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

University witchdoctors speak out, and the frightened are fleeing!

What are they so afraid of?

It’s all become a media frenzy. Who would have thought that holding an opinion about climate sensitivity due to a trace gas could become a reason to mark someone as an untouchable heretic? Venues are being canceled (and new venues arranged), the media are hunting in packs, and the university witchdoctors are coming out to show how neolithic (but politically correct) their reasoning is.

And they think they are so civilized.

They are stone age tribes with smartphones.

University Witchdoctors — collapse under the hypocrisy of their own reasoning

Academics want climate sceptic’s Lecture cancelled! is the headline on the front page of The West Australian.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it’s serious. We can no longer stand by and watch as once great institutions embarrass themselves with childlike efforts to silence dissent.

Natalie Latter, a PhD Student at UWA, wrote a letter, endorsed by a few other academic types (who ought to have saved her and themselves from such an embarrassing mistake):

“Lord Monckton propounds widely discredited fictions about climate change and misrepresents the research of countless scientists,” says the letter. “With zero peer-reviewed publications, he has declared that the scientific enterprise is invalid and that climate science is fraudulent …

Monckton replied:

“Only last week one of your leading newspapers, leading columnists, wrote a column saying that people like us should be gassed,” he said.

“No apology and none of you have gone round to her house and thrust microphones in her face and said don’t you think you’re being a bit unfair.

“So there is very plainly a nasty double standard here.”

Latter’s current research is a PhD thesis on the intergenerational and global ethical dimensions of climate change.  It’s not like she has any conflict of interest then is it? And nor is it likely that she has published any papers in radiative physics, or analysis of climate feedbacks. Yet such is the poor standard of academic quality at the formerly great University of Western Australia that she doesn’t realize that when someone without any publications demands that someone else without publications be silenced because they don’t have any publications, she’s wallowing in abject hypocrisy.

Over the last month there has been a great deal of coverage in the Australian media of the death threats and abusive emails that have targeted Australian scientists working on climate change. These threats are fuelled by misinformation spread by figures like Lord Monckton and the distorted coverage that they receive in the Australian media.

Yes, let’s look at the death threats. These are the same ones that are two rehashed 1 – 5 years old “threats”, and mostly not death threats, and not worth reporting to the Australian Federal Police. Those who make wild exaggerations claimed they were given new swipe cards for security, yet the whole Chemistry Department got new swipe cards (thanks Brice Bosnich for letting us know). These people are serial exaggerators of the pathological kind. They are the team who send up hate-mail through the media all the time. Deniers ought be jailed, tattooed, gassed, and it’s “funny” ha ha if we blow up their children, right? Memo to Natalie, research means reading both sides of the issue.

As academics, we expect our universities to support us against this kind of abuse. We expect our universities to foster academic standards of conduct and argument.

Yes, indeed. So do we. It’s time to write to your faculty and department. We expect university graduates to reason:

The letter continues: “We all support academic freedom and the freedom to express our ideas and beliefs … [However] Notre Dame’s invitation to Lord Monckton makes a mockery of academic standards and the pursuit of evidence-based knowledge.”

Thus Natalie Latter makes a mockery of academic standards. What is freedom of speech if someone is only “free” to express government approved beliefs? (Natalie: Who made you God?  This is high school lesson time. Hand back your B.A. and start again with basic reading and comprehension. What do you suppose “Freedom” means?)

As  for “evidence based knowledge” would any of the named academics be able to name one peer reviewed paper showing CO2 will cause more than 1 degree of long term warming? Anyone…?

Christopher Monckton has never asked for others who disagree to be silenced. Shutting down discussion is exactly what those who don’t have an answer have to do. Latter and co. are telegraphing to the world how empty their case is. They are terrified that one man might speak against their religion, and expose it for what it is.

If Monckton speaks “misinformation” then Latter is free to explain  that, and most likely could get a government grant and a ABC media unit to help her.

But Latter displays belief in her extraordinary powers of insight. She thinks she’s discovered the holy grail of knowledge (like Lewandowsky before her) — the gift of the anointed , the ability to know who is right. Her Godlike superiority is the anti-thesis of science, learning, and university research.

We expect graduates to know what argument from authority is, and to avoid circular reasoning. They ought be able to command the English language so their own words did not prove themselves wrong, and their use fits with generally recognized definitions.

It’s time we form groups, write letters and demand higher standards in order to rescue our universities from this abyss of sanctimonious delusion, this obsequious servility to the authorities, and from the dark ages of circular reasoning. The place to write and express your dismay at the dismal standards of education is:

Please be polite!

Political Science and International Relations M259
The University of Western Australia
Crawley WA 6009
Australia

The Faculty of Arts(Staff)
Krishna Sen, Winthrop Professor/Dean of The Faculty of Arts
Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences
The University of Western Australia (M200)
35 Stirling Highway
CRAWLEY WA 6009
Australia

There is alas, collective academic failure:

“Professor of Sustainability at Curtin University Peter Newmann says universities should not be bought over by big business”.

So let’s write to Peter Newmann and point out that universities should not be bought by government grants either? Is he suggesting that only government employees have the right to speak on campus? Does he complain about speakers from large renewable energy companies? What about self-employed people? Are they “permitted” to speak at Curtain?

——————————————————-

Three Venues, running from free speech?

The Canberra Press Club — running scared from a scientific theory

They had agreed to allow Monckton to speak on the 12th of July.
They canceled just before the payment arrived with them today (their excuse was “not enough time to clean between our meeting and the evening show”.)

Bronco’s Leagues Club are chickens! Bk bk bk….

It’s too hot for the fragile Broncos football club. The Bronco’s club board are cancelling the agreement to host LM’s Wednesday talk.

It would seem, like TSS (see below), that the Broncos bend before the political winds.

The Southport School (TSS)

Earlier this month TSS — a wealthy private school –  canceled a speech by Christopher Monckton too. The uninvited meme strikes again. Too scared of being called “deniers” eh? After all, “denier” likens you to a holocaust denier and thus a Nazi sympathizer, and we can’t have that now can we?

I wonder if one of their sponsors put the squeeze on the college ?


Fergoodnesssake, the response is surreal.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (4 votes cast)
University witchdoctors speak out, and the frightened are fleeing!, 5.5 out of 10 based on 4 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/3w69nwo

116 comments to University witchdoctors speak out, and the frightened are fleeing!

  • #

    [...] University witchdoctors speak out, and the frightened are fleeing! [...]

    00

  • #
    manalive

    Natalie Latter is a BA (Hons) and is currently researching her PhD on the ethics of climate change (she probably wouldn’t know an isobar from an icy pole) — you see it is a religion.

    01

  • #
    John Brookes

    I guess freedom of speech does give a person the right to continually state things which they know to be untrue.

    Does it include the right to say that such a person is a wilfull and deliberate liar? Or does freedom of speech only go so far?

    [So John, are you going to keep calling him a liar or are you going to actually tell us what he allegedly "deliberately lied" about.? JN]

    01

  • #
    gnome

    “With zero peer reviewed publications…”! Natalie’s take on ethics seems to be from the Clive Hamilton school. Just another drop in the cesspool!

    00

  • #
    Raven

    Aaaaahhhhh another one to put on the list ;)
    Just need a copy of that letter and we will have another 50 or so names, it’s soooo nice when they do the work for you ;)

    00

  • #

    Because most people don’t know enough to focus upon the critical evidence (see my blog for the definitive factual disproof of the greenhouse effect), and thereby properly judge the climate “consensus” — which is just a story, really, put out by the IPCC scientists — what should be a scientific problem of finding the physical truth has been turned into a runaway political movement, by the incompetent default of academic scientists from their professional and moral responsibility (to do best what they were supposedly educated to do). There is no such thing as runaway climate, only runaway, religiously-held beliefs, now well developed into active tyranny (suppression, and political repression). We are witnessing the climax of decades of uncorrected scientific dogma and the resulting across-the-board scientific incompetence of academics (the priests of science). Climate science is just the currently visible tip of the iceberg.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    This is the beginning of the end.

    Academia is trapped in a web of words that they find they cannot untwine, and which are now are threatening to entrap them for all time.

    The scientific proposition of global warming has always been no more than a means to an end, providing a big hairy monster that will frighten a gullible public into accepting restrictions and a general lowering of their standard of living (while others gain power and status).

    What is interesting is that academia have started to realise that the science is, and always has been, secondary to the politics, and that the academics have been treated as useful idiots who can play small bit-part roles, in what is actually a much wider epic.

    And they find that they have nowhere to run. They are forced to keep going with the meme, even though more and more of them can see the world (and especially the American and European political classes) getting less interested by the day. Some people have more pressing needs to attend to – ask the Greeks what they think of climate change.

    The Australian political bubble has not caught up yet, so are still following the old script, but they will figure it out soon enough. And then we will move on to the Next Big Earth Destroying Crisis.

    I feel a bit sorry for the academics who got themselves involved in this – reputations take years to build, but can be destroyed in minutes. I guess some of them will discover that for themselves, but probably none will write a peer reviewed paper on the subject.

    00

  • #
    Raven

    @2
    You are so right little johny ! Shes one of the worst hypocritical liars I’ve heard this week , the crap she’s spewing should make you so proud . ……I can here your mummy calling , does she want to go on the list too ?

    00

  • #
    Brett_McS

    Got my tickets to the Monkton event in Newcastle next week. He’s a very popular man here! Packed the town hall last time.

