Share this with friends:
What a great video. Enjoy. Skill and talent meet a roomful of science.
Thanks to encounterbooks
I like it!
Hat tip to Christian K in Germany. 🙂
PS: I’m touring at the moment with Monckton, sorry for the gaps between posts. It’s much fun all round, especially as journalists try to trip him up and come unstuck, as did the ABC this morning, when Adam Spencer was so angry that Christopher had excellent answers to all the questions that he hung up mid-interview. Ouch for him. Monckton was nonplussed about this interview, so much so, he couldn’t remember who the interviewer was he told us the story this morning.
Why don’t the interviewers do their homework and read the answers the Monckton has given to Abrahamson and others before they try to “enjoy” scoring points? These are the holes you might step in if you don’t read both sides of the story. When will the believers wake up and realize they’ve been living in a groupthink bubble?
As I’ve said — Monckton puts on a clown disguise, arrogant interviewers think that it will be an easy kill, and they get shocked when they discover the man is razor sharp and so used to be being attacked he has an answer before they ask…
The presentations in Newcastle went very well. There are many well informed and dedicated skeptics there.
From Andrew Bolt:
“Listen to Spencer’s attempt to discredit Monckton without tackling his arguments here and, and post hang-up, here.”
Bolt covers the events here: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/monckton_offered_a_debate/
Turns out we are getting wall-to-wall Joolya on Sunday with 7 and 9 backflipping like politicians:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/seven-nine-will-now-show-carbon/story-e6frg996-1226089734777
It seems Tony will get the righ tof reply, which should be interetsing.
20
“when Adam Spencer was so angry that Christopher had excellent answers to all the questions”
I’m not sure that is an accurate reflection of the conversation, but boo hoo some shock jock tactics.
20
Mattb, Being a parent, I am curious as to what age group you might belong.
Can you share this with us?
10
MattB
I second Incoherent rambler’s question re your age.
Come on – don’t be shy – be honest with everybody here and tell us. My bet is any (or all) of the below
1 You’ll lie
2 You won’t tell the truth
3 You’ll say you’re a parent too
4 You’ll say you’re 95yo and still riding your Harley
6 You’ll say you’re actually only 9yo and still in primary school
Oh heck – who knows and who cares – you’re just good cannon fodder!!
Cheers,
10
Is there any audio for the first interview?
10
Bull dust in 1,
I am going to run a book on Joolya-isms and the commission in general.
Bets can be placed under the following headings, note headings without odds are payed out to closest guess.
1, How many times will the words “I wanna” appear in her speech?
2, How many times will the words “The science is settled” appear in her speech?
3, How much detail about the tax will there be, options are A, complete explanation (500:1) B, detailed explanation (100:1) C, murky half assed assumptions (20:1) or D, no detail just political spin (Note, Betting on this option has been suspended)
4, No doubt she will be flanked by all the movers and shakers so the question is “How big will Bob Browns smile be” options are A, Smirk B, cheesy grin or C, Shit eating grin (Think the Grinch)
5, Will Christine Milne smile at all? (1,000,000:1)
6, Will Rob Oakshot hog the lime light explaining why he supports the TAX? (evens)
7, Will Tony Windsor say anything at all? (1,000:1)
8, Will Tim Flannery wear a shirt with the “Panasonic” logo emblazoned on it (10:1)
9, Will Tim Flannery wear a cap with “Geothermal” logo emblazoned on it (15:1)
10, For a multi bet on 8 and 9 (45:1) Good odds if you ask me.
Betting closes 10 minutes prior to speech commencing.
10
Joolya on Sunday with 7 and 9…Whos actually going to watch this stomach renching drivle? Mind boggles. Missed one crakar24 11. how many ways can she use ‘carbon’ in one sentence? AND know what it means.
10
Jo.
Hi Jo, Caught the newcastle presentation and was hoping to say gday, unfortunately, you were still on stage doing Q&A when work commitments intervened and I had to leave.
Enjoyed the night immensely, thanks for taking the time to come to Newcastle. However I did by chance get to meet AndyG55.
10
‘Scientists are not after the truth;
it is the truth that is after scientists.’
Dr Karl Schlecta
How appropiate to AGW, and this was written pre Climategate. Dr Schlecta was truly a visionary.
10
Crackar24
Actually, all will be soon revealed. I happen to have an advance copy of “Julia’s” speech and will be posting it – just as soon as Bryan and John hand over the final draft!
This one is called “The Queen’s Speech.” And it’s by the REAL Julia.
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
Reading up on Jo and Monckton’s tour.—I’ll see you there in Melbourne at Collin Street luncheon later this month—I was listening to an ABC interview from this morning with Monckton.
http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2011/07/climate-change-.html
So I decided to post a comment. But it seems that I’m banned from commenting at the ABC. I have been since The Drum blacklisted me in 2008. Don’t know why, I’m always really polite…So I’ll just have to cross post here. Sorry, for going OT….
* * *
The ABC has lost a serious amount of credibility by refusing to cover both sides of what should have been (at least as far as the ABC is concerned) an academic science debate. But, instead, against the ABC’s own Charter, the ABC has politicised the debate by allotting ~99% of climate-related airtime to the currently fashionable Green catastrophism.
Some of the bias can be forgiven. Obviously, idealistic ABC journos imagined they were doing their bit to save the planet. But the lapse of professional journalistic ethics and the sheer scientific illiteracy on the part of the ABC editors is damning, indeed.
Rather than waiting for momentum to build in parliament for an inquiry, the ABC can begin the healing of their crippled reputation by first going back to school on both sides of the debate, then reporting fairly from here on out. Give both sides equal time, not only to make up for past ethical lapses, but to make sure the ABC is not punting its reputation literally on the weather forecasts for the next decade (which by the way are increasing cooling due to the PDO shift and a possible solar minimum approach!)
And just as the ABC policy doesn’t normally allow personal slurs please reserve the term “Denialism” to its usual usage as a descriptor of those who seek to deny that the Nazi Holocaust ever occurred rather than applying it also to scientists who challenge the orthodox AGW hypothesis of the UN IPPC.
Speaking of denial, the ABC should realise by now that it no longer control a monopoly on the mass dissemination of information to even the most isolated enclaves of Australian society. Even grandpa out the back of Boon Boon knows how to use a search engine in 2011. Dozen of blogs have sprouted like mushrooms after the rain to fill the information void left on the half of the climate debate the ABC has refused to cover or routinely denigrates. In fact, the unsatisfactory coverage of the climate debate by the ABC has actually help create a huge market niche for skeptical climate blogs who have garner an expanding and intensely loyal following. Those audiences won’t be coming back to Auntie again.
Australians when they learn from the digital free market of ideas what the ABC has attempted to hide from them naturally become disillusioned and cynical. Not just about ABC’s journalistic lapses, but about the whole environment movement in general. What other misinformation and hidden facts are out there they wonder. Thus, ABC bias has actually damaged the credibility of vital and legitimate environment concerns and this might well become all the more apparent after the next parliament election.
Oh, and please memo all ABC journos to Google the “Taranto Effect.” It probably explains some of our Labor government’s incompetency.
