JoNova

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



40% of Australians don’t believe in man-made global warming (and boy are they irritated)

Who knew? CSIRO funded a 5,000 person poll last July and August and then sat on the results for months. Perhaps they were disappointed that only 50% of people thought humans have any role in changing the global climate? Worse, 90% of people acknowledge that the world is warming, and 40% have figured out that that the key issue is not whether it warms but whether it’s natural that matters, and it’s hard to call them deniers. How inconvenient.

Irritation hampers climate change science: The Australian, April 4 2011.

Poll of Australians, climate change irritates

Let me guess, Tim Flannery realizes that the more he explains the climate, in a one-sided staged discussion, the more people become skeptical, right? But then again, it could just be that the explanations are not credible. He’s closer than he realizes.

A lack of “credible information” is one of the main reasons that 40 per cent of Australians do not believe that humans have a role in global warming, according to the head of the federal government’s Climate Commission, Tim Flannery.

So despite a $100 million dollar federal department, a whole UN agency,  entire popular-science magazines being converted into full time activists, multiple glossy brochures, 13 million dollar advertising campaigns, community forums, school programs, teacher information, free school resources, and prime time media help on an almost daily basis, and Flannery still thinks the problem is that people lack “credible” information?

The real problem for Tim is that the people are getting too much of his kind of information. The more they get, the less they like it. Even without skeptics working online, the man-in-the-street knows that predicting the weather is damn difficult, the answers presented are too chumpy-chumpy clean cut, that there is no real debate, and any dissenters are marginalized and vilified (which is odd for a debate that is supposedly about science). The public can smell the propaganda. They are irritated by the one-sided fakery of the “conversation”.

What’s interesting is the divergence between trust in “government” (nearly as low as “second-hand car salesman”) and trust in “government scientists” which is conversely very high. No wonder the government wants to exploit the good-will earned by government scientists over the last five decades. It’s just a shame the good name is being squandered.

The graph mocks Flannery’s point about the “lack of credible information” in any case: the most credible people are (apparently) environmental groups and university scientists, which the climate team use in droves. Where can they go from here?

From the report comes the news that Gillard must dread: skepticism is spreading by word of mouth. Skeptics don’t need the mass media to get the message out, they are telling their friends.

People tend to trust their friends and family for information on climate change – for those who
don’t consider climate change to be human-induced, family and friends are trusted more than
every other source of climate change information except university scientists.

For Professor Walker, the problem is the grumpiness of recalcitrants (does he think perhaps some Valium would help?)

Professor Walker said the survey showed that many people in the cohort ascribing climate change to natural fluctuations were irritated by the issue.

“If your first response to anything to do with climate change is irritation, you’re unlikely to pay any attention to scientific information,” he said.

Once again, a CSIRO “scientist” gets the cause and effect back-to-front. Are you ignoring the science because you are irritated, or are you irritated because you know it’s not science, and they’re calling you names?

You’re irritated by lies, deceit and name-calling? You’re hampering the power-grab.

So let’s send a message to Professor Walker: Yes, in fact, we are irritated. As a psychologist, you’d think he could figure out that calling people names, “denier”, usually leads to irritation. If they want 40% of Australian’s to be less irritable, they can start giving us some real evidence, instead of force-feeding us the irrelevant kind where cause and effect are confused; where climate simulations are presented as if they are more real than the climate; where predictions fail, but the spinmeisters claim success; where key parts of the evidence go “missing”, and scientists avoid FOI’s and behave like Greenpeace activists, but nobody in public office minds any of it in the slightest.

They could also ask the ABC to let 40% of Australians have a voice on “our” national broadcaster. The problem for them though, is that overnight, the 40% would become 80%. And who would be “irritated” then?

The full survey is here (3.3Mb).

You can email Professor Iain Walker: Iain.A.Walker AT csiro.au

or The Climate Commission (Tim Flannery): Contact here and phone (02) 6159 7624

These people are trying to understand why “The Unconvinced” are irritated and they need your help. Please be polite. It’s so much more effective.

UPDATE #1: The Australian Labor party are being punished.

Polls just in show that the Labor vote has been dumped back down again:

Labor’s primary vote, which jumped to 36 per cent two weeks ago from a record low of 30 per cent, has slumped again to 32 per cent. This is the same level as Labor’s support after the summer parliamentary break and the flood and cyclone disasters.

The Coalition’s primary vote rose from 40 per cent two weeks ago to 45 per cent, the same level it was after Ms Gillard announced her intention to break an election pledge and introduce a carbon tax from July 1 next year.

UPDATE#2 : The CSIRO published a study projecting few cyclones, and smaller waves thanks to extra CO2.

So could extra man-made CO2 save us from Son-of-Yasi. (Why do I feel skeptical…?)

h/t to Stefan B.

UPDATE #3 – Link to the CSIRO page fixed —
http://www.csiro.au/people/Iain.Walker.html

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 4.4/10 (5 votes cast)
40% of Australians don't believe in man-made global warming (and boy are they irritated), 4.4 out of 10 based on 5 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/3jr5uwe

112 comments to 40% of Australians don’t believe in man-made global warming (and boy are they irritated)

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

    Abraham Lincoln

    A lot of people are willing to turn a blind eye to the greens and their far fetched idyllic version of utopia, however, when you start telling people that they are going to have to make sacrifices to appease Gaia the start to listen. True, most people are not climate scientists but unlike most climate scientists people do have common sense. Who in their right mind is willing to live without the myriad benefits of fossil fuels when all it will do, according to the IPCC math, is shave a fraction of a degree off of an unstoppable catastrophic increase in world temperatures? All pain for no gain EVEN if the IPCC is right? I think I’ll pass!


    Report this

    11

  • #
    MaxL

    Hmmm, let me get this straight. That’s 40% before the carbon (sic) tax was announced. I wonder what it would be now that the tax and the demonstrations are “news”?
    Many people are now more aware that there is an issue that they need to form an opinion on.
    Personally, I hope they keep insulting my intelligence because that tactic is not going to win them any friends. Even the previously apathetic will have to take sides eventually.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Simon

    “People tend to trust their friends and family for information on climate change – for those who
    don’t consider climate change to be human-induced, family and friends are trusted more than
    every other source of climate change information except university scientists.”

    That’s very selective logic. What you can equally say is that those who don’t consider climate change to be human-induced trust Enviro.organisations, Enviro. group scientists and Gov. scientists LESS than they trust their friends/family, doctors, people from the community and industry scientists on the issue.

    Now, why is that I wonder? What could possibly lead to people having so little faith in those groups?


    Report this

    01

  • #
    MaxL

    I just love the irony that Flannery is complaining about the lack of credible information yet he is being paid $180,000 per annum to provide us with that very information.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    This explains the climate alarmists panic. Their perceptions of reality consists of the perception of others. It is demonstrated by their persistent use of consensus and reference to assigned authority as proof of their correctness. As a consequence, the erosion of public opinion for their sky-is-falling mania is causing them extreme anxiety. Which, in turn, is causing them to act even more irrationally than they normally would.

    As you point out, the lack of an informed public is not a problem for them. It’s an informed public that can see through their scam that bothers them. Rather than doubling down on the actual science and correct use of the scientific method, they work to intensify communication of their lies, distortions, half truths, and synthesized data. Their only hope is that such efforts will further confuse the minds of the public. Clearly, it isn’t working all that well. Rather than reverting to communicating the truth and only the truth, they will double down on a failed policy. They are their own worst enemy.

    The center is moving. To keep it moving, all we have to do is stay on topic and communicate the facts clearly.

    PS: Natural law cannot be changed but human made law can. The alarmists are hoping that we don’t know that. It is too late. Many of us have understood this for a very long time. So even if they pull a fast one and pass laws, we can change them.


