JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

Skeptoid – like a skeptic but not quite

Here’s a new sign of the times.

Almost no one has gone from skeptic to believer on global warming. The conversion flow is nearly all one-way traffic. But on the Skeptoid site, author Craig Good is a “convert” of a sort, and I have to give him credit for writing the most sensible advice yet for believers of man-made global warming (see below).

But before anyone gets too excited, the two key questions here are: how much of a skeptic was he, and what did it take to change his mind? Answer, not much and not much.

This is not a big believer-awakening-moment of the Mark Lynas type, or another Judith Curry sort of conversion. Both of those were active, involved and outspoken in the climate debate.  Craig Good’s entire skeptical position can be summed up in a few paragraphs, so yes, he qualifies as a skeptic, of the gut-hunch-it’s-wrong-but-haven’t-read-a-single-skeptical-paper-type skeptic.

If there are grades of skeptic from 1 to 10, he was only a 2.

So here’s the flash of insight, that’s never been seen before from alarmist circles

This is great stuff (if blindingly obvious):

To my friends on the Left: Do you want to convince more skeptics? I mean really? Is the truth more important than your politics? Great. I have some suggestions.

Stop calling people “deniers”. That’s very clearly a slap in the face, designed to link skeptics to holocaust deniers. Maybe it plays well with the base, but you’ll make no friends nor influence people with that kind of disrespect. Don’t poison the well.

Stop calling it “climate change”. That’s a weasel-worded political phrase that dances around the real issue. It looks stupid. Of course the climate is changing. It always has! If the problem isn’t human-caused warming, there isn’t a problem. So call it what it is: anthropogenic global warming.

Stop blaming every unusual weather event on global warming. “We blame global warming” has become a joke on the Right, and for good reason. Scientists need to do a better job explaining why a global average temperature change so small that nobody could feel the difference (how about I warm your room up a half a degree and see if you can tell?) can change weather patterns in a way that some places might actually get colder and some weather may get more intense – sometimes. But blaming every heat wave, hurricane, tornado and earthquake on global warming only confuses the issue. It’s hard enough for most people to understand the difference between climate and weather.

So what was his epiphany?

He watched a Dr. Gleick who was polite, and then read things on skepticalscience.

Did he read any criticisms of not-so-skepticalscience?  It doesn’t seem so.

To my friends on the Right: Are you willing to follow the data? Good, because if nothing can convince you to change your mind, your mind is closed.

Exactly. Follow the data. What data though? You mean the raw numbers that the CRU team lost, or the data Michael Mann  hides, or do you just mean the “data” on meaningless things like the number of climate scientists who tick “yes” on a 2 minute internet survey? (And since we are asking, what do you mean friends on the Right? I thought this was a science question?)

Perhaps it’s Freudian?

As for following  the data. Yes, “let’s”.

As I keep saying, 28 million weather balloons, 6000 boreholes, 3000 argo buoys, then there’s the mystery of the missing heat energy which is not stored in the oceans and 30 years of satellites, not to mention 65 million years of climate information. They all point to the same conclusion — that CO2′s effect is minor.

“Look at the data. That skepticalscience.com site is a good resource. Forgive them for including four economic/political questions (which can’t be addressed by science) and look at the other 160 or so. What you’ll find is that there are multiple lines of data all converging on one conclusion: The net effect of our increased CO2 output is accelerated warming of the planet. It would be beyond the scope of this blog post to address every one of your very legitimate questions. Let them do it.”

We don’t need 200 papers, we need the critical results that validate the models most important assumptions in the long run.

SkepticalScience do put up a good job of it, really, especially when you consider how little real evidence is going their way. But with $30 billion dollars (and the rest) funding many teams of researchers to find a connection between CO2 and the climate, there are a lot of papers to list: irrelevant ones, poor quality ones, ones that deceive, and ones that review all those irrelevant, poor quality, and deceptive papers, and pretend they’ve come to a new conclusion. We don’t need 200 papers, we need the critical results that validate the model’s most important assumptions in the long run.

The best way to quickly understand this debate is to read the Skeptics Handbook, then read the Skepticalscience belated attempt to knock it down, and then read my reply: The Unskeptical Guide to the Skeptics Handbook.

Craig, you are not a true skeptic until you looked at both sides of the story.


——————————————–

Note the Skeptoid site, founder Brian Dunning writes that he was inspired by his experience popping up as a skeptical soul on sites where people didn’t welcome his point of view, and in response to his comments they replied:

Warning: skeptoid alert!

and

Another debunkatron rears its ugly head.

Brian writes that “their only response was to make up patronizing and dismissive nicknames for me shows that their true interest is certainly not open discussion. In fact, the next time I tried to log in, I found that my account had been banned.”

Banned and called names eh? Well well. I’d say welcome to the club “denier”, except that only some skeptics are real skeptics.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.8/10 (4 votes cast)
Skeptoid – like a skeptic but not quite, 7.8 out of 10 based on 4 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/3wx3ov4

1 comment to Skeptoid – like a skeptic but not quite

  • #

    I think you being far too kind to Mr Good.
    What evidence that he ever was any kind of skeptic?

