing silence. Even if it were true I’m not sure what difference it would make anyway.

    00

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    Plus, the people who are alarmists about the climate are the same people who are alarmist about the Japanese reactors, the MMR vaccine, second-hand smoke and a hundred other baseless scares.

    It is the alarmism itself that is important to them; the actual scare is just a stage on which they can project the alarmism.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Don’t take my word for it..

    You can count on that July. Why would any thinking person take your word on anything?

    In fact, if people used their brains a little more and relied less on the “word” of so called experts this whole filthy scam would have been buried long before it even had the chance to crawl out of the sewer.

    00

  • #
    janama

    July – the Russians have such great oil resources because they believe in abiotic oil and therefore look in different places than we do.

    The late Professor Lance Endersbee of ANU believed in abiotic water, i.e. it came from the mantle and he also suspected oil was abiotic.

    It’s not a vague proposal, it’s been around for years and your instant reaction to it only shows the shallowness of your knowledge.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    July@44:

    I doubt even the others on this site would back you on that one.

    Don’t worry July, there are plenty here who will back anything, however ludicrous, that fits their beliefs. Others view skeptics as a “broad church” and, while disagreeing, will not comment unfavourably on one of their own.

    That’s why hanging around here is easier than hanging around Skeptical Science. If I say something a bit silly there, the people on my own side are quite happy to tell me I’m wrong. The other thing about Skeptical Science is that it is hard work there trying to understand the actual science.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    The Loaded Dog @ #43

    Excellent links – did not know about those.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Judging by the nonesense and amount of flak posted on comments #44 and #48, I must be on target.

    What’s the matter, don’t like your cherished belief in fossil fuel challenged by scientific rigor?

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    The other thing about Skeptical Science is that it is hard work there trying to understand the actual science.

    Yes, that’s because it’s impossible to reconcile lies and half truths with the truth. It can only be done by bending the truth to fit the lies; which means you’re no longer dealing with, or searching for the truth.

    The truth is simple, logical and generally relatively easy to understand for those who really want to know it…it makes SENSE.

    Perhaps that’s why you frequent here?

    Deep down you really want to know the TRUTH.

    But then again, maybe not…

    00

  • #

    July,
    Louis makes a statement, which may or may not be accurate. I can look around online and find evidence for and against.
    You respond with ‘Are you serious mate?’ and suggestions about time with a shrink.
    I might decide eventually that Louis is an arrogant knucklehead. In your case the question’s already answered.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    July @ #44

    It would not make any or much difference?

    Well yes it does – it means that coal and petroleum are not carbon extracted from the atmosphere but are exhalations of hydrocarbons from the upper mantle. It effectively destroys the carbon dioxide model advertised by Trenberth etc in the IPCC publications.

    If that model is wrong, then so the whole edifice of CAGW has to crash as well.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Yeah Louis you are pinching a couple of their propaganda words and poor old July whether a bloke or a sheila seems a bit shattered. (I know a June and she’s not a bloke. But July?)

    If July were a bit smarter it would know that another of their propaganda expressions, “peak oil”, could also be endangered.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Roy Hogue: #10

    Just so!
    Now how do we deal with it?

    Ah, if I only knew the answer to that …

    The difference that I didn’t point out, is that the UN is “not here” and it is “not here” to every nation in the world.

    It is trans-national, and that is its apparent strength. Because it has local layers of State and Federal government between it and the ultimate source of its revenue. But in raising revenue is where it is vulnerable.

    For it produces no wealth. It makes nothing, it ultimately owns nothing, and therefore has no real net worth.

    It is entirely dependent upon its vassal countries paying levies to keep it afloat. If we can find a way of avoiding paying the levy, we can starve it to death.

    There is a story about the USSR that was told to me by a Bulgarian. He said that, in the USSR, if somebody had to pay money to the Government, they promptly went and stole something belonging to the Government of equal or higher value. They then sold whatever it was on the black market to dealers who would then sell it back to a Government procurement agent.

    This was Soviet economics, he informed me. Mind you we had both seriously dented a bottle of good Vodka and a bottle of good Scotch, by the time this story came out.

    What he was really telling me (although I was to dim witted to see it at the time) was that the Soviet economy was already in melt-down, and that it would probably not survive. We have to find ways of pushing the UN into the same parlous state.

    Perhaps civil disobedience would be a first step on the road, as a potential tactic …?

    What if, starting one Monday morning, everybody refused to pay their parking tickets? What if people refused to return their library books, but instead handed them in at the lost property office at a railway station, or at the airport? What if …

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Here is an article relating to the MYTH that the Earth has reached Peak Oil……….

    Debunking the Myth of Peak Oil – Why the Age of Cheap Oil is Far From Over (Part 1)

    http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Debunking-the-Myth-of-Peak-Oil-Why-the-Age-of-Cheap-Oil-is-Far-From-Over-Part-1.html

    00

  • #
    July

    Abiotic water?? Good grief Janama, you mean there is H20 out there that has a hidden carbon atom?? Now that is revelatory!

    00

  • #

    The Russians showed some time ago that when marble and rust(the majority of the earth’s composition) are mixed under heat and pressure that indeed, hydrocarbons do result. What is more interesting is the source of this heat is probably a nuclear furnace at the earth’s core. Like a nuclear reactor with it’s control rods put in place.

    Speaking of which, here’s a nice report on Japan’s nuclear crisis as of the 17th. A recent notable quote from Graham Andrew who is a scientific and technical adviser to the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency:

    Dose rates in Tokyo and other cities remain far from levels which would require action. In other words, they are not dangerous to human health.

    I read somewhere that radiation levels where around 2-3 bananas a day and on the worst day it shot up to 30 bananas(half a CAT scan)!

    This after a 40yr old reactor(due to be decommissioned) got hit with the largest recorded earthquake which generated a 10m tsunami. Why are the greens against nuclear?

    00

  • #
    July

    Breaking news guys: “Russian scientists discover Earth is FLAT!”. Who would have thunk it? Now I know those moon landings were faked!
    Seriously guys, you need to get out more.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Rereke @ #55

    “There is a story about the USSR that was told to me by a Bulgarian. He said that, in the USSR, if somebody had to pay money to the Government, they promptly went and stole something belonging to the Government of equal or higher value. They then sold whatever it was on the black market to dealers who would then sell it back to a Government procurement agent.”

    Interesting logic from your Bulgarian – I thought a socialist economy was identified as not having any market, hence no economic activity between buyers and sellers of private property, and hence no money would be required. Yet some people had to “pay” the government?

    The only way to quickly destroy the socialist utopia of a carbonless world is to allow Gillard and her Greeny Loonies win the next election, and accelerate the economic collapse rather than resist it now as advocated here. These idiots need to experience the results of their lunacies, not to have them as political goals that they are trying to implement incrementally as is the case now.

    If we elect Abbott etc that utopian Green ideal will still have life in it, and when the conservative government gets booted out of office, as it will, the Greens and progressives will try, yet again, to implement their policies.

    I suspect the progressives and the greens need to experience a civil insurrection to realise the impossibility of their ideals. Polite discourse will never convince them of the inherent flaws in their ideals.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Ha! July and JB, so you give no credit to adiabatic oil; a trip to Titan for both of you!

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/02/14/2162556.htm

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Seems July has met his December.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Waffle @ #58

    That experiment was confirmed last year by two US scientists as well, so it’s scientific fact that petroleum is the stable phase of the H-C system in the earth’s mantle.

    Let’s also remember that Britain got involved in the oil industry last century to ensure a continued supply of fuel for her capital ships, and it needs to be stressed that modern armies and airforces rely on hydrocarbon fuels for motive power. It would be in their interests to limit the availibility of that fuel to the rest of us.

    If the police and army were the only ones with vehicles fueled with oil, then the implication should be fairly obvious. – it makes it easier to herd the sheeples.

    00

  • #
    July

    Imagine someone in this hotbed of redneck thought quoting an article from the ABC! You guys are getting soft!

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    cohenite: @61.

    Hmmmm, must be space dinosaurs Johnie.

    What do you think July – space dinosaurs?

    00

  • #
    VinceOZ

    Thanks for this, I have been getting discouraged.

    This has got me back on track. Your right it is about the deceit on science.

    00

  • #

    July, you might want to read these papers on abiotic oil and get back to us with your devastating critique. In particular is the first paper:

    The Constraints of the Laws of Thermodynamics upon the Evolution of Hydrocarbons: The Prohibition of Hydrocarbon Genesis at Low Pressures.

    Which, does a pretty good job of dismantling the biotic/fossil origin of oil theory.

    00

  • #
    July

    I’m pretty sure Cohenite wouldn’t know his abiotic from his adiabatic, or his elbow for that matter!

    00

  • #

    Imagine someone in this hotbed of redneck thought quoting an article from the ABC! You guys are getting soft!

    FWIW, I’m an urban hippy. I guarantee(yes really) I have lower ‘carbon footprint’ than you, and every other one of the green hypocrites who snipe the enquiring minds on this blog, pushing their CAGW and over-population agenda. Everyone should listen to what they say and compare that with what they do. If that’s consistent, then, you get my respect. Otherwise, I generally inform that person that my time here on earth limited, necessarily making it valuable.

    00

  • #

    Thanks to Thumbnail at #7 and Damian Allen at #56 for those links.
    Keeping with the debunking mood, I tracked down this article through the archives of Andrew Bolt.
    Wind Energy’s Ghosts.

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    I think Mr Garnaut let the cat out of the bag the other day when he linked the “Carbon Tax” to the Henry tax review.So the “Carbon Tax” is just a Trojan horse to bring in a GREAT BIG NEW TAX ON EVERYTHING.But I think Tony Abott is going to blow this with his indecision on climate change.
    I think I might ring one of the Indonesian boat skippers and see if they offer a discount rate on the return journey.:-)

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Maybe not July, but I know a goose when I see one; keep honking.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    This bloke from NOAA believes there’s a 50% chance that the La Nina will persist into next year.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I see July has yet to say anything intelligent. The CAGW mob really need to work on their spambots.

    Perhaps we need to take it back to basics… here’s the type of video they should be showing in high schools, not Gore’s cataclysmic horror movie:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITpDrdtGAmo

    Feynman, apart from being one of the most brilliant physicists of his time, also had the ability to break down complex issues into simple analogies for instructional purposes.

    00

  • #
    Andy G

    Speaking of wind farms, this is where most of the HUGE rare earth magnets come from.

    Eco-friendly.. of course it is !!!

    00

  • #
    Andy G

    Try again.

    00

  • #
    Andy G

    Sorry.. cant get a link or image to work, do a cut and paste.

    http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gradds55/magnets.jpg

    00

  • #
    July

    Good point rukidding. What does Tony believe in? You would think “The Deeply Pious One” would be more firm in his beliefs rather than changing his story depending on who he is talking to. But then come to think of it, that is pretty consistent with those in the faith business. Seriously though, for those such as myself of centre-right persuasion (definitely not of far-right-wing-wacko variety) it is a problem. Surely they (Coalition) have to boot this peanut out and install someone who at least can demonstrate a scintilla of internal consistency. He really is abysmal and we on the right can forget about winning an election with this clown in charge.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    BTW Jo, I don’t think there is any harm in looking at the fallacies in proposed policies to “combat climate change.” Not only is the way the science is presented bodgy, but the economic policies to combat the alledged problem don’t work either. The two wrongs certainly don’t make it right. So not only does the Labor Government fail at the science, but it also fails at communication, economics and politics.

    Quite impressive to fail so badly in so many fields simultaneously… it goes against the odds really. You’d think they’d get something right, if only by accident.

    00

  • #
    Andy G

    The real problem is that the disgraceful lying and deceit of JG makes Abbott look like a better alternative.

    Scary thought.. !!!

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Andy G:
    Isn’t that amazing when you stop to think about it? The machinations of the IPCC, Gore, the Hockey Team, the various Green groups, etc all pushed the public towards the opinion that something needed to be done to “combat climate change.” Despite all that Labor, through Rudd and Gillard, have managed to fumble the ball and give a series of free kicks to the opposition. It is political ineptitude writ large.

    00

  • #
    BLouis79

    So:
    * trace gases like CO2 have nothing to do with the non-existent “greenhouse” effect
    * supercomputer models based on reproducing observations of climate and not based on any sensible laws of physics continue to baffle the politicians with junk science
    * fossil fuels aren’t anything to do with fossils and are spontaneously replenished by heat and pressure from within the earth – funny how oil and gas bubble to the surface
    * the sun is made of the same sort of stuff as earth – lots of molten iron in the middle

    and
    * economists (Garnaut) think a carbon tax is a “market-based” mechanism
    * somehow a market will decide a sensible price for trading “bads” (as opposed to goods, which people want), despite that no market for “bads” has ever existed
    * a carbon tax with a compensation package is a green way to sneak in a wealth redistribution tax, despite that Henry thinks we should keep “tax” and “transfer” as separate functions in order to minimise bureaucratic overhead
    * remember Joh Bjelke-Petersen was going to save the world with a car that ran on water, now politicians are going to control the earth’s climate by throwing money at market traders, while sensible people think scientific research will probably help provide real solutions
    * nuclear power needs a selling point and to be more market competitive and a green carbon tax will do it for them thanks to Al Gore

    Such a sad world we live in…..

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    This in the OZ this afternoon.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasury/gillard-flags-tax-cuts-to-offset-cost-of-living-pain-from-carbon-tax/story-fn59nsif-1226024865387

    Looks like Gillard is picking up on Garnaut’s lead and trying to dig Labour out of a hole. She’s trying to slip the plant food tax through by suggesting she might make is more palatable with tax cuts (at least in the interim and not that I believe any promise this woman would make). IMO this adds additional weight to Jo’s concern that it is still about the science, and that’s the message we need to get across.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    I’ve put this on another blog today but relevant here too
    I think the sad thing is this is now a political issue not scientific any more; there are scientists who have not sold out but they’re preaching to the converted;
    I’ve been a swinging voter all my life but I have business experience (that is employing other people and providing a service industry) so I have always examined parties’ policies
    But I have family who have grown up in a strongly unionised background who are what I could call ‘rusted on’ Labor voters
    I understand from talking to these family members that some are not happy with Gillard but they wouldn’t consider the alternative other than maybe vote Green
    so maybe it’s best that we, the stupid voters in Aust learn the heartbreak that for example the EU have now to contend with
    the ‘carbon tax’ is going to make a difference to our cost of living; to our income, BUT don’t worry the big ‘polluters’ will pay
    AND who would trust what this Govt says other than rusted on Labor voters

    and this

    and as I asked above … AND if the economy slows too much we won’t have the money to pay all those pensions and public servants and employers won’t have the money to pay all those Fair Work wages; what’s going to happen then?