10
Wes being from NZ I’d lable the same to RNZ! And to TVNZ. Thats why there’s an ETS there.
10
We can run a sweep in #3… How old is MattB.
10
mattB@12…sounds about right. As is your assertion about shock jock Spencer playing the man not the physics. If Spencer were not so intent on verballing his interviewee, we might have had some interesting and enlightening debate about the evidence. And in the process, Spencer would have gained some sorely needed education in the areas of physics, history and economics, and of course manners. A clumsy attempt by Adam and ABC-think at smothering the debate the public needs to hear.
10
Was at the presentation last night and the audience appreciated the speakers taking the time out to come to Newcastle. There appeared to be only one warmer in the group and after the event he cornered Lord Christopher. The young warmist attacker had been muttering into his mobile phone all night and made a fool of himself trying to get a rise out of Lord Monckton. His line of attack reminded me of the unfortunate, juvenile Adam Spencer interview. There is no hope for science in Australia while the ABC has the freedom to do what it does.
20
Here in Britain we do not have a left/right split on the issue of Global Warming.
For instance Graham Stringer Labour MP is the only member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology with scientific qualifications – he holds a PhD in Chemistry.
He is the most sceptical AGW member of that committee.
Piers Corbyn (meteorologist, astrophysicist) is also well to the left of the political spectrum.
On the other hand Margaret Thatcher (darling of the right) set up the CRU at UEA.
I think the left/right polemic is unhelpful in a debate about the science facts.
Down the line there will be a reality check and AGW will be proved to be a reality or a hoax.
Will people then have to change their political outlook because of the changing science?
10
Crakar24 @ 5
Some more to add, all at long odds on!
“Climate change is real”.
“It’s the right thing to do for Orstraya”.
“Orstrayans are the biggest per capita polluters in the world”.
10
SMH-More than 50 companies including GE, AGL and The Body Shop have signed a statement backing a price on carbon. (also http://wakeup2thelies.com/category/carbon-tax-ets/)
Well not surprised they can make MONEY out of it! [at the expense of us all].
Just for mattB, ‘climate change’ at work in the real world!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/07/driest-place-on-earth-atacama-desert-in-chile-buried-under-feet-of-snow/ [not due to CO2 just normal ‘change’ like a fall in sunspots maybe?].
10
MattB@#12
I know the answer to the how old is MattB quiz- “old enough to know better!”. Now, what’s the prize? Burned to a crisp on the global rotisserie, joining 50,000 climate refugees on a trip to Antarctica for some temperate weather, or perhaps adopting a polar bear that has been displaced by its inability to swim. I’d settle for a snowboard, a skidoo and a St Bernard with some rum on board for the coming chilly weather for the next couple of decades. I’d like to be prepared for that contingency as it seems a much more likely scenario than the warmist fantasies we have been subjected to lately.
10
Jo,
The deeper I delve into science areas, the more mistakes and corrupted science I uncover. Science just build on bad theory after bad theory.
2 points.
1) Observed science does NOT include any unobserved activities. “If you can’t see it, it don’t exist” attitude. This would definitely taint any scientific outcome or theory.
2) Scientists bent TIME to wrap around this planet and many theories have sprouted out of this bad thought process.
If this planet was a cylinder, than that area of thought would be correct. BUT, this planet is round and even all the lines of latitude are bent to narrow to a smaller circumference of the poles.
The adjustments on the time on planetary slowdown show that time and speed of rotation are important factors with the circumference.
Add planetary tilting and this shows that time is quite variable and changes each day.
10
Monckton responded to two of Adams Spencer’s specific questions concerning Greenland research and critics of his Congressional testimony. Regarding Adam’s question of CO2 in the Cambrian era, Monckton tried to finish his answer, but Adam did not want to hear it and abruptly finished the interview, saying “that’s not going anywhere”. Where did you intend the interview to go, Adam? Perhaps concerned that Monckton was so easily swatting his bouncers away, Adam threw down his cricket ball and went home. The question remains: Adam Spencer declared twice that he was impartial. Why then did he hang up?
10
theRealUniverse # 16
Good old fashioned bandwagonism (my preferred terminology) at work. It is trendy for companies to support things like the carbon tax in the name of that current overused buzz term (which I hate, can I add) ‘sustainability’ (heavens, I’ve even seen it linked to coaching, as in, sustainable coaching). Apparently it’s soooooo ‘on-trend’ (another overused buzz term I hate with a passion!). Based in ignorance, it is more marketing ploy than anything. Ironically the tax will make people poorer and less able to buy their products. Can’t wait to watch these companies run for cover though as inconvenient little details like, it isn’t warming will do for a start, come to the attention of the general public. Now there’s a good marketing angle for their competitors!
10
@Joe yes well most science theories go beddybies eventually [sarcasm: except AGW its correct because the IPCC and the BBC, and your govt. says it is!]. As for rotation it has a much larger effect than many have credited it for. In fact papers Ive looked at lately dont include it at all.
10
wes george @10
Your comments are worth putting into a snail mail letter to the ABC top brass, pointing out that they are alienating many of their usual listeners. They may, hopefully, get the message. Adam had no intention of listening to Lord Monckton, only tried to smeer him.
10
theRealUniverse #20
Conventional wisdom of current scientists finds that planetary rotation has very little to contribute in our knowledge base.
Much of this area generates many unobserved phenomenons that theories already have laws that cannot be broken which this area does in many ways.
Convection is the current theory of wind shear, yet the physical rotation at the equator is 1669.8km/hr. This can give physical energy to the atmosphere when density changes and the energy can be utilized.
Curiosity had me recreate how centrifugal force can be recreated by using a spoked wheel, light spring and a weight. This enabled compression to be a factor with the speed of rotation showing how gases can be compressed and slowly released over time. This is contained centrifugal force as uncontained centrifugal force looses material. Again these are unobserved forces.
10
incoherent rambler, Popeye,
Were you referring to MattB’s chronological or intellectual age?
Just thought I’d clarify a bit. 😉
10
It was a great presentation in Newcastle last night. Monkton is the consummate showman of course (he also seems to have eidetic memory), but Jo and David were excellent, with a cameo from ‘little Jo’. Good to see them all live and kicking.
I hadn’t known that David Evans was actually on the Climate Change Gravy Train until relatively recently; that is until he found out it was a crock when the 10km hotspot predicted by all the models was found to be missing (mid 90s), and instead of correcting their models the climate modellers chose instead to ignore the evidence. At that point they ceased being scientists.
10
Joe Lalonde: @ 22 Heres a point the planet has ‘weather’ only because of the Coriolis force. i.e planet is rotating! No Coriolis no fronts, highs, lows, cyclones etc. And the troposphere bulges at the equator to the rotation. Think what would happen if the planet didnt rotate! [besides us not being here].
10
Mid 90s? I’m pretty sure David was on the gravy train a lot later than that… log enough to do some dodgy calcs for Howard about land use.
10
have a good laugh:
6 July: Lubos Motls Blog: Did Chinese coal cause the cooling since 1998?
While this very episode shows that Mr Kauffman just fell from another galaxy and doesn’t have the slightest clue about the actual climate on this blue, not green planet (much like a vast majority of his IPCC-linked “climate scientists”), he decided to instantly act as a terrestrial alien who can explain anything and everything.