    Report this

    02

  • #

    It’s about time, I reckon, that someone challenged this misanthracist cult in court. In Tasmania, for instance, religion may be taught in schools only with parental permission; according to Section 34 of the Education Act 1994, “the total number of hours of religious instruction provided at a State school in a year is not to exceed the total number of weeks in that year during which the school is open for student instruction” and “religious instruction at a State school is to be provided” only “by a member of the clergy, or another person, authorized to do so by the religious body to which that member or person belongs” and “attendance at any class for religious instruction is not compulsory for any student.”
    According to Section 116 of the Australian Constitution, the Commonwealth “shall not make any law for establishing any religion”; and, according to Section 46 of the Tasmanian Constitution Act 1934, “Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are … guaranteed to every [Tasmanian] citizen.”
    Yet, despite constitutionally protected freedom of religion, and freedom from being assailed by proselytisers in schools, students are being indoctrinated for several hours a week, and many of us are calumniated as ignorant heretics by our own Government if we resist the mischievous misinformation of its overpaid but incompetent hierarchs and mutaween.
    Anyone care to join me in a legal action?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    klem

    Are you suggesting that in Australia a full 60% of the population still believe this fraud? What the hell? The rest of the world does not beleive it anymore so what is wrong with Australia, why is it still living in 2009?


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Don Griffiths

    I strongly believe the 40% number that represents those who have figured out that that the key issue is not whether it warms but whether it’s natural that matters” would be a much higher percentage favoring Mother Nature if they were interested enough to check out the information provided. How many of us converse daily with folks who have absolutely no knowledge of this subject and if are able to respond to questions on the subject will generally hip-shoot a phrase they may have picked up in the digital media—a slightly biased group, I might add, who also don’t appear to have a clue.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    fred

    According to a survey of around 500 people, it was reported in today’s Adelaide News, 98% (that magic % number again) of folk here want to pay a carbon tax.
    To any Nigerian scammers out there, remember where you heard this first.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    UPDATE #1: The Australian Labor party are being punished.

    Polls just in show that the Labor vote has been dumped back down again:

    Labor’s primary vote, which jumped to 36 per cent two weeks ago from a record low of 30 per cent, has slumped again to 32 per cent. This is the same level as Labor’s support after the summer parliamentary break and the flood and cyclone disasters.

    The Coalition’s primary vote rose from 40 per cent two weeks ago to 45 per cent, the same level it was after Ms Gillard announced her intention to break an election pledge and introduce a carbon tax from July 1 next year.

    UPDATE#2 : The CSIRO published a study projecting few cyclones, and smaller waves thanks to extra CO2.

    So could extra man-made CO2 save us from Son-of-Yasi. (Why do I feel skeptical…?)

    h/t to Stefan B.
    See the updates on the post for the links.
    —-


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Klem, it was only 50% who ticked the box, “man-made” and bear in mind, they were answering a CSIRO survey which had loaded questions in it. At least one or two questions asked for an impossible answer: ie “which industry is the nastiest polluter of CO2″ or something like that, which is tricky for someone who thinks it’s “natural” and isn’t even given a “don’t know”, let alone “you’re all mad” box to tick.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Stacey

    Dear Jo

    This post hits the nail on the head.

    “So despite a $100 million dollar federal department, a whole UN agency, entire popular-science magazines being converted into full time activists, multiple glossy brochures, 13 million dollar advertising campaigns, community forums, school programs, teacher information, free school resources, and prime time media help on an almost daily basis, and Flannery still thinks the problem is that people lack “credible” information?”

    But not only as you say above but despite all the propaganda they still cannot convince the public?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DougS

    Imagine a poll where sceptics are allowed to ask loaded questions, viz.

    1 Is AGW alarmism a) a scam?, b) a mega-scam? or c) the biggest scam in the history of the world?

    2 Is Tim Flannery a) overpaid?, b) massively overpaid? or c) a government shill?

    3 Should so-called ‘scientists’ who ‘lose’ their data be a) sacked?, b)jailed? or c) Hung, drawn and quartered?

    I could go on.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DougS

    Joanne @ 11: “…..which industry is the nastiest polluter of CO2…..″

    That’s an easy one – answer: it’s the political industry – every time one of them speaks!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pattoh

    Fred @ 9

    Did it happen to mention if the survey was taken in the CSIRO carpark on camera?

    98% is nowhere near my experience.

    Now if they really had a poll of people filling up their vehicles at the service station, they might get closer to 2%.

    Go Julia! …..just go.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    DougS @ 13:

    ……Hung, drawn and quartered?

    Do you mind if the order is slightly different?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    OK, I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so maybe someone can explain to me how in Figure 1,17.2% of respondents think that Climate Change is not happening. Yet in Figure 2, only 5.6% think that Climate Change is not happening?
    What happened between these two questions to make a third of them change their mind?
    Furthermore, if I add these 5.6% to the 40.2% then we have 45.8% who don’t toe the IPCC line.
    How dare we!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bravo Australia, Bravo Joanne :-)

    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Patrick Kelly

    The detail in the analysis would tend to suggest that this survey has not been very rigorously applied. How can such a large number of respondents who believe that climate change is attributable to natural fluctuations then go on and respond in such large numbers to blame “big polluting” countries for the same phenomenon. Add to that large numbers professing to be “worried” but at the same time claiming little experience of the effects of CC.
    This survey can go into the file marked “something to do so we look like we’re earning our salaries!”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Worse, 90% of people acknowledge that the world is warming, and 40% have figured out that that the key issue is not whether it warms but whether it’s natural that matters, and it’s hard to call them deniers. How inconvenient.

    Of course, “natural” can mean a lot of things. One can, like Born Lomborg, believe that warming is at least in part caused by human activities but it is in no way catastrophic and that the “tax and redistribute” our wealth approach to creating a mythical “climate stasis” is worse than con job, it’s unintended consequences would kill tens of millions of people in underdeveloped nations by wasting trillions of dollars of the global economy’s wealth, which could have been better spent elsewhere.

    Or one might grasp that undisputed science shows that CO2 can’t cause add any more significant warming to the climate, but other human activities might well have a growing effect on the climate. For instance, land use practices and even airplane contrails cumulatively might be having an effect on climate. But what direction is any one’s guess at this point.

    Finally, if Tim Flannery and the Greens truly understood the deep philosophical implications of their own Gaiatic religion, they would come to the quasi-spiritual realization that humanity is the conscious awareness of The Gaia and therefore everything we do is but her supreme will. There is nothing supernatural occurring on planet Earth. The emergence of sentience and intelligent life on living planets must, by definition, be a natural evolutionary process that has occurred millions of times just in our own little galaxy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Maybe this is the term we need?

    From comments at
    http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/if_wed_pretended_oakeshott_had_backed_abott_hed_be_safe/#commentsmore

    “Rob, denial is not a river in Egypt.

    You sold out your voters, and they are going to cane you at the next election.

    Larry of Canberra (Reply)
    Sun 03 Apr 11 (07:21am)
    PhillipGeorge(c)2011 replied to Larry
    Sun 03 Apr 11 (09:09am)
    dear Larry, thanks, you got me my first laugh of the day:-

    this quote turned up on a AB blog a couple of weeks ago; one about climate change

    Oliver Cromwell: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”

    In Australian politics I’d like it to be repeated long and often..

    Karl Popper and self refutation in empirical and theoretical sciences should be the ubiquitous standard, not the exception to the rule…..

    And they use the word denier incorrectly – we do not deny their conjectures, we reject them – which is something Rob has to get more used to

    I am an AGW theory rejector”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    From that The Australian link.