    40% of Tasmanians are on some sort of welfare; disability pensioners are rising by the year; the economy is already slowing; our public service is growing and will continue to grow with all this extra work shifting money around if the ‘carbon’ tax becomes law; Ms Gillard seems to be looking to some kind of sunlit nirvana far from the reality the population in those countries with heavily subsidised green technology are suffering; trust me she says – it’s all going to be wonderful; everyone’s going to be compensated and we’ll all be better off.

    Do you believe that?

    How passive are Australian voters?

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    Julia Gillard says

    She said she couldn’t predict whether Australia would be a republic by the time Prince William was king.

    “Inevitably we will continue to debate and work through when this nation wants to become a republic.

    “It’s not a debate at the forefront of our national conversation at the moment. But I believe it will return.”

    I Guess that means in under a month we will have the plans of how we will be moving to a republic before the next election.I guess the Republican implementation committee will be announced next week.Now who could we get to head that.I know M Turnbull

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    How passive are Australian voters?

    We are about to find out their limits.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Louis Hissink: #63

    Let’s also remember that Britain got involved in the oil industry last century to ensure a continued supply of fuel for her capital ships, and it needs to be stressed that modern armies and airforces rely on hydrocarbon fuels for motive power.

    C’mon Louis, lets not have the high tech. Where would we actually be, what would the world really be like, if we had no hydrocarbon derivatives at all …

    We would have no technology higher than a horse and cart, with wheels lubricated by bees wax, or animal tallow. Similarly for lighting in the evenings – bees wax, or tallow candles. What would we cook on? Open wooden fires, surrounded by rocks, or if we were very wealthy, a fire held in an iron grate. We would be reliant for catching rain water for drinking, and if we got sick from drinking water from a stream where an animal had drowned, we would have no medicine apart from herbal plants. If you got a hole in a tooth, it would eventually kill you. Your life expectancy would be about 34, one third of babies would die before reaching the age of one, and only one person in twenty would live long enough to see their oldest surviving grandchild reach the age of five.

    Welcome to Tudor England, the social history of which happens to be a hobby of mine.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Rereke,

    That is precisely what the Greens want to achieve, to send us back in time. One of the reasons the US is in the Middle East is because so much oil producing land in the US has been locked up in various nature reserves, wildlife reserves etc.

    Ironic isn’t it, the present problem in the Middle East was caused by the greens locking out the oil industry at home, and partly on the belief it’s bitumenised fossils.

    Mind you it might do some good for the warm and fuzzies to experience firsthand an Elizabethan lifestyle. That might disabuse them of their econlogical lunacies.

    00

  • #
    janama

    Mind you it might do some good for the warm and fuzzies to experience firsthand an Elizabethan lifestyle

    I thought we did all that in the 70s and got it out of our systems.

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    Hi Jo,
    Thanks for introducing this topic. In general, I agree with you, but I would like to comment on some of your points.

    Firstly, I think that science can only be addressed by scientists.
    Mug punters like me, can only try to understand the science if it is put in plain language.
    Richard Feynman, the late Nobel Laureate in physics, was once asked by a Caltech faculty member to explain why spin one-half particles obey Fermi Dirac statistics. Rising to the challenge, he said, “I’ll prepare a freshman lecture on it.” But a few days later he told the faculty member, “You know, I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t reduce it to the freshman level. That means we really don’t understand it.”
    “http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Feynman”

    Secondly I think that politics can only be addressed by the people in a democracy.
    Unfortunately, some of those people have no interest in politics, unless they can see that it will affect them personally. “The government censors have banned some books”. “So what? I don’t want to read that rubbish”. “So you’re happy to have someone tell you what to read and what not to read? At what stage will you claim freedom of thought?”
    My most disturbing anecdote about the apathy of some people, was a comment from my sister when asked why she didn’t want to vote for Kim Beasley, she said “He’s too fat”.
    I guess the only comment that can be derived from that is, “We get the government we deserve”.
    (Not sure who to cite for that).
    I believe it should be the MSM and the political opposition who should be “Keeping the bastards honest”. Unfortunately, I think that too many people and organisations fear the government, whereas it should be that the government should fear the wrath of the people. Some of the MSM are just as complicit in the mis-information as the IPCC and our current pollies.
    Another comment I’ve often heard is: “But politicians always tell lies”. Sad, but all too often, true.

    As for logic and reason, yes, absolutely!
    But it should be taught in High Schools as a subject in it’s own right, not just as the fundamental backbone of Science and Mathematics. Furthermore, it should be rigorously enforced and taught in all university courses.

    Thirdly, I would like to address your somewhat pessimistic forecast that we might win a battle, but lose the war.
    I’m still hopeful that the scientific community will learn from the corruption displayed by the IPCC mob and note that the IPCC is considered by the believers (and the apathetic) as a scientific organisation. I’m sure most of your readers are aware of the pseudo-science and political basis of the IPCC. Again however only scientists can debunk that organisation on a scientific basis. The IPCC is an unelected political arm of what I call, Global Greenism, thus what the people think, is irrelevent. Whilst there are Green extremists, there will be something like the IPCC.

    Finally, you also ask for a clean up of the peer review process.
    Would it be possible that every paper by every scientist should initially be published on a specific internet site? Other scientist could then read the papers and comment on them. (Note, only other scientists can access and comment, not mugs like me.) For mugs like me I would like the authors to apply the Feynman principle as stated above, ie, at least try to explain it to the great unwashed, as a seperate section, maybe called – For the Public. Somewhat like the IPCC’s “For the Policymakers”, only for real people.
    If newspapers/journals/magazines wish to publish and quote from those papers, then they can access (without the ability to comment) and then pay the authors for the privilege.
    I think the authors may take more care if they realise that their work will be thoroughly and scientifically scrutinised AFTER they have been published. Journalists could then wait to see what flack the authors have received before they re-publish the report.

    Whatever the solution, the IPCC has damaged the peer review process and that process needs repair as soon as possible. Science and politics needs to be open so that the community can be informed, and the MSM should not be the only opinions heard.
    It is the 21st Century, we have the technology, so let’s use it.
    For me, I hope I live long enough to see history record this time as: The era that politics tried to circumvent science, but science won.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Andy G” (77),
    Here is further information regarding the MASSIVE POLLUTION produced from mining the materials for these “so called” enviromentally friendly wind turbines.

    In China, the true cost of Britain’s clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Paul: #39

    Thank you for the Jeremy Rifkin reference, I have only just gotten around to watching it.

    As you say, he accepts the AGW pitch hook, line, and sinker. So much for being a thinker of independent mind.

    But I was also intrigued by how narrow (or selective) his knowledge base is.

    He obviously knows very little about biology, especially marine biology, where a population of a reef will continue to expand until it reaches the maximum population that can be supported. At that point it is very vulnerable to negative outside forces (such as strong storm surges, for example). When something like that occurs, the population takes a nose dive, and then starts to expand again over time until it reaches the maximum population again.

    Mind you, in the interim, when the population has yet to recover, other species have an opportunity to move in, and the original species will then never really get back to their former glory.

    I don’t see humans as being immune to those forces of nature. So why do we have to force the issue? Why not just let nature take its course?

    Unless, of course, certain people want to ensure that they are the ones who survive. You know who they are; the schemers, and the plotters, and the less practical among us.

    Good basis on which to rebuild civilisation – not!

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    I urge everybody to read both of the following documents!!

    The Madness Of An ETS:-
    http://www.agvance.com.au/node/419

    Back To The Nineteenth Century (thanks to a carbon DIOXIDE tax!):-
    http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/backtothe19C.pdf

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    janama: #89

    I thought we did all that in the 70s and got it out of our systems.

    You may have done, I was too busy getting paralytic with morbid Bulgarians … ;-)

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Damien Allen @ #91

    Indeed the production of those magnetis and the rare earth’s is a tragedy but notice that it’s the workers paradises that these facilities exist in. Ironic isn’t that the biggest polluters of industrial waste are the Communists and socialists, the very ones running the CAGW agenda.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    MaxL@90

    Whilst yours is a reasonable and rational approach there are plenty of scientists including climatologists who are working in collecting and analysing relevant temperature data, who have pointed out that anthropogenic CO2 emissions don’t appear to be a significant factor in any perceived “climate change”. Other scientists have shown by their scientifically collected data that the alarmists supposed post IR “more regular, severe weather events” simply don’t exist. The public needs no knowledge of science to understand that sort of information.

    These scientists are ridiculed and dismissed by the IPCC establishment and their fellow travelers in the MSM as being in the employ of the energy companies or because they do not have the support of their peers in the review process.

    Because CAGW is such a highly politicised operation it still needs to be fought in such a way that the mass of the voters, who in the end influence political decisions, have at least some basic grasp of the science so they are not dependent on authority figures from climate science (Aussies are into the tall poppy syndrome anyway, which seems pretty fertile soil). Further and importantly that those who elect governments get to understand that a tax on carbon is only the beginning of a path that will lead to an impoverished nation for their children and many succeeding generations. That is the approach of the Greens that seems to have resonance with many in the electorate. In fact, so often have I heard their preface, “I have two young children or grandchildren” followed by the terrors for them of a warming world, that I’m sure it must be listed somewhere in their catechism.

    The bottom line is that like religion science does not make its practitioners infallible or truthful so the public needs a bit of help with the basics of the science at such a critical time for our country.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Louis in 42. I for one believe you – you and Jo and Monckton should put all your efforts in to highlighting this fraud that is “fossil fuel”. Enough shenanigans about the side-issue of AGW. Get Abbott to mention this on primetime too!

    JB – at least he didn’t say “fossil fuels have been put there by the devil to trick us into thinking the earth isn’t only a few thousand years old as written in the good book.”

    00

  • #
    lolwot

    The science shows:

    -CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas. CO2 is the second largest contributor to the greenhouse effect on Earth. We can directly observe from space the large bite taken out of Earth’s emission spectrum by CO2.

    -Human activity is elevating CO2 levels to 800,000+ year highs.

    -Continued human emissions – so-called “business as usual” – will drive CO2 levels to perhaps tens of millions of years highs.

    -The rate of CO2 rise is largely unprecedented in geological time. To put the current CO2 spike in perspective – a rise from 280ppm to 600+ppm in just two centuries has probably never happened in Earth’s entire history.

    -The rate of CO2 rise, rather than the level, is important for both ocean acidification (failure for it to be buffered in time) and climate change (faster climate change is less easier to adapt to)

    So you see I really don’t think you want to focus on the science.

    Oh sure you can point at stuff like the “hotspot” (and get that wrong at the same time – it’s NOT a fingerprint), but that doesn’t void any of the above. All such uncertainties-in-the-details mean is that you *don’t know* what effect these largely unprecedented changes to CO2 level will have.

    We know enough – and don’t know enough – to find that business as usual is highly undesirable. Hence the drive to reduce CO2 emissions.

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    Thanks Llew @ 96

    I agree with your statements, but I am still a little unconvinced that we can do much in the way of enlightening those in the warmist and the apathetic camps.

    My main interest is in the Psychology and Philosophy arenas, and my current hypothesis is the apparent reliance by people on cliches and one-liners to answer difficult issues confronting them from time to time.
    In a sense, developing from “Many people would sooner die than think—in fact, they do.”
    – Bertrand Russell
    And from Simon and Garfunkel – “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”. Known in other circles as Kripkean Dogmatism.

    I believe that my anecdote regarding my sister and her voting reasoning is indicative of this problem. As such, what do you think my chances are of getting her to think about something as complex as science would be?

    That said, I would like to give my reasons why I think the warmist’s have a better chance of convincing the likes of my sister, than we sceptics.

    The warmist’s use simple one liners that do not include negatives. Thus: “The temperatures are rising and it’s due to our increasing use of fosil fuels”, “Carbon is a pollutant”,”We must act now for the sake of our children” etc, etc ad infinitum … I won’t continue, because I know we’ve all heard the mantra, and it makes me feel quite ill. But think about it, do they ever use terms like “NOT”?

    No, it is we, the sceptics who say: “The temperature is NOT rising”, “Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant”, “The science is NOT settled” etc. As such, it could be construed that we are simply denialists! (Sorry, but I had to use that word)

    If my premise is correct, then we need to change the way we respond to the issue and remember that negative words tend to create negative impressions. And negative impressions don’t sell products.
    Maybe we might rephrase our objections to: “Carbon dioxide gives us life”, “The climate is as it should be and always has been – changing”, “All life on Earth is carbon based”. Sure they sound corny, but it should match the AGW mob, and induce even further positive attitudes to the “debate” we have never been able to have.

    00

  • #
    lolwot

    “Maybe we might rephrase our objections to: “Carbon dioxide gives us life”, “The climate is as it should be and always has been – changing”, “All life on Earth is carbon based”. Sure they sound corny, but it should match the AGW mob, and induce even further positive attitudes to the “debate” we have never been able to have.”

    Is already been done. Eg the “CO2: we call it life” adverts by the Competitive Enterprise Institute:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sGKvDNdJNA

    Which to be honest is worse than that green advert of kids blowing up video, because there really is something sinister about the whole CEI advert. Just reminds me of those satirical big corporation propaganda adverts you’d see in a sci-fi horror. But then I remember this is actually happening and that advert is for real.

    00

  • #

    Max L:

    “Firstly, I think that science can only be addressed by scientists.”

    No Max No! That’s where the “Authority” bugs starts. Free speech is the only answer. No closed clubs. No rules about who has the right to an opinion. That doesn’t mean many of us could contribute to particle physics, but we all ought to have the right too.

    But it should be taught in High Schools as a subject in it’s own right, not just as the fundamental backbone of Science and Mathematics. Furthermore, it should be rigorously enforced and taught in all university courses.

    Hear hear. You said it better than I did. Do I score a point because I’ve said that in previous posts somewhere….

    Thanks.

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    Whilst writing my last comment, I missed out on reading lolwot@98.
    I’m grateful for lolwot for demonstrating that my hypothesis has some real substance.
    Simple one-liners is all it takes to convince some people. Analysis of evidence, logic and thought is not something many people like to do, and would rather die than admit they are wrong.

    00

  • #

    MaxL,

    All those who respond only to “one liners” and refuse to use reason and logic are largely irrelevant to making civilization function. They contribute nothing and live only because others about them have and do actually think.

    There are those who make things happen, those who watch what happens, and those who wonder what happened. The people of whom you speak struggle to rise to wondering what happened. They are largely oblivious to anything outside of their self induced mental fog if even that much.

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    Sorry Jo, I didn’t mean to plagiarize, I admit I haven’t read all I should of your posts.
    My concern with “Authority” is that to some extent we all rely on the authority of those who have knowledge beyond our own. I rely on your comments because I acknowledge your greater understanding of the issues. If Michael Mann told me certain things, I’m not able to question those in any real scientific sense, I’d just have to resort to quoting (as best I could), guys like Christy etc.
    Appeal to authority is all we of limited understanding can do in order to justify our beliefs.
    I cannot argue against scientists on a scientific basis because I’m not qualified to do so. The best I can do is try to make head or tail of what they tell me and then weigh up the answer that best matches what I think is the reality. Fortunately for me, there are sites like your where I can make my views known so I have free speech but I don’t think Mann et.al. are reading my comments.

