JoNova

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


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Heading over the waterfall

Here in Australia we are in a eerie twilight world: it’s obvious skepticism is thriving, and plain that those pushing the carbon tax are desperate. Yet this is a train-wreck in action.

The current government popularity is as sunk as sunk can be. On a daily basis, commentators ask how long Gillard will survive, or how the Labor Party could be doomed or posit yet another explanation for “the downfall”. “Change or Die” says party elder, John Faulkner. Yet paradoxically, it is just because the government is so desperate that it can’t “afford” to bury the dead-lemon policy called the Carbon Tax. A weak government is a dangerous one.

It’s like a barking mad virus has run amok

Two weeks from now, the Greens get control of our Senate (possibly for six years), but the House of Representatives is as knife-edge dysfunctional as ever. With legislative seats so closely tied, we’re left with three so-called independents who — in theory — might be talked into voting against the Carbon Tax. In practice, it’s virtually an impossibility. On the day that Tony Abbott delivered his searing budget reply, Windsor was seen to sympathetically put his arm around Gillard’s back and walk out with her as she left Parliament. And Rob Oakeshott  was, after all, the one who named myself and Viv Forbes in Parliament as the insidious “smoking guns” that killed the Emissions Trading Scheme (why, thank you Robert :-) ). Wilkie seems the most hopeful, but then he used to be a member of the Greens, and in any case, we skeptical volunteers can make sense, but  we can’t compete with pork barreling supported by the Commonwealth of Australia. How deep is your cheque-book?

But there is another approach — as word spreads of the corruption in science, it’s a one way street for former believers who discover the other side. The public is waking up. Polls are savage –  the ruling Labor Party racked up a record low on the two party preferred of 41 to 59. That’s a theoretical landslide of massive proportions (if only there were an election).

Right now, we have more chance of convincing millions of Australians that carbon is not pollution than we do of convincing one of the three independents to knock back a big tax.

But get ready, I’m not joking.  The Labor Party is so divided, so consumed with it’s own fear, that an internal division, a leadership spill or even the wildcard — a split in the party — are more likely to stop this tax getting through.

But get ready, I’m not joking.  The Labor Party is so divided, so consumed with it’s own fear, that an internal division, a leadership spill or even the wildcard — a split in the party — are more likely to stop this tax getting through. The strategy then is to target the marginal Labor party seats.

And as it happens, there are many Labor seats staring abject defeat in the face at the moment.  We need to convince those members that flowers and rainbows will not appear once the dust settles on this legislation and the public “get over” their fears. Julia Gillard is trying to persuade her fellow Labor politicians that the polls will bounce once the deal is done and she can finally point to one piece of legislation that “she” hammered through Parliament. (Shame it was one she said she wouldn’t do.)

Those marginal Labor members need to know that the business angst and public anger will only grow. The stories are spreading, BBQ to BBQ, door to door, at Rotary meetings, and school P & C groups. It won’t matter if the initial carbon tax is a paltry amount, hidden inside other costs, because once people know that they were cheated, they will be angry. At last count, at least 50% of the country is still unaware that the science is riddled with rank deceit, dodgy thermometers, outrageous attempts to distort graphs, and that every time Will Steffen says the science is settled he only proves he doesn’t know what science is.

The desperation is so fever pitched, Gillard is wheeling out her own dad to prop up the team, the NZ prime minister has been pulled over to tell parliament how successful their ETS has been (and he’s no doubt OK with that, because NZ sure won’t want to be left holding this baby all alone). Plus  teams of scientists are flag-waving more supposed death threats, (got any evidence?) even though the last ones, merely two weeks ago were shown to be rehashed emails from up to 5 years ago which were mostly just boorish rude emails (even when they were current). This — from the team whose fan-base issue death threats regularly against skeptics. Oh the projection…

(Indeed the masters-of-spin tried to pretend that “new swipe cards” were specially issued to scientists facing death threats at ANU, yet Brice Bosnich informs me that the whole Chemistry Department at ANU received new swipe cards last year as a routine upgrade. No doubt skepticism will now increase a smidgen in that Department, as the good chemists grow more doubtful of everything else the warmists have said.)

Tony Abbott called for a plebiscite (a non binding poll of Australian voters) to secure the electorate’s approval of this tax (which obviously wasn’t obtained at the last election, as both major parties said they would not introduce such a tax). Despite this being so eminently sensible, Gillard tells us they have a mandate, and the independents and ALP run a mile, scoffing far-too-melodramatically at the idea of wasting all of $70 million asking the public what they think. Methinks they dost protest too much.

If we can convince enough Labor people that this legislation will end their parliamentary career, and mark the Labor party as the biggest fools in history: the gullible chumps who didn’t see the scam, that will tarnish the reputation of Labor Party for a generation.

Speaking of marginals: if anyone lives near or in one of these (see the list below), and wants to help, I’d like to hear from you. (Please email joanne AT this blog.) Some skeptics are taking things into their own hands. Some are gleaning emails from the white pages and sending messages to people in Windsor’s electorate. Others are printing flyers and doing their own letterboxing. This is grassroots gusto.

It’s time we think outside the box– the establishment sets the rules, but we don’t have to play their game. I’m not talking about breaking any laws, but it’s time to stop doing things within the boundaries they set.

If we can convince enough Labor people that this legislation will end their parliamentary career, and mark the Labor party as the biggest fools in history — the gullible chumps who didn’t see the scam — it will tarnish the reputation of the Labor Party for a generation.

No — my aim is not to make the Labor Party the subject of abject derision (they seem to be trying to do that themselves). I want a strong — and sensible — Labor Party. But I want them to know it’s coming if they continue on this path. The introspection needs to rise above “party process” and “factions” . This is what happens when you let political correctness dictate your culture.

Calling on people who want the madness to end

Never doubt that you can make a difference. One organised person in each marginal electorate who is dedicated to work against the carbon tax will most definitely be noticed, with trepidation, by the member there. One person to find a venue for skeptics to meet, one person to act as a lightning rod for the anger, frustration and resentment that hundreds of people feel. We don’t have to organize rallies. Groups of people wandering the streets with flyers to put in letterboxes will be noticed. There must be local businesses who’d be happy to print copies. And there must be local people who like to walk for exercise who’d enjoy letterboxing — and even more so, with good company.

Of  course, we need to let the local member know how keen we are to inform the electorate.

Even if you are not in a marginal seat, think about starting a local social group — like Jim did at Five Dock in Sydney. It’s so popular now, they’ve all made new friends and they meet every week. I need to update that social ties page. Perhaps you might prefer a hotmail account just to start with, or maybe you’re happy to have your contact details spread wide? Think about it.

PS: Anyone with Rotary connections, I did a very successful talk at a Rotary group just a week ago. Word has spread and I’ve already had four invitations since then. If you are hooked up with a Rotary club, and want a speaker, let me know, I’ll try to find one in your area. Likewise, if you want to help present slides at a Rotary function, it’s time to get in touch. :-)

These are the top 15 ALP marginals:

Corangamite (Vic) Darren Cheeseman ALP 50.41
Greenway (NSW) Michelle Rowland ALP 50.88
La Trobe (Vic) Laura Smyth ALP 50.91
Robertson (NSW) Deborah O’Neill ALP 51.00
Lindsay (NSW) David Bradbury ALP 51.12
Moreton (Qld) Graham Perrett ALP 51.13
Banks (NSW) Daryl Melham ALP 51.45
Deakin (Vic) Mike Symon ALP 52.41
Petrie (Qld) Yvette D’Ath ALP 52.51
Reid (NSW) John Murphy ALP 52.68
Lilley (Qld) Wayne Swan ALP 53.18
Brand (WA) Gary Gray ALP 53.33
Capricornia (Qld) Kirsten Livermore ALP 53.68
Lingiari (NT) Warren Snowdon ALP 53.70
Page (NSW) Janelle Saffin ALP 54.19

-

Plus Wilkie…

Denison (Tas) Andrew Wilkie IND 51.21 v ALP

To send your email to a member of parliament, see the Email list for the Australian Parliamentary Representatives.

