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

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

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



Greenpeace-gate breaks and the IPCC is busted. The shock. (Could they really be this dumb?)

What were they thinking? Greenpeace and the IPCC are both bleeding credibility over this one. The silly thing is, if they weren’t so arrogant, they could have hidden this so easily. The obvious conclusion is they are not even trying.

IPCC Greenpeace logo greenpeace-gate

Steve McIntyre discovered that a lead-author on an IPCC report  was also a Greenpeace employee, and worse, he reviewed his own work.  A  recent IPCC report claimed we could get 80% of the world’s energy from renewables was thus founded not on a selective peer reviewed paper written by independent scientists, and not even on a shonky economic “study” issued by a big-government-loving-university, but, gasp, on a Greenpeace sponsored wish-list for world peace. Hello?

The IPCC issued a press release (May 9th) though as usual, with no details or sources at the time. They got the media headlines, then quietly “backed” it up a month later with a 1000 page report they figure no one will read. Certainly, they must be a little surprised that within two days of quietly releasing the tome, it is spreading like fire across the blogosphere, and some of it’s deepest secrets are already out of the bag.

Let’s be clear about this, Greenpeace is a $200-million-euro-per-year machine (see the Greenpeace annual report for 2009). Their charity status was recently revoked in New Zealand. They are a big political animal, like the IPCC. But both are claiming to use science to support them. And both, it seems, cite each other as if they were scientific. Greenpeace openly, but the IPCC hides the reverse-citations in invisible ink, between the lines.

As far as bang for your buck, goes, this scheme is quite a money multiplier. A Greenpeace donation is a neat “investment” (especially if it’s tax deductible). If you wanted to lean on many western government agendas (or the Western public at large) for a paltry percentage of your future profits (or tax revenue) here’s the plan: set up a “foundation”, donate to Greenpeace, and encourage them to write a report saying that all your products or favourite policies (carbon certificates, honky windmills, electric-cars, unsellable solar panels etc etc) are attractive, economic, brilliant, and  absolutely essential or else the world will be consumed in a hot acid bath (or something like that) and “Voila”.

Basically Greenpeace writes what you and they want to hear, the IPCC pants in excitement, and before you know it, the PR agents who call-themselves-journalists have reprinted the IPCC declaration in the mass media, then Western Governments are quoting the IPCC, and saying how the idea has been reviewed by 120 scientists and 22 supercomputers, and we should be grateful to spend $2 trillion a year now and even more in the future. If you question it, you’re a cane-toad-like-farting-fool-idiot-denier-who-ought-be-tattooed-jailed-tied-to-a-post (or insert variation here).

The 1000 page report: Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN). Hmmm.

Steve McIntyre has an update on the responses from the IPCC SRREN.

Bishop Hill hammers the stake in a bit further with a post from Ben Pile of ClimateResistance. (h/t Barry woods).

The European Renewable Energy Council (EREC), which co-authored the report with Greenpeace, turns out to not only represent the renewable-industry it also gets funding from the public trough (to push for policies that get even more funding, from the public, for the trough).

The lines between governments, companies, trades associations, ‘non-governmental’ organisations such as Greenpeace, and supranational organisations such as the IPCC under the FCCC are now fully blurred. A greedy ecosystem of organisations have been created across the EU, each with the appearance of independence, working in cahoots with radical environmental NGOs and governments. Yet few, if any, of these organisations offer accounts of their funding sources, let alone explain what kind of organisation they are: how accountable they are, how independent from government they are, and who they really represent. It is as if no membrane delimits their functions from the functioning of the state, except to conceal its operations.

So where does that leave the report from Greenpeace and the EREC? Greenpeace are proud of their independence from government and industry. Yet here we see them working with a trade association in the development of advice to policy-makers that will benefit that industry. The advice it produces will further the agendas of those policy-makers. The suggestion here is not that money has changed hands — Greenpeace doesn’t need the money; what  it gets for the favours it does the establishment is influence. The service it provides is to give government-funded, agenda-ridden ‘research’ the superficial appearance of independence and legitimacy: ideological money-laundering. It makes clean the millions of Euros of public money given to the renewable energy sector for its PR.

It is no surprise that the EU and governments, spurious quasi-autonomous organisations and NGOs are in cahoots. It has long been known that organisations such as Friends of the Earth and WWF are paid by the EU to lobby the EU in favour of the policies that the EU wants. And it is no surprise that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change takes research that benefits the agendas of governments. We all knew this much.

What is surprising is the sheer scale of this shameless enterprise.

——————————————-

ADDENDUM: Look out, is this man about to uncover the matrix?

File this under curious studies of human nature: keep an eye on Mark Lynas. He  is very much a fan of the IPCC and the theory of man-made disaster (he’s written books, and speaks on climate change) but despite that, he sounds like an upstanding honest sort of guy. Plus, he thinks nuclear is not so bad, so he doesn’t fit the bill of the religious greenie. He’s suddenly been thrown in the hot seat, because he wrote a piece about the current IPCC-Greenpeace fiasco which nakedly calls it like it is, a disaster for the IPCC. He sums up things well:

The 80% by 2050 figure was based on a scenario, so Chapter 10 of the full report reveals, called ER-2010, which does indeed project renewables supplying 77% of the globe’s primary energy by 2050. The lead author of the ER-2010 scenario, however, is a Sven Teske, who should have been identified (but is not) as a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace International. Even worse, Teske is a lead author of the IPCC report also – in effect meaning that this campaigner for Greenpeace was not only embedded in the IPCC itself, but was in effect allowed to review and promote his own campaigning work under the cover of the authoritative and trustworthy IPCC. A more scandalous conflict of interest can scarcely be imagined.

The ER-2010 study would count for me as ‘grey literature’, despite being published in a minor journal called Energy Efficiency (link to PDF here). This is because it was initially written as a propaganda report by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council…

A curious thing is happening in the comments

Watts Up linked to the Lynas take on the situation, and a blog that normally gets a few comments has been inundated with the skeptical community, but it’s better than that, not only does Lynas do the honorable (time-consuming) thing of getting into the comments (see, you can tell he doesn’t normally get this many) but none-other than Bob Ward (paid PR agent and apologist for the IPCC) gets in too.

Could this be another Judith-Curry-conversion in the making? (Not that I want to categorize Judith 100% in the skeptical camp, but you know what I mean.) Lynas is discovering (maybe) that those nasty deniers are actually friendly, reasonable people. Commenters are offering to drop in books to Lynas; they’re commending him, and asking good questions, being generally well informed and helpful. And it’s all a bit new for him. He wasn’t aware of Donna La Fambroise’s blog, nor has he read Montford’s cutting summary of the HockeyStick.

Who knows? In a month or two he might be finding reasons to say why this incident has been blown out of the water by skeptics and some all-new-IPCC-policy “will finally fix this mess”, or he might be getting snarky hate mail from the IPCC-fan-club, while he posts other reasonable common sense type pointers and asks awkward questions, and if that happens we’ll know he’s on the way to becoming a climate-apostate.

If  you visit, please be polite and understanding. Remember, I used to think CO2 was a problem. Be gentle.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
Greenpeace-gate breaks and the IPCC is busted. The shock. (Could they really be this dumb?), 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/43xfco4

179 comments to Greenpeace-gate breaks and the IPCC is busted. The shock. (Could they really be this dumb?)

  • #

    In a closed space, with no air vents, CO2 is a problem – for the animal kingdom. ;)

    In reality, I love to read pro-warmers like Lynas. Those willing to honestly discuss and debate the issues. Like most of us, they are the ones that will concede a point when made even if it does not agree with their opinion. In the end, that is what all the honest people – on both sides of the debate, expect or want.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    Could they really be this dumb?

    Yes.

    That is if “dumb” means the same thing as “terminally stupid”
    .


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I think “they” see the issue as no longer needing the IPCC, nor it’s “science”.
    ie, they are confident now that it is a political issue, not a science issue.
    Therefore the IPCC is no longer needed.

    Is there going to be a COP17-CMP7 in Durban 2011 ????
    http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-1215.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Patrick Kelly

    Anybody notice the hysterical response by one commenter on Lynas’ page.

    the death trains that carry coal to power plants.

    So not only are sensible people now classed along with holocaust deniers and listed for shipment to the tattoo shop but industries, upon which our civilisation is based, are likened to the running the cattle trucks full of unfortunate victims on their way to the horrors of Buchenwald!
    Are there no limits to the depths being plumbed in this “debate?”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Did we not already know that Greenpeace and the IPCC were dishonest? Is it not stupid to be dishonest? Stumble, stumble, stumble…

    Lynas now has his chance. It shouldn’t take very long!

    I hope he comes out well but…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DirkH

    I was astounded by Mark Lynas’ reaction. I thought there’s not a half-sane person left at the IPCC camp. Guess they’ll lose him RSN.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Patrick Kelly

    On re-reading the comment that I referred to above, it seems that I may have been unfair to commenter, Chris Y, on Lynas’ site. the whole comment now reads like a spoof and the subtlety eluded me on first reading (early morning.) He concludes with:

    So, I say keep the existing IPCC policies and the steadfast adherence to same, as they accurately reflect the core of what the IPCC truly represents…
    Or as IPCC advocate Maurice Strong quipped-
    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    I recall hearing a radio interview where Kevin Trenberth referred to IPCC Science as “Gold Standard’.

    Must have been Bre-X Gold.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    They say correlation does not mean causation, but the correlation between dishonesty/ greed/ stupidity and IPCC “science” seems to be getting stronger. Now, which came first?

    Ken


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Ross

    On Bishop Hill he had a “copy” of a tweeting conversation between Lynas and Leo Hickman
    ( Guardian newspaper). Even Hickman who I would rank as an extremist Green says “looks like the IPCC haven’t learnt anything” and it was a dumb thing to do.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    Where are all the EGW fans defending this here..
    They normally are not shy..give me a laugh and defend this scam..PLEASE…:)
    Cricket sounds..must be busy..
    Another nail in the money laden coffin
    Here
    Silence from the trolls on this one as well..
    Funny that..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Hanrahan

    I’ll be interested in which media reports the story. I’m presuming The Australian will as will one or more News Ltd columnists. As for Fairfax, this will give a guide to whether recent editorial changes will mean any change at all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Jim

    It is no wonder that Greenpeace are more fondly known as Greenpiss, an organization that provides an endless stream of dour catastrophies. They always have a heroic Greenpeace solution in response to a made up problem, but off course Hollywood fiction rather than reality.

    Greenpeace are nothing more than a sect, albeit a green fictional one, in the guise of a charity, creating chaos and devatstation by their junk predictions. For far too long their pronouncements and environmental clap trap has gone unquestioned. It is time to close the doors of this miserable soul destroying organization.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Simon Says...

    Greenpeace is a founding member of, and still active in the operation of, that other bastion of independent certification: the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). FSC was founded by World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Another founding member is the Rainforest Alliance. No wonder our native forest industry (note the nasty last word) is in trouble.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PeterD

    Derek at #3 is right. IPCC and Greenpeace have served their purpose and will now be ignored.

    Both IPCC and Greenpeace still have critical mass; but eventually the cash flow to them will be a liability or at least unnecessary, and will be discontinued. Both organisations will frantically create pathetic but spectacular noise in their death throes which they perhaps anticipate. Ironically, they will be in denial.

    Useful idiots. Mildly embarrassing. Quaintly irrelevant.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    It’s just corrupt. Greenpeace and the IPCC share an intellectual and moral bankrupcy.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Something which now never fails to amaze me is how Greenpeace, the climate lobby, IPCC, the whole shonky AGW warmist bandwagon etc., just rolls on and on and on pretending, with full blinkers on, that:

    (1) The significant climatic variability of even just the relatively recent past (<10,000 years) i.e. the period in which human civilization rose, simply never existed. For example:

    http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/1855/

    and

    (2) That teir theory doesn't hinge on not one but three highly critical assumptions i.e. that the control which the Sun somehow exerts over Earth's climate is (a) now 'perfectly understood', (b) based purely on a solar radiation flux TSI control, and (c) which is constant on such timescales as I've noted above or even less. But this (implicit) 3-part argument is simply unsustainable! For example:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010JA016220.shtml

    We now know the range of the heliospheric magnetic flux variation, rather than being "very constant", is almost two orders of magnitude greater than the flux variation estimated for TSI, which is presumed (by IPCC etc) to be the sole control which determines global surface temperature. It now seems much more likely (and Earth's climatic history of the last <10,000 years provides ample evidence, please note) that perhaps (say) cloud albedo effect, which amplifies TSI, is dependent on both the burn-off effect and the Svensmark Galaactic Cosmic Rays shielding effect, where the latter is modulated by a combination of magnetic field and flux effects coherent with TSI. Whatever!

    It really doesn't matter how you 'come at' the issues above. On the above grounds, the AGW scare would not 'get up' in a court of law as the burden of proof that it is just all about CO2 is simply not met.

    What is the real problem here? A failure of rigorousness in modern educational standards?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    derek @ 3

    I think “they” see the issue as no longer needing the IPCC, nor it’s “science”.
    ie, they are confident now that it is a political issue, not a science issue.

    Correct, I think. It has been this way for some time.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    The IPCC have been held in the highest regard by people and governments who accepted that such an august body would always provide first class information. Just as we always accepted that the CSIRO and BoM always gave the best advice we now know differently; that they too had agendas and bias toward a preferred outcome rather than simply having the cards fall as they may.

