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

Announcing the Galileo Movement

Case Smit and John Smeed brought Christopher Monckton to Australia in a brave defiant move last year. This year they have put together the Galileo Movement which was launched today by none other than Alan Jones.

They live by the creed: “All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”.

This is another form of the grassroots uprising against serfdom and misinformation.

Purpose and Aims of the Galileo Movement:

by exposing misrepresentations pushing a ‘price on carbon dioxide’

The Galileo Movement seeks to protect Australians and our future in five areas:

  • Protect freedom – personal choice and national sovereignty;
  • Protect the environment;
  • Protect science and restore scientific integrity;
  • Protect our economic security;
  • Protect people’s emotional health by ending Government and activists’ constant destructive bombardment of fear and guilt on our kids and communities.

Please Visit The Galileo Movement and support them if you can.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 1.3/10 (4 votes cast)
Announcing the Galileo Movement, 1.3 out of 10 based on 4 ratings

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

68 comments to Announcing the Galileo Movement

  • #
    Matt b

    I think I just heard Gallileo turn in his grave.

    00

  • #

    Yes Matt — Galileo would be appalled at the way so many fools bow before authority.

    “The National Academy of Science, Royal Society and 75 climate scientists say it’s true, so it must be.”

    Human institutions have never been corrupted by money and power have they?

    10

  • #
    gnome

    Every now and again I agree with Mattb- any movement led by Alan Jones is a movement open to ridicule by reasonable folk. A demagogue is a demagogue is a demagogue and Alan Jones is a demagogue. He might impress simple folk but I much prefer reasonable argument.

    Science might be a right/left thing, but reality isn’t.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Gnome… I would agree that sometimes having the likes of Bolt or Jones as a figurehead is a mixed blessing. The thing is … they have a wide following, and the crux of this issue is communicating to the people the home truths that the Government is unwilling to divulge. In that respect those two will do more to get the word out than just about anyone else in the country could.

    The basic truth is that the 5% (read more like 25%) emissionns cut will achieve nothing, cost a lot, and hurt the economy. I think Bolt and Jones will communicate that story quite nicely. And yes, the Birkenstock Brigade will try to point and laugh, but the electorate will get the message. In case anyone missed it, the Gillard Government is as unpopular as any in the last couple of decades…

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Matt b:

    I think I just heard Gallileo turn in his grave.

    Really? Are you hearing any other strange sounds in your head Matty?

    Voices perhaps?

    I have been a bit worried about your mental state for a while Matty. I mean you DO believe in CAGW….and fairies too I assume.

    Look, see your Doctor, there is help available.

    For heavens sake though get in quick, Gillard’s got Mental Health on the chopping block.

    10

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Hey Matty, I gave you a thumbs up for your post. Given your fragile mental state I didn’t want to tip you over the edge with any negativity.

    10

  • #
    Matt b

    Some research in to the great man suggests maybe the name of the organisation is an appropriate after all:

    On his theory of tides…”If this theory were correct, there would be only one high tide per day. Galileo and his contemporaries were aware of this inadequacy because there are two daily high tides at Venice instead of one, about twelve hours apart. Galileo dismissed this anomaly as the result of several secondary causes, including the shape of the sea, its depth, and other factors.[24] Against the assertion that Galileo was deceptive in making these arguments, Albert Einstein expressed the opinion that Galileo developed his “fascinating arguments” and accepted them uncritically out of a desire for physical proof of the motion of the Earth.[25]

    Galileo dismissed as a “useless fiction” the idea, held by his contemporary Johannes Kepler, that the moon caused the tides.[26] Galileo also refused to accept Kepler’s elliptical orbits of the planets,[27] considering the circle the “perfect” shape for planetary orbits.”

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    here’s Allen Jones launching Galileo
    http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8891
    and talking to Prof Richard Lindzen on the carbon tax

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Tony from Oz has a new post
    http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/baustralias-carbon-dioxide-tax-conb/
    the last paras:
    THE CON.

    When a total has been ‘ballparked’ by people here in Australia, the Government always seeks to deflect that talk by changing the subject, saying that the modelling has not been completed, and telling us that people will be compensated for any increase in price of electricity, and that sections of Industry will also be compensated.

    Figures of around $20 Billion in total have been mentioned, and here you must realise that the calculations I have made here are for the electrical power generating sector alone, and that supposedly emits 35 to 40% of all CO2 emissions, so my total of that $9.88 Billion is lower than the projected total because it is only from that power generating sector.

    However, people will see that maximum amount and think that (the bulk of) that will be returned to Australians in the form of compensation.

    This is where the con comes in.

    As I have shown here, the electrical power generation component of that only comes in at that $9.88 Billion.

    Electrical power is consumed in three sectors. Those are the Residential sector which consumes 38% of all power, Commerce at 37% and the Industrial sector at 24%.

    So, keeping those percentages in mind, the Residential sectors 38% of that $9.88 Billion comes in at $3.76 Billion.

    So now, we can work out approximately how each residential account might be affected.