UPDATE:

Can we get a group started in Greenway (for anyone who lives close enough to visit). It is north-west Sydney, the Blacktown district. It includes Acacia Gardens, Girraween, Glenwood, Kellyville Ridge, Kings Langley, Kings Park, Lalor Park, Parklea, Seven Hills, Stanhope Gardens, The Ponds, Toongabbie and parts of Blacktown, Pendle Hill, Prospect, Quakers Hill, Riverstone, Rouse Hill, Schofields and Vineyard.

Please email or add your name in comments if you are interested. Thanks.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 1.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Heading over the waterfall, 1.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/3o8y57e

124 comments to Heading over the waterfall

  • #


    If we can convince enough Labor people that this legislation will end their parliamentary career, and mark the Labor party as the biggest fools in history — the gullible chumps who didn’t see the scam — it will tarnish the reputation of the Labor Party for a generation

    .”

    Everyone should be emailing, ringing and writing to those marginals. Their jobs are on the line


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Guys

    This is one for the RSL if it has not lost its way.

    Without attempting to appeal to national pride (football, meat-pies, kangaroos & Holden ® cars -Cooee-Bannana, Ocker up a Gum Tree etc.) the flower of youth from this land have many times been sent overseas to defend this nation & what our society represents.

    Considering: -

    1.The tenuous scientific arguments

    2.The stealthy campaign towards abrogation of National Sovereignty to an un-elected, un-answerable remote (corruptible?) body.

    3. The real economic costs & what it will mean to society & life in this country

    This is very likely the first step of the greatest & change in society this country has EVERembarked on.

    While society & culture evolve over time & ideals & attitudes change, I believe the real risk of any New World Order is when it collapses.

    On a similar but local vein, the backlash from the current political situation could see the decimation of ½ of the political spectrum in Australia. For better or worse the argy-bargy of our two major party system has been the backbone of a responsible democracy. A de-stabilisation as would come from a massive shift in one direction that may come from this has many unsavoury precedents.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Perhaps a bit cynical on my part but the most likely way the coalition will lose power, is by the premature demise of an ALP member of parliament, forcing a by-election. Start praying Oz …

    Pointman


    Report this

    00

  • #
    presto

    Can Jo or anyone with the skills to do so provide a couple of double sided, dowloadable leaflets so people can print and letterbox?
    Or if we could negotiate with a couple of printers in every state, people could order from them directly.

    These could also be handed out on trains, trams, buses and in the cbd,
    Go to the librabry and put them in the books,
    Take some to work with you every day and hand them out on the way,
    Pin them up on noticeboards at the supermarket, library, schools, gyms
    Hand them out at the footy, shopping centre, weekend markets, carparks … everywhere
    etc etc

    Maybe we could financially contribute so they could be delivered weekly to homes in these marginal electorates?

    Also, this site is great but is massive information overload for someone trying to understand the basics.
    I think it would help if there was a centralised website with forum.
    This website could have links to all the sites and facebook groups that are out there exposing the co2 tax scam.
    People’s efforts and focus is spread thinly beween all these different sites and one main site could bring an email campaign together
    This site could send updates out and manage a planned email and phone call campaign.

    Juliar and Labor are depending on Australians to be upset ONLY before the introduction of this tax and not afterwards
    They are counting on people ‘getting used to it’ and being too apathetic to demand it’s removal
    Once legislated, they will focus on convincing us that a windback would be too difficult and financially detrimental.
    So I agree the focus and effort must be made now because if this goes ahead it may never be able to be reversed.

    Where is the oil money when you need it?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Coochey

    I had an interesting communication with Ian Chubb the Chief Scientist on ABC Canberra 666 yesterday. I asked him via SMS who was right, Tim Flannery who says it will take a thousand years for cooling to occur if all human activity ceases or Andy Pittman of the ANU who says twenty? His answer was astounding he replied “I do not have a clue!” He had been pontificating about the purity of science and peer review


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Pointman: #3

    You make a good point – provenience cannot be overlooked. But I think we need to make it clear that wet-jobs and housekeeping are off the agenda. We don’t want anybody getting over-excited, or having unhelpful ideas.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Like a pilot on final approach they have crossed the threshold and are committed to land.
    It is too late for a ‘go round’. The only question now is, how many fatalities will there be?

    I think the questions regarding Labor’s ability to survive the post-election bloodletting are very legitimate.
    Of course the reality is that Labour is no longer the party of the workers and hasn’t been quite some time, it is now the party of the elite left-wing intelligentsia.

    The last Labor party leader who genuinely understood the average Australian was Bob Hawke.

    People forget that just prior to taking over as leader of the Liberal party, Tony Abbott was riding around on his pushbike staying in caravan parks and mingling with normal people.

    More than anything else that is what prompted him to stand up when the time came.
    And it is starting to show, because in spite of his complete lack of charisma and verbal dexterity. The population is progressively warming to Tony Abbott primarily because he is speaking their Language.

    pattoh:
    I couldn’t agree more the collapse of an organised opposition, of the left or the right would be a disaster for the country as a whole.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Svend Ferdinandsen

    This is not about the science, its all about political power. Think what power these tax money will give. It is a smart way of raising the taxes and polish the green image, and afterwards they can control the country much tighter by selecting who gets the money.
    That could also explain why so few in the parliament realy opposes the tax. No matter who rules the tax gives them power.
    To argue with science is uphill all the way. They have a vast pool of scientists and papers to draw from.
    I have unfortunately no way of fighting againt that, but hopefully this post could trigger some ways.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Thumbnail

    One way to help the future of our nation is to support emerging political parties like The Queensland Party.

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/gossip-bites-tweet-loud-and-proud/story-e6freomx-1226078773012

    The Queensland Party is giving away a State of Origin prize package worth up to $3500 to a proud Queenslander prepared to tweet their love for our great state.

    The person who can best tweet in 140 characters why they are proud to be a Queenslander will win two premium tickets to the State of Origin decider, a jersey signed by the Queensland team and a footy with Darren Lockyer’s autograph, as well as airfares, accommodation and, of course, a carton of XXXX Gold.

    Former league champions Kevin Campion, Scott Sattler and Keith Gee will judge the best entry, which can also include a link to an image showing love of all things maroon.

    To enter, simply tweet a line with a picture link to @theqldparty stating why you are proud to be a Queenslander.

    “The Queensland Party is proud to be 100 per cent Maroon and State of Origin time brings out the Queenslander in all of us,” said Queensland Party Leader, Aidan McLindon.

    “This year Origin III will be one of the greatest games in Queensland’s history as we support Lockyer in his final game to squash the cockroaches!”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Binny: #6

    … the collapse of an organised opposition, of the left or the right would be a disaster for the country as a whole.

    History demonstrates that the primary role of a loyal opposition must be to prevent democracy becoming an autocratic republic.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Sometime ago a poster on this site mentioned what happened in the UK when the poll tax was being introduced and how the average person “demonstrated” against it. He said some of the things done were very simple like the local butcher putting a sign in his window saying he was against the tax. There was very little comment on this at the time on the site. Maybe time has comefor the point made by the poster.
    Encourage your retailers or even put a message in your own front window — bumber stickers are “common” –this is something different so may have an effect. ( It’s also an old fashion form of communication which may also add to the effectiveness)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    If the ABC was Relevant, Part 33
    (The climate issue.)

    Bryan: Tony Abbott, what is the greatest problem facing the nation today?

    John: Easy one Bryan. It’s AGW.

    Bryan: AGW? You sure?

    John: Positive Bryan. AGW is real. The evidence is compelling and the consequences are frightening. The government must take urgent action against AGW before it’s too late.

    Bryan: AGW?

    John: Yep. AGW.

    Bryan: Anthropogenic Global Warming?

    John: What about it?

    Bryan: The greatest problem we’re facing today, remember?

    John: No it isn’t!

    Bryan: You just said so! AGW – Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    John: No I didn’t! I said AGW – Australian Government Wankery.

    Bryan: [Puzzled] Is it serious?

    John: Deadly serious Bryan. Political Scientists warn that increasing volumes of toxic emissions from the government, in the form of hot air and other GHG’s…

    Bryan: [Suspicious] GHG – Greenhouse gases?