    Each time the IPCC is caught in a lie it loses the respect of some of it’s adherents. If they will lie about one aspect what guarantee do we have they aren’t lying about others? That is the question that Lynas must now be asking. Once enough former supporters start drifting away the IPCC will lose it’s authority and hence governments will not be able to rely on it.

    Governments have made the climate a political question but they cannot avoid the science. Taxes and ETSs can only be proposed and implemented if the scientific reason for their existence is sound. Put another way; When people know that the tax will not help the planet they will not vote for it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    OOOOH so when a warmist comes here belittling a journal: EE they really meant a journal called Energy Efficiency! HOW EEFFIN SWEEEEET~!

    Brookes and MattB, you’ve been keeping a secret haven’t you…….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    redc

    Patrick Kelly @4

    The death train comment is sarcastically referring to James Hansen from 2009:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal

    “The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Marcia

    There is definitely a change occurring in some of the hardcore AGW except for Joe Romm types and of course most Australians who still believe in it. Some of Eli Rabbets comments etc seem to be much more tempered of late


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Their [Greenpeace] charity status was recently revoked in New Zealand.

    One of the advantages of living in a small country, with a tiny population, is that the people who hold the real power are more accessible …

    And sometimes, when one card in the house-of-cards starts to shift, the whole thing can come crashing down …

    Greenpeace first … possibly others to follow.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    You’re not going to get much argument from me here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Dr Richard North, at EUreferendum has a slightly different take on the matter:

    … from its current behaviour, it is self-evident that it [the IPCC] has learned that its critics do not matter, are not important to the institution and cannot damage it or prevent it from operating. And nor is it in the least bit concerned about “credibility”, not when it enjoys something more important and powerful – the element of “prestige”.

    To its customers and clients, the IPCC’s prestige is completely unaffected, and needs to be because, even without driving a horse and cart through its own principles, the report is unmitigated tosh. Nowhere, then is it credible but, unlike its critics, the IPCC understands the realities of power – that single, all-important word, “prestige”.

    This is getting to the heart of it … within the political bubbles and the corporate board rooms, what the regular people think does not matter … regular people have to deal with government and business on terms mandated by the government and business.

    When political parties are indistinguishable from each other, in the things that really matter, then what real franchise does the electorate have? And when all businesses in a given sector are producing the identical stuff, with some slight competition over price, and “optional extras”, how much choice do consumers actually have? And notice my use of the word, CONSUMERS. We used to be Customers, who gave our custom to one vendor or another. Now, we are merely units of consumption. Food for thought?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Athlete

    Lynas is discovering (maybe) that those nasty deniers are actually friendly, reasonable people. Commenters are offering to drop in books to Lynas; they’re commending him, and asking good questions, being generally well informed and helpful. And it’s all a bit new for him.

    I wonder if Lynas now regrets throwing a pie in the face of Bjorn Lomborg because Lomborg had a different opinion than him?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Rereke, it is very eerie when you say this with slightly different punctuation:

    Now, we are merely units of consumption-food, for thought.

    It is what they’re “thinking” that bothers me most of all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Mark D: #28

    Soylent Green …


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Indeed. It’s been a long time since I viewed that one.

    I intend to be too lean, well marinated and tough. :)

    Charlton Heston was a minor hero of mine.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    A C

    Call me cynical but I have for some time considered the likes of Greenpeace, WWF, even Red Cross and Medicine Sans Frontiers as little more than large multinational corporations with careerist CEOs, large headoffices in the most exotic European capitals, and a business plan that is little different to other multinational corporations. The product they sell is indulgences – to guilt ridden westerners. And nice turnovers they get too.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Disagree with these comments. I can only speak about Medecine Sans Frontieres as I have been a financial supporter (and a humble assistant at a water engineering/supply technical level) for many years. I have seen no evidence that MSF fits the above, highly cynical description. Please provide evidence.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    I must also stick up for Medecins Sans Frontieres. Like Steve I am a financial supporter, having signed up when someone knocked on my door a couple of years ago. I have read their magazine and can find no evidence of a link with the Greens, only examples of their excellent work in the field.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Another excellent article with great links from ‘fellow’ posters – thank you.

    I am wondering if anyone is going to follow the IPCC Peru Meeting scheduled 20-22 June 2011 on Geoengineering?

    I am doing what I can to get the information out there and am interested to read other’s comments, blogs papers etc. This is a BIG issue and one which is currently not well understood by the average JOE in the street. It is still seen as something akin to the chemtrail issue, which is seen as garbage similar to crop circles etc. It is for real.

    I did a couple of pages on it but would appreciate hearing from others as well.

    http://justmeint.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/geoengineering-are-you-familiar-with-the-terminology/

    http://justmeint.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/lima-peru-june-20-22nd-2011-ipcc-on-geoengineering/

    Thanks heaps.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    I never could see these “chemtrails” until I made a better tinfoil hat. Oddly, I had seen more of them BEFORE 9-11 so I assumed that the government sponsored aircraft were actually part of the chemtrail fleet. Since the 9-11 crashes were so effective, I am guessing that’s why I don’t see so many of these “trails”.

    Just the same, I really don’t think this is the right forum for this “chemtrail” stuff. Too many rational thinkers here.

    Just saying…….


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Greenpeace-gate breaks and the IPCC is busted. The shock. (Could they really be this dumb?) [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mark this is NOT about chemtrails this is about global weather modification AKA Geoengineering. The IPCC conference referenced above is being held to discuss this GEOENGINEERING worldwide to ‘assist saving the planet’….. arghhhhhh


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manalive

    A C (32),
    I’m not sure Red Cross and Medicine Sans Frontiers can be described as ‘professional pardoners’ but Tim Costello’s outfit World Vision Australia fits the description IMHO.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Numberwang

    Re: pattoh, #8: Or fool’s gold

    Re: hanrahan, #13: I haven’t seen a peep about this in the MSN, neither in Canada or Australia. Fingers in the ears, singing “La la la, I’m not hearing this”

    Mark Lynas can expect to be savaged. As Jo is undoubtedly aware, and Patrick Moore can attest, green apostasy is an unforgivable sin


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “I never could see these “chemtrails” until I made a better tinfoil hat. Oddly, I had seen more of them BEFORE 9-11 so I assumed that the government sponsored aircraft were actually part of the chemtrail fleet. Since the 9-11 crashes were so effective, I am guessing that’s why I don’t see so many of these “trails”.”

    Whats all this Jive about Mark? I’ve seen a picture of an unmarked plane, made to look like an airliner, and its spewing out gear not from its normal exhaust.

    We have to understand that there really is such a thing as covert operations. There really is. You might think there is not but there is in reality.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PK

    RedC@10:16
    Thanks for the link. I did revise my position with a subsequent post @6:57. I now wish I had written it! :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I appologise that this is off topic, but I am not reading anything substantial in MSM regarding this upcoming IPCC meeting in Peru. Too many people still disbelieve in ‘black – ops’ chemtrails-contrails with chemicals etc, which is global weather manipulation.

    Graeme & Mark et al
    please look at this

    At an international symposium held in Ghent, Belgium May 28-30, 2010, scientists asserted that “manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory.” It is “fully operational” with a solid sixty-year history. Though “hostile” environmental modification was banned by UN Convention in 1978, its “friendly” use today is being hailed as the new savior to climate change and to water and food shortages. Military forces stand poised to capitalize on controlling the world’s weather.

    LISTEN TO Dr Coen Vermeeren Symposium speech, Afternoon Part 1 video, (starting at about 35 mins.) http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7299427

    DOWNLOAD the “CASE ORANGE” Report (PDF without appendices)
    http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/case_orange-5-10-2010-belfort-chemtrails.pdf

    “Weather manipulation through contrail formation … is in place and fully operational.”

    Case Orange cites publicly available material that shows geoengineering has been ongoing for “at least 60 years.” Used as a weapon of war in Hamburg by the UK during World War II, it was also used in the Vietnam Conflict by the US. Controversy over its use, revealed by investigative reporter Jack Anderson, spurred Senate hearings in 1972. During those hearings, military officials denied the use of cloud seeding technology. Later, a private letter from Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird surfaced, admitting that his testimony was false. He, again unbelievably, claimed he didn’t know what was happening. [9]

    Environmental modification (EnMod) weaponry was finally banned by treaty in 1978. The UN Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques forced the end of such programs, overtly anyway.[10] (Case Orange authors seem unaware of this international ban, as it is one of their recommendations.)

    However, with widespread reporting of rising global temperatures, increasing population, and degradation of water supplies, renewed interest in EnMod is now becoming broadly supported. (See, e.g., Top economists recommend climate engineering, 4 Sep 2009 [11] and similarly, Top science body calls for geoengineering ‘plan B’, 1 Sep 2009.[12])

    http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/case-orange-60-years-of-geoengineering-goes-into-hyperdrive-as-%E2%80%98plan-b%E2%80%99/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    will gray

    A piture proves nothing these days, unfortunately! I had some great laughs on the WUWT post on shit burgers, I call them ‘Topoo Burgers’ greenie friendly term.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Asperamanka

    Why not consult independent temperature records? Thousands and tens of thousands of farmers, fishermen, sailors etc, all over the world have kept weather records as a necessity, as a useful record or even just as a hobby. Why not provide a web-based clearing house where scanned copies of these records can be consulted and analysed to prove that there is no global warming.

    Saying you don’t like the measurements is all very well but providing a world-wide accumulation of independent measurements is unarguable.

    Is anyone doing this? It can’t be that hard.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] policy makers – yes, we’re talking the IPCC here – can be trusted when written by Greenpeace activists? OH wait, it all makes sense [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    To manipulate the weather all you have to do is provide a pathway for the electrical energy to get down from the ionosphere to the troposphere. Since gases don’t conduct well, but ionised gases do conduct well, all you have to do is to ionise the gases in a pathway between the two areas.

    You can do this with a wide enough laser. The laser has to be wide simply because the air molecules will be moving. But you probably could also pull this off with a sophisticated array of mirrors.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Re 42 http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7299427

    Beethoven’s Ninth got me in. The rest didn’t have a similar effect.

    Freeman Dyson claims one trillion extra trees would get rid of all the atmospheric CO2. I’d settle for that approach and a bit more Beethoven.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Raven

    Want I want to know is what should happen to all these bent climate scientists , green activists, crooked politicians , propaganda spewing journalists , famous fraud celebs and united nations IPCC types !
    We could set up a similar deal to how they try people at the Hague , then base it upon the level of complicit corruption involved . We can use a model based on IQ , for example a bent climate scientist with an IQ of 135 would receive a longer jail term with hard labor than say your PM with a politicians IQ more around 100 .
    Whereas more general conspirators , for example the entire getup membership av IQ 89 could be banished to somewhere like Christmas island , with the promise of being deported if they try to return to the mainland !
    Now this is only a work in progress , I agree that jail with hard labour , banishment etc may seem like I’m a bit of a softy . What do you think ? They will all be brought undone , it’s just a matter of time !! We could even commission our own bounty hunters to track these cretins down , or maybe a Mossad / CIA/ NKVD style agency to handle the finer details , lets hear your thoughts .


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Alexander K

    As our friends from the USA have it, ‘bring popcorn and beer!’ This revelation of Greenpeace/IPCC incestuous behaviour will run for a while, in my opinion. I was amazed that both Lynas and Hickman, who have both written and promulgated the silliest Green drivel in large quantities, in books and in the Guardian , have stood up on a matter of principle, but absolutely unsurprised that Joe Romm didn’t even understand the principle at issue and didn’t understood the figures either. Judth Curry’s warning to Lynas was quite funny and very telling.
    The apalling Richard Black, the pseudo-science guy on the BBC, is currently saying that any coming solar minimum might only compensate for the coming CO2-induced heat – the models say so! Any strongly sceptical comments on his blog are rapidly and heavily edited!
    He, as is the great majority of the MSM, ignoring the Greenpeace/IPCC fiasco completely.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “Tune into the blogosphere and drop out of the MSM. It’s there that you’ll find people like Steve McIntyre. Investigative journalism is alive and well; it’s just moved house.”

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/the-death-of-journalism-and-the-irresistible-rise-of-the-blogosphere/

    Pointman


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    Llew Jones @48. What happens to all those trees after the CO2 goes? Also, why just trees? Do weeds do the same job, does anyone know? How many weeds equal one tree?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Just Me, you say at 38

    Mark this is NOT about chemtrails

    But your link says otherwise: coto2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/case_orange-5-10-2010-belfort-chemtrails.pdf

    Then @ 43 you rave:

    Too many people still disbelieve in ‘black – ops’ chemtrails-contrails with chemicals etc, which is global weather manipulation.

    yup I’M ONE OF THOSE THAT DO NOT BELIEVE THESE “CONTRAIL-SPIRACIES”

    Why don’t you make a case to Joanne Nova to post a “special” thread to air this subject? That way you could be sure to have it subject properly discussed (which it richly deserves) without being off topic.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Ian Hill@52

    I guess we just ramp up the use of coal. The brown stuff should do.

    Freeman Dyson is a famous theoretical scientist so I guess he didn’t think of anything as practical as that. Perhaps he was trying to make the point that there is no need for alarmism. If it were a necessary choice, though I don’t think it is, I would go for a few more trees over the geo-engineering option.