So they wrote a paper that explains everything. And because crackpot papers that explain everything and indirectly confirm the consensus of ideologues and brainwashed simpletons are politically correct (especially if the authors are surfer dudes), this stuff was instantly published by Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, a journal that does their best to reject all papers from genuine scientists such as Richard Lindzen…
contemporary would-be “mainstream” opinions about the climate drivers are. Suddenly, an old Gentleman who watches Fox News is the primary cause of a paper that explains away a whole decade of warming by a previously neglected mechanism.
Because the world economy is wasting something like half a trillion dollars for the AGW alarm every year, then – if you believe the official explanations – the Fox News viewer has brought us some good news worth 5 trillion dollars. Isn’t it great? If some people are genuinely afraid of warming, why don’t they celebrate him? This Fox News viewer isn’t far from being our savior. He helped a prophet from Boston University to learn about a super secret knowledge – that there hasn’t been any warming for 10 years – and this super secret knowledge could ultimately be spread by the prophet as a gospel. What a sequence of lucky accidents.
With such a peer-reviewed paper, it may even become politically correct to admit that there hasn’t been any global warming for a decade!…
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/07/did-chinese-coal-cause-cooling-since.html
10
MattB @ 26
So you admit it’s all about a gravy train?
10
It seems to be for some, now on the “skeptical celebrity” train.
10
MattB @ 29
A typical “non-answer”.
Now, about that missing “hotspot”?
10
@crakar24: #5
I’ll have $5 on ‘Clean Energy’ for a place.
10
In the ABC was Relevant (Part 42)
(The Queen’s Speech)
Bryan: A speech to the nation by Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.
John: Hello. I am speaking to you tonight because many of you are wondering why Australia needs a Carbon Tax. There is no mistaking that this government, in collaboration with our friends the Independents and the Greens, are proposing radical changes to the Australian way of life. Many of you are puzzled and concerned by this.
I myself share your concerns. Only 12 months ago, I did appear to be opposed to a Carbon tax, and may have even said so in my electoral platform on numerous occasions. Many of you, it seems, took this literally, and even called it a promise. Whereas, of course, it was merely a piece of metaphorical narrative intended to convey my desire for engagement with the Australian voter.
To help you understand the need for a Carbon Tax, I need to tell you about my favourite childhood story. It is called “The Wizard of Oz” and it’s a story about a little girl who gets swept up in a terrible climate catastrophe and is transported to a strange, bizarre land where she joins in a coalition with some very odd travelling companions.
The travelling companions soon become friends and go off to seek the Wizard of Oz, who will solve all their individual problems. And here the analogy with my government begins, because we find that the companions are all defective – lacking in heart, brains or courage, just like my friends in government! In the next few minutes, I hope that you, my fellow Australians, will learn to empathise with my plight and think nicely of me and my government next time the lovely people from Newspoll give you a tingle…
In the first instance, most of my government don’t have any heart. If they did, they would care about the fact that they are voting for a tax that would destroy industry and employment, raise costs and achieve nothing. It would impoverish the very people who put them into government and betray the trust that the electorate has bestowed on them. Many would feel a sense of guilt at heartlessly misleading the Australian public by telling them one thing before an election, then go about doing the exact opposite not 6 months later. Perhaps it is fortunate for these people that they don’t have a heart, because it would break. To them, when the Australian government wipes out the Beef Industry with the stroke of a pen, it isn’t a tragedy – it’s a dress rehearsal. These are the Tin-men.
More than a few have no brain and therefore cannot think for themselves. They are content to follow a consensus opinion put up by a set of vested interests – even if it lacks any physical or material scientific basis, but instead has been thoroughly refuted by simple logic and real-world experience of the facts at hand. However, because they have no brain, they brainlessly rely on other peoples’. They are too slow to realise that paying a tax will not change the weather and that climate is something that has changed for all time – over billions of years – without mankind’s intervention. Some do have a brain but are too lazy to use it – otherwise they would listen to the people who have demonstrated that man-made global warming is logically at odds with the physical evidence available from history and our modern day measurement of the physical world. These are the Straw-Men.
Last and least, those who have no Courage, the Lions. They have enough brains to realise they have defrauded the public, they certainly have enough heart to be afraid of retribution. But they lack the courage to speak out against an intellectually and morally corrupt regime which is bleeding the people they supposedly serve. It is they who will sell you out to the heartless and the brainless. Then they will deny you, the Australian electorate, the opportunity to speak at a time when you would most like your voice to be heard. Naturally, they will give you, the Australian public, an opportunity – when it is too late…
In conclusion, I invite the Australian people to examine my record of public service. You will clearly see that I, myself, am heartless, brainless and gutless.
Furthermore, I am your Prime Minister, and wish to remain so for as long as is humanly possible.
And THAT is why Australia needs a Carbon Tax. Goodnight.
10
Indeed a non-answer to another non-question.
10
MattB @ various
I notice you haven’t been back to answer your many detractors on previous threads.
So let’s see if I have the modus operandi right:
1. Challenge the prevailing view.
2. Invite response.
3. Ignore response and move on to the next subject.
That about sum you up, MattB?
10
“Skeptical celebrity train”, you must be joking, surely. Anyone with a skeptical eye on proceedings is instantly branded a heretic and becomes a pariah by railing against accepted “wisdom”. Skeptics don’t need Brad and Angelina to back them up, or the unending stream on Hollywood talking head “experts” to teach us all about the science that they all became adept in by watching the Discovery channel between takes. But I’d rather be on the realistic side of the debate – the company is better, the conscience is clearer and it doesn’t reek of the stench of unadulterated horse manure on this side of the fence.
10
Do people actually read these Speedy ramblings?
10
MattB @ 33
Thank you MattB.
I think your non-answer to a non-question pretty-much sums up who you are and where you are coming from.
The world is getting colder MattB, and millions of people are now going to die.
And people like you are responsible for that.
Just remember that there are people like me who are in the business of remembering; when it comes time to start laying the blame for those millions of deaths, YOU will be remembered.
10
So what would you do to stop the millions form dying? Are you suggesting that there is something I can do to stop the plummeting cold?
10
On the world getting colder ..
c3headlines.com May, 1926: Explorers Find Open Water At North Pole — July, 2011: North Pole Solid Ice.. MattB would this be that pesky Chinese sulphur stuff or actually some real part of nature playing the part here?
10
wes george @ 10:
Welcome to the club buddy. I know I’ve been blacklisted for making factual, accurate and referenced statements on the ABC website.
10
MattB @ 38
Ah well, that’s the “Plan B” that I asked you for several weeks ago, isn’t it?
YOU people ensured there was no surplus energy to tackle what confronts us (windmills instead of base-load power stations).
YOU people ensured a shortage of food (biofuels)
YOU people ensured the bankruptcy of nations (an “adviser” from Goldman Sachs sits on every regional board of GreenPeace).
Now you are asking ME for solutions to the genocidal conditions YOU have worked so hard to implement?
Sorry MattB, the results of what happens now rest firmly with you.