    “The results will be presented at the Greenhouse 2011 conference in Cairns this week.”

    where for just $100,000 you get:

    •Eight delegate registrations, not transferable
    •A table for eight delegates at the official Conference dinner
    •Passes for 10 people to a VIP sponsor function
    •One triple exhibition booth, for the duration of the Conference
    •Acknowledgment in the Conference registration brochure and the Conference handbook
    •Organisation profile and logo mounted on the Conference web site
    •Acknowledgment verbally at the Conference
    •The right to include material on the Conference memory stick
    •Your logo displayed on Conference publications, banners and signage
    •Your logo and organisation name displayed on projected presentations that will run between selected sessions and in public areas
    •One page of promotional material provided by the sponsor in the Conference handbook
    http://www.greenhouse2011.com/opportunities


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Far far more than 40% of Australians now don’t believe in the global warming FRAUD!!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    The public can smell the propaganda.

    You realise, of course, that I am not happy about this. It is bad for business.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pattoh

    Can you believe it?

    Kev “reckons” it was wrong to shelve the ETS……..

    He must have decided that an innocent blameless “support” for the push to a carbon tax & into an ETS will hasten the sweet taste of revenge.

    NEVER!!!! – If I can’t ride a cushy ego trip into a lucrative UN job, NOBODY WILL!!!!!!!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    More on the CSIRO….

    Take a look at where Dr Megan Clark, Chief Executive and CSIRO Board member worked between 2001-03 she was of Director NM Rothschild and Sons (Australia).
    hmmmmmm…
    And the only solution she can come up with is to allow her former bank to make millions in carbon trading!!

    Here is her resume from the csiro’s own website.
    Scroll down to previous positions

    http://www.csiro.au/people/Megan.Clark.html#3


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Gbees

    “If your first response to anything to do with climate change is irritation, you’re unlikely to pay any attention to scientific information,” he said.

    The first thing I did and a bunch of my friends did is read the science, studies, books, blogs etc etc. We’ve been doing this for a few years now. We smell a huge rat. Our irritation is based upon the government and it’s cronies not listening to us and trying to ram their perverted view of climate science down our throats.

    I took the survey and answered it as best I could given the skewed questioning. These people just don’t get that there are more intelligent people than them out in electorate land who are able to discern their own conclusions rather than accept govt. propaganda.

    If they want to get rid of the irritation they need to front up with the real science.

    PS: make sure you contact the correct Iain Walker. There are two in the CSIRO. One is an engineer.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    As I have challenged in the past…..

    Let these Warmists quote one, just one, Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper, which proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human beings and carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) are responsible for global warming.

    Their problem is that NONE EXISTS and they can’t, due to the fact that global warming is nothing but a FRAUD being used to redistribute wealth!

    QED.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    I don’t think it’s a case of Flannery et al pulling the wool over our ideas – they actually sincerely believe in all of this – which makes Flannery’s reactions simply cognitive dissonance. It’s the same belief in the prescriptions of “Keynesian” economics and econometrics where a large number of economists sincerely believe they can model economic phenomena (essentially modeling human activity) – on such delusions our economic policies are based. How many times have we heard our Treasurer, whether Liberal or Labor, announce that they are managaging the economy?

    It’s the ultimate origin of these belief systems that’s the puzzle – and it looks lilke it goes all the way back to the times of Plato – who even then had his utopian society ruled by an elite group of wise individuals – just as Hans Schellnhuber of the Potsdam Inst. Climate pronounced they are working on a master plan etc.

    No, I somehow don’t think that pointing out their scientific errors will change their minds – it will only spur them onto more extreme solutions to make us “see the light”.

    Gee, interesting times we live in.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Lionell Griffith: #5

    Rather than doubling down on the actual science and correct use of the scientific method, they work to intensify communication of their lies, distortions, half truths, and synthesized data.

    I thoroughly agree.

    It would appear that the alarmist scientific community have made two significant investments: Firstly, they have invested in “refining” fluid dynamics models, to try and predict the weather – a risky proposition from the start. And secondly, they have invested in building a web of propaganda that, although partially supported by the modelling, is really aimed at the “generational security” concerns of their target audience.

    As an aside: generational security is well accepted as a powerful driver of behaviour, being rooted in a primeval instinct to protect the family group or tribe, and being reinforced by the human ability to conceptualise a number of potential futures.

    The problems that the alarmists now face, is that the populace have come to the realisation that the models are not up to the challenge. Also, the populace have started to realise that the “future” proposed to address the “generational security” concerns are actually worse, for both them and their children, than the do-nothing scenario would be.

    Oh dear, how sad.

    Of course, we can expect the alarmists to then apply the age-old maxim, that if something is not working as planned, then one should keep on doing it harder until it does work.

    They can’t improve the models – they are past redemption – but they can intensify the propaganda, and that is what they will now start to do.

    And guess what result that will have on public opinion. Who’s got the popcorn?


    Report this

    01

  • #
    val majkus

    If you want to check out the no carbon dioxide tax rallies here’s a good spot
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKlKl6uY2gw&feature=player_embedded#at=94


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    wes george: #20

    The Gaia and therefore everything we do is but her supreme will. There is nothing supernatural occurring on planet Earth. The emergence of sentience and intelligent life on living planets must, by definition, be a natural evolutionary process that has occurred millions of times just in our own little galaxy.

    Nicely put Wes.

    We need to keep reinforcing this. One of the underlying assumptions of the Green movement is that humans are some sort of infection on the face of the planet.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Louis Hissink:@30
    No, I somehow don’t think that pointing out their scientific errors will change their minds – it will only spur them onto more extreme solutions to make us “see the light”.

    I agree, far too many media commentators have leapt the credibility gap, for them there is no going back.

    Worse still their egos won’t allow them to admit even to themselves that they got it wrong.

    So stand by for an increasingly desperate sales pitch.
    Which will simply convince the population even more, that the item on sale shouldn’t be purchased at any price.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Damian Allen @ 29

    Why do you think Tim Flannery is so frustrated? He’s being paid megabucks to bell the cat – and he’s beginning to realise it.

    The public is not so stupid as our political masters would like – we want to see some real evidence before we part with some real $$$$!

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Good morning all.

    I need your help, over night on radio I paraphrased Tim Flannery, saying among his past predictions he forecast a Murry Darling river system that would suffer diminishing flows and would never see it in full flow again. A later caller lambasted me because he had never heard Flannery claim that a flowing Murry would become a thing of the past.

    If someone has links to Flannery’s predictions on the Murry river system I would very much appreciate them.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Tim Flannery is on a fool’s errand. And he’s just the man for it…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    A bit off topic but worth spreading around. As noted on Bishop Hill , Doug Keenan has had a very good article printed in the Wall Street Journal. Well worth a read and will give a few people something to think about

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704615504576171863463697564.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    the key point is:

    “CSIRO funded a 5,000 person poll last July and August and then sat on the results for months”

    this was months prior to gillard’s February 2011 announcement that she would introduce a carbon tax. how convenient that the Cairns’ meeting would use this survey, rather than the following, which should have been headlined “TWO-THIRDS OF AUSTRALIANS DOUBTFUL ON MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING :

    7 May, 2011: IPA: TWO-THIRDS OF AUSTRALIANS DOUBTFUL ON GLOBAL WARMING
    http://www.ipa.org.au/library/news/1273210129_document_global_warming_consensus_-_full_release_-_07052010_small_.pdf

    it’s time to drop the spin. note the survey heading “GENERAL ATTITUDES TOWARDS CLIMATE CHANGE”!!!!!!!!