    00

  • #
    Raven

    As John Brooks mate the brown Queen said …he believes in free speech but there are limits!!!!
    You simple trolls better make sure your communist party memberships are payed up or old Bobby will be miffed , you won’t be allowed into his world govt !

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Love the pathetic excuses..The one from Canberra.. evening show”.) should probably read evening SNOW”.) (cooling earth)

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    @2 “I guess freedom of speech does give a person the right to continually state things which they know to be untrue.

    Does it include the right to say that such a person is a wilfull and deliberate liar? Or does freedom of speech only go so far?”

    Examples please and I don’t mean the regurgitated rubbish of Cook or Abrahams; some specific example of Monckton wilfully and deliberately lying?

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

    Some debate over who said it first, but it was said around 1900. 110 years later have we advanced?

    00

  • #
    gnome

    Forgive this weary travelstained gnome his ignorance, I thought John B @2 was referring to natalie’s wilful and deliberate lies and nonsense. Am I wrong? Has John B maintained his intransigence in the face of all commnsense? Does he truly believe there are no peer reviewed publications doubting the global warming orthodoxy?

    Surely not.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    I remember a couple of years ago when I had Miklos Zagoni and David Stockwell to one of my alma maters, Newcastle University, to give talks on the science, a furious professor remonstrated with me that sceptics were getting too much publicity and exposure; this attitude has been around a long time and goes beyond the rational.

    00

  • #
    Raven

    The governor general will need to get off her butt and look at this fool before he destroys our economy .
    >>>>>>
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/browns-economic-xenophobia-will-cost-us-dearly/story-e6frg6zo-1226084437366
    >>>>>>
    Honestly you could write all this bufoon knows about economics on the back of a postage stamp with a blunt pencil ..
    Governor General … Dissolve this Government now!

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Gnome – re global warming ortodoxy -

    “CO2 Does NOT Cause Climate Temperature Changes

    Published by AJStrata at 9:41 am under All General Discussions,Global Warming

    The long term (and I mean millennium-long term) record is clear. And it completely destroys recently hatched (and I mean in the last 20 years “recent”) unfounded theories by Global Warming Alarmists about the relationship between CO2 levels and Global Temperatures.

    No amount of shoddy math, or smeared temperature readings from one site spreading across thousands of square kilometers, or cherry picked temperature sites that ignore contrary nearby data, or sparse historic readings from 100+ years ago with enormous error bars can change this record and these facts. A new view on current temperatures and CO2 levels shows – repeatedly – that CO2 only rises in response to a warming climate. CO2 does NOT drive the warming. End of story

    Over very long periods of time as ice ages come and go, it has been found that temperature leads atmospheric CO2 content by about 800 years.

    It is also evident that the red temperature graph generally precedes the black CO2 graph on turning points. This suggests that temperature drives CO2 and not the other way around. A comparison of the two series at different lags gives this second graph.

    Here is the first graph, and note that while the two variables are coupled, CO2 makes its transition to follow temperature years after the temperature has changed direction [click to enlarge]:

    (See graph at article link, more at http://cyclesresearchinstitute.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/which-causes-which-out-of-atmospheric-temperature-and-co2-content/)

    This data shows warming occurs first (like when the Earth came out of the recent Little Ice Age around the end of the 1700′s and beginning of the 1800′s) and then the CO2 levels respond afterwards. Years afterwards. The CO2 line is like an echo of the temperature line.

    This is from actual measurements – not those ridiculously error prone models the alarmists keep citing. Instead of looking at nature and seeing what is happening, the alarmists keep trying to torture their fantasies out of an ever shrinking set of dodgy data.

    But when you do look at nature itself, and see what is happening, it is clear as day. CO2 is not driving the global temperature – it responds. This result in the modern record is identical to what is seen in the millennium-long ice core records, which show the exact same trailing response to temperature changes by CO2 levels [click to enlarge]:

    (See graph at article link, more at http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11896 )

    Now we see things that are very elemental to the theory of man-made warming. Things that destroy the theory completely. We can now see an 800 year lag in the CO2 response to warming temperatures. Not driving temperature, responding to temperature. This is why time was sped up in the chart above – to hide the lag!

    Ice cores are great proxies because the link between temperature, CO2 and the make up of the ice is driven by chemistry. It is a physical process with little and consistent ambiguity. Unlike tree proxies (living organisms) which have many conflicting factors effecting growth and very few samples which make the connection hazy at best. The chemistry makes the historical record crystal clear (pun intended).

    Here we have complete and unambiguous agreement between the long term record and the modern record. Two totally different methods of comparing CO2 to temperature agreeing without any uncertainty. Both modern measurements and calculations derived from ice deposited over 100′s of thousands of years show the same inconvenient truth.

    And that is CO2 levels in the atmosphere do not drive Global Climate. They respond to Global Climate.

    Someone wake up the morons at the IPCC and see if they are still capable of opening their eyes to the world around them”

    From http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/16688

    00

  • #
    Charles Bourbaki

    Ah, a BA (Hons) ethicist avec néant publications describing herself as an academic. But then again Ethics is arguably the most important research area in Climate Science today so she should not be taken lightly. After all, our greatest living Climate Scientist and defender of democracy, Professor Clive Hamilton is Professor of Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University.

    The second most important research area in Climate Science is of course Psychology. Professor Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of WA is acclaimed world-wide as a titan in this crucially important area of Climate Science. His seminal and fundamental research addresses the distinction between scepticism, cynicism, and climate denial.

    Sadly I don’t have a BA (Hons) in Climate Science Ethics. Only a PhD in physics (little “p”). Other physicists, chemists, geologists, biologists, seismologists, volcanologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, mathematicians and scientists from many fields may well research Climate Science.

    They are not very important though and young, open-minded Ms Latter would see their specialties as totally irrelevant in any debate on Climate Science.

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Hers real science they cant deny temps at 600mb level (14000ft) from NOAA-15 2011
    show clearly at least a 1 deg C DROP over Dec Jan and still below 2010 levels.
    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002 (make sure your java works)

    00

  • #
    Winston

    What Ms. Latter exhibits is an extreme example of cognitive dissonance, desperately trying to convince herself of unearned authority against a welter of mounting data showing that the case for CAGW is weak, unsubstantiated and becoming increasingly falsifiable.The same desire to suppress dissent was seen in the case of Galileo’s “heresy” by the Church, and in the marginalization of geniuses like Pasteur,Tesla and Edison by the Establishment, often with the derision of elite scientists or engineers like Lord Kevin, Sir William Siemens and the Royal Society. Ms.Latter projects her own lack of ethics and scientific rigor upon Lord Monckton, whose only crime is dissent against the current paradigm. Such is the path of science, always fighting against the ideologues to progress our knowledge, often carrying the wise and noble fonts of “knowledge” with them kicking and screaming into new understanding. What is utterly risible is that she is an expert on ethics in climate change but is ironically totally devoid of said ethics herself. She is beneath contempt as a consequence.

    00

  • #
    handjive

    It might be time to put more than the squeeze on them, it is time to name & boycott if possible, any companies that actively support the carbon (sic) tax.
    Hit ‘em where it hurts.

    Here is some suggestions in this link:

    Business leaders back Julia Gillard on carbon price policy

    Fosters Group chief executive John Pollaers
    Pacific Brands, Mirvac and Gloucester Coal chairman James MacKenzie,
    AustralianSuper chair Elana Rubin
    Stockland director Carol Schwartz.

    (h/t to comment #2@link)

    00

  • #
    David Cooke

    The list of signatories to Ms Latter’s little letter is interesting. Many are just Ph.D students. Of the majority who are fully fledged academics, few work in any science directly related to climate. Apart from Stephan Lewandowsky heading the list, there are several other psychologists. Then lots of social sciences, economists, journalists, and people in jobs funded by the climate change industry.

    Oh, and I’m glad to see there are no botanists or plant scientists among them!

    00

  • #
    John Smith

    Some good intel… Why did the CEO of NAB have change suddenly come out and say that’s he’s in favour of a carbon tax? and why did Julia Gillard suddenly change the carbon tax to an ETS?… Answer… because they had lunch together(absolutely true, check it out)…

    So when is a tax not a tax?… When it’s a variable rate tax where NAB, CBA, Westpac & ANZ carbon speculators set the price…

    The fix is in.

    00

  • #
    JohnP

    Well I think academic standards need to be upheld and here we have someone in Monkcton who makes a mockery of them. I happen to agree with the academics that Monckton propounds widely discredited fictions about climate change and misrepresenting the research of countless scientists.

    The debate should be about the science not the pseudo-science he sprouts.

    00

  • #
    John of Cloverdale WA

    Maybe Krisna Fen (Faculty of the ARTS) should ask Dr Cliff Ollier also of the UWA to resign for his anti-science views.

    Professor Cliff Ollier, School of Earth and Environment, University of Western Australia writes …..
    “First, there is still no proof the Earth is experiencing “dangerous” warming. Temperatures have levelled off since 1998. Many measuring locations are also located in unsuitable areas. Furthermore, the methodologies of averaging temperature are inconsistent and full of problems. This is why “Global Warming” was replaced as a slogan by “Climate Change” (nobody denies that climate changes), and more recently by “Climate Disruption” (which is impossible define or prove).”

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    @22: “Monckton propounds widely discredited fictions about climate change”; examples.

    00

  • #
    Tim

    The ‘threat to our grandchildren’ is not from global warming, but from Agenda 21, brought into being by greedy turncoats and useful idiots.

    00

  • #
    DougS

    The AGW alarmists are truly running scared when they have to resort to attempting to muzzle anyone who disagrees with the orthodoxy.