    John: Green’s Haphazard Guesses.

    Bryan: Yep…

    John: … GHG’s are resulting in long term catastrophic harm to the political environment. Since August 2010, this government has dangerously increased its GHG and other bovine emissions…

    Bryan: Bovine emissions?

    John: From the end that doesn’t go “Moo”, Bryan.

    Bryan: Right…

    John: … and caused the political climate to be heated at an unprecedented rate, resulting in global melting of government credibility and widespread retreat of popular support.

    Bryan: Can you think of any examples?

    John: For starters, there’s the Timor Solution, the Malaysia Solution, The Citizen’s Assembly, Green Loans, The Carbon Tax. Anything by the “Real” Julia Gillard, Wayne Swan or Greg Combet. Tim Flannery rates a special mention. Ross Garnaut is full of it.

    Bryan: I see what you mean…

    John: And there’s more, Bryan! Scientists also warn of rising levels of public indignation, which are “very likely” to push some species over the brink of extinction. The most obvious being the marginal seat-dwelling labor backbencher (Lefty Vulgaris). If present trends continue, then habitat loss due to AGW will force these magnificent animals to consider opportunities in the real estate industry. Or worse.

    Bryan: The future looks grim…

    John: Yes Bryan. Picture their lovely little faces, smiling at you from roadside hoardings, inviting you to phone this number for a free appraisal…

    Bryan: [Concerned] Is it already too late for urgent action?

    John: There is a tipping point – the point of no return – and some claim that the government has already reached it. Others, however, believe that the political climate can be saved – but only if the government takes urgent action – now.

    Bryan: What urgent action needs to be taken – now?

    John: The government needs to adopt and deliver sustainable policies – policies that are based on well-considered logic, ethical principles and genuine science – targeting the longer term benefit of all Australians. As opposed to knee-jerk reactions, government by press release, and ideologically bent favouritism of factional interests.

    Bryan: They’re stuffed then, aren’t they?

    John: Yep.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Svend Ferdinandsen: #7

    This is not about the science, its all about political power. Think what power these tax money will give. It is a smart way of raising the taxes and polish the green image, and afterwards they can control the country much tighter by selecting who gets the money.

    Tax gives the Government money. But money does not buy power. Money buys resources that can be used to influence people to give the “right” answers to various questions in support of Government policy.

    “Oh, you want a Super Computer to run your models through?” “That might be possible”. “Tell me, what sort of results do you expect to get?” “And tell me, how will those results benefit our constituents”?

    Political power is all about the amount of influence you have with the electorate. You cannot buy votes directly (at least, not in Australasia). So money must be used indirectly, to buy things that do influence the electorate.

    The indirect way that money is used is called a “vector”. Some vectors are better than others, and some are longer lived than others. The climate scam has proven to be one of the best (and most tenacious) vectors.

    But the climate scam is based on a series of falsehoods that were uttered to get funding to research whether or not the falsehoods were true or not. Do you see the circular situation here? That is what politics is all about.

    In this particular case, the falsehoods have become unsustainable over time, and are becoming increasingly more apparent as time progresses. This presents an opportunity to disrupt the vector, by explaining how and why the science behind the falsehood is being misrepresented.

    The politicians have overstepped the invisible line between what is feasible in politics, and what is not. And they did so because this particular vector was supposed to be “global”, and it appeared to be bottomless.

    Of course, once they have miscalculated, and overstepped that invisible line, they are doomed to failure, it just becomes a matter of time. The task now, is to minimise the damage as much as possible, and that can be done by speeding up the process of failure.

    As an aside, the very first question I asked was, “Why is it, that only democratic countries seem to be affected by global warming”?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    Incorporate these figures in any emails to pollies.

    ninemsn.com.au Poll: Should Australia vote on a carbon tax?

    YES:-121,316

    NO:- 24,192

    In less than a 24 hour period to 8-30am 21/6/11, 145,508 people have taken the time to express their concern by voting.

    If that’s not significant in this debate, I don’t know what is!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Thumbnail @ 8:

    I won’t have anything to do with Katter’s party- one of his policies is to make 10% ethanol in petrol mandatory, which is just a way of subsidising one branch of the economy at the expense of others, and will be no good in my whippersnipper and mower, or my brother’s restored Austin. He will get votes from the disaffected (like One Nation) and good on him for stirring, but he won’t get a vote from me.
    One reason I don’t think we should get too excited over the politics- Even if the ALP gets rolled and the LNP gets up, we’ll then have an even harder fight on our hands with Abbott’s stupid direct action, as he’ll have a mandate, and the voters will relax, thinking they’ve won. Then we’ll have to rely on science alone.

    Ken


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Speedy- just brilliant!

    Ken


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @Rereke.

    Wasn’t hinting in that direction, tempting though it might be …

    Pointman


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Thumbnail

    Hi Ken,
    Katter’s party is The Australian Party – The Queensland Party leader is Aidan McLindon. The Queensland Party is a state based party.

    :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mullumhillbilly

    Ross@10
    I Like it. A bumper sticker saying “I’m a Climate Tax Sceptic; ask me why”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Glen Michell

    Tony Abbotts budget reply was a joke ! He can’t even be straight to the australian public on where he stands on climate change ;talk about a short-circuited democracy! Soft-cock greens and their climate alarmism, and a conservative coalition with a mad opportunist at their head!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Just on the 9 am news.

    Steve Fielding has apparently said that the plebiscite idea is a “stunt” and he probably won’t support it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Agree with Ken Stewart on both counts.

    Katter is a fool and a reflection of those who vote for him.

    The ALP is a lost cause so maybe it is the federal Liberal Party politicians that should be bombarded with all the rational scientific arguments for rejecting ACC.

    This is the opportune time for the Liberals to provide a genuine alternative to the ALP on Climate Change. It is quite likely that a fair slice of the voting public is already ahead of the Liberals on climate change. If this switch was done slowly and wisely it could give the Liberals a far more solid and lasting block of support than what may turn out to be temporary public opposition to the ALP’s carbon tax.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Thumbnail

    I am disappointed that Fielding is reported as having rejected the possibility of a plebiscite. I will do my bit and email those marginal Labor seats.

    And BTW: the LNP in Queensland are a different beast to the Liberals or the Nationals at the Federal level. The NSW disease crossed the border and changed hosts when the former Lord Mayor of Brisbane was appointed to the ‘leader outside Parliament’ position by the executive wing of the LNP.

    Newman stumbled badly in his budget reply:

    http://ten.com.au/ten-news-brisbane.htm?movideo_m=113148


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Raven

    I spend a fair bit of time in the seat of New England and I’m happy to report that the majority of people I have spoken to are appalled at the behavior of Windsor .
    One comment of note came from a local farmer , ” if we had known a vote for Windsor was a vote for labour , he sure as hell wouldn’t be there now” …. Says it all really .
    One gentleman responded that it was akin to having a giant Pollywaffle floating in his pool , disgusting and difficult to deal with .
    These smaller community’s still talk to each other, the general opinion was however that they are being sold out by their elected representative and the overall majority view was that he seemed to be working to his own agenda !

    More on this if requested .


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Raven I used to live in Windsor’s electorate and what you say doesn’t surprise me
    I don’t know what more you can give us but I’d be interested
    And can you also tell us
    What if anything are the people of his electorate doing to let him know about their feelings,
    how do the people you come into contact with there feel about a carbon tax and now how do they feel about his non support of Abbott’s proposed plebiscite
    Is the NBN really that popular?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mondo

    Thank you for the detailed list of e:mail addresses for the MPs and Senators. I copied these into the BCC of my e:mail and sent them all an e:mail expressing my views on the Carbon Tax. One issue though is that my e:mail server refused to accept the e:mail addresses of those with an apostrophe in their name (such as O’Dowd) in the e:mail address and wouldn’t send the e:mail until I corrected that. I took the apostrophe out and sent the e:mails, but I don’t know if the apostrophe reduced MPs or Senators received their e:mail or not.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    POLL: ”Should Australia vote on a carbon tax?