    FLANNERY AND CO, ESPECIALLY POLLIES AND MEDIA NEED TO CALL IT “MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY HUMAN EMISSIONS OF CARBON DIOXIDE” OR SHUT UP.

    to destroy the language as well as the scientific method is UNFORGIVABLE.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Heres the hard facts:
    1. Most people get their information since or otherwise from the MSM. The MSM TELL them the world is warming and its human caused, therefore they may believe or not depending on their level of distrust.
    2. Most of the population dont trawl through the internet looking for real world evidence like the thousands of links, comment and papers that say the opposite of the MSM bovine droppings.
    3. Most gov employees suck up to the status quo to keep their jobs.
    4. political parties are opportunists.

    Hence results like are shown on here (better than you might expect), although I suspect that the MSM and big Gov have now overplayed it especially in the NH where there are now such harsh winters. Nature doing its own job telling the truth!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Bob Malloy: #36
    April 5th, 2011 at 8:39 am

    http://www.abc.net.au/water/stories/s1834402.htm

    Professor Flannery says the river system is in dire need of attention.

    “The river is in a really perilous state at present, flows are so low they’re lower than they’ve ever been in the historic measurements and I’m really concerned, not just for the river ecology, but for a lot of the farmers and farming communities in that part of the world,” he said.

    The new plan aims to give the Commonwealth control of the entire Murray-Darling river system and return the river to a healthy condition through more efficient management of water allocations. However, Professor Flannery says while the plan is a good idea, it is only addressing a small part of the issue.

    “You can have the best water plan in the world, but unless you’re getting the rain and unless it’s getting into the river systems, you’ve achieved nothing and that’s why climate change is so important,” he said.

    “We’ve got to start addressing that issue seriously.

    “I’ve said in the past that Australia has been the worst of the worst in addressing climate change in the past, but I’m hopeful that we’ll see over this year some movement [in this area].”

    Bob I think (not 100% sure) Flannery made the claim in one of the 5 episodes of his documentary “Two Men in a Tinny” aired on the ABC in 2006. Copies can be bought from ABC Online Shops.

    Hope this helps. Else search through the Andrew Bolt Blog site


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Bob @ 36 can’t find what you’re looking for but there’s a lot on the MDB at http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=mdba&id=main.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gbees

    Bob @36 in addition to Baa Humbug @41

    I also believe that it might have been Brown referring to Garnaut’s data ….
    http://bob-brown.greensmps.org.au/content/speech/press-club-address-balance-power-the-greens-senate

    Brown in 2008 warned not of a Murray in flood but of a Murray empty:

    “Already, (Rudd government adviser Ross Garnaut’s) daunting data of a 10 per cent chance of no flow at all in the Murray-Darling river system in future years is being overtaken by data indicating that drought is the new norm across Australia’s greatest food bowl.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    ED in 1,

    Can you give us the George Bush Jnr version of that quote please as i think it is more apt for this situation.

    Thanks

    Crakar


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Bob Malloy:
    April 5th, 2011 at 8:39 am

    http://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2008/podcasts/a-talk-with-tim-flannery/transcript

    Matt:

    My next question is that the Murray Darling River System is already suffering through drought and overuse What do you think the effects of ongoing climate change is going to be to it?
    Tim:

    We’re already seeing the effects of ongoing climate change in the Murray Darling Basin. That system is what’s known as an evaporation controlled river basin, which means that the feature that affects stream flow more than any other is evaporation. And in the Murray Darling Basin if you get on average say a hundred mills of rain ninety mills of that go up in evaporation and only ten mills actually go down the river. So as we warm the atmosphere and warm the soils those evaporation rates of course go up. It doesn’t take a lot of warming to push those evaporation rates towards ninety-five percent or ninety-nine percent. So what we’re seeing at the moment in the river system in my view is the result of climate change more than anything else. Most people don’t realise this last year when we’ve had almost no stream flow we had normal rainfall in the catchment. It’s not just a problem of rainfall, it’s a problem of the balance between evaporation and streamflow.

    Also from the following interview in the USA in 2007

    http://www.santafenewmexican.com/HealthandScience/20_flannery_for_Web

    Question: What might a region like New Mexico look like to our children in 2050? How might their lives be different?

    Answer: 2050 is a long way out, and it depends very much on the action we take. But could I just give you a very local view that you might want to expand into that global view. In Australia we have one large river system called the Murray-Darling river system, which this year is now in crisis, and it supplies water to a city of 1.1 million people called Adelaide. And we grow 40 percent of our projects on that river system. By the end of this summer that system will be in collapse by the look of it. We face the very real possibility of having bottled-water distributions in Adelaide. That’s the sort of crisis that you could easily imagine happening in your part of the world, where water is a key issue, because as our climate warms, rainfall is decreasing in dry areas and stream flow is decreasing even more than rainfall is. The really frightening thing is that we had average rain over the Murray-Darling basin this year, and it’s still done nothing to avert this disaster.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    “If your first response to anything to do with climate change is irritation, you’re unlikely to pay any attention to scientific information,” he said.

    Yes lets all find the fake science and IPCC lies and believe it! Who does he think we are!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Albert

    If you lived in the 1930′s, you would have known about the Arctic melting of 1922, the 2 decades of temperature rises to reach peak record temperatures and heat waves before mid-decade, the severe drought in the U.S. and in Australia, you would have feared the planet was cooking.
    Just what is different today?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    G/Machine

    Only 40% don’t believe out of 5,000.

    The CSIRO is way out of touch.
    They should check out a much bigger poll, called the NSW election


    Report this

    00

  • #
    brc

    I noted when that poll came out it was lacking a ‘summary’ view. All the respondents were split down into political support groups. The basic premise is that the headline believe/don’t believe number was hidden.

    Flannery is right when he says that credible information is the problem. He just hasn’t realised yet that people don’t find his information credible.

    To say that the ‘anti’ point of view is somehow overriding the absolute media, government and science monopoly is giving sites like this credit far beyond their reach. The vast majority of people wouldn’t even know there is a counter point of view, that there is problems with the science, that the results are from basic computer models, but have a sneaking suspicion someone is trying a nigerian scam on them. That’s why they don’t believe.

    The simple fact is that people are used to being lied to by governments, and are highly skeptical of any problem that must be solved through taxation. When ULP and CFC’s were thought to have environmental implications, they were just banned outright. People had to make do with more expensive cars, fuel and fridges. The government didn’t make any money from that. If an outright ban on co2 production were on the cards, then people might take politicians more seriously. But they just want to tax it ‘a little bit’ but not ban it, and that’s when people prick their ears up. It’s not so dangerous they’ll ground their VIP jets and sell their seaside homes. It’s not so dangerous they’ll stop coal exports. It just might be a little bit dangerous, far enough down the track to escape scrutiny, and just a little bit of taxation might prevent a possible problem. That’s when you lose credibility.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Damian Allen #26

    Damian – I used to work for Megan Clark and my experience is that she allows none of her personal views to ever appear. However she is a loyal and firm backer of her people. What you are seeing is her “backing” of her people. This is the problem – the CSIRO environmental and global warming cohort are all believers OR dare not say anything against the CSIRO consensus. Dr Clark is echoing this net position.

    My concern is that she is not giving herself an “out”, since there is abundant empirical evidence that global warming is minimal, and that climate sensitivity for CO2 is low. I doubt she would have time to read that body of literature (eg link, link, link) and even if she did I doubt it would cause her to change the “front page” message.

    Dr Clark, if you read this, I recommend that you quietly use some of your budget to support a small group of sceptical climate scientists as patterned by Dr Pielke Snr, Dr Christy and their colleagues. This would be a prudent investment, so that when the LNP comes to power you can say you did this to provide balance, and then bring them to the fore.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    connolly

    What we are seeing is the disintegration of the credibility of a form of Lysenkoism. The warmist movement has all the characteristics of a psuedo-scientific cult.
    Robert Lifton described some of the cult like characteristics that can be applied the warmist dogma movement in his book “Thought Reform & the Psychology of Totalism:” Here are some techniques adapted to the context of Lysenkoist warming dogms:

    Charismatic Leadership: Claiming special knowledge and demanding unquestioning obedience with power and privilege. Leadership may consist of one individual or a small group of core leaders.