    There are 7.5 million residential accounts in Australia, so the average increase on an electricity bill now comes in at around $500 per year. If the average power consumption per residence in Australia is $1600 per year (or $400 per quarterly account) then the percentage increase averages out at around 30%, so to see what that might be for individual users, take out your last account and add that 30% to it. Some pay less, and some pay more, so that’s why I have used averages here.

    The Australian Government has promised to compensate households for any increase in their electricity bill, and for the life of me, I fail to see how this will result in people using less electricity, thus driving down those emissions because less coal fired power will be consumed.

    So, keeping in mind that the Government has said that there will be compensation for residential consumers, and that the Labor Government always says it is the only Party that looks after the less advantaged amongst us, that is obviously ‘Code’ for the Government placing a means test on that compensation, for the lower income section of the overall community. That same Labor Government has said that any compensation package will amount to more than what the increase in power bills might be.

    So, can you see the Con here.

    The Government is going to compensate that residential sector only, and only part of them.

    So, they will be raking in $9.88 Billion just from the electrical power generating sector, and giving back just part of that residential sector’s commitment of $3.76 Billion.

    So, when you consider the overall ‘take’ for the Government,they can in fact give away all that Residential sector’s $3.76 Billion in compensation, because they will be making more than $6 Billion, just in increased electricity charges from those other two consuming sectors, Commerce and Industry.

    So, when you hear of wonderful compensation packages for residential power bill increases, be very aware that only part of what is being raked in will be given back to consumers.

    Given that only 38% of all power is consumed in the residential sector, and part of that overall take only will be refunded, consumers will then also bear the added costs from the extra being paid in those other two sectors, most importantly, the Commerce sector, which accounts for all your shopping, especially for groceries etc, so refunding a little more than the Residential sector’s commitment to some lower income households will not cover the increases added to everything you purchase as those other two sectors factor in their increased costs for the electricity that they consume.

    Now perhaps you can see why this Gillard led Labor Government so desperately wants to introduce this Price On Carbon.

    This is a windfall of the highest magnitude.

    It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the environment and the reduction of CO2.

    It’s just about the money.

    Today’s news releases say that the price would need to be closer to $40 per ton to encourage a move away from coal fired power to natural gas fired power, and The Australian Greens Party would like to see the figure closer to $200 per ton, showing that they have not even bothered to do check the data and do the Maths as I have done here.

    In some earlier Posts, I used the figure of 90 million tons of coal being burned in Australia. I have never attempted to inflate any figures to make the numbers larger, because even with those conservative totals I have used, the numbers are still staggeringly large.

    00

  • #
    gnome

    Bulldust…- I don’t lump Bolt in with Jones- he often presents a reasonable argument (even when he is wrong), addresses sensible argument by opponents, and expresses goodwill in dealing with those less fortunately situated. Jones doesn’t.

    An argument presented by Jones may win a battle but the war will be lost. He knows lots of words but few facts; he is incapable of handling intelligent disagreement, and most people know it.

    Privately I refer to the 5% (a poofteenth of buggerall) argument as the morally bankrupt argument and try never to use it. For it to have any validity you have to believe that CO2 reductions matter and if everyone cuts CO2 emissions enough something good will happen. This is clearly nonsense, pandering to the Green orthodoxy. The real argument is that CO2 is a beneficial gas, demonised by extreme Greens purely, simply and solely because it is the one component of exhaust emissions which cannot be scrubbed out before release. When anyone suggests that the carbon footprint of some activity can be reduced the right response is “why would you want to?”.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Alan Jones is not a demagogue on this issue. Listen to him intelligently interviewing Lindzen or Christy. Jones knows his stuff on anthropogenic climate change.

    The demagogues on this issue are the scientific illiterates, Gillard and Combet following the lead of the irrational, scaremongering Tim Flannery. These are genuine demagogues in the sense that they seek to manipulate the Australian electorate by using irrational arguments and dubious and false claims. Perhaps Gnome needs to consult a dictionary definition of demagogue.

    [edited] ED

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    90% of science is unknown. Yet the current crop of scientists act like ALL the science is known and have slammed the door on anything that may leave doubt to their current kingdom.

    00

  • #
    DougS

    @ The Loaded Dog:

    Off-topic but I just thought I’d mention that I’d been listening to a quiz programme a while back (on steam radio) and one of the ‘gems’ that spilled out was: “dogs have the ability to produce 100 different expressions”

    Got to make that 101 now I think!

    10

  • #
    Keith H

    Re Alan Jones. It really shouldn’t matter who the messenger is if what he or she is saying is the truth. Galileo looks like it will be a valuable resource for all those seeking to stop this destructive carbon-dioxide tax and could provide a rallying point for people like myself feeling so helpless and frustrated in the face of the vast financial and media interests funding/supporting the AGW scam.

    I know little about an Anne Althouse, but one of her quotes pretty well sums up and scuttles the whole fraud:-

    “When everything is evidence of the thing you want to believe, it might be time to stop pretending you’re all about science”!