    Maybe he likes John Cook’s site because both are in the cartoon business.

    00

  • #
    pat

    MSM also need to stop misleading the public. argue for or against AGW or CAGW, but drop the nonsense of “climate change” which every human being knows has happened, is happening and will continue to happen. as for “climate change deniers” or worse “climate deniers”, please MSM, there’s still time to save face by refusing to carry such idiotic phrases.

    now the big news:

    ClimateAudit: ICO Orders UEA to Produce CRUTEM Station Data
    Since the story started at CA, Andrew Montford and Prof Jones decided that news of the decision should also be broken here. I anticipate that Bishop Hill will also cover the story…
    http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/27/ico-orders-uea-to-produce-crutem-station-data/

    WUWT: BREAKING: ICO Orders UEA to Produce CRUTEM Station Data
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/27/breaking-ico-orders-uea-to-produce-crutem-station-data/

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Hmm, I’m a sceptic yet I accept anthropomorphic global warming as fact, as apparently do Prof Lindzen and Dr Spencer. On the basis of their papers (and my own bootleg analysis using the CET with this paper) the scale of global warming on a 1-10 would also be a 2, as befits 2XCO2 values of 0.5-0.7 C. Not remotely catastrophic.

    Unfortunately the ideologues never like to consider ‘how much warming’, they all seem to want to run around screaming that the seas will drown us all (or our real estate), and we’re all going to fry for our CO2-emitting sins. We’re not.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I have to laugh, because John Cook (our mate from unSkepticalScience) is trying oh so hard to convince us at the SMH:

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/half-the-truth-on-emissions-20110627-1gne1.html

    Laughably he starts off criticising Bob Carter for telling alledged misleading half-truths and then immediately goes on to cherry-pick a whole lot of his own, for example:

    1) Cites upper troposphere cooling as a sign of AGW but ignores the lack of a hot spot;
    2) Talks about Arctic ice loss but ignores Antarctic ice gain;
    3) Talks about the last decade having the hottest years on thermometer records (only if you believe GISS of course), but neglects to note that the rate of warming obviously stalled after the 1998 El
    Nino… and so on.

    I could cite more obvious errors and half truths, but you get the gist. John Cook, you are as disingenuous as anyone out there.

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    So maybe he should chuck a critical glance over the “pop phenomena” of global warming?

    00

  • #

    It’s weather, not climate anyway…

    00

  • #
  • #

    Jo says:

    To my friends on the Left: I mean really? Is the truth more important than your politics?

    Well if my friend Vic Train driver and Unionist Peter Laux and his friend Denis G Rancourt are any indication, the answer to your question is a definite YES. See LINK

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    I have not read the Skeptoid article. But y’know, on first reading Craig Good’s four questions, in the extracts, my immediate thought was, “Very cleverly worded – very subtle”.

    It reads as propaganda – skeptic propaganda:

    Is the truth more important than your politics?

    Translation: the politics gets in the way of the truth.

    Maybe it [linking skeptics to holocaust deniers] plays well with the base, but you’ll make no friends nor influence people with that kind of disrespect. Don’t poison the well.

    Translation: You can make friends with warmists, and have a decent debate, without the risk of being be ostracised.

    Stop calling it “climate change”. That’s a weasel-worded political phrase that dances around the real issue. It looks stupid. Of course the climate is changing. It always has! If the problem isn’t human-caused warming, there isn’t a problem. So call it what it is: anthropogenic global warming.

    Translation: When it gets colder, everybody will understand that it is not real, and cannot be defended.

    Stop blaming every unusual weather event on global warming. “We blame global warming” has become a joke on the Right, and for good reason.

    Translation: The hand has been overplayed, and the tide has turned, and people are starting to see that there is no real evidence.

    From the evidence in just these extracts, he may not be as alarmist as he makes out to be.

    00

  • #
    Alice Thermopolis

    POLITICS & TRUTH

    When the post-mortems are written about the demise of the ALP, our first female PM and her “crash-or-crash-through” carbon (dioxide “price” debacle, some folk will make this point.

    Had she opted for an Environmental Levy (EL) instead of a carbon (dioxide) tax, ETS and Garnaut’s Carbon Bank, etc, – as an additional (say 2.5%) GST – the public might have accepted it, albeit grudgingly, as it did the GST.

    However, seduced by the UN’s “saving-the-planet”/”stabilising the climate” grand narratives, etc, and forced to embrace the Greens to stay in power, the ALP made what will turn out to be a fatal strategic error: it attempted to merge the two issues by using alarmist “carbon pollution” and AGW propaganda as the bridge between them – in a desperate attempt to enhance its environmental “credentials”.

    Magna est veritas, et praevalebit.

    Alice (in Warmerland)

    00

  • #
    Bruce

    Sorry if this is off topic, but it looks fishy……….

    I noticed this poll in The Age. Referenced in Jo’s previous post. I checked it last night and again this morning. The votes were approx 76% against the carbon tax and 24 % for. The line at the bottom said poll closing in 10 hrs.
    Just checked 5 min ago and the vote is now 53% against the carbon tax and 47% for with the poll now closing in 18 hrs. Hmmm. What do you think?

    http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/an-inconvenient-fallacy-20110626-1glmu.html#poll

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    Bruce:
    June 28th, 2011 at 6:03 pm Comment 11

    I guess GetUp etc asked their members to vote early and vote often.