    Media control: Existence of special media and manipulation by the use of coercive persuasion. Control of the group environment and communication.

    Presence of Sacred Truth which is the absolute truth. It is sacred — beyond questioning. There is a reverence demanded for the leadership. They have all the answers. Only to them is given the revelation of “truth”.

    Deception: Climategate and other fudging and control of “data”

    Exclusivity: Secretiveness or vagueness by followers regarding activities and beliefs. Essential to the warmist cult is the notion that only a select few can understand the complexity.

    Jargon. Everything is compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. There are “good” terms which represents the groups ideology and “evil” terms to represent everything outside which is to be rejected. Cult language is intensely divisive, all-encompassing jargon, unmercifully judging.

    Purity demands: Use of alternative source of information, such as blogs is considered evil (thank you Richard Glover) and the intense feel of guilt is induced by media in case of “transgressions”. Only cult members who do not use evil sources of information and evil products are pure and good. The group contains the elite; outsiders are evil, unsaved, and may not even have the right to exist. Leaving the group will have devastating consequences.

    The credibility of the warmist dogma is collapsing because it is being challenged by empirical based science and its public policy applications whilst unrealizable demand significant inequitable sacrificies.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John F

    The problem the Warmists have is the internet, many years ago the general public believed our polys and journalists, the sad irony is the internet has allowed their lies to become apparent, this article says it all.
    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life
    Your right about word of mouth, however the opinion can only be formed by having the available research which now more and more people have, I personally have converted 20 people who where educated polically savy people that could not beleive how gullable they had been in believing the ABC and biased media, that are now powerful pro spectic allies that hate being called extreme, thats why Juliars popularity is falling, and the Greens are being exposed, horrah!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    What we are seeing a lot of these surveys is essentially a closed loop positive feedback system.

    The people who design and conduct the surveys, know what the people who commissioned the surveys want to hear.
    So they present the questions in a manner that will give the answers that are wanted.

    Because the survey tells the people who commissioned the survey what they want to hear they believe it.
    All this continues until the real survey is held at an election.

    The incredible part is the Labor Party learned nothing from the last election. They are still deluding themselves into believing that they almost lost because they didn’t introduce the ETS.
    When in reality they only just made it over the line because they dropped the EST and Julia clearly stated there would be no carbon tax under her government.

    They seem to be completely denying the reality that before ‘climate gate’ they had a massive majority and an opposition in disarray.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John F

    http://resources.news.com.au/files/2011/04/05/1226033/691891-110405-newspoll.pdf

    I know this is off subject but has anyone picked up that someone has an extra point in the latest news poll, take a look todays poll adds up to 101% now that weird that that got past the proof readers


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Well, you guys are doing reasonably well in casting doubt on the science. You’ve managed to convince a reasonable number of people that changes to our climate have nothing to do with pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Strangely, most of these people vote for the Libs or the Nats.

    Where it gets even weirder is that Jo would be one of the pale blue ones in that first graphic, you know, the “happening and human induced”. Because Jo thinks that the increased level of CO2 is warming the world, just not as much as most climate scientists think.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    What the hell is the CSIRO doing running opinion polls.Do they actually do any science any more.
    I would be interested to know how much science they have done on renewables as opposed to producing climate change propaganda in the last ten years.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    CameronH

    JB at 55, Can you have been comming to this site for this long and not fully understand the issues. The issue is Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming. Not Global Warming, Not Climate Change or any of the other orwellian corruptions of the language designed to deliberately confuse.

    The only real questions that needs to be asked is:

    1. Do you believe in “Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming”, from Human CO2 emissions, which will destroy the planet by 2100 and

    2. Do you think Australia should tax it’s citizens, ie you and me, and decrease at the expense of our economy and standard of living, for no significant impact on the climate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    JB in 55,

    It did not take long before the warmbots could smell the blood in the water.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    John Brookes @ 55.

    Strangely, most of these people vote for the Libs or the Nats.

    Which is a good indication that more Coalition voters are gifted with intelligence and common sense; being able to clearly identify a scam when they see one..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    In the main body of the Concluding Remarks of the survey we get:

    Interestingly, while a considerable portion of people considered climate change to be a natural fluctuation in Earth’s temperatures, as a group these people still viewed countries, governments and global organisations as at least partly responsible for causing climate change. This suggests a level of confusion, indecisiveness,and/or inconsistency amongst Australians about the root causes of climate change and how to respond to it.2

    As a footnote (2) we get:

    2 An alternative explanation is that this group of people hold government, countries and organisations responsible for causing widespread belief in the notion of human-induced climate change.

    The body suggests we are confused, indecisive and/or inconsistent, whereas in truth, the footnote more accurately describes the situation that they don’t wish to concede. How inconvenient that we can identify with the footnote rather than their attempted distortions. They still don’t get it do they?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David

    JB @ 55
    Your hero mentor is Ross Garnaut is linked to two companies in PNG (whilst he chaired Lihir Gold and a director on OK Tedi)that dumped 56 million tonnes (OK Tedi) of waste into PNG rivers and oceans while Lihir is close to a billion tonnes.

    Mine waste composed of metalliferous tailings, including cyanide and heavy metals. (Not pollution?????)
    But don’t ever Mr JB pollute with CO2 in Australia!
    Your hero Ross Garnaut is the head of what in Australia?
    His interest is in the tailings of this CO2 gravy train!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    John Brookes #55

    John – you’ve nailed one of the big problems with the CSIRO survey for me. It lacks this option:

    “I think climate change is happening and humans cause a small but unimportant part of it, with the rest being natural fluctuation.”

    This is consistent with the links I posted in #50. I suspect some who have this position would have to split between the “all” or “nothing” options or refuse to answer – CSIRO does not list the ‘refused’ numbers.

    My question is this…just how many CSIRO climate scientists would pick the extra option I’ve put up. I suspect quite a few…but not anywhere in the hearing of their pay supervisors. Scientists have mortgages and families too.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    John Brookes,

    That the CAGW issue reduces to part political lines means explicitly it isn’t science.

    Now about this religion you are proselytising ad nauseum here…….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pete50

    Tim has it the wrong way round. It’s not the opponents of the CAGW doctrine, but the Warmists whose information is not credible. It’s no wonder that voters are irritated with all this talk about the AGW science being in, when no real world science is ever in. Einstein’s general relativity is not in.

    And Ross Garnaut’s sanctimonious certainty about the consequences of anthropogenic CO2 is enough to irritate anybody.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Maxl in 60,

    I have my own theory on why there is confusion.

    Firstly the reason main reason why people dont “believe” in AGW anymore is because the predictions have failed. We/they were told AGW WILL cause more droughts, less snow and warmer weather. After the rains/snows/cooler than average weather we are told that under the right circumstances AGW can cause more snow and more rain and of course no matter how cold it gets it is always warmer “somewhere else”.

    People now see right through this and they understand this is all nothing but a guess. Ordinarily this would not pose a problem but now they are being told (after an election) that the only way to fix a problem based on a guess is to apply a TAX. It has now become a problem.

    Now onto the confusion at CSIRO, the confusion of CSIRO is brought about by the questions asked. The questions are not objective, the first question should be:

    Do you accept the theory of AGW will have catstrophic consequences some time in the future. If yes go to question 2 if no go to end.