    How sad though, that some of the venues act in such a cowardly, compliant fashion. The alarmists must be congratulating themselves on such easy victories.

    Thank goodness we have Joanne to highlight the hypocrisy and false claims of these so-called academics.

    00

  • #
    Winston

    JohnP, good for you then, QED and a lay down misere all in one. Just tell us when we should roll over and play dead by deferring to your greater wisdom. If Monckton is so lacking in knowledge then it should be a snack to whip him in an open, unbiased, mediated showdown with the best alarmists against the best skeptics in a fair open televised live debate. So, how about all these so called experts come out from behind mother’s apron and give us what we have been asking for for years and have been denied. Openness, transparency and unexpurgated data are NEVER unreasonable requests. Our disbelief in your so called “truth” is no one’s fault but your own. Your behaviours iare akin to those of liars, snake oil salesman and charlatans. And so, if we buy into CAGW in the next 15 mins, call the number on the screen, do we get a free set of steak knives?

    00

  • #
    Len

    Agenda 21 is now being presented in rural WA. The Central Wheatelt Landuse Plannig Strategy is being marketed by the Department of Planning. Narrogin and Katanning Shires have expressed objections to it. The alarmist carbonistas from WAFF are backing it. Trough full of carbon credits. No concern for the truth.

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    Going on the replies at Perth Now it would seem the skeptics out weigh the alarmists 5:1 on Monckton being allowed to speak.
    Interesting the academics complaining about Monckton being unqualified to speak about climate science or at a university would probably welcome with open arms the likes of Al Gore or Julia Gillard

    00

  • #

    [...] kwaliteitsjournalist. Rara hoe kan dat? Waartoe leidt dit denken á la Van Soest/Luttikhuis? Het nieuwste dieptepunt is dat de Gutmenschen in media opnieuw hebben gepleit om een scepticus te ve…: Lord Monckton, in zijn lezingentour door Australie. Joanne Nova -niet mijn favoriete blogger [...]

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I remember back when I was at UWA and David was going to give a lecture I put my hand up to make it a debate. I also emailed a few people in the know saying “did you know this guy is speaking at UWA! We should get there and ask some tough questions!” Instead they got his talk cancelled… It was probably fair enough as it was organised by an admin department as part of our environmental lecture program and really wasn’t the place for this kind of thing… but I still thought debating and questioning was more useful than banning.

    00

  • #

    Both sides of the argument are seeking the high ground. Only one of them believes the water is rising but, that side is too busy tilting at windmills to notice that everything’s fine. Move along, nothing to see here.

    Remember, they’re out there people. They can’t be bargained with. They can’t be reasoned with. Yes JB, it’s time for one side to own up to it’s mistakes and move on from the zombie meme. :)

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    MattB @ 39

    That fence you’re trying to straddle must be uncomfortable.

    Meanwhile, where’s your Plan B?

    00

  • #
    mkelly

    incoherent rambler:
    June 30th, 2011 at 9:21 pm “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
    Some debate over who said it first, but it was said around 1900. 110 years later have we advanced?

    This or a version very close was from Voltaire around the time of the American Revolution in 1776.

    00

  • #

    It is amazing that they are still trying to use the argument that, because we are so ignorant, uneducated, and unpublished, we should just trust them. In particular, we are to trust them because they are so brilliant, educated, and published. I wouldn’t trust my brother if he said that to me about anything. Why then should we trust them with the future of civilization and mankind? The evidence is overwhelming that they cannot be trusted with so much as road kill let alone the welfare of the planet.

    We don’t need to know and understand the science involved. It is sufficient to know that anything bad that happens is held by them as being caused by man’s use of fossil fuel. They claim that the “only” solution to any perceived or imagined problem is a global government with the power confiscate global wealth and to control every aspect of the lives of every human on earth. We are not to complain, object, or even allowed to question their “good intentions”. This is more than enough reason to reject anything they say, to terminate their public employment, and to rescind any grants they may have or are in process of getting.

    00

  • #
    linda

    Gratitude to Lord Monckton for bringing about an open debate on climate change.
    A great pity is we are not been given the opportunity to openly discuss the benefits of Agenda 21 and Sustainable development , and how society is SO much better since these programs were ever so secretly implamented.
    I as many others find this topic very interesting as Ministers seem to know nothing of it, but we all have to abide by it.
    Climate change is but one of the chapters from the program.
    So to those that peddle Agenda 21, please enlighten Australia what it is and how we benefit, or who benefits.

    00

  • #
    Dave N

    “I guess freedom of speech does give a person the right to continually state things which they know to be untrue.”

    Many alarmists do it all the time. Al Gore openly advocates lying. Your comment is truly yawn-worthy

    00

  • #
  • #

    Lord Monckton said that the MSM have a nasty double standard. IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri likened Bjorn Lomborg to Hitler. Was that OK? See Church of Latter day Academics

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I assume this is the same person the ABC saw fit to give free blog column inches to iearlier this year:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/natalie-latter-44540.html

    I had a field day on that particular blog:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44542.html

    You can get plenty of mileage out of her nonsense there Jo, much as I did with the usual CAGW faithful.

    John Brookes:
    If freedom of speech meant it was illegal to speak things that you know are untrue, every politician in Australia would have been locked up ages ago. These people couldn’t lie straight in bed. As for Monckton, show us what he is knowingly lying about … please do. Your comments have been deliberately peurile of late… like the media you are completely wrapped up in the spin and deception and losing touch with reality.

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    “Lord Monckton said he was not fazed by the push but said that if it involved only 50 academics then Australian academia “is in a better state than many parts of the world”.
    Sydney Morning herald

    Good to know the disease is not as bad here.
    Also

    “AN ALLIANCE of some of the nation’s biggest industry organisations is preparing to spend millions of dollars on a campaign to destroy the Gillard government’s plans to put a price on carbon.
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/industry-push-to-wipe-out-carbon-price-20110630-1gtae.html

    00

  • #
    Ross

    I don’t understand these academics. If they think Chris Monckton is such a charlatan why don’t they just keep quiet and not give him the publicity. There is no way you could buy the great publicity his tour has had in the past week or so. These guys / ladies just lack “street smarts” and to think a few of them come from the psychology department
    ( standards must be dropping).

    The reality of it all is these guys are simply scared of Chris Monckton.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    incoherent rambler: #13 & mkelly: #36

    I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it

    I think this quote falls into the category of, “I have this great idea, but it will sound pompous if I claim the credit, so I will attribute it to somebody famous who is now dead”.

    It almost certainly was not uttered or written by Voltare.

    Evelyn Beatrice Hall, in her book, “The Friends of Voltare” (written under the name Steven Tallentyre), in 1906, was probably relying on an earlier reference from Norburt Guterman’s, “A Book of French Quotations”, who claimed that Voltare used the phrase in a letter to a M. le Riche, dated 6 February 1770. The letter at that stage had “been misplaced”.

    Unfortunately for Herr Guterman, the quoted letter has since surfaced, and does not include the quoted phrase. Academic research has thus aways been a little flakey around the edges, it seems.

    I know this because it was a case study in one of my Uni courses, and not because I am particularly literate or erudite. ;-)

    00

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    Well said Natalie, JB, Joe Romm, Nick Stokes, Dhogza, Sir Paul Nurse and TheFordPrefect, just to mention a few warmistadors!
    Keep it up Folks you’re doing more for the sceptical cause than the much-maligned Christopher, with all his wit and intelligence, could ever hope to achieve.
    Keep providing Speedy, Josh and Fenbeagle with new material and this world will become a happier place.
    I don’t know your motives but I sure do appreciate your efforts.
    Thank you all.
    XXX

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Witchdoctor antidote?

    “The Non-Thinking Man

    Posted on June 30, 2011 by stevengoddard

    A reader who calls himself the “thinking man” writes :

    Over 90% of the worlds glaciers are retreating, melting. That does not happen in a world that is getting colder

    Over the last 8,000 years temperatures have been falling, and glaciers have been melting. The fact that ice is melting tells you only that the ice is out of equilibrium. You can’t infer anything about whether the climate is warming or cooling.

    .2010 set new records for the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Since 1995 the ice sheet lost an average of 265 cubic kilometers per year,That does not happen in a world that is getting colder.

    Sea level plummeted during 2010. ESA’s Envisat satellite showed sea level at the end of 2010 lower than 2004. Where did your record melt water go, Mr. non-thinking man?

    Arctic sea ice extent in May 2011 was the third lowest in the satellite record, continuing the overall downward trend of the past thirty years. That does not happen in a world that is getting colder.

    NSIDC graphs show a significant increase in the amount of multi-year ice over the last three years. The Arctic Basin was completely full of ice in May, 2010. Quebec is not part of the Arctic.

    You can argue the cause. You can argue if it is natural or man made. However, You can not deny the melting of glaciers or the Greenland ice sheet or the Arctic sea ice.

    You can believe all the junk science Al Gore tells you, or you can try actually thinking for yourself.”

    From http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/the-non-thinking-man/#comments

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    John Brookes:
    June 30th, 2011 at 8:59 pm

    I guess freedom of speech does give a person the right to continually state things which they know to be untrue.

    Does it include the right to say that such a person is a wilfull and deliberate liar? Or does freedom of speech only go so far?

    You’ve crossed a line here John.
    I am asking you to do one of two things…Either provide the material which has you convinced that Monckton ‘states things which he knows to be untrue’ or apologise and move on.