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Bruce # 11

    Those polls can be voted on multiple times by the same person. Nothing to stop an organised effort to skew the results.

    00

  • #
    Dave

    This post seems to imply that we now need to specify our level of scepticism so that the level of acceptance of any comments can be determined. I would have thought that any sort of reasoned scepticism was preferable to some form of extreme scepticism.

    In general, I thought the article was reasonable and balanced. While I might not have the education and skills to successfully debate a particular point, it doesn’t mean the topic isn’t still on the nose.

    In the AGW, Climate change, Carbon (dioxide)pollution hysteria/discussion there is a leap of faith which links all of these. It is this that makes the Greens so evangelical and Labor and Liberal have also joined, to different degrees, this new religion.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    The acid test for the blog will be whether debate is stifled like “Real”Climate.

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    “They all point to the same conclusion — that CO2′s effect is minor.”
    Ammo ammo ! Jo, Id say irrelevant, non existent.
    Sorry I’m with Gerlich et al. You cant fake the physical laws.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Damian Allen

    One more poll…..

    Poll: Do you think tackling climate change should be a priority for Australia?

    YET ANOTHER POLL TO VOTE IN !!

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/cool-heads-needed-for-climate-talk-20110627-1gnfj.html#poll

    ANYBODY WITH MORE THAN ONE BRAIN CELL WOULD VOTE “NO”…………

    00

  • #
    Winston

    What we are witnessing is a multi pronged concerted MSM propaganda war by the alarmist mafia to try and persuade the hearts and minds of the uncommitted dilettantes to the AGW meme. This warmest in sheep’s (skeptic’s) clothing is just another brick in the wall trying to marginalise and outflank us in the debate. When hysteria and scare tactics don’t work, linking us to Nazism and genocide is ineffective, then pretend to have considered the skeptic arguments and then been persuaded from the dark side into the light of warmism! We really need to watch our backs, these guys are most dangerous when they’re cornered! Don’t make any sudden moves and don’t make eye contact, they can strike without warning. They are sneaky, disreputable and totally without shame or conscience. They want your money, they want your mind and they want your total and abject subjugation to their every whim.

    00

  • #
    Winston

    Warmist not warmest in sheep’s clothing. Sorry, that darn autocorrect again. Obviously a Labour party ploy to discredit me! Not that I believe in conspiracy theories! It’s when they become conspiracy laws that you’ve got to worry.

    00

  • #
    brc

    OK but I have one question for the serious amongst us : the one thing I am hearing more than anything else is the ‘outgoing radiation argument’. Usually this is made-up rubbish (one person tried to post that 40 years of satellite data proved it right- when the satellites weren’t even launched until the mid-90′s).

    However, I’d like to understand this issue better. Can Jo or anyone else explain this one to me? Do we know what causes satellites to record infrared at the expected wavelengths for co2 absorption? Is it just another ‘well, der’ measurement like melting glaciers?

    My thoughts were that if the earth is warming (from whatever means) then of course radiation is going to increase, but I suspect my understanding is incomplete and incorrect on that one. So if anyone can explain what the outgoing infrared satellite measurement data is, and how it adds/detracts/makes no difference to the ‘co2 is causing catastrophic warming’ hypothesis.

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    The measure of a scientists success is how many books he has published and not if the science is correct. Now these published books are used as references that anything that disagrees is incorrect.

    Listened to a physicist the other night on the understanding of energy and why the science LAWS are correct, yet somewhat confusing.

    Many things were missed that gives a bad conclusion when not ALL the parameters have been thought out and calculations were missed.
    Compression was never included as we live in a pressurized planet, friction with molecular particles was not included, speeds of motion were not included, planetary circular motion was not included, nor the forward momentum of our solar system.

    This is why we have a hard time understanding what gravity actually is if science does not include motion.

    00

  • #
    Raven

    if you’ve not seen this and need to purge check out the hypocritical display below from some of Australia’s top scientists ? Looks like these people have no shame . Suppress dissent at all costs ! What on earth could they have to hide ?

    http://www.news.com.au/national/academics-call-for-lord-christopher-monckton-lecture/story-e6frfkvr-1226083679841

    00

  • #
    Bruce

    To bananabender & Imwd,

    Thanks for your replies. I thought I smelt GetUp involvement :-)

    00

  • #
    ImranCan

    Kind of sad that he’s moving the wrong way at the wrong time. Not a sign of superior intelligence … unless its massively superior.

    We’ll see.

    00

  • #
    DougS

    JN:

    “Almost no one has gone from skeptic to believer on global warming…”

    I can only think of David Attenborough.

    I don’t think that he was persuaded by the ‘science’ – more like:

    ‘If you want to work for the (unspeakable) BBC again – you’d better get on message’

    Once he ‘saw the light’ – hey presto – lots of nice commissions from the BBC.