    As the people doing the survey dont have this question their answers are misleading, leading to confusion on CSIRO’s part.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    I suggest JB and his ilk check Jo’s article and great video of Prof Vincent Courtillot’s address – proper science not the BS coming from fake fat cat gov consultants like Flannery and his ilk.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    The importance of the polling discussed here is that 40% of the population is trying to save the other 60% from the abysmal situation of an oligarchic government controlling a planned economy that has no potential to raise the standard of living of anyone above that of a cave dweller.

    Childish thinking such as that routinely applied by Mr Brookes simply has to be ignored to prevent Western society from hanging itself on ill-considered intentions


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    My immediate question was: “Why did they release this biased old survey just now?”

    And I think it’s because they have more recent info that is far, far worse for the Warmist position. This, by comparison, makes them look stronger than they have been for some time.

    I’d bet that 60:40 for/against AGW position is now reversed. At least.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    That’s an extremely poorly worded survey, as covered by Bruce of Newcastle in 62. It is why many surveys are not worth the paper they are printed on. I still think Yes Minister described surveys best:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gMcZic1d4U


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Bruce of Newcastle,

    You could add this sentence – “as humans are part of the natural scheme of things, then our effects on climate have to be also natural”.

    It’s the attitude that humans aren’t natural that is the problematical viewpoint.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    connolly: #51

    You make a good point.

    The only thing I would add to that list is the Right of Passage, where devotees are expected to face the enemy, and come through it “cleansed”. It serves the same philosophical function as baptism in some religions.

    I sometimes wonder if some of the trolls we get visiting here (not you MattB) are people undergoing this ritual as part of their acceptance into the inner group.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    Hi crakar24@65
    I’m still not sure about your first question:

    Do you accept the theory of AGW will have catstrophic consequences some time in the future. If yes go to question 2 if no go to end.

    I’d be tempted to answer:
    Yes, there will be catastrophic consequences if we introduce a carbon (sic) tax or an ETS or any other form of economic solution to a non problem.

    That highlights the main problem with quantitative research – tic box responses don’t allow for the truth. The old classic example is: “Are you still beating your wife?” Yes or No.
    For a small sample size of 5000, a qualitative research questionnaire is more likely to provide information on what people really think about an issue.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    crakar24:
    April 5th, 2011 at 9:37 am
    ED in 1,
    Can you give us the George Bush Jnr version of that quote please as i think it is more apt for this situation.
    Thanks
    Crakar

    “You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.”

    George W. Bush


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    Just found, in a list of Words That Don’t Exist, But Should (Sniglets) — the basic phenomenon the Warmist PR-Meisters counted on:

    Dopeler effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.

    BS Baffles Brains, and the more the better it works!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    RW @71;
    Those are kind of Wrongs of Passage. But, either way, they’re actually Rites of Passage (ceremonies). ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    John Brookes: go back to physics school and explain how CO2 heats the atmosphere with theoretical physics …because NOONE else can! There is NO model that shows this derived from phyics.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Chris in Hervey Bay

    Jo, you wrote:-

    The real problem for Tim is that the people are getting too much of his kind of information. The more they get, the less they like it

    For goodness sake don’t tell Flannery where they are going wrong.

    If Flannery is digging himself into a hole with a shovel, give him another shovel, not a ladder !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Paul S

    My own email to iain walker;

    From: Paul Schaefer [pgschaefer@acr.net.au]

    Sent: Tuesday, 5 April 2011 11:34 AM

    To: ‘iain.a.walker@csiro.com.au’

    Subject: FW: re public understanding of climate change

    From: Paul Schaefer [mailto:pgschaefer@acr.net.au]
    Sent: Tuesday, 5 April 2011 11:25 AM

    Dear Professor Walker,

    I note with interest the results of your survey from last year about the public’s perception of climate change, and that it shows that 40% of people do not think that changes in the earth’s climate are induced in any meaningful way by human activity. There are many layers to this debate – one of which is the perception of those who hold to the AGW hypothesis that those who do not are in some form of psychological denial. By inference, such people are held to be in thrall to malevolent forces which seek to undermine the “truth” of AGW/human-induced-climate change. It would be very easy to construct a similarly psychologically-based narrative to explain the appeals to belief and authority of those who propound the AGW argument, as well as the vehemence and stridency of their attacks upon those who disagree with them.

    A more rational understanding of the results of your survey is that at least a large proportion of the 40% have come to their conclusion after some consideration of the evidence. This would require those who oppose them to accept that they are also rational, reasonable, and at the very least no more psychologically impaired than the average.

    Attempts to reduce the views of those who disagree with the AGW hypothesis to the status of mental illness is very reminiscent of tactics used in the USSR against political opponents – as unintended as that may be. Suggestions that a large proportion of the population are in need of more effective persuasion ( for which one can read propaganda ) is both patronizing and sinister, and points to a lack of force and substance in the central argument – “The lady doth protest too much, methinks…”.

    There are no incontrovertible “truths” with regard to climate change. Claims that there are a dogmatic and a form of intellectual bullying. Science is never “settled”, and to present it as such to the lay community is at best a naïve misunderstanding, and at worst a willful misrepresentation of the scientific process. The real message in your survey may well be that the reason for the failure to convince the people of the need to fundamentally alter their socioeconomic infra- and suprastructures lies with the argument itself, and not the ignorance of the great unwashed.

    Yours faithfully,

    Paul Schaefer


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    What does Climate Change mean anyway?

    If you mean the cycle we are going through at this moment in time, then yes I believe in climate change, it changed back in 1974 from a cool regime to a warm one and 36 years later in 2010 it is now changing back to a cool one. Around about the middle of the 2040s it’ll change back to a warm cycle but not as warm as this or previous ones.

    If you mean the type of climate change that had much of the Sahara desert green with running streams some 5000 years ago, then no I don’t think we are going through that at the moment.

    However if what you REALLY MEAN is that our planets climate rarely changes and that humans with their industrialization have come along and ruined all that perfect Goldilocks weather, then I answer “Piss off mate, do you think I’m a gullible fool like my mates MattB and John Brookes? Someone has got to keep those two lemmings from jumping over every cliff they come across.”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The CSIRO report doesn’t appear to list the actual questions. (Which is odd).
    But they asked a question like: Who is most responsible for climate change?

    Global organisations such as the UN

    The Federal government

    State governments

    Wealthy countries

    Local governments

    Normal individuals

    Big-polluting countries

    Multi-national corporations

    They grouped answers (nonsensically) into responses from people who believed climate change was human induced and people who think it’s natural. But for all the people who think it’s natural, there is no box for “The Sun”, or “None of the above” so those who didn’t believe were forced to pick an answer that doesn’t make sense. This is not a survey by someone with an open mind.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Greens policies. – THIS IS SCARY !!!

    http://www.rossfitzgerald.com/2011/01/labors-hunger-means-feeding-the-greens-beast/