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    Lionel @ 103,
    It seems to me that many people rely on one liners and if really pressed will try to rationalise their opinion after making their statement, and then only when really pressed to do so.
    You say that they are largely irrelevant to making civilization function, however, they are required to vote. Their vote is as valid as yours or mine, but theirs is based on frivolous emotion not reason. Fortunately or unfortunately, an IQ test is not required to be a voter.

    00

  • #

    MaxL,

    It takes a lot more than a mere vote to keep civilization intact and functioning. A vote is not a determinant of what is. It is simply used as an excuse for the government to violate individual rights: the taking by force of the lives and product of those who produce and giving it to those who can’t, don’t, and won’t. The consequences of that violation are impervious to what the majority wants, intends, or votes for. The more individual rights are violated, the more rapid the decline and ultimate destruction of civilization.

    When a cannibalistic society (by whatever label) runs out of accumulated wealth (material and intellectual) to consume and willing victims to take from, even the shadow of civilization ceases to exist. It requires individual freedom and rational thought and action to keep things going – especially a highly technological civilization. Otherwise the entropy beast takes over and everything grinds to a painful and deadly halt. Reliance on one-liners is nothing but one of many ways to feed that beast. At best, they are nothing but momentary diversions from the rapid decline into the abyss.

    00

  • #
    fred

    The truth is the truth even if no one believes it, and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it.

    00

  • #

    LOL,

    I see that July is back providing his well displayed scientific acumen.Although it is on a different dimensional wavelength than I am accustomed with.

    Why his postings are the flower of a troll who has no desire to provide rational counterpoints to anything in this blog.The postings: 44,57,59,64 and 68 are completely devoid of anything beyond the level of muck of a snot nosed teen boy.

    Imagine July’s scribblings were expected to inspire us,such as this(post 44):

    “Re Louis H at 42: Well that really does prove what of bunch of nutters inhabitat this toxic waste site. Are you serious mate?? Surely you’re joking?! If not book yourself into see a shrink. Don’t take my word for it, I doubt even the others on this site would back you on that one. Just an embarassing silence. Even if it were true I’m not sure what difference it would make anyway.”

    But the summer boy seems unaware that Louis Hissink is employed as a Exploration Geologist.

    But surely he improved on post 57:

    Abiotic water?? Good grief Janama, you mean there is H20 out there that has a hidden carbon atom?? Now that is revelatory!

    July shows how dumb he is since water is H2O.No carbon in it at all.Janama never stated that water was being created from C.He was suggesting that water can be created abiotically by the processes in the deep ground.Where two atoms of H and one atom of O was pushed together.No biological process was needed.

    July is really on a roll now:

    Breaking news guys: “Russian scientists discover Earth is FLAT!”. Who would have thunk it? Now I know those moon landings were faked! Seriously guys, you need to get out more.

    I have a growing impression it is YOU who is living in the basement,posting knee jerk bullcrap.All the while betraying the provable fact that you have no idea what an idiot you are coming across here.

    Imagine someone in this hotbed of redneck thought quoting an article from the ABC! You guys are getting soft!

    Imagine that you as usual offer nothing intelligent for us to ponder over.Just more of the same drooling knuckle dragging vomit we have come to expect from you.

    I’m pretty sure Cohenite wouldn’t know his abiotic from his adiabatic, or his elbow for that matter!

    What a waste July is.

    Cohenite has been all over the net.Posting many thought out presentations.He may not be always be correct,but he has been civil and tries to engage in discussion with those who do not share his views.

    All you offer is worthless insulting crap.

    The last two lines in Jo’s presentation:

    The scientific method, free speech, democracy and rule of law are pillars of Western Civilization. When the scientific method is abused by people who suppress free speech with bullying, democracy can’t work, the free press becomes a tool of propaganda, and cheats remain above the law.

    Your immature trolling here and in other blog threads,are indicative of a person who has NO desire for mature discussion/debates.You seem to prefer the latter part of her paragraph.

    You prefer to be obnoxious and stupid instead.

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    Thanks Lionell,
    I’m not sure if you’re coming from a sociological viewpoint or a political one, but on the issue of individual rights versus conformation to the demands of society, I’d probably lean to the former. That said, I would support the right of any person to convey their opinion even if their opinion is that they don’t give a s#!t. If you are suggesting as I think you are that governments are attempting to eliminate individual freedoms then in many ways, I agree. One can only control that which one has control over. With regards to my hypothesis that many people simply use one liners, I’m still working on it. At the moment I’m also considering “If crime didn’t exist, we’d invent it”. I’d love to get your thoughts on this but this is NOT the forum for it.

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Sorry for being late to the party! First, let me state that I agree that it is about the science. I don’t know about Australia, but the ‘dumbing down” in the U.S. has already occurred. Many Americans are fat, dumb and happy. The whole country seems to burn while Obama fiddles. We are too busy watching the big game on television to worry about matters of science or pseudoscience. Fortunately, the average american’s I.Q. appears to increase dramatically when a pending problem, or pseudo problem, is going to cost them money or affect their standard of living. I have an abiding faith in the taxpayer’s instinct for financial survival.

    Regarding science:

    Louis Hissink:
    March 20th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
    No progress can be made until the insane idea that coal and petroleum are fossil fuels is refuted – and that is precisely the scientific approach – both coal and petroleum are primary hydrocarbons sourced from the earth’s mantle – you cannot spontaneously form coal from compressed vegetation nor can you spontaneously form petroleum from buried biomass to pressures and temperatures similar to the deepest sedimentary basins. It’s thermodynamically impossible.
    The whole belief of the fossil fuel is unscientific, so the goal is to show that coal and oil are not fossil fuels – yet none of sceptics are focussing on this basic scientific error that is the root cause of the whole CAGW belief.

    The Abiogenic vs. Adiabatic debate continues and remains unresolved. It strikes me as being more than a coincidence that during the times when ocean waters were anoxic is when most of the world’s oil deposits were laid down. See http://books.google.com/books?id=ihny39BvVhIC&pg=PA619&lpg=PA619&dq=percentage+of+world's+oil+from+permian&source=bl&ots=EggDwXj5Qj&sig=1bsnuAMA-cKazxSc7ZWz3DBKlZk&hl=en&ei=IUKGTcGZFoGCsQPF8eD0AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=percentage%20of%20world's%20oil%20from%20permian&f=false Perhaps both or neither theory is correct? Also, regardless of the of origin of hydrocarbons the greens will continue to use them to promote their falsified hypothesis. So, we put approximately 12 to 14 molecules of the approximately 390 per million of CO2 into the atmosphere, so what? The vast majority of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from Gaia herself!

    @ John Brooks 48. Despite your occasional microbursts of intelligent thought you seem to have a very difficult time at reasoning logically. Your supportive comments regarding July’s pathetic comments at 44 are very disappointing. Besides his ad hominems, what else did he add to the discussion?

    You wrote

    The other thing about Skeptical Science is that it is hard work there trying to understand the actual science.

    I thought the only things long and hard on you were logic and critical thinking! I stand corrected. ;)

    @ July

    You should take your cue from KR or MattB. I usually disagree with both of them but they make an attempt to present an intelligent argument. You, on the other hand, have been a rather piss poor excuse for a troll. On a scale of 1 to 10 you only rate a generous 2 on the trolling scale. If you are going to be a troll at least make some kind of a feeble attempt to make an intelligent argument. Or, is that simply beyond you?

    00

  • #
    Cookster

    A little off topic but the linked article below (by Bjorn Lomborg) is a very good reminder to all why taking the “give the planet the benefit of the doubt” approach is actually costing human lives. Or would alarmists say this is acceptable ‘collateral damage’ or the end justifies the means ?

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/world-starves-as-americans-burn-food-to-stay-on-the-road/story-fn59niix-1226025033392

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Right back on topic. The case for more lovely life giving CO2:
    “Alleviate world hunger produce more clean carbon dioxide”
    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3797

    00

  • #
  • #
    Another Ian

    A comment from

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/20/a-plea-for-a-return-to-science-on-the-nuclear-power-issue/#more-36323

    worth thinking about

    “57 Responses to A plea for a return to science on the nuclear power issue

    kim says:
    March 20, 2011 at 10:21 am

    The Endarkenment Beckons.”

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Lomborg quite often only allows a few comments through, so this is what I wrote in reply (gotta keep trying to get that message about the science through).

    This is the real precautionary tale. Fools rush in, and all that. We perceive a problem that may not really be a problem, but pollies want to be popular so they do a lot of pandering and the end result is ill thought out policy that does more damage than the original problem. Food shortages, civil unrest and people starving and all so that the West can feel fuzzy and warm thinking they are saving the planet (which may not need saving). Unfortunately, we haven’t learned our lesson and are about to implement policy we will find it hard to extract ourselves from. We have a foolish Govt in unseemly haste, wilfully ignoring the dodgy science behind it all. The scientific community should be seen as a vocal lobby group with vested interest in millions it gets from Govt, so long as they keep the alarm coming. While some of the original perpetrators of the theory of dangerous global warming (the said cause of catastrophic climate change, which is distinct from historically evidenced natural climate variability) are finally being formally questioned with serious allegations of scientific misconduct, I fear the results may come too late for Australia.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    MaxL@99

    No problems with positive “slogans” but perhaps we can be too cynical about the intelligence of the electorate as sometimes it’s a bit hard to know what information is stored in its “collective” intelligence that contributes to its decisions. My guess is that “scientists overwhelmingly support climate change” has some residence. So it seems that, along with other information, what is needed to nestle alongside that, in many cases, undeveloped thought is some information about the validity of that science. How can that message be couched in positive language without reference to or inferences drawn from the science?

    00

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    MaxL @109,

    My position is neither political or sociological, it is based upon rational thought and observation of the real world. I observe that there is no such existent as society. Only individuals exist, only individuals think, only individuals choose, and only individuals act. However, there is no combination of individuals that make up society that has any existence apart from the individuals choosing to associate.

    The bottom line is that if individual rights are not understood and respected, there will soon be no society able to demand anything. All that you would have left is thugs and victims of thugs. Productivity, technology, and an improving standard of living become impossible. This is because rational thought and action are impossible. Any appearance of it is simply the result of consuming the wealth accumulated in the past without being able to make a contribution to sustaining that wealth or creating still more. Using one liners will have as much effect on changing the direction of things as a gnat has on a speeding bus when it hits the windshield.

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Cookster @ 111

    Many of the climate alarmists are also scared of world population growth. So I agree. Food shortages and people starving would be seen as ‘eco-collateral damage’. It’s a kind of eco-final solution, without the need to get your hands dirty directly with icky techniques, such as gas-chambers…… Just so long as they’re ok mate…..

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Just what can a population do if it can’t get the government of the day to act responsibly & honestly?

    Perhaps the government would get the message if there was a general strike/ “tax” strike. It might give us all a fore-taste of what it would be like if we choose to choke the economy down(pity about the loss of services & anarchy that would follow)

    However if it took off the $ would disappear through the floor & foriegn truckdrivers & machinists would be crash-tackled by real estate agents at the steps of planes with “holiday home investment deals of the century”.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    MaxL

    If we knew whether the positive responses to the climate change mantra were primarily from altruistic motives about the environment or from fear of the personal consequences of the terrifying scenario painted it would help in getting out countering messages. Perhaps both positive and negative messages are needed to resonate with what are possibly two distinct groups?

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Rereke Whakaaro:
    March 20th, 2011 at 7:10 pm

    Louis Hissink: #63

    Let’s also remember that Britain got involved in the oil industry last century to ensure a continued supply of fuel for her capital ships, and it needs to be stressed that modern armies and airforces rely on hydrocarbon fuels for motive power.

    Rereke Whakaaro:

    C’mon Louis, lets not have the high tech. Where would we actually be,

    We Would be here

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    “The science is the whole official reason for the tax”

    The frustration for me is that when I cite the recent satellite data showing a doubling of pCO2 in the atmosphere would raise temperature by no more than 0.5-0.6 C, no warmist has ever offered firm data to me to show this is wrong. Admittedly it would be hard since the papers are in reputable journals and have been peer reviewed very toughly. But these papers completely falsify CAGW! And CAGW is the ONLY reason for a carbon tax.

    So until and unless the powers-that-be falsify these scientific findings the tax will forever be fraudulent and unjust. But then what do I know, I’m only a scientist not a politician.

    00

  • #
    observa

    Professor Richard Muller presents a rare balanced overview of the current state of play of the AGW debate here-
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI&feature=player_embedded
    A refreshing breath of academic fresh air after a very tawdry period for Western academe, and one which should be compulsory viewing for all our HS science students and beyond now.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    lmwd @113

    Yes, “Climate change doubters are endangering our common future”

    That’s why they’re so dangerous and may need to be “dealt with”…

    Climate change makes that position entirely incoherent. Because it is a global tragedy of the commons, individual action cannot be enough. I cannot ensure the survival of my grandchildren, nor even yours, without compelling you to behave in ways that science tells me are necessary. Not to act, not to coerce, itself becomes immoral.

    There is a further twist to the argument. Compulsion will be needed but compulsion alone won’t do it. People aren’t made like that. They need to believe in what they are forced to do. They need idealism, and that will also mean its dark side: the pressure of conformism, the force of self-righteousness, huge moral weight attached to practically useless gestures like unplugging phone chargers. They need, in fact, something that does look a lot like religion. But we can’t engineer it. It can only arise spontaneously. Should that happen, the denialists, who claim that it is all a religion, will for once be telling the truth, and when they do that, they’ll have lost. I just hope it doesn’t happen too late.


    We’re doomed without a green religion…

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Regarding the above referenced article by Peter Heller -

    Whilst we may converse about taxes, warmist positions etc, the real risk that lies before us is the continued rejection of scientific process and rational thought.
    The MSM are our modern day Pharisees who present as fact various pieces of gobbledygook. The non science is accepted as fact by many (e.g. see July, John B above).

    Science has brought to us better, longer lives. As humans started to sleep on industrial revolution iron beds, eat from iron cookware, mortality rates plummeted. Engineering of sewerage systems, clean water supply, heating, …

    With the CAGW scare we see the rejection of rational thought and scientific process. We witness “scientists” who do not seek truth, only profit and power. This, I have previously suggested, puts us on the verge of a new dark ages where superstition and dogma rule over science.

    The nuclear debate may already be lost to superstition, but I fear if the CAGW debate is lost to misinformation, superstition and dogma, then it will open the floodgates.

    I also observe that we have arrived at this crisis because of education systems that have failed. Journalists and politicians with any knowledge of basic physics, chemistry and biology are in very short supply. They can easily be fooled by charlatans.