    The message is: ‘Get with the programme or you’ll meet the same fate as David Bellamy’.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Scientists need to do a better job explaining why a global average temperature change so small that nobody could feel the difference (how about I warm your room up a half a degree and see if you can tell?) can change weather patterns in a way that some places might actually get colder and some weather may get more intense – sometimes.

    You should see the rusty blades that come out in our office when someone fiddles the air conditioner settings. It’s amazing what people will do for half a degree.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Yup, I screwed up the quote formatting.

    00

  • #
    DougS

    Damian Allen:
    June 28th, 2011 at 7:23 pm

    “One more poll…….”

    “…Poll: Do you think tackling climate change should be a priority for Australia?…”

    “…ANYBODY WITH MORE THAN ONE BRAIN CELL WOULD VOTE “NO”……………”

    I disagree Damian – voting no is a complete no-brainer!

    00

  • #
    old44

    To my friends on the Right:
    What an interesting little revelation that is. Does he mean that everyone who believes in AGW is of the left?

    00

  • #
    ramspace

    Using different browsers, I was able to vote several times here–

    http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/an-inconvenient-fallacy-20110626-1glmu.html#poll

    Not that I was able to skew the pro-warming results; there are, after all, some 18000 votes in! Come on, everyone. . . .

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    @Dave: #14
    “This post seems to imply that we now need to specify our level of scepticism”

    Not at all Dave, any scepticism, in any degree, and any form is healthy around here.
    We have, Science Skeptics, Economic Skeptics, Political Skeptics and (Guys that have been around long enough to know it’s all a Scam) Plain Old Skeptics.

    I agree with you on the balance of the article – It might even have been a ‘clever’ skeptic, performing a bit of Black Green Magic.

    Stick around Dave – It’s nice to have a balance.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Rave # 23

    For those that are interested, the age and smh use cookies to detect whether you have voted. So if you have a browser that automatically deletes cookies you can just keep on voting. It would take a savvy professional minutes to setup an automatic YES or NO voter.
    Hey Boss, how many YESs did you say you wanted?

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    My Scientific Ignorance:
    .

    OK Guys, I am going to admit my total ignorance here and ask for some enlightened help.

    I watched a program the other day that was about underwater volcanoes.

    Today I read a blog, and an obvious ‘Greenie’ was going on about methane bubbling out of the sea in the Arctic. (End of the World scenario)
    .

    So having put 2 + 2 toghether in my mind and made 5, I ask, in total ignorance, the following:

    1.) Do Underwater Volcano erruptions emit Methane ?
    2.) Could Underwater Volcanic erruptions cause ocean temperature increases. ?
    3.) Can the Oceans, absorb and release Methane like they do with CO2. ?
    .

    Pardon my lack of scientific knowledge, I tend to concentrate on the econometrics of our argument, but I would really like to get a grip on what happens on the science side.

    00

  • #
    Len

    On page10 of Monday’s West Australian it has a headline: Monckton sorry for Garnaut Hitler Gibe Canberra Climate Change denier Christopher Monckton has apologized etc. All people believe in climate change but not, as Jo puts it, in Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    True News #34
    I can answer one questions, CO2 is water soluble. It forms carbonic acid or H2CO3. H2CO3 is not real stable and when you warm the water out comes the CO2.
    Distilled water exposed to the atmosphere almost immediately becomes acidic due to H2CO3 (CO2 absorption).
    Solubility coefficients (Volume of gas dissolved in each volume of water @ 37°C):
    Oxygen 0.024
    Carbon dioxide 0.57
    Nitrogen 0.012
    Helium 0.008

    My guess is (because I cant find it) that methane is similar to Nitrogen. i.e. close to insoluble.
    So if methane is bubbling up from the ocean it is not because it has been dissolved in the water.

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    @incoherent rambler: #36

    Thanks Inco

    The info will help with my ‘Home Brew’ as well – BONUS :)

    00

  • #
    grayman

    Damian Allen @ 18, I only have a few brain cells left, but i can spare one for a no vote.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    …how about I warm your room up a half a degree and see if you can tell?

    I guess I won’t panic just yet. .5C again, about 0.9F. Someone tell him that my thermostat has a larger difference than that between where it comes on and where it goes off again (by about twice — throw hysteresis at him and see what he does). I’m quite comfortable over all that range. Yearly variation has always been greater than .5C.

    I’d laugh but I just can’t do it to a bunch of lost kittens. They need their mamas.

    This guy isn’t 2 out of 10 on the skeptic scale. He’s just a pusher with a soft voice.

    00

  • #
    Bernal

    Hey Raven@23

    You Ozzies are such babies. Our lefties in the States have been doing this sort of thing since Alinsky wrote the book on how to deal with those who don’t agree with Leftist Doctrine. Not pretty. Not your fault, how could you know.

    Ask Mark Lynas who strayed off the reservation, even to the point of citing He Who Shall Not Be Named (Steve McIntyre)in his criticism of the paper on…oh yeah, if we all blow on the windmills at the same time maybe we can read in bed for 5 minutes until the pig tail light bulb goes to sleep. Oh yeah, I mean, like, renewables are like totally, man, able to provide all our energy needs by ’55. (Especially if we manage to kill half the human race like we really want to do).