    The Greens are already unhappy about a carbon tax based on Labor’s target of a 5 per cent emissions reduction by 2020.
    Greens deputy leader Christine Milne may dress like Margaret Thatcher and she may be just as uncompromising, but that’s where the similarities end. Asked about the 5 per cent target, Milne said: “Well, that’s not enough.” In other words, a bigger tax, higher electricity prices for consumers and a greater impost on business and exports.
    The Greens’ shopping list should make political realists wilt at the potential impact on the Australian economy, while the likely voter reaction will be a backlash against Labor at the next federal election.
    Top of the Greens’ new year list of policies are: an inheritance tax, or what was once known as death duties; company tax of 33 per cent (at present 30 per cent); a 50 per cent top personal income tax bracket; road congestion charges; reduced business and personal tax concessions (for company cars, for example); higher tariffs on imported four-wheel-drive vehicles; and abolition of the private health insurance rebate.
    The Greens also have campaigned for the national flag to be dumped; for 16-year-olds to get the vote; and for a freeze on public funding for private schools at 2003-04 levels. And there’s more. On border security the Greens want to abolish mandatory detention for illegal asylum-seekers; restrict their detention to 30 days; and allow such claimants unrestricted entry and exit rights to and from what would become “reception centres”.
    Declarations for saving the environment act as a cover for much more radical policy excursions.
    Take defence, for example. The Greens would scrap the ANZUS Treaty if it could not be revised to accord with Australia’s unspecified “international human rights obligations”. Joint Australian-US military communications are under threat and in some circumstances the Greens would prevent joint military training exercises, with restrictions to be imposed on some hitherto friendly naval fleet visits.
    Under the Greens’ policy manifesto, energy and resources come in for special attention.
    New coalmines would be banned, as would new coal-fired power stations and the expansion of existing coalmines.
    The mining and export of uranium is opposed by the Greens, whose policy platform has a 30 per cent renewable energy target for meeting national demand by 2020.
    Budget savings also would be achieved by cuts to defence spending plus higher Medicare surcharge thresholds.
    Labor Senate veteran and former defence minister John Faulkner has admitted that “modern Labor is struggling with the perception we are very long on cunning and very short on courage”.
    Stand by for more dominance of cunning over courage as the Greens continue to set the agenda for federal Labor under Gillard next year and beyond.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Jo in 80,

    Thats exactly right, as i said earlier the questions asked (in any survey like this) are not objective.

    When you get 40% of respondants not agreeing with the survey question writers you get confusing answers which the CSIRO have just discovered.

    The first question should establish the number of people that agree or disagree in a general sense the next questions should then delve into the detail but you should always give a “none of the above” type answer.

    To me it is a bit like our elections, when you vote you have to vote for someone but why cant i vote for no candidate without voting informal? I cant do that because they know most people would for no candidate and there would be a no result. The same goes for this stupid survey, the questions are framed to get a result and if you frame the questions correctly you get the result you want.

    *** Congratulations Crakar. Get excited, you are the lucky 50,000th comment!!! ***

    You win… not a heck of a lot really. But, Thank you! ;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    ED in 73,

    Thanks mate, that wasnt the quote i was thinking of but it actually works quite well for this topic.

    Cheers

    Crakar


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    The worst thing about all that Damien is that a very large portion of the Green vote comes from people who haven’t taken the trouble to read what the Greens are about.

    Coming back from Sydney the day after the election I listened to some people calling in to the radio station saying how they voted. Some people voted Green because they didn’t want to vote for the major parties. None of them really knew what Greens stand for.

    You can understand the Labor Party not wanting to shine a light on this but it still staggers me that the Coalition refuses to take the fight to where it really should be. I get the uneasy feeling that, once having won the next election that they will “wus” out of repealing any enacted Carbon tax on the basis that it would be too difficult to unscramble the egg.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Crackar24. Congrats! The 50,000th comment.
    A computer simulation of a Grange is headed your way.

    Cheers! Jo


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Baa, Val, Gbees. Thanks for your help.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    I get the impression that a lot of poll questions are written by under employed insurance policy writers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    scaper...

    Grange is so over rated!

    Flannery in a bottle.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    Good onya crakar24

    I hope Jo’s Computer modelling is better than the IPCC’s.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Chris in Hervey Bay

    Mark:
    April 5th, 2011 at 5:26 pm

    I get the uneasy feeling that, once having won the next election that they will “wus” out of repealing any enacted Carbon tax on the basis that it would be too difficult to unscramble the egg.

    I agree Mark, but if the troops get upset enough, as been proved in the past, and the incentive comes from the business end of a 12 gauge shotgun, you will find that eggs will soon get un-scrambled in record time.

    What will be the uproar when the majority of the population realise they are paying a tax based on a fraud ?
    .


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Ian Hill

    MaxL @ 17

    As Jo mentioned the questionnaire has not been included in the report. It seems that the first question required a straight out Yes/No answer and 17.2% said “No”. The second question was more detailed and got people thinking about what caused climate change, and about 8% more people gave an answer which indicated that it was happening. I’d say that most of the 8% probably interpreted the first question as meaning “human induced” climate change, so answered “no” and then decided that they would put “natural causes” as their answer to the second question.

    The explanation of the survey methodology is vague:

    The survey was administered online using a representative group of participants sourced from a research-only panel.

    If it was done online then there was probably no facility for people to go back and change their answers. I don’t know what a “research-only” panel is. Perhaps they asked for volunteers to take part, in which case the results are likely to be biased to a degree.

    There were probably no checks for consistency between questions. I wonder if a “unit record file” can be obtained from the CSIRO under the FOI Act? That is a file for each respondent containing all the answers with personal identifying information removed.

    Finally, a minor point but the report has n = 5036 in the text and 5037 in some graphs. Sloppy proof reading there.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Too often surveys fail to provide “none of the above“ options; here is one, however, that went the other way.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DougS

    Damian Allen @ 81

    You want scary? How’s this for scary?

    In the UK we have a LAW (2008 Climate Change Act) brought to the table by Ed Miliband, that requires an 80% reduction of CO2 emissions by 2050.

    There is an interim requirement for a 34% reduction by 2020.

    These reductions are against a baseline of emissions in 1990.

    Now that’s SCARY!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    Thanks Ian Hill@92
    Yeah, that sounds reasonable regarding the participant’s responses and the apparent about face of opinion.
    The unit record file would be more enlightening than the resultant report in my opinion, because I think the report is an amateurish attempt at massaging the numbers. A very poor survey. I don’t think it would rate a pass in Statistics 101.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DougS

    Mark D.:
    April 5th, 2011 at 4:58 am

    DougS @ 13:

    ……Hung, drawn and quartered?

    Do you mind if the order is slightly different?

    Hi Mark – perhaps you’re not fully au fait with the H, D and Q technique.

    When they’re cut down after the ‘H’ phase, they’re still alive!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    Joanne Nova@85
    Congrats to you for your site and your hard work over the years.
    One day hopefully we can all enjoy a real glass of wine to celebrate to end of the AGW religion.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    *** Congratulations Crakar. Get excited, you are the lucky 50,000th comment!!! ***

    This isn’t one of these internet scams that has people paying to retrieve their “prize” – is it?

    haha not funny

    sorry


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jack Taylor

    Part of the issue with alarmists is that they can’t convince people to take action on global warming without:
    a) Evidence that it is in fact warming because of human activities, and;
    b) Presenting credible predictions of future events

    Many casual observers bought into step a, because we rely on people with far more knowledge than us to know their fields of study.

    Unfortunately, the alarmists’ shotgun attempt at step (b) is a joke and throws into extreme doubt any good will and belief that the casual observer had in the scientists’ conduct and conclusions in step (a).

    The alarmists need to get legislation introduced asap. The longer the legislation gets delayed, the more fragile the evidence (and subsequently community belief and will for action) for human induced global warming becomes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Jo,

    I am honoured to be your 50,000th poster and i will humbly accept this prestigious award. I would like to thank Damian Allen for his efforts in coming in a close second and to all the other posters for without them i could not have achieved this feat.

    I look forward to receiving the computer simulated bottle of Grange, in fact if you ever find your self in the back blocks of nowhere (Adelaide) you can present it to me in person.

    Yours sincerely

    Crakar


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graham

    40% of Australians don’t believe in man-made global warming

    No doubting that. But how many more are of that persuasion? That is the burning question.

    Given the CSIRO’s new found role as a political instrument for alarmist propaganda, there is good reason to investigate the veracity of the survey, especially in terms of methodology. However, on the face of it, there is no basis for doing so. In the pdf report, there is only vague information in the Introduction.

    A survey of 5036 people from across Australia was undertaken in July and August of 2010…The survey was administered online using a representative group of participants from a research-only panel.

    That’s it. Nothing in the text. Nothing in the only two (2) References.