    Most of us have posted comments we’d rather not have, this one is yours.
    You need to do this John.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Ross: #44

    … why don’t they just keep quiet and not give him the publicity.

    Because they are threatened, and frightened, and we (and others) are poking them with sharp sticks. They have turned feral and will lash out at anything that they perceive to be a threat.

    As most military field commanders understand, the closer you get to winning the battle, the more dangerous the enemy becomes.

    They will fight to the bitter end – keeping quiet and ignoring us is no longer an option.

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    “Business leaders back Julia Gillard on carbon price policy”
    Cooperate bankster owned companies that want us to pay for their ever increasing scams.
    Of course they do. Look who owns them.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Well it seems people of WA are not so dim. When asked “Was Notre Dame University right to host Christopher Monckton’s lecture on climate?” 77% said yes:

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/polls/popup/-/poll_id/4e8b242c-3479-3593-9072-b4a9511d243e

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I guess freedom of speech does give a person the right to continually state things which they know to be untrue.

    Does it include the right to say that such a person is a wilfull and deliberate liar? Or does freedom of speech only go so far?

    [So John, are you going to keep calling him a liar or are you going to actually tell us what he allegedly "deliberately lied" about.? JN]

    Well John…?

    I thought not.

    Night before last the President of The United States gave a speech. I didn’t even watch it. After a while they’ve degenerated so far that you have to go so far down in the gutter to get a grip on them that you can’t stand the foul odor. No thanks. I can’t get my breath down there.

    Let the bunch of them keep each other company without me.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    It goes deeper. The sceptics are not only putting forward a simple logical case – they are demonstrating the gaping holes and inconsistencies in the alarmist argument.

    Each and any one of which is fatal when revealed in an open debate.

    The alarmists need to muzzle Monckton – not because he speaks the truth, but because he demonstrates that the alarmists are so wrong.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    Tom

    The National Press Club, as an institution, should have gone out of its way to ensure that Monckton was heard. The fact that it has, for all intents and purposes, attempted to play its part in censoring a sceptic tells you everything you need to know about the appalling state of Australian mainstream media and journalism, which is supposed to be built on scepticism of everything. Their leadership, as expressed by the press club, has become an appeaser of the ruling class. This is a dangerous time for Australian democracy.

    00

  • #
    rjm385

    I would have thought that Universities are there to teach young eager minds and that those young eager minds would then reflect their new found wisdom on us.

    However, ho hum just the usual regurgitated stuff that arises every generation and I thought we humans had the concept to understand history and learn from it. This again is my failing I haven’t learnt anything about the human species they are just as idiotic as our father’s, grandfather’s etc.

    Is Natalie saying that her and 50 Academics at UWA are incapable of of understanding that free speech is a democratic and ethical thing.. or did she learn her ethics form the Maurice Strong school of Ethics and population control ?

    Another day and another bitter disappointment.

    Say Yes to election, now!!

    00

  • #
    1DandyTroll

    “What are they so afraid of?”

    Everyt’ing, of course.

    Come next year they’ll start raging about the dangers of possibly offsetting aliens. Why else would Hollywood focus so much on Alien invasions during several years in row?

    The more planets we find, the more it is likely we find another fabled-to-hold-life blue planet. Then it’ll be worth then “we” though and just think of the children, they might become drones to alien brain slugs, unless we stop evil technological progress and go back to live one with nature, all naked like, err what? Of course more research need be done, but then all the green little hippies have aligned themselves with the defense industry, instead of the oil industry like today.

    So, essentially, history will repeat itself, yet again. IT once was ice age, then horrible warming, then ice age again, then terrible warming again, then in the 70′s it became ice age again, then in the late 80′s mann made warming, so why not future alien disaster next, from having gone absolutely mental from all the warming ice ages scares? :p

    00

  • #
    connolly

    In reply to John Brookes
    Freedom of speech in this country is constrained by the law which protects reputation. What you wrote about Monckton is defamatory. Hope he sues the pants off you and you can discover for yourself the limits on those who wilfully set out to destroy reputations as you did in your low attempt to destroy the repurtation of courageous and intelligant man (whose politics i do not share by the way). The price tag on your cheap shot hopefully will be expensive. Give you a tip for nothing – withdraw and apologise now

    00

  • #
    michael hammer

    When warmists are presented with inconvenient conflicting pieces of data a common response is to gloss over the item and instead point to several items they claim support their case. In short they are arguing that the balance of data supports their case so it must be right.

    This is one of the most common mistakes one can make in science. Many new discoveries have their roots in one single observation which conflicts with an accepted theory. I would like to demonstrate why in a simple analogy.

    You go shopping with your friend in his car. When almost ready to leave he mentions that he has to pick something up a short drive away and you agree to meet in 15 minutes a the street corner. At the agreed time you are waiting at the corner and you see a car come towards you.

    • It’s a Volvo of the same make and model as your friends car
    • Its driven by a single man who as far as you can see looks very like your friend
    • You cant remember your entire friends license plate but you know it started with PSV and this cars number plate is PSV348
    • You friend’s car had some damage to the passenger side front mudguard and this has what looks like identical damage
    • Your friends car has an antenna bent in exactly the same way as the one on this car
    • This car has a dice hanging from the rear view mirror just as in your friend’s car
    • As it gets closer the person driving winds down the window and waves at you

    Is it your friend?

    Now I have one more observation to give

    Your friend’s car is red and this one is blue.

    Do you still think it is your friend?

    Many supportive facts may suggest but do not prove a theory correct but it only takes one clearly contradictory fact to demolish it. All reputable scientists know this except apparently in the field of anthropogenic global warming. The critical test of a theory is not how many facts support it but whether there are any facts which contradict it.

    00

  • #
    Macha

    JN – small point and may have been a slip, but the reference here..
    “As for “evidence based knowledge” would any of the named academics be able to name one peer reviewed paper showing CO2 will cause more than 1 degree of long term warming? Anyone…?”,

    I’d have thought was clear in Dr Roy Spencer’s latest calc’s that “correct” the missing heeat issue in the oceans (without mulit-million dollar computers either) and places 1.3C for a doubling of CO2, versus the 2-6x sentivity models often claim. Sure its slightly more than a degree so inn’t that what you are after Jo?.
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/06/more-evidence-that-global-warming-is-a-false-alarm-a-model-simulation-of-the-last-40-years-of-deep-ocean-warming/

    PS> I am a advocate of climate scepticism for info. coming out of IPCC and UK-CRU, and have personally met Jo, Lord Monkton, and Bob Carter. I;ve found them all quite logical and rational.

    00

  • #
    JMD

    You are still hacking at the branches Jo. What you are doing is good but will not stop those with their hands on the levers of credit having their way, at least until the credit bubble bursts altogether.

    To help you strike at the root might I suggest you read this article;

    http://www.goldstandardinstitute.net/2010/08/the-definition-of-money/

    or even my own contribution;

    http://www.goldstandardinstitute.net/2010/06/nature-of-money-2/

    There are many other interesting & educational articles on the website. And no, I don’t ‘profit’ in any way from directing people to this site, other than for people to read the articles.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    rereke # 45

    I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it

    Methinks you are right about the history.
    The sentiment expressed is something I truly believe. Freedom of speech is worth defending. No freedom of speech equates to no freedom.

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Oh dear another diabolical graph from nature to upset the alarmists..

    from

    Song of the global temperatures..”down down down”.

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Legal definition of fraud.
    “A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.”
    Gillard comments on “CO2 TAX” , stealing money from tax payers = legal injury by false representation.

    00

  • #
    connolly

    This is the list of the moral and intellectual cowards that are not only destroying our economy and whole communities standard of living but now want to control what we hear and think. I have included the text of the letter because it is a threat to the rights of every Australian that holds dissenting views on any subject of political and public interest. So now we have the black list and CLIMATE McCARTHYISM. This is the shame list. And may the label of authoritarian threats to our democratic rights go with them throughout their no doubt lucrative academic careers:

    Lord Monckton propounds widely discredited fictions about climate change and misrepresents the research of countless scientists. With zero peer-reviewed scientific publications, he has declared that the scientific enterprise is invalid and that climate science is fraudulent. He stands for the kind of ignorance and superstition that universities have a duty to counter.

    Over the last month there has been a great deal of coverage in the Australian media of the death threats and abusive emails that have targeted Australian scientists working on climate change. These threats are fueled by misinformation spread by figures like Lord Monckton and the distorted coverage that they receive in the Australian media.

    As academics, we expect our universities to support us against this kind of abuse. We expect our universities to foster academic standards of conduct and argument. Recently, Lord Monckton showed a large swastika next to a quote by Professor Garnaut and likened him to a Nazi. Professor Garnaut is one of Australia’s most respected economists who has served his country as a diplomat and expert adviser to many governments.

    In hosting this lecture, Notre Dame University is undermining the academic community. It is betraying the integrity of our scientists and those who struggle to communicate the facts about climate change to the public. It is completely unacceptable for a university to be tacitly endorsing the views of an individual such as Lord Monckton. Our universities must have higher standards than this.

    We all support academic freedom and the freedom to express our ideas and beliefs. However, Notre Dame University has a responsibility to avoid promoting discredited views on an issue of public risk. Notre Dame’s invitation to Lord Monckton makes a mockery of academic standards and the pursuit of evidence-based knowledge.