10
Real Universe, et al, started this in yesterday’s thread…..there has been some significantly BIG news that got buried on page 13 under Gillard’s Carbon tax self-immolation and the Monckton tour with Jo Nova.
It seems as if the high priests of climate orthodoxy have sanctioned a peer-reviewed reversal in their previous gospel. The Team is now admitting brazenly in public that there has been no measurable warming since 1998! No apology for the error.
Nevertheless, this is an important psychological break through in Real Climate denial. Of course, Monckton and Jo Nova, et al, have been pointing out that the CAGW emperor had no warming to cover his doodle for years now. The church has alway branded such observations as heresy.
But now the Church of Warming has updated its dogma to more closely conform to reality. There has been no warming since 1998. You can say that in public without fear of censure. You might even be allowed to date a Warmist, although marriage before the altar is still out of the question.
Nevertheless, the Church of Warming has retained an ecumenical fig leaf. The decade long pause in what the IPCC models had forecast as the steepest warming decade since since the Cretaceous was caused by — wait for it— the unanticipated burning of coal in China! Who knew that China was growing?
Yes, sulphur aerosols from massive increases in burning coal is actually COOLING the Earth’s climate. Or maybe not…
Judith Curry has noticed the total and absolute implosion of the Warmists’ central claim to moral righteous. Judith thinks the sulphur aerosol claim is bogus. The cooling represents a failure of the AGW hypothesis. The full implications are so mind boggling that in these early days we’ll need to spend many more nights over our local’s kegs to actually absorb the discombobulatory asskicking the Church has delivered itself.
This is almost as big as Climategate, folks. Bulldust might want to have a go at coining a title for this august moment in the implosion of Green catastrophism. (I’d tried but all my ideas included the F-word.)
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/04/an-explanation-for-lack-of-warming-since-1998/c
It appears that:
1. AGW has OFFICIAL failed to warm the planet in 13 years. And you can take that to the bank at Real Climate without fear of having your comment burnt at the stake.
2.The dirtier the coal the greater the cooling.
3. Therefore, the carbon tax would have probably cause global warming if it wasn’t just a totally ineffective ass-covering exercise by Gillard. Finally, incompetence in government is paying a dividend.
4. New Greenpeace slogan: MINE THE PLANET NOW!
Mind you…. I’m too gobsmacked to add it all up tonight. Please help.
10
MV how about lack of fuels due to coal mines ripping up agricultural land. I’d love to do a comparison of total area of planet planted with biofuels with total area of planet where mining has replaced agriculture, or polluted agriculture.
p.s. you forget that wind doesn’t displace coal, so we still have plenty of those kind of power stations.
pps in the bitter cold we’ll have plenty of what USED to be agricultural land… just frozen.
Your team stacked the banks too btw. Or am I responsible for Johnny Howard and GW Bush too?
10
OH OH ! – O/T
Sunday night with ‘Foolya’ as compulsory (rather than compulsive) veiwing could just backfire.
A lot of, basically disinterested, luke warmist veiwers might just be a little pi**ed off if they miss their favourite programs.
.
PREDICTION:
Land use will get a mention and Tony Windsor will be selected to trial the ALP’s new ‘tree planting’ and ‘carbon sequrestration’ schemes on his three new farms. (his old farm was buggered – it was full of coal – so he sold it)
.
MATTB’s AGE:
Old enough to be a Capitalist = 10
Old enough to be a Warmist = 6
Old enough to be a carbon trading Stockbroker = 18
Add em all up – 10+6+18
MattB is 34 – Simple Really (The Calculation, not you MattB)
NB:
The above calculation has a 95% probability of error – warmist scientific computer modeling methods were used as input
10
@crakar24, #5: I have a better idea. Instead of running a book on those events happening during the speech, turn it into a drinking game. Every time one of those happens during the speech, you take a drink. Kind of like the Eurovision Song Contest drinking game: Key change – drink! Ethnic instruments – drink! Wind machine – drink!
@ Wes George, #10: “Australians when they learn from the digital free market of ideas what the ABC has attempted to hide from them naturally become disillusioned and cynical. Not just about ABC’s journalistic lapses, but about the whole environment movement in general. What other misinformation and hidden facts are out there they wonder. Thus, ABC bias has actually damaged the credibility of vital and legitimate environment concerns and this might well become all the more apparent after the next parliament election.”
Until the NBN and Internet filter are implemented, that is. Must protect the populace from harmful content…
10
MattB @38 How about owning up to the fact that CO2 is a weak driver at most for climate, and that energy poverty caused by vilifying fossil fuels is a bad idea in a cooling world that could well lead to mass starvation and death due to inability to properly provide power to warm the homes of the less wealthy. Also admitting that the lunatic biofuels scam converting food into fuel is potentially genocidal if you are wrong in you religious belief in AGW. Having the humility to admit that at least there is uncertainty in your hypothesis that necessitates hesitation before committing us down the path of self destruction. There is no justification for a panic stricken rush to de-fuel ourselves and unhinge our economies needlessly. Nothing was ever gained by running around like headless chooks panicking that the sky is falling or wetting our pants at the prospect of global doom. Instead, a cool objective analytical assessment of options is what is required with an open mind looking into realistic options for energy diversification such as Thorium and the like, to give us MANY different options to avail our civilization of in the event that any of these sources become scarce or environmental consequence necessitates putting one or more of those options on the back burner. Unless mass genocide, ethnic cleansing or Malthusian dreams of a world with 1 billion or less people is your preferred option, wouldn’t it be better to adopt a more circumspect and logical approach to these issues?
10
@Speedy, #32: Brilliant as usual. Can somebody throw a bucket of water over her? “I’m melting! I’m melllltttiiiinnnnggg…”
10
@Numberwang: #45
…ABC bias has actually damaged the credibility of vital and legitimate environment concerns…
Having read the comments on the ABC blog, I have to agree with you numberwang.
10
@Crakar
Sorry, I forgot to post you a ‘Thank you’ for your detailed ‘lay’ reply on the last thread.
Many thanks Crakar, it helped my understanding a lot.
10
Numberwang @ 47
Should we have Bob Brown skipping down the path singing “Follow the Yellow Brick Road” as he leads the labor party to oblivion? Perhaps another more appropriate song would start with:
Ding Dong the witch is dead…
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Speedy @ 32 does it again.
I don’t know how he does it, but he has captured and canned Julia’s voice perfectly. I can hear her grating, nasally whine when I read it. Co-opting the Wizard of Oz is a perfect metaphor for the state of disfunction in parliament today. 4.5 stars.
10
Since we don’t know what the future climate will be (the AGW hypothesis has demonstrated zero predictive skill, and most skeptics don’t even try), the best way to prepare for an unknown future is by enriching the population of the world. Economic and political freedom (which, of course, results in Capitalism) is the only known way to do that.
(There is a reason why a hurricane passing through the Caribbean and hitting the US gulf coast kills 100X times as many people in the Caribbean as in the US. The difference is poverty. When the people in the Caribbean are as rich as the population of the US, the death rate from hurricanes will nearly vanish. Rich people have many options to protect themselves.)
So, what can you do? Simple: Stop pushing political agendas that, even if the AGW hypothesis were right, would have an undetectable effect on the climate, but would result in maintaining (and increasing) the poverty of the third world.