    Most of us survive in this world because of science, we are watching the decline of science. What can you deduce from this?

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    The chemical formula for sugar is C12 H22 O11. Should we put a ban on sugar production and carbonated fizzy drinks?

    00

  • #
    janama

    observa: – Prof Muller’s speech was interesting but he failed to link CO2 and temperature with the PDO and ocean cycles. He also totally failed to mention the satellite record of temperature.

    Strikes me he’s just another scientist who has jumped on the bandwagon but doesn’t know all the songs yet.

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    Hi Llew@116
    I’m not in favour of slogans and one liners, but in some circumstances, with some people, that’s all they want to hear. I generally try to match another’s argument with similar. So if they just quote slogans then I counter with slogans from my side (preferably without using the NOT word). If they mention numbers or data, I’ll match them again. If they mention what certain scientists have written or said, then I use my personal favourite John Christy, and then throw in that he used to be a lead author for the IPCC. But I’m always aware that people don’t like to be proved wrong, so allow them a distinguished OUT by at least getting them to agree that the science is not settled. At least I’ve tried to get them thinking. But keep watching them, because if you see their eyes starting to glaze over, then back off and try to get them to agree that the science is not settled.
    @120,Sure, I agree, with some people, a real discussion can be a wonderful experience and I think we need to adjust our arguments to match our opponent. There is no “one size fits all”. Strewth, now I’m using cliches, maybe I’ve been studying it too long.
    Thanks.

    Hi Lionell@117
    Actually after a sleep, I re-read your posts, and I think I may have misinterpreted your points. Essentially I agree with you regarding individual rights. I would have thought that “…individuals choosing to associate” is a pretty good description of the word society.
    I should add, that my sister does run a successful business, so she’s not a complete drongo, but her opinions sometimes make me shudder. Still, I love her, she is the best (only) sister I’ve ever had.
    Thanks

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Sunset #108… you misread July – who knows there is no C in H2O, this is why water is Abiotic. There is no such thing as biotic water. That is why Janama is thanks for letting us know about that biotic water with a C atom – which of course does not exist!

    http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:Abiotic&sa=X&ei=56-GTY7kCYegvgPn8eXQCA&ved=0CBgQkAE

    00

  • #
    MattB

    also – I don’t think there is debate that abiotic oil is not possible, and does not happen, or does not exist. The issue is whether it is a major or very minor player in terms of the earths fossil fuel resources. At least that is how I read it.

    it does appear to me however that abiotic supporters think that fossil fuels do not exist. (as in they are nothing to do with fossils).

    00

  • #
    Matt

    Brilliant, important, and timely piece Jo. Thanks for that!

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    lmwd @ 113:
    I think The Australian puts in a raving loony like that from time to time so that people can’t accuse them of skeptical bias. It’s a bit like the ABC letting through the occasional skeptical opinion piece to balance the ten CAGW pieces they publish at the same time.

    The sad thing is that the truth, the reality, is far less interesting than the scary scenarios either side likes to paint. AGW, to the extent that the science is understood, is a mere shadow of the catastrophic end-of-world scenarios painted by the CAGW mob, and the impact of a $20-30 per tonne CO2 tax on industry in Australia will be minimal for the most part (but neither will it affect emissions levels significantly).

    But that’s not what people want to read or hear … they want the spectacle, the circus … or at least that’s what the MSM seems to think as they climb over each other trying to spruik increasingly alarmist scenarios. Shouting at the TV is the only thing that keeps me sane. I’d probably be happier if I turned it off altogether and ignored blogs as well. But there is always that itch, that nagging feeling that I must try to educate the ignorant and that this will somehow improve our society… but the signal to noise ratio is woefully low and that is depressing.

    Indeed, the darkening has started…

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    It seems logical to me that we can add nothing to this world, nor can we take anything out of it – that nature by itself keeps everything within strict limits to maintain the symbiotic nature of the universe.

    “The fool says within their heart there is no god” – Bible.

    If the climate changes, is man in control of the situation, or is it the thinking universe – God in control?

    00

  • #

    MaxL @ 128:

    I would have thought that “…individuals choosing to associate” is a pretty good description of the word society.

    OK, I can agree but don’t take that description out of context of real people in a real world.

    My problem with the typical use of “society” is the false notion that society chooses, demands, decides, acts, requires, or does anything at all. It does no such thing. Only the individuals choosing to associate do those things. The word “society” is simply a verbal convenience describing the fact of voluntary association of a variable number of individuals but does not describe an existent having any attribute beyond that fact.

    Even worse is the notion that there exists a “good” for a thing called society that is independent and superior to the good of any individual member. This false notion is used by those who wish to take by force that which they did not produce and redistribute it to those who did not.

    The claim that they don’t do it for themselves but do it for the good of (fill in the blank) only makes it worse. Such individuals view others simply as means to their ends and as having no rights superior to a potato or apple. Others are merely there to be consumed and discarded for whatever reason or no reason at all.

    An individual member of a voluntary association (society) has the right to give or not give or to trade or not trade according to his own reasons. The reason being is that it is his own life and life’s product that he gives or trades. Others have no right to use force to compel otherwise for the reason it is not their life and life’s product.

    When this fundamental right is not recognized and respected by all, particularly by government, men become enemies of each other. The so called society turns into users and the used or thugs and victims of thugs. The one’s who can and do escape from such an abomination are no longer a part of the now falsely identified society. The choosing to associate vanishes and the society, as rightly understood, vanishes.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “If the climate changes, is man in control of the situation, or is it the thinking universe – God in control?”

    Kevin you definately need more than 2 options there…

    00

  • #
    Fred

    Stephan Lewandowsky comforts Alene Composta in the face of deniers’ vicious attacks. Deniers use aliases and are paid by carbon polluters to confuse the simple.

    See latest post at Verdant Hopes blog. Composta deserves a Walkley, by the way.

    Jo, you are mentioned.

    00

  • #
    janama

    MattB and July – my point was that water is created in the mantle and bubbles up. That is not what is generally accepted which is that water is finite.

    00

  • #
    cementafriend

    Louis Hissink, I know you are a geologist with much much more skill and knowledge in this field than I but I can not agree that coal is not derived from plants. I have personally seen and touched carbonised tree trunks in the Cornwall mine (Tasmania) seam which under a layer of igneous rock making it difficult for vertical drill exploration. I have seen carbonised trees and stumps in the Leigh Creek deposit. I have broken open large coal lumps in the Anglesea lignite deposit to reveal the outlines of tree roots. I have seen fossilised plants in the shale layer between coal seams in mines in the Lithgow area.
    However, there is good evidence that oil and natural gas (from deep wells and not coal seam) do not have a fossil orgin. Fossils from plants and animals are not found below 6000m and oil and gas can not move down into rocks. This video is worth noting http://www.videosurf.com/video/freeman-dyson-on-tommy-gold-hearing-mechanism-and-abiogenic-oil-1213176810

    00

  • #
    Albert

    “Science might seem hard to explain, but you don’t need a PhD to understand cheating”

    From the Earth Summit of 1992 in Rio
    followed by the Kyoto Protocol of 1997
    Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” of 2006 with a lot of his statements discredited by a Court
    to COP 15 where we saw the disgraceful fraud of the Maldives Government holding a Cabinet meeting under water
    to our PM’s statement that we will see more extreme events and bush fires
    They say we have had the warmest decade on record, yet that had NOT driven an increase in extreme events, which is what they claim warming will do

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters

    “Considered in terms of both loss of property and loss of life, the 1939 fires were one of the worst disasters to have occurred in Australia and certainly the worst bushfire, up to that time. Only the subsequent Ash Wednesday bushfires in 1983 and the Black Saturday bushfires in 2009 have resulted in more deaths. In terms of the total area burnt, the Black Friday fires are the second largest, burning 2 million hectares, with the Black Thursday fires of 1851 having burnt an estimated 5 million hectares.” from Wiki.
    Police say most fires are deliberately lit and the ever increasing roads built into forests gives arsonists more opportunities.

    19 years of failed prophesies, isn’t it time to take no notice of them, especially since Al Gore and the IPCC link increasing co2 to earthquakes and Tsunamis.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Cementafriend,

    Under the abiotic theory as proposed by the late Tommy Gold, bituminous coal is formed by the replacement of the vegetable matter by carbon via the upwelling mantle derived methane. Hence there will be examples of uncoalified types that comprise lignite to all gradations in between to finally yield anthracitic coal where there is total replacement with minimal textural evidence that it was once vegetation.

    The prevailing theory of coal formation is that vegetation matter is compressed under elevated pressure and temperature. If this is the case then one should not be able to see and touch carbonised tree trunks since by the very method proposed, that of near total compression, should have destroyed the tree trunk into a flat lump of carbon. That we see undeformed, uncompressed coalified tree trunks contradicts that explanation.

    The presence of carbonised tree trunks that are identifiable and recognised as a tree trunks, complete with 3-D roots etc means that that tree was “replaced” by the hydrocarbons coming from below, and not that the coalified tree trunk was the result of compression by deep burial.

    I recall reading an anecdote that an abandoned coal mine, when revisited, had its wooden support pillars (to hold the roof up) turned into coal. As Gold pointed out, those coal deposits are forming right now, and that’s where the methane is coming from, not the coal itself, because that’s not possible, but from deeper down, and the passage to the surface appears to be the permeable beds of vegetation often found in sedimentary piles.

    00

  • #
    pete50

    In reply to those who would draw the attention of government and voters to the facts, I suggest the following:

    In Feb 2010 Prof. Phil Jones, one of the most senior climate scientists in the UK and of the IPCC, said in a BBC TV interview that between 1995 and 2010 there had been NO global warming and that temperatures were trending slightly downward.

    The relevant parts of the interview are: Prof. Phil Jones BBC interview Feb 2010

    Q – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

    A – So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

    Q – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

    A – Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.

    Q – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

    A – No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

    Phil Jones is one of the world leaders of the guardians of the doctrine of AGW. And the three questions asked of him, above, could be understood by up to 4 out of 5 state and federal party political leaders – its not rocket science.

    My suggestion is to ask a politician, perhaps as often as one a week, if they could advise to who to believe – Phil Jones or Ross Garnaut. Suggest you can’t sleep at night for worrying about it all.

    If they don’t make out that you are some kind of zombi tell them that the IPCC has asserted that if Australia were to cease human carbon dioxide emissions totally, starting now, then by 2050 the temperature would be reduced by 0.015˚C.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Fred:
    I am trying to figure out whether you were being sarcastic or not, so I wandered over to the “Verdant Hopes” site and it is a wasteland. Most blog entries have no comments and once in a while she gets a handful. She is right in the first like of “About me”:

    “I am an unremarkable person.”

    What I find most amazing is that someone (heck anyone) would even try to draw attention to this blog. Lewandowsky once again demonstrates his delusional perspective of the world with the following (assuming this is an accurate potrayal):

    There are only a pitiful few deniers, Stephan {Lewandowsky ~ Bulldust} tells me, adding that they use multiple aliases to mount their anti-Gaia barrages. And most chilling of all, they are paid, presumably by Big Carbon, to work this dreadful mischief! “Bear in mind that a proportion of those comments is orchestrated,” he writes, “and for all we know there are only a handful of people with multiple electronic ‘personas’ each, who are paid to create disproportionate noise.”

    I am thoroughly confused now… is this blog supposed to be a parody of Greenish econut philosphies, or is it supposed to be real? She goes on to write that she suspects deniers are putting dead rats on her doorstep.

    It’s all too weird, so I assume it is supposed to be comedy, but it misses the mark any way you look at it.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Elore

    Hmmm… Have been thinking about the ‘socialist-utopian-take-over-the-world’ type mentality, and I have a question that someone here may be able to answer….

    Has there ever been any great civilisation that has arisen based on a ‘socialist’ ideology? Or does ‘socialism’ only work for the survival of small tribal groups. The only way that socialism can grow ‘big’ is to ‘take over’ a civilization that has been build on other successful ideological platforms…

    00

  • #
    william gray

    Hope to see you-all at the No Carbon Dioxide rally. My banner if I get it together will read:

    CARBON DIOXIDE
    TAX ON
    LIFE.
    Some other thoughts for banners were:- fake science/bullsh*t tax
    and – CO2 @ 170 ppm and life dies.
    or BACK TO THE DARK AGES WOPPY
    I agree the word NO is a no-no.

    00

  • #

    MattB,

    Clearly the vast majority of the hydrocarbons that the human race knows about are of abiotic origin. One word “Titan”.

    The origin of oil on Earth may be biotic or abiotic. The biotic theory has problems that its proponents don’t want to talk about.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Don Wilkie @26,

    March 20th, 2011 at 9:38 am

    AGW – a Hidden Agenda?

    I see that you’ve done your homework very thoroughly. Thank you for that. And thank you for laying it out so well. I look forward to seeing you post here regularly.

    00

  • #
    Andy G

    on a sign, you could quote the PM

    “There will be no carbon tax”

    00

  • #
    Treeman

    Bulldust@141

    as soon as I read

    “I am an unremarkable person.”

    I knew you had to be talking about Alene Composta

    Andrew knows quite a lot about her and writes

    This is unbelievable. Insane anti-Liberal hatred is now so mainstream that not only is the most florid facsimile of it by a parodist published, no questions asked, by the ABC, but the Sydney Morning Herald still treats it as genuine even after the ABC very belatedly smells a rat:

    The ABC pulled a blogger from its The Drum Unleashed website after she named the Liberal Party state director, Mark Neeham, as supposedly making a below-the-belt attack on Kristina Keneally. The blogger, Alene Composta, an admitted agoraphobic who said she used the internet to make the world a better place, put up a post disputing the take of the Herald’s state political editor, Sean Nicholls, on why Neeham had begun making oblique references to ‘’Moose Day’’ in his occasional tweets to the campaign strategist Mark Textor.

    Nicholls explained it as a bit of wish fulfilment on Neeham’s part as it referred to the former Canadian prime minister Kim Campbell, soundly defeated in 1993 after only four months in the job.

    Not so, said Composta, who claimed it was a not-too-veiled reference to a synonym for the female genitals. She put a long rebuttal up on her Verdant Hopes website and on The Drum yesterday for good measure. Nobody at the ABC noticed it exceeded the bounds of good taste for some time. Finally the huge pile of bile mounting in the comment section forced somebody in authority, the editor, Jonathan Green, to do the right thing.

    How many giveaways do you need? Never too many, if you’re already of the Left, where Composta’s spoof is almost indistinguishable – other than by its superior wit, erudition and elegance, not to mention its absence of profanities – from the ravings of a Catherine Deveny or Marieke Hardy.

    Verdant despair more likely!

    00

  • #
  • #
    Siliggy

    Andy G:
    March 21st, 2011 at 4:19 pm
    on a sign, you could quote the PM

    “There will be no carbon tax”

    How about a sign with the red circle and line through it but it reads “No CANCUN tax”?