    00

  • #

    The Galileo Movement presents three scientific views on the greenhouse effect, but leaves out a fourth one, which is the only view that holds up under the definitive evidence, the comparison of atmospheric temperatures on Venus and Earth, as I have tried to tell people about on my blog, and in posts such as this. Simply stated, this evidence clearly shows that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide neither warms nor cools (that is, neither increases nor decreases the global temperature); it only increases the efficiency with which heat is distributed within the troposphere, subject to the observed vertical temperature lapse rate, established by gravity acting upon the hydrostatic ocean of air. Venus has 96.5% carbon dioxide atmosphere, and the increased efficiency of heat distribution is enough to make the dark side of Venus as hot as the sunlit side, without changing the lapse rate. So the vertical lapse rate heat distribution structure of a planetary atmosphere is predominant over all other conditions, including the difference between night and day. This, and the further fact to be taken from the Venus/Earth comparison, that the different planetary atmospheres are warmed by direct absorption of one and the same portion of the incident solar radiation (in the infrared), is the true basic physics that eludes all the noted authorities today, on either side of the greenhouse effect debate. I have strongly urged the Galileo Movement to include this fourth view on their web site, because the Venus/Earth comparison is so obvious that not to include it is just as wrong-headed, just as incompetent, as is the alarmist view. I am the only scientist who has been able to look at the Venus/Earth comparison properly, and without regard for current, misdirecting dogmas masquerading as the “settled science” of the atmosphere. The world is faced with a crisis of incompetence in science, of runaway dogmas within it, and the runaway political problem is really only the secondary effect of that fundamental disease in modern science.

    00

  • #
    gnome

    Thanx Val for the Jones/Lindzen link. I hope Mattb listens too, because it answers his comments at No 7 here. I think Lindzen might be less inclined to take calls from Jones in future- his frequent courtly put-downs of Jones suggest he became aware that he was dealing with a very limited intellect and rang as music in my ears.

    My admiration for Lindzen grows.

    (I offer for consideration an additional reason why rational scientists (such as Carter and Plimer) appear to agree with some assertions of the warmist scientists, simple scientific courtesy. They aren’t climate scientists, and if the climate scientists assert that the world is gettting warmer they accept this because the statistic is (or should be) within the skills of a climate scientist to determine. This scientific courtesy is misplaced and I live in hope that a proper statistical analysis of the climate data, such as the BEST project will soon establish that the data are grossly insufficient to establish any climate trend.)

    00

  • #

    Alan Jones is not the leader of this group — he’s the patron. He supports it, and with his hundreds of thousands of listeners every day, that’s not to be scoffed at.

    10

  • #

    BTW GetUp! are at it again.

    see here.

    Regards

    00

  • #

    What we’ve always lacked in fighting the Greenshirts was a few great public communicators with a mass audience reach. I’ll take help from any quarter, thank you.

    Pointman

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Galileo eh? Smart bloke. His dialogues are fun. The Catholic Church is represented in these by Simplicio, who, as his name suggests, wasn’t the sharpest tool in the shed. He was the one who spouted all the dumb arguments.

    Must have annoyed the hell out of the church.

    If Galileo were around today, and if he cared about global warming, the “skeptic” movement would be represented by Simplicio. Good old Galileo would lampoon you guys horribly. On second thoughts, he probably wouldn’t waste his time.

    00

  • #
    NikFromNYC

    The ghost of Feynman to the rescue! He was the last great public supporter of rigorous science I know of. Now everybody has their heads down, fearfully. I run a small company of my own so I can speak out.

    00

  • #
    NikFromNYC

    It didn’t link….ah…close the tags:

    The Prophet

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    And yet you “waste your time” eh JB? Nothing better to do than be a stooge? On yer bike rude boy.

    Gnome: The only reason I group them together is because they are both lightning rods for the left-wing MSM and ABC. They are targets for the predictable baseless smears that the CAGW faithful like to throw around. Even Lindzen is attacked in this way … almost surprised JB didn’t bring up the pathetic smoking/Big Tobacco meme in relation to Lindzen. He is slow off the mark today perhaps.

    Personally I have lost all patience with the idiocracy that is the Rainbow Colaition pretending to run our country. We see every state and territory flooding over to the Coalition (including QLD in the latest polls) and the Feds are still not getting the message.

    Time’s up on Fed Labor, but this should not be taken as a sign to suicide bomb the economy. I never felt this level of utter contempt for the Fed Government, even through Howard’s lies and deceptions or Keating’s slurs, at least they stood for something. Dullard just wafts around in the breeze and bends over backwards to stay in power, regardless of how stupid it makes her look. The woman simply has zero integrity and debased the office of the PM.

    00

  • #
    janama

    I wonder how many who slag of at Alan Jones actually listen to him.

    00

  • #
    KR

    To quote Carl Sagan:

    “But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

    Claiming persecution for your ideas, the Galileo Gambit, only works if you are correct. Most people who claim persecution, sadly, are merely crackpots.