    RESULTS………

    YES: 112839 (84%)

    no: 22278 (16%)

    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/previousvote/
    =====================================================

    POLL: Should there be a national plebiscite on whether to impose a carbon tax?

    RESULTS…………

    YES 86.89% (2559 votes)
    no 13.11% (386 votes)

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/in-favour-of-a-law-to-impose-carbon-tax/story-e6freuy9-1226078085686


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    JOANNE. I tried to contact you via twitter, and when I used the
    Google search engine, it came up Account suspended. I got through
    using Yahoo on my email account.

    What’s going on folks. Big Brother closing U down.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Here are the contact details for this TRAITOR tony WINDBAG windsor………

    To contact Tony Windsor

    Phone: 02 6761 3080
    Toll Free: 1300 301 839
    Fax: 02 6761 3380
    Email: Tony.Windsor.MP@aph.gov.au

    Shop 5, 259 Peel Street, Tamworth
    (PO Box 963)
    TAMWORTH NSW 2340

    Give him Hell !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    PS Don’t forget you can use the free internet fax service to send him a fax from your computer.

    http://www.freepopfax.com/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    I live in New England and I have supported Tony since he joined
    the Feds. I have been arguing with him for years about the
    climate change debacle, to no avail. But I have told him recently
    if he supports the Carbon tax, I will no longer vote for him.

    Problem is there is no National rep to vote for unless Barnaby
    Joyce steps over to compete against him. I can’t see that happening either. There is one though, who I think doesn’t want
    to get into politics, but he could swing votes against Tony.

    How can we pressure these ALP marginals. If you watch question time on TV, and I have just received an email from Harry Jenkins.
    Who I reckon should be awarded for his patience. He said sometimes his directions are lost by the noise that goes on, but
    actually when not broadcasted live, it is relatively quiet.

    But the climate tax rally in Tamworth might be an eye opener for
    Tony when it occurs. I would love to attend but I live 115 kms
    away down two mountains.

    Cheers folks


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Thanks for all the emails of concern due to the site being down.

    My webmaster reports that there was unusually heavy traffic. He tracked it as “nova” traffic (though it doesn’t appear in my analytics tracking). Because this heavy traffic closed down all of his clients sites (!) he actually suspended my account as a trial to see if that stopped the problem.

    We are working on it. No, there’s no conclusive evidence it’s a hack, but there are many unexplained angles. The site may disappear again today.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    give thanx the site is back up. caused a panic in my household!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Gday Thumbnail @ 18:

    Yeah I know about the Australian party, I live in Qld. Aidan Mclindon jumped from the LNP some time ago. They still have the 10% ethanol policy amongst other protectionist stuff.

    Ken


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Nailed it again Speedy!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    grayman

    You Aussies Have my support, albeit from USA. Any news on Baa Humbug, Have not seen his comments for a long while ?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi all,

    There is danger in where this is all heading – the electorate was so undecided in choosing a winner last Election – they went to the GREENS as an escape – We now have a far worse Government where even the Speaker – is disrespected and has for the most lost all control over the House.

    A four year record of the current Government can be read here.

    Yet at the moment – and with the world on the edge of an abyss that has nothing to do with Carbon or the Climate Change debate – this Labour Government persists in pursuing a Carbon Tax debate.

    This story suggests activists should work the marginal seats and log the sceptic viewpoint … perhaps they should also complain about the high value of the A$ as it continues to kill Export revenues – Tourism – domestic Retail trade – and Investment opportunities for offshore Investors – all which impact on Government revenues – and which will need to be covered with additional taxes like the CARBON TAX – or cuts to Government spending programs.

    This Carbon TAX debate is a smoke screen – and the real debate is far beyond the understanding of any member serving in this Parliament …


    Report this

    00

  • #
    brc

    Joanne Nova: Sounds awfully like a Denial of Service attack to me. No Analytics traffic means that no browser was reading the requests (analytics is done by running javascript in the browser, which registers the page view). The only reason you would get a lot of page requests that weren’t ‘real’ browsers is that someone was trying to shut you down – they only request the page, they don’t ‘read’ it. You probably won’t be able to glean any useful information from your logs as it will come from a variety of IP addresses – someone using a botnet of compromised computers to flood your site with traffic.

    Time to have a mirror site ready and waiting, plus possibly a spare domain (joannenova.net.au?) to switch to if it happens again. It was only a matter of time before dirty tricks started. If this is confirmed, you should write to the Australian and play the sympathy card like the death-threatened climate scientists. A nice headline like ‘green zealots try to shut down climate debate sites’ would be good!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    gytr

    @brc… DDoS isn’t necessarily “page requests” it can simply be junk packets aimed at any particular port of the hosting server. It sounds less like someone with serious knowledge, as they were from the sounds of things hitting via domain name and not IP address. Hmm, unless they were making a point to the hosting company.

    I’d approach the WA computer crimes dept. The server (or cluster) should have a log showing attemted connections by IP address. Most likely someone with a botnet, but it’s still worth following up.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    gytr

    edit – WITHOUT serious knowledge


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Konrad

    Jo,
    My ZoneAlarm security is asking to destroy “Worm.JS.FBook.a” when accessing wordpress pages at WUWT, but only within the last hour. maybe related?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Pointman: #17

    I didn’t think you were. I was just making sure, to be sure.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    mullumhillbilly@19

    For more than three years, the rear of my car has been adorned with:

    I drive and I vote
    CO2 taxation will destroy this fine nation
    The Climate Sceptics Party


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Raven

    Hi Val @ 25
    Most people I spoke to do not want a carbon dioxide tax.
    Those supporting it being country folk, work on common sense , when shown the other side of the debate they generally feel angry and let down .
    I cannot say what they are doing in general about it , however they do talk to each other in the smaller towns then still form strong opinions .
    It seems to play out that the govt is not being honest , although they take that for granted ( sigh) although with Windsor there is a feeling of anger .
    In regards to the NBN most don’t care or feel it is a waste of money ,Ive not been there since the plebiscite was announced , but I am going back up next month so I will gauge the mood then .

    Sorry for my late reply been flat out all day .. Cheers


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    hI jO glad you’re back!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Speedy:
    June 21st, 2011 at 8:22 am

    If the ABC was Relevant, Part 33

    If you can’t think of what to include in an email to Labor MP’s, Speedies done it for us.

    Brilliant again Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Raven

    Hi greyman
    He posted a reply a day or so ago , the geenpiss busted thread from memory .
    Keep warm over there :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    Good onya Jo…. Yep, this is indeed a good strategy. Not just a political partisan strategy either…. Australia is pretty much a two party system and is reliant on a decent opposition party to maintain a healthy criticism of the Government of the day and to ensure that politics is in the interest of the Australian people.

    If the Australian Labor party wish to remain relevent to the mainstream LABOR VOTER… Then they had better start representing them….. and not this green socialist agenda of the urbane elite.

    The current Gillard Labor Government is fast becoming a quasi coalition with the Greens, which means a Huge number of Labor voters will vote Liberal…The Libs are not Green Radicals… Specially when the leader of the Liberal party is a volunteer firefighter, surf club member, family man and is sitting with them drinking Labor’s beer and invited to Labor’s BBQ’s….. Because that’s what is happening at most social get togethers now. Working class Labor voters are saying good things about Tony Abbott and bad things about taxing Carbon Dioxide.

    Taxing the air you breath is Chinese Communist stuff. Greenie Stuff…. Not Labor stuff.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Emil

    I am not an Australian citizen so I don’t feel proper in pressuring Australian politicians. However, I don’t believe I have ever seen such political arrogance in a democracy as I have seen demonstrated by the Australian government. They are going to pass this carbon tax in the face a upwards of 60% of the Australian people disapproving of it. Guillard does not have a mandate of any kind from the Australian people, she only governs by the thinnest of margins with the assistance of the greenies after her party suffered a resounding defeat in the last election. The Australian people need to remind their politicians who they work for. They need to take their country back from politicians and restore democracy. The climate change alarmists have been shown to misrepresent, lie, alter data, and commit fraud to further their agenda. Don’t let them get away with it. Nothing scares a politician more then having to look for a job the day after election day!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Emil

    Virtually all life on this planet is a CARBON BASED LIFE FORM! How did carbon become a pollutant?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Emil,

    Can anyone provide an example of non-carbon life?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mark @ 50: Can anyone provide an example of non-carbon life?