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Treeman:
    I see from the Bolt column that this was in fact a parody … it is hard to tell parody from the actual Green rhetoric anymore. I am not sure if this says more about the decline of politics or comedy. There’s the real question.

    00

  • #
    Alan

    Louis @ 140 and other posts.
    Although I agree there may be some evidence to suggest some gas deposits could have an abiotic input I think you need to research a little more on your coal knowledge. What is the anecdotial evidence for your “wooden pillars turning into coal” – anecdotes are just that,interesting but not part of science unless proven.
    The evidence for coal having a biotic original I would say is overwhelming. Have you ever seen coal macerals under a microscope and observe the original plant structures, do you understand the coalification process and the difference in coal rank from peat through to anthracite and what is involved in this process? (and I do know you are a geologist)
    “Carbonised” trunks don’t mean the tree was replaced and there are many examples (here and here)and papers to show this. These trunks are preserved as the coal is low rank or lignite at around 70% C on a dry ash free basis (daf – used for defining just the pure coal material in a simple way) which increases as we increase the rank to 80-90% for bituminous coal and 95% for anthracite and of course essentially 100% for graphite.This is all well known and repeatable. There are also other predictable trends and ratios which reflect the coalification process of burial. Temperatures don’t need to be high at around 100-150C for bituminous coal and this can be achieved with burial depths of around 3-4km.
    Using a number of observable features of coal (macro and micro) along with a suite of coal analysis plus the sedimentary features in the surrounding rock it is possible to interpret their depositional environment (with modern analogues) without resorting to an abiotic origin. Why replace vegetable matter with up whelling carbon when you already have a source of carbon in the material you start with.
    Also methane is easily produced from coal – biogenic in low rank coals and mainly thermogenic (coalification process) from bituminous on.

    00

  • #
    Peter Walsh

    Don Wilkie @26 above.

    Excellent well written and composed item.

    Thank you.

    Peter Walsh,
    Dublin, Ireland

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Has anyone thought of the possibility that the radioactive fallout being discovered in various areas distant from Japans problematic nuclear facility may actually be as a result of wind spread radioactive flyash from coal consumption. See Andrew Bolt’s blog 21march.

    00

  • #
    Alice Thermopolis

    Thanks Jo

    You are, of course. RIGHT.

    Note too that large numbers (generally non-scientists and lawyers like Malcolm Turnbull) prefer to avoid “the science” and rationalise their position using (i) “risk management” jargon and/or (ii) the “Precautionary Principle”.

    Must have a precise response/dialogue/argument ready for these folk, as they are everywhere.

    Alice (in Warmerland)

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Kevin – my understanding is that readings globally are from fixed stations that would report daily, so unless there has been some coincidental spike in flyash use at the same time as this incident then I doubt it.

    That said I’ve not seen any reports of any radiation readings that would even remotely be of concern outside of the exclusion zone of the incident itselt.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    by daily I mean every day, not once a day btw.

    00

  • #
    janama

    Alan: the theory relies on the fact that these trees were subjected to huge pressures and extreme heat. If they appear to be perfect trees, yet mummified as coal , surely the concept is wrong, or as Louis suggested – they would be flat blobs of carbon/coal!

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Bulldust wrote:

    it is hard to tell parody from the actual Green rhetoric anymore.

    Indeed. When a friend posted a link to her wall about a week ago, I commented that it read like a parody. My friend was slightly miffed so I didn’t persist with the ridicule online.

    Their supporters must live in a bubble or haze. People abandon all reason based upon the delusion of what that party is telling them. Simply reading their policy documents have those with two spare neurons rubbing together cringe at the awfulness. The delusion of the party being kind to the environment is not supported by their policies; unless they immediately commence rapid depopulation.

    What I fear is that the party members and leaders actually believe in their divine crusade to protect Gaia. They see themselves as prophets and behave as though they were demi-gods, able to effect change by mere command. Yet they do not consider the necessary natural and human resources; and the consequences of squandering those resources in futile pursuits.

    00

  • #
    Andy G

    I can’t attend the Canberra rally, (a tad far from Newy, plus I have to work), but I hope someone can have a sign that says something like..

    “Don’t be a COWARD! TAKE IT TO AN ELECTION”

    If anyone knows of a Newcastle rally, please post details.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Alan @ #153

    Has anyone subject a representative sample of vegetation, etc Lignite, to the pressures and temperatures assumed to exist in sedimentary basins to spontaneously produce anthracitic or bituminous coal?

    All of your comments are simply asserting from the interpretation of the data that as coal contains plant material, then it must have formed from that plant material.

    The problem is that its the logical fallacy of arguing the consequent.

    Another problem is that you can never prove an hypothesis so all of the facts presented simply confirm the belief that its compressed vegetation.

    But has anyone “tested” this belief by physical experiment?

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    “To be (abiotic) or not to be”

    “Norway Has Vast, Inaccessible Seabed Coal – Statoil”

    http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/34152/story.htm

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Eddy, welcome back!

    On a scale of 1 to 10 you only rate a generous 2 on the trolling scale. If you are going to be a troll at least make some kind of a feeble attempt to make an intelligent argument. Or, is that simply beyond you?

    Well, I tend not to make feeble attempts at an intelligent argument here. When I have, the residents here generally choose to misunderstand me, or come back at me with garbage.

    Anyway, my arguments are worth bugger all compared with those of the scientists. And the arguments of the scientists are worth considerably less than the fact that the earth is warming. Except that I read above that that according to Phil Jones, “between 1995 and 2010 there had been NO global warming and that temperatures were trending slightly downward”. I might argue with that. But the intelligent here already know the truth, and those of closed mind don’t want to let it in.

    So what is my role? It is just to prod and poke. To raise doubts, and to point out obvious stupidity. And to crack the odd joke, of course.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Alan @ #153

    All of your citations describe lignite deposits, which are not bituminous coal or anthracitic coal.

    Further I used to work for the coal section of the NSW geological survey, did underground mapping in coal mines under the Cordeax Dam near Wollongong in NSW for SMEC, and had the privelege of wandering in the Morwell open cut mine in Victoria.

    00

  • #
    janama

    Thanks Louis for your posts. I’m totally infatuated with your electric universe theory – It makes sense to me so I’m scouring the web for more on it.

    00

  • #
    Alan

    janama@159. Why would they be flat blobs? These are trees in an upright position surround by sediment and the pressures and temperatures are not great at bituminous coal rank and it takes time, the geological type.The increase in rank with depth and temperature is a very well researched, measured (by numerous methods and parameters)and predictable relationship.If the trees were knocked over you would find something different and you do-squashed tree trunks-and there are many examples of that in the geological record where forests have been flatten by say a volcanic eruption and buried,Belmont south of Newcastle comes to mind. Estimates of compression ratios for bituminous coals are around 7:1, so 7m of peat to produce 1m of coal.

    Louis @162. There is no need to do it in the lab we have the earth to actually see it happening. Lignite has already undergone a degree of coalification and that’s what makes it different to peat, moisture is driven out and the matter begins to alter in structure again all observable.Again why no you need to introduce carbon externally when it’s all there in your raw material.There is no spontaneous producing anthracite or even bituminous coal-think of your changing metamorphic grade.

    As you well know geology is based on observation and hypothesis and testing and adjustment. The current theories work well so unless you can tell me where they don’t and offer a better one I have no need to fluff around with your alternative ideas (in practice anyway maybe arm wavy over a pint). So do you accept the current implacement theories for Kimberlites/Lamporites? What about komatites?

    00

  • #
    janama

    Alan – the theory is that they are subjected to enormous pressures and temperature. Why would they be perfectly in tact?

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    I have found 5 areas science has missed and has no intention of exploring. These areas have a profound effect in understanding this planet and what physical changes have occurred.

    1) Salt Changes on the ocean surface since 1970′s.

    2) Compression of gases and mass which stores energy.

    3) Planetary rotation and the mechanical processes these create.

    4) Distant past and the planetary change that were happening with the different speed of rotation.

    5) The inter relationship of the planets and sun on a mechanical level.

    I follow science and I don’t let politics or other theories interfere.
    The problem I have now is being too far advanced going in a different area when science is stagnant to the current path.

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Bulldust @ 132

    I did turn off the TV about a month or more back – I had been watching that program South Pacific and had been enjoying it, until they started with the climate change stuff. Then there was the ‘Sh#% Happens’ episode. Last straw. I turned the TV off and just never turned it back on again. You know, I didn’t even know Charlie Sheen was in the news again until someone told me. Obviously there are some additional rewards for not having the TV on.

    I come here instead (plus some other sites), follow links to read/watch interesting stuff. I’ve been much happier since.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    JB in #164… Eddy was talking to July, not you, in that bit of his post.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Hey Joe in #169 don’t hog all the good drugs – share them around.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Louis will rock down to
    Electric Avenue
    Then he’ll take it higher.

    00

  • #
    Andy G

    Just wondering..

    Windmills require one heck of a lot of aluminium, steel and concrete, (apart from the ECO-mess created in China from mining and processing rare earth magnets.)

    Solar panels are also very energy intensive in production.

    How much will prices of solar and wind power rise because of the “energy” tax ??

    although…… I suppose we import most of the stuff anyway.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    lmwd:
    You missed all the Sheen stuff? That was the best part … at least that was comic relief. Here to get you in the loop again >.>

    http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/bfb12aea47/charlie-sheen-s-winning-recipes

    Hey maybe Charlie can beat climate change…

    00

  • #
    cementafriend

    Louis @162 I believe there was a mine near Mittagong NSW with had anthracite coal which was cooked by basalt intrusion. I understand some other mines in the area have low volatile coal some metres from intrusions. The only antracite mine beside Mittagong I know of is Yarrabee Qld in the Blackwater area (my Queensland coal booklet says 8% volatile matter)I think there are volcanic intrusion also in that area.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    John Brookes @164.

    Well, I tend not to make feeble attempts at an intelligent argument here.

    Oh come now John, that’s not quite right is it?

    I’ve read plenty of feeble attempts at intelligent argument from you, and clearly you’re gifted at it.

    So chin up, and don’t be so hard on yourself.

    You’re just as good at incoherent ranting as any of your peers and you’re only failing in the quest to troll as I see it, is a good natured sense of humour!

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Cemntafriend @176

    I think there a few basalt pimples poking up through the Bowen Basin Coal Measures out from Saraji as well.

    In a different life 30 years ago I helped punch a couple of holes in them to check them out for haul road metal

    00

  • #
    MattB

    So anyway, did you hear how much cocaine Charlie Sheen took?

    Enough to kill two and a half men…

    boom-tish!

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    The biggest disappointment about the carbon tax/global warming/climate change issue is the strategy adopted by the Tony Abbott led Coalition.

    The Coalition has adopted the wrong strategy. It has now adopted the same line as the government, that carbon dioxide is causing climate change and so carbon emissions should be reduced, but just not by a carbon tax or ETS. This demonstrates how those advising Toby Abbott and Greg Hunt have been sleeping on the job. They have not been doing their research.

    Sadly, whenever the Coalition talks about climate change, it exposes the Coalition as being ignorant of the climate science and what the real-world data is indicating.

    Why doesn’t the Coalition simply explain that the core issue is whether rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, attributable to human activity, is driving up average global temperature?

    Why doesn’t the Coalition explain that the real-word data is not showing that rising carbon dioxide is driving up temperature, let alone causing catastrophic global warming?

    Why doesn’t the Coalition explain how ludicrous it is to suggest that the overwhelming 97% of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere each year from nature (Source: IPCC) is quite acceptable, yet the IPCC wants us to believe that the 3% of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere from human activity each year is somehow so very dangerous that it has to be regulated, taxed, traded or whatever, because it is causing catastrophic global warming and endangering the planet?

    Why doesn’t the Coalition explain that the IPCC AR4 report has come under significant controversy and that it’s reliability is is seriously in doubt?

    Why doesn’t the Coalition explain that the predictions by the IPCC are based on computer model-based predictions, which have all been shown to be overly exaggerated and wrong… garbage in garbage out?

    Why doesn’t the Coalition explain that the so called consensus of scientists behind the IPCC AR4 report does not exist, and never has existed?

    Why doesn’t the Coalition explain about the wealth of scientific evidence that skeptic scientists have presented to US politicians like Senator James Inhofe?

    Why doesn’t the Coalition explain to Australians what is currently happening in the US with regard to the forthcoming legislation in the US that will prevent the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide emissions or treating it as a pollutant?

    It is rather frustrating to listen to Tony Abbot and other Coalition members talking on this subject of ‘climate change’ … it’s like they are drinking from the same well as Julia Gillard.

    For God sake, how can we wake up the Coalition? How can we educate the Coalition that it has adopted the wrong strategy? How can we get the message to Tony Abbott that he is just as wrong as Julia Gillard on this issue?

    There is no point emailing these politicians. I’ve done that numerous times… sending them relevant and reliable information… pointing them in the right direction by reference to links to scientific reports and literature. It makes no difference.

    So how can we make the Coalition understand the real-world data that debunks the IPCC’s mantra? Any ideas?

    00

  • #
    Alan

    janama@168
    Sorry but there is no evidence that they have been subjected to enormous temperatures and pressure. Actually I’m confused about what you are referrring to here. If you mean the tree trunks in the lignites then absolutely no. Lignites are only subject to low temperatures (around 50C) and pressure at shallow burial, that’s why they are lignites and not higher rank coal.

    Cementafriend @162 yes coal close to intrusions can be “up ranked” to the point were it is actually naturally “coked” and of little use but again this is measureable and there are many parameters that indicate this. Again there are many examples around Australia and the rest of the world and we don’t need to invoke some strange hypothesis. Yarrabee and here near Blackwater is different, it is in or near a tectonic zone and has been subjected to higher pressures (folding and faulting) and I’m not aware of intrusions there. A volatile matter content around 8%(you need to state moisture basis) is predictable for this type of coal and this is actually a semi-anthracite.

    00

  • #
    Alan

    Louis@165 Just spotted this one. And your point is? I’m well aware they are lignites and as you have worked for the NSWGS you should know about the rank progression
    Remember you are not not the only experienced geologist on this earth and I think if I wanted to I might even trump you having worked (and still do) on a variety of coal deposits in a number of countries worldwide.Only mentioning this as you appear to be appealing to authority.

    If you are so confident about your abiotic theories I assume you are investing your life savings in exploration plays discovering all this oil,gas and coal. Let us all know when you submit your prospectus.