    Make the case – repeatable evidence, a consistent theory that also explains why basic physics doesn’t apply in the case of CO2. Let the facts judge.

    00

  • #
    KR

    Went and read a bit of the “Galileo Movement” science page – and must now go get a beer to wash out the distaste.

    Compare the list on the Galileo Movement “science” page with some peer reviewed science on these statements.

    Make your own judgements. Remember, though, that an emotional argument intended to persuade you is not equivalent to actual facts…

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    “Make your own judgements. Remember, though, that an emotional argument intended to persuade you is not equivalent to actual facts…”

    Out of the mouths of…………. ( WELL DONE!!!)

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Yawnworthy troll is … yawnworthy.

    I expect now that the movement has made a splash all the usual trolls shall be out in force smearing sites known to be scpetical. Hardly surprising, but ever so predictable. I expect this thread will get at least another three trolls to make it a round five (maybe more).

    PS> In case you are wondering MattB, I am not counting you in that tally … you do endeavor to be polite most of the time, which doesn’t go unnoticed.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Well done to these guys. Obviously they have put alot of time and money “where their mouth is”.
    I been thinking about brc’s reply and comment on my question in yesterdays thread on the political realities of the situation. I came to the conclusion that other than letting the political situation run it’s course through to the next elections and senate election the only way is for the average Australians to get up and “revolt” and force a short circuit of the political process. That is a by election or something else. Hopefully the efforts of this new group will help this along.
    I note the other side is criticising the name of the group ( Galileo ) but thats OK –often controversial names or brand names are the best –they attract attention. So the more negative comments by the other side the more attention it will get. Once traction is gained it does not matter what the name is.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Paul Kelly at The Australian brilliantly summarises the Green folly that has been Labor’s downfall:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/labor-wedged-on-climate-change/story-e6frgd0x-1226057802958

    Labor has lost their lower income support group as they hammer those households with higher electricity bills through unsustainable renewable energy policies.

    Yes, I see what I did there… calling renewable policy unsustainable … :)

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    John Brookes:

    If Galileo were around today, and if he cared about global warming, the “skeptic” movement would be represented by Simplicio. Good old Galileo would lampoon you guys horribly.

    Ha ha ha. Just what is it with you warmists and your incessant need to try and re-write history….or ignore it completely?

    The airbrushers of the historical past would be proud of you.

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Matt b:@7
    So what you’re saying is that scientists have a tendency to ‘lock on’ to a theory.
    Then dismissed and fluff over any real-world evidence that doesn’t fit their theory.
    Often being quite derogatory towards other scientists that hold an opposing view.

    Any relevance to AGW do you think?

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    KR: @26

    Remember, though, that an emotional argument intended to persuade you is not equivalent to actual facts…

    Yes, thanks for that wisdom KR. I’ll try to remember it. In fact, I’ll do it for “little Gracie”

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    KR@25

    You certainly give no evidence that you are in fact not Bozzo the Clown or at least a close relative.

    Like the incorrigible JB you miss the point of the use of Galileo in this context. Galileo’s ideas were contrary to the “consensus science” of his day. Simple isn’t it? It’s not really something that requires deep thought.

    The fact that you and JB miss the obvious point and wander off into who knows where indicates that neither of you are particularly bright buttons.

    If you come here long enough you may learn, even if ever so slowly, why today’s consensus(climate)science is flawed as was the consensus geocentricity in Galileo’s day.

    00

  • #
    KR

    Llew Jones @ 37

    I will fetch my bright red clown nose forthwith.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Llew Jones:

    They don’t know any other approach than to play the man … it is expected, part of the standard playbook, and has nothing to do with the main point being discussed. The main point is that he rightly challenged the orthodoxy of the day. The CAGW types have worked so very, very hard to build up that orthodoxy in the last 3 decades, but now that push is coming to shove, with people asked to dig deep in their pockets for a gesture that will achieve nothing, lo and behold… there is political resistance. Who’da thunk it?

    Joe Average cares not what boffins in ivory towers tell each other over their long lunches, patting each other on the back for getting papers through peer reviews of their peers (read mates)… but once the politicians use that twaddle to try and touch Joe’s wallet… watch out!

    00

  • #
    Mike

    I think Jones is unfortunate, Bolt also tbh. But otoh, the other side has Al Gore so I guess it evens out. I’d rather have reason and logic win out but the public it seems only want soundbites.

    00

  • #
    janama

    here’s someone the Galileo Movement should invite to join Lord Mockton’s next tour : Lord Turnbull

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100088183/lord-turnbull-the-ipcc-is-useless/

    00

  • #
    Tom

    Young MattyB seems to be affectionately regarded here as a genuine AGW religious weirdo more than the common or garden variety climate industry troll. But you have to keep your eye on the ball, young fellah. For example, provide me irrefutable evidence of the anthropomorphic CO2 signal in global temperature. “What else could it be?”, which is what the IPCC rests its case on, isn’t empirical proof. If AGW was a cough medicine, it would be illegal, having failed the safety tests.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

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

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

    …………
    The words of MattB;-

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Well there you have it!