    And yes, @Old44, all believers in CAGW (or as I like to call it Catastrophic Anthropogenic Hot/Cold Wet/Dry) are of the left. Mind you, few would deny that the Earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age, how much is the question. Few would deny that CO2 should cause some heat to remain in Earth’s atmosphere, how much is the question.

    Leftists seek power. The need to freaking control the Earth’s atmosphere is absolute power. In fact, the power of life and death. Because, windmills or not, the only solution to the problem is less people (and more Soylent Green). Vote with your feet, haters of the human race, hate yourself first.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Hurry up people vote in this poll in the leftist rag known as “The Age” !

    http://www.theage.com.au/polls/opinion/politics/climate-concerns-20110627-1gmft.html#poll

    Stick it to the Gaia worshippers !

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    O/T
    Graham Readfearn is at it again over at the drum

    Climate sceptics, deniers, contrarians – call them what you like – are engaged in a fight for column inches, radio waves, TV talk-time and community sentiment.

    In Australia, the issue has turned decidedly unsavoury, with climate scientists revealing inboxes chock-full of hate and Government advisors being slurred as Nazis.

    But as a memo from US Republican communications guru Frank Luntz revealed in 2003, the most important aspect of climate change denial is not to throw hate, but to sow doubt.

    Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.

    Doubt is the product of the climate change denial industry – an industry which is tightly knit, well resourced and globally linked.

    All those well worn often repeated smears again, ( hate mail, nazis slurs, well financed and globally linked)

    Bad enougth that a talk back host hung up on me this morning, when I tried to point out that there are more than a hand full of skeptical scientist. He has been informed several times of the petition project but cut me off rather than have me publicise it.

    Then to come home and find Readfearn given more column space has really toped of a bad morning.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I made a point of reading Craig Good’s piece this morning, and I am undecided whether he is best described as:

    1) a lightweight in the scientific debate; or
    2) a sockpuppet promoting (un)SkepticalScience (uSS).

    Perhaps both.

    If he read the SMH piece I linked in post 4 by his hero John Cook, then he might have a very different opinion of uSS than portrayed in that article in which he praises them repeatedly.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Jo.

    In a who’s who of (Climate sceptics, deniers, contrarians, his words not mine)that Readfearn badmouths, he seems to have missed you. I dont know whether you should be pleased or disapointed.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Tony “WINDBAG” windsor is a HYPOCRITE !

    The federal MP, who has conducted a long-running and highly vocal campaign against coal mining on the Liverpool Plains, sold the family farm for more than $4.6 million – to one of Australia’s largest coal companies!!!

    MORE:-

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

    00

  • #
    pat

    Raven -
    where was the outrage from the academics etc when….

    11 March: ABC: Abbott’s tax strategy likened to Nazi propaganda
    In an opinion piece today, Labor MP Mark Dreyfus described Mr Abbott’s so-called “truth campaign” on carbon as Goebbellian.
    The term takes its name from the Nazi Germany’s propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels.
    Mr Abbott says the comparison is strange, especially after the Government last week accused the Coalition of making offensive comparisons…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/11/3161975.htm?section=justin

    at least Dreyfus knows the temperature won’t drop…

    29 June: Bolt Blog: Dreyfus: no cut in temperature under our tax
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/dreyfuss_confirms_zero_gain_from_our_pain/P20/

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Carubas article on http://climateconference.heartland.org/
    Real science conference which will be ignored by the media.
    http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2011/06/first-ignored-then-attacked-6th.html
    “Funeral ceremonies for “global warming” will follow with the mourners all wearing green.” Great!

    00

  • #
    debbie

    Just noticed that Poll has started to tip in favour of it being a high priority to tackle climate change.
    Absolutely no doubt that the Govt will wave it around incessantly if it doesn’t tip back the other way.
    Only 3 hours left.

    http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/an-inconvenient-fallacy-20110626-1glmu.html#poll

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    Bernal @ 40.

    Love your interpretation of CAGW but refining it slightly would make a great label to tack on the “believers”. It has the advantage that the original AGW hypothesis has already morphed into this!

    The ultimate, universal, one size fits all alarmist catch-cry -CAGW:

    Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Weather –

    hot/cold, melts/freezes, wet/dry, floods/droughts etc.,etc.

    Re The Age poll. I always test these types of polls by trying to double vote. If one can, I just ignore the poll and dismiss any results because they obviously have no validity whatsoever.

    An interesting result would be if they had a means of counting how many people on both sides voted more than once but there’s no way the rabidly Left-wing “Age” with their small diminishing readership would do that if the face result favoured their agenda!

    00

  • #

    I see some folks like Roy have come to the same conclusion I have. Craig Good never was any kind of skeptic. His blog post is a masterful piece of warmist disinformation.
    The “lets be reasonable” approach. He was “convinced” by listening to Gleick who makes a living pushing enviro propaganda and thinks John Cook is any kind of definitive information source. Oh please!