    I’m pretty sure we can get by without one trillion extra trees. A few more might keep the nervous Nellies happy though.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Raven @ 49

    There are too many of them to punish individually, and far too many levels of complicity to sort out degrees of responsibility.

    Given that, as it now gets cooler, without surplus energy or food due to the policies promoted and supported by these people, millions are now going to die, my suggestion is any person found guilty of any level of complicity, or involvement, or support of these policies should, for the rest of their lives, have to display a large billboard on their front lawn that reads:

    I AM A MASS MURDERER

    Their drivers’ licences, passports, and all other official documentation etc should be stamped in a similar manner.

    The only exception I would make to that punishment is for teachers who have indoctrinated this murderous propaganda as “fact” to impressionable young children. I have not yet thought of anything suitable for these murderous swine, but I’m open to suggestions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Numberwang

    Re Memoryvault, #55: “The only exception I would make to that punishment is for teachers who have indoctrinated this murderous propaganda as “fact” to impressionable young children. I have not yet thought of anything suitable for these murderous swine, but I’m open to suggestions.”

    Something like Alex’s “rehabilitation” in “A Clockwork Orange” might be in order, forcing them to watch a continuous loop of “An Inconvenient Truth” and “The Nature of Things” (David Suzuki’s long-running CBC program) while being fed a constant diet of emetics and purgatives.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Llew Jones #54, nothing will keep these people happy. Believe me. Plant a trillion trees, they’ll ask for 2 trillion more.

    You can’t negotiate with terrorists. You can’t appease genocidal (target group being producers) maniacs.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Numberwang @ 56

    As tempting as your suggestion is, I’m trying to think along the lines of minimal involvement of the state. Call me a libertarian if you will.

    I’m thinking more of creating a walled estate in the south-west of Western Australia, walled-off from the rest of society and its advantages of “progress” which is apparently so evil.

    Bereft of clothing, man-made shelter, fire, tools or even the most basic products of human development over the last thousand years, these people could create their own utopian society.

    And their indoctrinated students could be flown over in helicopters each school holidays to mark how well they are progressing.

    No “force”: just create the opportunity for them to demonstrate what they preach.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Raven

    Howdy Memoryvault

    Point taken re the complex issue of bringing these villains to account .
    We could however start locally along the lines of asset seizures similar to drug related crime.
    Liars such as flummery , gumnuts , certain politicians brought before courts appointed by the next government to weed out these traitors to our country and our way of life.Take everything they have , then leave them in prison until they rot . Politicians could be charged with trying to defraud the nation , we could have a class action of 5 or 10 million pissed off Australian citizens !
    With regard to teachers who followed without question , plenty of room on Christmas island along with the idiots from getup .I wonder where a referendum on bringing back capital punishment on this issue would end up ? … We can even have a slogan… REVENGE A DISH BEST SERVED COLD .


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Raven

    Good idea memoryvault .
    I think an island would be better , don’t want anyone escaping !
    Kangaroo island springs to mind ,
    Lots of cuddly tiger snakes there .
    However I’d only recommend that for the minions , to soft for the ringleaders though .


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    @memoryvault
    “The only exception I would make to that punishment is for teachers who have indoctrinated this murderous propaganda as “fact” to impressionable young children. I have not yet thought of anything suitable for these murderous swine, but I’m open to suggestions.”

    As previously discussed, This is a whole new topic of conversation, perhaps we should light the blue touch paper under it now.
    .
    .
    @memoryvault
    “I’m thinking more of creating a walled estate in the south-west of Western Australia”

    That would be COOL.

    PS.
    I must order that book.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    @mattB
    With 15 Thumbs up and only 2 Thumbs down, for a warmy, you gotta feel really Cool now.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    @Memoryvault #58
    “No “force”: just create the opportunity for them to demonstrate what they preach.”

    “No Force” or “No Pressure” MV.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    Ref Post #61 ADDENDUM:
    @memoryvault
    “The only exception I would make to that punishment is for teachers who have indoctrinated this murderous propaganda as “fact” to impressionable young children. I have not yet thought of anything suitable for these murderous swine, but I’m open to suggestions.”

    Maybe we could start by burning the ‘Midnight Oil’.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Beth Cooper

    I think many of us here began our journey to scepticism from thinking there was a CAGW problem.I planted trees everywhere! I read a couple of articles, incuding David Evans ‘Missing Hot Spot,’that sent me to look at the evidence, evidence, not polemic by eithor left wing political activists or right wing oil shills :-) I guess what makes a sceptic is that we like data and distrust spin.(Bias democratic.)I think those who are unlikely to change are political activists who need to “believe’ because they wish to destroy capitalism and environmentalism is the means to that end.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Numberwang

    The question that is nagging me now is “How much money do Sven Teske, Rajendra Pachuri and Greenpeace have invested in member companies of the European Renewable Energy Council?”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “Why don’t you make a case to Joanne Nova to post a “special” thread to air this subject? That way you could be sure to have it subject properly discussed (which it richly deserves) without being off topic.”

    You are just being facetious Mark in your attempt to deny reality. Obviously people cannot say much about what these guys are up to. Its called …… wait for it …. covert operations. So its a secret. So if anyone is letting authentic information out, there will be matching disinformation to make the subject sound silly, so as to fool dimwitted people who cannot get with the reality that there really is such a thing as covert ops.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Dammit Graeme you’ve figured me out. Did you have to tell the world?

    Facetious? yes
    Attempt to deny reality? Well no because “they” are doing such a good job of matching disinformation, that my reality is just the way “they” want it. I don’t have to deny it, it isn’t there at all.

    That, for example, is why I use the tinfoil hat. I have other devices too but I can’t tell you about them because you don’t keep secrets (wink wink nod).

    Besides that, I like to see these threads stay on the usual expected “denial” format. There is a certain reputation to uphold. If we don’t do that the warmists point and jump up and down and say things all over the web. You know THINGS?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    JustMEInT This is an old thread, but a good one re geo-engineering.

    The need to promote geo-engineering to stop AGW
    http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-178.html

    My immediate impression as to why “they” might be considering it now, is as a back door escape route for themselves when the disastrous, ineffective, and onstrously expensive policies that are being implemented at the moment begin to obviously destroy our econoies, and life styles.

    ie, Richard S Courtney was right, it is a cheaper alternative to be deployed, only IF AND WHEN needed (which it won’t be, the earth IS cooling.

    Idea – Should we start a sweep-stake for when and who will be the first politician in which country to announce a policy that is to take into account, help mitigate, or combat the effects of global cooling, rather than just global warming as is the only case at present.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    3x2

    Steve McIntyre discovered that a lead-author on an IPCC report was also a Greenpeace employee, and worse, he reviewed his own work.

    Shocked I tell Ye. IPCC Lead Authors plugging a POV in a report that just happens to match the POV required by those funding the report!

    Bend me over and give me a carbon tax enema. What will they think of next?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Memoryvault: A walled off estate. Ever read Heinlein’s story “Coventry”?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Damian Allen

    “A C” (32),
    You can add OXFAM to your list of corrupt organizations promoting this anto human global warming FRAUD……

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ipcc_confirms_the_climates_just_the_latest_excuse_to_snatch_the_wests_wealt/P0/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “anto”, sorry I meant ANTI…….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    Steve McIntyre has not “discovered” anything. The affiliations of the authors are there for anyone to see. The paper was in a peer reviewed journal, the “Greenpeace employee” (Sven Teske)was one of six authors of the paper, and he is one of eleven chapter authors in the IPCC report. The idea that chapter authors must not have published anything in the area which they are responsible for providing a knowledgable overview of the science is ridiculous.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pragmatic observer

    I’ve been a regular reader of Andrew Bolts Blog, but rarely comment due to the occasional display of hypocrisy on the part of the host and poor moderation of the blog.
    Just want to say well done Jo, and keep fighting the good fight.
    i fear unfortunately that this Greenpeace/IPCC scandal will just fizzle out just like the ClimateGate one and it will be business as usual with Juliar, ABC etc etc.
    Slightly off topic, but I have read criticisms of Christopher Monckton on other blogs about him spreading unresearched misinformation. This would IMHO be very uncharacteristic of the man.
    To Raven # post 49. I agree whole heartedly, but those things could only happen in a parallel universe where true justice is preached and practiced, not this one.
    PC.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave

    Ian Hill @ 52

    Approx 100 meters x 100 meters of strong weed growth (or pasture) equals 1 tree 500mm diameter x 20 meters high and 1 year old. Both would sequester nearly 3,000 kilos of CO2 PA.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mullumhillbilly

    Memoryvault@58, MikeB @70

    “… a walled-off estate”

    Bolivia would do nicely (cf comment 99 in that thread)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Thanks to those who have made comment on my ‘Geoengineering’ question. I maybe missing a visible link on this site as to how to contact JoNova personally. I can see one for moderators etc….. any suggestions?

    Geoengineering is the word used to describe deliberate effors to change the climate through cloud seeing and other so called chemical, sientific and military means. IPCC is meeting to discuss and get international agreement on this in PERU in the next couple of days. It is not hocus pocus nonsense, and is already taking place across the world. I really would appreciate someone of substance (JoNova) to take up this story, investigate and report on factualities. Believe it or not there are people out there who actually believe this is a good thing for our planet. Then of course there will be gazillions of dollars alread invested in geoengineering projects who would be terribly saddened if this entire thing were outlawed!

    Cheer’s one and all. JustMEinT


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    Thanks Dave @74.

    Your average overgrown footy oval is the equivalent of a couple of trees. Good to know.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    oops fingernails too long :-) SCIENTIFIC


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Graeme @41. Chem trails. I saw a pic of a plane allegedly spewing
    out something. I sent it to a commercial pilot, of high seniority with experience on the V-Force (Nuclear bomber squadrons – Vulcans)
    He identified it as a Boeing 707, (non flying now) and that the so called exhaust was photo shopped as the substance coming from it was actually flowing out the wrong way if the plane was flying. I mean people were taking photos of plane trails in the sky. A normal aircraft does leave trails but they are ice crystals from the wings, quite harmless. However one thing is correct, jettisoning fuel over land is not on. But it is done by some of the cheaper small airlines.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Hi JustMeInT I was under the impression that manipulating the climate or rather weather by seeding clouds was considered Internationally illegal.

    They did seed clouds in Australia some years ago hoping it would produce rain, but it was highly unsuccessful. Also some Uni in
    UK suggested feeding clouds with Sulfur dioxide, like the type that spews out of volcanoes that does temporarily cool the planet.
    I mean that is absolutely stupid! I’m not a scientist but doesn’t the dust cool the planet not Sulfur dioxide particularly? Maybe someone can answer that. But I thought that International agreements were in place not to change the weather artificially by adding chemicals to clouds.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Graeme @ 41. Postscript. By the way, confidentially, my informed
    airline source said, when planes land at airports doesn’t create
    a healthy atmosphere. He mentioned something I can’t remember what. But I think the days of ships and horse and buggy are gone
    so we have to find ways of developing aviation fuels from bio fuels
    and that leads to starvation because countries grow corn or other
    foods that go into bio fuels and not into people’s mouths.

    Anyone have any info on this revolutionary fission fuel for reactors that has no radiation fallout? Or is this another myth to make a clean energy source investment.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Mark D.

    See? DO YOU SEE!

    But for the grace of God there I go.

    PS don’t you dare run away…….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Raven

    @75
    Yes but who peer reviewed it ,
    My guess a similar analogy would be along the lines of Stalin peer reviewing a paper on the evils of communism !!!!

    @76 I know we don’t live in a perfect world , however would it be possible to mount a legal challenge against the govt to force debate on climate change ( carbon dioxide tax ) . Clearly there is an agenda where our govt is going to keep abasing itself to the UN even when proven wrong !! The fact that we are having this tax forced upon us is not right . We are not UN members we could tell em to F… Off , what are they going to do about it pull a Rwanda on us , as the entire world becomes aware of this Scam it worries me deeply that the people who are supposed to be representing us are selling us down the river . What I want to know is why .?
    The Combets , Swans , Gillards , Garretts have a day of reckoning coming , this is about alot more than meets the eye , there is a deeper evil going on here !! Kill the Tax … Stuff the UN .. Hunt down and make an example of these f…ers that have bastardized our political system with lies that will destroy much of our great country . There is no excuse for what Gillard an Co are up to and it’s my belief this will destroy the ALP and see the rise of possibly two new political parties . My intuition tells me this train wreck of a govt will not see full term and Tony Abbott and co should be looking at what I can see in the real world or they will end up in the same boat come election time , it is time for logic & reason to prevail !!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Short

    Ian Hill @ 52 and Dave @ 77

    Right on!

    Personally I advocate the total legalisation of marijuana, increased production of garden hoses and Orchy bottles and generous government subsidies for growing the noble weed for all manner of uses, in particular:

    . maximising biosequestration of CO2 to keep the AGW Greenie catastrophists happy; and

    . (hopefully) keeping as many of them as possible heavily ‘stoned’ (especially those working in local and State government ;-) .

    That way, both we and they can all go back to a NORML life (cough).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Raven

    @76
    The moderators at the HS do seem very inconsistent I agree .
    Andrew is doing a fantastic job under difficult circumstances by informing thousands possibly hundreds of thousands of the con job Gillard is trying on .
    More power to him !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Raven

    Without people like Jo , Andrew , Piers , Tim Blair etc all would be lost !!!
    Don’t forget people buy more chocolate ! , you can never have too much chocolate ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Raven

    @88
    You mean their not all stoned all the time .?
    That would have gone some way to explaining things .
    I have a better idea though … I’ll have two flat ones , one with points and a packet of gravel !!!
    ( apologies to python)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Bush Bunny @ 84

    Anyone have any info on this revolutionary fission fuel for reactors that has no radiation fallout?