    There is a computer game called life. It is an example of non-carbon life based upon silicon. It is real life the same way that the data from the CAGW simulations is real data.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    It would be easier to understand Guillards behavior if we believed in demon possession. [snip]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    There are plenty of silicon-based life-forms walking this earth.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Popeye

    Jo,

    It appears my handle has been hijacked and used by someone else on your email list?

    I live in Greenway electorate (2nd most marginal in Australia) and have been VERY active in communicating and asking questions of Michelle Rowland since her election win.

    Can you email me at the address I have been posting under this handle & on this site for sometime now with details of anyone else who I can connect with locally.

    Would it also be possible to resolve the handle situation for the email subscription?

    Much thanks.

    Cheers,


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Mark: #50

    Can anyone provide an example of non-carbon life?

    Some time ago I read a scientific paper that postulated that lifeforms observed in deep ocean trenches were silica based. Primitive life has been observed in the mud surrounding volcanic vents, on several occasions, and by different researchers, but due to the pressure and the lack of oxygen in the water at those depths, the biochemistry involved in a carbon based metabolism could not be supported.

    The paper was not really relevant to what I was doing at the time, so I didn’t keep a reference, but apparently not all life has to be carbon based.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    handjive

    Look out Ms. Jonova!

    It appears Australia’s new Chief scientist, Prof. Ian Chubb is ‘believer’, concerned only with shutting down anyone who questions his beliefs:

    In an address to the National Press Club in Canberra today, Professor Ian Chubb said climate science deniers should not be given an equal platform with mainstream scientists, and he criticised the media for giving sceptics the space to make their arguments.

    Only if you agree with Chubb, are you considered to be standing up for what you think is right:

    “Well, I don’t think that’s partisan. I think I can read English. And I think the evidence is overwhelming.

    “I don’t think I will be partisan I don’t think you’re partisan if you’re standing up for what you think is right.”

    Another proglodyte trying to close down debate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Graeme Bird: #52

    Well, there you go:

    “If it looks like a duck, and if it walks like a duck, and if it quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck … or a Prime Minister?” :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    YET ANOTHER POLL :If a plebiscite was held on the issue of a carbon tax would you be………..

    http://www.abc.net.au/thedrum/polls/

    1 In favor of a carbon tax

    2 Opposed to a carbon tax

    3 Undecided

    THE OBVIOUS ANSWER IS “OPPOSED” !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Raven, thanks for that
    and regards to Tamworth next time you’re there


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Handjive # 56

    This was indeed interesting from Chubb. He’s pretty much insulted quite a number of Australia’s leading independent scientists who do work within the field of climate science. I wonder if the exchange for a meeting with the PM was to tow the political line for her?

    Interesting also given John Coochey’s comment at # 5.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    handjive: #56

    Professor Chubb is a biologist specialising in neuroscience, who admits he doesn’t know much about climate change.

    He is old school, and would have had the scientific method drummed into him from his first day at Uni. It is now incomprehensible for him to think that science is conducted in any other way. He will look at the number of published (and peer reviewed [sic]) papers, and the dearth of critical papers, and accept that at face value. I will not occur to him, nor will he accept, that a number of influential researchers were working on a pay-for-results basis, and proactively preventing any counter argument being published. In his publishing day, Editors were only concerned with maintaining the prestige of the Journal, and he will not realise that threats to boycott certain journals have been made, and that those threats have been successful in having the desired effect.

    Somebody needs to bring him up to speed on the M & M fiasco. From there, he just might be persuaded to look at the evidence for himself … stranger things have happened.

    On the positive side, his views will stiffen the attitude of the Labour caucus, but do very little to change the views of the electorate who will just see him as another useful idiot talking head. His appointment may well be another nail in the coffin for the current Government. He just has to be kept away from Abbott.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Have to second Pat # 32

    Pretty sure my heart missed a beat or two earlier today when I couldn’t come here.

    Not that I didn’t know this already, but it made me reflect on how much I appreciate Jo’s efforts and value the words and wisdom of the other people who post here.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Interesting that Gary Gray for Brand in WA is on there – its his constituency (and my back yard) where the conversion of “Bush Forever” public land to a brand new marina style housing and tourist development is happening http://handsoffpointperon.com/ for more information.

    Clearly he doesn’t care about the apparently ‘dangerous’ sea level rise issue we have in WA, given that all of that land is only a few metres above sea level….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JLC

    I think the most likely trigger of an early election is if an ALP parliamentarian were to resign, and I think that’s only likely to happen if one of them were to become seriously ill. Note: I do *not* wish poor health or death on anybody, no matter what their political opinions are.

    It would be best if some ALP parliamentarian had the integrity and honesty to resign in order to force an election. It seems unlikely but I have not entirely given up hope. I’m as cynical about politicians as anybody else but I’m sure that many ALP parliamentarians must be deeply uneasy about the state of the Australian federal government.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Harry The Hacker

    I’ve written to my local (Labor) MP. He’s a good guy, but I’ve told him I can’t vote for him until this policy is dropped.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Rereke #55

    Certainly non-carbon based life has been the subject of many a treatise over the years. However, to date I don’t think any example has actually been found. I’ve read about those deep sea thingies living near thermal vents, but again, nothing to indicate that they are anything but carbon-based life.

    Silicon seems always to have been the hot favourite because of the four electrons in its outer shell (like carbon). There’s a lot more to it than just that of course as I’m sure you are aware.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    Just read a couple of intersting articles in ‘Climate Spectator’.
    I like to keep a handle on the opposition thinking.

    It looks like there is some serious level of concern about ‘our side’ being able to persuade the public that the, ‘SCIENCE’, may be flawed.
    .
    It also look like the recent Climate talks in Bonn have broken down in disarray.
    .

    Article 1 (Precis)
    When scientists take to the streets…
    Michael J I Brown

    It takes a lot to get scientists out of their offices and marching on Parliament.
    But in recent weeks that’s exactly what some of Australia’s top researchers have taken to doing.

    So what is it that has got our science community so riled up?

    … for many, it’s simply the tactics of “the other side” of the climate change debate that has spurred on their public demonstrations.

    When the forces of non-science are this strong, it’s time for scientists to respond.

    Those denying the science of climate change present arguments that appear scientific, with measurements, theories, statistics and jargon.

    .
    .
    Article 2 (Precis)
    No breakthrough in Bonn as climate divide deepens
    Stephen Minas

    Two weeks of United Nations talks to prepare a new global framework to deal with climate change ended on Friday with little progress made. Countries remain at odds over the future of the Kyoto Protocol…
    The slow pace of talks bodes ill for the end-of-year meeting in Durban, South Africa – the deadline set by parties to give effect to much of December’s Cancun Agreements…

    “Yes we are in 2011,” said the session’s chair, Robert Owen-Jones, after a moment of confusion that these big conferences sometimes throw up – “No Groundhog Day for us!”…

    At Friday’s closing session, UNFCCC head Figueres announced that funding had been secured for one more meeting before Durban, to be held in late September and early October. Panama wants to host it…
    For the moment, however, negotiators have left Bonn with little more than the prospect of a sojourn in tropical Panama to put a spring in their step.

    .
    It looks like our Science Guys have the ‘Scientists’ running scared and the UN couldn’t organise a p_ss up in a brewery.

    If we are able to ‘organise’ then we should be able to raise the pressure.
    It could be the right time to ‘raise the bar’ and join together with other like minded groups, I only really know of Menzies House, but you guys probably know more, OR you may know of reasons why we shouldn’t join forces (whatever happened – we couldn’t be as bad as the UN).

    Food for thought – keep posting – lets talk it through.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme

    Ironically – the thing that would save the labor party would be if there was a comprehensive and public admission of wrong doing by a group of hard core climate scientists – revealing the extent of the AGW scam. This would allow the ALP to step away from the brink, loudly exclaiming how they had been mislead by these malicious self serving climate scientists.