    We, the undersigned, call on Notre Dame University to cancel this event.”
    Winthrop Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, Australian Professorial Fellow, UWA

    Prof John P. Abraham, Associate Professor, School of Engineering, University of St. Thomas

    Natalie Latter, PhD Candidate, UWA

    Mike Blanchard, PhD Candidate, UWA

    Prof Michael Archer AM, Evolution of Earth & Life Systems Research Group,
    Biological, Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales

    David Hodgkinson, The Hodgkinson Group

    Dorothy Bishop, Adjunct Professor of Psychology, UWA
    Professor of Developmental Neuropsychology, Dept of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford

    Melinda Trugden, PhD Candidate, UWA

    Prof. Peter Newman, John Curtin Distinguished Professor of Sustainability,
    Director, Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute, Curtin University

    Sanna Peden, PhD Candidate, UWA

    Philip Keirle, PhD Candidate, UWA

    Ullrich Ecker, Assistant Professor, School of Psychology, UWA

    Prof Steven Sherwood, Co-Director, Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales

    Dr Mark Edwards, Assistant Professor, Business School, UWA

    Adam McHugh, Lecturer, School of Engineering and Energy, Murdoch University

    Dr David Robinson, Lecturer of History, Edith Cowan University

    Dr Kerrie Unsworth, Associate Professor, Business School, UWA

    Dr Sky Croeser, Lecturer, Department of Internet Studies, Curtin University

    Prof Kevin Judd, School of Mathematics and Statistics, UWA

    Dr Kayt Davies, Senior Lecturer in Journalism, Edith Cowan University

    Esmeralda Rocha, PhD Candidate, UWA

    Jenny Kent, PhD Candidate, University of Technology Sydney

    Stephen Owen, PhD Candidate, University of Newcastle

    Alana George, Research Consultant, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney

    Cynthia Mitchell, Professor of Sustainability, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney

    Edward Langham, Senior Research Consultant, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney

    Caitlin McGee, Research Principle, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney

    Prof David Karoly, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne

    Dr Tim Stephens, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney

    Prof Jane McAdam, Director of Research, Faculty of Law, University of NSW

    Dr David Mallard, Senior Lecturer, School of Psychology, Charles Sturt University

    Prof Alex Coram, Winthrop Professor of Political Economy, UWA

    Tim Highfield, PhD candidate, QUT

    Kathryn Healey, PhD Candidate, University of Queensland

    Dr Clare Lloyd, Lecturer, Internet Studies, Curtin University

    Prof Roger N Jones, Professorial Research Fellow, Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University

    Dr Markus Donat, Research Fellow, Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales

    Dr Alex English, Research Fellow, Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University

    Dr Katrin Meissner, ARC Future Fellow, Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales

    Dr Iain White, Senior Lecturer, Director of the Centre for Urban and Regional Ecology, University of Manchester, UK

    Jason Sharbanee, PhD Candidate, UWA

    Isabel Rossen, PhD Candidate, UWA

    Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Director, Global Change Institute, University of Queensland

    Dr Terence J Edwards, Distinguished Teaching Fellow, Center for Petroleum and Energy Research, UWA

    Xavier Goldie, PhD Candidate, ANU

    Dr Rose Andrew, Visiting Scientist, College of Medicing, Biology and Environment, ANU

    Chiara Pacifici, Research Associate, Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute, Curtin University

    Dr Lyanne Brouwer, Post-doctoral Fellow, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, ANU

    Dr Dave Rowell, Deputy Director Teaching and Learning, Associate Professor in Evolutionary Genetics, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, ANU

    Dr Kate Umbers, Post-doctoral Fellow, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, ANU

    Prof Jochen Zeil, Professor of Ecological Neuroscience, Research School of Biology, ANU

    James Davies, Research Assistant, Evolution, Ecology and Genetics, Research School of Biology, ANU

    Assoc Prof Klaus Weber, Deputy Director, Centre for Sustainable Energy Systems, ANU

    Prof Hanna Kokko, Australian Laureate Fellow, Evolution, Ecology and Genetics, Research School of Biology, ANU

    Sandra Binning, PhD Candidate, ANU

    Dr Kyla Tienhaara, Research Fellow, Regulatory Institutions Network, ANU

    Daniel Hoops, PhD Candidate, Research School of Biology, ANU

    Dr Samuel Reid, Research School of Biology, ANU

    Isobel Booksmythe, PhD Candidate, Research School of Biology, ANU

    Dr David J. A. Cooper, Curtin University

    00

  • #
    Raven

    Aaaahhh the look on this simpleton Latters face , when her eyes open , her ears begin to work , the brown fog in her head begins to clear ………. Realization dawns, a degree based on a lie with no use or meaning for a science created for an agenda to grow socialism, spread fear and untruths , such a young idealistic fool ! Just another soon to be discarded tool of the Red & Brown Queens ! Miss Latter I laugh at you , yet cry for your wasted talent , do not fall into depression all is not lost !, I believe university toilets still need cleaning , and while you are there I can think of a use for your degree , wipe well miss Latter ! Wipe hard, the stain of your hypocrisy will be hard to erase , now sod off and … !!!

    00

  • #
    Raven

    I hear the thump thump thump on the Red Queens door ….. My my it’s big business and real money , come a knocking , let’s see how long it takes to overthrow the Red & Brown queens ……ITS HEAD KICKING TIME…… Let the entertainment begin ….. :) :) :)

    00

  • #
    Raven

    This is what could happen here if the govt insanity is allowed to roll on unchecked !
    >>>>>>>>>>
    http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/the-wheels-have-been-greeced-for-too-long/
    >>>>>>>>>>
    When governments are led by the nose , corruption ,greed and poor moral judgment ,
    Eventually peope stand up and say … WERE AS MAD AS HELL AND WERE NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE !!!

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    @ connolly: #64
    Great list but look at who they are mostly..Environmentalists, professors of “sustainability”, Biologists well I ask the biologists “what gas do plants need grow on?”
    No physics of any repute except for one delusional head of engineering. Oh and yes a psychologist is completely qualified to judge the science of the atmosphere.. NOT.

    00

  • #
    DavidH

    I don’t recall ever seeing here (or similar sites) mention of one Prosper-René Blondlot and his “discovery” or N-rays, announced in 1903. It’s an example, as this item (http://www.skepdic.com/blondlot.html) states, “a story of self-deception among scientists”. I first heard about N-rays in a book by A.K. Dewdney about bad science, called “Yes, we have no neutrons”. Dewdney wrote that Blondlot published ten papers on N-rays by the end of 1903. Other (predominantly French) scientists also published papers on the effect: Becquerel, Charpentier, Broca. Yet all the published papers, even by distinguished scientists, did not make N-rays exist. An American physicist eventually debunked the whole idea in a report to the journal Nature after visiting Blondlot and seeing his attempts to demonstrate the effect. It will be obvious to all the corrolary I’m trying to make with CAGW “science”.

    Dewdney finishes the N-rays chapter by mentioning “Langmuir’s Laws”, set out in the 1950′s by Irving Langmuir, an American physicist and Nobel laureate.

    1 .The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.

    2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the low level of significance of the results.

    3. There are claims of great accuracy.

    4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.

    5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.

    6. The ratio of supporters to critics rises to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to zero.

    00

  • #
    DavidH

    I don’t recall ever seeing here (or similar sites) mention of one Prosper-René Blondlot and his “discovery” of N-rays, announced in 1903. It’s an example, as this item (http://www.skepdic.com/blondlot.html) states, “a story of self-deception among scientists”. I first heard about N-rays in a book by A.K. Dewdney about bad science, called “Yes, we have no neutrons”. Dewdney wrote that Blondlot published ten papers on N-rays by the end of 1903. Other (predominantly French) scientists also published papers on the effect: Becquerel, Charpentier, Broca. Yet all the published papers, even by distinguished scientists, did not make N-rays exist. An American physicist eventually debunked the whole idea in a report to the journal Nature after visiting Blondlot and seeing his attempts to demonstrate the effect. It will be obvious to all the corrolary I’m trying to make with CAGW “science”.

    Dewdney finishes the N-rays chapter by mentioning “Langmuir’s Laws” of bad science, set out in the 1950′s by Irving Langmuir, an American physicist and Nobel laureate.

    1 .The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.

    2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the low level of significance of the results.

    3. There are claims of great accuracy.

    4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.

    5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.

    6. The ratio of supporters to critics rises to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to zero.

    I think we’re seeing the last item taking effect.

    00

  • #
    DavidH

    Looks like I may have made a duplicated post – apologies. I did accidentally his “submit” instead of “preview”. Any way those buttons can be separated a little more?

    00

  • #

    Expecting a big turn out in Perth after this little hissy fit.

    00

  • #
    janama

    forgive me if this has already been posted

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/9756509/academics-want-climate-sceptics-lecture-cancelled/

    check out the poll “Was Notre Dame University right to host Christopher Monckton’s lecture on climate?

    so far 79% YES!

    00

  • #
    pat

    BBC’s Richard Black – “not falling” means “rising” and all due to the “cold weather”…voodoo science?

    30 June: BBC: Richard Black: Climate policies ‘need new tools’, advisers say
    The UK’s greenhouse gas emissions are not falling fast enough to meet government targets, say advisers.
    Emissions rose by 3% during 2010, says the Committee on Climate Change (CCC).
    This was due to extra energy demand in cold weather…
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13946816

    00

  • #

    Kübler-Ross’s five stages of grief applied to CAGW.

    Five Stages of Climate Grief:

    Denial — “The debate is settled; there is no doubt; no-one disagrees.”

    Anger — “How dare they! Sceptics are uneducated, knuckle-dragging dupes of evil capitalist, oil-men! They should not be allowed to contaminate our academies!”