10
[…] Via JoNova’s site. […]
10
Thanks for all the work you and your team do Jo. This website is extremely valuable as is the tour you have undertaken with Lord Monckton. I have received positive feedback on the presentations from many quarters. As you know I’ve been AWOL and have been trying to catch up on my reading. Off this topic I know, but just to show how typically fallible Prof Stephan Lewandowsky is and how loose he is with the facts, you quoted him in a recent post as follows:
“On 20 April 2010, a BP oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 workers and creating the largest oil spill in history.”
It certainly was the largest marine oil spill recorded in US history, but came nowhere near the up to 1,500 million barrels spilt in Kuwait due to the 1991 Iraq War with some two thirds of that flowing into the Persian Gulf. In fact with up to an estimated 4.9 million barrels spilled in the recent Deepwater Horizon spill, it ranks as only the 5th largest recorded oil spill in history, and the second largest for the US. It is of course possible there were large unreported spills in countries such as Russia or China in the past.
This may seem pedantic, but as Lewandowsky claims to be arguing from the position of science, and is a University Professor, you think he would be more precise in his claims.
10
[…] interesting video, via Jo Nova. It’s long, but worth […]
10
Give it up guys. MattB is programmed with a random response generator.
10
Finally got around to listening to the Spencer interviews. What a grotesque embarrassment for the ABC. Adam Spencer has fallen mightily in my estimation as someone who does not research for interviews and relies on hearsay. Appalling behaviour to boot… did not let Monckton address one attack before launching into the next.
I would love to see Monckton debate Spencer… shame it would be such a one-sided debate.
10
MattB:
You have no idea whatsoever if you think mining has more than a miniscule fraction of the impact on the surface of the earth compared to agriculture. Your statement is baseless. Please do some research to prove your point.
In addition, it is only the land area open in modern mining that is relevant in most cases, as the land is almost invariably rehabilitated afterwards, except in the case where there is a massive pit. This is clearly not the case with most forms of coal mining, nor for example, heavy mineral sands mining and bauxite mining in the southwest of WA. Clearly no agricultural land is being lost with the big pits in Kalgoorlie and the Pilbara… so those are not relevant to your point.
Research first then open mouth… it’s a winning formula mate.
10
Some good reads……….
Gillard will run billions short on compensation for her carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillard_will_run_billions_short_on_compensation/
Ah, well, Whyalla was struggling anyway
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ah_well_whyalla_was_struggling_anyway/
Don’t bother the ABC with REAL science and truth about the carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/dont_bother_me_with_the_science/
THE COMMUNIST GROUP “GETUP” IS TRYING TO BLACKMAIL AUSTRALIANS INTO THE CARBON DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) TAX
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_new_warming_mccarthyists/
10
And the numbers start spilling out:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/9804580/carbon-tax-hits-houses/
So Verve will have to pay $194 million for it’s emissions, which WILL come out of WA pockets one way or the other. WA population is 2.3 million so that makes $84 for every woman, man and child… you figure it out for your household.
That’s just the increased electricity costs… add to that other prices going up… but we are saving the planet, so it’s all good.
10
wes george:
July 7th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
I’ve always liked the slogan
EARTH FIRST
We’ll mine the other planets later
10
POLL : Are you worried about the impact of the carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax?
http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/a-tonne-carbon-tax-would-force-queensland-employers-to-sack-staff/story-e6freqmx-1226090172349
WHO BLOODY WOULDN’T BE WORRIED !!!
10
“Bryan” (14),
Margaret Thather actually became a global waming SKEPTIC.
Read this.
Margaret Thatcher: Climate Sceptic:-
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100043433/margaret-thatcher-climate-sceptic/
10
November 2nd, 1922. Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
10
Damian Allen
Yes I know about her change of mind, long after she left power.
However its a bit late in the day.
We still have the CRU which feature big style in the climategate scandal.
Keep politics out of science.
10
Dear Jo and readers, you have probably read about GetUp’s latest letter to some CEOs. A copy of the letter they sent to some CEOs is here (PDF).
I think it’s time we all take action. I suggest we all email [email protected] and tell Simon and her (politely) what we think of their blackmail – and get the word out to as many people as you can to do the same.
10
US academics living in la-la land:
29 June: EnvironmentalHealthNews: ‘Green’ positions on climate change can help all candidates, survey finds
Against all political intuition, Republican candidates could win votes by taking “green” positions on the controversy over climate change, according to new poll results released Tuesday…
Leading the Stanford research team was Jon Krosnick, a professor of communication and political science, who has been looking at public attitudes on environmental issues since the late 1990s…
A new national survey has found that by taking a “green position” on climate, candidates of either party can gain the votes of some citizens while not alienating others. Voters tend to favor candidates who believe that humans have contributed to global warming and that the nation should take action, according to Stanford University’s poll
Eight-six percent of the participants said they wanted the federal government to limit the air pollution that businesses emit, and 76 percent favored government restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from businesses. Fourteen percent said the United States should not take action to combat global warming unless other major industrial countries like China and India do so as well.
Several questions in the 2010 survey addressed the “Climategate” controversy, which brought allegations of flawed science by researchers contributing to the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Stanford researchers found that 71 percent of participants said they trust scientists a moderate amount, a lot or completely. The number has remained virtually the same in every poll since 2006, the researchers found
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/voters-and-climate-change
REMINDER: 2010: ‘Academic embarrassment’: Prof. Jon Krosnick Exposed for ‘faulty’ climate polls — ‘Skewed, propagandized and presented intellectually dishonest and shallow polling analysis’
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/6986/Academic-embarrassment-Prof-Jon-Krosnick-Exposed-for-faulty-climate-polls–Skewed-propagandized-and-presented-intellectually-dishonest-and-shallow-polling-analysis-KrosnickStanfordedu
10
Here is an interesting and useful new website…….
http://www.stopcarbonlies.com/page/page/8171759.htm
10
Great information here on the new tax to make the weather better..sorry to make the climate better..sorry..have no effect on the climate but what the hell..the greens want a tax..
I am still scared %$#@ that people are out there actually believe that quagmire of fiscal madness will do anything..
And the same group of clueless ^%$#@ pretend to not know what Flannery said .
So a mental “scheme” of “trading” CO2 permits..which will do nothing..and there are trolls here and elsewhere who support it..
Perhaps some blather from them about “consenus” must make them sleep well at night.
Forget the dodgy “science” being exposed day by day like this…
And people support this junk in the name of environmentalism…
Makes ya weep for this great country..
10
I think it is worthwhile to think of the Australian Federal Government along the following lines:
Fraud – definition:
Travelling over to the Federal Government web site we find the following media release (among many):
http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/government-announce-price-pollution
In this release the PM (and others) state:
Also
Now it is quite clear to anyone who has followed the science that:
1) Any reduction in CO2 emissions in Australia will have no measureable impact on global climate systems.
2) At a price of $23 per tonne no coal-fired power station will switch fuels even to the next cheapest alternative, natural gas. Likewise gas-fired generators will not shut down in favour of less CO2-intensive forms of electricity generation. The tax will, therefore, not decrease Australia’s CO2 emissions.