    Unfortunately for the ALP – that will never happen.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    It would be terrific if kevin rudd resigned out of hatred for gillard and brought the whole house of cards tumbling down !!!

    I live in hope !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    I’m very upset with Mr Chubb! Any suggestions on the best way to send a polite email to him?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Mark: #66

    There’s a lot more to it than just that of course as I’m sure you are aware.

    Very often I am not as aware as I would wish – “Never let the (lack) of facts interfere with a strongly held conviction” – thats my motto. When I grow up, I want to be a Climate Scientist!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ryan

    jo. I don’t think you should bother with darren cheeseman. I live in geelong and our local papers are filled with climate change scaremongering from him regularly. he is an alarmist on par with tim flannery!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Those denying the science of climate change present arguments that appear scientific, with measurements, theories, statistics and jargon.

    Those “Deniers” are so cunning, so despicable, so obnoxious, so devious, that they will use real – yes, REAL – facts to support their arguments. They have to be stopped. It is so unfair that they are allowed to cheat like this. Don’t they appreciate the economic impacts that will result from their misplaced demands for something as ephemeral as “integrity in science” – like, that is soooo yesterday.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    The _observer

    there’s a poll being held over at the ABC’s The Drum website

    If a plebiscite was held on the issue of a carbon tax would you be:

    In favor of a carbon tax

    Opposed to a carbon tax

    Undecided

    http://www.abc.net.au/thedrum/polls/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Winston

    The sad state of affairs in climate science seems to me to reflect the incredible narcissism of these climate scientists who have become overly enamored with their own opinions, have become immune to refutation, deaf to pleas for open and even handed debate, and too proud and frightened to admit uncertainty or error. It
    seems totally irrelevant to them that, if they are totally wrong and we are heading into a deep solar minimum with a sharp downturn in global temperatures, that they could be directly responsible for the deaths of more people than Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot combined. If they could put their arrogance aside for a few minutes just to pause and reflect on the potential cost of being incorrect, one might naively but reasonably expect that they would actually hope that their theories might be tested in a rigorous public debate with all sides represented. This would allow the full facts of the argument to be presented to vindicate them and provide their much touted consensus if the facts are so incontrovertible. Instead, as the global temperature has deviated from predictions over the last 10 to 12 years, the alarmism has counter intuitively become progressively more desperate, louder and more shrill. They are fooling no one and they grossly underestimate the intelligence of the average Australian, who can recognize spin and lies instantly and have good instincts for the truth, even in the absence of a comprehensive knowledge of the subject’s minutae.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    TrueNews & 67, Rareke Whakaaro @ 72.

    Those denying the science of climate change present arguments that appear scientific, with measurements, theories, statistics

    And how do the “climate scientists” justify their case? I think I’ll quote these guys one day…

    Thanks for that.

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave

    The Drum Poll

    @ http://www.abc.net.au/thedrum/polls/ noted by Damian above has just collapsed. Over the last hour the Yes for Carbon Tax started dropping 1% about every 3/4 of an hour. Now you can enter a vote but no result showing. Must be run by a Greenie Cat!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    lmwd@70
    Take out this, from the article, and re-read it with your/our perspective, and would you disagree?

    “In an address to the National Press Club in Canberra today, Professor Ian Chubb said climate science deniers should not be given an equal platform with mainstream scientists, and he criticised the media for giving sceptics the space to make their arguments.”

    “I don’t think the [politicians] scientific literacy is high,” – I agree
    “Well, I don’t think that’s partisan. I think I can read English. And I think the evidence is overwhelming.
    I don’t think I will be partisan I don’t think you’re partisan if you’re standing up for what you think is right.”
    – I think I can can read English too, so I agree, CAGW is clearly and demonstrably crap.

    Dunno if that’s what you should say to him but then it’s hard to get through the dogmatism evident with the highlighted statement. Clearly we sceptics should be silenced, we have no rights to an opinion.
    So I’m not partisan, I’m just not entitled to an opinion? Gee, thanks for that Ian, how generous of you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    @ Speedy #77
    (Those denying the science of climate change present arguments that appear scientific, with measurements, theories, statistics).

    “And how do the “climate scientists” justify their case? I think I’ll quote these guys one day…”

    OhOh
    I feel another Clarke and Dawe moment about to hatch.

    Go for it Speedy :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    @Dave #78

    Just voted – stats were
    59% Yes (I want to be Taxed)
    38% No (Get lost – I’m not a moron)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    TrueNews@81
    I’m not sure the figures are kosher here.
    I voted soon after you and got:
    59% Yes
    37% No
    4% Dunno
    6350 votes.

    I wonder if there’s some data manipulation happening here?
    Maybe I’m just getting paranoid. But I’ll be keeping a close eye on the figures.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Numberwang

    Re: problems with Jo’s website, the servers are probably overheating due to AGW. Time to start another scare via SMH, The Age, ABC:

    Climate Change Threatens The Internet
    “Scientists say that computer and network hardware and systems will become progressively more unreliable as ambient temperatures rise…yada yada yada


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Emil

    [ MaxL: I believe there is something going on as I voted a few hours ago and the totals were reversed!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    grayman

    Raven @ 46, Thanks for the info. Keeping warm is not a problem here in Austin Tx., we have been in the low 100s for a week and half, staying cool is the problem. Typical Texas summer weather, high pressure front comes in and stays for a while. Do not need a suana here just go outside for a while.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    OK Statisticians,
    @ about 11:00pm
    59% Yes
    37% No
    4% Dunno
    6350 votes

    @ about 11:30pm
    58% Yes
    38% No
    4% Dunno
    6400 votes

    Seems fishy to me, after only 50 extra votes? Any thoughts?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    Happy to do letterboxing footwork in the seat of Adelaide (ALP Kate Ellis). Don’t know what her % is but anything under 65 is marginal I reckon. If there could be a downloadable flyer that would be great. I gather it has to be authorised by someone.

    I also saw you go AWOL for a while today Jo. My first reaction was – OMG, didn’t she pay her bill! Glad it had a mundane explanation!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    MaxL – could just be an artifact of rounding to the nearest %.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Paul

    Hi Jo,

    on the subject of flowers and rainbows (how about adding sunshine and lollipops while we’re at it?), I figured you would enjoy this quote from Captain Capitalism’s blog, you can probably substitute Gillard for Obama and it still works:

    “And I know you may have been taught jobs come from Barack Obama’s Magical Farting Unicorns and we’ll just borrow a trillion dollars in some Keynesian thing and then the “pump will be primed” and then there will be a multiplier effect and then boom! Jobs!

    But, I’m sorry kiddies. That’s not how it works.”

    http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    Thanks Ian,
    Maybe I’m getting punch drunk.
    After reading a lot of the warmists sites, starting to think that 1+1=5


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    george

    Saw this on AdelaideNow – it seems Mr Xenophon is not all that enamoured of the gummint`s carbon tax “advertising” idea. A personal populist image-enhancer “last hurrah” before the watermelons take over balance of power in the senate on 1 July, or is there a bit more to this…?

    http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/xenophon-moves-on-governments-carbon-tax-ad-campaigns/story-e6frea8c-1226079484868

    Story not yet sighted on the ABC site though…


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Ian Hill

    You can also vote at AdelaideNow (@92) on whether there should be a referendum for the carbon tax.

    Currently:

    YES: 180
    NO: 36
    Unsure: 9

    Total 225 votes, with YES running at 80%.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    But get ready, I’m not joking. The Labor Party is so divided, so consumed with it’s own fear, that an internal division, a leadership spill or even the wildcard — a split in the party — are more likely to stop this tax getting through. The strategy then is to target the marginal Labor party seats.

    Awwww…how sad for them. :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Mark

    I’ve just heard on a 9:30 newsbreak that there is still no agreement on the CO2 tax despite previous announcements that a deal was close..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The _observer

    The result of the ‘Carbon Tax’ Poll at the ABC’s The Drum website http://www.abc.net.au/thedrum/polls/ showing a majority > for the tax < is typical for all polls held on that site.

    The place is a left wing hangout.