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

    I rest my case.

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    For many years serious scientists such as Lindzen and Svenmark have been postulating that clouds are the main thermostats and that the suns activity level is responsible. Ie Weak sun such as now allows/causes more low level cooling clouds. An active sun such as in the cycles just finished prevents /slows cloud formation. At Aarhus University recent experiments confirm the role of high speed particles from space in the creation of clouds. http://science.au.dk/en/news-and-events/news-article/artikel/forskere-fra-au-og-dtu-viser-at-partikler-fra-rummet-skaber-skydaekke/.

    Another reason not to just blame CO2.

    00

  • #
    brc

    I’m not a fan of Alan Jones- I find his style not subtle enough. Andrew Bolt gets a pass from me on a lot of topics but not all.

    The point is these people are just communicators of the overall movement. The actual leaders are not public figures (well, not at this point). So to say Jones is the leader is plain wrong.

    Jones might not have the easy manner of Tim Flannery, but then Flannery has shot his credibility to bits with scaremongering over the years. But he still is a good communicator, which is why he is still sent out to face the cannons by the AGW crowd.

    I’m cautiously behind the Galileo thing at this point. I find their site a bit 1995 – not sure if that was their aim or an unexpected outcome. However I think at this stage it’s just going to be websites at 20 paces not unlike climateaudit vs realclimate – with people constantly referring each other to respective battling links.

    The real battle is for the large bunch of people in the middle who have given verbal acceptance to the theories based on a lack of real information to make up their mind. However, the real strength of something like the galileo movement is that it doesn’t have to communicate the science, just the cheating. The average person understands cheating and corruption all too well, and there’s not a lot of good news for the IPCC on that measure. If the IPCC were doing good science, it wouldn’t be politically effective for another 20 years (assuming they followed the evidence rather than the theory). That’s not good enough for the current crop, so they fudge the science now. Only they have been found out, and found out badly. There are no good stories as far as the IPCC is concerned – just tales of unsourced grey material, rule changes, extremely biased officers and participants and not even following their own rules.

    Without an IPCC the government case crumbles – I’m not talking about a carbon tax, I’m talking about the case for doing anything at all – including the coaltion. With no ‘authority’ you can’t use the ‘appeal to authority’ argument that underpins the whole mess. It’s the IPCC that’s been doing poor work. It’s the IPCC cheating and rule breaking that needs to get out to the public. That’s why I think this is (cautiously) a good idea – kill the beast directly, rather than try to chop off limbs.

    00

  • #
    gnome

    Janama (at No 24) – Of course I don’t listen to Jones, but I once heard him sounding off about trade (although he didn’t even understand that is what he was sounding off about). Exports good/imports bad was the limit of his thinking. If he was credible enough to be noticed he would be a dangerous fool. Luckily he is just a fool.

    I, on the other hand, am likely to be dangerous to the first person who tells me I get my global warming views from Alan Jones!

    00

  • #
    Tom

    @MattyB, @Damian Allen:I should actually point out that most of the posters at this site are sceptics, not deniers (the Nazi dogwhistle used disgracefully by climate scientists whose funding is threatened if AGW theory doesn’t work). What is massively in dispute is the hypothesis that CO2 is the primary driver of global temperature, originally a plausible line of inquiry, but a ludicrous idea that unbiased scientists would have killed 5-8 years ago when it became evident that the primary driver of global temperature was something else, not a trace gas with greenhouse properties. However, the IPCC clung to it because its reason for being ceases to exist if the human race cannot be blamed for the climate “problem”. Why does AGW still have currency among some scientists, as well as society’s university-educated elite? Because among both groups there is a prevailing attitude that the human race is evil and stupid. By this highly emotional, prejudicial and irrational analysis, it is only “logical” that humans, who have increased their numbers sevenfold in the past 200 years, have “stuffed up the planet”. When all other branches of scientific research, generally speaking, are highly disciplined with exacting standards of evidence, all that has been thrown out the window in climatology because the IPCC experts personally believe that the coincidence of rising CO2 and global temperature confirms their prejudice that the stupid, evil human race has stuffed up the planet. And, in any case, rising CO2 will eventually be a problem so why not end our addiction to oil right now? It’s the “right thing to do”. Thankfully, climate scientists don’t run our economies and they, along with their university-educated supporters, are about to find out in Australia at least how irresponsible and out of touch with ordinary workers they are. If you want to change the way ordinary people live in almost every facet and threaten to cripple economies with new taxes, “what else could it be?” is not a sufficient standard of proof.
    The idea that our race should have left oil and coal in the ground 100 years ago, rather than use it to create the wealth and civilisation it has been responsible for, is almost as offensively stupid as a theory which posits that a trace gas (.004% of the atmos) is the primary driver of global temperature. Of course, we have long-term issues with CO2. But, for now, it’s beneficial plant food, not “pollution”.