Clearly the current “price on carbon”, or more accurately a CO2 emissions tax, will neither affect “climate change” nor change the emissions profile of the country. The Federal Government is therefore raising tax revenue through deception, which returns us to the definition of fraud.
The facts do not lie, the Government does.
10
Was that a “carbon” tax or a tax on carbon dioxide? Is it “carbon polution” or a trace gas essential to life on earth?
10
Bulldust @ 67
Very interesting line of argument. I’d love to see a legal eagle’s opinion on your point.
NB. At the Heartland sponsored conference in the US recently Barry Brill ( NZ Chair of the NZclimatescience group ) said that in his view the only way to stop the scam was to go through the courts.
10
SO ….. Let me see if I’ve got this right ….. At some point on Sunday after another moment that would make Goebbels proud …….Tony Abbott must announce which RELIGION , he truly believes in , will he stand up for that good old battler Christianity , that’s worked so well in the past , or will he jump Arch mid stream for the next great Attempt at WORLD MANIPULATION ! CAGW ! This should be good 😉
10
Mike @59
I’ve got tee shirts with that on it , they come from Michigan ….
Here’s another one …..Blasting the sport of Kings …
Not quite as catchy …. A MINE is a terrible thing to waste …
They were to protest at some of the Eco madness, that was happening around the time of Gore .
There’s more , however my favorite has to be……
Earth First , We will mine the rest of the planets later ,
It irritates the greenies the most . 🙂
10
Interesting Poll at the ABC:
The Greens now have control of the Senate. Does this:
Usher in a new dawn 37%
Open the floodgates 3%
Mean business as usual 17%
Spell trouble 36%
Make Fielding look good 7%
9202 votes counted
new dawn v spell trouble almost equal tracking – that ‘s not a good omen considering the typical left bias of the ABC readership.
10
POLL: Are you for or against a carbon tax?
http://au.news.yahoo.com/polls/popup/-/poll_id/4fdf8659-10cc-3882-9508-66c8f0e449a3
WHO THE HELL WOULD WANT MORE TAX ?
NOBODY SANE !
10
Janama in 78,
There is no statistical difference between “usher in a new dawn” & “spells trouble”
10
Speedy @ 35.
Looks like you got the long version. My source leaked the following one to me.
To save you all having to listen to and/or look at our Prime Minister Sunday night, I’ve been privileged to have been given an advance copy of her speech.
” My fellow Orstrayuns”
“Climate change is real, the science is settled, there is overwhelming consensus
Orstraya is the biggest per capita polluter in the world. We have to do our share.
I’m doing it because it’s right and in the national nterest.
Costs will rise, that’s what it’s designed to do, but you’ll aallll be compensated.!
Millions of families will be better off, especially the pensioners and other vulnerable battlers and working families.
1000 (oops. sorry, that was last week) 500 of the biggest polluters will pay..
Any questions?”
How much will it reduce Global temperature? Will it stop climate change?
Will it do anything but launch another huge costly bureaucracy? Will the tax rise ? You’ve halved the number of polluters forced to pay, so hasn’t that affected what you’ve been working on for months? If those polluters are forced to change to expensive but heavily government subsidised renewable energy sources, where will the money come from to keep paying compensation to the battlers? How will those industries compete with overseas firms who don’t have such a tax? How many will lose their jobs ? How many will………………..
“Now don’t get into “high dungeon”, launch into “hyperbowl” and act lke the “Tallyband”, but I’m sorry, time’s run out. so I’ll take your questions on notice and check with Bob, Christine, Andrew, Rob, Tony, Greg and the others and get back to you after I hold an election to get a mandate.
Thank you all and Goodnight.”
10
[…] via Jo Nova […]
10
Bulldust: “You have no idea whatsoever if you think mining has more than a miniscule fraction of the impact on the surface of the earth compared to agriculture.”
No no I am referring to the amount of agricultural land that is turned over to biofuels compared to the amount of agricultural land that is instead used for mining.
Those farms recently sold to China for open cut coal are a good example, and also impacts on farms from coal seam gas/fracking etc.
I don’t see how people can villify biofuels removing agricultural land yet remain silent on open cut coal doing the same.
10
“I don’t see how people can villify biofuels removing agricultural land yet remain silent on open cut coal doing the same.”
Scale, you fool.
10
Imwd @22
there’s a good marketing angle for their competitors!
Very true , the market for snow chains should explode !, I also see an expanding market in cigarette cases , however that’s another matter and probably another lawsuit .
10
MattB @82
The allocation of land to various uses is a political issue.
It relates to judgements made by governments about where mines are allowed and after that what measures are put in place to minimise damage to the environment and people.
The fact that mines and associated works continue to cause damage to people and the environment needs to be taken up with the regulatory authorities not the mining companies. Why is there no regulatory enforcement?
If Governments don’t enact and actively pursue proper control over mining for the common good then we need to make our politicians aware of our disgust at their inaction.
Carrying on about a non event like Man Made Global Warming diverts attention from the real pollution problems that get only token attention.
10
Wes George, The Chinese sulfur is just a ploy by warmists to try to downplay temps falling with a pathetic excuse. My guess any particulates produced would affect local climate in the NH and not the SH.
10
Getup the Hypocrites! This from their letter to CEOs.
“You may be aware that, as reported by Phillip Coorey in the Sydney Morning Herald on July 1 and July
2, the Australian Food and Grocery Council has reportedly put its support behind a multi-million dollar
campaign to fight proposed legislation to put a price on carbon pollution“
They refer to a scare campaign ..yes you alarmists pushing the scare campaign of the century. Note the BUZZ word ‘carbon pollution’. You’d think the CEO of the AFGC wouldnt want to reduce plant food would he/she.
10
Could this be a contributing factor to do with the snow in the Atacama desert ?
Puyehue, which rumbled to life early this month for the first time since 1960, is high in the Andes mountains, 870 kilometres south of Santiago and near the border with Argentina.
10
MattB:
You really have an overblown idea of how big mining’s impact is… the urban sprawl of Perth probably* covers more area than all the mining pits in the state. You cannot include land that is returned to agricultural (or other economic) use after mining.
Take the Worsley alumina project for example. They strip the top soil, cap rock and then mine the bauxite ore. Thereafter they return the removed material, replace the topsoil and rehabilitate the land to the desired (usually original) state (agricultural, forest etc). It then returns to agruicultural productiuon if that is what it was to start with. Same goes for coal strip mining. They only remove overburden, mine the coal seam and then return the land to a similar state as pre-mining.
You really have no idea mate, so it is best not to dig the proverbial hole any deeper, unless, of course, you are trying to show your digging prowess for mining employers…
* No I haven’t researched that assertion, but it is not me trying to state the case that mining impact > biofuels impact. But try finding mining pits in WA on GoogleEarth without knowing where they are. They are generally quite small.
10
The question as to whether man made CO2 causes runaway Global Warming is a matter of science, not politics.
Despite this we are continually hammered over the head with false science and told we are guilty.
Of course we are guilty, the only questions by how much!
Let’s work it out.
Since 1850 we have seen temperatures rise by 0.6 Celsius degrees. Let’s give the AGW advocats a head start and allow that all of this rise is due to Green House Gases. We know there are other important factors but let’s do it anyhow.