    Bargaining — “Just let us pass this tax, and everything will be all right! C’mon, can’t we all just get along! Pascal’s Wager!”

    Depression — “No-one appreciates that I’m doing this for the planet! Why will no-one understand?”

    Acceptance — Would that this stage arrive soon.

    00

  • #
    Bernardo

    [ It is interesting that a religiously founded university, Notre Dame (Catholic), in WA should uphold the principles of free speech by hosting LN, while the secular founded institutions are found wanting

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Deadman @ 75 . That’s great.
    Interesting that one of the paid posters on Andrew Bolt’s site has been looking up his psychology books and come up a rather pathetic attempt to “list” aspects of denial.
    Please have a go at him with your five stages.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ridd_fund_the_sceptics_to_test_the_warmists_claims/#commentsmore

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Dont know if this has been mentioned yet but today is July 1 and we all know what that means…..yes thats right the QLD flood TAX i mean levy starts today.

    00

  • #
    connolly

    the Real Universe @ #68
    Yep the usual suspects. Of course little Natalie has already got one foot on the carbonista gravy train running board.
    This is Natalie’s self description of her “academic” career.
    Natalie Latter is a postgraduate student at the University of Western Australia, researching global justice and a human rights framework for climate change.

    George Orwell couldn’t have made this up. Thats right the organizer of this cheap and nasty attempt to suppress free speech is studying human rights!!!
    Geez Natalie have you ever studied Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
    Have you read and do you understand the the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)?
    The ICCPR recognizes the right to freedom of speech as “the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression
    The climate McCarthyites named on their own shame list are a threat to our rights and our livelihoods.
    Bring on the ballot box and lets get this over.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    [So John, are you going to keep calling him a liar or are you going to actually tell us what he allegedly "deliberately lied" about.? JN]

    There are some excellent youtube videos which go under the generic title of “Monckton Bunkum”.

    Check them out. They leave one in no doubt that either Mr Monckton is deliberately trying to deceive, or else he’s an honest man who is incredibly unlucky in his which cherries he picks.

    There is also that nice prsentation by Mr Abrahams (I think), plus lots of stuff at Skeptical Science.

    I’ve got nothing against him as an entertainer though – he clearly is very good at what he does.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Five Stages of Climate Grief:

    Deadman:

    Denial — “The debate is settled; there is no doubt; no-one disagrees.”

    Denial – it is not warming up, and if it is, it won’t hurt, and anyway, its not us who are causing it.

    Anger — “How dare they! Sceptics are uneducated, knuckle-dragging dupes of evil capitalist, oil-men! They should not be allowed to contaminate our academies!”

    Anger – “These people will ruin civilisation as we know it – they must be stopped!”

    Bargaining — “Just let us pass this tax, and everything will be all right! C’mon, can’t we all just get along! Pascal’s Wager!”

    Bargaining – “OK, say we agree that it might be happening, and pretend we are going to do stuff about it – will that do?

    Depression — “No-one appreciates that I’m doing this for the planet! Why will no-one understand?”

    Depression – “Why don’t people take us seriously? Here we are, noble bearers of Galileo complexes, but people think we are jokes. Its so unfair.”

    Acceptance — Would that this stage arrive soon.

    Accptance. Maybe a bridge too far.

    00

  • #
    connolly

    John Brookes @ 79
    So John what is it – is he a liar or is it “or else he’s an honest man who is incredibly unlucky in his which cherries he picks.”
    You called Monckton a liar. And your “evidence” is a couple of You Tube videos and a web site. Ever heard of aggravated damages? Paid the house off old son?

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    John Brookes:
    July 1st, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    That’s a cop-out John. I’m not interested in you tube vids.
    You obviously watched them and have formed your opinion. Lets hear from your mouth your reasons for accepting whatever it was you watched on you tube.

    00

  • #
    Stuart Greig

    When the bubble of climate change lies bursts, it will be the end of them …so in their desperation warmists could perceive contradictions to their belief as death threats.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    MV in 35 – the great expanse of the rational middle ground is padded. There are generally only fences on the extremes of the paddock.

    Did you ever explain what this Plan B is you’re talking about… I’d have one if you asked an answerable question.

    00

  • #
    tertius

    Mr Brookes, you’re response is disgusting. You have called Monckton a liar without presenting evidence. When repeatedly challenged to support your accusation you finally reappear here with handwaving comments about some unlinked Youtube videos and then you refer readers back to your own unlinked website. Surely you are not so incapacitated that you cannot present this supposed powerful evidence of deliberate lying on Monckton’s part here, now, yourself.

    Your comment about Monckton the entertainer is another snide putdown. Why has there never been a comment from you here about that hero of Climate propagandising, Al Gore, the entertainer?

    I’m no Monckton acolyte but precisely in what substantial ways does Monckton’s populist rhetoric and lack of academic qualifications in climate differ from Al Gore? Other than one is on your team and the other is not.

    Are you a supporter of free speech for “me and my team”, but not for thee and yours?
    The essence of free speech means the right of allowing – nay, ensuring – that views one doesn’t like are expressed and heard.

    What are you afraid of? Truth has nothing to fear from open dissent and skeptical questioning.

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Boiling mad again .. lets ne straight the ONLY reason that the “hide the decline” emails was for criminally fraudulent purposes. Why aren’t Hansen, Mann and Jones IN JAIL!
    Answer.. the establishment NWO! Any other minion caught doing this in some dept would be sacked immediately and charged probably.

    00

  • #
    rjm385

    Finally someone with the cojones to fight for what’s right.

    Someone that has more moral fortitude than Bob Brown, Julia Gilliard and Tony Abbott all put together.

    It’s a pity this someone represents another country.

    My hero

    Say YES to an election now!

    00

  • #
    grayman

    John Brookes you are still an IDIOT

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Oh look, he’s a liar. He travels the world telling lies with great gravity and panache. He says things he knows aren’t true – and if you guys had any integrity, you’d admit it. There’s no shame in saying, “This guy I used to admire is nothing more than a self-aggrandizing liar”.

    But if you don’t want to think that he has feet of mud, then don’t watch the youtube videos and don’t read Abraham’s criticisms, and don’t go to Skeptical Science – the choice is yours.

    But maybe (just for entertainment value) check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Tertius Monckton Liar:
    http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/monckton-lies-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-the-continuing-saga-of-a-practicer-of-fiction/
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/monckton_caught_making_things.php
    http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton-lies-damn-lies-or-staggering-incompetence
    http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-moncktons-lies-exposed-again-guardian
    http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-moncktons-lies-exposed-again-guardian
    http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/meteorology/9997/Christopher-Monckton-Lies-damn-lies-or-staggering-incompetence
    http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/meteorology/9997/Christopher-Monckton-Lies-damn-lies-or-staggering-incompetence
    http://climate.aib.org.uk/article/32319/Christopher-Moncktons-Lies-Exposed-Again-By-The-Guardian

    or just type “monckton lies” in to google.

    To be fair he could just be deluded, and/or he could just be too stupid to know that things others have told him are lies and repeats them thinking they are true.

    But then he lied about calling the protestors “hitler youth”… and lies/misrepresents his House of Lords position. It is a calamity of statements that are untrue.

    This is why I always say he is bad for your team. He says so many demonstrable porkies that no one will trust his science. I admit, the same could be said for Gore though.

    00

  • #
    Bush Bunny

    Tim Flim flammery came to Tamworth – the rich agricultural area in Tony Windsor’s home electorate. He addressed a group of school students, and that Stiffen was with him too. He reckoned there was a chapter on the NW NSW regarding climate change commission report. And how dreadful it would be because of climate change. (I ‘tink’ these guys underestimate the Tamworthians, they are a hard bunch and are naturally suspicious of city slickers who wouldn’t know a cloud from a cow pat?’

    Increased temps, droughts etc. (As if we didn’t know or had’nt
    experienced them). But we have had good rain, even floods this year. The Northern Daily Leader ran a front page
    yesterday Thurs. ‘We’ll reap what we sow’. A picture of Tony Windsor with his steely, stiff lipped look and Joe Clayton director of Shenhua leaning on a fence post on the proposed site for a coal mine.

    Tony wants to state he will not stand by Labor if they didn’t back his save the farm policy.

    Ironically Tony sold his farm Cintra at Werris Creek for 4.million then leased it back from a Chinese owned coal company last year. And when criticised said he had nothing against coal’. And this year bought three properties around Coonamble that are ear marked for gas mining by a Chinese company? When asked if the properties had gas exploitation licenses ‘He said ‘He didn’t know’ As Shenhue had licenses all around that area. Probably his would be included, strange he didn’t know? As he voted for a tax on LPG when the carbon tax or mining tax is introduced?

    Now when I bought 100 acres some years ago not far from Werris
    Creek, when we signed the contract of sale, it showed that our
    plot had an oil and coal exploitation license on it. It ran out in the 2000s sometime. This only gives geologists permission to enter your property to prospect for
    these resources. Then if they find any its a different matter. Brown coal was evident near the surface in the rain erosion trenches running down from the volcanic tuffs on the
    land. I told Tony this years ago, and he said “Really that is interesting’. And yet neighbouring farms in Werris Creek have also been bought up. They can use the farms though and lease them back for a peppercorn rent.

    Just seems strange that Tony is also fighting for the Liverpool Plains farmers against coal mining, should now say he doesn’t support foreign companies taking over farm land for mining purposes? When he sold his property and leased it back from a coal company and they were mining coal there for 80 years before at one time.