    00

  • #
    debbie

    I wonder when the Matt Bs and JBs of the world will wake up and realise what Jo is trying to point out?
    She isn’t saying that the AGW climate change theory is absolutely wrong guys, she is arguing that it is increasingly likely that it is not absolutely right.
    Of course mankind has influenced the weather and the environment on the local level. I have not noticed anyone here try to argue that, even though you have often loudly claimed otherwise.
    Ever since mankind has been in caves he has altered his environment. That’s a basic instinct and one of the major reasons why mankind is such a successful species on planet earth.
    AGW theory is claiming that this is now a measurable phenomenon on a GLOBAL scale and that we have to do something about it as it is the ‘greatest challenge of our time’.
    Really? Why is that suddenly the case after 10,000s of years of human habitation on planet earth?
    Those of us who study the world from a different social and physical perspective would argue that there are much greater challenges and also that it is not necessarily a good thing or a bad thing that we have or haven’t influenced the physical world around us.
    Yes, there have been mistakes made but in the big picture we have managed to settle and improve many areas of previously inhospitable landscapes and made them nicer places for flora and fauna as well.
    Those of us who study history, particularly political and economic history, would also argue that this scam has been tried before….many times….with many different mass hysteria, emotional excuses as a platform.
    We can all use rhetoric to prove and disprove almost anything Matt and JB. We can now also use impressive computer models to prove or disprove just about anything.
    What we need to focus on is what particular theories are being emphasised and then check why?
    We always need the WHY factor, otherwise we’re extremely easy to fool via rhetoric and straight out propagandist clap trap.
    Here’s a good question for you:
    WHY is our government so hell bent on introducing a price on CO2?
    And another one:
    WHY is there a highly funded propaganda campaign working on getting people to believe that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant?
    Do you 2 think it’s a dangerous pollutant?
    Check out the Getup link @ comment 18 if you don’t believe me.
    Especially check out their slogan.
    Since when did CO2 suddenly become something we need to attack as a dangerous pollutant? How does reducing it suddeny result in a cleaner Australia?
    You are unfortunately in the unenviable position of trying to defend those predictive AGW models (and that’s ALL they are BTW, predictive models attempting to test a THEORY) FOR THE WRONG REASONS!
    Those models are not magic crystal balls that can be used to raid the taxpayer’s pocket.
    That is really all Jo is trying to point out.
    To do that we also have to point out WHY they can’t be used as MAGIC CRYSTAL BALLS!

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Bulldust, Mattb polite?

    WTF are you reading through matt glasses?

    OK I’ll give you that he is not the tornado called Graham B (his long lost cousin/brother from Tasmania)

    Maybe it is just a humor translation problem…….

    00

  • #
    JPA Knowles

    I’d hate to be a free thinking scientist in Iran or openly Christian in China. If the Jones’ and Bolts are a necessary part of a free society I’ll say a polite “Gooday” to them in the street and welcome their contribution to the tapestry of life in Australia.

    00

  • #
    janama

    gnome says “if he was credible enough to be noticed”

    mate – 18% of national radio making him No.1 is enough to get you noticed. He gets the 18% because of his in your face style.

    00

  • #
  • #
    pat

    CFMEU members need to change their leadership FAST:

    18 May: Advertiser: Catherine Hockley: Industry union chief Martin O’Malley wants big carbon polluters jailed
    THE head of a South Australian union representing workers in carbon intensive industries, says major polluters should be taxed and jailed.
    Martin O’Malley, state secretary of of the SA branch of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, made the statement addressing a pro-carbon tax rally in Adelaide last month.
    Mr O’Malley told protesters “carbon polluters shouldn’t just be taxed they should be jailed”.
    Yesterday he stood by the comment…
    In South Australia, the CFMEU represents workers at OneSteel in Whyalla and Nyrstar in Port Pirie, two of the biggest carbon-emitting industries in the state…
    The Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, including Labor, the Greens and rural independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, met yesterday to consider details of the proposed tax, including the pricing mechanisms and a household assistance package.
    But Mr Windsor indicated he would wait for a Productivity Commission report on how other nations are tackling climate change expected next month before deciding on his position.
    “If the rest of the world is doing nothing I’ll probably do nothing,” he said…
    http://www.perthnow.com.au/industry-union-chief-martin-omalley-wants-big-carbon-polluters-jailed/story-fn6mhb6v-1226042461956

    00

  • #
    debbie

    See look at that.
    Major polluters should be jailed
    CO2 is now a major pollutant according to Martin O’Malley.
    Worthy of a jail offence!
    I don’t know about anyone else, but until the (propaganda) campaign to label CO2 as a major factor in the Greenhouse effect, CO2 was an esential part of life.
    As far as I know it still is.
    We actually exhale it after every breath we take which means we must have inhaled it too.
    Interestingly, we actually exhale more than we inhale, so we all must be major polluters now?
    Really?
    What will all our photosynthesis life forms think about reducing CO2 emissions?
    They might need to pay WWF and ACF and Getup etal to fund a campaign for them to save their part of the atmosphere.
    They will have to argue for O2 emissions to be reduced because they might be putting too much of that into the atmosphere and dangerously altering the climate.
    I’m sure we could create a computer model to prove it.