    00

  • #
    Cookster

    Niki Savva in The Australian does not seem to know the difference between believing in climate change and being doubtful of the science supporting significant man made climate change (sigh!) ? She accuses the Australian opposition leader Tony Abbott of contradicting himself through first proclaiming that he believes climate change is real then next (last week), questioning the science.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/a-spiritual-guide-to-climate-change/story-e6frgd0x-1226025640820

    00

  • #
  • #
    Patrick Kelly

    Couldn’t agree more. I’m very uncomfortable with some of the material being put about eg ‘Carbon Tax – can’t afford it Julia.’ While I will support the campaigns, it seems that they are leaving the real battle for another day or as you put it “waiting to be bludgeoned with it again.” I’m hoping the pollies know what they are doing politically but I am far from reassured given the number of declared AGW fans in prominent positions with the coalition.

    00

  • #
    pat

    Mervyn Sullivan -

    it would be wrong to imagine the Coalition does not know at least as much as sceptics know about the poor state of the “science”, etc.

    they, and the govt, know it’s a scam.

    unsurprisingly, the wishy-washy coalition appears to have lost any advantage over Labor in a new poll today, yet they will still not even direct the public to sceptics’ websites where they could be properly informed. unbelievably, abbott still talks of “carbon” and “climate change” when he could be insisting the govt stop being dishonest and call them CO2 and AGW!

    the reality is the West wishes to reengineer the entire western economy, basing it on CO2 instead of Oil, and we the sheeple are supposed to go along with the plan.
    the UK does not appoint Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti CB, who, “after initial training at Britannia Royal Naval College in Dartmouth he held shore postings and attended the University of East Anglia and graduated with a Bachelor of Science” to the post of “United Kingdom’s Special Envoy on Climate and Energy Security” by accident.

    the great irony is the so-called Greens and too many young people think AGW is a cool cause to support, something anti-establishment. how wrong they are. the Greens must know the plans for a CO2 Bubble, but say nothing.

    sceptics and websites such as Jo’s can lead young people to ask the right questions and seek the facts behind the “science is settled” scam.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    THE HORRORS OF AGENDA 21 AND ICLEI IN FLORIDA

    agenda 21 in florida

    http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_30341.php

    00

  • #
    Andy G

    I would like to suggest that we “copy” Mervyn’s posting via email to as many Liberal candidates as we can.

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Not a good day for CAGW over at http://wattsupwiththat.com/

    Start at the top and work down.

    And read and link to the comments by Sonicfrog

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    Mervin@180
    I think Tony Abbott is having an each way bet on a 2 horse race.
    He’s taking the agnostic stance so as not to polarize the electorate and possibly lose.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    And the point to remember is AGW is the whole official reason for the tax
    Where’s the evidence that what the IPCC says is sound

    There’s an analysis by Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/21/ten-major-failures-of-so-called-consensus-climate-science/#more-36364
    The author says
    In the attached analysis we take a look at the IPCC based science. We are going to ignore all the many ‘gates’ that were uncovered like the Himalayan glaciers, Amazon rain forests, how many real scientists there were who authored the key summaries and all the issues as to whether the summaries truly reflected the scientific information in the chapters and despite claims to the contrary, how a significant percentage of citations were not peer reviewed.

    We will not attempt to address the issues of sensitivity for CO2 or solar and cloud and water vapor feedbacks relative to the models. We will also ignore the many model shortcomings – like inability to forecast regional patterns, ocean oscillations, etc. Each of these alone discredit the consensus ‘settled science claim.

    We will focus on how actual data compares to the consensus science, model based virtual world view of climate’

    This is an analysis of real world data against what computer models say with links to the papers (part 1 and 2) at the above link

    outcome? CAGW fail

    00

  • #
    Andy G

    Wow, I actually got a reply from Greg Hunt.. Not sure what it means though.

    quote.

    “Many thanks for your views Andrew,

    I rely on the science provided.

    Regards

    Greg”

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Andy G

    The earthquake affected part – “the shakey ground”?

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Mervyn Sullivan @180 I agree with you about the biggest disappointment about the carbon tax/global warming/climate change issue is the strategy adopted by the Tony Abbott led Coalition
    On the other hand the Coalition does not intend to impose a ‘carbon’ tax nor does it intend to impose an ETS so on that basis my preference would be the Coalition party’s policy
    I think it’s politics which makes the Coalition stick to its global warming belief
    After all there is a party for skeptics – I wonder what their membership numbers are; I visited their site today but that info isn’t available
    I know they had some candidates for the last Federal election but don’t think any were successful
    So perhaps at this stage a large party like the Coalition admitting to skepticism would polarise a number of people who ordinarily would vote for the Coalition
    I don’t know but I suspect that’s why it has a global warming policy
    As for the Govt I suspect this is a tax grab designed to make its 2012-2013 budget surplus achievable
    I’m expecting another smoke and mirrors budget like the last budget Swan handed down

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Andy G” (192),
    Same replys from this “Greg Hunt”.
    He is a Liberal Party GAIA WORSHIPPER.

    The ONLY Science he relys upon is that provided by his UN IPCC Masters!

    He is no better than Flannery, GUANO (garnaut), gore, combet etc etc…….

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    That’s it … I will openly admit I had a Sheen momment coming into work today. I walked up to the front sliding doors to be greeted by and Earth Hour poster. Up to the lift area, and you guessed it, another Earth Hour poster. Went to my cube and off to the kitchen area … yep yet again.

    That one went in the rubbish bin with extreme prejudice and tiger blood boiling. As did the other one not too far away(for the record I didn’t lose my cool, I just became a touch intense). I find the blind ignorance of people who support this garbage quite infuriating. This was best encapsulated by Ross McKitrick last year:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/17/earth-hour-a-dissent/

    I could not say it better than he did, so I won’t try. Perhaps his open letter will find its way onto the wall instead.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Val #191

    We will focus on how actual data compares to the consensus science, model based virtual world view of climate’

    Yes, it IS about the science and this is where the IPCC stands or falls (falls in D’Aleo’s analysis).

    The IPCC have manufactured their own custom science arena complete with in-house radiative forcing methodology, formulas and component set that they hard-wire into models to simulate SRES scenarios brilliantly but fail when compared to real world data. What they promote is the science equivalent of fools gold (with liberal salting).

    The IPCC method brushes off natural cycles and phenomena with their natural forcings only simulations that consist merely of TSI. They then pronounce CO2 the only explanation for the temperature rise 1977-1997. Their completely inadequate analysis has now come back to bite them in 2011 but meanwhile the ignorant politicians are still in the 1977-1997 time warp perpetuated by MMCC proponents.

    Cohenite alerted me to the scandalous 83 year “correction” applied to Law Dome CO2 ice core data in order to splice it to Mauna Loa air sampled CO2 data.

    The “correction”:-

    “….the average age of air was arbitrary decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped. The “corrected” ice data were then smoothly aligned with the Mauna Loa record (Figure 1 B), and reproduced in countless publications as a famous “Siple curve”. Only thirteen years later, in 1993, glaciologists attempted to prove experimentally the “age assumption”[10], but they failed[9].”

    “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time”
    by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., March 2007

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

    This is the dataset that ALL IPCC climate models use for initialization and what subsequent simulations are based on, the results of which became the basis of govt policy.

    Now it turns out that even the ice core samples may not have accounted for a representative CO2 level due to diffusion of CO2 through the ice lattice thereby depleting the air pocket sample of CO2. This topic can be pursued here:-

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/03/fallen-snow/

    When all the metrics (temperature, sea level, ocean heat etc) show stasis, normal constant rise or deceleration instead of the AGW prescribed acceleration despite all the AGW “corrections” and “adjustments” then the conclusion has to be a null hypothesis for CO2 combined with bogus IPCC science methodology. This leaves an ETS or “carbon” tax without basis.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    In response to Mervyn @ 180 and your plea at th end of your post.

    There is no point emailing these politicians. I’ve done that numerous times… sending them relevant and reliable information… pointing them in the right direction by reference to links to scientific reports and literature. It makes no difference.

    I picked the following from comments on Andrew Bolts blog, which I think helps answer your plea with helpful advice

    “The number of comments that were generated, yesterday, on Gillard’s Carbon Tax were impressive and reflected the sense of insult and betrayal that so many people feel over the issue: it’s a great pity that so much of this effort is wasted. Venting one’s indignation on political blogs, like this, may be fine for relieving an individual’s frustration, but has little tangible effect on a government hell-bent on imposing draconian measures on, what it believes to be, a largely submissive public.
    However, the individual is not powerless and there are a number of ways in which voters can bring very effective pressure to bear on governments: through their Local Members; relevant Ministers and, ultimately, the Prime Minister.
    As a former Canberra public servant I had, for several years, the responsibility for investigating public complaints & petitions; preparing recommendations, briefing Ministers and preparing Ministerial (including Prime Ministerial) letters of reply – I know what works and what doesn’t work. Firstly, FORGET emails; they are never taken seriously and are largely ignored – if replied to at all, it is usually by way of a boilerplate fluff piece. The two most compelling ways of registering one’s displeasure are by (1) personal telephone calls (and letters) to the Local Member and (2) formal letters to relevant Ministers and to the Prime Minister. These two types of communication cannot be ignored; they have to be logged, they should be acknowledged and they have (eventually) to be replied to.
    Whatever the mode of communication you use, be polite, rational and logical, but insistent – avoid hyperbole, abuse or threats, these will merely get you branded a crank and your complaint will be binned. With telephone calls you might not get to speak to the Local Member, but insist that he/she call you back. Have a prepared list of cogent points for when you do receive a call-back, usually from the Member’s P.A. With letters to relevant Ministers, use the correct form of address (these can be found on the appropriate government websites), be concise, use a good spell-checker and proof-read at least twice – the more polished your communication, the more attention it will receive.
    Above ALL, be persistent – it is axiomatic that the squealing wheel gets the most grease – if your Local Member doesn’t get back to you, keep ringing his/her office. Keep sending follow-up letters to relevant Ministers every few days – normally, the original letter with an opening para. along the lines of, “I refer to my letter of….”.
    Politicians and bureaucrats hate this form of attack since, in the long term, it cannot be ignored: it is tried and true and it is effective. Good hunting.
    Heimdall (Reply)
    Mon 28 Feb 11 (07:51am) “

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Bulldust @196.

    That one went in the rubbish bin…….

    As did the other one not too far away….

    Excellent work Bulldust, rubbish always belongs in the bin.

    You are a true conservationist.

    00

  • #
    Andy G

    Re:Damian Allen: (195)

    So he essentially a Green in Liberal clothing.. pity :-(

    AG

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bulldust you could at least use the recycle bin… but seriously wow a poster would make your blood boil… wierd. You should see someone about that it’s not healthy. Good to see you sticking up for free speech and all that too:)

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Bulldust” (196),
    I was recently in two different lifts as was confronted with BS earth hour posters.
    In both instances I ripped the posters down and threw them in the bin!

    I suggest that everybody do the same…..

    PS Don’t forget to trun ON all your lights to celebrate Human Achievement Hour this Saturday night!!

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Wow Damian Allen is a brownshirt as well!

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    MattB:
    Don’t worry MattB … I channel my energies created this way. Yes excessive ignorance does make me angry (internally) because I am an educator at heart. We have an elaborate education system and plenty of opportunity to take advantage of it in this country. There is absolutely no excuse to blindly accept the garbage thinking that results in these assaults on common sense. I find it as abhorrent as those jerks who stand outside the Scientology door on Murray street trying to tempt ignorant people into their cult. They never dare approach me … perhaps they sense they would be intensely spoken to.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Bulldust #204

    It angers and saddens me. See #125. I think this is a serious moment in history. If the Lysenkoists hold sway over science on on an obvious scam like CAGW, what can they do next?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Hey Bulldust, if it makes you angry, maybe you can impersonate Angry Anderson to give the perth protest a bit of atmosphere.

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

    All elements in this world have to stay within tight parameters – for to have one parameter out of kilt ruins the equation and the system falls apart and life cannot exist.

    AGW believers virtually are saying that nature cannot react to an event and maintain the equation – that man by his own genius can artificially change nature.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Don Wilkie @ 26

    Best comment in the thread, mate.

    Jo Nova is grappling with the great paradox of the climate debate.

    At its core it’s about the science… but to get there is like peeling an onion. The climate debate has almost nothing to do with science and everything to do with not just politics and economics, but fashion, fear, pride, prejudice, greed and warfare. Yes, warfare. Propaganda and cynical indoctrination are tools of war craft, not science…

    This is the way it always is with great myth-making projects. Take for instance, Christianity, which at its core is simply the teachings of Christ. Yet, for centuries Christianity has been mostly about anything but Christ —wars, empire, crusades, inquisitions, economics, etc.

    Today the world is roughly divided into two great philosophic camps.

    The first is primeval and taps into humanity’s deepest tribal instincts. It is collectivist and simplistically brutal. It’s the belief in a strong central authority, top down control. A command economy. It’s the view of the ABC and the tendency of all left-of-centre to see the world as chaos that only a wise statist technocratic elite can impose order upon. If only all the little people would just STFU and fall into formation behind the latest five year plan to “save the planet.” Political Orthodoxy is the lens through which a collectivist “hive-mind” makes inquiries about the nature of reality. All else is heresy to be suppressed and vilified.

    The second great philosophic tradition is much newer because it first required conscious self-awareness of “individuality” apart from the collective to emerge on the stage of history. This philosophy stresses the rights of the individual over the group and recognizes that the individual is the primary unit of society, not the tribe, trade union or even the clan. This is the philosophy of free will and markets, of individual initiative and responsibility. As an individual one is required to think for oneself rather than submit to a consensus of peers or experts decide what is best for you. For the responsible individual thinker the Scientific Method is the primary mode of rational inquiry into nature regardless of whatever “consensus” is in vogue.

    So Jo Nova is right. It’s all about the science in the end. Not just climate science, but THE SCIENCE, the system that western civilization has developed over the past 500 years or more to rationally inquire into the nature of the universe. This system of science is being abused today in the service of politics by the forces of collectivism. And, because they are collectivists, if they must degrade modern science to achieve their goals then that’ll be a big twofer for them. Rational inquiry and transparency are the greatest threats to the orthodoxy upon which all collectivist values are based. If only the collectivists could destroy the cognitive tools we employ to think for ourselves with, their orthodoxy could go unchallenged.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Kevin: “AGW believers virtually are saying that nature cannot react to an event and maintain the equation – that man by his own genius can artificially change nature.” is simply not true. This whole thread is about it being about the science… so lets leave your warped christian ideals out of this yeah?

    The issue is that nature’s equilibrium, quite clearly, is not one that maintains a habitable environment for humans, or the vast majority of species that have failed to live through major changes. Quite qhy we’d want to encourage one of these major fluctuations is beyond me, but lets not pretend that fighting AGW means that anyone believes we can do anything about the pulverising and brutal cyclical changes of the planet.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    MattB: @201

    but seriously wow a poster would make your blood boil… wierd. You should see someone about that it’s not healthy.

    You’d be fine with posters advertising the observance of a religious practice in your workplace wouldn’t you MattB.