    Strange world or do you smell a rat like me? Could it mean
    being on the MPCCC he has a conflict of interests?

    00

  • #
    connolly

    Matt B @ 89
    You really are struggling. Monckton’s statement re. Hitler Youth is an opinion. In defamation law a distinction is made between honest opinion and statements that are made of “fact”that are untrure. The honestly held opinuion does not have to accurate, rational or based on evidence. It does have to be honestly held. I disagree with Monckton’s politics but one thing you cannot claim is that he doesnt honestly and sincerely hold his beliefs and opinions. The man is not a hypocrite and clearly has the courage of his convictions. But your assertion that he is a liar is stated as fact. And that is defamatory. Its an important distinction. One that very often costs.

    00

  • #
    Bush Bunny

    Matt B: If you want to know who is spreading lies, then why hasn’t Monckton been sued for libel or slander? Get real. The real liars are Julia Gillard who said ‘No carbon tax during my term of government’ And all those scientists on the carbon climate change gravy train who flunked basic science and got paid to spread rumours around about CO2 being the cause of AGW. And got grants of millions to con people. Don’t see any of them discussing their science. Those responsible have brought the scientific fraternity and academy into disrepute and now realize what is happening. Sure all the money given to them could well be better spent
    into worthwhile sustainability projects, not poxy computer models.
    Remember Lord Christopher has contacts with the scientific community who hand on info to him.

    00

  • #

    Mattb — go on pick JUST ONE thing that you think is the single most important issue regarding Monckton. A list of links to character Assassinations only shows you uncritically assume there is something that matters in those lists, and it shows there are lots of people who want to silence Monckton.

    Do your best to see if you can avoid an ad hom.

    This is why I always say he is bad for your team. He says so many demonstrable porkies that no one will trust his science. I admit, the same could be said for Gore though.

    So since we know Gore deceived the public on the ice cores, and that it was his only material evidence in support, that means it matters. So where are all the venues canceling or banning Gore? Where are the GETUP campaigns to shut Gore the liar down? Where are the front page stories suggesting his Nobel be rescinded?

    Even you surely can see the hypocrisy of the response to these two men.
    The lefty-big-government team control more of the media and use it to denigrate one side and ignore the flaws of the other. Then schools of gullible followers spread the denigration around without even looking into detail to see if the criticisms matter or are relevant or if there are flaws in the main arguments, rather than distracting sidelines.

    Who is seeking the truth about the climate? Not those who run first for someone biography.

    The only Q that matters is whether Monckton is right about climate sensitivity.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Connolly – re-read my post I said he lies, or speaks what he thinks is true but is wrong. Hardly defamatory. Also I’m not questioning whether it is his OPINION that they were (or were like) Hitler youth… but he then claimed he never said it.

    Jo – look there were an endless list of links to “Monckton Lies” (note to connolly that is a Google search not a defamatory statement!”

    But I’ll go to the 1st link and the 1st claim:
    “Now, 40 years ago, DDT, the only effective agent against the malaria mosquito was banned.”

    Response: DDT was not the only effective agent, and it was never banned to control malaria.

    nothing to do with climate change mind you.

    It is all to easy to claim that the endless list of google results is all about people who want to silence him, and character assassinations. But lets use this RealClimate article:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/

    You’re probably dining with the Good Lord a few times in the coming weeks, how about he tells us why they are wrong… in that he made up the IPCC projections on his graph. In that he claimed this graph starting in 2002 was a valid critique of an article discussing trends since 1995.

    I mean this is Gavin from Realclimate, an actual bonafide honest to goodness climate scientist of the highest order. Lets explain why he is wrong?

    Ok I have read his SPPI reply, which in turn leads to:
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/monckton_flunks_latin.php#comment-1032463

    yes yes Deltoid another of the grand conspiracy against B o M.

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    John Brookes go back to your NWO buddies that love starting wars in Libya and killing of the worlds population and denegrating third-world countries to abject poverty. And you MATES in the International Panel of Climate Crookes! (PROVED) Who wouldnt know S.. from C.. about physics to save them selves including YOU.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    MattB @ 96

    I mean this is Gavin from Realclimate, an actual bonafide honest to goodness climate scientist of the highest order. Lets explain why he is wrong?

    Would that be the Gavin Schmidt who oversaw the “temperature cleansing” of weather stations around the world from the official NOAA record?

    Who managed to eliminate the 806 “coldest” stations from the record – just “by chance”?

    Who reduced readings for the entire Arctic Region to just two – Ellesmere island in Canada and Nuuk Airport?

    Who then went on to claim 2010 was “hottest/second hottest/equal hottest year on record” (whichever) while the NH froze under a record blanket of snow?

    And when pressed explained the “cold” was offset by “warmer temperatures” in the Arctic – as evidenced by just two temperature records covering an area bigger than Europe? – Two stations cherry-picked by himself?

    You got one thing right – he really IS a “climate scientist”.

    Anybody else in any other profession (except maybe bankers and politicians) found guilty of the same behaviour would have been in jail for fraud a long time ago.

    Besides, in case you haven’t noticed, it’s getting colder. Pretty much everywhere except New Zealand.

    00

  • #
    Numberwang

    “Latter’s current research is a PhD thesis on the intergenerational and global ethical dimensions of climate change.”. Not much “pursuit of evidence-based knowledge” there, is there? Typical post-modernist flummery from another useless Humanities PHD student. I’m only surprised she isn’t including queer, gender and intersectional dimensions in her problematization of climate change .

    Only “peer-reviewed” scientific papers got published in the Soviet Union, and only “peer-reviewed” scientists could lecture. Says it all, really.

    Lastly, John Brookes and MattB should both audition for “Australia’s Got Talent” as they both have the amazing ability to talk out of their arse.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Jo, I would not equate Monckton and Gore. If Gore were, for example, to argue that CO2 went up before temperature in the geological past, that would be as bad as Monckton. The science says otherwise, that in the past CO2 has gone up after the temperature increased.

    But were someone (anyone) to assert that this fact somehow invalidates AGW, then they would be demonstrating an incomplete understanding of the greenhouse effect. If they did assert this while knowing actually having a better understanding, then they would be dissembling. Its what Monckton does all the time.

    Anyway – all this fuss about the science, when its really just a proxy for a good old fashioned war based on political ideology :-)

    00

  • #
    Ralph Prestage

    There is every reason the experts promoting climate change (global warming until nature proved its stupidity by producing near record cold winters in many countries) must be ignored. Just reflect on previous alarming predictions of a 3 day working week due to computerisation requiring massive infrastructure costs for leisure centres,its inherent stress from idle time and social unrest, the hole in the ozone layer when the scientists sought massive grants to investigate a blanket to cover the earth to avoid being frizzled to death and oil supplies should now be depleted. STILL WAITING.
    Of course the scientists made billions. Why should public money be used to finance these mad scientists and bigoted universities.
    Just as big a problem is human rights raised by Tim at item 27 “The threat to our grandchildren’ is not from global warming, but from Agenda 21, brought into being by greedy turncoats and useful idiots”.

    An excellent item on Agenda 21 was also referred to by Linda at item 38.

    “A great pity is we have not been given the opportunity to openly discuss the benefits of Agenda 21 and Sustainable development , and how society is SO much better since these programs were ever so secretly implemented.
    I as many others find this topic very interesting as Ministers seem to know nothing of it, but we all have to abide by it.
    Climate change is but one of the chapters from the program.
    So to those that peddle Agenda 21, please enlighten Australia what it is and how we benefit, or who benefits”.

    This accurately states the disastrous implications of Agenda 21 which has been adopted by many councils without any knowledge given to the ratepayers as it would be soundly rejected.
    Everyone should be familiar with this encroaching doom.

    00

  • #
    Winston

    Gavin Schmidt’s rude and boorish behavior, circular logic, and abuse of even the mildest enquiry or slightest hint of dissenting opinion, on John Cook’s website was the first inkling I had that something was rotten in the state of climate science. Ironically I have this arrogant and supercilious Napoleon wannabe to thank for prompting me to educate myself further about the rampant polemicism in this climate pseudoscience. So much for an actual bona fide honest to goodness climate scientist! If he is the best the alarmists have to offer as an authority, well heaven help them.

    00

  • #
    tertius

    John Brookes, you are a sly one aren’t you?

    Your first comment on this topic was clearly that Monckton was a “wilful and deliberate liar”(3).
    Now, lo and behold, in your most recent post (100) you downgrade your attack to calling Monckton “dissembling”.

    Dissembling is what politicians and polemicists do all the time. Among many public figures it has been raised almost to an artform. As unpleasant as it may be however, dissembling is not in the league of wilful and deliberate lying. Dissembling may be tolerated but deliberate lying is beyond the pale. This, of course is the issue regarding the PM and the “carbon” tax: Was Julia Gilliard telling a deliberate lie or merely dissembling when she told the electorate, “There will be no carbon tax under the Government I lead”?

    Monckton is indeed a savvy speaker, a successful pundit and a polemicist and thus not adverse to gilding the lily for maximum effect. But you give Al Gore a pass for his dissembling (because we have apparently moved on from outright “lying”) despite the fact that, if you type into Google “Al Gore” and “dissembling” you will get a 181,000 hits (Recognise the offensive tactic, Mr Brookes?)

    And yes, sans smiley face, this IS a war between opposing political ideologies…

    00

  • #
    tertius

    And for Matt B (91), you could just type “Gore” and “lies” into Google and get, oh I don’t know, about 30,400,000 results; so that should clear up any doubts about Al Gore, then.