Now the calculation. First, after water and some other GHGs have done their bit, CO2 can only manage to influence about 4% of the total GHG effect. So all CO2 is responsible for, at the most, is 4% of 0.6 C or 0.024 C. Sounds significant but lets not get too excited because man made CO2 is only 3% of this amount.
The next calculation gives a Total Maximum Human Effect through CO2 of 0.00072C degrees. If all other relevant factors were introduced this figure would be much smaller again.
You have to really question what is going on here and ask for how much longer this fraud can be maintained.
10
@87 it’s all disturbingly similar to how business was motivated to change direction….
In Germany in the late 1930,s …under a hastily revised economic response to global breeding .
……..Oh and wealth creation for the State ….
And …but you catch my drift . 😉
10
PS> I have spent a few years looking at the rehabilitation requirements of mining companies from the Government’s perspective. I would wager that most people posting here have no idea of the extent of the research, planning and resources that get spent on mine site rehabilitation. It is an entire industry in its own right and a lot of environmental research hangs off it. Are there companies that cut corners? Probably… but there is a heck of a lot of best practice (on a world scale) going on as well. The key is pushing continuous improvement at a sustainable rate.
10
“You cannot include land that is returned to agricultural (or other economic) use after mining.”
That’s an interesting disclaimer Bulldust. Is there something about biofuels that renders the land useless for future agricultural use? Your disclaimer essentially means that you can’t count biofuel land either!
Your point about Perth’s sprawl is good but it strengthens my position not yours, in that there are plenty of stupid decisions made that displaces agricultural use on arable land, not just biofuels.
Me I don’t like the disregard for the scarecity of agricultural land whatever the displacing use… you guys seem to have some special venom for Biofuels (not vineyards, roads, mines, suburbs, etc)
You are getting caught up in this idea that rehabed mines are good for agriculture… even if they were in a perfect case scenario, when the crushing cold hits it will be too late, and the $$$ for rehab will quickly be diverted to more immediate priorities.
10
Your point is well taken Bulldust but there are many issues where convenience over-rides consideration.
A case in point was the collusion between the Federal Howard Government and the State Carr group some years back.
Coal companies needed more rail access to the Port and instead of being forced to build dedicated lines a deal was done.
Super heavy coal movers were given access to the local line through Broadmeadow to the Maitland line and then the coal loader.
Many battlers suffered from this and it generates ill feeling towards business and government.
I am not against mining but I feel that Miners should be big enough to avoid damaging people when it can be so easily avoided.
10
“I would wager that most people posting here have no idea of the extent of the research, planning and resources that get spent on mine site rehabilitation.”
I assume you mean me. Of course you pig-headedly disagree therefore I’m an ignorant fool lol.
10
More on this communist group “getup”.
The new warming McCarthyists…….
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_new_warming_mccarthyists/
10
MattyB
So you MattyB like Biofuels -and dislike vineyards, roads, mines etc? You have a very strange view of the world! You’re are placing the importance of “expensive renewables” over food, economics and human life. STRANGE man!
10
No no Dave I’m not a big fan of biofuels at all, re-read my post “I don’t like the disregard for the scarecity of agricultural land whatever the displacing use”
… unless they are what would otherwise be a waste product (eg chip shop fat). I think conversion of food crops to biofuels is a complete waste of time and money, and at best a complete fringe player in meeting energy demand.
10
Deputy Greens leader Christine Milne confirms: the carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax won’t push us to renewables
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/milne_confirms_the_tax_wont_push_us_to_renewables/
10
For god’s sake Damian WE ALL KNOW ANDREW BOLT HAS A BLOG!!!!!!!!!
10
The trouble with the Adam Spencers of this world is that they are too egocentric and do not have a geological perspective of where they fit into the scheme of things.
The point is that the atmosphere of early planet earth was hugely enriched in carbon dioxide. It is little wonder then that a carbon-based biosphere would evolve to take advantage of that. Early plants were particularly successful, consuming vast amounts of CO2 and producing a nasty waste product called oxygen. Just as the dung beetle evolved in an environment of excess dung, so animal life evolved in an environment of a growing excess of the this oxygen waste product. It is perhaps a tragedy that the biosphere was just too efficient at removing CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering it into the ground as coal, oil and limestone. The history of the earth over the Eons is one of steadily declining atmospheric CO2, to the point that during the last Ice Ages atmospheric CO2 reached 200 ppm, a point at which photosynthesis becomes so inefficient that it virtually stops. At 300 ppm atmospheric CO2 the whole biosphere is in peril. It should come as no surprise that an animal life form should evolve whose whole success is based on moving trapped carbon out of the ground and back into the atmosphere where it becomes available to the rest of the biosphere. It strikes me as strange that the whole Gia movement have failed to recognise what an important function mankind is playing in prolonging the prospects for life on earth. The threat to life on earth comes, not from high atmospheric CO2, but from low atmospheric CO2.
10
MattyB
This is called recycling – surely not your solution to an imaginary CAGW.
You’re getting mixed up again!
10
Dave – you appear to have a basic comprehension problem.
10
MattyB
Thank you Counsellor.
10
Maybe we could turn the arguments over biofuels into some practical advice. Perhaps MattB and the sceptic side can even find common ground? I was at the petrol station the other day, wavering between the E10 and 95 octane pumps. It came to my mind that, if this was USA ethanol, I wouldn’t want to use it whatever the cost saving, because of the problems with corn-ethanol. But I would expect our E10 to be using ethanol from our cane fields. Brazil seems to do OK producing a lot of their fuel this way. Is using our E10 a good idea? Arguments about carbon (dioxide) emissions reduction aside, as long as E10 doesn’t require subsidies and doesn’t distort food prices, then it does seem worthwhile. The trouble is, good-sense environmentally friendly products and solutions are being tainted (in my mind at least) by all the exaggerations and lies that surround the AGW debate. When I feel I can’t trust the greenies about “carbon” “pollution”, how can I believe what they say about everything else?
10
Bulldust @ 89
The best story I heard was when the Bauxite miners took some enviro’s to inspect the rehabilitation and they criticised the mining company for the poor state of the forest – problem for the enviro’s was that the panel they deemed unsatisfactory had not been mined, and the panel that was rehabbed was better vegetated than the pre mined area. My mates in the mining industry had a quiet chuckle over that at the time.
Things have not changed at all since – rampant stupidity remains the core characteritic of the enviro’s.
10
Mattb : the point is the using food for fuel is a perverse use of the land and the food. Mining is always providing something that people want. Nobody actually wants biofuel outside of a tiny subgroup who are interesting in that type of thing. Ethanol production has been done by central planning dictat rather than anything else.
In the USA, in 2009, 25% of all corn production was used for ethanol. The EPA tells me that corn production uses 72.7 million acres of land in the USA. So 25% of 72.7 million acres is 18.2 million acres (73,000 sq km) of land used for biofuel production in the USA alone, assuming a constant yield / acre (which is good enough for this comparison – I admit it is a rough calculation). And how big is that? Well, larger than Tasmania. So to even pretend that mining has more impact than bio-fuel production is laughable.