    I think you might be referring to Thorium Reactors. Nothing new or revolutionary there – they were being considered back in the 50′s. However they don’t produce fissionable material for nuclear weapons so they were dropped in favour of Uranium Reactors that do.

    Both India and China are in the process of building some now.

    Of course, you might be referring to Andrea Rossi’s new e-Catalyser.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Damian Allen

    Recently on the Austar History channel Jesse Ventura exposed the link between the CO2 scam and Al Gore, Maurice Strong, Rothschilds, and Rockefeller are the instigators and their aim is world govenrment.

    If you missed it you can see it here.

    http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=B833A7290B7A54D2BE2F10B0D316850C


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    Raven @87

    A ridiculous comment. You clearly know nothing of the peer review process for journals. I have been on both sides, reviewer and reviewed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Phillip

    You are missing the point. Have a look at Jo’s next thread with Mark Lynas’s hypothetical comparison with the Exxon-Mobil example.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “He identified it as a Boeing 707, (non flying now) and that the so called exhaust was photo shopped as the substance coming from it was actually flowing out the wrong way if the plane was flying.”

    Well thats not the photo I have. But no-one of high seniority is going to just up and tell you whats going on or there would never be such a thing as covert operations.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “That, for example, is why I use the tinfoil hat. I have other devices too but I can’t tell you about them because you don’t keep secrets (wink wink nod).”

    No you are just being an idiot pal. If you have been witness to the bank bailouts, the dustification of the three buildings on 9/11, and the selection of Barry Soetoro to the Presidency, and you haven’t noticed that the US has deteriorated into an airbrushed Pakistan, then no-one is going to talk any sense into you. You are clearly a natural born sheeple.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Pat Mahoney

    Without Jo all of this would be hidden away as the press just will not publish anything against the Greens or Labour Party – we are being led by fools but when did Democracy really ever exist in Australia?No politician has ever questioned me as to how he should vote or my opinion. They forget – THEY ARE OUR SERVANTS AND JULIE IS JUST THE HEAD BUTLER!!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ 87
    My intuition tells me this train wreck of a govt will not see full term and Tony Abbott and co should be looking at what I can see in the real world or they will end up in the same boat come election time , it is time for logic & reason to prevail !!

    I was thinking over dinner (dangerous I know) but at the last election, IF things had gone Tony A’s way – and he had been forced to do a deal with the Greens…. would things have gone differently? I doubt it. He also would have been PM in name ONLY as Gillard now is. Brown et all are effectively running this country.

    Is it possible to start a ‘mass mailing’ to the GG?
    This government is not representing its people.

    If we have no grounds for getting the GG to oust Julia, perhaps we can push seriously for a referrendum on the Carbon Tax. Julia was NOT elected to push thru a carbon tax, she has lied to the Nation and the polls show NO CARBON TAX is preferred.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    SEND OAKSHOTT A FAX FROM YOUR COMPUTER !

    Oakshott seems to have changed or disconnected his email.

    Robert.OakeshottMP@aph.gov.au

    You can still send him your thoughts about how angry you are !!!

    Use this free service to send a fax to him from your computer using the internet !

    Read this:-

    http://www.iwantyoutolisten.com/

    Here is his contact details :-
    It seems to have some FAX numbers on it……….
    http://www.roboakeshott.com/contact-us


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Just MElnT @ 99

    Hammer – nail – head.

    It grieves me that a lot of the good folk here actually think anything would be, or will be, any different with the other bunch of lying pricks running the show.

    Abbott and the Liberal party know the CCAGW business is a scam. They also know the country is bankrupt. They also know the “carbon tax” is just a novel way for a bankrupt government of a bankrupt country to lay their hands on some extra money.

    THAT is why they are not going to come and state the bleeding obvious.

    Rest assured, if Abbott and the Liberals get in, we will just get another about-face like we got from JuLIAR.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Raven

    Jeeeeeezz memoryvault
    Do you think they could just maybe possibly learn from what’s going on ..?, I’d like to think so ….
    Interesting point from conversation with T Party member a day or so ago .
    Theres plenty of eyes upon us from over the way who really do not like what’s going on with our rather heavy handed socialist govt , apparently some converse regularly with several people of like mind in the LNP, (no names that would be telling )sufficient to say there has been some water cooler talk about a new political party growing out of the disaster now underway , if Abbott is not careful the LNP could be cannibalized in much the same way the republicans have buy the T Party and the ALP would have about as much relevance as bobbys brownshirts ….kinda gives you a warm toasty feeling just thinking about it …anything could happen we live in troubled times right now , only the sheep sleep soundly at the moment !!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Raven

    Just to add insult to our political puppets …. Even Sarah Palin knows CAGW is a scam ,,!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Basically Greenpeace writes what you and they want to hear, the IPCC pants in excitement, and before you know it, the PR agents who call-themselves-journalists have reprinted the IPCC declaration in the mass media, then Western Governments are quoting the IPCC, and saying how the idea has been reviewed by 120 scientists and 22 supercomputers, and we should be grateful to spend $2 trillion a year now and even more in the future. If you question it, you’re a cane-toad-like-farting-fool-idiot-denier-who-ought-be-tattooed-jailed-tied-to-a-post (or insert variation here). More » [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    Thank You Ross but note that the following was posted on Watts’ blog:

    Philip Shehan says:
    June 18, 2011 at 12:26 am

    Thank you Mr Watts for your response to my earlier post. In fact one of Mr Bolt’s contributors drew my attention to Mark Lynas’ comment and I included it in my later posting on Bolt. My point is that it is impossible to avoid what you term a “conflict of interest” when forming such expert panels. It is not a conflict of interest at all. Both the peer reviewed articles and the summaries which the authors provide as an expert panel have the same function, to put a case which has passed the peer review process.

    Part of my post on Bolt:

    I have written before of my dislike for Greenpeace and that I close the door on them when they come calling. I don’t have any particular beef with Exxon-Mobil. I’m sure many Greenpeace supporters do.

    What possible reason could there be for my personal like or dislike for an organisation to form the basis of a demand anyone should seriously entertain for exclusion or inclusion of qualified individuals from an expert review panel?

    What expert on the face of the planet would be universally acceptable on that basis? But the “skeptics” think that their opinions are the only ones that should or would count in the culling process.

    I repeat, not only is it ridiculous for persons on such a review panel not to have published in that area of expertise, having publications in that area is clearly the only way anyone could qualify as an expert worthy of inclusion on that panel, and the more publications the better.

    The fact that the publications have been through the peer review process means they have already passed a rigorous independent examination of their worth. It is perfectly appropriate that a lead author’s work appear in the summary of the science prepared by the expert panel.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    GB @ 98

    No you are just being an idiot pal.

    I prefer blockhead

    Now if I had known that you were serious in all those posts above, I’d have just quit posting. I thought you too were having fun with the real paranoid idiots. Maybe to keep them from thinking they were welcome to post their delusions here.

    I see know that you are just one of them. My mistake.

    Instead you’d like to bring the discussion here down to the level of providing fodder for all the other poor paranoid delusional folks out there. Pretty much ruining the credibility of this blog. YOU are the idiot. One step forward, three back.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    Quite thrilled really. I count 25 “don’t likes” here so far and I have scored 11 of them.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Greenpeace-gate breaks and the IPCC is busted. The shock. (Could they really be this dumb?) – … Basically Greenpeace writes what you and they want to hear, the IPCC pants in excitement, and [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    JustMEInT @35,

    I’ve seen what’s offered up as “absolute proof” of chemtrails. The photos were a joke. End of story. Nothing sprayed from a jet would come out the engine exhaust. That’s not to say it can’t be done but that the conspiracy is based on a bunch of BS. As I said, end of story.

    The subject of changing the weather has been around for a long time. Cloud seeding has even been tried. Frankly the idea scares me to death. The law of unintended consequences looms large over anything like that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    I’ve got a picture and the stuff is NOT coming out of the exhaust. Obviously pictures will be released to cover up what they are doing. Any competent tradecraft would set up phony pictures in this way.

    The existence of one picture cannot change the reality of the other. One picture doesn’t alter the reality of the other one. The whole idea is to swamp the reality with ridicule. If the perps were too useless to be able to swamp what they were doing in a sea of bad pictures and wrong conspiracies they would not try it on in the first place.

    If the killers that shot Jack Kennedy were too hopeless to swamp the reality in a sea of conspiracy the crossfire wouldn’t have gone ahead in the first place.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    “Lynas is discovering (maybe) that those nasty deniers are actually friendly, reasonable people.”

    You really should pop over to Andrew Bolt’s blog and see the kind of friendly reasonable comment I and others get from the deniers.

    I also fit this bill: “Plus, he thinks nuclear is not so bad, so he doesn’t fit the bill of the religious greenie.” I will add here that I sometimes agree with Mr Bolt and I have not mentioned this on his blog but have received his sincere thanks for making myself available to testify for him in his recent racial vilification trial. (I am of partial aboriginal ancestry).

    I am in fact a scientist who was a skeptic and was persuaded by the mounting evidence sometime between the production of the third and fourth IPCC reports that AGW is real, and being a scientist I remain a skeptic in the true sense of the word.

    As a scientist I went onto Bolt’s blog thinking it might help if I corrected misconceptions about the science of climate change and the theory and practice of science in general (I have a qualification in the history and philosphy of Science in addition to a PhD in Chemistry.)

    I have learned to distinguish between genuine skeptics and those I call denialists who indulge in personal abuse, scornful often vicious attacks on scientists and institutions like the CSIRO for telling the denialists things they do not wish to hear, regard AGW as a giant conspiracy, and who clearly regard the AGW debate as a proxy for an argument about free market ideology, thinking that calling me a socialist is a form of scientific rebuttal and lecture scientists on what is and is not science. These are the majority of responses I receive over there.

    On the rare occasions that a true climate skeptics engage me in sensible discussion there I am almost pathetically grateful. Yet third parties but into the discussion with nothing but personal abuse.

    I am so used to this now and regard the fact that I provoke such strong and frequent responses from denialists as a badge of honour, thus my comment on being thrilled with the number of don’t likes (about 20 now I think), although I recognise that I am being unfair in transferring by experience on Mr Bolt’s blog to here but it was a bit of a joke on my part as that is another way one learns to cope with the personal attacks.

    [Philip, the D word is not to be used here. This is your one warning. The word will be snipped from all future posts. If you persist you will be moderated.] ED


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Philip Shehan”,
    You are a DECEIVER ……..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Philip Shehan”,
    Please quote a reference to even one, just one, Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper, which PROVES, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human beings and carbon Dioxide (Plant Food), are/is causing global warming.

    PS Computer Models do not constitute either Proof or Evidence.

    By the way since you have all the answers you have to go and claim your $10,000 by presenting it to The Punch to win their global warming challenge.

    http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/10k-for-the-first-person-to-prove-weve-caused-climate-change/

    Why not donate it to Joanne Nove so that she can continue the fight for Freedom, Truth and Democracy !!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Philip Shehan”, says “As a scientist….”.

    So please share with us all here your Speciffic Scientific Qualifications.

    I’m sure we are all dying to know !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “I am in fact a scientist who was a skeptic and was persuaded by the mounting evidence sometime between the production of the third and fourth IPCC reports that AGW is real, and being a scientist I remain a skeptic in the true sense of the word.”

    Mounting evidence? Good Lord. You wouldn’t want to fill us in on this fantasy evidence would you?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Graeme,

    If you have pictures in digital form send them to Jo and ask her to forward them to me.

    Now a question: when and where were the pictures taken? And I’m not trying to discredit you. I’m interested in stuff like this and if there’s something to it I think it’s important to know it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    And right on cue, Damian Allen proves that denialism is alive and well here to.

    Damien, I post under a screen name on Bolt. Do you?

    The first post: Personal abuse devoid of any other content. And bolded and CAPITALIZED for emphasis.

    Second. Theories in emprical science are never proven. All theories are contingent on further observations and experiments which may lead to a theory’s abandonment or modification. Even Newton’s physics, which for two and a half centuries was crowning glory of science, have been shown to be false in the absolute sense by relativity and quantum theory.

    Science is about reconciling data and observations with theory. (Model is another name for theory). No models, no science.

    Yes I am aware of the “reward” offered by Mr Laux. Just one question. Who adjudicates on what constitutes “a conclusive argument based on empirical facts that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming.”?

    “Why not donate it to Joanne Nove so that she can continue the fight for Freedom, Truth and Democracy !!!”

    Now this really is a wind up in response to my remarks on the science just being a proxy argument for political ideology right.

    Third: BSc(Hons)(1st Class, Grad Dip Hum (History and Philosophy of Science)
    PhD “NMR Relaxation Time Stdies of Molybdenum 95 and other Quadrupolar Nuclei”

    Cue bitching.

    [Philip, the D word is not to be used here. This is your one warning. The word will be snipped from all future posts. If you persist you will be moderated.] ED


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    75Philip Shehan:
    June 18th, 2011 at 8:57 am
    Steve McIntyre has not “discovered” anything.