    But at least you admitted that, unlike Mr Brookes…

    00

  • #

    John Brookes:
    June 30th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
    I guess freedom of speech does give a person the right to continually state things which they know to be untrue.

    Does it include the right to say that such a person is a wilfull and deliberate liar? Or does freedom of speech only go so far?

    I take it John, that you are not American. For if you were, you would understand freedom of speech. I applaud you for at least trying sarcastically to grasp the concept, but failing miserably as your sarcasm is dead off.

    Jesus once said that it is easy to love a friend. The test of a true good person is to love your enemies. Free Speech is similar to that. It is easy to yell free speech when you agree with the commentator. It is not so much when you abhor the message. That is why in America, while we abhor the Neo-Nazis, New Black Panthers and KKK, we defend their right to say what they want, and yes, even when some would call it hate speech. Because that is free speech!

    Now what happens when someone lies? Well, if you can PROVE they knowingly lied, then you can get them for libel and slander. But you have to PROVE they know what they say is a lie. The allegation that Monckton is knowingly lying is a lie. The truth is they BELIEVE he is wrong. But he BELIEVES he is right, so hence he is not lying. He may be wrong, but being wrong is not a lie. I dare say that if it was, most of the AGW group would be in prison now (since their stories change with every passing season). But I am not so filled with hate, or so bitter and demented that I think they are LYING. No, I believe most of the alarmists do indeed believe what they say (and mores the pity when they start talking about branding, gassing and torture of the non-believers).

    So to answer your final question, yes you are free to call someone a liar. That does not make them a liar, or you correct. Nor does it even make you a liar for mistakenly calling them a liar. But unless you can prove they know they are lying – that they do not believe that of which they speak – then it does make you the liar since you know that you do not know.

    00

  • #

    John Brookes:
    July 1st, 2011 at 3:18 pm
    Oh look, he’s a liar. He travels the world telling lies with great gravity and panache. He says things he knows aren’t true – and if you guys had any integrity, you’d admit it. There’s no shame in saying, “This guy I used to admire is nothing more than a self-aggrandizing liar”.

    See now John, you have just demonstrated my point. Monckton may be a liar, neither I nor you know that. You BELIEVE he is, I BELIEVE he is not. But you are a liar. How do I know? because you called him a liar, and you KNOW that you KNOW NOT. In other words, you stated your opinion as fact, when it is not fact. And you know it is not a fact, therefore you are a liar. As such, in a court of law in the US, you would be convicted by your own words, and Monckton would be exhonerated.

    00

  • #

    John Brookes @ 90:

    But if you don’t want to think that he has feet of mud, then don’t watch the youtube videos and don’t read Abraham’s criticisms, and don’t go to Skeptical Science – the choice is yours.

    But maybe (just for entertainment value) check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM.

    I just watched that video. The attempted ‘debunking’ was at about the same quality that you would find of Skeptical(*cough) Science. It’s great example of taking a person’s words and twisting them beyond recognition. Of course you, as a true believer, would think that those arguments presented in the video are solid. Your blinkers don’t allow you to see the distortions.

    Let’s look at the three points one at a time.

    1. No global cooling for the last 9 years.

    This was presented in a speech in Melbourne in 2010. Yet the reposte cites a dataset from 98-07. That data is cherry picked and is not the data set timeframe which Monckton is talking about. As you can see even Phil Jones admits there has been cooling since 2002. Who cares if it is ‘statistically significant’ or not. Monckton did not use the words ‘statistically significant’. That’s just weasel words.

    C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

    No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

    2. There is no long term loss of arctic sea ice. The graphic which Monckton uses has the text:

    Arctic summer sea-ice area is just fine: it is recovering from a 30-year low

    Yet, the video goes on to attempt ‘debunk’ that point by using the same paper which states:

    According to scientific measurements, Arctic sea ic has declined dramatically over at least the past thorty years, with the most extreme decline seen in the summer melt season.

    How does that invalidate the fact that the sea ice is recovering from the recent lows in 2007? Maybe you missed the point. 30 years is not a long term decline, it is within the climate cycle which has been established by climate science for over 50 years. Now that the globe is cooling sea ice in the Arctic is recovering. There is no senario whereby the Arctic sea ice will disappear by 2040. Like this sort of rubbish peddled by the MSM. The video completely missed the point the attempt to ‘debunk’ was yet another twisting of the argument. You gotta keep your eye on the pea under the thimble folks.

    3. The Greenland ice sheet is thickening. The paper cited uses the measurement data of Greenland elevation to concluded that:

    An increase of 6.4 +- 0.2 centimeters per year(cm/year) is found in the vast interior areas above 1500 meters. In contrast to previous reports of high elevation balance. Below 1500 meters, the elevation-change rate is -2.0 +- 0.9 cm/year, in qualitative agreement with reported thinning of the ice-sheet margins. Averaged over the study area the increase is 5.4 +- 0.2 cm/year or ~60cm over 11 years or ~54 cm when corrected for isostatic uplift.

    It’s right there in the summary! The scientist stating some caveats(more funding please) about data integration issues between the two data sets that he used do not refute the conclusions of the paper. Merely, that are an attempt at honest science to openly discuss the flaws of the methodology used. Coneivably is not a word you use to state fact. How you can take that word out of context to completely change the entire conclusion of paper is flabbergasting.

    John. Mate. Wake up. There is this mass of tissue inside your skull yearning to be used.

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    @Connolly #64
    Ref: Your list of anti democratic ‘Silencers’.

    (Prof Kevin Judd, School of Mathematics and Statistics, UWA)

    Connolly, can you re-check the above name for typos and/or freudian slips.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Oh well Waffle, I guess we all see what we want to see. I see Monckton being misleading, and you don’t. You may see him as trying to get to the truth of things, and I see him as trying to confuse them.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    tertius: OK, I take it back. I think that he is a bare faced liar. I can’t help it – that is what I think.

    00

  • #

    Mattb: righto – so the worst thing you can say about Monckton’s climate predictions, even with all those links, is about DDT? I rest my case.

    JohnB: I wouldn’t equate Monckton with Gore seriously either. Gore has let his lie-by-omission stand for 6 years, caused thousands of deaths due to his support for bio-fuel. Gore has made millions from green investments that he doesn’t declare when he speaks. Monckton makes one hyperbolic bad-taste statement and apologizes straight away.

    Meanwhile none of you two Monckton-haters can name anything remotely as important that qualifies as a lie or a lie-by-omission for Monckton. And yet you dismiss and deride a man who is twice the man you may ever be.

    00

  • #
    tertius

    Brookes. I take it back too. I think that Gore is a bare-faced liar, and you are politically motivated stooge and troll. I can’t help it – that is what I think.

    So it’s all Ok then…

    00

  • #
    connolly

    In reply to MattB
    The allegation that Monckton “lied” by expressing an opinion about his role as Thatcher’s adviser is precisely the sort of defamation I was trying to explain to you. To call someone a “liar”without clearly demonstrating that this is asserted as an opinion as distinct from an assertion of truth based on facts as you and Brookes have done is defamatory. Monckton when he expressed the opinion that he was the only one that knew anything about science was not lying. He may have been wrong. misguided or even deluded. But you like the Climate McCarthyites attack his integrity and that is defamatory. Just another tip. Malice defeats any defense of honest opinion in Australian defamation law. You, Brookes and the Climate McCarthyites have expressed extreme malice towards Monckton. I hope he sues the pants off the lot of you. Good luck with any defense that apparently would be based on the writings Ward and the Guardian. For crying out loud.

    00

  • #
    PaddikJ

    “Intergenerational and Global Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change”

    “. . . he has declared that the scientific enterprise is invalid and that climate science is fraudulent . . .”

    That the person who wrote the above is a Ph.D. candidate is . . . just par for the (post)modern course, I’m afraid. Anyone who can’t even distinguish between “the scientific enterprise” and “climate science”(sic) is someone who can barely distinguish between black and white, and writes arrant non-sense like “Global Ethical Dimensions.”

    “We expect graduates to. . .”

    Actually, those quotes above are about as good as we can expect from a PolySci or Sociology graduate. Too late for any rescuing, Jo; that ship sank long ago. I’m not even optimistic that the exact sciences are saveable – their credibility, painstakingly built by 400 year’s patient, empirical efforts, blown in just one generation.

    And let’s face it – we need our universities. In addition to their main function of providing a transitional womb for our not-quite adults, they are Culture’s way of employing the otherwise unemployable. The trick is to keep them on the reservation, or at least firmly out of the policy arenas.

    00

  • #
    PaddikJ

    I read the article in The West. Want more proof that scholarly standards have vanished without a trace? How about that there is actually a professorship of Sustainability?

    Still not enough? Try this statement by the erstwhile Professor of Sustainability, which, with the exception of italics, I paste without comment:

    Curtin University Professor of Sustainability, Peter Newman – a signatory to the letter – said it was a disgrace any university associated itself with “someone who has clearly got no academic credibility”.

    00

  • #
    Oksanna

    Uncle Bunyip’s utterances have received some praise elsewhere on this Blog, but it is in regard to the topic of this thread: the petition to shut down The Viscount’s lectures, that His Furryness has outdone himself. For Old Bunyip has uncovered the research interests of some of the fifty petitioners and happened upon some gems which lend the entire sorry episode a degree of much-deserved levity. Enter “Finnish Cinema’s Relevance To Climate Change”…
    http://bunyipitude.blogspot.com/2011/07/finnish-cinema-and-climate-change.html

    00