If you fly over a mine in a plane at 30,000 ft blink and you’ll miss it. It will be a tiny pockmark on the earth – even the largest open cut pits. But it takes some time to fly over even Tasmania. That’s the difference. Mining has a miniscule impact on land use compared to agricultural production. There is no danger of running out of agricultural land to mining projects.
10
Re #3
I guess we are not to be blessed with an answer.
However, I think Matt’s post on this topic have indirectly answered the question.
10
Louis:
I shall (maybe) deal with the MattB remarks later… but he has really lost the plot. Alcoa, as you probably know, mines in the State Forest along the escarpment. It is quite amusing when you look on GoogleEarth, because it is patently obvious where their rehab has been – the forest looks a lot greener and healthier in the rehab areas. Often they have done their job too well.
To be honest I just read MattB’s rant again and don’t know what to say… the poor lad isn’t making sense anymore. Perhaps he was at the tipple at lunchtime?
10
KeithH @81
Excellent! Just like her and nearly as bad! But unfortunately anything amateurs like us can write can only be a pale shadow of what is in store for us on Sunday.
When it comes to bad, she’s exceptional…
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Great cartoon. Love watching those sped up cartoonists constructing ridicule and hilarity… Good stuff.
10
MattB should get himself to Tom Price, go and stand at the lookout on top of Mount Nameless, look south and behold the wonder of Mount Tom Price mine. Everything that a greenie could hate and an engineer could love in an open-cut mine.
MattB should then turn around very slowly in a circle, and take in the thousands of square miles of . . . . . . . nothing that surrounds him. A truly awe-inspiring experience. One can get a real perspective of just how truly insignificant we are by spending an hour or two alone on Mount Nameless.
Somebody should explain to MattB that there is more land in OZ devoted to licensed premises (hotels, taverns, licensed restaurants, liquor stores etc) selling booze, than to active mines.
10
@108. …the Oracle says between 37& 39
I guess we are not to be blessed with an answer
Rebuttal …anyone…..
10
A C:
July 8th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
“It strikes me as strange that the whole Gia movement have failed to recognise what an important function mankind is playing in prolonging the prospects for life on earth. The threat to life on earth comes, not from high atmospheric CO2, but from low atmospheric CO2.”
There’s a long term chart of CO2 levels floating around the net. I give us 20 million years, tops.
The good news is that we don’t have to worry about the sun becoming a red giant.
DavidH:
July 8th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Do you have something against your car’s engine? Ethanol absorbs water and causes corrosion of your fuel system and engine. In Australia I doubt it ever returns more energy than was used to grow the crop. Better to just buy a diesel car and use it direct than cycle it through a crop etc.
The telling point for me about ethanol was some years ago when John Howard’s mate, Dick Honan was trying get rid of the ethanol by product from his starch factory near Wollongong. Local servos were putting up to 20% ethanol in petrol which consumer affairs stopped. He was asked why he didn’t ship the excess 100km up the road to Sydney – answer it wasn’t economic! Tells you all you need to know. The somewhat later fire in the storage tanks was a real tragedy.
10
Mike Borgelt @ 114
I have a theory about Mother Gaia.
We know in the beginning when She created all life, it was based on a lot more CO2 than we have today. Consequently there was a lot more green plant matter, and animals (eg dinosaurs etc) had a lot more to eat and grew bigger. And so forth and etc through the food chain.
Then, one day while she was mopping or something, Mother Gaia accidentally kicked the bucket and slopped water all over the place. This led to the inundation of a lot of low-lying areas. This meant all the green plant life in those areas got submerged under water, instead of being eaten and burped or farted back into the atmosphere. Or simply dying and rotting and achieving the same thing.
So all this CO2 that should have been part of the never-ending cycle of life, instead ultimately ended up locked up as coal seams, meaning a lot less life on Her Planet.
So Mother Gaia invented Man, with the express purpose of giving him fire, so that one day he could burn all the coal and once more liberate the CO2 back into the cycle of life.
A ridiculous theory I know, but compared to the “theory” of Anthropogenic Catastrophic Climate Change, it doesn’t seem all that far-fetched.
10
memoryvault your hilarious! haha sent that idea to James Lovelock himself! I think hes still a warmist of note.
10
MattB
Lets step back to that old word (that seems to have disappeared lately) “Consensus”.
During the production of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Mann was made Lead Author. From that position of power he reviewed his own work, decided if other scientists opinions on his work were relevant and then wrote the text for the report. Is that how you think science should be carried out?
Lets go a little further. After this conflict of interest was pointed out to the IPCC etc and for the production of 4AR a change was needed. Who gets to be the Lead Author? None other that Mann’s buddy, Briffa! Is that how you think science should be carried out to ensure an independent truth comes out?
Pop over to this link and check out the so called “Consensus” and then come back and just for once in your comments answer questions directly.
Try page 40 of 90 and then tell us that we should truly accept “Climate Science” as independent research.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf
10
If CO2 levels ever get too low everything dies.
Your theory can be made to work with many religions and comes complete with an end of the world punishment for failure to perform.
All you need is faith in dodgy maths. If the C02 levels were once 7000ppm:
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/ClimateChange/images/temp_co2_hist.jpg
The rate of fall would vary with belief but using those numbers gives about 80000 years of extra life on the planet for every 1 ppm of CO2 we add to the atmosphere.
About 540 million years / (7000ppm-280ppm).
Sadly that chart and this more secret one show that faster rates of fall can occur.
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/bayreuth/bayreuth1e.htm
With 3 periods of about 7ppm per year fall the above shows that our atmosphere could be drained of CO2 in as little as 56 years (392/7). CO2 levels do not need to fall that far to kill off nearly all life. Numbers like 220ppm have been named. At 7ppm a year that could be only 16 years in the future =(392-280)/7. That is if only the natural or normal rates of fall apply. What if some of these zealous carbon sequestration schemes begin to work well at the same time as a natural fall?
The end of the world could be a lot less than 16 years away if both the natural and man made carbon sequestrations combine with this next chain of events. Imagine ocean conditions are good for phytoplankton to breed up fast doubling every three days. Just a lack of nutrients is holding the growth in check. A Large volcanic eruption spewing ash all over the sea or a cosmic dust storm etc could provide the nutrients. The rate that CO2 goes into the sea could increase at a similar phenominal rate. Then salps begin to grow fast doubling in number every day, The sea life would breed up fast then die and sink to the bottom taking the last of the CO2 with it.
THE END
10
Ooops the maths was a little too dodgy “16 years in the future =(392-280)/7” Should be 24.6 years in the future = (392-220)/7
10
Pete H… I assume your argument is that there should be no Lead Author of ICC reports, given that whoever it is would at some stage be reviewing his own work. DO you suggest no review and they just bung it all together?
10
MatttB @ 121
Isn’t that what they do already?
10
Katla volcanic eruption underway?
http://hraun.vedur.is/ja/englishweb/myrjokull.html
http://www.volcanolive.com/news.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVNBhRNWLpM
10
[…] Warming comedy… Posted on July 10, 2011 by Tom Harley Cartoon world of Global Warming — watch the message unfold […]
10
[…] Hat Tip to Jo Nova […]
10