    Fact: Greenpeace has a vested interest in the global warming scam.
    Fact: Teske worked for Greenpeace

    That is a conflict of interest. And what, pray tell, is the IPCC policy on conflict of interest? The following excerpts are from the IPCC Conflict of Interest Policy.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session33/ipcc_p33_decisions_taken_conflict_of_interest.pdf

    2. The role of the IPCC demands that it pay special attention to issues of independence and bias in order to maintain the integrity of, and public confidence in, its products and processes. It is essential that the work of IPCC is not compromised by any conflict of interest for those who execute it.

    6. This policy applies to senior IPCC leadership (the IPCC Chair, Vice Chairs, Working Group and Task Force Co-Chairs), other members of the IPCC Bureau and members of the Task Force Bureau, authors with responsibilities for report content (Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors), Review Editors and the professional staff of the Technical Support Units (TSUs).

    8. The professional staff members of the IPCC Secretariat are employees of WMO and/or UNEP and are subject to their disclosure and ethics policies, which include conflict of interest.

    15. Professional and other non-financial interests need to be disclosed only if they are significant and relevant. If in doubt about whether an interest should be disclosed, individuals are encouraged to seek advice from the appropriate IPCC body as defined in Annex A. Significant and relevant interests may include, but are not limited to, senior editorial roles, advisory committees associated with private sector organizations, and memberships on boards of non-profit or advocacy groups. However, not all such associations necessarily constitute a conflict of interest.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Ha Ha Philip Shehan you can’t fool a real skeptic. It is obvious you love a verbal joust as much as any contrarian or you wouldn’t be charging windmills on Bolt’s Blog or on this one. How about giving us some of the convincing science that led you from skepticism to AGW believism? Then we, which also includes scientists and professional engineers, may begin to take you seriously as so far your contributions, on this thread, have been about the politics of the controversy not the science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Philip Shehan:
    June 18th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
    Raven @87
    A ridiculous comment. You clearly know nothing of the peer review process for journals. I have been on both sides, reviewer and reviewed.

    “A ridiculous comment. You clearly know nothing of the peer review process for journals.” Argumentum Ad Hominem.

    ” I have been on both sides, reviewer and reviewed.” Irrelevant and non sequitur.

    Philip Shehan:
    June 18th, 2011 at 10:18 pm

    I

    t is perfectly appropriate that a lead author’s work appear in the summary of the science prepared by the expert panel.

    So, a Greenpeace campaigner should be a lead author? Is it a coincidence that the paper in question http://www.springerlink.com/content/nu354g4p6576l238/fulltext.pdf bears a remarkable similarity to this previous “paper” published jointly by Greenpeace and the European Energy Council http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/energyrevolutionreport.pdf ?

    As Steve McIntyre so aptly put it:
    “Returning now to the original lead to the IPCC Press Release on renewables:

    Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.
    The basis for this claim is a Greenpeace scenario. The Lead Author of the IPCC assessment of the Greenpeace scenario was the same Greenpeace employee who had prepared the Greenpeace scenarios,…”

    Philip Shehan:
    June 19th, 2011 at 11:14 am
    I am in fact a scientist who was a skeptic and was persuaded by the mounting evidence sometime between the production of the third and fourth IPCC reports that AGW is real, and being a scientist I remain a skeptic in the true sense of the word.

    You come on to this site and engage in an ad hominem attack over raven’s comment at 87 and yet you have the gall to jump all over Damien? You are not a scientist but you are a hypocrite. A real scientist wouldn’t make the ridiculous statement you did at 118, ” Science is about reconciling data and observations with theory. (Model is another name for theory). No models, no science.” Models are not theories and climate models are GIGO. Gee wiz, I wonder how science ever advanced prior to the invention of computer models if your statement, “No models, no science” is correct? Newsflash, models are not observational data! You may not be an ethical scientists with an impeccable reputation but you could possibly be a climate “scientist.” Do you work at the CRU? Whats it like playing hockey with nothing but broken hockey sticks?

    If the truth be known, you are probably just a troll in search of a life.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    @ Philip Shehan

    Were these papers authored by you ?

    2008: Baldwin Graham S; Bailey Michael F; Shehan B Philip; Sims Ioulia; Norton Raymond S
    Tyrosine modification enhances metal-ion binding.
    The Biochemical journal 2008;416(1):77-84.
    2004: He Hong; Shehan B Philip; Barnham Kevin J; Norton Raymond S; Shulkes Arthur; Baldwin Graham S
    Biological activity and ferric ion binding of fragments of glycine-extended gastrin.
    Biochemistry 2004;43(37):11853-61.
    2003: Himmelreich Uwe; Allen Chris; Dowd Susan; Malik Richard; Shehan B Philip; Mountford Carolyn; Sorrell Tania C
    Identification of metabolites of importance in the pathogenesis of pulmonary cryptococcoma using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy.
    Microbes and infection / Institut Pasteur 2003;5(4):285-90.
    2001: Himmelreich U; Dzendrowskyj T E; Allen C; Dowd S; Malik R; Shehan B P; Russell P; Mountford C E; Sorrell T C
    Cryptococcomas distinguished from gliomas with MR spectroscopy: an experimental rat and cell culture study.
    Radiology 2001;220(1):122-8.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    Eddy. In the first place Greenpeace is a non-profit organization:

    “Greenpeace is the only global environmental charity that accepts no corporate or government donations so we can maintain a much needed independent voice, but it means we rely totally on individual supporters like you to fund our work. That’s why your donation is so critical. Thank you for your support. It means the world.”

    Which in my experience rules out a conflict of interest involving Teske on the grounds of direct financial benefit. If it did not this would ensnare every scientist working for any public institution.

    But even granting for the sake of argument that Greenpeace has a vested interest in the “scam” and Teske’s involvement as one of eleven lead authors of Chapter 10 is a conflict of interest, these things are always judgement calls relying on disclosure of the extent of the conflict of interest (real, potential or perceived).

    Now again granting for the sake of argument that Teske’s position involves a conflict of interest.

    Point 2 demands that the IPCC should pay special attention to these issues. It does not demand a blanket ban on those who may have a conflict of interest. Again this is common practice in academic and institutional settings which I have experienced first hand).

    Point 6 is relevant to Teske as he is a Lead Author.

    Point 8 does not apply directly to Teske but it is worth noting where it says “subject to their disclosure and ethics policies, which include conflict of interest.

    The implication here again is that provided there is conflict is disclosed and capable of evaluation, it does not automatically exclude the person. (Again,normal practice)

    Finally point 15 reiterates that these are judgement calls based on disclosure and extent of the conflict of interst:

    15. Professional and other non-financial interests need to be disclosed only if they are significant and relevant. If in doubt about whether an interest should be disclosed, individuals are encouraged to seek advice from the appropriate IPCC body as defined in Annex A. Significant and relevant interests may include, but are not limited to, senior editorial roles, advisory committees associated with private sector organizations, and memberships on boards of non-profit or advocacy groups. However, not all such associations necessarily constitute a conflict of interest.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Philip Shehan”,
    As usual for a DECEIVER, you fail to answer questions to provide the VOLUMUNIOUS evidence that you say that you possess that PROVES that humans and carbon DIOXIDE (plant food) is responsible for global warming.

    Clearly you are just another waste of space Oxygen Thief, or is that Useful Idiot, who is promoting their Gaia RELIGION/CULT as a reason to destroy Australians way of Life and Economy !

    One word for you sunshine…..

    TRAITOR !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Philip Shehan”, says his Scientific Qualifications are:-
    Third: BSc(Hons)(1st Class, Grad Dip Hum (History and Philosophy of Science)
    PhD “NMR Relaxation Time Stdies of Molybdenum 95 and other Quadrupolar Nuclei”

    Please enlighten us as to what relevance these are to Climatlogy….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Climatlogy” was meant to be Climatology.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    Eddy:

    Raven:
    June 18th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
    @75
    Yes but who peer reviewed it ,
    My guess a similar analogy would be along the lines of Stalin peer reviewing a paper on the evils of communism !!!!

    Well if robust criticism of someone who compares the peer review process to Stalinism is an unwarrented ad hominem attack all I can say is guilty as chrged.

    Ditto for my response to this where I rather felt the impression of Damian’s boot in my ribs. But is I hurt his feelings I beg his forgiveness. I thought I was quite polite in my response to his non-abusive (if a tad sarcastic) posts:

    Damian Allen:
    June 19th, 2011 at 11:19 am
    “Philip Shehan”,
    You are a DECEIVER ……..

    I’m new here and it will take a little while to catch on to the etiquette as your comments to me are apparently acceptable:

    You are not a scientist but you are a hypocrite. You may not be an ethical scientists with an impeccable reputation but you could possibly be a climate “scientist.” Do you work at the CRU? Whats it like playing hockey with nothing but broken hockey sticks?

    If the truth be known, you are probably just a troll in search of a life.

    Thank you editor for your warning but my use of the banned “D” word (which is clealy not DECIEVER) but in mitigation I was commenting on the use of the word by Jo Nova herself, and indeed the first use of the word in my post is a direct quote of Ms Nova.

    Again I plead inexperience if not youth.

    And Eddy. Guilty as charged on the other thing but my full rap sheet is rather longer.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    Eddy, Would like your advice on how to respond to this one:

    Damian Allen:
    June 19th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
    “Philip Shehan”,
    As usual for a DECEIVER, you fail to answer questions to provide the VOLUMUNIOUS evidence that you say that you possess that PROVES that humans and carbon DIOXIDE (plant food) is responsible for global warming.

    Clearly you are just another waste of space Oxygen Thief, or is that Useful Idiot, who is promoting their Gaia RELIGION/CULT as a reason to destroy Australians way of Life and Economy !

    One word for you sunshine…..

    TRAITOR !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    @Philip Shehan:

    On the rare occasions that a true climate skeptics engage me in sensible discussion there I am almost pathetically grateful. Yet third parties but into the discussion with nothing but personal abuse.

    Anyone familiar with Bolts blog would know that it sometimes takes over half an hour before a comment emerges from moderation, if at all. How on earth one expects to engage in a debate or sensible discussion there is beyond me.

    scornful often vicious attacks on scientists and institutions like the CSIRO for telling the denialists things they do not wish to hear,

    But then again you would be a little bit biased towards the (formerly great) CSIRO. You worked with/for the CSIRO. Wasn’t your Molybdenum paper published by them? I’d be interested in your views about the differences in the CSIRO of the 80′s (when your paper was published) and the CSIRO of today.

    I repeat, not only is it ridiculous for persons on such a review panel not to have published in that area of expertise, having publications in that area is clearly the only way anyone could qualify as an expert worthy of inclusion on that panel, and the more publications the better.

    Surely you realise the paper author in question was a LEAD AUTHOR of the IPCC and you realise the difference between a contributing author and a chapter lead author don’t you? How can a “Scientist” ignore such a profound distinction?

    The fact that the publications have been through the peer review process means they have already passed a rigorous independent examination of their worth.

    Wow, just WOWWW. You make it very very difficult not to mock you. I suggest that instead of wasting your time on Bolts blog, you spend a little time familiarising yourself with the history of climate journal peer review. having been a student of the History and Philosophy of science, it should be right up your alley.

    p.s. Just what were those “mounting evidence” between AR3 and AR4 that convinced an otherwise obviously intelligent person like you? maybe the rest of us can be convinced as well.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “If you have pictures in digital form send them to Jo and ask her to forward them to me.”

    Look Roy. This is not the point. I cannot tell what these guys are up to. The point is that you have to not be so naive as to think that the operation doesn’t come with a parallel operation to cover it. So you cannot be stooged by pictures that are designed to stooge you.

    You have to give covert operators enough credit to be able to kick up enough dust in your face to get the reaction they are indeed getting from you.

    For example, if you see a staged event, then you will likely be seeing a patsy with the staged event. And the patsy won’t be suddenly grabbed ad hoc. He will be prepared a long time in advance or “sheep-dipped.” You have to expect that anything nefarious takes time, and with a lot of smoke to be blown in your face, or else the nefarious thing wouldn’t be undertaken in the first place.

    Covert undertakings are not of a nature where Occam’s Razor is going to be very useful to you. The only way to hide things in plain view is to surround them with all sorts of controversy. To hide a conspiracy you have to start an explosion of conspiracy theories for you to subsequently deny and ridicule.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    One thing about jets airplanes is that they got a lot more efficient in the early 80′s. If you have water vapor coming out of the exhaust, and its clean, then it will have no black soot to melt it after it subsequently freezes. The frozen ice will stay suspended longer than it used to.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Philip Shehan” says he is a “student of the History and Philosophy of science”,

    Indeed.

    Your comments don’t seem to demonstrate any knowledge of the subject !

    PS I had a feeling that Andrew Bolt had banned you from his site at some point for being a time wasting TROLL..

    By the way, how much funding do you receive in your “occupation” from those who are promoting the global warming FRAUD ??


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    Eddy:

    Seriously on the science for a minute. It is a common misconception among those engaging in the AGW “debate” (or that part of it that does not involve hobnailed boots) that “model” is a latter day concept in science exclusively associated with computers.

    It is not.

    As I noted, it is more generally just another word for theory. For example the Bohr Model of the atom dates from 1913.

    Famously, Watson and Crick’s theory about the structure of the DNA double Helix had a physical manifestation in a metal model thay built in the laboratory. These days they would have used a computer. As indeed I have in molecular modelling. But the models whethers whether conceptual mechanical or digital must mesh with the data or observations.