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Janama @ 41.

    The Lord Andrew Turnbull paper is the best and most easily understood article I have read on the AGW and IPCC subject, especially given the outstanding history of the author which enables him to speak with considerable knowledge and authority on the topics covered.

    It should be required reading for every politician, bureaucrat and business leader in the world but it is also a great article to which one can direct any confused person seeking to understand what has gone on.

    Could someone among our posters with the necessary computer skills and knowledge of copyright undertake to ensure every politician in Australia gets a copy? Sadly, I lack these attributes.

    The link is http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/lord-turnbull.pdf

    00

  • #

    pat at comment 53
    Martin O’Malley saying that ‘Carbon Polluters’ should be jailed.
    What an idiot!
    Take the link to this Post:

    Australia’s Carbon Dioxide Tax Con

    No need to read the Post if you haven’t got the time. Just scroll half way down and look at the chart for actual electrical power consumption there.

    Jail all ‘carbon polluters’ really. That would then mean closing down all their power plants that emit that Carbon (Dioxide, Martin, Carbon Dioxide)

    All coal fired plants – 76.3%
    Natural Gas fired plants – 15.9%
    Add in the power produced from oil fired sources, and hey presto, there goes 93.1% of all Australian electrical power.

    Nice move Martin. No one to run those plants.
    Why?
    They’re all in jail.

    They might be in jail Martin, but your members won’t have any jobs to go to without that electrical power.
    The whole Country would grind to a halt.
    Next time you open your mouth, change feet.
    Want to see a fool. Have a shave. He’ll be that guy looking back at you.

    You’re a silly billy Martin, no question about it.

    Tony.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Carbon Dioxide (Plant Food) is NOT Pollution.

    Why is “carbon pollution” not listed as a pollutant by this deceiving government?

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

    00

  • #
    Matt b

    Binny in #35… not “scientists” – but possibly one of the greatest in history, and the one chosen as the namesake of this anti-carbon-tax group.

    Personally I think there is a little in that for all of us in terms of accepting that without a shadow of a doubt we all have personal conclusions based on what we consider solid science that are in fact completely loopy.

    So when The Gallileo Movement claims to be Gallileo when it cames to heliocentricity… well better be careful as they may just be Gallileo when it comes to the tides…

    which of then comes down to who is ignoring the “evidence” and we’ve been through that enough.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Fenbeagle

    Meanwhile, in Britain, ‘Someone has blundered’….’The charge of the Light Brigade to continue’…

    http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Subect:- Independents vote for carbon price in midnight vote. GGGRRR

    Just heard the IMBECILE tony Windsor being interviewed by Graeme Gilbert on radio 2sm last night.
    Tony Windbag Windsor made me so ANGRY !
    He has already voted in the Lower House for a Carbon Dioxide (plant food) tax yet he was talking as if he hadn’t decided as well as laughing all the time as though it was some kind of joke !!!!!!!!
    WTF !
    What planet does he come from ?????????
    Have a read of the following………………………………………

    If there isn’t enough controversy already but the Gillard government has added to it. On Thursday night, a motion was called in the lower house for a vote on the carbon tax.
    Independents Bob Oakeshott, Tony Windsor, Andrew Wilkie and Greens Adam Bandt, voted in favour of a carbon price. Bob Katter voted against it. This was a sneaky and underhanded manner to have the tax passed onto the Upper House.
    We should be angry, very angry indeed for this sneaky behaviour of Labor to get through a controversial policy. Even worse when they have no what they call ‘nuts and bolts’ to vote on. Wrong, wrong, wrong. They cannot be trusted and Tony Abbotts call for an election on this issue must be accepted and acted on.
    A middle of the night vote is treating the tax payer, and Australian citizens with contempt.
    I cannot put the words on here that I would love to but I know readers would know what those words are.
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8248531/carbon-price-backed-by-
    Absolutely contemptable !!!!!!!!!!!
    More links http://www.facebook.com/pages/Wakeup2thelies-no-carbon-tax-news-/18
    http://justgroundsonline.com/forum/topics/independents-vote-for-carbon

    00

  • #
    Climate realist number9

    KR:
    May 18th, 2011 at 7:35 am
    Went and read a bit of the “Galileo Movement” science page – and must now go get a beer to wash out the distaste.
    Compare the list on the Galileo Movement “science” page with some peer reviewed science on these statements.
    Make your own judgements. Remember, though, that an emotional argument intended to persuade you is not equivalent to actual facts…

    Your link goes to a site called ‘Sceptical Science’ that ties itself in knots trying to convince itself of the veracity of its arguments. I cannot find a ‘peer reviewed’ article there – plenty of references to the work of the Climategate fraudsters is trotted out though. And silly attempts to denigrate people like Lindzen and Carter who play the science game without the need for deceit and post-normal science consensus nonsense.

    I’m pretty happy with the veracity of the science page on the Galileo Movement site. Well done Michael, Case and John.