    00

  • #
    Raven

    To all and sundry@@@ ..my point is well demonstrated in media follow ups , a carbon dioxide tax is needed for Australia’s financial stability , one only need listen to the twaddle dribbling out of the talking NAB head !
    Article after article , yet when a republican wades in to tell us they tried, it failed ! (Jim Sensenbrenner ) talking about the failure of cap and trade in the US. Not only is such an important viewpoint all but ignored by the mainstream press. We are then told it’s just going to be harder for us to accept , we need to have it sold to us better . If it wasn’t for Murdoch press these traitors would have us sold down the river before you could say GLOBAL WARMING SCAM !!!

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Mike @ 50

    I think you might be onto it. It’s almost if the warmist side has decided “collectively” to try to soften up the sceptics by being abit “nicer” to them. I’m not sure what the next step in the plan is.
    In the UK you have Leo Hickman ( the uber Green journalist for the Guardian ) talking about “peace talks” on the Bishop Hill site.
    The Age then invites Bob Carter to do an op.ed.
    Then you have this guy putting head above the parapit. I’m not sure if Lynas is part of the collective.George Monbiot seems to be very quiet lately ( except for his push for nuclear power a month or so ago)

    00

  • #
    dlb

    brc @21

    John Cook of Skept. Sc. is always banging on about how AGW is proven by outgoing IR measuremnts of satellites. Is there any truth in this?,is it overstated? As yet I haven’t had time to look at the evidence or implications and I’m certainly not going to take Cook for his word. I too wonder if anyone has checked this claim out?

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Debbie @ 48 and others. The poll result probably will be flashed around by the Age and others but it’s bogus –I’ve voted on it several times ( just to test their system ) from the same computer not changing anything and it appears each vote was counted. So as said by others above it would have been easy for the Getup crowd and others to influence it.

    00

  • #

    dlb and brc:

    I’ve seen this claim too. I think the measurement is extraordinarily difficult. I’m sure there is a CO2 absorption band at around 15 microns but water also absorbs there(there’s overlap) and you are trying to measure the integrated total radiation to see what the planet is radiating not just what is being absorbed in the atmosphere. As the polar orbiting satellite passes over any point this will change with the nature of the surface (annual and land use changes) the amount of water in the atmosphere both in vapour form and clouds and will require a lot of averaging to get any kind of meaningful result. Even if we’ve been doing this for decades it won’t be from the same satellite or sensors and I’d worry about sensor calibration and drift, orbital drift etc. Sounds very difficult to me to compare over decades.
    Does anybody have the URL of any paper on this that Cook refers to?

    Another problem occurs to me – if CO2 is responsible for stratospheric cooling (where there isn’t much water but I would worry about solar UV variability – it is the solar UV that causes the stratosphere) surely the heat went out to space as radiation? So how does it happen there is less outgoing radiation at the TOA?

    00

  • #

    Further to the above: Increased absorption around 15 microns only means there’s more CO2. We already know that.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    OT a little but i thought i would share.

    On another blog http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2011/06/monkton_on_the_lose_again.php#c4259304 a poster stated (post 11)

    “How do you respond to the observation in this figure that there appears to be no correlation between CO2 and temperature changes?”

    Link to figure

    http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale_op_712x534.jpg

    Now to me this seems like a legitimate question to pose when one is new to this circus we call debating AGW and i would have thought it would warrant a fairly detailed response. However this is what transpired next.

    Post 12

    “seamus

    Who says there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature in the graph you provided?

    The answer to your question has been provided thousands of times, and is so simple. CO2 is not the only driver of climate, and no-one has ever claimed it is. You have to consider other drivers – such as TSI, oceanic transport, orbital factors, etc, etc. If you remove those factors from your figures, you will find an excellent correlation between CO2 and temperature.

    That is the point – the influence of all those other drivers is absent from current warming. All that is left is atmospheric chemistry.”

    Reminder: The figure first presented covers 4,600 million years (precambrian to present)

    So we have an interested poster (possibly skeptic) being face palmed by a warmbot using nothing but faith and they wonder why they are a dying breed.

    00

  • #
    janama

    OT – noticed this the other day – It’s a Storage Shed complex with 54 solar panels on the roof!! That’s a 10kW system capable of generating 60kWh per day. It can make $36/day @60c per kW or approx $3,240 per quarter or $12,960 per year!

    http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/roof_1.jpg

    00

  • #
    pat

    first the MSM fell for this one:

    26 June: Herald Sun: Samantha Maiden: 7 million homes to get carbon tax relief
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/million-homes-to-get-carbon-tax-relief/story-fn7x8me2-1226082025104

    then two days later we had the following, tho the new explanation is incoherent. in fact, on Bing i couldn’t even find the backpedalling story, then when i did find a group of results on Google news and clicked to expand the results, i got all kinds of stories, but not the backpedalling one, so picked the SMH one from the general results. note MSM sees this as a slip-up, not a lie!

    btw, when i linked to the SMH piece, for the first time i can recall, a Ten News video, captioned “Abbott takes lead in polls” with Paul Bongiorno started automatically, beginning with Abbott was among “friends” in the mining industry on the weekend (the inference being this was a negative), and finishing with an ACTU leader (not named) saying u can’t trust Abbott. what the hell is the MSM up to, given the great majority of the public (their readers, viewers, listeners) are firmly AGAINST any tax on carbon dioxide:

    28 June: SMH: Gillard slips up on carbon compensation
    Prime Minister Julia Gillard has been forced to backpedal from a promise that 7 million Australian households won’t be worse off under Labor’s carbon tax.
    Ms Gillard today told ABC Television that “7 million Australian households won’t see a cent lost through carbon pricing”.
    But when asked about that pledge her office was quick to clarify.
    A spokesman said that Ms Gillard meant to say that of the nine out of 10 households to receive assistance, the “vast majority” wouldn’t be out of pocket…
    Meanwhile, Labor climate change adviser Ross Garnaut has warned the multi-party climate change committee, which met again on Tuesday morning, not to set too low a starting price.
    He says if it does Australia will suffer “another dislocation, another big adjustment” if the domestic price is linked to international trading schemes in mid-2015…
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/gillard-slips-up-on-carbon-compensation-20110628-1gohd.html

    the abovementioned “multi-party committee of course has no Coalition members, but it always sounds as if it has, doesn’t it?

    who else shall need compensation?

    29 June: Daily Telegraph: Gemma Jones: Sick to get compensation for carbon tax
    THE government has conceded it will have to compensate about 110,000 people who rely on electricity to power life-saving medical equipment.
    Admitting those people would be hit harder under the carbon tax, the government yesterday said they would receive extra compensation.
    People using devices such as dialysis machines, oxygen concentrators, insulin pumps or an external heart pump will get an annual cash payment covering the full average electricity bill increase caused by the carbon tax.
    It came as Prime Minister Julia Gillard slipped up yesterday, wrongly claiming seven million families in line for carbon tax compensation would be no worse off.
    But Treasurer Wayne Swan obviously did not get the memo and went on to make the same mistake, at first saying “seven million households won’t be out of pocket a cent”.
    His statement was reissued to read “seven million households will get financial help and the vast majority of those won’t be out of pocket”.
    The payment to those using medical equipment will be on top of compensation announced at the weekend to provide tax cuts and welfare payments to families earning up to $128,000 and three million households on low incomes will get a 20 per cent buffer above the impact of the tax.
    It is not yet known what the average price rise for power will be under the carbon tax…
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/sick-to-get-compensation-for-carbon-tax/story-e6freuzr-1226083785961

    and who else is getting compensated? all those dreadful polluters?

    29 June: Australian: James Massola: Climate compromise as Labor seeks a deal
    The multi-party climate change committee will meet again today to continue negotiations on the carbon tax…
    The Australian reports it’s understood the government has signalled it is prepared to move on support for renewable energy and energy-efficiency measures. But Labor is holding firm on compensating emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries and coal-fired power generators, and offering assistance to the coal industry…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/capital-circle/climate-compromise-as-labor-seeks-a-deal/story-fn59nqgy-1226083888883

    to describe all the above as madness, is an understatement.

    00

  • #
    Raven

    Pat@59
    These poor deluded fools (politicians and propaganda spooks ) think they won’t be held accountable .
    Anyone who is a true believer in democracy will roast these vultures alive at every opportunity !
    There is more support aimed at bringing this dangerous govt to heel than most might think , the real heavyweights have not yet joined the battle ! , when they do watch the red tide turn ,” put em back under the bed” should be the new incoming government motto ….

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    POLL: Do you believe that man’s activities are affecting the world’s climate?

    Here we go again !

    http://www.smh.com.au/polls/environment/climate-change-20110602-1fhrt.html#poll

    Again the obvious answer is “NO” !

    00

  • #
  • #
    Damian Allen

    Ode To The Communist Bob Brown…….

    BROWN TOWN

    Ray Hadley reworks a Petula Clark classic in honour of Greens leader Bob Brown, whose latest views are instructive:

    The mining boom is creating massive problems for other parts of the Australian economy.

    All that money. All that progress. Such a massive problem.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/brown_town

    00

  • #
    janama

    Bob Malloy: @ 42 – same old ABC Drum technique – if you reply pointing out that Heartland hasn’t has Exxon funding since 2006 and the last donation from Koch brothers and the oil and banking family the Scaifes was back in 1995 you just don’t get published. They’ve updated the replies twice since I posted!

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    janama:

    Bob Malloy: @ 42 – same old ABC Drum technique – if you reply pointing out that Heartland hasn’t has Exxon funding since 2006 and the last donation from Koch brothers and the oil and banking family the Scaifes was back in 1995 you just don’t get published. They’ve updated the replies twice since I posted!

    You know how it is, you can’t let the truth get in the way of a good piece of propadanda

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Pat in 59,

    What you need to understand is the CC commission are nowhere near agreement in fact one might say it is a rabble, when Labor put ideas out there it is a way to put pressure on the Greens which is why they respond with words like “this announcement is premature……”. I would have to say the current state of play is that the Greens want a much higher carbon dioxide ton than Labor are prepared to charge as they have one eye on the next election.