    Without theories (models) there is no science. Lists of observations or results or collections of rocks or butteflies (or marbles for that matter) are not science.

    And on the other hand, a theory or model without connection to some empirical data is a fantasy, philosphy, religion or something else but it is not science.

    The theory or model must fit the data and the data must fit the model.

    So: No models no science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    So much fan mail. So little time.

    Baa Humbug:
    June 19th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
    @Philip Shehan:

    Actually I was on Bolt’s blog when he answered comments individually. It was that long ago we used carrier pigeons. The tone has certainly deteriorated since then and yes with his success this year of his move to television everyone has noticed the long time between updating, disappearing and non-appearing posts.

    Nope never worked for CSIRO, The Mo stuff was in my graduate student days (this my thesis title)

    Teske was only a coauthor of Chapter 10 of Working Group III within his area of expertise-

    Mitigation Potential and Costs

    Coordinating Lead Authors:
    Manfred Fischedick (Germany) and Roberto Schaeffer (Brazil)

    Lead Authors:
    Akintayo Adedoyin (Botswana), Makoto Akai (Japan), Thomas Bruckner (Germany), Leon Clarke (USA),
    Volker Krey (Austria/Germany), Ilkka Savolainen (Finland), Sven Teske (Germany), Diana Ürge‐Vorsatz
    (Hungary), Raymond Wright (Jamaica)

    Contributing Authors:
    Gunnar Luderer (Germany)

    Review Editors:
    Erin Baker (USA) and Keywan Riahi (Austria)

    Not sure why the IPCC papers having been through peer review makes it difficult to mock me.

    Raed the AR3 and AR4 and note the differences.

    Damian Allen:
    June 19th, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    Actually I thought I said I had a formal qulification in Grad Dip.

    Yep, bribed the lecturers to pass.

    That word Troll again meaning anyone who has the emerity to disagree with those posters who consider only their comments and those they agree with have a rightful place on a blog.

    No I was not banned.

    Not recieving funding for the FRAUD. On the contrary, supporting the cause from a cut of the profits from the meth lab in the basement.

    Actually I am really a precocious 7 year old and mummy wants me to go outside now that its sunny so I will have to sign off for now.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Philip Shehan @ various

    CAGW theory says CO2 goes up = temperature goes up.
    Observation demonstrates CO2 goes up, temperature goes up, and down, and up and down.
    Theory busted.

    CAGW theory says warm = catastrophe, cold = good.
    Historical and geological evidence demonstrates warm = good, cold = disaster.
    Theory busted.

    CAGW theory predicts tropical tropospheric hotspot.
    Observed measurement shows no tropical tropospheric hotspot.
    Theory busted.

    CAGW theory demands continuing build-up of heat energy “somewhere”.
    Observation shows missing heat (Trenberth’s Travesty) remains missing.
    Theory busted.

    CAGW theory predicts complete melting of Arctic Icecap.
    Observation shows Arctic Icecap now doing very nicely, thanks.
    Theory busted.

    CAGW theory predicts increasing frequency and intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.
    Observation shows decreasing frequency AND intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes etc
    Theory busted.

    CAGW theory predicts “permanent drought” for Eastern Australia.
    Observation shows Eastern Australia flooded.
    Theory busted.

    CAGW theory predicts milder NH winters – “snow will become a thing of the past”.
    Observation shows past four NH winters increasing in duration, cold temperatures, record and near record snow etc.
    Theory busted.

    CAGW predicts much the same as above for North America.
    See above for ditto North America.
    Theory busted.

    I could keep this up all day, but I think I’ve made my point.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The Consul

    Although not properly a part of this discussion, I thought it might be appropriate to bring to your attention something about the way Greenpeace operates:

    http://newnostradamusofthenorth.blogspot.com/2011/06/greenpeace-fake-interviewer-calls.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Still waiting for your evidence and PROOF “Philip Shehan”.

    Methinks you are full of [snip] !


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Mark

    memoryvault @134:

    Good effort there.

    The only suggestion I would offer is to substitute the word “hypothesis” for “theory”. Reason being that AGW has never shown any (accurate) predictive capability whatsoever.

    Those times when proponents insist that it has always exist in a range of “scenarios” so wide that every possible event is covered.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    memoryvault:

    June 19th, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    AGW says that the warming effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases are one contributor to temperature variations in natural forcing mean that tmperatures will peak dip and plateau over short trem periods but increase over the long term as observed.

    AGW says says that there will be winners and losers in global climate change. Anyone want to pack up and move to sunny Siberia?

    Tropospheric warming has been observed and the absence or presence of the ropical hotspot is disputed.

    Missing data is a common problem in science due to technical and other limitations and confirmation is often delayed. Since Trenberth made his statement some of the missing heat has been found at ocean depths to 2000 metres. The search continues.

    The frequency of hurricanes etc is indeed predicted in the long term. Again taking years or decades at this early stage is cherry picking but according to Scientific American:

    NOAA Makes It Official: 2011 Among Most Extreme Weather Years in History
    Near the halfway point, 2011 has already seen eight weather-related disasters in the U.S. that caused more than $1 billion in damages.

    Must discontinue now.

    Damian Allen:
    June 19th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
    Still waiting for your evidence and PROOF “Philip Shehan”.

    Methinks you are full of Bovine Excrement

    That woud be an ad bovine attack then. Go back and read what I wrote about proof and empirical science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Raven

    Ah Phil Phil you dill
    “Greenpeace is the only global environmental charity that accepts no corporate or government donations so we can maintain a much needed independent voice,……). WE…
    I think that says it all .
    I only understand the history of the earths climate from my work in paleontology over the last 30 or so years , ( however I am deeply embarrassed by Flumerys sell out and wouldn’t dare to take the liberties with the truth he has)
    What I can say as fact is a carbon dioxide tax is not an answer for Australia’s roll in reducing pollution !
    What I can say as fact is the earth has been through far more devastating scenarios than the complete tripe you and your jolly green band of jesters are shoveling at people !
    In one last attempt to save your sorry assed warm soul answer me this … If you want to dance around 1913 ,
    Let’s go back 97 more years , to 1816 ….TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED to the earth between 1814 & 1819 .And why.
    I’d keep going except you would seem to be a lost cause & memoryvault seems to have covered much that is
    Relevant .. If you can’t answer that one simple question you should probably piss off and not come back !
    I can here little Joseph calling you out to play communist traitor , now off you go !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    “Since Trenberth made his statement some of the missing heat has been found at ocean depths to 2000 metres”.

    Ah, let me guess, Trenberth found the heat with “current shear”?

    Even as a troll you’re pathetic. So yes, go with God now…but go.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    Apologies for the frequent typos and absence of proof reading before hitting the submit button.

    Raven I am on the record elsewhere as writing that Flannery frequently overstates the case and ends up with egg on his face. Do not ascribe to me opinions of every person who argues for AGW – a frequent tactic of “some “skeptics”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    Philip Shehan says @ 106

    I have written before of my dislike for Greenpeace and that I close the door on them when they come calling. I don’t have any particular beef with Exxon-Mobil. I’m sure many Greenpeace supporters do.

    Philip Shehan says @ 123

    Greenpeace is the only global environmental charity that accepts no corporate or government donations so we can maintain a much needed independent voice, but it means we rely totally on individual supporters like you to fund our work. That’s why your donation is so critical. Thank you for your support. It means the world.

    Hmm so which is it.You don’t like Greenpeace or you are part of the “WE” above.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Philip Shehan @ 139

    AGW says that the warming effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases are one contributor to temperature variations in natural forcing mean that tmperatures will peak dip and plateau over short trem periods but increase over the long term as observed.

    Epic fail.
    CAGW originally claimed that as CO2 goes up, so temperature goes up. That worked as long as temperatures went up. Then they stopped. But CO2 continued to go up.
    Theory falsified.

    Claiming that “other factors” are at work that can “overwhelm” the claimed effects of CO2 means there’s no need for the CAGW theory to explain anything in the first place.

    AGW says says that there will be winners and losers in global climate change. Anyone want to pack up and move to sunny Siberia?

    Epic fail.
    The historical and geological record clearly shows that warm = winners, cold = losers. Current catastrophic CAGW theory is that warm = disaster, cool = winners.

    Tropospheric warming has been observed and the absence or presence of the ropical hotspot is disputed.

    Epic Fail
    The tropical tropospheric hotspot has never been “observed”. Not in tens of thousands of radiosonde readings over several decades, nor in satellite readings over the last couple of decades.

    The only “dispute” comes from a much-rebutted single paper claiming all those readings (which served us so well for so long), are somehow in error because they differ from a computer-modeled reconconstruction based on a previously unheard-of and unproven “sheer effect”.

    Missing data is a common problem in science due to technical and other limitations and confirmation is often delayed. Since Trenberth made his statement some of the missing heat has been found at ocean depths to 2000 metres. The search continues.

    Epic fail.
    NONE of the “missing heat has been “found”. The latest completely unsupported “theory” is that it is hiding somehow in the deepest part of the oceans. This “theory” is based more on the fact that the “missing heat” hasn’t been “found” anywhere else, and they are running out of places to “look” for it, than anything to do with science.

    The frequency of hurricanes etc is indeed predicted in the long term. Again taking years or decades at this early stage is cherry picking but according to Scientific American:

    NOAA Makes It Official: 2011 Among Most Extreme Weather Years in History
    Near the halfway point, 2011 has already seen eight weather-related disasters in the U.S. that caused more than $1 billion in damages.

    Epic fail.
    Peer reviewed, published papers based on observable, recorded data show that both the frequency and severity of extreme weather events has declined over the last thirty years. Didn’t you know? What happens in one year is just “weather”, not “climate”. At least so I have endlessly been told by assorted “climate scientists”.

    You continue to try and raise on a busted flush.
    No wonder you feel the need to “discontinue now”.

    Epic fail.
    I think I hear your mother calling again, Philip Shehan.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Raven

    Phil, Phil Phil =blah blah blah
    WHAT ABOUT MY QUESTION ……mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
    Check mate I believe !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    memoryvault @134, 144,

    After having been so stern a critic I have to say bravo about the two mentioned posts — succinct, accurate and to the point. CAGW busted on all counts.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The Consul @135,

    Greenpeace has been a bunch of thugs since I’ve known anything about them. The tragedy is that companies cave in to this rather than fight it. But then the whole world has caved in to these brigands — and not just Greenpeace — masquerading as something they are not, never have been and never will be…honest.

    Every time a Mattel or a McDonalds backs away from these thugs they gain more power. When will people learn that there are some things worth fighting for, even if it costs you something?

    The problem with Capitalism is that it doesn’t know when to fight.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Philip says:

    NOAA Makes It Official: 2011 Among Most Extreme Weather Years in History
    Near the halfway point, 2011 has already seen eight weather-related disasters in the U.S. that caused more than $1 billion in damages.

    I’m not sure if you are arguing with your own position that there is warming (just for fun or something) but you should read up a bit if you meant this as evidence for “warming”.

    Roy Spencer explains it so well that I’ll defer to his excellent Blog http://www.drroyspencer.com/
    Scroll through there are several opportunities for you to learn.

    Since you even tried to use the US “weather related disasters” as some kind of AGW “proof” I highly doubt you are who you say (with the education you claim) or you are actually exceptionally dim witted and a poor propagandist.

    I happen to live in the good ole’ USA and we are having one of the coldest spring seasons I can remember. The tornado season was early and fierce BECAUSE OF COLD. The flooding on several rivers was due to above average SNOW. Now let me hear you try to explain how colder winters with more snow and long delayed summer warm up is all “evidence of AGW”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Raven

    Hi Mark
    Spot on about US weather, winter in southern Arizona was brutal at times this year ,
    Tucson had some of the coldest days since records started in 1913 or there a bouts
    Pipes bursting all over town , sleet , snow , was it cold for somewhere supposedly known for it’s mild winters ,
    Meanwhile some of the biggest storms locked down most of the central and east coast .
    Every winter for the last 8 or 9 years in AZ seem to be getting colder ,
    With more snow down south in the last 6 or so years !
    I must look up the data on that some day !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Raven

    And by the way , winter in Melbourne ain’t exactly toasty either at the moment . :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    Responses in no particular order and not exhaustive.

    There appears to be a distinct lack of reading comprehenion skills on display by the critics and leaping to unwarrented assumptions that re not present in my comments. There is however no shortage of personal abuse.

    I never said the weather was “proof” of AGW. I don’t believe in “proof” of scientific theories nor do I believe any single weather or short term series of such events is definitive evidence of global warming. We are in the early stges of observable effects of AGW on tmeperature and climate. Less than 1 degree in the past century. Projections indicate a warming of 2 C is unavoidable and rises of 4 C by the end of the century a distinct possibility.

    I was simply supplying a counter argument to this assertion:

    CAGW theory predicts increasing frequency and intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.
    Observation shows decreasing frequency AND intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes etc
    Theory busted.

    My reference to Greenpeace was not one of approval. When they come knocking I close the door. The reference was merely to the status as a non profit organisation in the context of the argument about conflict of interest.

    Raven, since you have been abusive to me, I will eschew good manners here: Are you really so dumb you don’t understand what I have written? There is no proof of AGW. There is not, nor can there be proof of any scientific theory as any scientific theory is open to further investigation. In other words scince is never strictly settled. “Proof” is the province of mathematics and formal logic.