    00

  • #
    Mark Jones

    I wonder if the Galileo movement is part of the flat Earth society.

    They are simply an organisation opposed to the carbon tax.

    00

  • #
    babe

    This may sound simplistic, but I do not apologise.
    As all plants take in carbon dioxide and by photosysthesis produce oxygen, surely increasing plant life and planting new trees when trees are felled would decrease carbon dioxide in our atmosphere?
    I look at city planning and weep as all vegetation is razed to build McMansions often with no planting to replace trees hundreds of years old.
    Surely more thought to sustainable use of city planning and farming techniques is preferable to us all paying the present Government Millions in Taxes to be squandered on fly-by-night ideas

    00

    • #
      Innovolve

      Hi babe,

      you raise an intersting point, consider this.

      as plants grow, they take in carbon dioxide, which you’ve already pointed out

      but when trees are harvested, and the wood made into lumber, then the carbon is still sequestered.

      if that lumber is used to build a house, wit a life-span of say 50 years, then the carbon contained in it is also sequestered until the wood is destroyed (e.g. fire, rot)

      thus ideally we want to grow many trees as you say, but then we also want to cut them down and use them for useful things, thereby sequestering the carbon, while growing more in their place.

      so cutting down trees is not intrinsically bad, if we are going to use the lumber for a useful purpose, and replacing them by growing more trees.

      hope thats a good answer for you :)

      00

  • #
    Innovolve

    Human society is based on the fact of ceaseless expansion. But clearly we can’t keep expanding forever.

    The history of humanity can be written as a series of vignettes, where at the last we failed to act until it was too late. Nero fiddled while Rome burnt, Hitler was planning a second campaign as he was kiled, and the Wall St bankers are still trying to game the system, even after their last greedy efforts brought the world to its knees with the GFC.

    This is because, as humans, we are emotionally invested in the status quo, and we will quite naturally fight to keep our rights. Climate change is contentious because the feedback loop between action and consequences is so long, and the effects are complicated by all of the natural peturbations of the climate system. Is it really happening we ask ourselves?

    Everyone would agree that we can’t keep dumping our waste into the environment, the argument is whether CO2 is a significant waste, or an insignificant one. On one side we have 99% of the world’s scientists, on the other we have the bulk of the world’s conservatives and those making money from polluting the environment (e.g. EITE emissions intensive, trade exposed industries). Who is right?

    My observation is that I expect climate change deniers to win, simply because this matches the patern of human history. It is human nature that makes people want to fight the forces of change, most people are happy with the way things are now. It is inevitable that we will wait too long, act too late, with too little decisiveness to save the situation, after all we are human, and it is what we have always done.

    I congratulate the developers of this website and all contributors, as they are following a well-worn path, validated by history. Climate change was first raised in the 70′s, and the deniers have been pushing if off from more than 40 years.

    Keep going, I expect you all to keep fiddling with alacrity. It is human nature to fiddle while Rome burns.

    ———————–

    REPLY: Alarmists have UN agencies, Govt Departments, Wall St Bankers and money. We have evidence and truth. Name that peer reviewed paper we deny….–JN

    [So the "D" word gets a free ride?] ED

    (The lie that skeptics deny climate change.Shows up once again here) CTS

    00

  • #
    R U Serious?

    I’m puzzled not so much that there are those who steadfastly refute or ignore overwhelming scientific evidence for the presence of exponentially increasing climate change (man-made or not), but by the type of people they are. They are fully supportive of the fevered spin spewed out by the army of right wing shock jocks and tabloid hacks. Thats not surprising in itself. What is surprising is the willingness of so many to join arms in a almost crazed stance against science per se. Why listen to reputable scientific bodies when you have anecdotal evidence from grand pop’s day to fall back on? Even more staggering is the firm belief that these devious scientists are conjuring up this myth purely for the pursuit of big bucks and perhaps, a kind of short-lived sense of fame ! Its a bloody conspiracy mate, and i’m not falling for it! The National Geographic Society and the CSIRO (AMONGST HUNDREDS OF OTHERS), are just grandstanding. Give me Allan Jones, John Laws, and perhaps, the greatest idiot of them all, Graeme Gilbert. any day! I liken it to a medical doctor informing you that you are indeed sick, but, scorning this advice, you seek comfort in anecdotal evidence that might just suggest otherwise. Bizarre.

    —————————
    REPLY: It is those who ask for evidence who most strongly defend science, and those who shout opinion and committee dictat who unwittingly destroy science. What’s curious is the person who pops in with flaming condescension to diagnose half the population with a “crazed mental illness” without the humility to ask a single question — perchance why do they disagree?. — JN

    00

  • #

    According to the rigors of scientific discipline,no theory or hypothesis is worthy of any consideration unless it implies the evidence that would prove it wrong.Predictions based on the theory are tested against the facts.One single anomalous result alone is sufficient to invalidate the proposition concerned.The alarmists themselves lament that they cannot account for the lack of warming.Ergo the AGW theory has been discredited.

    00