    A poster encouraging you and others to maybe, oh I dunno – abstain from fish on a Friday perhaps, or encouraging you not to work on a Saturday with hip slogans and heaps of pictures of grinning “fully sick” and “off da chain” yoof?

    You’d be fine with that wouldn’t you?

    Even more so if it was supported enthusiastically by the government of the day too eh!

    Yo mamma, it’s fully KOOL to switch off yo lights for an hour a year dude…

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Wes, when you say “Don Wilkie @ 26 -Best comment in the thread, mate.”

    Well I can only assume you’ve not read my Charlie Sheen joke in #179…

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Wes in 208 also… surely both schools of thought could live with figuring out how to deal with climate change? I think your post has exposed that for you at least, this is not about the science, rather it is about a war between two great philosophical camps.

    The danger is, as the science to me is pretty clear, that you leave us with only one option to tackle climate change, and that will be delivered by the 1st camp.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “You’d be fine with posters advertising the observance of a religious practice in your workplace wouldn’t you MattB.”

    as long as it was just a suggestion.

    “A poster encouraging you and others to maybe, oh I dunno – abstain from fish on a Friday perhaps, or encouraging you not to work on a Saturday with hip slogans and heaps of pictures of grinning “fully sick” and “off da chain” yoof?”

    I fully endorse posters encouraging me to not work on a Saturday. I think it is eat fish on a friday BTW, not abstain. Seriously it would not bother me in the slightest however. I have a free mind. I even don’t really mind when my TV shows are interrupted to suggest I eat KFC or buy a new car.

    00

  • #
    Andy G

    Matt,

    You cannot “fight against AGW” because it doesn’t exist.

    What we can do is fight against “the hypothesis of AGW” and to show how moronic the idea is.

    The AGW apostles, however, keep changing the predictions of their hypothesis (after the event), so that it can now cover any slightly unusual weather activity, or any ecolocical event that happens, anywhere.

    Many of the zealots even manage to extend the hypothesis to cover events that are totally unrelated to weather, (ie earthquakes)

    All this without any proof what so ever.

    Amazingly powerful, is the change of a natural occuring plant food trace gas from 0.03% to 0.04%.. !!!

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Subject: The anti-Earth Hour – HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT HOUR

    IT’S appropriate Earth Hour this year falls on the night of the NSW election, when the people turn the lights out on 16 bleak years of Labor rule. But, of course, Earth Hour is a marketing stunt which few people take seriously, even with jet-setting super model Miranda Kerr as ambassador.

    Now there is an alternative to Earth Hour: Life Hour, ”which celebrates the wonderful achievements of the human mind by turning ON all lights March 26, 8:30 pm for one hour.”

    For a more thoughtful approach to climate change, Quadrant magazine offers Part 1 of The Intelligent Voter’s Guide to Global Warming by Geoffrey Lehmann, Peter Farrell & Dick Warburton.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/the_anti_earth_hour

    00

  • #
    Mark

    In Question Time today::

    Gillard accuses Abbott of being a climate change “denier”. Real bottom of the barrel stuff but what else would you expect from the harridan? If that wasn’t bad enough Christopher Pine gets up and makes a PC goat of himself.

    Has to be said that Tony asks for this with his fence-sitting position. As long as he fails to take the cudgel up he and tbe party will progressively leak votes.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    I even don’t really mind when my TV shows are interrupted to suggest I eat KFC or buy a new car.

    Hmmm, I see…

    What if those “suggesting” you eat KFC or buy a new car were doing it as part of a common goal to enact a world wide taxing system that’s aim was to ultimately force you to eat KFC even if you were a vegetarian?

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    I think it is eat fish on a friday BTW, not abstain.

    Actually, I think you’re right. Wow, you are quite the authority on the observance of “religious practices” aren’t you!

    00

  • #
  • #
    Kevin Moore

    I was taught that in daylight, plant life during photosynthesis took in CO2 and emitted Oxygen. Conversely during night time respiration, plants took in Oxygen and emitted CO2.

    If one wanted to see a rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere they would only have to take a reading during daylight and then to get a higher reading take another reading at night.

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    I believe the starting point to winning the battle against the Gillard government’s carbon tax is going to be the efforts of US politicians, which should come to fruition next month

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7d62b087-802a-23ad-41e4-93481b22c4a8&Region_id=&Issue_id

    It is predicted that their efforts will now become legislation as soon as next month and this will prevent the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide in the US, and will prevent all states doing like wise.

    When this happens, the global ramifications will become obvious… bearing in mind, the US also will no longer be funding the IPCC, the US will only be listening to its own expert scientists rather than the IPCC, and it will continue to ignore the Kyoto Protocol and any replacement agreement.

    This will mean that economic powerhouse like the US, China, Japan, India and Brazil will not be regulating CO2 emissions in any way harmful to their economies. The isolated EU will continue down a self inflicted road to economic decline.

    This will leave economic minnows like Australia sitting on the sidelines, and if they introduce a punitive carbon tax, they’ll be watching manufacturing jobs heading overseas, unemployment rising, costs of living increasing, standards of living declining… and all for what?

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    The ABC is at it with another Lewandowsky wannabe pseudobabbler (philosopher Tim Dean):

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45394.html

    To be honest I couldn’t force myself to read more than the first dozen paragraphs or so … this guy makes Lewandowsky’s picasso brain look like a blueprint for the spaceshuttle. It is rare to see so much twaddle in one place. You’d almost think it was another Alene Composta.

    What is it with the ABC and soft scientists when addressing climate science? If you want to talk about climate science then for {insert a god choice of your preference}’s sake talk about science. Don’t waffle about superficial rubbish.

    For the record I am a swing voter and have voted both major parties in the past for differing reasons. I cannot vote for Labor-Green given their current illogical stance on climate.

    Man may have some effect on climate, but that is not the point … it is whether man is having a significant (English sense, not the statistical sense) impact on climate that is important and therein lies the crux of the debate. That debate is far from concluded, despite your disingenuous comments aimed at making uninformed readers think otherwise.

    Peurile attempts to neatly categorise people as right-wing or left-wing obscure the fact that most people have a portfolio of policy positions that cannot be fully encapsulated by any one party. It is simplistic and disingenuous to assume otherwise. If you are against the “carbon tax” but for gay marriage … guess what? There is no political party representing that position in Australia. The premise for your argument is therefore moot.

    (Cross-posted – hello ABC mod squad)

    00

  • #
    pat

    val majkus –

    if the following is true and, judging from family and friends of all and no political persuasions, i don’t doubt it –

    7 May 2010: TWO-THIRDS OF AUSTRALIANS DOUBTFUL ON GLOBAL WARMING
    Two-thirds of Australians now doubt the scientific consensus on global warming according to
    a new poll conducted by Galaxy Research for the Institute of Public Affairs…
    http://www.ipa.org.au/library/news/1273210129_document_global_warming_consensus_-_full_release_-_07052010_small_.pdf

    what could a major party lose by standing with the public?

    none of it makes sense unless u realise the “Political Parties” are simply ploys to give a veneer of democracy to our political system. the public is on its own on this one and we need to unite and demand certainty: NO CARBON DIOXIDE TAX.

    btw i simply cannot get my head around the idea that some people are okay with their government even considering taxing carbon dioxide, much less doing it.

    the sheer audacity of it, takes my breath away.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Pat:

    Ironically this is something that Chomsky has been arguing for some years with respect to the US political system. I understand that many here would not share his political view of the world, but I think he has some merit on that point, if nothing else. Chomsky has long argued that neither major party in the US properly represents the position of the electorate on a number of issues as demonstrated by surveys of the population and the stated positions of the parties.

    The other issue which he bemoans, which I think many here would agree with, is the lack of self-regulation in the MSM.

    Needless to say, his comments about climate science were worse than useless, but there ya go… he got a few good runs on the board before stepping on his wicket.

    It’s hard to know whether the Libs would make good mileage from taking a strong skeptical stance on climate. I look at it this way:

    1) They won’t lose die-hard Lib sceptics regardless of what they say, because there is no other conservative party to vote for.
    2) They won’t lose conservative AGW believers by stating they believe in AGW, obviously.
    3) They may gain a few swing voters who believe in AGW.
    4) They won’t lose skeptical swing voters because no other party represents the sceptics (no party with any clout).

    Therefore there is no upside in taking a sceptical stance publicly … only downside. They aren’t stupid. They will say they believe AGW in order to gain votes, but anyone with common sense realises it is a low priority for them … a non-core issue if you will.

    00

  • #
    Andy G

    It would not surprise me if the LabGreens realise that the climate is actually moving into a cooling phase, so they HAVE to push this idiocy through now.

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    Jo – What we need to do for these rallies is take the data to the people so they can see it for themselves. Pick a chart from here:

    http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html

    For example, or here:

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gRuPC7OQdxc/TEqvoqau3GI/AAAAAAAAAqQ/u4QEtQeLOzo/s1600/NASA_VERSIONS.jpg

    Showing James Hansen’s continual bogus adjustments, charts by the Aussie BOM showing their bogus adjustments or even charts of current satellite temp trends and enlarge them into placards on a stick to wave during the rallies. I prefer this one as well as Hansen’s above:

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a71a24a7970b-pi

    Just edit the chart to point out all the warming periods asking “What caused THIS warming, Jooliar? ..and here? ..and here?” etc. Can even use charts pointing out temp rising before CO2:

    http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/graphs/vostok-ice-cores-150000%20med.jpg

    Give our rallies an even better fighting chance. Show the facts, not just chanting hordes. Wonder if SBS or ABC news would dare zoom in on one..?

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Andy G:@225
    I’m sure that is the case, the rank and file might be gullible fools but you shouldn’t underestimate the intelligence of the leaders.

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Bulldust:@224
    I agree with your analysis of the Liberal’s political strategy. They’re right flank is secure, it’s Labor who has to worry about the Greens on their left flank.
    The Liberals are free to advance into the middle ground, if Labor tries that they open up their left flank to the Greens

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Binny the right flank of the Libs is only a call to Pauline Hanson away!

    Also – a clarification from you guys. Denier is offensive because it suggests you are ignorng the science, not because of fauxtrageous links to the holocaust… yeah?

    00

  • #

    Jo, you may wish to fill in Matt Thompson about about this guy from Conservation Council. Your site was mentioned too but disappeared quick! Below is from his Facebook page:
    Neville Numbat
    Will be debating anti-carbon tax spokesperson Matt Thompson on 6PR perth tomorrow. Who is he?
    42 minutes ago · LikeUnlike ·

    *
    *
    2 people like this.
    *
    o
    o
    Anne O’Brien http://agmates.ning.com/forum/topics/stop-gillards-carbon-tax?commentId=3535428%3AComment%3A198188&xg_source=activity
    14 minutes ago · LikeUnlike
    o
    Mikhail Lush ahhh….yes. he’s a right wing american tea party advocate. check his profile, it’s delightful; http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001349701311
    8 minutes ago · LikeUnlike
    o
    Neville Numbat Great so this pair are not only climate deniers but they are in a protracted battle with the State Government environmental regulator over their feedlot, and are active in the property rights area trying to get clearing laws wound back!
    2 seconds ago · LikeUnlike
    *
    Write a comment…

    00

  • #

    Scary stuff…

    Neville Numbat
    Will be debating anti-carbon tax spokesperson Matt Thompson on 6PR perth tomorrow. Who is he?
    50 minutes ago · LikeUnlike ·

    *
    *
    2 people like this.
    *
    o
    Mikhail Lush i’m sure he’s a very enlightened individual…
    33 minutes ago · LikeUnlike
    o
    Anne O’Brien http://joannenova.com.au/tag/thompson-janet-and-matt/
    22 minutes ago · LikeUnlike
    o
    Anne O’Brien http://agmates.ning.com/forum/topics/stop-gillards-carbon-tax?commentId=3535428%3AComment%3A198188&xg_source=activity
    22 minutes ago · LikeUnlike
    o
    Mikhail Lush ahhh….yes. he’s a right wing american tea party advocate. check his profile, it’s delightful; http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001349701311
    16 minutes ago · LikeUnlike
    o
    Neville Numbat Great so this pair are not only climate deniers but they are in a protracted battle with the State Government environmental regulator over their feedlot, and are active in the property rights area trying to get clearing laws wound back!
    7 minutes ago · LikeUnlike
    o
    Mikhail Lush they’re frightening idiots.
    6 minutes ago · Like

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    Hi folks I have just been over at the skepticalscience site and been going through the names of the people that have written the debunking of the top 10 skeptic talking points and from googleing none of them seem to have any great scientific record.So if you know could you tell me who the following are and what qualifications they might have.
    John Cook
    John Russell
    James Wight
    gpwayne
    AdamK
    Robert Way

    00

  • #
    Binny

    MattB:

    The Liberals realised how dangerous Hanson was to them very quickly, and dealt with her.

    Labor has been far too slow to realise the danger posed by the Greens and now it is probably late.

    PS I don’t care what you call me/us what is real, is real and what isn’t, isn’t.
    Names and tags are relevant and generally the last resort of someone who has lost an argument.

    00

  • #
    Binny

    irrelevant

    00

  • #

    @ Bulldust 196

    That one went in the rubbish bin with extreme prejudice and tiger blood boiling.

    I would have burnt it. ^-

    00

  • #
    brc

    I’ve been thinking about this post. And while I agree with the position that the science has to be put to the test, I believe it’s impractical to make this happen while a bunch of believers is in government.

    It’s like trying to deprogram a cult believer – you can’t just go in and call the cult a bunch of liars – because you play right into the hands of the cult.

    First of all, all legislation surrounding ‘global warming’ has to be cut. That’s the proposed carbon dioxide tax, the solar subsidies, the vegetation policies – anything to do with ‘greenhouse gases’.

    Once that is done, ridiculous departments like the ‘department of climate change’ need to be defunded and disbanded.

    If any money is to be spent, it should be on climate adaption. This would be a set of government policies looking at the best ways to manage droughts, bushfires, floods and cyclones. Whether prescribed burning around population centres, building of larger dams for drought supply, or increasing of building standards to cat5 cyclone (plus community shelters in all towns over a certain size). All of these activities will be aimed at preventing impacts of real climate events, now and in the future. It’s certainly better value for money than trying to increase the price of energy in the hope of changing the weather in a hundred years.

    Finally, climate science is important. So any government funding will become dependent on full publication of all codes, data, algorithms and whatever else goes into scientific papers. No more funding for finding the effects of climate change – only on working out what drives climate. Any computer-model driven paper should come with a warning on the front (WARNING: assumptions and guesses drive this outcome). OK I stole that one from Michael Crichton but I think it’s a winner.

    It’s not possible to do all these at once, so support should be given to whichever politicians want to walk down this road.