    For my part, until more verifiable information is forthcoming, the results are worthless at best.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Morgan Poll results about the Plant Food (carbon DIOXIDE) Tax……..

    “A clear majority of electors (57%) oppose the Gillard Government’s proposed legislation to ‘place a price on carbon’ ”

    Read More Here:-

    http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2011/4642/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Galaxy and their polls, have form in doing commercially commissioned polls and then giving their client the result that wanted.

    It’s called “telling ‘em what they want to hear.

    This is what bells the cat:-

    TWO-THIRDS of voters say they support a carbon tax if all the revenue is spent on compensation for households and business, according to a new Galaxy Poll.

    The poll of 1036 people to be released today was commissioned by the Greens

    What a farce. Ha it been commissioned by the Anti-Carbon Tax Coalition, the results would have been reversed.

    Like I say, Galaxy have form in dancing to the tune of the piper.

    If the Greens are so confident they’re on a winner, they would welcome an election with the carbon tax front and centre.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    janama

    once again may I direct you to this website regarding the actual amount of CO2.

    http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

    Until reading Hillier & Watts (2007), I would have estimated that the oceans, occupying twice the surface area of land, would have twice the number of volcanoes. In fact the number of submarine volcanoes is very much higher than twice the number of subaerial volcanoes. Given the update of Werner & Brantley (2003), which raises the estimate of subaerial volcanogenic CO2 from 27±3 MtCpa to 78±6 MtCpa, this would seem to imply roughly 200 MtCpa from submarine volcanogenic CO2 and brings the total estimate of volcanic CO2 in line with the bare minimum determined by Morner & Etiope (2002). Plimer (2001; 2009) & Wishart (2009) maintain that the amount of CO2 from volcanoes is enormous, and without estimating an amount suggests that it dwarfs anthropogenic contributions. If we take the updated estimate, correct the conservative bias, and extend to submarine environments we still wind up with a figure around 1.5 GtCpa for total passive volcanic emissions (excluding imponderables such as mid oceanic ridge emissions) and that is still only 20% of the 7.8 GtCpa attributed to anthropogenic CO2 emissions by the IPCC. As it turns out, there is a lot more to the distribution of volcanoes across different tectonic settings, and Plimer (2009) omits the rather small detail of a 2007 paper presenting primary evidence that underpins his claim in spectacular fashion.

    Hillier & Watts (2007) surveyed 201,055 submarine volcanoes estimating that a total of 3,477,403 submarine volcanoes exist worldwide. According to the observations of Batiza (1982), we may infer that at least 4% of seamounts are active volcanoes. We can expect a higher percentage in the case of the count taken by Hillier & Watts (2007) because it includes smaller, younger seamounts; a higher proportion of which will be active. Nevertheless, in the spirit of caution and based on our minimum inference of 4% seamount activity from Batiza’s observations, I estimate 139,096 active submarine volcanoes worldwide. If we are to assume, in the absence of other emission figures for mid oceanic plate volcanoes, that Kilauea is a typical mid oceanic plate volcano with a typical mid oceanic emission of 870 KtCpa (Kerrick, 2001), then we might estimate a total submarine volcanogenic CO2 output of 121 GtCpa. Even if we assume, as Kerrick (2001) and Gerlach (1991) did, that we’ve only noticed the most significant outgassing and curb our estimate accordingly, we still have 24.2 GtCpa of submarine volcanic origin.

    If guesses of this order are anywhere near the ballpark, then we can take it that either what has been absorbing all this extra CO2 is not absorbing as much or there has been some variation to volcanic output over the past 500 years or so. Both are normal assumptions given the variable state of the natural environment, and considering that vegetation consumed something on the order of 38GtCpa more in 1850 than today (see my Deforestation article for the quick and dirty calculation), it is hardly surprising that we were missing a large natural CO2 source in the carbon budget. The other possibility is that both Werner et al (2000: approx. 38 KtCpa) and Werner & Brantley (2003: approx. 4000 KtCpa) are correct, which could imply that volcanogenic CO2 emissions are increasing. This certainly would explain steadily rising CO2 observed at stations in regions most affected by volcanic emissions, it could partly explain the recent increase in ocean acidification discussed by Archer (2009, pp. 114-124), and further it would explain the more intense Spring melting centred on the Pacific Coast of Antarctica and along the Gakkel Ridge under the Arctic ice cap.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Brian H

    Chris @90;
    12-gauge? Wotta wuss. 10s are much more authoritative.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hopefully I’ll get a response from our very own climate action team. Here’s my message them:

    Hi Tim,

    I’m a ‘catastrophic global warning induced by man’s C02 emissions’ sceptic. As a concerned citizen can you please direct me to some real world evidence based science which confirms the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warning?

    I know my way around numbers so laying on some hard science is what I’m looking for. I have searched the IPCC reports for that hard evidence but have failed to find any confirmation of this theory.

    What real world evidence can you provide me with to further my investigation of the science?

    Thankyou for all you public service on this issue of grave public interest.

    Regards,
    David Thomson

    Now, if I don’t get a response I might get in touch with Professor Walker. Maybe he can prescribe me some drugs to ease my irritability on this whole climate change issue. Hopefully I get can a hold of some mind-altering. I’d like to feel like I’m 100 meters under the sea.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John F

    http://thegwpf.org/energy-news/2754-forget-global-warming-germany-goes-back-to-coal.html

    Amazing article on Rueters Apr 4 2011, Julia raves about what Germany in doing, what the!!! closed 5 nuclear reactors and are replacing with what did I hear coal, no surely not. would the not replace with green energy, sorry not for base load. Germany just had an election whereby the Greens had a huge increase in there primary vote, I beleive what Mercel who I beleive is very clever has lost her faith in the warming science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Doug S @ 96

    I was aware and I think the drawing & quartering whilst still FULLY conscious would be a better reward (as in your post at 13) for some of the worst examples.

    I have to believe the warmist comments and predictions would become rather boring and reserved :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Albert

    It doesn’t matter whether the Earth is cooling nor warming, I see nothing that hasn’t happened before anywhere.
    Our history is littered with floods, droughts, hurricanes, cyclones, Arctic melting and earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis as damaging as any we have ever seen and worse.
    I viewed a fear campaign recently where the presenter showed the ‘tipping point’ of a glass, that’s interesting, but tipping point of a glass has nothing to do with climate science.
    We simply don’t know enough about climate science to think of tipping point.
    I believe we may have a cure for cancer before we fully understand our climate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DirkH

    [ John F:
    April 6th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
    http://thegwpf.org/energy-news/2754-forget-global-warming-germany-goes-back-to-coal.html

    Amazing article on Rueters Apr 4 2011, Julia raves about what Germany in doing, what the!!! closed 5 nuclear reactors and are replacing with what did I hear coal, no surely not.
    — JN]

    John, the state of Merkel’s gov here in germany can best be described as one of panic; just months after she decided to prolong the lifetime of our nukes Fukushima breaks and the Green’s eternal resistance against nuclear power pays off for them big time.

    ATM we are importing nuclear power from France and Czechia and will run some more coal capacity ASAP. AGW is not in the news. Large parts of the population are in nuclear panic mode thanks to the distorted reporting in the German media.

    Should the Greens get to power, which is possible, and i mean RULE THE COUNTRY, they will carefully explain to their fan base that the nukes can be switched off earliest 2017 – after all the leadership of the Greens are old communists who only want to rule, and who infiltrated the fledgling Green party during its foundation in the early 80ies, riding on the platform of the Atomkraft Nein Danke movement.

    The leadership of the Greens are very much Realpolitiker. Their fan base is a radicalized movement of idealists – useful idiots. They will be betrayed by their own leaders.


    Report this

    00