    As a compromise to a lower tonnage price the Greens want a higher minerals tax hence the Bob Brown announcement, Gillard does not want this as it would mean locking horns with the miners which she has already backed down once, so we have this stalemate in the negotiations, each side announcing in a sly way what they want.

    Another problem for labor is the more they compensate the higher the tonnage price, but the higher the tonnage price the quicker our economy goes down the tubes. What this latest round of ineptitude shows us is the government is all but a rabble, one wonders how much damage they will cause until we can kick them out.

    00

  • #
    janama

    Well Bob – they’ve just updated to 77 comments, mine is not amongst them.

    00

  • #
    janama

    here’s the link I offered which offers all years of Heartland funding.

    http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Heartland_Institute/funders

    try going back year by year and you’ll find that Exxon’s last contribution to Heartland was in 2006 – BEFORE they started the conferences, and Koch brothers and the Scaifes was back in 1995.

    Yet Readfearn states:

    The conferences, which started in 2008, have been organised and sponsored by the Heartland Institute – a free-market think tank which has been heavily funded by fossil fuel companies including Exxon, the oil and gas billionaires the Koch brothers and the oil and banking family the Scaifes.

    The ABC is a disgrace!

    00

  • #
  • #
    KeithH

    Potential good news from Bob Brown out of his address to the Press Club today, saying the Greens would block any attempt by Tony Abbott and the Coalition to repeal a carbon tax

    It seems to me that if the L/NP are elected with that promise as part of their policy, rejection by the Senate would provide the ideal trigger for a double dissolution and a great opportunity to get rid of the strangling Green influence for many years.

    Hopefully too much damage would not have been done to Australia by 2013 and what had been done could be unwound with minimum drama.

    00

  • #

    DougS @26,
    Yes indeed:
    The contrast between David Attenborough and the previously popular David Bellamy, whom has since been rejected by the BBC is rather sad. Bellamy was a popular environmental scientist that changed sides to sceptical concerning CAGW. Attenborough more recently broadcasts the BBC mantra, but even so, if one can switch-off that ideology, his programmes are still worth watching selectively for some scientific content, magnificent photography, and rational interest.
    Maybe in his senility, David still pursues the cash? (uh?) Some of his earlier docos make no mention of CAGW

    00

  • #
    NikFromNYC

    “on the Skeptoid site, author Craig Good is a “convert” of a sort”

    I dropped my skeptic’s payload there. I notice that already many readers are gnashing their teeth about his suggestion to stop calling skeptics “deniers.” These days, presenting basic data plots that direct refute alarmist claims of surging T, sea level and ice loss, results only in bile, link bombing to IPCC chapters and papers that don’t support their claims, and calls to authority. It has become like a fishing trip where the big fish are not biting since they don’t like the bait. There used to be a lot more competent AGW supporters. Now it’s just a bunch of SkepticalScience kiddies. Unfortunately there’s often a few rookie skeptics aboard too, at least on news sites, who I cringe about since they offer highly speculative or plain silly skeptical arguments such as volcanoes being responsible for the recent increase in CO2. I cringe since it took me a few months, way early on, to par my arguments way down away from what indeed might be labelled “debunked talking points.” Yet oddly enough, my own plots of basic data, created fully on my own initiative, arguments that are not common on skeptical blogs, are also called “debunked talking points!” But no links to debunking are offered. There is often a flurry of posts, actually, involving frothing conspiracy about how skeptics are right wing conspirators.

    My latest addition to my info-graphic package was inspired by Mann’s new sea level hockey stick:

    http://k.min.us/idFxzI.jpg

    00

  • #

    I have discovered that I would have to JOIN his Skeptoid site to be able to post a comment.

    Forget it.

    I was going to post THIS LINK to show the linked counterpoints to what John Cook’s blog has posted.

    The reason why I wanted to do that was this statement made by,Craig Good.

    SkepticalScience appears to me to present the science accurately. They also present, as I mentioned, some non-scientific views. I wish they didn’t, as it does weaken their position. They may be wrong. I may be wrong. But rather than a road to Damascus moment, it was closer to a tipping point. It’s getting harder to find experts who disagree with the basic idea of CO2 contributing to global warming.

    Some of it is blatantly false and misleading.He sounds like a brother of John Cook too me.

    By the way John Cook himself made a GUEST post at my forum last October.It was his only post he made.My replies were never answered at all.

    The ISP details make it clear it was John Cook who made this one post effort in my forum.

    LOL

    00

  • #
    DirkH

    He’ll go down; the AGW believers want blood, not data.

    00

  • #

    [...] go to the Site and click on all the DATA INFORMATION go Click Here. Share This:: Posted by WR Xavier at 5:34 [...]

    00

  • #
    Sheri

    Brian did an “update” on AGW about two weeks ago. I had read some of the posts on his sight, but refused to donate because of his AGW stance. He recommended we follow the IPCC as a science organization. HIs whole argument was extremely tenuous. I suspect, however, that he dare not come out against AGW because he would lose thousands of followers. And climate change followers behave as religious fanatics when it comes to their beliefs. Needless to say, I am not interested in further reading of a skeptical sight that will not address the real issues in climate change.

    00