    My reference ot 1913 was nothing to do with climate. It was in the context of the historic scientific use of the term “models”, specifically Niels Bohr’s model of atomic structure. The variations in weather/climate you mention are perfectly explained by variation in natural forcings that I discuss below.

    The historical and geological record clearly shows that warm = winners, cold = losers. Current catastrophic CAGW theory is that warm = disaster, cool = winners.

    That explains the the cultural, historical and economic domination of sub Saharan Africa over temperate Europe then.

    CAGW originally claimed that as CO2 goes up, so temperature goes up. That worked as long as temperatures went up. Then they stopped. But CO2 continued to go up.
    Theory falsified.

    Claiming that “other factors” are at work that can “overwhelm” the claimed effects of CO2 means there’s no need for the CAGW theory to explain anything in the first place.

    And so it does in isolation. But the contribution of greenhouse gases (natural or manmade) is not in isolation. The observed climate is the sum of this and other forcings. If you do not undertand that you understand nothing of climate theory. The observed climate cannot be understood without the contribution of greenhouse gases, but they are one such forcing. As CO2 concentration is constantly rising the warming due to this forcing is also constantly rising.On the other hand, solar radiation has been dropping for thirty years. but largely because of increasing CO2 concentration, the temepratues have been risen over that period. Volacanoes reduce temperature. El nino/la nina events are another variable forcing. And so on.

    NONE of the “missing heat has been “found”. The latest completely unsupported “theory” is that it is hiding somehow in the deepest part of the oceans. This “theory” is based more on the fact that the “missing heat” hasn’t been “found” anywhere else, and they are running out of places to “look” for it, than anything to do with science.

    Yes it has. The missing heat was the shortfall when Trenberth added up the observed heat content of land sea and air and came up with a shortfall from the calculated theoretical total expected. Data for the oceans had been limited to a depth of 700 metres. When newer ARGO experiments reached to 2000 metres much of the shortfall was accounted for.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Thanks Raven, You might like this site for US temp records:

    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn_map_interface.html
    More info: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/monthly_doc.html

    You can look at any number of weather station data and graph them.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    That explains the the cultural, historical and economic domination of sub Saharan Africa over temperate Europe then.

    More really dumb. You’ll be fun to have around here.

    Where is it thought that humans evolved? Was it cold or warm there?

    Does the sub Saharan “micro climate” persist only as a result of temperature?

    You are here as a Warmist Yes? That much was clear from your obnoxious posts from day one: You at 108

    Quite thrilled really. I count 25 “don’t likes” here so far and I have scored 11 of them.

    So don’t expect “fairness” or “politeness” and by all means EXPECT to be called out as EVERY thing you type is assumed to be an attempt to “prove” AGW. If you don’t like it then start over without bragging about your past exploits “destroying deniers”.

    Give me a reason to assume you aren’t dumb for this egregious double speak:

    I never said the weather was “proof” of AGW

    followed immediately by

    I was simply supplying a counter argument to this assertion:

    CAGW theory predicts increasing frequency and intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.
    Observation shows decreasing frequency AND intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes etc

    Don’t storm off to mommy crying that I don’t know that the English language finds the use of “proof’ in a broader sense than your “scientific” definition either.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Philip Shehan:
    June 19th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
    Eddy. In the first place Greenpeace is a non-profit organization:
    “Greenpeace is the only global environmental charity that accepts no corporate or government donations so we can maintain a much needed independent voice, but it means we rely totally on individual supporters like you to fund our work. That’s why your donation is so critical. Thank you for your support. It means the world.”
    Which in my experience rules out a conflict of interest involving Teske on the grounds of direct financial benefit. If it did not this would ensnare every scientist working for any public institution.

    The fact that Greenpeace claims to be a non profit organization is irrelevant. Teske worked for greenpeace and he should have disclosed his conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest. As the IPCC policy states, “11. A “conflict of interest” refers to any current professional, financial or other interest which could: i) significantly impair the individual’s objectivity in carrying out his or her duties and responsibilities for the IPCC, or ii) create an unfair advantage for any person or organization. For the purposes of this policy, circumstances that could lead a reasonable person to question an individual’s objectivity, or whether an unfair advantage has been created, constitute a potential conflict of interest. These potential conflicts are subject to disclosure.”

    Are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that Teske worked for free and that Greenpeace is a not a political organization with an political objective? The fact is the information came from a Greenpeace source of which Teske was a lead author and then he reviewed his own work and if that is not a conflict of interest then what is? The rest of your post is mere diction that is based upon the flawed premise I just mentioned and therefore is non sequitur and unworthy of my valuable time.

    Re: 127 and 128

    Did your teachers in school ever tell you to be more concise when you write?

    Raven:
    June 18th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
    @75
    Yes but who peer reviewed it ,
    My guess a similar analogy would be along the lines of Stalin peer reviewing a paper on the evils of communism !!!!
    Well if robust criticism of someone who compares the peer review process to Stalinism is an unwarrented ad hominem attack all I can say is guilty as chrged

    For a published scientist (assuming you are the real Shehan) it amazes me that you do not understand the difference between ad hominem and hyperbole. The former is a fallacy of logic that translates “at the man” and is an attack against the person and not the argument. The latter is an intentional exaggeration to make a point.

    Based upon everything you have posted so far you definitely fit the profile of a troll. Here is an “analogy” for you, “If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and flies like a duck then it is probably a duck.” If you can provide scientific evidence rather than the voluminous torrent of illogic I would be more than happy to apologize.

    Philip Shehan:
    June 19th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
    Eddy, Would like your advice on how to respond to this one:

    I normally do not give advice because the wise don’t need it and fools won’t heed it. Besides, when people are looking for advice they are usually looking for an accomplice. But, what the heck, it is Father’s Day, right?

    Try responding with the truth. As Shakespeare once wrote, “The truth will out.” You may want to avoid illogic, be more concise and stick with the topic rather than segueing into extraneous and irrelevant BS.

    The other thing you may want to do is respond with scientific evidence. True, this would put you at odds with the thoroughly discredited IPCC and could cost you your funding but hey, as the liberals say, you will be morally superior! Granted, there is no” second Earth” so a double blind study would be out of the question. Perhaps you could respond with a logical argument based upon empirical evidence? Obviously quoting the IPCC isn’t compelling as they are a political organization that has been thoroughly discredited (e.g. various “gates” grey literature being fraudulently offered as “peer reviewed” literature, etc. ad nauseum). Also, quit demonstrating that you suffer from herd mentality. Remember, if you are not the lead dog the view never changes! ;)

    Phil Shehan at 133
    That word Troll again meaning anyone who has the emerity to disagree with those posters who consider only their comments and those they agree with have a rightful place on a blog.

    Emerity? Probably a typo, we all make them from time to time. The next time you get ready to push the send button keep a sharp eye out for squiggly little red or green lines under words. It could indicate a grammatical or spelling problem.

    No offense meant but your definition of a troll is incorrect.

    Troll

    One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. ‘you’re nothing but a fanboy’ is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

    Not recieving funding for the FRAUD. On the contrary, supporting the cause from a cut of the profits from the meth lab in the basement.
    Actually I am really a precocious 7 year old and mummy wants me to go outside now that its sunny so I will have to sign off for now.

    It doesn’t matter what you receive funding for. If you challenge the orthodoxy of the CAGW their reach is long and they have the influence to get your funding cut. Did you read the climategate emails? The “scientists” discussed in various emails ways to blackball others from getting published, getting those who would not “toe the line” fired from there jobs and conspiring to get those who disagreed defunded. So, instead of addressing the science or the argument you respond with this juvenile diatribe? Can you understand why I am having difficulty believing that you are the real Phil Shehan?

    Shehan @ 139

    Wow, Phil or whoever you really are, at 139 you have remove any vestige of hope I had that you were the real scientist, Phil Shehan. Regardless of what degree(s) you may or may not possess, you obviously never went to finishing school! You opinions are never accompanied by quotes, citations or links and are wrapped in condescension and delivered in a manner not indicative of a person who has ever taken a course in logic or rhetoric.

    Philip Shehan:
    June 19th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
    AGW says that the warming effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases are one contributor to temperature variations in natural forcing mean that tmperatures will peak dip and plateau over short trem periods but increase over the long term as observed.

    Fact: It was warmer, absent other forcings than CO2 levels, during the MWP, RWP and the holocene maximum and yet CO2 levels were lower. Since CO2 levels were lower then than they are today and there were no other forcings to account for it, how do you account for the fact that it is cooler now and CO2 levels are much higher? Shouldn’t it be warmer today then the previous periods of this interglacial? Maybe thats why the ‘scientists” felt they had to get rid of the MWP? (See http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543)

    Anyone want to pack up and move to sunny Siberia?

    And you claim to be a scientist? Did you know that virtually all migratory patterns are based upon a search for an environment most conducive to the survival of the species? Ever read Darwin? Since the climate is always changing the migratory patterns do so, as well. Gosh, who would have thought? The rest of your generic pro CAGW talking points has been so thoroughly and eloquently demolished by memoryvault at 149 little more need be said.

    You ended with, “Go back and read what I wrote about proof and empirical science.” How about providing the empirical evidence requested by various commenters on this thread?

    Since you obviously know little about the art of debate allow me to help you. Debate judges are not impressed by unsubstantiated claims, illogic or opinions. Judges are interested in an argument based on empirical evidence and presented in a logical manner.

    If you do not want to be treated as a churlish troll then quit acting like one. Based upon your pathetic performance so far I think it is fair to say that you have had your intellectual ass kicked ’til your nose bled all over this website. You have made sweeping generalizations based on an appeal to authority. You have presented no evidence to substantiate anything you have written on this site and have the “emerity” to wonder why you get no respect? You are a disgrace to the CAGW movement in particular and academia in general.

    The most intelligent thing you have done so far is to say you are leaving. Bon voyage, Phil (or whoever you really are). Next time, bring along some empirical evidence and a little intellectual honesty and try to adhere to the scientific method. Who knows, you may even get a little respect?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Raven

    Oh I understand more than you think . Unfortunately nearly all of it is twaddle ( buy the way I have not even warmed up yet … Rude is still to come )

    Raven, since you have been abusive to me, I will eschew good manners here: Are you really so dumb you don’t understand what I have written? There is no proof of AGW. There is not, nor can there be proof of any scientific theory as any scientific theory is open to further investigation. In other words scince is never strictly settled. “Proof” is the province of mathematics and formal logic.

    My point to you is that my argument on the global warming scam can be proven !!
    I’m not even sure what you represent and I don’t think you know either !
    Past climate events can be traced with very little margin for error , thats what shits me about Flumerys drivel, he couldn’t pick a winner in snot contest and has been wrong in every half baked prediction he’s made because money doesn’t make the weather change !!
    You on the other hand , just can’t get that acorn you call a brain to move past a few simple facts .
    This is about much more than science being dragged down to these levels !
    It’s got to do with putting Australians into hardship at a time when the world is on the brink of another GFC ,!
    It’s about the people who won’t be prepared for what may just be the next little ice age ,
    It’s how vast amounts of food have been diverted to bi fuels , while people in third world countries continue to starve , the crap that has made gore a target for republican head hunters!
    About UN and Govt agendas to claw money out of us whilst spouting lies & propaganda !
    About ignorant S O B,s who tell us the science is settled there will be no debate !,
    About climate scientists that suppress dissenting views !
    And more importantly all those who could perish in colder times that may lay ahead ,
    It’s about science , politics & religion , your religion actully if you agree with the IPCC , UN ,GREENPISS ,and I could go on and on, but what’s the point .
    Like I said I can prove CAGW is a scam ,
    So what are you on about ?
    This is the last time I’m going to be nice to you !,
    Next time the gloves come off !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Philip Shehan @. #151

    Are you really so dumb you don’t understand what I have written? There is no proof of AGW. There is not, nor can there be proof of any scientific theory as any scientific theory is open to further investigation.

    Ahhh. Philip,
    Graeme might have another theory on that for you. As some might say , that’s just Popperism . No that’s not the state that belief in CAGW is going to lead us to, but a fascinating intellectual concept that’s about as much use in the real world as , well philosophy.

    Indeed AGW isn’t provable. As a theory it’s much too woolly. Though a lot of the factors contributing to it are. (like CO2 absorption of outbound radiation). And there’s the problem . AGW isn’t like some fundamental concept or law of the universe that can be proven, although many of the factors contributing to it can be. AGW is just a supposed net affect of all those processes (and many more) working together. That’s just a conjecture and hardly worth dignifying as a theory.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Philip Shehan:
    June 20th, 2011 at 12:59 am

    Are you really so dumb you don’t understand what I have written? There is no proof of AGW. There is not, nor can there be proof of any scientific theory as any scientific theory is open to further investigation. In other words scince is never strictly settled.

    in other words scince is never strictly settled.

    Didn’t read my comment about the squiggly red line, Phil? Debate not settled? Tell that to Al Gore , Rajendra Pachauri and the rest of the CAGW crowd. If I had a dollar for every time I heard “the debate is settled” I would buy a house on the beach next to Al Gore’s. Al is a brave man for saying “Damn the rising tides!”

    There appears to be a distinct lack of reading comprehenion skills on display by the critics and leaping to unwarrented assumptions that re not present in my comments.