    Get over there & vote all you sensible people


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Callmedingle

    The carbon tax is treason.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JohnP

    Your blog site is an irrelevance as you guys just don’t get it. The climate science debate in Australia is over. Even Tony Abbott concedes this as he has abandoned denialism as a position and fight instead on (in)direct (in)action versus a carbon tax. Abbott’s capitulation to the science is an implicit victory to the Greens and Labor that they have been slow to realise. Denialism, contrarianism, call it what you like lacks any real political agency in the mainstream except for Bob Katter. Isn’t it time you pulled up stumps and stole away into the night?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    grayman:
    June 21st, 2011 at 11:16 pm

    I know what you mean about Texas in summer I once spent 3 weeks in Uvalde.

    “parliamentarian had the integrity and honesty”
    Careful using those words in the same sentence.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    From the Australian:

    Liberal MP Dennis Jensen said he wanted to see a Royal Commission on the science of climate change.

    “At least that way each side will be able to put there evidence forward in a full and thorough process,” he said.

    What a great idea. And the penalty for lying or deceiving a Royal Commission is?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “JohnP”,
    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.

    While you are at it collect your $10,000 by presenting all your Proof and Evidence 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/

    PILLOCK !


    Report this

    00

    • #
      JohnP

      What you’re really saying is you haven’t bothered to look. Here’s just one paper : “Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate” by W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA, and E. Puckrin (2006). Oh, you can’t be bothered reading it? Let me give you an extract “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”

      And read the IPCC’s Synthesis 2007 findings of peer reviewed literature, which found that “Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4 and N2O have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years” And “There is very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W/m2p.37. ”

      Surely you wouldn’t quibble with a “high confidence” level of 80% certainty, which is about the level of forcing and not about the cause-effect link i.e. humans are raising CO2 levels -> CO2 traps heat -> our planet is accumulating heat??

      QED.

      —-

      REPLY: The “confidence” comes from models we know are fatally flawed. The evidence we want is that the assumptions of the models have some observational backing. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, yes it’s increasing, yes it will warm the planet somewhat. Even the IPCC says 1.2C directly. Where is the evidence for anything more than that? It’s the feedbacks that matter… –Jo


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Brian H

        80%? It is to laugh. You have no clue about scientific validation and confidence levels. 80% doesn’t even get to the “reasonable speculation” level.

        The reason that 99, 99.9, and 99.99%+ confidence levels are demanded in real sciences (e.g., physics) is to prevent data snooping, experimenter bias, and dumb chance from doing what they are known and proven to do: shape results to expectations and wishes.

        Even then, replication often finds a “sagging to the mean” phenomenon, especially when big $$ are involved.

        Climate “Science” standards are lower than low.


        Report this

        00

  • #

    JohnP@100.

    The more the “science” is exposed as being flawed, the more times the AGW hypothesis is falsified, the more creatures seep out of the swamp of ignorance. But you just don’t get it, do you? JohnP – P off


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    ANNA-Maria Arabia IS A FABIAN SOCIETY STOOGE…………

    Perhaps we should know that Ms Arabia is the contact person for The Fabian Society in the ACT. Nothing wrong with that in this wonderful free country, but it’s a bit hard then for Ms Arabia to appear to stand for objective science with no vested interests, something with which she would accuse the “deniers”.

    The Fabian Society has always been inextricably linked with the left of the Australian Labor Party. The fact that Ms Arabia went from working with Mr. Albanese immediately before taking on this FASTS spokepersons’s job makes it even harder to believe that her agenda is just to further ‘the science”.

    http://www.fabian.org.au/1103.asp


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Sheep – Sheep and more Sheep –

    How many commentators here really know about the science as opposed to being just like me – only reading and forming opinions based on what is read – my scepticism came from the discovery of the carbon (CO2) increase in the atmosphere from 19 to 39 parts per million – over the last 50 years –

    In a recent e-mail letter sent to 21 Federal Ministers and Mr Turnbull to ask them to explain their ‘light-bulb’ moment – I only received a single response. It was from a staffer named Heather from Greg Combet’s office. She said she was calling on behalf of Mr Combet – Minister for Climate Change- and we chatted for 40 minutes.

    The Staffer told of her ‘light-bulb’ moment and reasons for supporting the Climate Change debate.

    It was a very interesting conversation – her reason for supporting the Climate Change debate was in that the CO2 levels had increased from the 19-39 parts per million – exactly the same reason for my new found scepticism.

    This demonstrated to me that the same data/information caused completely different interpretations and beliefs.

    So I ask all the commentators at this blog-site – who are sheep – and who are people that really have something to contribute that can improve the quality of the debate …


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barrie

    Dear EYE-BALL Opinion,
    Strange that you you both used the same information to get different conclusions since the actual amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 390 ppm not 39 ppm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere) and it has increased from around 315 ppm over the past 50 years not 19. Maybe you should”eyeball” your numbers a bit better in future.

    And by the way, this increase is strongly correlated with the increase in global temperatures over the same period (with CO2 explaining around 80% of the variation when I last checked). Thus, I fail to see why this increase would convince you that global warming isn’t happening or that increasing CO2 is not the cause!

    Try eyballing this graph!
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-CO2-Temperature-correlation-over-the-20th-Century.html

    Cheers,

    Barrie


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    WoW Barrie WTF is “strongly correlated”

    Thanks for the well loved SkepticalSh*T link too. Would you kindly reproduce that graph with a proper scale for parts per million?

    How about this one: http://www.americanthinker.com/%231%20CO2EarthHistory.gif


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    Hm, arbitrary actions, taxation without representation … starts to sound familiar. Jo, have a fresh read of the US Declaration of Independence, and consider its assertion that after sufficient abuse of power and refusal to negotiate constructively, a ruler (or party) loses all legitimacy, and can legitimately be forcibly replaced.

    Different times and places, I know, but …


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    Barrie;
    Definitively proves that warming increases CO2. Which are both good; we’ll need as much “steam” as possible to counteract the decades of chilling “quiet sun” now upon us. Or hadn’t you heard?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Svend Ferdinandsen

    From a swedish site, and interwiev with Ottmar Edenhofer:
    http://www.theclimatescam.se/2011/06/21/ipcc-och-dess-tredje-arbetgrupp-vad-vill-de-egentligen/

    It seems Pachauri have said the same. So it is not about climate or science.
    Those are just used to achieve the goal.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The EYE-BALL Opinion @106,

    So I ask all the commentators at this blog-site – who are sheep – and who are people that really have something to contribute that can improve the quality of the debate …

    What’s to debate?

    Well, let’s see…not a single prediction of the CAGW pushers has come true…hasn’t even come close to coming true.

    Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the evidence against them keeps getting deeper and deeper and deeper and…

    I don’t have to know all the science to figure this one out. I just have to be a critical thinker.

    Let him whose prophesies come true be the real prophet. Do you see one anywhere? :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barrie

    Mark D.: This TF is what I call strongly correlated:
    http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/TempVsCO2.jpg

    This indicates that there is an 80% correlation between CO2 and global temperatures over the past 50 years. It doesn’t matter what Y axis scale you use the correlation still remains 80%.

    Now obviously this doesn’t “prove” that CO2 is driving global warming (if you believe half the comments on this site you’d say it was the other way round)! However, it sure doesn’t support the argument that CO2 doesn’t influence global temperatures. And, by the way, this graph is based on direct measurements taken in current conditions, rather than a set of proxies that are roughly related to temperature and CO2 levels from 100′s of millions of years ago when solar radiation and distribution of continental land masses were completely different to today and bear little relationship with today’s climatic system.

    If you want proof you have to start adding together all the factors that we know can influence climate including greenhouse gases, solar radiation, aerosols and volcanoes. This is where we get the dreaded “computer models” from. However, a simple example of how these factors add together to explain changes in temperature can be found here: http://home.alphalink.com.au/~jperkins/gwstats.htm. This shows that
    a) these 4 factors alone explain 81% of variation in global temperature over the past 130 years,
    b) CO2 is the factor that is most closely related to observed temperature changes over this period (i.e. has the greatest significance).