    Once this is done the whole thing will collapse in on itself and become such an outdated position that nobody will want to be associated with it anyway. You’d have to look in the far dark corners of science to find anyone supporting Eugenics now, and that used to have the sort of support that co2 blaming has right now.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Info about this “John Cook”……

    SKEPTICALSCIENCE WEBSITE DEBUNKED – How John Cook unskeptically believes in a hotspot (that thermometers can’t find)

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/how-john-cook-unskeptically-believes-in-a-hotspot-that-thermometers-cant-find/

    00

  • #
  • #
    Tom

    Hello Joanne, Sorry I’ve come into this thread late, but you’re exactly right. Being sceptical of the scientific ruling class is a nice warm, fuzzy feeling for people who correctly feel they’re being ripped off, but don’t understand the physics (neither should they have to). However, it IS about the science — that is, the lack of an anthropomorphic signature in recent global temperature patterns for the warming we’ve seen in the 30 years until 2000. The young zealots like David Karoly and Andy Pitman, who have appointed themselves the IPCC’s shock troops, need to be asked constantly: where is your evidence that warming and the rise in CO2 emissions are directly linked? At some time, I hope that the integrity of science will be re-established, but there is no urgency when the religious voodoo of the IPCC is being supported by 40 years of brainwashing of children by a generation of politicised Western teachers for whom truth and verifiability are foreign and unimportant ideas. Some are more optimistic than me, but I think it will take at least another 10 years for the current cult to be dismantled.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    MattB @ 229:
    You know it is insulting on both counts … why are you simply back to trolling again? Tired of trying to be polite? You know it is a dog whistle to Holocaust denial. Surely you don’t need to sit through an Oreskes monologue to understand that tactic?

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Tom @ #239

    I agree with you – thie lunacy is embedded in the system and needs to allowed to play itself out. 10 years? It might be longer I suspect.

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    Jo PLEASE at my post @232 or anyone else that may know the academic record of the people mentioned it would save me a lot of google leg work.

    Who is John Cook.

    Thanks

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    Hi brc@236,
    I like your post, especially the last paragraph:
    “Once this is done the whole thing will collapse in on itself and become such an outdated position that nobody will want to be associated with it anyway. You’d have to look in the far dark corners of science to find anyone supporting Eugenics now, and that used to have the sort of support that co2 blaming has right now.”

    It got me thinking. If these green worshippers got their way, at what stage of this madness would people say enough is enough? We might put up with some pointless windmills until we notice that they are not the solution to our energy requirements. Same for solar cells etc. I read somewhere that Spain has withdrawn all subsidies for their renewable energy experiment. I’ve not been able to find the source for this, so if anyone knows, I’d appreciate a link.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Bulldust@240

    Yours is the only inference it can have. Why use it as a word that is free of holocaust connotations because when it is it also is equally applicable to alarmists as well as to skeptics

    ie What is it that alarmists deny? Surely they deny the very reasonable proposition that any changes in Earth’s climate can be fully accounted for by internal climate variability. (Internal, in this context, of course means independent of any changes in the sun’s radiance or any changes in atmospheric concentrations of CO2).

    00

  • #
    Cookster

    The Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard is now openly using the Denier term in parliament against the opposition leader Tony Abbott (refer linked story).

    I’m sure it’s been stated here before, but I personally feel it’s about time Abbott said enough is enough and asked some straight questions of the Greens / Labor government coalition about the science underlying their proposed carbon tax policy. A good place to start would be Jo’s blog.

    Abbott deposed Malcolm Turnbull for the Opposition leadership on exactly this topic (climate change policy). Before Abbott took that stand (to challenge Turnbull’s leadership and support of the then proposed ETS) Labor had a huge lead in the Polls. Within a very short space of time he went very close to toppling a government from power which had at one point a 20%+ majority in the polls (we now have a hung parliment). That tells me a large portion of the Australian public are crying out for a political party to take a firm stance against the entire CAGW scam.

    For this reason Abbott should have the courage to fiercely challenge the Carbon Tax on the grounds of 1. the underlying science and 2. the potential economic cost to our country through pointlessly taking action ahead of our major trading partners and competitors.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/politial-heat-rises-over-climate-denial-with-pm-accused-of-drawing-parallels-with-holocaust/story-e6frg6xf-1226026163930

    00

  • #

    LOL. I told Mikhail Lush, when he said he would see us at the protest tomorrow, that he could come up and introduce himself to me. He knows what I look like, because I don’t hide like many of the trouble makers who wreak havoc while hiding behind a fuzzy picture and a pseudonym.

    If he deems us frightening idiots, I’ll take that as a compliment. :-)

    Hope to see lots of you at 10:30 tomorrow morning at Parliament House, Perth.

    00

  • #
    Matt

    Some of what is said about me above is true, if it matters. However, the issue at hand is not me. The issue is the carbon tax, and the science (or lack of it) on which it is based.

    00

  • #

    Btw, Jo, I love this post. Great job.

    00

  • #

    Call in guys and gals, we don’t get it here in the north…

    Neville Numbat
    Numbats! Listen and call in to 6PR tomorrow morning I will be debating carbon pricing with with a climate skeptic before the rally around 9.30: Talkback Number: (08) 9221 1882 SMS Feedback: 19 999 677 or 19 999 6PR (call costs 55c)

    00

  • #

    Looks like you have some loonies opposing you at tomorrow’s protest…
    Good luck from the sunny north…

    Neville Numbat
    Finally got the rally details on the CCWA website – can send this by email to all your friends who don’t use facebook!!
    Perth Rally to support a Price on Carbon | Conservation Council of Western Australia
    ccwa.org.au
    Friends, we all know that a price on carbon pollution is the first, and most important step to a clean energy economy of the future. Despite this, you might have heard that a group of climate change sceptics is organising an anti-carbon price rally in Perth.

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Have we all seen the first 35 seconds of this?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX5rlhbYTXY

    First 10 percent of a little tax. Then if other taxes, fees and duties are reduced as the dioxide tax is increased, that 10% grows and more money goes to….Who?
    Australia goes broke as this 10% bleeding wound opens up and the …”Who?” have the money to keep funding the propaganda machine.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Cookster @ 245

    So it looks like Julia wants to run with the deer and hunt with the hounds. She’s calling Abbot a denier. But didn’t her lot also say that “delay is denial”? Didn’t she also say that her government wouldn’t introduce a carbon tax? Does she believe in anything more than aquiring and holding power?

    The only question is – why do we bother listening to what she says?

    Cheers,

    Speedy.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    I heard that pin-headed little gargoyle Christopher Pine state this afternoon that he believes in AGW. Clearly, Abbott has problems in his ranks.

    I can’t understand why Dennis Jensen was not given a shadow portfolio commensurate with his scientific qualifications. Maybe he told Abbott that he’d call the spade a bloody shovel and that would upset the Lib “warmista”. Make no mistake, they exist and would just as readily saddle the population with a CT or an ETS as the most rabid Greens.

    00

  • #
    brc

    Regarding Christopher Pine or Malcolm Turnbull. It would be a good idea for someone to compile a list of Liberal members of parliament and senators who are confirmed co2 phobics. Such a list would be useful for people who normally vote Liberal but aren’t prepared to continue their support should they decide to try and support anything beyond the current token policy.

    I, personally, would vote invalid if the Liberals started supporting any type of ETS or Carbon tax. And I’m sure there would be plenty of others. If these fence-sitting members with a self-diagnosed case of co2 phobia realise that the core of their support base would desert them, perhaps it might harden a few opinions in the party room. I don’t think they are connected enough with the opinion on the street in the Canberra bubble to realise how toxic it is.

    Accordingly, I’m not giving Cambell Newman my support until I hear what he has to say about this. Nothing short of a full rejection of Carbon Tax ala O’Farrell will do. Cambell is a man of action but a believer with a state treasury at his disposal could cause more problems. Queensland needs some dams and some power stations and more coal terminals, not some fruitcake chasing of green rainbows like windmills and solar panels. Perhaps an email campaign into Cambell Newmans electoral office needs to be undertaken before he says anything silly.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Nah Bulldust I really don’t see the link. I call a denier someone who denies things. A holocaust denier denies the holocaust. It is a specific denial. The term denial existed well before the Holocaust. I just don’t see it, I really think it is a bogus argument.

    00

  • #
    fred

    Mervin Sullivan @ 180 is dead right!
    Has Tony Abbott lost his mind?
    Appeasing brainless sycophants by pretending that man-made Global Warming, or whatever it is called since it caused earthquakes, is now real.
    It will not win a single vote from the greens and the other believers, but it will cost him a lot of votes from those who saw him as the only sane voice who could speak for us.
    He should get rid of the fools who convinced him that taking an each way bet was a good idea. And get rid of Turnbull before he turns the Liberals into Labour without the Greens.

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Vote on “deniers” here.

    Keep in mind who wants to hijack the language. And why.

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    Christopher Pyne is his name, not Pine. Until recently he was my Federal MP.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Hi guys!

    Just been reading the lastest Andrew Bolt articles on the global warming FRAUD.

    In case you missed them…….

    Gillard’s Carbon Dioxide Tax Will Turn Off The Lights…..Permanently !!

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

    Abc “Media Watch” Promotes The Global Warming Fraud !!!!

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

    Bob Brown’s nirvana – spending $250,000 on each job for no green gain

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/bob_browns_nirvana_spending_250000_on_each_job_for_no_green_gain/

    Six million Jews didn’t die so Greg Combet could smear a global warming sceptic !!!!!

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

    Happy reading!!

    00

  • #
    Andy G

    I would just like to say to all those able to attend the Canberra and other rallies,

    “I hope you have a productive and enjoyable time !”

    00

  • #
    brc

    Just watched Tony Abbott addressing the canberra rally on ABC News24. And I despair at the presentation of the crowd there. Some halfwit with a bunch of ranting about Agenda 21 and Genocide waving their placard around behind Tony’s head. Maybe Agenda 21 is the smoking gun – maybe it’s not. It’s really irrelevant as far as stopping the carbon dioxide tax in Australia is concerned. One thing for sure is that ravings like this muddy the water around the simple fact the tax doesn’t work and is based on bad science. It’s not a good look for the leader of the opposition to go on national TV with a sign saying ‘genocide’ waving around behind his ear. At the very least Tony Abbotts media people should have seen this and remove the sign. Then there was the ‘gillard is a witch’ signs and others. I would have been embarrassed to have been associated with that. It’s the kind of thing that resident commenter without an original thought percival snodgrass would rant about. Remember how we all laughed at the communist flags in Copenhagen – well, that’s how people are going to see this.

    It’s this very reason I decided to opt out of the protests today. All the while people are openly running around with easily ridiculed conspiracy theory mindsets and relying on simple name calling and caricatures ordinary people are going to stay away.

    What was wrong with big, plain placards that said ‘no carbon tax : election now’. Instead a bunch of nutcase ramblings, nothing to do with the actual failed science and impossible to read were waved around.

    I hope there are more rolling protests, and I hope the organisers can instill a bit of discipline to stick to the message. Because protests are about showing strong collective opinion on a single issue, not a chance to air all your dirty laundry at once.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    The nutters are the core of the movement sorry brc. Rabid nutters with insulting placards, possibly being interrupted by hippy vegans in no-nukes T-shirts.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Speaking of Percy… Damian Allen (259) is a far more sensible name!

    00

  • #
    MattB

    BRC just watched the clip – very funny seeing “Genocide” waved around when the libs are trying to get traction about the use of the term denier:)

    00

  • #
    brc

    The nutters are the core of the movement sorry brc

    The thing is, I know that not to be true of the majority of people who don’t want the tax and don’t believe in the ‘consensus’. I guess this problem affects those on both sides of the argument – a true believer probably cringes when they see people linking earthquakes and co2, and march down the street in hazmat suits pretending to be frightened of co2.

    My point is that I wish the nutters could juts focus on the problem at hand and not rejoice in the glee to list all their grievances.

    I think the only solution is an election so that the ordinary people can give their point of view at the ballot box.

    00

  • #
    Andy G

    If anyone wants to use it, found this on a friend’s puter.

    http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gradds55/rip%20science.jpg

    00

  • #
    MattB

    True BRC, but most people who want a Carbon price are not mung bean eating hippies either. Unfortunately at Rallies you get the crazies and it is a risk.

    I completely understand that the majority of skeptics are not fringe nutters…

    00

  • #
    BLouis79

    It makes absolutely no common sense that a trace gas at way less than 1% can magically act as a blanket to keep the earth warmer. It has about as much credibility as a flat earth. So called “climate science” is tarred by the spin of the snake oil salesman.

    On the other hand, certainly it is known that human activity generates heat on earth. Urban heat islands are well described and documented. Airports loom even larger as heat islands on thermal imaging. That airport weather stations designed for pilots should be bastardized to measure “global” temperatures is a travesty. Energy analysis by Nordell quantifies how much temperature should rise based on how much energy we liberate from all sources. This all makes sound scientific sense and is consistent with the laws of physics.

    Only nobody wants to know that civilisation warms the earth. It does no favours to carbon traders, uranium miners, nuclear power station manufacturers, or politicians.

    Nobody wants to know that the earth can cope with it through its own homeostatic mechanisms, like clouds, which no computer model can yet model accurately. Once upon a time, it was smog and oxides of nitrogen and sulphur that were the mortal enemy of humankind. Then it was the hole in the ozone layer. Now it’s CO2′s turn to be demon. What will be next?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “It makes absolutely no common sense that a trace gas at way less than 1% can magically act as a blanket to keep the earth warmer.”

    I agree 100%. Thing is – it’s not magic… it is just what is observed and theorised and understood… ie what happens due to the laws of physics. BLoodly lucky or we’d freeze to death.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    “It makes absolutely no common sense that a trace gas at way less than 1% can magically act as a blanket to keep the earth warmer.”

    No magic. the blanket only has a few threads of CO2, the close weave is water vapour – great insulation.

    00

  • #
    BLouis79

    The best insulation is a vacuum. Water vapour is not a great insulator, but clouds are good at blocking sunlight. Water on earth with it’s high specific heat acts as a great heat sink when it’s in the sun and cools slowly at night. Ask anyone about onshore and offshore breezes. The atmospheric greenhouse is nonsense and has been more than adequately debunked by Gerlich and Tscheuschner.

    00

  • #
    MattB

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

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Water vapour is not a great insulator

    Maybe not, but in the context of the atmosphere it does the job. If your only attire was a tee-shirt and shorts, where would you rather spend the night? In a dry desert where CO2 is the predominate insulator or somewhere with a little humidity?

    00

  • #
    joltinjoe

    The real problem of the warmists is that their spokesman, Al Gore is not smart enough to understand “science”. He is smart enough to become famous but for all the wrong reasons. Sort of like Bin Laden. Gore’s movie is now famous for all the errors. Jones is now famous for not being a careful administrator. Mann is famous for creating a phoney hockey stick. The skeptics are becoming famous for pointing out the truth. It is forever thus. Now you know!

    00