    Again, Phil, it is your lack of writing skills that are the problem. Start quoting sources, providing links, etc. Jo has a nice link to a site rich with a wealth of information on logic and debate. Please, avail yourself of it!

    The observed climate cannot be understood without the contribution of greenhouse gases, but they are one such forcing. As CO2 concentration is constantly rising the warming due to this forcing is also constantly rising.On the other hand, solar radiation has been dropping for thirty years. but largely because of increasing CO2 concentration, the temepratues have been risen over that period.

    Could you please quote any respected skeptic that says that greenhouse gases do not effect temperatures? CO2 levels are rising but temperatures have not risen in at least 15 years. Your statement that temperatures are “constantly rising” is indicative of your being an imposter and not a scientist. Jo has several graphs available showing no statistical temperature increase since 1998. Why don’t you give them a gander?

    We are in the early stges of observable effects of AGW on tmeperature and climate.

    “tmperature” increases? “Stges”? Gee, I know, lets look at the geological record? OOPs, there never has been an historical cause and effect relationship between CO2 and temperatures because the effects of CO2 are logarithmic! The CAGW theory posits positive feedback from water vapor. Yep, there is no empirical evidence to support this ridiculous claim, either. Perhaps you can provide some, “Phil”? Here is a graph for you, Phil. Perhaps you can explain how the graph shows a relationship between CO2 and temps? See http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html Look at the second graph presented. Also, you may want to look at these graphs http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html. Oh, and here is a database of over 750 papers that in one way or another dispute the “accepted wisdom” of the CAGW team. Happy reading!

    The missing heat was the shortfall when Trenberth added up the observed heat content of land sea and air and came up with a shortfall from the calculated theoretical total expected. Data for the oceans had been limited to a depth of 700 metres. When newer ARGO experiments reached to 2000 metres much of the shortfall was accounted for.

    Oh, Phil, this one is soooo easy to debunk I am tempted to leave the fun for someone else. So, what was the theoretical total expected? Who checked Trenberth’s “we can’t account for the lack of heat and it is a tradgedy (paraphrase)” work? I am going to leave a little for someone else to have fun with but I will pose a question: Since water expands when it warms and melting water caused by temperature increases causes sea levels to rise, why do the satellites and the Argo buoys you mentioned show no rise in sea level? In fact, they show a recent trend of a slight drop in sea levels? Care to enlighten us, “Professor”?

    If you do not undertand that you understand nothing of climate theory.

    Perhaps a tad condescending, don’t you think, Phil?

    I have seen a few intelligent pro CAGW people comment on this blog. I disagreed with them but I respected them. Unfortunately, you are not amongst them.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Sorry, I forgot to post this link for the “Professor.”

    Oh, and here is a database of over 750 papers that in one way or another dispute the “accepted wisdom” of the CAGW team. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Eddy, good to see you posting again!

    PS it’s even more now, Poptech now has 900+


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    @ Mark D., et al.

    Thanks again for your concern for my health and well being. Also, thanks to the other regulars who demonstrated their concern via email. My health has been restored.

    900 plus? That is good to know.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Philip Shehan:
    June 19th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
    Eddy:
    Seriously on the science for a minute. It is a common misconception among those engaging in the AGW “debate” (or that part of it that does not involve hobnailed boots) that “model” is a latter day concept in science exclusively associated with computers.
    It is not.
    As I noted, it is more generally just another word for theory. For example the Bohr Model of the atom dates from 1913.

    Apologies if I misunderstood you. I apparently made the mistake of assuming you were talking about climate models simply because this is a site that focuses on global warming. The next time could you be more precise? That way I know if you are posting about climate models, theoretical construct models or fashion models. Thanks in advance!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Has everyone seen the excellent take on this all by Josh over at WattsUp ?

    While the idea seems to have been inspired by a Booker piece in the Telegraph, the cartoon unfortunately doesn’t seem to have got much MSM exposure. Pity, because that inspired cartoon is just the right vehicle to get this across to the still largely unaware public.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The bottom is going to drop out of this alternative energy nonsense.

    When it is discovered by a critical mass of engineers, scientists and politicians that the Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI) analyses for pv solar and wind power projects run well below unity (ie: they are unsustainable), funding for these collosal wastes of resources will cease.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Instead of Greenpeace-gate, how abaout GIPCC-gate, pronounced ‘gypsy gate’. From wikipedia, to gyp means to cheat or swindle (no offense meant to nomadic Romanians).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    Mark D.:
    June 20th, 2011 at 1:29 am

    My remarks on sub Saharan Africa were a counter example to this simplistic sweeping claim:

    The historical and geological record clearly shows that warm = winners, cold = losers.

    The point is of course that the sweeping generalisation that warm = winners, cold = losers is nonsense. Must I really supply further counter arguments? I thought the example of Europe and Africa (or any other tropical region of the earth)sufficient counterexample to the nonsensical claim.

    I later remarked that my comments on the dislikes was a little unfair but resulted from my experience of the kinds of personal attacks I have received elsewhere. Since the apology my initial thoughts have been completely vindicated.

    A couple of these characters are chastising me for being personal while indulging in the kind of personal abuse that I have experienced nowhere else. On the Bolt site, unlike here, they allow the “D” word, but draw the line at the stream of invective masquerading as debate allowed here. And your own comments (below) do you no particular credit.

    Anyone who reads the “personal” remarks by and against me and concludes that I am the offender in this regard kindly indicate themselves in response so we can all understand just who here have abandonded any pretence at objective analysis.

    I will accept complaints about my frequent typos and lack of proof reading before hitting the submit button, for which I have already apologised, as entirely warranted legitimate comment.

    I really don’t understand why you think I have engaged in “doublespeak.

    You had written:

    Since you even tried to use the US “weather related disasters” as some kind of AGW “proof” I highly doubt you are who you say (with the education you claim) or you are actually exceptionally dim witted and a poor propagandist

    To which I have indeed replied:

    never said the weather was “proof” of AGW

    I was simply supplying a counter argument to this assertion:

    CAGW theory predicts increasing frequency and intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.
    Observation shows decreasing frequency AND intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes etc

    There are far, far, far to many examples of misreadings, misrepresentations, false assumptions, abuse masquerading as argument in other comments since my last to deal with and I frankly can’t be bothered discussing much with people like that. I simply allow fair minded readers of this blog to examine the evidence in this regard.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I just located an ABC Rural article from 2009 which states: …the worlds first industrial sized hybrid gas-solar thermal power plant is being planned for Australia.

    ERM Power will join forces with international engineering expert Siemens Energy, to build a 500 megawatt power station, in a location yet to be named in either Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia or northern Western Australia.

    Of the 500 megawatts of power, 100 mw will come from solar thermal.

    (so I ask: does the other 400 come from gas?) Yes I know I do not properly understand all of this but it initially looks like solar = 100 Gas = 400 GULP!

    http://justmeint.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/double-greenspeak-%e2%80%93-aka-gobbledygook/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    There has been some debate on this thread about conflicts of interest. the following may not fall into that category but it certainly falls into the “two faced” category.
    Here is Pachauri again ( the guy can’t help himself ) being the sceptics friend –technical advisor to an oil company.
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Fx7ryTddNjsJ:www.glorioil.com/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D7%26Itemid%3D10+<a href=

    Yes they have dressed up their technology with all the right PR spin about being environmentally friendly etc BUT it is still an oil company no matter which way you dress it up.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Philip Shehan:
    June 20th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
    The point is of course that the sweeping generalisation that warm = winners, cold = losers is nonsense. Must I really supply further counter arguments?

    The point is of course that the sweeping generalization that you have posted have been thoroughly debunked by various posters. You posted no links, cited no papers and failed to provide a shred of evidence. Yet , you want respect? Are you kidding me?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “I just located an ABC Rural article from 2009 which states: …the worlds first industrial sized hybrid gas-solar thermal power plant is being planned for Australia.”

    I actually really like ideas like this but the problem comes wherein subsidies screw up things right from the start. Since for an industry to be viable it requires investment over decades, to bring costs down. Whereas subsidies lead to output in the here and now, and so the subsidies will always lead to poor allocation of resources.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    Eddy. What links or evidence do you or the 4 people who like your comment require in support of the lagging of sub-Saharan Africa (or other tropical regions) behind Europe ( or other temperate regions such as North America and Australia in the categories mentioned?

    And no, not looking for respect from such people.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Hey GB – total coincidence but yesterday was a mate’s birthday, so I was posting a youtube video to their facebook page (yes how droll) and I was after 1980s indi classic “Birthday” by the Icelandic band Sugarcubes. If you’ve heard of Bjork she was in that band way way back.

    Anyway in the video clip they are rowing a boat in an icelandic volcano crater, and I believe it is the one that erupted recently (or maybe it is just a bit Pinker/Lambert if you get my drift).

    Anyway (this is going somewhere)…. as I’m watching the clip I realise that it has been edited by a chemtrailer conspiracy dude who is pointing out that when all the planes were grounded due to the eruption there were no clouds over northern europe for pretty much the entire periord… coincidence?

    I think so… a quick google gave me plenty of decent explanations, but as you may say that would not be hard for the govt to concoct either:)

    Anyway just a post to mention that a perfectly innocent search for an old song I like took me on an indie culture/Graeme Bird mashup. Again another coincidence? Or a Dan Brown novel? who knows.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    You provide no utube links? Thanks………..

    I think you like to see wacko posts here so you just made it all up. Good call though, I’m sure it will work. I guess you could say that I realize, like you, how hard it can be to decide which scientists and wackos to believe in.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I can’t get youtube at work, sorry. But a search on youtube for “sugarcubes” “birthday” and “chemtrails” would come up trumps. I just looked for sugarcubes and birthday and it was top of the list (probably as most recently added). I was posting mostly as I thought it was quite a coincidence that’s all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Philip Shehan:
    June 21st, 2011 at 10:31 pm
    Eddy. What links or evidence do you or the 4 people who like your comment require in support of the lagging of sub-Saharan Africa (or other tropical regions) behind Europe ( or other temperate regions such as North America and Australia in the categories mentioned?

    Civilization has seen good times and bad times (e.g. in Europe the renaissance was good and the dark ages were bad. Gosh Phil, for some reason the good times always occurred during the warm periods and the bad times occurred during the cold periods. In fact, man was not able to convert from the hunter gatherer life to an agrarian/urban life until the Pleistocene ended! What do you think Phil, maybe a coincidence?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Does a leopard change its spots?
    http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/blog/?p=2585

    Mark Lynas has made WUWT become all dew-eyed, and the article in the Daily Mail is interesting reading to be sure.

    But……with the likes of George Monbiot bigging up nuclear with the scary/hilarious “Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power” and now Lynas, one remains extremely wary of these cameleons, both now openly displaying the ‘kings shilling’ in the bottom of their ale mugs.

    As John L Daly noted in his 1988 book The Greenhouse Trap, he had the suspicion that the Chernobyl disaster & assent of the Global Warming Scare were not mere coincidence. In his eyes, the Global Warming Scare was the attempt to rehabilitate the nuclear industry; a long game which – post-fukushima – appears to be in serious trouble again.

    Now that AGW is effectively trumped, the likes of Monbiot & Lynas have no alternative but to leave the long grass & display their spots in the open savanna.

    Thorium is the future, and India & China are building it.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      O/T

      My only experience of Orkney is to have been given a funny verbal “tour” of the islands by the Wrigley Sisters.

      There is nothing technically wrong with nuclear power but when you have human beings in government posts certifying the serviceability and life spans of nuclear plants we are in trouble.

      Such people are always likely, as with Fukush, to “extend” plant life with the storke of a pen.

      The plant owner profits by not having to replace the unit and the “certifier / government” profits in some way – cash donations??

      Everyone is happy.

      Except those who get nuked.

      It’s a sad day when technology has to be engineered to be corruption proof.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Truthseeker

        Keith,

        Fukushima had two nuclear reactors. An older one and a newer one. The newer one handled the earthquake and the tsunami just fine. The older one, not so much. Now the owners of Fukushima (GE I think) wanted to replace the older one for some time, but the green movement kept putting legal objections and injunctions in their way. This prevented the company from upgrading the older plant to newer technology. Not only that but part of the problem at Fukushima was the waste product on site. Why was it there? Because the same green movement kept using the courts to stop it being moved to a proper storage facility.

        Fukushima can be laid squarely at the feet of the green movement. Despite that, no-one died because of the nuclear plant at Fukushima.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Thanks TS

          I remember you laid this out for me before but being in the Alz zone I had forgotten it.

          In a parallel involving trees in our city we have a similar situation.

          For years the greens and assorted tree huggers have forbidden the local council to trim and maintain urban trees to reasonable size.

          Given the urban location, ratepayers have a gigantic accumulated repair bill to face:

          1. The trees need trimming.
          2. The tree roots are damaging infrastructure, roads are damaged, sewers are blocked, stormwater drains are blocked, footpaths are lifted and broken, kerbs are damaged by tree roots and so on.

          Nobody has the political courage to tally up the bill and tell ratepayers what the greens have cost us and the city of Newcastle has been torn by strife over this issue for the last years.

          It’s not only nuclear. Greens obviously don’t pay taxes or rates and so can be careless with other peoples work and efforts.

          :)


          Report this

          00

  • #

    [...] burned through their credibility in so many ways:  think Climategate, getting caught pretending activist material was science, being busted for typos like the Himalayan Glaciers, plus 15 years of no warming, no hot spot, [...]


    Report this

    00