    Thus, this simple empirical model alone provides strong evidence that increasing CO2 resulting from fossil fuel burning is driving climate change.

    Cheers,

    Barrie


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ian

    RE: Barrie.

    Two simple arguments to refute your position.
    1. Of course CO2 and temperature are correlated. The greater the temp the more CO2. The question though is which came first? All the objective data i have seen shows CO2 lagging temperature change.
    2. There is absolutely no evidence (either in modern or geological times) to support the notion that there is an accelerative effect with CO2, ie more CO2 heats the planet which causes more CO2 etc. All evidence shows quite the contrary, ie our planet is self-buffering, ie more temperature causes more clouds which reflects solar radiation which cools etc. In fact it makes no sense that CO2 levels can be accelerative – there have been enough shocks to the system over the last 3 billion years that have all been buffered.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ian

    I find it very frustating that the debate has reduced to carbon tax or no-carbon tax, RATHER than being about climate change or no climate change. I really wish the opposition would have the courage to embrace the science that shows this thing to be giant fraud and fight it on that basis.

    Frankly their position is even worse – ‘direct action’ is even more catastrophic.

    Who (polical party) will be the first to stand up and fight for the truth? The truth though is politically incorrect.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barrie

    Re: Ian,

    Sorry, I should have explained better. The chart that I linked to was the correlation between CO2 and temperature for the past 50 years, not the past 500,000 years which is what you are referring to I think. I think that you would agree that CO2 has not in fact lagged the increase in global temperatures over the past 50 years and that it is not increasing as a result of increasing temperatures, but instead as a result of our burning fossil fuels. So the fact that there is an 80% correlation between the two is strong evidence that it is linked to global warming. Try checking the actual links next time.

    Regarding the your statement that “there is absolutely no evidence” of “an accelerative effect with CO2″ (sic.). I take it that by this you are referring to the well known feedback mechanisms in the climate system (to which, incidentally I did not refer in my post).

    In fact, it is common knowledge that warm water holds less CO2 than cold water, and further, that soils in hot dry environments tend to have lower organic matter than those in cool wet environments. Thus, as the temperature rises you could expect more CO2 to be released from oceans, melting Arctic tundra and expanding aid regions.

    Further, we know that warm air holds more water vapour (i.e. not cloud which is made up of liquid water) than cold air (which is why the air gets very dry when you turn the heater on in winter). As you know water vapour is also a greenhouse gas, so increasing amount of water vapour will itself drive up temperature further. This effect of increased warming due to the increase in water vapour as a result of initial warming due to increasing CO2 is an integral part of climate models. It has also been measured (see
    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html and
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BAMS_climate_assess_boulder_water_vapor_2002.gif

    Also this website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas gives the same graph as above with some useful explanation of the role of water vapour in global warming.

    Also I totally agree with you that direct action is a waste of money, that is, if it is not linked with a price on carbon!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JohnP

    “Damian Allen” One source doc: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report Synthesis Report p.37 “There is very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming,with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W/m2″. The confidence level cited is greater than 90% and to forestall your objection when the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as “settled”. Poorly understood aspects of climate change as there are do not change the fact that a great deal of climate science is well understood and understood well enough to act on. Or don’t you have fire insurance as you don’t have 100% absolute proof your house may be burnt down one day? If greater than 90% told you what an idiot you were would you deny this and what for the extra 10% to tell you?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    Insurance is not relevant. Precautionary crippling of the planet’s energy budget has a certainty of far worse consequences than any of the low-probability possible outcomes of warming. (Just as a wee example, desertification is correlated with cooling, not warming. The Sahel and the Sahara have been greening since the ’70s.)

    Would you sell your house to pay premiums on fire insurance for your house? If so, I REALLY want to be your insurance agent!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ian

    Reply to Barrie.

    At the risk of getting into a never ending debate. I would just like to say
    1. Data that is phase lagged will still correlate -its just the slope of the line that is different – particualry if you sample from a short time period. Therefore i stand by what i said.

    2. The statistical 4 variable liner model is so overly simplistic that frankly performing this type of analysis will generate any answer you want. Furthermore if a “skeptic” provided this type of nonsense i would outright reject it as well. Beware of mathematical models, you really need to know what you are doing. for the whole climtae change issue they add no value and are not even needed. If everyone would just look at the data – the issue would be far less emotive.

    3. The feedback mechanism is far from well established (or known) as you suggest and is in fact the great bone of contention in the whole debate. Data suggests it does not exist – models (some) predict it does. Your simplistic argument about the effect of water vapour convenietly excludes the “fact” that more water vapour in the atmosphere prodcues more clouds which in turn reflects more solar radiation.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barrie

    Reply to Ian,

    1) To suggest there is a “phase lag” in the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures over the past 50 years is to suggest that somehow the increase in temperatures over this period has been driving CO2 concentrations higher not vice versa. There is ample evidence to show that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions (the correlation between cumulative emissions and atmospheric CO2 is around 99.6% see http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mauna_loa_fossil_fuel_trend.html or http://home.alphalink.com.au/~jperkins/CO2EmAbConc.htm. Other evidence includes the C13 signature of atmospheric CO2 which is falling indicating that a increasing proportion of it is derived from fossil fuel combustion (i.e from plant remains which have a relatively low abundance of C13 cv C12).

    2) The four variable model is simplistic but it clearly shows that a) we can explain most of the variation in average global temperatures with a relatively small number of variables and b) CO2 is by far the most important of these especially for the past 50 years. This is crucial because sceptics often claim that i) temperature hasn’t increased in line with CO2 over the past 100 years and ii) other factors such as solar radiation or volcanic activity are more important. This simple model shows that temperature has increased consistently with rising CO2 and that the small variations observed over the past 130 years (e.g. the stabilisation of global temperatures between 1940 and 1970 is readily explained by these other factors). You are correct in implying that more complex climate models should do a better job. However, when a simple model works almost as well, I think we should not just dismiss it because it is well… simple.

    3) Plenty of sceptic sites cite the feedback effect of rising temperatures on CO2 emissions from the oceans (e.g. http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/CO2_atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.pdf, http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/25543.pdf, http://www.env01.net/global_warming/report/tenki01.pdf). The increase in the potential amount of water that can be held in air as it warms is well established and needs, I hope, no further explanation here. Increasing water vapour will only produce more cloud where the temperature falls sufficiently for the vapour to turn back into water droplets (actually ice crystals). Cloud cover can be expected to increase in some regions as temperature rises (e.g. over the oceans), but to decrease in others (e.g. over land masses). Further, clouds have both positive (i.e. increase temperature by absorbing reflected surface heat) and negative (decrease temperature by reflecting solar radiation) effects on the climate depending on their elevation and type. Thus, the feedback between clouds and temperature is extremely difficult to model – giving rise to much of the uncertainty in predictions. Despite this, the most recent climate models now include clouds (http://www2.ucar.edu/staffnotes/research/549/climate-models-and-clouds, http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/cmmap/cmmap_portal.html, http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/cmmap/cmmap_portal.html). The net result, is that while clouds are very important on a local level, they do not effect the main conclusion that increasing CO2 emissions cause global warming.

    Cheers,

    Barrie


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Michael Green

    Jo,

    We had a look at the “Gillard” [twitter, blogs, news] discussion (topics & quantity) over the last year – good read!

    http://igo2group.com.au/blog/one-year-of-julia-gillard-how-the-conversation-has-changed/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Colin Davidson

    Our democracy is under threat.

    The Parliament, elected on the promise of no Carbon Tax, has decided to flout the people’s wishes which were very clearly expressed at the election. The opinion polls show that overwhelmingly the majority are still opposed to this tax.

    Nevertheless the Parliament is going to proceed. Let us suppose that the Bill succeeds and passes through both houses.

    Will the Governor General do her job, and ensure the primacy of the people over parliament? Or will she act as a political cipher?

    If she acts to uphold our democracy, she will refuse Royal Assent until the people ratify the Bill at an election.

    If she is part of this undemocratic process, she will do the easy thing, the thing which is best for her family and for the governing elite – sign the bill with a flourish. And drive a stake through the Australian Constitution.


    Report this

    00